This conversation analytic study investigated how companions respond to clinicians’ treatment recommendations in triadic interactions in Chinese orthopedic outpatient clinical consultations. Based on recordings of triadic consultations, we showed that companions actively asserted their role in triadic treatment discussions and agentively displayed entitlement to participate in treatment discussions in and through the sequentially organized and multimodally accomplished actions of responding to clinicians’ recommendations through acceptance, passive resistance, or active resistance. Through these actions, companions exhibited and exerted agency in triadic treatment discussions, which were acknowledged and negotiated by clinicians and patients in local contexts, thus demonstrating the collaborative construction and interactional achievement of treatment decisions. The study offered valuable insights into triadic interactions in Chinese clinical encounters and contributed to the understanding of companions’ agency and contributions across healthcare contexts.
AlbertSHallL (2024) Distributed agency in smart homecare interactions: A conversation analytic case study. Discourse & Communication18(6): 892–904.
2.
BarnesRK (2017) Preliminaries to treatment recommendations in UK primary care: A vehicle for shared decision making?Health Communication33(11): 1366–1376.
3.
BodenD (1990) The world as it happens: Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. In: RitzerG (ed.) Frontiers of Social Theory: The New Syntheses. Columbia University Press, pp.185–213.
4.
ByrnePSLongBE (1976) Doctors Talking to Patients: A Study of the Verbal behaviours of Doctors in the Consultation. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.
5.
ChinnD (2022) ‘I have to explain to him’: How companions broker mutual understanding between patients with intellectual disabilities and health care practitioners in primary care. Qualitative Health Research32(8–9): 1215–1229.
6.
ClancyPMThompsonSASuzukiR, et al. (1996) The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics26: 355–387.
7.
CoeRMPrendergastCG (1985) The formation of coalitions: Interaction strategies in triads. Sociology of Health and Illness7(2): 236–247.
8.
CurlTSDrewP (2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction41(2): 129–153.
9.
DoehringAH (2018) Three-party interactions between neurologists, patients and their companions in the seizure clinic. PhD Thesis, Loughborough University.
10.
DrewP (1997) ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics28(1): 69–101.
11.
EkbergKLeCouteurA (2015) Clients’ resistance to therapists’ proposals: Managing epistemic and deontic status. Journal of Pragmatics90: 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.004
12.
EmirbayerMMischeA (1998) What is agency?The American Journal of Sociology103(4): 962–1023.
13.
FatiganteMZucchermaglioCAlbyF (2021) Being in place: A multimodal analysis of the contribution of the patient’s companion to “first time” oncological visits. Frontiers in Psychology12: 664747.
14.
HaakanaM (2001) Laughter as a patient’s resource: Dealing with delicate aspects of medical interaction. Text & Talk21(1–2): 187–219.
15.
HeathC (1986) Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
16.
HeinemannT (2006) “Will you or can’t you?” Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics38(7): 1081–1104.
17.
HeritageJ (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: AtkinsonJMHeritageJ (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, pp.299–345.
18.
HeritageJ (2012) The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction45(1): 30–52.
19.
HeritageJClaymanSE (2010) Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Wiley Blackwell.
20.
HeritageJMaynardDW (2006) Communication in Medical Care: Interaction Between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge University Press.
21.
HeritageJSefiS (1992) Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first-time mothers. In: DrewPHeritageJ (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge University Press, pp.359–417.
22.
HoA (2008) Relational autonomy or undue pressure? Family’s role in medical decision-making. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences22(1): 128–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00561.x
23.
HudakPLClarkSJRaymondG (2011) How surgeons design treatment recommendations in orthopaedic surgery. Social Science & Medicine73(7): 1028–1036.
24.
JeffersonG (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: LernerGH (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. John Benjamins, pp.13–23.
25.
Kerbrat-OrecchioniC (2004) Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics36(1): 1–24.
26.
KoenigCJ (2011) Patient resistance as agency in treatment decisions. Social Science and Medicine72(7): 1105–1114.
27.
LandmarkAMDNilssonEEkströmA, et al. (2021) Couples living with dementia managing conflicting knowledge claims. Discourse Studies23(2): 191–212.
28.
LernerGH (1993) Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text–Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse13(2): 213–245. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1993.13.2.213
29.
LiCNThompsonSA (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. University of California Press.
30.
LeeSC (2015) Intimacy and family consent: A Confucian ideal. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy40(4): 418–436. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhv015
31.
MondadaL (2018) Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction51(1): 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
32.
O’HairDVillagranMMWittenbergE, et al. (2003) Cancer survivorship and agency model: Implications for patient choice, decision making, and influence. Health Communication15(2): 193–202.
33.
PinoMLandV (2022) How companions speak on patients’ behalf without undermining their autonomy: Findings from a conversation analytic study of palliative care consultations. Sociology of Health & Illness44(2): 395–415.
