La voz de las pacientes con dolor crónico: el afecto en la interacción en páginas de Facebook y en entrevistas
Palavras-chave:
Discurso e saúde. Sistema de Avaliatividade. Avaliatividade entre gêneros. Afeto.Resumo
O presente artigo aborda o uso da linguagem em interações de pacientes que sofrem de endometriose, uma doença ginecológica crônica. Nosso foco de investigação é constituído pela construção do afeto em dois tipos de interação: de um lado, páginas do Facebook, em particular, os comentários de pacientes que possuem a patologia. O segundo tipo de interação é de entrevistas, que constituem o corpus B. Aplicamos a proposta de configurações avaliativas a partir do uma adaptação do sistema de Avaliatividade (Martin 2000; Martin e White 2005). Os resultados indicam que em ambos os corpora o domínio predominante é da in/felicidade, com claro domínio da tristeza. No entanto, a configuração da infelicidade varia entre os corpora. Esta diferença é atribuível a fatores relacionados à funcionalidade de cada tipo de interação, como a vontade de consolidação de um senso de comunidade e alinhamento de seus membros por meio do apoio emocional, ou do relato da experiência vivenciada.
Downloads
Referências
Alba-Juez, L. y Pérez-González, J.-C. 2019. Emotion and language “at work.” En J.L. Mackenzie y L. Alba-Juez. Emotion in discourse, pp. 249-278. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Antón, M. y Goering, E. M. 2015. Understanding Patients’ Voices. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bañón Hernández, A. M. 2018. Discurso y salud. Análisis de un debate social. Pamplona: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra (EUNSA).
Benítez-Castro, M.-Á. E Hidalgo-Tenorio, E. 2019. Rethinking Martin & White’s affect taxonomy. En J.L. Mackenzie y L. Alba-Juez. Emotion in discourse, pp. 301-332. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bernell, S. y Howard, S. W. 2016. Use Your Words Carefully: What Is a Chronic Disease? Frontiers in Public Health 4: 4-159.
Bonnin, J. E. 2014. Expanded answers to bureaucratic questions: Negotiating access to public healthcare. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18: 685-707.
Bonnin, J. E. 2017. Formulations in Psychotherapy: Admission Interviews and the Conversational Construction of Diagnosis Qualitative Health Research 27, 11.
Bonnin, J. E. 2018. Discourse, Inequality and Mental Health: Voice, Inequality and Resistance in Medical Settings. Londres: Routledge.
Bukstein, D. A. 2016. Patient adherence and effective communication. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology 117, 6: 613–619.
Bullo, S. 2018. Exploring disempowerment in women’s accounts of endometriosis experiences. Discourse and Communication 13, 6: 419-445.
Bullo, S. 2020. “I feel like I’m being stabbed by a thousand tiny men”: The challenges of communicating endometriosis pain. Health (United Kingdom) 24, 5: 476-492.
Bullo, S. y Hearn, J. H. 2020. Parallel worlds and personified pain: A mixed-methods analysis of pain metaphor use by women with endometriosis. British Journal of Health Psychology 26, 2: 271-288.
Bullo, S., Pascual, M. y Magaña, D. En prensa. Agency in endometriosis pain communication in English and Spanish. Communication & Medicine.
Celedón, C. y Resumen, L. 2016. Relación médico paciente Doctor-pacient relationship. Rev. Otorrinolaringol. Cir. Cabeza Cuello 76: 51-54.
Connor, U., Anton, M., Goering, E. B., Lauten, K., Hayat, A. y Balunda, S. 2012. Listening to patients’ voices: Linguistic indicators related to diabetes self-management. Communication and Medicine 9, 1: 1-12.
Cordella, M. 2002. La interacción médico-paciente en escrutinio: Un estudio de sociolingüística interaccional. Onomazein 1, 7: 117–144.
Demjén, Z., Semino, E. y Koller, V. 2016. Metaphors for “good” and “bad” deaths: A health professional view. Metaphor and the Social World 6, 1: 1-19.
Dörr, A. 2004. Acerca de la comunicación médico-paciente desde una perspectiva histórica y antropológica. Revista Médica de Chile 132, 11: 1431-1436.
Facchin, F., Barbara, G., Saita, E., Mosconi, P., Roberto, A., Fedele, L. y Vercellini, P. 2015.Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and mental health: Pelvic pain makes the difference. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 36, 4:135-41. doi: 10.3109/0167482X.2015.1074173.
Fairclough, N. 1991 Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fauconnier, A., Drioueche, H., Huchon, C., Du Cheyron, J., Indersie, E., Candau, Y., Panel, P. y Fritel, X. 2021. Early identification of women with endometriosis by means of a simple patient-completed questionnaire screening tool: a diagnostic study. Fertility and Sterility 116, 6: 1580-1589.
Fuoli, M. 2018. A stepwise method for annotating appraisal. Functions of Language 25, 2: 229-258. Hållstam, A., Stålnacke, B. M., Svensén, C. y Löfgren, M. 2018. Living with painful endometriosis – A struggle for coherence. A qualitative study. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare 17: 97-102.
