Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 15:2 (2024) ► pp.295–319

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Deontic authority-based resolution of deontic right-based resistance in online medical consultation

 | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
ORCiD logo with link | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
Published online: 30 May 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21033.wei
Abstract
Previous research has investigated aspects of deontics, epistemics, and resistance in medical settings. However, few have focused on deontics and how resistance shapes the responses of deontic authority (Stivers, Tanya, and Stefan Timmermans. 2020. “Medical Authority under Siege: How Clinicians Transform Patient Resistance into Acceptance.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 61 (1): 60–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), especially in online medical counseling. Utilizing the data collected from online medical consultation and adopting a discursive approach, this study investigates how doctors deploy deontic authority to resolve caregivers’ deontic right-based resistance. It is found that caregivers’ deontic right-based resistance comprises two major categories: strong deontic right-based resistance and weak deontic right-based resistance. Accordingly, doctors tend to use strong deontic authority to resolve caregivers’ strong deontic right-based resistance and mitigated deontic authority to resolve weak one. Because doctors’ deontic authority is particularly vulnerable in online contexts, it is proposed that doctors value their deontic authority in the decision-making of a treatment plan, which they manifest by protecting their deontic authority when their deontic territory is invaded.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Data, participants, and the setting
    • 2.2Framework
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1Strong deontic authority-based resolution
      • 3.1.1Pronouncement
      • 3.1.2Permission
    • 3.2Mitigated deontic authority-based resolution
      • 3.2.1Mitigated pronouncement
      • 3.2.2Mitigated permission
      • 3.2.3Proposal
      • 3.2.4Suggestion
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (32)
References
Drew, Paul. 1991. “Asymmetries of Knowledge in Conversational Interactions.” In Asymmetries in Dialogue, ed. by Ivana Marková, and Klaus Foppa, 21–48. Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ekberg, Katie, and Amanda LeCouteur. 2015. “Clients’ Resistance to Therapists’ Proposals: Managing Epistemic and Deontic Status.” Journal of Pragmatics 901: 12–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1955. “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry 18 (3): 213–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2013. “Speaker Meaning and Accountability in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 48 (1): 41–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2018. “The Expression of Authority in US Primary Care: Offering Diagnoses and Recommending Treatment.” In Georgetown University Round Table 2018: Approaches to Discourse. Washington D.C., 9–11 March. Georgetown University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Sue Sefi. 1992. “Dilemmas of Advice: Aspects of the Delivery and Reception of Advice in Interactions between Health Visitors and First-Time Mothers.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 359–417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Izadi, Ahmad. 2018. “The Epistemic Grounds of Face in Institutional Argumentative Talk-in-Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 1341: 45–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jager, Margot, and Wyke Stommel. 2017. “The Risk of Metacommunication to Manage Interactional Trouble in Online Chat Counseling.” Linguistik online 87 (8): 191–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kinnell, Ann Marie K., and Douglas W. Maynard. 1996. “The Delivery and Receipt of Safer Sex Advice in Pretest Counseling Sessions for HIV and AIDS.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 24 (4): 405–437. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koenig, Christopher J. 2011. “Patient Resistance as Agency in Treatment Decisions.” Social Science & Medicine 721: 1105–1114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby, Pål Gulbrandsen, and Jan Svennevig. 2015. “Whose Decision? Negotiating Epistemic and Deontic Rights in Medical Treatment Decisions.” Journal of Pragmatics 781: 54–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehtinen, Esa. 2007. “Merging Doctor and Client Knowledge: On Doctors’ Ways of Dealing with Clients’ Potentially Discrepant Information in Genetic Counseling.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 389–427. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehtinen, Esa, and Helena Kääriäinen. 2005. “Doctor’s Expertise and Managing Discrepant Information from Other Sources in Genetic Counseling: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Genetic Counseling 14 (6): 435–451. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., and Franziska Thurnherr. 2017. “Typing Yourself Healthy: Introduction to the Special Issue on Language and Health Online.” Linguistik online 87 (8): 3–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 1978. “Power and Authority.” In A History of Sociological Analysis, ed. by Tom Bottomore, and Robert Nisbet, 633–676. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muntigl, Peter. 2013. “Resistance in Couples Counselling: Sequences of Talk that Disrupt Progressivity and Promote Disaffiliation.” Journal of Pragmatics 491: 18–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muntigl, Peter, and Kwok Tim Choi. 2010. “Not Remembering as a Practical Epistemic Resource in Couples Therapy.” Discourse Studies 12 (3): 331–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ran, Yongping, and Xu Huang. 2019. “Deontic Authority in Intervention Discourse: Insights from Bystander Intervention.” Discourse Studies 21 (5): 540–560. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverman, David. 1997. Discourses of Counselling: HIV Counselling as Social Interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa. 2013. “Deontic Rights in Interaction: A Conversation Analytic Study on Authority and Cooperation.” PhD diss., University of Helsinki.
. 2018. “Social Deontics: A Nano-Level Approach to Human Power Play.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 481: 369–389. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä. 2012. “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (3): 297–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Three Orders in the Organization of Human Action: On the Interface between Knowledge, Power, and Emotion in Interaction and Social Relations.” Language in Society 43 (2): 185–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Jan Svennevig. 2015. “Introduction: Epistemics and Deontics in Conversational Directives.” Journal of Pragmatics 781: 1–6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2005. “Parent Resistance to Physicians’ Treatment Recommendations: One Resource for Initiating a Negotiation of the Treatment Decision.” Health Communication 18 (1): 41–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. “Treatment Decisions: Negotiations between Doctors and Parents in Acute Care Encounters.” In Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients, ed. by John Heritage, and Douglas W. Maynard, 279–312. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Rebecca K. Barnes. 2018. “Treatment Recommendation Actions, Contingencies, and Responses: An introduction.” Health Communication 33 (11): 1331–1334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Stefan Timmermans. 2020. “Medical Authority under Siege: How Clinicians Transform Patient Resistance into Acceptance.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 61 (1): 60–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig. 2011a. “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 3–24. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(eds). 2011b. The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yao, Xue-Li, and Wen Ma. 2017. “Question Resistance and Its Management in Chinese Psychotherapy.” Discourse Studies 19 (2): 216–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Yu. 2021. “How Doctors Do Things with Empathy in Online Medical Consultations in China: A Discourse-Analytic Approach.” Health Communication 36 (7): 816–825. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Cheng, Ruixin & Chuting Song
2025. Online Self-Presentation by Traditional Chinese Medicine and Western Medicine Medical Professionals in China. Health Communication 40:5 ► pp. 921 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue