RESUMO
This article presents the results of a survey conducted in January 2020 about attitudes toward gender-neutral language in Argentina. The survey was delivered mainly through social networks to 4,205 participants, and its results help understand the complexity of the attitudes toward the phenomenon. In particular, I will argue two hypotheses: 1) that an extensive favorable attitude of acceptance toward gender-neutral language does not imply extensive willingness to use it; 2) that its use is more readily accepted and used in vocative positions, indicating that it works better as a strategic discursive option than as an ongoing linguistic change.
RESUMO
In this article, we contribute to understanding the interactional aspects of making clinical diagnosis in mental health care. We observe that therapists, during the "problem presentation" sequence in clinical encounters, often use a specific form of diagnostic formulations to elicit more diagnostically relevant information. By doing so, they often substitute one type of verb with another, following a diagnostic hypothesis. Specifically, in interviews that arrive at a diagnosis of neurosis, therapists formulate with behavioral verbal processes; in interviews that arrive at a diagnosis of psychosis, they do so with material ones. Such formulations often prove useful to define clinical diagnoses. They can, however, also be dangerous in that they may favor the therapist's agenda over the patient's. Our analysis helps therapists not only better understand the diagnostic process but also reflect upon their own use of diagnostic formulations and become aware of the clinical effects of their interactional performance.
Assuntos
Entrevista Psicológica , Transtornos Mentais/diagnóstico , Psicoterapia , Argentina , Humanos , Relações Profissional-Paciente , Gravação em FitaRESUMO
This article is part of a larger research project, the aim of which is to understand the discursive conditions of access and adherence to an outpatient mental health service at a public hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The focus is on the historical conflict between medical discourse and psychoanalytical discourse as it emerges in the negotiation of treatment and diagnostic sequences at first consultations. It can be seen that patients who are socialized in medical discourse--and even in psychiatric discourse--expect the usual procedure in which a diagnosis, however transitory, is offered first and then followed by a treatment recommendation. However, psychoanalysts, in contrast, tend to reject diagnostic labels and offer treatment without further justification. This has an impact on the adherence of patients, and we can argue for the need to negotiate with medical discourse in order to guarantee engagement and continuity in treatment.