Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 29:4 (2019) ► pp.595–621

Variation in address practices across languages and nations

A comparative study of doctors’ use of address forms in medical consultations in Sweden and Finland

ORCID logo | University of Turku
ORCID logo | University of Helsinki
ORCID logo | University of Helsinki
ORCID logo | Stockholm University
ORCID logo | Tampere University
ORCID logo | University of Helsinki
ORCID logo | The Institute for Language and Folklore
This article compares variation in the use of address practices across languages (Swedish, Finnish) and national varieties (Sweden Swedish, Finland Swedish). It undertakes quantitative and qualitative analyses of three sets of transcribed medical consultations. In Sweden Swedish, address pronouns which lower social distance overwhelmingly dominate. In Finnish, both address forms reducing social distance and practices maintaining greater distance are found, with age and level of acquaintance revealed as the most salient factors. Finland Swedish is located somewhere between Sweden Swedish and Finnish, displaying a stronger tendency than Finnish to use informal direct address forms to reduce social distance, but also showing similarities with Finnish in the use of direct formal address and indirect address. The differences can be related to larger socio-cultural patterns which, however, form a continuum rather than a fixed set keeping the two languages and countries completely apart.
Keywords: address, doctor-patient interaction, medical consultations, intercultural pragmatics, pluricentric languages, Swedish, Finnish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Swedish and Finnish
  • 3.Language and culture
  • 4.Forms of address in Swedish and Finnish
    • 4.1Swedish
    • 4.2Finnish
  • 5.Data and method
  • 6.Quantitative overview
  • 7.Qualitative analysis
    • 7.1T address
    • 7.2V address
    • 7.3Indirect address
  • 8.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Data
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 20 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18031.wid
References (47)
Data
ink = Interaktion i en institutionell kontext ‘Interaction in an institutional context’. University of Helsinki 1996–2000 (Lindholm 2003).Google Scholar
lop = Läkare- och patientsamtal ‘Conversations between doctors and patients’. Uppsala University 1988–1992 (Melander Marttala 1995).Google Scholar
lpv = Lääkärin ja potilaan vuorovaikutus ‘Interaction between doctors and patients’. University of Helsinki 1993–1994. Project funded by Academy of Finland and The Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies. The data were collected in two cities in the Häme region (e.g., Raevaara 2000).Google Scholar
References
Ahlgren, Perry. 1978. Tilltalsordet ni: Dess semantik och användning i historiskt perspektiv [The address word ni ‘you’. Its semantics and use in a historical perspective]. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Aronsson, Karin, and Camilla Rindstedt. 2011. “Alignments and Facework in Paediatric Visits: Toward a Social Choreography of Multiparty Talk.” In Handbook of Communication in Organisations and Professions, ed. by Christopher N. Candlin, and Srikant Sarangi, 121–142. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman. 1960. “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” In Style in Language, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, 253–276. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Carbaugh, Donal A. 2005. Cultures in Conversation. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, Michael, Catrin Norrby, and Jane Warren. 2009. Language and Human Relations: Address in Contemporary Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daun, Åke. 1996. Swedish Mentality. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage. 1992. “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortman, Jennifier, and Howard Giles. 2006. “Communicating Culture.” In Redefining Culture: Perspectives Across the Disciplines, ed. by John R. Baldwin, Sandra L. Faulkner, Michael L. Hecht, and Sheryl L. Lindsley, 91–102. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fremer, Maria. 2015. “At the Cinema: The Swedish ‘du-reform’ in Advertising Films.” In Address Practice as Social Action: European Perspectives, ed. by Catrin Norrby, and Camilla Wide, 54–74. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Häkkinen, Kaisa. 1989. Mistä sanat tulevat: Suomalaista etymologiaa [Where words come from: Finnish etymology]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Mirja Saari. 1995. “Temporaalisesta adverbista diskurssipartikkeliksi [From a temporal adverb to a discourse particle].” Virittäjä 991: 481–500.Google Scholar
