Relationship building in oncological doctor-patient interaction
The use of address forms as ‘Tie Signs’
This paper studies practices of relationship building between oncologists and their patients during consultations
when a diagnosis of malignancy is communicated. The analysis – with its focus on physicians’ uses of terms of address – aims
to provide a better understanding of the sequential construction of the doctor-patient relationship in highly sensitive
consultations.
In our data, oncologists frequently address their patients by name – even when recipiency is not at issue. They use
this communicative resource to contextualize the heightened attention they are giving their patients and to lend the
interaction a more personal quality.
Drawing on methods of Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics, I will show that relationship building
is an ongoing task doctors are confronted with in the process of interactions.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Methodological framework
- 3.‘Doing social relationships’: The use of address forms as ‘Tie Signs’
- 4.Addressing patients by name during oncological consultations
- Post-positioned address term
- Pivot-positioned address term
- Pre-positioned address term
- 5.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
Bibliography
References (75)
Bibliography
Auer, Peter, and Jan Lindström. 2016. “Left/Right Asymmetries and the Grammar of Pre- vs. Post-Positioning in German and Swedish
Talk-in-Interaction.” Language Sciences 56: 68–92. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bentz, Martin, Martin Binnenhei, Georgios Coussious, Juliana Gruden, Wolfgang Imo, Lisa Korte, Thomas Rüdiger, Antonia Ruf-Dördelmann, Michael R. Schön, and Sebastian Stier. 2016. “Von der Pathologie zum Patienten: Optimierung von Wissenstransfer und Verstehenssicherung in der
medizinischen Kommunikation.” SpIn: Arbeitspapierreihe Sprache und Interaktion 72. [URL] (last access: 15.05.2020).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Free Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bergmann, Jörg. 2014. “Der Fall als epistemisches Objekt.” In ‘Der Fall’ – Studien zur epistemischen Praxis professionellen Handelns, ed. by Jörg Bergmann, Ulrich Dausendschön-Gay, and Frank Oberzaucher, 423–440. Bielefeld: Transcript.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Churchill, Lindsey. 1971. “Ethnomethodology and Measurement.” Social Forces 50: 183. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clayman, Steven E. 2010. “Address Terms in the Service of Other Actions: The Case of News Interview Talk.” Discourse and Communication 4 (3): 161–183. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clayman, Steven E. 2012. “Address Terms in the Organization of Turns at Talk: The Case of Pivotal Turn Extensions.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1853–1867. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten. 2011. “A System for Transcribing Talk-in-Interaction: GAT 2.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12: 1–51.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Droste, Pepe, and Susanne Günthner. 2020. “‘das mAchst du bestimmt AUCH du;’: Zum Zusammenspiel syntaktischer, prosodischer und sequenzieller Aspekte
syntaktisch desintegrierter du-Formate.” In Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik, ed. by Wolfgang Imo, and Jens Lanwer, 75–110. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Durkheim, Émile. 1915. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology. London: George Allen & Unwin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Džanko, Minka. 2020. Rollengebundene Asymmetrie in Arzt-Patient-Gesprächen. Ein Vergleich im Deutschen und Bosnischen. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Enfield, Nick J. 2006. “Social Consequences of Common Ground.” In Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, ed. by Nick J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson, 399–430. London: Berg.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Enfield, Nick J. 2009. “Relationship Thinking and Human Pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 41(1): 60–78. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Frommer, Jörg. 2014. “Therapie
als Fallarbeit: Über einige Grundprobleme und Paradoxien professionellen Handelns in der
Medizin”. In ‘Der Fall’ – Studien zur
epistemischen Praxis professionellen Handelns, ed.
