How Do Sociolinguistic Features Shape the Meaning and Ideologies of the Speakers - Coursework Example

Chinese linguistic aspects Introduction Medical discourse deals with the approaches applied by medical practitioners to solve medical problems through dialogue. In order to solve medical problems, medical practitioners must establish and sustain effective communication with the patients and allow for treatment negotiations. Communication and dialogue between a patient and a doctor has to be conducted in a structured manner in order to bring out the existing ideologies and eventually solve the problems (Tebble, 1999). In a medical discourse, the conversations or interactions between the patient and the doctors has to take place in a coherent unit. One of the characteristic feature in medical; discourse is the influence of the former to the latter, in a conversation (Wetherell, 2001). Patients are offered a chance to negotiate and understand about their conditions, while still receiving medical guidelines on how to solve their conditions. Langue remains abstract in a medical discourse, and although language barriers can affect it, an interpreter can make the process smooth and effective (Coulthard & Johnson, 2007). In a medical discourse, the patients are offered a chance to choose the treatment options that best fit them unless. During the dialogue, the doctor gets to understand the patient’s background and this influences good relationship, leading to a better understanding of the medical condition, social and personal behaviours. Discourses are strengthened by the use of adjectives that explain more about a certain situation and makes it easier for the either of the speakers to understand the views and ideologies presented by the other individual (Wetherell, 2001). Similarly, contextual features like social class, sex and age shape discourse. In addition, it requires the understanding of family background and social characteristics of the patients. Discourse analysis requires an understanding of the speaker exercising power in the dialogue, the works used and their effects on the listener. Such an analysis also calls for reification and identifying the audience and anything left unspecified in such a conversation. Results From the conversation between the doctor and the patient, it is evident that both parties are fully engaged and empowered. The talk-based strategies used in the dialogue encourage the patient to become part of the treatment and in some instances; the patient is making propositions on the choice of treatment (Tebble, 1999). During the conversation, the doctor first introduces his discourse, shifting the power to his side. Upon presenting his discourse, the doctor allows the patient to contribute to the conversation by asking guiding questions that are meant to assist in diagnosis. The discourse is therefore structured in a way that allows both parties to fully participate and this makes the parties to be empowered (Wetherell, 2001). However, there are hidden relations of power that can be identified from the conversation. Although it seems like the patient is fully participating in the dialogue, it is evident from the conversation that the doctor is more empowered than the patient is. From the way the conversation has been structured, the direct comments or questions from the patient have not been featured in the report. The doctor starts by developing options on where the cancer could have come from. He makes assumptions that the condition could be hereditary or from tobacco products. The analysis can be based on Marxist theory that tends to relate ideologies and social conditions to the past environmental issues. Based on the doctor’s interpretation of the patient’s condition, he asks questions based on the patient’s background and social behaviours. He questions about the family history in order to develop a concise approach towards understanding the cause of cancer. In the conversation, there is use of transcription notations like round brackets, bold statements and full stops before some words. The doctor makes use of figurative language in one instance when explaining about the possible treatment options. His use of the word cold turkey to emphasise on how impractical it would be for the patient to abruptly quit smoking makes it more real and easier to be understood. The analysis of the treatment methods and the causes of cancer bring out some aspect of social phenomenon in which social practices affect the behaviours and medical conditions of the patients. Smoking is identified as a possible cause for cancer and according to the doctor’s comments, the patient was at risk of succumbing to the disease unless he quit smoking. The use of active verbs in the conversation makes it easier for the patient to follow and become engaged in the conversation (Hale, 2004). Although there has been extensive use of discursive practices, the doctor tries to be rational and avoids nominalisation. Use of verbs as nouns changes the meaning of a sentence and in the medical discourse; the parties used active forms of verbs to avoid changing the meaning of a statement. Discussion One of the issues that lead to identification of hidden relations of power is the authority with which the doctor is making statements and the seemingly passive response from the patient. It is evident, even from the answers given by the patient that he is being guided by the questions from the doctor. In addition to the hidden relations, the doctor seems to make his discourses before the patient does. In order for a discourse to be effective and strong, coherence must exist in the contents of the involved parties (Coulthard & Johnson, 2007). A conversation cannot be said to be effective if the issues being discussed are not related. In the discourse being analysed, there is correlation between what the doctor says and what the patient says. In addition to being coherent, a conversation requires to have intentionality. The communication has to be structured in a way that is deliberate and conscious. There must be a flow of information and ideas from either of the parties (Hale, 