Harvey, K. y Koteyko, N. 2012. Exploring health communication: Language in action. Taylor and Francis.
Hudelist, G., Fritzer, N., Thomas, A., Niehues, C., Oppelt, P., Haas, D., Tammaa, A. y Salzer, H. 2012. Diagnostic delay for endometriosis in Austria and Germany: causes and possible consequences. Human Reproduction 27, 12: 3412-3416.
Magaña, D. y Matlock, T. 2018. How Spanish speakers use metaphor to describe their experiences with cancer. Discourse and Communication 12, 6: 627-644.
Martin, J. R. 1986. Grammaticalising ecology: The politics of baby seals and kangaroos. In Threadgold, T., Grosz, E. A., Kress, G. and Halliday, M. A. K. (Eds.). Language, semiotics, ideology, pp. 225-268. Sydney: Sydney Association for Studies in Society and Culture. [Sydney Studies in Society and Culture 3.]
Martin, J. R. 2000. Beyond Exchange: Appraisal Systems in English. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. En S. Hunston y G. Thompson (Eds.). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, pp. 142-175. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Martin, J. R. y Rose, D. 2008. Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, J. R. y White, P. R. R. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Chippenham y Eastbourne: Palgrave Macmillan.
Morotti, M., Vincent, K. y Becker, C. M. 2017. Mechanisms of pain in endometriosis. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 209: 8–13.
O’Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., Pham, D. S., Bateman, J. y Vande Moere, A. 2018. A digital mixed methods research design: Integrating multimodal analysis with data mining and information visualization for big data analytics. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 12, 1: 11-30.
Pardo, M. L. 2009. El uso de la metáfora en el discurso delirante. Un análisis multidisciplinar. En M. Shiro, P. Bentivolglio, y F. E. Erlich (Eds.). Haciendo Discurso. Homenaje a Adriana Bolívar, pp. 119-140. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Pardo, M. y Buscaglia, V. 2008. Pobreza y salud mental desde el Análisis Crítico del Discurso. Discurso y Sociedad 2, 2: 357-393.
Pardo, M. y Buscaglia, V. 2013. Discurso y aplanamiento afectivo. Discurso y Sociedad 7,1: 97-110.
Pascual, M. 2014. Combining Appraisal resources: Human rights organizations in the Argentine press. Onomazein 30, 2: 99-114.
Pascual, M. 2020. Discourse, health and information from the recounts of endometriosis patients. Discurso y Sociedad 14, 2: 421-442.
Pascual, M. 2021. Online emotional support: discourse functionalities on Chilean Facebook pages by patients with chronic pain. Entrepalavras 11, 3: 1–19.
Pascual, M. y Díaz Alegría, N. 2021. El afecto en relatos de dolor crónico en comentarios de Facebook de mujeres chilenas. Nueva Revista Del Pacífico 74: 47-64.
Potts, A. y Semino, E. 2017. Healthcare professionals’ online use of violence metaphors for care at the end of life in the US: A corpus-based comparison with the UK. Corpora 12, 1: 55-84.
Rea, T., Giampaolino, P., Simeone, S., Pucciarelli, G., Alvaro, R. y Guillari, A. 2020. Living with endometriosis: a phenomenological study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies, in Health and Well-being 15, 2: 1-9. doi: 10.1080/17482631.2020.1822621.
Salmaso, G. 2010. Anécdotas en entrevistas de admisión. Calidoscópio 8, 2: 118-126.
Shiro, M. 2003. Genre and evaluation in narrative development. Journal of Child Language 30, 1: 165-195. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000902005500.
Stæhr, A. 2015. Reflexivity in Facebook interaction – Enregisterment across written and spoken language practices. Discourse, Context and Media 8: 30-45.
Tashakkori, A. y Teddlie, C. 2003. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Teddlie, C. y Tashakkori, A. 2010. Mixed methods research: Contemporary issues in an emerging field. En A. Thashakkori y C. Teddlie (Eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 1-41. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thompson, G. 2014. AFFECT and emotion, target-value mismatches, and Russian dolls: refining the APPRAISAL model. En G. Thompson y L. Alba-Juez (Eds.). Evaluation in Context, pp. 47-66. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Who. 2012 [1946]. Official Records of the World Health Organization, Nº 2, p. 100. En: http://www.who.int/suggestions/faq/es/.
Wodak, R. 1997. Critical discourse analysis and the study of doctor-patient interaction. En B-L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, y B. Nordberg (Eds.). The Construction of Professional Discourse, pp. 173-200. Londres: Longman.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2022 Mariana Pascual
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Os/As autores/as conservam os direitos autorais e garantem a RALED o direito de ser a primeira publicação do trabalho licenciado por uma Creative Commons Attribution License que permite compartilhar o trabalho com reconhecimento de sua autoria e a publicação inicial nesta revista.
