Startseite Linguistik & Semiotik Nine Types of Turn-taking in Interpreter-mediated GP Consultations
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Nine Types of Turn-taking in Interpreter-mediated GP Consultations

  • Shuangyu Li

    Shuangyu Li is lecturer of clinical communication at King’s College London, UK. He has a background in medical education, applied linguistics and conference interpreting. He is interested in using linguistic methodology to investigate communication in clinical settings and linking linguistic analysis with medical education. He is particularly interested in doctor-patient consultations across linguistic and cultural barriers.

    EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 27. Februar 2015

Abstract

This research investigated the systematicity of turn-taking organisation in naturally occurring GP consultations where either a professional or an ad hoc interpreter was involved to mediate language discordant doctor-patient talk-in-interaction. I found that participants systematically organise their turns to speak, following one of the nine types of turn-taking organisation identified in this study disregarding the patient’s native language and culture, the type of interpreter and their interpreting proficiency. The effect turn-taking organisation has on communication varies in different contexts. Teaching doctors about the cause and effect relation between turn-taking and communication outcomes may help them improve their clinical communication.

About the author

Shuangyu Li

Shuangyu Li is lecturer of clinical communication at King’s College London, UK. He has a background in medical education, applied linguistics and conference interpreting. He is interested in using linguistic methodology to investigate communication in clinical settings and linking linguistic analysis with medical education. He is particularly interested in doctor-patient consultations across linguistic and cultural barriers.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank NHS Bradford and Airedale for funding the research, Dr David Pearson, Prof Mike Baynham and Dr Sarah Escott for their support in data collection and analysis, and the participants without whom the research would not have been possible.

References

Bhatia, V. K., J.Flowerdew & R. H.Jones. 2008. Advances in discourse studies. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203892299Suche in Google Scholar

Bischoff, A. & L.Loutan. 2008. Other words other meanings-a guide to health care interpreting in international settings (M. Gubitz & C. White, Trans). Geneva: Service de medecine internationale et humanitaire.Suche in Google Scholar

Bolden, G. B. 2000. Toward understanding practices of medical interpreting: Interpreters’ involvement in history taking. Discourse Studies2(4). 387419.10.1177/1461445600002004001Suche in Google Scholar

CILT. 2009. Community Languages [online]. http://www.cilt.org.uk/commlangs/index.htm (accessed 27 April 2009).Suche in Google Scholar

Davidson, B. 2002. A model for the construction of conversational common ground in interpreted discourse. Journal of Pragmatics34(9). 12731300.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00025-5Suche in Google Scholar

Drew, P., J.Chatwin & S.Collins. 2001. Conversation analysis: A method for research into interactions between patients and health-care professionals. Health Expectations4(1). 5870.10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00125.xSuche in Google Scholar

Drew, P. & J.Heritage. 1992. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Flores, G. 2005. The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: A systematic review. Medical Care Research and Review62(3). 255299. doi:10.1177/1077558905275416Suche in Google Scholar

Flores, G., M. B.Laws, S. J.Mayo, B.Zuckerman, M.Abreu, L.Medina & E. J.Hardt. 2003. Errors in medical interpretation and their potential clinical consequences in pediatric encounters. Pediatrics111(1). 614.10.1542/peds.111.1.6Suche in Google Scholar

Gavioli, L. & C.Baraldi. 2011. Interpreter-medicated interaction in healthcare and legal settings, talk organisation, context and the achievement of intercultural communication. Interpreting13(2). 205233.10.1075/intp.13.2.03gavSuche in Google Scholar

Hale, S. B. 2007. Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230593442Suche in Google Scholar

Heritage, J. & T.Stivers. 1999. Online commentary in acute medical visit: A method of shaping patient expectations. Social Science & Medicine49. 15011517.10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00219-1Suche in Google Scholar

Jefferson, G. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H.Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 300 pp. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/pbns.125.02jefSuche in Google Scholar

Kai, J. 2003. Ethnicity, health and primary care. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Karliner, L. S., E. A.Jacobs, A. H.Chen & S.Mutha. 2007. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Services Research42(2). 727754. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00629.xSuche in Google Scholar

Li, S. 2013. Co-construction of interpreted conversation in medical consultations. Applied Linguistics Review4(1). 127149. doi:10.1515/applirev-2013-0006Suche in Google Scholar

Li, S., D.Pearson & S.Escott. 2010. Language barriers within primary care consultations: An increasing challenge needing new solutions. Education for Primary Care21. 385391.10.1080/14739879.2010.11493944Suche in Google Scholar

Liddicoat, A. 2011. An introduction to conversation analysis, 2nd ed. London: Continuum.Suche in Google Scholar

Mason, I. 2000. Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome.Suche in Google Scholar

Mason, I. 2006. On mutual accessibility of contextual assumptions in dialogue interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics38(3). 359373. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.022Suche in Google Scholar

Merlini, R. & R.Favaron. 2007. Examining the ‘voice of interpreting’ in speech pathology. In F.Pochhacker & M.Shlesinger (eds.), Healthcare interpreting: Discourse and interaction, viii, 155 pp. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.9.08merSuche in Google Scholar

Moerman, M. 1988. Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.10.9783/9780812200355Suche in Google Scholar

Roberts, C. & B.Moss. 2004. Doing the Lambeth talk. London: King’s College London.Suche in Google Scholar

Sacks, H. & G.Jefferson. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement In D.Tannen (ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk, 7193. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A., H.Sacks & G.Jefferson. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language53. 361382.10.1353/lan.1977.0041Suche in Google Scholar

Seale, C., C.Rivas & M.Kelly. 2013. The challenge of communication in interpreted consultations in diabetes care: A mixed methods study. British Journal of General Practice. doi:10.3399/bjgp13X663082Suche in Google Scholar

Sheikh, A., R.Gatrad & S.Dhami. 2008. Consultations for people from minority groups. BMJ337. a273.10.1136/bmj.a273Suche in Google Scholar

Wadensjo, C. 1998. Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2015-2-27
Published in Print: 2015-3-1

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton

Heruntergeladen am 31.12.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/applirev-2015-0004/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen