Miért nem a feltett kérdésre válaszolnak a betegek?

Udvardi Anna a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Nyelvtudományi Doktori Iskola Elméleti nyelvészet programján szerzett doktori fokozatot. Emellett egyéni vállalkozóként aktívan praktizál magánellátásban gyógytornászként.

Anna Udvardi received her PhD title in the Theoretical Linguistics Program of the Doctoral School in Linguistics, University of Szeged. Furthermore, she is working as a self-employed physiotherapist in private care.

Elérhetőség/e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

• Allan, Keith 2013. What is common ground? In Alessandro Capone – Franco Lo Piparo – Marco Carapezza (szerk.) Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics. (Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 2) Cham: Springer. 285–310. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_11.
• Bara, Bruno G. 2017. Cognitive pragmatics. In Yan Huang (szerk.) The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. 279–299. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.14.
• Beckman, Howard B. – Richard M. Frankel 1984. The effect of physician behavior on the collection of data. Annals of Internal Medicine 101/5:692–696. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-101-5-692.
• Boncz Imre (szerk.) 2015. Kutatásmódszertani alapismeretek. Pécs: Pécsi Tudományegyetem Egészségtudományi Kar.
• Brinjikji, W. – P.H. Luetmer – B. Comstock – B.W. Bresnahan – L.E. Chen et al. 2015. Systematic literature review of imaging features of spinal degeneration in asymptomatic populations. American Journal of Neuroradiology 36/4:811–816. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4173.
• Charon, Rita – Michele G. Greene – Ronald D. Adelman 1994. Multi-dimensional interaction analysis: A collaborative approach to the study of medical discourse. Social Science & Medicine 39/7:955–965. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90207-0.
• Chester, Emily C. – Natalie C. Robinson – Lisa C. Roberts 2014. Opening clinical encounters in an adult musculoskeletal setting. Manual Therapy 19/4:306–310. doi:10.1016/j.math.2014.03.011.
• Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511620539.
• Clark, Herbert H. – Edward F. Schaefer 1989. Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science 13/2:259–294. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1302_7.
• Dijck, José van 2005. The Transparent Body. A Cultural Analysis of Medical Imaging. (In Vivo) Seattle: University of Washington Press.
• Engel, George L. 1977. The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science 196/4286:129–136. doi:10.1126/science.847460.
• Geurts, Bart 2017. Presupposition and givenness. In Yan Huang (szerk.) The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 180–198. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.21.
• Gobat, Nina – Paul Kinnersley – John W. Gregory – Michael Robling 2015. What is agenda setting in the clinical encounter? Consensus from literature review and expert consultation. Patient Education and Counseling 98/7:822–829. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2015.03.024.
• Grice, H. Paul 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole – Jerry L. Morgan (szerk.) Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 41–58.
• Gyuris, Beáta 2017. New perspectives on bias in polar questions: A study of Hungarian -e. International Review of Pragmatics 9/1:1–50. doi:10.1163/18773109-00000003.
• Hakulinen, Auli 2009. Conversation types. In Sigurd D’hondt – Jan-Ola Östman – Jef Verschueren (szerk.) The Pragmatics of Interaction. (Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 4) John Benjamins Publishing Company. 55–65. doi:10.1075/hoph.4.03hak.
• Hayano, Kaoru 2012. Question design in conversation. In Jack Sidnell – Tanya Stivers (szerk.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 395–414. doi:10.1002/9781118325001.ch19.
• Heritage, John 2010. Questioning in medicine. In Alice F. Freed – Susan Ehrlich (szerk.) „Why Do You Ask?” The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. Oxford University Press. 42–68. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0003.
• Heritage, John – Douglas W. Maynard 2006. Introduction: Analyzing interaction between doctors and patients in primary care encounters. In John Heritage – Douglas W. Maynard (szerk.) Communication in Medical Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–21. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511607172.003.
• Heritage, John – Jeffrey D. Robinson 2006a. Accounting for the visit: giving reasons for seeking medical care. In John Heritage – Douglas W. Maynard (szerk.) Communication in Medical Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 48–85. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511607172.005.
• Heritage, John – Jeffrey D. Robinson 2006b. The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: Physicians’ opening questions. Health Communication 19/2:89–102. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1902_1.
• Hood-Medland, Eve Angeline – Anne E. C. White – Richard L. Kravitz – Stephen G. Henry 2021. Agenda setting and visit openings in primary care visits involving patients taking opioids for chronic pain. BMC Family Practice 22:4. doi:10.1186/s12875-020-01317-4.
• Hydén, Lars–Christer – Elliot G. Mishler 1999. Language and Medicine. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19:174–192. doi:10.1017/S0267190599190093.
• Jones, Rodney H. 2013. Health and Risk Communication. An Applied Linguistic Perspective. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
• Kecskes, Istvan 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40/3:385–406. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004.
• Kecskes, Istvan 2010. The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society 1/1:50–73. doi:10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec.
• Kecskes, Istvan 2012. Encyclopaedic knowledge and cultural models. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (szerk.) Cognitive Pragmatics. (Handbooks of Pragmatics 4) Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter. 175–197. doi:10.1515/9783110214215.175.
• Kecskes, István 2014. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kecskes, Istvan 2017. Cross- Cultural and Intercultural Pragmatics. In Yan Huang (szerk.) The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. 400–415.
• Kecskes, Istvan – Fenghui Zhang 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17/2:331–355. doi:10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec.
• Kiefer, Ferenc 1980. Yes-no questions as Wh-questions. In John R. Searle – Ferenc Kiefer – Manfred Bierwisch (szerk.) Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. (Texts and Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 10) Dordrecht: Springer. 97–119. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-8964-1_5.
• Mishler, Elliot George 1984. The Discourse of Medicine. Dialectics of Medical Interviews. (Language and Learning for Human Service Professions) Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
• Németh T., Enikő 2019. Implicit Subject and Direct Object Arguments in Hungarian Language Use. Grammar and Pragmatics Interacting. (Pragmatic Interfaces) Equinox.
• Roberts, Lisa C. – Faye A. Burrow 2018. Interruption and rapport disruption: measuring the prevalence and nature of verbal interruptions during back pain consultations. Journal of Communication in Healthcare 11/2:95–105. doi:10.1080/17538068.2018.1449289.
• Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2006. Soliciting patients’ presenting concerns. In John Heritage – Douglas W. Maynard (szerk.) Communication in Medical Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 22–47. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511607172.004.
• Robinson, Jeffrey D. – John Heritage 2005. The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: the completion relevance of current symptoms. Social Science & Medicine 61/2:481–493. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.004.
• Robinson, Jeffrey D. – Alexandra Tate – John Heritage 2016. Agenda-setting revisited: When and how do primary-care physicians solicit patients’ additional concerns? Patient Education and Counseling 99/5:718–723. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2015.12.009.
• Rudy, Iris Sun – Alexandra Poulos – Laura Owen – Ashlee Batters – Kasia Kieliszek – Jessica Willox – Hazel Jenkins 2015. The correlation of radiographic findings and patient symptomatology in cervical degenerative joint disease: a cross-sectional study. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 23:9. doi:10.1186/s12998-015-0052-0.
• Sacks, Harvey – Emanuel A. Schegloff – Gail Jefferson 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50/4:696–735. doi:10.1353/lan.1974.0010.
• Schegloff, Emanuel A. – Harvey Sacks 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8/4:289–327. doi:10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289.
• Sidnell, Jack 2010. Conversation Analysis. An introduction. (Language in Society 37) Chichester, Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Silverman, Jonathan – Suzanne M. Kurtz – Juliet Draper 2013. Skills for communicating with patients. 3. kiadás. London: Radcliffe Publishing.
• Smith, Robert C. – Auguste H. Fortin – Francesca Dwamena – Richard M. Frankel 2013. An evidence-based patient-centered method makes the biopsychosocial model scientific. Patient Education and Counseling 91/3:265–270. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2012.12.010.
• Stalnaker, Robert 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25/5–6:701–721. doi:10.1023/A:1020867916902.
• Stortenbeker, Inge – Wyke Stommel – Sandra Dulmen – Peter Lucassen – Enny Das – Tim Hartman 2020. Linguistic and interactional aspects that characterize consultations about medically unexplained symptoms: A systematic review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 132:109994. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.109994.
• Teas Gill, Virginia – Felicia Roberts 2012. Conversation analysis in medicine. In Jack Sidnell – Tanya Stivers (szerk.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 575–592. doi:10.1002/9781118325001.ch28.
• Tsai, Mei-hui 2006. Opening hearts and minds: a linguistic framework for analyzing open questions in doctor-patient communication = 使君傾言 : 醫病溝通中開放式問句之語言學分析. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
• Tsai, Mei-hui – Feng-hwa Lu – Richard M. Frankel 2014. Teaching medical students to become discourse analysts. From conversational transcripts to clinical applications. In Heidi Ehernberger Hamilton – Wen-ying Sylvia Chou (szerk.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Health Communication. London: Routledge. 327–343. doi:10.4324/9781315856971.ch20.
• Verschueren, Jef 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold Publishers.