by Jörg Bergmann, Ulrich Dausendschön-Gay, and Frank Oberzaucher, 103–123. Bielefeld: Transcript.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fruht, Christiane, and M. Vogelhuber. 2016. Kommunikation in der Onkologie: Überbringen schlechter Nachrichten. Universitätsklinikum Regensburg. [URL] (last access: 15.12.2019).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Chicago: Aldine.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goffman, Erving. 1974/1982. Das Individuum im öffentlichen Austausch. Microstudien zur öffentlichen Ordnung. Frankfurt a. M: Suhrkamp.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goodwin, Marjorie H. 2001. “Participation.” In Key Terms in Language and Culture, ed. by Alessandro Duranti, 172–175. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gumperz, John J. 2001. “Interactional Sociolinguistics: A Personal Perspective.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, 215–228. Malden: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Günthner, Susanne. 2008. “Projektorkonstruktionen im Gespräch: Pseudoclefts, die Sache
ist-Konstruktionen und Extrapositionen mit es.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 9: 86–114. [URL] (last access: 15.05.2020).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Günthner, Susanne. 2016. “Praktiken erhöhter Dialogizität: Onymische Anredeformen als Gesten personifizierter
Zuwendung.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 44 (3): 406–436. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Günthner, Susanne. 2017. “Sprachliche Verfahren bei der Übermittlung schlechter Nachrichten – sedimentierte Praktiken im Kontext
onkologischer Aufklärungsgespräche.” SpIn: Arbeitspapierreihe Sprache und Interaktion 73. [URL] (last access: 09.10.2021).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Günthner, Susanne. 2018. “Thomas Luckmanns Einfluss auf die Sprachwissenschaft – Kommunikative Gattungen im Alltagsgebrauch am
Beispiel onkologischer Aufklärungsgespräche.” In Lebenswelt und Gesellschaft. Gedenkband für Thomas Luckmann, ed. by Alois Hahn, and Martin Endreß, 358–400. Konstanz: UVK.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Günthner, Susanne. 2021. “Namentliche Anreden in onkologischen Aufklärungsgesprächen: Formen und Funktionen onymischer Anreden in der
Interaktion.” In Linguistik und Medizin: Sprachwissenschaftliche Zugänge und interdisziplinäre Perspektiven, ed. by Marina Iakushevich, Yvonne Ilg, and Theresa Schnedermann, 71–92. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Günthner, Susanne, and Qiang Zhu. 2017. “Anredeformen im Kulturvergleich. Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen als Mittel der kommunikativen Konstruktion
sozialer Beziehungen in chinesischen und deutschen SMS-Interaktionen.” In Sprache und Beziehung, ed. by Angelika Linke, and Juliane Schröter, 119–149. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hanks, William F. 2007. “Person Reference in Yucatex Maya Conversation.” In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by Nick J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 149–171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heath, Christian. 1992. “The Delivery and Reception of Diagnosis in the General Practice Consultations.” In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul P. Drew, and John Heritage, 235–268. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, John. 2004. “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analysing Data.” In Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, ed. by David Silverman, 222–245. London: Sage.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, John. 2011. “Territories of Knowledge, Territories of Experience: Empathic Moments in Interaction.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jan Steensig, 159–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, John, and George Raymond. 2005. “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in
Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15–38. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Imo, Wolfgang 2017. “Trösten: Eine professionelle Praktik in der Medizin.” In: Arbeitspapierreihe Sprache und Interaktion 71. [URL] (last access: 02.06.2021).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Imo, Wolfgang, and Jens Lanwer. 2019. Interaktionale Linguistik: Eine Einführung. Berlin: Metzler. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keller, Reiner, Herbert Knoblauch, and Jo Reichertz. 2012. “Kommunikativer Konstruktivismus.” In Kommunikativer Konstruktivismus: Theoretische und empirische Arbeiten zu einem neuen wissenssoziologischen
Ansatz, ed. by Reiner Keller, Hubert Knoblauch, and Jo Reichertz, 3–22. Berlin: Springer.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Koerfer, Arnim, and Christian Albus. 2018. Kommunikative Kompetenz in der Medizin. Ein Lehrbuch zur Theorie, Didaktik, Praxis und Evaluation der ärztlichen
Gesprächsführung. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kupetz, Maxi. 2014. “Empathy Displays as Interactional Achievements – Multi-Modal and Sequential Aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics 61: 4–34. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lerner, Gene H. 2003. “Selecting Next Speaker: The Context-Sensitive Operation.” Language in Society 32 (2): 177–201. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Linke, Angelika, and Juliane Schröter. 2017. “Sprache in Beziehungen – Beziehungen in Sprache: Überlegungen zur Konstitution eines linguistischen
Forschungsfeldes.” In: Sprache und Beziehung, ed. by Angelika Linke, and Juliane Schröter, 1–32. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Luckmann, Thomas. 1990. “Social Communication, Dialogue and Conversation.” In The Dynamics of Dialogue, ed. by Ivana Marková, and Klaus Foppa, 45–61. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Luckmann, Thomas. 2001. On the Methodology of (Oral) Genres. Plenary Talk at the Symposium on Genres. Oslo: University College.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mandelbaum, Jenny. 2003. “Interactive Methods for Constructing Relationships.” In Studies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Phillip J. Glenn, Curtis D. LeBaron, and Jenny Mandelbaum, 207–219. Mahwah, NJ, London: Lawrence Erlbaum. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maynard, Douglas W. 2003. Bad News, Good News. Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Muntigl, Peter, Naomi Knight, Adam O. Horvath, and Ashley Watkins. 2012. “Client Affectual Stance and Therapist-Client Affiliation: A View from Grammar and Social
