{"title":"The generic use of the 1st-person singular ich ‘I’ in German oncological consultations: Managing demonstrated and anticipated trouble","authors":"Dominic Hendricks","doi":"10.1016/j.pragma.2025.10.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article explores the interactional functions of the generic use of 1st-person singular <em>ich</em> ‘I’ in German oncological consultations. In these highly sensitive interactions, various types of trouble arise that doctors have to manage. In this context, trouble can refer to patient resistance to treatment recommendations, whether active or passive, as well as various forms of conduct that impinge upon the progressivity of the ongoing interaction. Following a review of the existing, albeit limited, research on generic uses of the 1st-person singular, I show how doctors employ generically used <em>ich</em> when managing these troubles <em>in situ</em>. Specifically, doctors either retrospectively address displayed trouble, for example, by accounting for their original treatment recommendation, or prospectively endeavor to pre-empt anticipated trouble on the part of their patients. Thus, the generic use of <em>ich</em> is closely related to the specific contingencies and affordances of oncological consultations. I argue that the generic use of <em>ich</em> provides a more involved and vivid reference form in contrast to the default German generic pronoun <em>man</em> ‘one’. This is due to its speaker-deictic semantic core, which leaves a trace of subjectivity within an otherwise generic scenario. However, the boundaries between a generic and a deictic interpretation remain fuzzy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16899,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pragmatics","volume":"251 ","pages":"Pages 30-46"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216625002565","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article explores the interactional functions of the generic use of 1st-person singular ich ‘I’ in German oncological consultations. In these highly sensitive interactions, various types of trouble arise that doctors have to manage. In this context, trouble can refer to patient resistance to treatment recommendations, whether active or passive, as well as various forms of conduct that impinge upon the progressivity of the ongoing interaction. Following a review of the existing, albeit limited, research on generic uses of the 1st-person singular, I show how doctors employ generically used ich when managing these troubles in situ. Specifically, doctors either retrospectively address displayed trouble, for example, by accounting for their original treatment recommendation, or prospectively endeavor to pre-empt anticipated trouble on the part of their patients. Thus, the generic use of ich is closely related to the specific contingencies and affordances of oncological consultations. I argue that the generic use of ich provides a more involved and vivid reference form in contrast to the default German generic pronoun man ‘one’. This is due to its speaker-deictic semantic core, which leaves a trace of subjectivity within an otherwise generic scenario. However, the boundaries between a generic and a deictic interpretation remain fuzzy.
本文探讨了德国肿瘤会诊中第一人称单数“I”的通用用法的交互功能。在这些高度敏感的相互作用中,医生必须处理各种各样的问题。在这种情况下,麻烦可以指患者对治疗建议的抵抗,无论是主动的还是被动的,以及各种形式的影响正在进行的相互作用的进步性的行为。在回顾了现有的,尽管有限的,关于第一人称单数的通用用法的研究之后,我展示了医生如何在现场处理这些麻烦时使用通用的ich。具体来说,医生要么回顾性地处理显示的麻烦,例如,通过解释他们最初的治疗建议,要么前瞻性地努力预防患者预期的麻烦。因此,ich的一般使用与肿瘤会诊的具体突发事件和负担密切相关。我认为ich的一般用法提供了一种更复杂和生动的参考形式,而不是默认的德语一般代词man ‘ one ’。这是由于它的说话人指示语义核心,这在一个一般的场景中留下了主观性的痕迹。然而,一般解释和指示解释之间的界限仍然模糊。
期刊介绍:
Since 1977, the Journal of Pragmatics has provided a forum for bringing together a wide range of research in pragmatics, including cognitive pragmatics, corpus pragmatics, experimental pragmatics, historical pragmatics, interpersonal pragmatics, multimodal pragmatics, sociopragmatics, theoretical pragmatics and related fields. Our aim is to publish innovative pragmatic scholarship from all perspectives, which contributes to theories of how speakers produce and interpret language in different contexts drawing on attested data from a wide range of languages/cultures in different parts of the world. The Journal of Pragmatics also encourages work that uses attested language data to explore the relationship between pragmatics and neighbouring research areas such as semantics, discourse analysis, conversation analysis and ethnomethodology, interactional linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, media studies, psychology, sociology, and the philosophy of language. Alongside full-length articles, discussion notes and book reviews, the journal welcomes proposals for high quality special issues in all areas of pragmatics which make a significant contribution to a topical or developing area at the cutting-edge of research.