Havu, Eva, Johanna Isosävi, and Hanna Lappalainen. 2014. “Les stratégies d’adresse en finnois: Comparaison entre deux types de corpus oraux institutionnels.” In S’adresser à autrui: les formes nominales d’adresse dans une perspective comparative interculturelle, ed. by Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 303–336. Chambéry: Publication Chambéry.Google Scholar
Henricson, Sofie, and Marie Nelson. 2017. “Giving and Receiving Advice in Higher Education: Comparing Sweden-Swedish and Finland-Swedish Supervision Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics 1091: 121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isosävi, Johanna, and Hanna Lappalainen. 2015. “First Names in Starbucks: A Clash of Cultures?” In Address Practice as Social Action: European Perspectives, ed. by Catrin Norrby, and Camilla Wide, 97–118. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Janet. 2014. Introducing Language and Intercultural Communication. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kangasharju, Helena. 2007. “Interaktion och inflytande: Finländare och svenskar vid mötesbordet [Interaction and impact: Finns and Swedes at the meeting table].” In Ordens makt och maktens ord, ed. by Olli Kangas, and Helena Kangasharju, 341–377. Helsinki: The Society of Swedish Literature in Finland.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga. 2007. “Ritual and Style Across Cultures.” In Handbook of Intercultural Communication, ed. by Helga Kotthoff, Helen Spencer-Oatey, and Karlfried Knapp, 173–197. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laine-Sveiby, Kati. 1991. Företag i kulturmöten: Tre finländska företag och deras dotterbolag. En etnologisk studie [Companies in cultural contact: Three Finnish Companies and their daughter companies]. Stockholm University: Department of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea. 2006. “Zero Person in Finnish: A Grammatical Resource for Construing Human Reference.” In Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish, ed. by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, and Lyle Campbell, 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lappalainen, Hanna. 2015. “ Sinä vai te vai sekä että? Puhuttelukäytännöt suomen kielessä [T or V or both? Addressing practices in Finland].” In Saako sinutella vai täytyykö teititellä? Tutkimuksia eurooppalaisten kielten puhuttelukäytännöistä, ed. by Johanna Isosävi, and Hanna Lappalainen, 72–104. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Larjavaara, Matti. 1999. “Kieli, kohteliaisuus ja puhuttelu [Language, politeness and address].” Kielikello 2/1999: 4–10.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liebkind, Karmela, Tom Moring, and Marika Tandefelt (eds.). 2007. The Swedish-speaking Finns. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 187/1881 (Special issue). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindholm, Camilla. 2003. Frågor i praktiken: Flerledade frågeturer i läkare-patientsamtal [Questions in practice: Multi-unit question turns in doctor-patient interaction]. Helsinki: The Society of Swedish Literature in Finland.Google Scholar
Linell, Per, Johan Hofvendahl, and Camilla Lindholm. 2003. “Multi-unit Questions in Institutional Interactions: Sequential Organizations and Communicative Functions.” Text 23(4): 539–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Jan, Camilla Lindholm, and Ritva Laury. 2016. “The Interactional Emergence of Conditional Clauses as Directives: Constructions, Trajectories and Sequences of Actions.” Language Sciences 581: 21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melander Marttala, Ulla. 1995. Innehåll och perspektiv i samtal mellan läkare och patient: En språklig och samtalsanalytisk undersökning [Content and perspective in doctor-patient conversations: A linguistic and conversation analytic investigation]. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Norrby, Catrin, Camilla Wide, Jan Lindström, and Jenny Nilsson. 2015a. “Interpersonal Relationships in Medical Consultations: Comparing Sweden Swedish and Finland Swedish Address Practices.” Journal of Pragmatics 84(1): 21–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrby, Catrin, Camilla Wide, Jenny Nilsson, and Jan Lindström. 2015b. “Address and Interpersonal Relationships in Finland-Swedish and Sweden-Swedish Service Encounters.” In Address Practice as Social Action: European Perspectives, ed. by Catrin Norrby, and Camilla Wide, 75–96. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paananen, Jenny. 2016. “Kuinka lääkärit korjaavat kysymyksiään? Kysymysten uudelleen muotoilu monikulttuurisilla lääkärin vastaanotoilla” [How do doctors modify their questions? Reformulated questions in multicultural medical consultations]. Virittäjä 1201: 552–579.Google Scholar