Interaction.” Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome 15 (2): 117–130.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Muntigl, Peter, Naomi Knight, Ashley Watkins, Adam O. Horvath, and Lynne Angus. 2013. “Active Retreating: Person-Centered Practices to Repair Disaffiliation in Therapy.” Journal of Pragmatics 53: 1–20. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Muntigl, Peter, and Adam O. Horvath. 2015. “The Therapeutic Relationship in Action: How Therapists and Clients Co-Manage Relational
Disaffiliation”. In The Therapeutic Relationship: Innovative Investigations, ed. by Hadas Wiseman, and Orya Tishby, 41–59. London, New York: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nübling, Damaris, Fabian Fahlbusch, and Rita Heuser. 2012. Namen. Eine Einführung in die Onomastik. Tübingen: Narr.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Noack, Thorsten, Heiner Fangerau, and Jörg Vögele (eds). 2007. Querschnitt Geschichte, Theorie und Ethik der Medizin. München, Jena: Urban and Fischer.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pomerantz, Anita, and Jenny Mandelbaum. 2005. “Conversation Analytic Approaches to the Relevance and Uses of Relationship Categories in
Interaction.” In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Kristine L. Fitch, and Robert E. Sanders, 149–171. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Raymond, Chase W. 2016. “Linguistic Reference in the Negotation of Identity and Action: Revisiting the T/V
Distinction.” Language in Society 92 (3): 636–670.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reineke, Silke, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy. 2013. “Arzt-Patient-Kommunikation: Allgemeine Merkmale und Besonderheiten bei Brustkrebspatienten.” In Krankheit: Lernen im Ausnahmezustand? Brustkrebs und Herzinfarkt aus interdisziplinärer Perspektive, ed. by Dieter Nittel, and Astrid Seltrech, 444–454. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rendle-Short, Johanna. 2007. “’Catherine, You’re Wasting your Time’: Address Terms within the Australian Political
Interview.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (9): 1503–1525. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rendle-Short, Johanna. 2011. “Address Terms in the Australian Political News Interview.” In Talking Politics in Broadcast Media. Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Political Interviewing, Journalism and
Accountability, ed. by Mats Ekström, and Marianna Patrona, 93–111. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ribeiro, Eugenia, and Antonio P. Ribeiro, Miguel M. Goncalves, Adam O. Horvath, and William B. Stiles. 2013. “How Collaboration in Therapy Becomes Therapeutic: The Therapeutic Collaboration Coding
System.” Psychology and Psychotherapy 86 (3): 294–314. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1978. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 7–55. New York: Academic Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sator, Marlene, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy. 2011. “Medizinische Kommunikation.” In Angewandte Linguistik – Ein Lehrbuch, ed. by Karlfried Knapp, 376–393. Tübingen, Basel: Francke.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Scarvaglieri, Claudio. 2017. “Beraten und Psychotherapie: Zur Differenzierung zweier Formate helfenden Handelns.” In: Beraten in Interaktion. Eine gesprächslinguistische Typologie des Beratens, ed. by Ina Pick, S. 53–76. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schütz, Alfred, and Thomas Luckmann. 1979. Strukturen der Lebenswelt. Band 1. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schwitalla, Johannes. 1995. “Namen in Gesprächen.” In Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Band 11.1, ed. by Hugo Steger, and Herbert E. Wiegand, 498–504. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schwitalla, Johannes. 2010. “Kommunikative Funktionen von Sprecher- und Adressatennamen in Gesprächen.” In Eigennamen in der gesprochenen Sprache, ed. by Nicolas Pepin, and Elwys de Stefani, 179–199. Tübingen: Francke.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg R. Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Arnulf Deppermann, Peter Gilles, Susanne Günthner, Martin Hartung, Friederike Kern, Christine Mertzlufft, Christian Meyer, Miriam Morek, Frank Oberzaucher, Jörg Peters, Uta Quasthoff, Wilfried Schütte, Anja Stukenbrock, and Susanne Uhlmann. 2009. “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10: 353–402.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Silverstein, Michael. 1993. “Metapragmatic Discourse and Metapragmatic Function.” In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. by John Lucy, 33–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas. 2005. “Kommunikatives Handeln in ärztlichen Gesprächen – Gesprächseröffnung und
Beschwerdenexploration.” In Psychosomatische Gesprächsführung in der Frauenheilkunde – ein interdisziplinärer Ansatz zur verbalen
Intervention, ed. by Mechthild Neises, Susanne Ditz, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 17–47. Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of
Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (1): 31–57. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, Tanya, Nick J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2007. “Person Reference in Interaction.” In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by Nick J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig. 2011. “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 3–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tomasello, Michael, and Malinda Carpenter. 2007. “Shared Intentionality.” Developmental Science 10 (1): 121–125. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Kabatnik, Susanne
2024.
“Because he was disgusting”: transforming relations through positioning in messenger-supported group psychotherapy.
Frontiers in Psychology 14
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Hendricks, Dominic & Wolfgang Imo
2023.
Ärztliche Therapieentscheidungsempfeh-lungen in der Onkologie und die Rolle des Personalpronomens wir bei der Aushandlung ärztlicher agency
.
Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 2023:79
► pp. 163 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.