2007). In the doctor’s conversation, he asked leading questions based on the conditions of the patient. The statements made by both parties were deliberate and intentional. None of the parties appeared to veer off the topic, but they were referring to the issues associated with cancer. Acceptability has to be in a discourse and this aspect was well demonstrated in the conversation between the doctor and the patient. The communicative product was satisfactory because it led to an agreement on the best strategies to cure the medical condition. By allowing both parties to contribute to the treatment plan, the discourse becomes acceptable since it is not biased. A discourse has to be informative and hence the reference to other sources and arguing on a broad basis (Coulthard & Johnson, 2007). The discourse also has aspects of situation, especially when the doctor uses figurative speech to discourage abrupt smoking discontinuation. Based on the choice for making that statement, the doctor makes the conversation livelier. In addition, the doctor’s choice for questions related to the cause of cancer is also situational since they come at specific times and they are aimed at identifying the problems that may have led to the development of the disease. Since the conversation was an interpretation of an actual Chinese conversation, there was the aspect of inter-textually. Contrary to the actual conversation, other words outside the texts exist that are supposed to support an actual statement made by either of the parties (Hale, 2004). Inter-textuality has been used specifically to analyse statements from the patient and within these analyses, supporting words have been used to explain further and to convince the audience. From the results, it is evident that the overuse of active verbs by the doctor encourages the participation of the patient and sustains the conversation without compromising on the topic and without omitting important diagnostic information. The active verbs are directed at the patient and they are intentionally used to introduce the treatment procedures and to notify the patient of the existing treatment procedures. The use of special linguistic tools has been effectively applied in the discourse to express the existing problems, narrow the possible solutions to get the best and to manage the selected procedure to address the problems (Mason & Stewart, 2001). From the discourse analysis, the sociolinguistic characteristics have been identified, and especially those dealing with behavioural influence on social characteristics. Transcription notations have also been exclusively used in the dialogue. In the inter-textual statements, round brackets have been used, either to illustrate that the material enclosed is not audible, or to doubt the accuracy of the statement. In most of the areas where the brackets have been used, the statements are usually inaudible, and in some cases, they were meant to elaborate more on a certain point. In addition, some statements are bolded to emphasise on the choice of treatment and to ensure that the audience follow up with the conversation. The diagnostic report has some degree of repetition, especially on statements being made by the doctor. The approach taken to analyse the information is based on the power of command in the discourse, with the doctor contributing more to the conversation. The discourse brings to the understanding that the problems faced by individuals are associated with family issues or social factors. The aura established between a doctor and a patient influences the reaction to solve medically related problems. In addition, the sociolinguistic features in a conversation are influenced by sensitivity to context and the availability of repertoires. These significant factors lead to the realisation of the social factors affecting a community and integrate different ideologies for the sake of the identified information. Some of the intonation units used in this discourse have been exaggerated to ensure that it looks presentable and to establish a connection between ideas (Coulthard & Johnson, 2007). Without such an attempt to incorporate linguistic features into a discourse, it cannot be acceptable. Word wraps have also been used to mark long intonation units used in the discourse. Hyphens and breaks have also been used to represent pauses and their lengths are determined by the average pause duration. Conclusion From the medical discourse, it is evident that sociolinguistic features shape the meaning and ideologies of the speakers. Although the ideologies can be influenced by societal practices, conversations can lead to the realisation of the existence of such features. The features that are common in a discourse have been identified from the doctor-patient conversation and the they seem to reflect the expectations of a discourse analysis. Transcription notations that have been used in this discussion are meant to improve on the understanding of the concepts in a discussion and to engage the audience into the conversation. In an interpreted language, it can be quite hard to understand the actual meaning of the spoken words and in case of adjective use, their strengths and significance can be ignored. Talk patterns are significant in understanding the effectiveness of a certain conversation. In addition, the intonation units may alter the meaning of a statement and lead to an ineffective dialogue. References Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. London: Routledge. Hale, S. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hale, S. (2007). Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mason, I. & Stewart, M. (2001). Interactional pragmatics, face and the dialogue interpreter.In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic Exchanges. Studies in Dialogue Interpreting (pp. 51-70). Manchester: St Jerome. Tebble, H. (1999). The tenor of consultant physicians. Implications for medical interpreting. The Translator 5 (2), 179-199. Wetherell, M. (2001). Themes in Discourse Research: the case of Diana. In Wetherell et al (eds) Discourse Theory and Practice London: Sage. Read More