Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

 

Language Learning in Higher Education

Journal of the European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Education (CercleS)

Editor-in-Chief: Szczuka-Dorna, Liliana / O’Rourke, Breffni

Online
ISSN
2191-6128
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Euphemism as a core feature of patientese: A comparative study between English and French

Pascaline Faure
  • Corresponding author
  • Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Université Paris 06, DILC (Didactique des langues et des cultures), Pierre and Marie Curie School of Medicine, 91 Boulevard de l’Hôpital 75013 Paris, France
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-05-03 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2016-0008

Abstract

The purpose of this lexicological study is to present a typology of patients’ euphemizing lay denominations of medical terms illustrated by examples in English and French. Various textbooks and lexicons dealing with English and French for medical purposes served as corpora. The euphemisms were classified according to the three semantic processes by means of which they were created: widening (Eng. down below for “genitals” and Fr. poitrine [lit. ‘chest’] for “breast”), reduction (Eng. miss* for “miscarriage” and Fr. MST [lit. ‘STD’] for “sexually-transmitted disease”), and analogy (Eng. engine for “heart” and Fr. tuyauterie [lit. ‘pipes’] for “urinary system”). Underlying these semantic processes, the same structural metaphors in both languages were identified: vaguer is better (widening), less of form is less of content (reduction), and the body is a machine/organs are containers (analogy). The examples show that these categories are not fully exclusive. Because lay terms used by patients during interview are a source of major misunderstandings on the part of healthcare professionals who are not native speakers of their patients’ language, pedagogical guidelines are provided so as to encourage Language for Medical Purposes (LMP) teachers to incorporate the study of patientese into their course. In my conclusion, I offer two hypotheses that both need further exploration: the probable evolution of patients’ terminology towards enhanced technicality under the influence of both medical TV series and the Internet, and consequently, the plausible use of technical terms as new euphemisms.

Keywords: Languages for Medical Purposes (LMP); doctor/patient communication; lay terminology; technical/medical terminology; euphemism

References

  • Allan, Keith & Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden words, taboo and the censoring of language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Chapman, Robert. 1998. The dictionary of American slang. New York: Collins.Google Scholar

  • Dirckx, John. 1983 [1976]. The language of medicine, its evolution, structure and dynamics. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

  • Faure, Pascaline. 2012. L’anglais médical et le français médical: analyse linguistico-culturelle. Paris: EAC.Google Scholar

  • Faure, Pascaline. 2014. Du sildenafil citrate au Viagra ou l’art délicat de nommer les médicaments. Terminology 20(1). 75–91.Google Scholar

  • Faure, Pascaline. 2015. La langue du patient, de l’archaïsme à l’orthonyme : analyse comparative français/anglais. Les Cahiers de Lexicologie 106(1). 213–228.Google Scholar

  • Gwyn, Richard. 2002. Communicating health and illness. London: SAGE.Google Scholar

  • Hamburger, Jean. 1982. Introduction au langage de la médecine. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar

  • Keyes, Ralph. 2010. Unmentionables. London: John Murray.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2003 [1980]. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Marsh, Joseph. 1998. Word crimes: Blasphemy, culture, and literature in nineteenth-century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Ogden, Jane & Ruben Branson. 2003. What’s in a name? An experimental study of patients views of the impact and function of a diagnosis. Family Practice 20(3). 248–253.Google Scholar

  • Ong, Lucille, Hanneke de Haes, Aloysia Hoos & Frits Lammes. 1995. Doctor-patient communication: A review of the literature. Social Science and Medicine 40(7). 903–918.Google Scholar

  • Partridge, Eric. 1977. Origins: A short etymological dictionary of modern English. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Pinker, Steven. 2007. The language instinct. New York: Harper.Google Scholar

  • Shuy, Roger W. 1983. Three types of interference to an effective exchange of information in the medical interview. In Sue Fisher & Alexandra Todd (eds.), The social organization of doctor–patient communication, 189–202. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Tailor, Anisha & Jane Ogden. 2009. Avoiding the term “obesity”: An experimental study of the impact of doctors’ language on patients’ beliefs. Patient Education and Counselling 76(2). 260–274.Google Scholar

  • Tanguy, Ludovic, Cécile Fabre, Lydia-Mai Ho-Dac & Josette Rebeyrolle. 2011. Caractérisation des échanges entre patients et médecins: approche outillée d’un corpus de consultations médicales. Corpus [Online]. http://corpus.revues.org/2058 (accessed 8 May 2014).

  • Tournier, Jean. 2004. Précis de lexicologie anglaise. Paris: Ellipses.Google Scholar

  • Williams, Nigel & Jane Ogden. 2004. The impact of matching the patient’s vocabulary: A randomized control trial. Family Practice 21(6). 630–635.Google Scholar

  • Williams, Joseph. 1975. Origins of the English language: A social and linguistic history. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

  • Young, Meredith, Geoffrey Norman & Karin Humphreys. 2008. The role of medical language in changing public perceptions of illness. PLoS ONE 3(12). e3875. http://www.plosone.org (accessed 15 May 2014).Google Scholar

  • Zeng-Treitler, Qing, Sergey Goryachev, Tony Tse, Alla Keselman & Aziz Boxwala. 2008. Estimating consumer familiarity with health terminology: A context-based approach. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 15(3). 349–356.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Zeng-Treitler, Qing & Tony Tse. 2006. Exploring and developing consumer health vocabularies. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 13(1). 24–29.Google Scholar

References for the corpora

  • Bouché, Pascal. 1994. Les mots de la médecine. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar

  • Fassier, Thomas & Solange Talavera-Goy. 2008. Le français des médecins. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar

  • Glendinning, Eric & Beverly Holmström. 2004. English in medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Glendinning, Eric & Ron Howard. 2007. Professional English in use: Medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • McCullagh, Marie & Ros Wright. 2008. Good Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mourlhon-Dallies, Florence. 2004. Santé-médecine.com. Paris: CLE International.Google Scholar

  • Parkinson, Joy. 1999 [1969]. Manual of English for the Overseas Doctor. London: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar

  • Quérin, Serge. 2007. Dictionnaire des difficultés du français médical. Canada: Maloine.Google Scholar

  • Sales, David. 2004. Medical IELTS: A Workbook for International Doctors and Plab Candidates. London: Radcliffe Publishing.Google Scholar

About the article

Pascaline Faure

Pascaline Faure has a PhD in medical English, for which she completed three years in medicine. She is an assistant professor in English for medicine and has been Director of the Medical English Department of Pierre and Marie Curie School of Medicine for 14 years. Her major works examine the nature of medical language (etymology, neologism, abbreviations and discourse) and the impact of English on other European medical languages.


Published Online: 2016-05-03

Published in Print: 2016-05-01


Citation Information: Language Learning in Higher Education, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 167–184, ISSN (Online) 2191-6128, ISSN (Print) 2191-611X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2016-0008.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in