International journal

Speech Genres

ISSN 2311-0759 (Online)
ISSN 2311-0740 (Print)


For citation:

Vepreva I. Т., Polyakova I. G., Shalina I. V. Open talk in the oral discourse of reproductive medicine: Peculiarities of professional refraction. Speech Genres, 2024, vol. 19, iss. 1 (41), pp. 38-46. DOI: 10.18500/2311-0740-2024-19-1-41-38-46, EDN: HVOVLG

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
Full text:
(downloads: 303)
Language: 
Russian
Article type: 
Article
UDC: 
81’42
EDN: 
HVOVLG

Open talk in the oral discourse of reproductive medicine: Peculiarities of professional refraction

Autors: 
Vepreva Irina Т., Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin
Polyakova Irina G., Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin
Shalina Irina V., Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin
Abstract: 

The object of the study in this article is the materials of medical counseling by a reproductive psychologist with oocyte donors who were patients of one of the reproductive centers in Yekaterinburg. Reproductive medicine has institutionalized germ cell donation, but the medical procedure of donation (voluntary donation of oocytes by a healthy woman) is not immune to possible risks and medical consequences, so the talk of a psychologist is mandatory for female gamete donors, is part of the donation program and involves discussion of topics closed to the general audience. The linguistic relevance of the conducted study is determined by the novelty of the analyzed material, which fits into the genre of a frank conversation. The situation of psychological counseling assumes maximum openness of the donor, which is one of the conditions of successful donation. The article considers the variation of the genre in its professional refraction based on the prototypical situation of open talk and reveals the set of speech tactics used by the psychologist in the course of the conversation. To initiate a frank conversation the confidant uses metacommunicative constructions, allowing them to invite the confidant to a frank conversation. The modal focus on the confidant is accomplished through the tactics of acknowledging the personal importance of the speech partner and their moral support. Interpretive tactics of concretization, paraphrasing, inductive generalization, as a rule, construct a medial part of the frank conversation, performing the function of controlling its course. The conversational manner of selfexpression of the interlocutors demonstrates the weakening of speech control over the situation and the relaxed nature of communication. The choice of the thematic repertoire relevant to a frank conversation shows the predominance of the sphere of thematic secrecy, the sub-sphere of “thematic taboos”: first sexual experiences and psychological trauma (abortions, the death of loved ones, severe, incurable illness, etc.). 

