Jan Svennevig | University of Oslo (original) (raw)

Jan Svennevig

Uploads

Papers by Jan Svennevig

Research paper thumbnail of By three means. The pragmatic functions of three Norwegian quotatives.

Ingrid van Alphen & Isabelle Buchstaller (eds.): Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives. , 2012

Research paper thumbnail of Introduction: Epistemics and deontics in conversational directives

Journal of Pragmatics, 2015

Research paper thumbnail of Getting Acquainted in Conversation

Research paper thumbnail of Negotiating treatment preferences: Physicians' formulations of patients' stance

Social science & medicine (1982), Jan 26, 2015

Eliciting patients' values and treatment preferences is an essential element in models of sha... more Eliciting patients' values and treatment preferences is an essential element in models of shared decision making, yet few studies have investigated the interactional realizations of how physicians do this in authentic encounters. Drawing on video-recorded encounters from Norwegian secondary care, the present study uses the fine-grained empirical methodology of conversation analysis (CA) to identify one conversational practice physicians use, namely, formulations of patients' stance, in which physicians summarize or paraphrase their understanding of the patient's stance towards treatment. The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to explore what objectives formulations of patients' stance achieve while negotiating treatment and (2) to discuss these objectives in relation to core requirements in shared decision making. Our analysis demonstrates that formulating the patient's stance is a practice physicians use in order to elicit, check, and establish patients' ...

Research paper thumbnail of Skovholt, K., & Svennevig, J. (2013). Responses and Non-responses in Workplace Emails. I: S. Herring, D. Stein & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Handbook of the Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Mouton de Gruyter (581-603)

Research paper thumbnail of Abduction as a methodological approach to the study of spoken interaction

Research paper thumbnail of Institutional and conversational modes of talk in bureaucratic consultations

Research paper thumbnail of Echo answers in native/non-native interaction

Research paper thumbnail of Whose decision? Negotiating epistemic and deontic rights in medical treatment decisions

Journal of Pragmatics, 2014

ABSTRACT Shared decision making has become an ideal in contemporary clinical practice, and guidel... more ABSTRACT Shared decision making has become an ideal in contemporary clinical practice, and guidelines recommend exploring patients’ preferences and providing them with options so they can make informed decisions. This paper examines how the ideal of sharedness is maintained and negotiated through epistemic and deontic resources in secondary care consultations where patients are given a choice between invasive and non-invasive treatment options. The analysis suggests that the physician's presentation of treatment options is often tilted in favor of one proposal over the other, yet giving the patient the right to make the final decision. The patients on the other hand regularly resist this responsibility by claiming lack of epistemic authority (e.g. I know nothing about it) or by making the decision contingent on the physician taking a stronger deontic stance (e.g. if you think so). This may be characterized as an inverted use of deontic authority from both parties: Physicians give patients deontic rights in their pursuit of independent commitment to their preferred option, while patients orient to physicians’ epistemic and deontic rights as a way to resist committing to the physicians’ propositions. These conflicting orientations to epistemic and deontic authority counteract the ideal of shared decision making.

Research paper thumbnail of Accounting for the right to assign a task in meeting interaction

Journal of Pragmatics, 2015

Research paper thumbnail of Social and pragmatic variation in the sequential organization of talk

Gisle Andersen and Karin Aijmer (eds.): Pragmatics of Society (Handbooks of Pragmatics 5) , 2011

Research paper thumbnail of Getting Acquainted in Conversation

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 2000

Research paper thumbnail of Introduction: Epistemics and deontics in conversational directives

Journal of Pragmatics, 2015

Research paper thumbnail of Interaction in workplace meetings

Discourse Studies 14, 3–10, 2012

Research paper thumbnail of 24. Responses and non-responses in workplace emails

Research paper thumbnail of Exploring Leadership Conversations

Management Communication Quarterly, 2008

... Furthermore, it reflects that the sender has a high entitlement to per-form the action and a ... more ... Furthermore, it reflects that the sender has a high entitlement to per-form the action and a lowcontingency of the ... of the missing responses in the first lines and the ensuing complaint in Line 7. The fact that the formulation is repeated twice makes the directive force even more ...

Research paper thumbnail of Rod Gardner and Johannes Wagner (eds). 2004. Second Language Conversations

Languages in Contrast, 2005

Research paper thumbnail of Pre-empting reference problems in conversation

Language in Society, 2010

Research paper thumbnail of On being heard in emergency calls. The development of hostility in a fatal emergency call

Journal of Pragmatics, 2012

Research paper thumbnail of Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair

Journal of Pragmatics, 2008

Research paper thumbnail of By three means. The pragmatic functions of three Norwegian quotatives.

Ingrid van Alphen & Isabelle Buchstaller (eds.): Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives. , 2012

Research paper thumbnail of Introduction: Epistemics and deontics in conversational directives

Journal of Pragmatics, 2015

Research paper thumbnail of Getting Acquainted in Conversation

Research paper thumbnail of Negotiating treatment preferences: Physicians' formulations of patients' stance

Social science & medicine (1982), Jan 26, 2015

Eliciting patients' values and treatment preferences is an essential element in models of sha... more Eliciting patients' values and treatment preferences is an essential element in models of shared decision making, yet few studies have investigated the interactional realizations of how physicians do this in authentic encounters. Drawing on video-recorded encounters from Norwegian secondary care, the present study uses the fine-grained empirical methodology of conversation analysis (CA) to identify one conversational practice physicians use, namely, formulations of patients' stance, in which physicians summarize or paraphrase their understanding of the patient's stance towards treatment. The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to explore what objectives formulations of patients' stance achieve while negotiating treatment and (2) to discuss these objectives in relation to core requirements in shared decision making. Our analysis demonstrates that formulating the patient's stance is a practice physicians use in order to elicit, check, and establish patients' ...

Research paper thumbnail of Skovholt, K., & Svennevig, J. (2013). Responses and Non-responses in Workplace Emails. I: S. Herring, D. Stein & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Handbook of the Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Mouton de Gruyter (581-603)

Research paper thumbnail of Abduction as a methodological approach to the study of spoken interaction

Research paper thumbnail of Institutional and conversational modes of talk in bureaucratic consultations

Research paper thumbnail of Echo answers in native/non-native interaction

Research paper thumbnail of Whose decision? Negotiating epistemic and deontic rights in medical treatment decisions

Journal of Pragmatics, 2014

ABSTRACT Shared decision making has become an ideal in contemporary clinical practice, and guidel... more ABSTRACT Shared decision making has become an ideal in contemporary clinical practice, and guidelines recommend exploring patients’ preferences and providing them with options so they can make informed decisions. This paper examines how the ideal of sharedness is maintained and negotiated through epistemic and deontic resources in secondary care consultations where patients are given a choice between invasive and non-invasive treatment options. The analysis suggests that the physician's presentation of treatment options is often tilted in favor of one proposal over the other, yet giving the patient the right to make the final decision. The patients on the other hand regularly resist this responsibility by claiming lack of epistemic authority (e.g. I know nothing about it) or by making the decision contingent on the physician taking a stronger deontic stance (e.g. if you think so). This may be characterized as an inverted use of deontic authority from both parties: Physicians give patients deontic rights in their pursuit of independent commitment to their preferred option, while patients orient to physicians’ epistemic and deontic rights as a way to resist committing to the physicians’ propositions. These conflicting orientations to epistemic and deontic authority counteract the ideal of shared decision making.

Research paper thumbnail of Accounting for the right to assign a task in meeting interaction

Journal of Pragmatics, 2015

Research paper thumbnail of Social and pragmatic variation in the sequential organization of talk

Gisle Andersen and Karin Aijmer (eds.): Pragmatics of Society (Handbooks of Pragmatics 5) , 2011

Research paper thumbnail of Getting Acquainted in Conversation

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 2000

Research paper thumbnail of Introduction: Epistemics and deontics in conversational directives

Journal of Pragmatics, 2015

Research paper thumbnail of Interaction in workplace meetings

Discourse Studies 14, 3–10, 2012

Research paper thumbnail of 24. Responses and non-responses in workplace emails

Research paper thumbnail of Exploring Leadership Conversations

Management Communication Quarterly, 2008

... Furthermore, it reflects that the sender has a high entitlement to per-form the action and a ... more ... Furthermore, it reflects that the sender has a high entitlement to per-form the action and a lowcontingency of the ... of the missing responses in the first lines and the ensuing complaint in Line 7. The fact that the formulation is repeated twice makes the directive force even more ...

Research paper thumbnail of Rod Gardner and Johannes Wagner (eds). 2004. Second Language Conversations

Languages in Contrast, 2005

Research paper thumbnail of Pre-empting reference problems in conversation

Language in Society, 2010

Research paper thumbnail of On being heard in emergency calls. The development of hostility in a fatal emergency call

Journal of Pragmatics, 2012

Research paper thumbnail of Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair

Journal of Pragmatics, 2008

Log In