Parkvall, Mikael. 2016. Sveriges språk i siffror: Vilka språk talas och av hur många? [Sweden’s languages in numbers: Which languages are spoken and by how many?]. Stockholm: Morfem.Google Scholar
Paulston, Christina Bratt. 1976. “Pronouns of Address in Swedish: Social Class Semantics and Changing System.” Language in Society 5 (3): 359–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paunonen, Heikki. 2010. “Kun Suomi siirtyi sinutteluun: Suomalaisten puhuttelutapojen murroksesta 1970-luvulla [When Finland moved on to T forms: The change in Finnish address practices in the 1970s].” In Kielellä on merkitystä: Näkökulmia kielipolitiikkaan, ed. by Hanna Lappalainen, Marja-Leena Sorjonen, and Maria Vilkuna, 325–368. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Raevaara, Liisa. 2000. Potilaan diagnoosiehdotukset lääkärin vastaanotolla. Keskustelunanalyyttinen tutkimus potilaan institutionaalisista tehtävistä [Patients’ candidate diagnoses in medical consultations]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Rampton, Ben. 2006. Language in Late Modernity: Interaction in an Urban School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reuter, Mikael. 1992. “Swedish as a Pluricentric Language.” In Pluricentric Languages: Different Norms in Different Nations, ed. by Michael Clyne, 111–116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saari, Mirja. 1995. “Jo, nu kunde vi festa nog.” Synpunkter på svenskt språkbruk i Sverige och Finland [“Yes, we were good at partying.” On the use of Swedish language in Sweden and Finland].” Folkmålsstudier 361: 75–108.Google Scholar
Statistics Finland. 2019. “Population.” Retrieved 17 February, 2019, from: [URL]
Statistics Sweden. 2019. “Population Statistics”. Retrieved 17 February, 2019, from: [URL]
Wide, Camilla, and Benjamin Lyngfelt. 2009. “Svenskan i Finland, grammatiken och konstruktionerna [Swedish in Finland, the grammar and the constructions].” In Konstruktioner i finlandssvensk syntax. Skriftspråk, samtal och dialekter, ed. by Camilla Wide, and Benjamin Lyngfelt. Helsinki: The Society of Swedish Literature in Finland.Google Scholar
Yli-Vakkuri, Valma. 2005. “Politeness in Finland: Evasion at All Cost.” In Politeness in Europe, ed. by Leo Hickey, and Miranda Stewart, 189–202. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Lappalainen, Hanna & Maija Saviniemi
2024. Metalinguistic Commentary on Forms of Address in a Finnish Autobiographical Novel Series. Languages 9:5 ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo
de Hoop, Helen, Natalia Levshina & Marianne Segers
2023. The effect of the use of T or V pronouns in Dutch HR communication. Journal of Pragmatics 203 ► pp. 96 ff. DOI logo
Lappalainen, Hanna & Ildikó Vecsernyés
2023. Chapter 1. Comparing address practices in the Finnish and Hungarian “Got Talent” TV programmes. In It's different with you [Topics in Address Research, 5], ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo
Thode Hougaard, Tina, Eva Skafte Jensen, Marianne Rathje, Jonathan White & Camilla Wide
2023. Chapter 3. Variations in opening and closing forms in email correspondence in Danish and Swedish. In It's different with you [Topics in Address Research, 5], ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Norrby, Catrin
2021. Interaction and Variation in Pluricentric Languages - communicative patterns in Sweden Swedish and Finland Swedish . Sociolinguistica 35:1 ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo
Schüpbach, Doris, John Hajek, Heinz L. Kretzenbacher & Catrin Norrby
2021. Approaches to the study of address in pluricentric languages: methodological reflections . Sociolinguistica 35:1 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Kuna, Ágnes & Ágnes Domonkosi
2020. Social Meanings of the Hungarian Politeness Marker Tetszik in Doctor-Patient Communication. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica 12:3 ► pp. 88 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 september 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.