Reference: 
  1. Ainsworth-Vaughn N. The discourse of medical encounters. In: Schiffrin D., Tannen D., Hamilton H., eds. The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden, MA, Blackwell, 2001, pp. 453–469.
  2. Akaeva E. V. Communicative strategies of professional medical discourse. Thesis Diss. Cand. Sci. (Philol). Omsk, 2007. 23 p. (in Russian).
  3. Babadzhanov I. Kh. Man, his body: Problems of ownership. Juridical Science: History and Modernity, 2016, no. 12, pp. 170–177 (in Russian).
  4. Barsukova M. I. Medical discourse: Strategies and tactics of speech behavior by physicians. Thesis Diss. Cand. Sci. (Philol). Saratov, 2007. 24 р. (in Russian).
  5. Berdysheva E. S. From criticism to analysis: The commodification of vital goods as an urgent research problem in the New Economic Sociology. Journal of Economic Sociology, 2012, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 67–85 (in Russian).
  6. Borisova I. N. Speech behavior of a person in everyday communication. In: Russkoe povsednevnoe obshchenie: pragmatika, kul’turologiya: monografiya. Pod nauch. red. prof. I. N. Borisovoi [Borisova I. N., ed. Russian Everyday Communication: Pragmatics, Culturology: Monograph]. Ekaterinburg, Humanities University Publ., 2018, pp. 42–118 (in Russian).
  7. Dementyev V. V. A heart-to-heart conversation. In: Balashova L. V., Dementyev V. V. Russkie rechevye zhanry [Russian speech genres]. Moscow, LRC Publishing House, 2022, pp. 323–341 (in Russian).
  8. Izutkin D. A. Human dignity and rationalization of modern medicine in the aspect of biomedical technologies. Humanitarian Vector, 2021, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 43–49 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.21209/1996-7853-2021-165-43-49
  9. Karymshakova T. G. Linguistic technologies of speech influence in medical discourse. Thesis Diss. Cand. Sci. (Philol). Ulan-Ude, 2015. 24 p. (in Russian).
  10. Kurlenkova A. S. Ethical problems of using assisted reproductive technologies. Medical Ethics, 2014, no. 1, pp. 70–80 (in Russian).
  11. Kurlenkova A. S. When language matters: From egg donation to oöcyte markets. Sociology of Power, 2016, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 107–140 (in Russian).
  12. Mailenova F. G. Transformation of traditional moral values due to the intervention of modern biomedical technologies (using the example of ART). Filosofskie konteksty sovremennosti: printsip ratio i ego predely. FIKOS 2020: sbornik statei I Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii. Izhevsk, 28–29 fevralya 2020 goda [Philosophical Contexts of Modernity: The Ratio Principle and its Limits. FIKOS 2020: Coll. of sci. arts of I International sci. and pract. conf. Izhevsk, Feb. 28–59, 2020]. Izhevsk, Udmurt State University Publ., 2020, pp. 219–225 (in Russian).
  13. Matveeva T. V. Speech support and adherence. In: Russkoe povsednevnoe obshchenie: pragmatika, kul’turologiya: monografiya. Pod nauch. red. prof. I. N. Borisovoi [Borisova I. N., ed. Russian Everyday Communication: Pragmatics, Culturology: Monograph]. Ekaterinburg, Gumanitarnyi universitet Publ., 2018, pp. 170–198 (in Russian).
  14. Naumova M. M. Openness in interpersonal communication. Thesis Diss. Cand. Sci. (Philol). Volgograd, 2015. 25 p. (in Russian).
  15. Osnovy sotsial’noj kontsepcii Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Tserkvi [The Basics of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church]. Moscow, Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate Publ., 2008, pp. 134–135 (in Russian).
  16. Pennings G., De Mouzon J., Shenfield F., Ferraretti A. P., Mardesic T., Ruiz A., Goossens V. Socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven European countries. Human Reproduction, 2014, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1076–1089. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu048
  17. Platts S., Bracewell-Milnes T., Saso S., Jones B., Parikh R., Thum M.-Y. Investigating attitudes towards oocyte donation amongst potential donors and the general population: A systematic review. Human Fertility, 2019, Jule, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2019.1602736
  18. Savvina O. V. Ethical grounds for regulating gamete donation and co-parenting practices. Actual Problems of Russian Law, 2019. no. 4 (101), pp. 19–26 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2019.101.4.019-026.
  19. Sternin I. A. Language and national consciousness. Logos, 2005, no. 4 (49), pp. 156–171 (in Russian).
  20. Tannen D., Wallat C. Medical professionals and parents: A linguistic analysis of communication across contexts. Language in Society, 1986, vol. 15, iss. 3, pp. 295–311.
  21. Vereshchagin E. M., Ratmair R., Roiter T. Speech tactics of “calling for frankness”. Another attempt to penetrate the idiomatics of speech behavior and the Russian-German contrastive approach. Questions of Linguistics, 1992, no. 6, pp. 82–93 (in Russian).
  22. Zhura V. V. Diskursivnaya kompetentsiya vracha v ustnom meditsinskom obshchenii [Doctor’s discursive competence in oral medical communication]. Volgograd, Volgograd State Medical University Press, 2008. 250 p. (in Russian).
  23. Zhura V. V. Ustnyi meditsinskii diskurs: problemy izucheniya [Oral medical discourse: Problems of study]. Volgograd, OOO “Darko”, 2007. 155 p. (in Russian).
Received: 
20.03.2023
Accepted: 
25.05.2023
Published: 
01.03.2024