This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Maynard, D. W. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

On Predicating a Diagnosis as an Attribute of a Person

University of Wisconsin- Madison

This article explores the relation between ‘citing the evidence’, or implicating a particular diagnosis, and ‘asserting the condition’, or overtly predicating the diagnosis as an attribute of a person. Clinicians regularly postpone or delay asserting the condition, which is interactionally more confrontational and presumptive. They regularly do the postponement by citing the evidence prior to asserting the condition, using the evidence as kind of predecessor account for predicating the diagnosis as an attribute of the person. Citing the evidence as leading to asserting the condition enhances the likelihood of recipients realizing some bad news or other kind of diagnostic upshot. This study has implications for the relation between interaction and authority in medical discourse.

Key Words: authority • bad news • conversation analysis • diagnosis • doctor–patient communication • interaction

Discourse Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 53-76 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1461445604039439


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?