34.
PomerantzAHeritageJ (2013) Preference. In SidnellJStiversT (eds) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 210–228). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
35.
RaymondG (2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review68(6): 939–967.
36.
RobinsonJD (2003) An interactional structure of medical activities during acute visits and its implications for patients’ participation. Health Communication15(1): 27–59.
37.
RobsonCDrewPReuberM (2016) The role of companions in outpatient seizure clinic interactions: A pilot study. Epilepsy & Behavior60: 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.04.010
38.
SchegloffEA (1987) Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organisation. In: ButtonGLeeJRE (eds) Talk and Social Organisation. Multilingual Matters, pp.70–85.
39.
SchegloffEA (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
40.
ShawC (2013) Managing the moral implications of advice in informal interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction46(4): 344–362.
41.
StevanovicMPeräkyläA (2012) Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language & Social Interaction45(3): 297–321.
42.
StiversT (2005a) Non-antibiotic treatment recommendations: Delivery formats and implications for parent resistance. Social Science & Medicine60(5): 949–964.
43.
StiversT (2005b) Parent resistance to physicians’ treatment recommendations: One resource for initiating a negotiation of the treatment decision. Health Communication18(1): 41–74.
44.
StiversT (2006) Treatment decisions: Negotiations between clinicians and patients in acute care encounters. In: HeritageJMaynardDW (eds) Communication in Medical Care: Interaction Between Primary Care Physician and Patients. Cambridge University Press, pp.279–312.
45.
StiversTHayashiM (2010) Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society39(1): 1–25.
StiversTTimmermansS (2020) Medical authority under siege: How clinicians transform patient resistance into acceptance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior61(1): 60–78.
48.
StiversTHeritageJBarnesRK, et al. (2018) Treatment recommendations as Actions. Health Communication33(11): 1335–1344.
49.
ToerienM (2018) Deferring the decision point: Treatment assertions in neurology outpatient consultations. Health Communication33(11): 1355–1365.
50.
ToerienMReuberMShawR, et al. (2018) Generating the perception of choice: The remarkable malleability of option-listing. Sociology of Health & Illness40(7): 1250–1267.
51.
ToerienMShawRReuberM (2013) Initiating decision-making in neurology consultations: ‘recommending’ versus ‘option-listing’ and the implications for medical authority. Sociology of Health & Illness35(6): 873–890.
WangNC (2020) Understanding antibiotic overprescribing in China: A conversation analysis approach. Social Science & Medicine262: 113251.
54.
WangNC (2023) Claiming or abdicating medical authority: Treatment recommendation actions, doctor–patient relationship, and antibiotic overprescription in Chinese paediatrics. Sociology of Health and Illness46(4): 722–743.
55.
WangNCLiuY (2021) Going shopping or consulting in medical visits: Caregivers’ roles in pediatric antibiotic prescribing in China. Social Science & Medicine290: 114075.
56.
WangNCZhangW (2020) A conversation analysis of treatment recommendations in Chinese medical interaction. Modern Foreign Languages43(1): 44–55. (in Chinese).
57.
WheatHCBarnesRKByngR (2015) Practices used for recommending sickness certification by general practitioners: A conversation analytic study of UK primary care consultations. Social Science & Medicine126: 48–58.
58.
Windeatt-HarrisonILWalkerTBellSM, et al. (2024) The first step in triadic decision-making involving people with dementia: Determining who talks when. Research on Language and Social Interaction57(4): 399–416.
59.
WrayS (2004) What constitutes agency and empowerment for women in later life?The Sociological Review52(1): 22–38.
60.
XudongD (2008) The use of listener responses in Mandarin Chinese and Australian English conversations. Pragmatics18(2): 277–303.
61.
YangZ (2019) Turn allocation within the medical-service-seeking party in Chinese accompanied medical consultations. Journal of Pragmatics143: 135–155.
62.
YangZWangXMWuN (2018) Conversation analysis of the third party’s talk in doctor-patient interaction. Language Teaching and Learning1: 101–112. (in Chinese).
63.
YangZWuWWangX (2025) Problem presentation in accompanied medical consultations: Patterns for multi-person participation. Health Communication. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2025.2564934.
64.
ZhaiHLavenderCLiCWuHGongNChengY (2020) Who decides? Shared decision-making among colorectal cancer surgery patients in China. Supportive Care in Cancer28(11): 5353–5361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05391-3
65.
ZhangSChengMMaW (2024) Companions’ contributions to information gathering in Chinese outpatient clinical interaction. Sociology of Health & Illness46(3): 534–565.
66.
ZhangSChengMMaW, et al. (2023) Companion responses to diagnosis in Chinese outpatient clinical interaction. Social Science & Medicine338: 116308.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
