This study investigates doctors’ and patients’ usage of three speech functions; namely statements, questions and commands in the American medical drama series House M.D. Furthermore, the study investigates interruptions between doctors and patients. The aim of the study was to ascertain whether the claim that doctors practice power over patients can be verified. The data comprises transcripts of 16 video recorded sessions of doctors and patient interacting where the material was personally collected and analyzed. In their interactions, doctors were found to dominate in making statements, asking questions and uttering commands. In addition, it was detected that the doctors’ and patients’ way to communicate differed given the fact that doctors are trained in their roles as doctors while patients are not. However, both interactants were found to perform the different speech functions similarly. The study also revealed that doctors interrupted more as compared to patients. Furthermore, gendered interruptions were found in the data, all of which came from male participants and it was concluded that the findings could be linked to the social and cultural roles of the participants. Overall, it was concluded that there exists a power relationship between doctors and patients.

This thesis is a study of proverbs and their use in dialogue. Proverbs have a long history but have not been the subject of much linguistic research in Sweden. The purpose of the study is to examine how proverbs are used, who uses them and to what extent they are used. The focus is on the communicative functions of the proverb and on how information is disseminated through proverbs. The theoretical basis of the study is systemic-functional linguistics and its view of language use, with focus on the interpersonal metafunction. A qualitative analysis has been performed using the principles and perspectives of conversation analysis. The source material consists of 45 Swedish plays published between 1700 and 2000, which form part of the corpus Svensk dramadialog (Swedish drama dialogue). Proverbs are used among other things to argue, criticise, comment, comfort, defend, object or explain. Their use varies over time in terms of frequency as well as to which speech functions are expressed, but they are predominantly used in much the same way today as 300 years ago. The results of the study show a clear decline in use over time in the number of proverbs in the material. They are used most frequently in the 18th century to argue and object, while in the 20th century they tend to be used to criticise. Their most common function in all periods is to comment. Older people use proverbs in speech more than younger people, and there is a frequent tendency for proverbs to be aimed at other people of the same generation. Equally as many women as men use proverbs in speech in relation to their speaking space in the corpus. Proverbs are frequently multifunctional and act as a linguistic resource in the dialogue.

Background: Aphasia is an acquired language disorder, usually due to stroke, that affects the social functioning and the quality of life of the person with aphasia as well as the quality of life of his or her family and caregivers. Traditional aphasia therapy has tended to focus on decontextualized tasks and discrete elements of language functioning. The Life Participation Approach to Aphasia (LPAA) focuses on the collaborative nature of communication and addresses communication within personally relevant contexts. Joint decision-making is one type of social interaction that occurs frequently between married couples and has received considerable attention in the literature. To date, no study has investigated how married couples affected by aphasia collaboratively make decisions. Aim: The present study aims to provide foundational information on joint decision-making by married couples affected by aphasia. Methods and Procedures: Fourteen married couples in which one of the spouses had aphasia volunteered to participate in the study. A variety of assessment measures were administered to the participants with aphasia to characterize their speech and language deficits and all participants were administered a non-verbal reasoning test and a marital quality scale. The primary task of interest in this study involved a joint decision-making activity in which spouses were read two hypothetical ‘survival-type’ scenarios and were given a list of items for each scenario. The spouses were instructed to decide on six items and then rank their selected items in order of importance in terms of their value in helping them survive the scenarios. Participants’ interactions were audio- and video-recorded, and their verbal communication transcribed verbatim. The participants’ communicative interactions were coded for speech functions and analyzed by comparing differences in communication behaviors between the spouses with and without aphasia. Results: Findings showed that participants with and without aphasia utilized a variety of speech functions but that the participants with aphasia made far fewer attempts to persuade their spouse to agree with them and that the spouses without aphasia tended to dominate the interaction, resulting in an imbalance of power in the decision-making process. Despite the differences in communication behaviors, both groups of spouses were supportive of the ideas suggested by their significant other and conflicts were typically resolved quickly. Conclusion: Findings from this study revealed potential discrepancies in the balance of power between the spouses with and without aphasia in decision-making communication. Suggestions are provided for tailoring interventions and guiding future research in joint decision-making in couples affected by aphasia.