• Letöltés (pdf)

Ez a mű Creative Commons Nevezd meg! - Ne add el! - Ne változtasd! 4.0 Nemzetközi Licenc alatt van.

Ne felejtsen el hivatkozni!

Udvardi Anna 2023. Miért nem a feltett kérdésre válaszolnak a betegek? Gyógytornász-beteg konzultációk elemzése 2. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 10/1:27–49. doi:10.14232/JENY.2023.1.2

bibtex

@article{JENY-2023-2-UdvardiA,
	author = {Udvardi, Anna},
	year = {2023},
	title = {Miért nem a feltett kérdésre válaszolnak a betegek?},
	abstract = {A tanulmány gyógytornászok és betegeik közötti első találkozások dialógusainak kezdeti szakaszát vizsgálja. Az elemzés fókuszában a betegeknek a gyógytornászok nyitókérdéseire (NYK) érkező válaszai állnak. Mivel a NYK-ek célja a vizit okainak, azaz a beteg aktuálisan tapasztalt problémáinak a feltárása, a válaszok induktív csoportosítása azok információtartalmán alapult. A korpuszban hét válaszkategóriát azonosítottam: (1) Informatív (40%), (2) Történet (26,7%), (3) Hiányos (22,7%), (4) Képalkotó eredmény, orvosi diagnózis (21,3%), (5) Pragmatikailag nem megfelelő (12%), (6) Tisztázó (2,7%), és (7) Egyéb (5,3%) típusú válaszok. A NYK-ek nyelvi jellemzői és a rájuk érkező választípusok összefüggéseinek statisztikai elemzése nem ad magyarázatot az utóbbiak sokszínűségére. A tanulmány a szociokognitív megközelítés keretein belül ad magyarázatot az eredményekre.},
	doi = {10.14232/JENY.2023.1.2},
	language = {hu},
	journal = {Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat},
	issn = {2064-9940},
	volume = {10},
	issue = {1},
	pages = {27-49},
	url = {http://www.jeny.szte.hu/JENY-2023-2-UdvardiA},
	urldate = {2023-05-02},
	copyright = {Copyright for all material published in JENY lies with the author.}
}