Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/socinov/index
The emergence of the discursive position of respect and
politeness in the socio-pragmatic analysis of medical
communication
Sayora YOROVA
Samarkand State Medical University
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received February 2024
Received in revised form
15 February 2024
Accepted 15 March 2024
Available online
25 April 2024
Although
the
status
position
of
doctor-patient
communication reflects the relationship of persons with the
norm of equality from a legal point of view, according to the
international and national "bioethical" regulations and
deontological norms of medicine, it is the responsibility of the
doctor, following the requirements of the "paternalistic" model,
to "treat patients like fathers" imposes the responsibility of
'caring'. The same responsibility applies to the subjective view
[
2
]
and situational positions
[
3
]
of doctor-patient
communication. The "paternalistic" model, which is typical for
medical communication, encourages the doctor to be the
initiator of respect and politeness and demands the priority of
humanitarian and humanistic ideas in the performance of his
professional duties and tasks.
2181-
1415/©
2024 in Science LLC.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol5-iss2-pp38-44
This is an open access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru)
Keywords:
doctor,
patient,
discourse,
psychoemotional,
instrumental,
structure.
Tibbiy muloqotning sotsiopragmatik tahlilida diskursiv
pozitsiya hurmat va xushmuomalalikning vujudga kelishi
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar
:
shifokor,
bemor,
diskurs,
psixoemotsional,
instrumental,
tuzilma.
Mazkur maqolada shifokor va bemor muloqotining subyektiv
nuqtai Nazari haqida fikrlar bayon etiladi.
[
2,3
]
Shuningdek,
tibbiy muloqot uchun tipik bo‘lgan “paternalistik” model
shifokorni hurmat va xushmuomalalik munosabatining
tashabbuskori bo‘lishiga undashi bilan birga, uning kasb burchi
va vazifasini ado etishida ham insonparvarlik, gumanizm
g‘oyalarning ustuvorligi haqida ma’lumotlar berilgan.
1
PhD, Head of the Department of Languages, Samarkand State Medical University.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
5 № 2
(2024) / ISSN 2181-1415
39
Возникновение дискурсивной позиции уважения и
вежливости
в
социо
-
прагматическом
анализе
медицинской коммуникации
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
врач,
пациент,
дискурс,
психоэмоциональный,
инструментальный,
структура.
В
данной
статье
рассматриваются
мнения
о
субъективном восприятии взаимодействия между врачом и
пациентом
[
2,3
]
. Автор также обращает внимание на
«патерналистскую» модель медицинского общения, которая
подразумевает, что врач должен быть инициатором
уважения и вежливости, а также несет ответственность за
информирование пациентов о приоритете гуманных и
гуманистических подходов при выполнении своих
профессиональных обязанностей и задач.
Shu jihatiga ko‘ra tibbiy diskurs xizmat ko‘rsatish bilan bog‘liq (masalan, rahbar –
fuqaro, sotuvchi-mijoz, ishlab chiqaruvchi-
iste’molchi) boshqa sohalarga o‘xshaydi.
Binobarin, mazkur sohalarda ham xizmat ko
‘
rsatuvchining o
‘
z mijozlariga barcha
pozitsiyalarda xushmuomalalik bilan munosabatda bo
‘
lishi, hurmat ko
‘
rsatib
rag
‘
batlantirishi muloqotning samarali yakun topishini kafolatlaydi.
Tibbiy diskurs qayd etilgan sohalar bilan muayyan o
‘
xshashlikka ega bo
‘
lsa-da,
shifokor
“
instrumental va terapevtik
”
kabi ikki kommunikativ maqsadini ko
‘
zlashi bilan
ulardan farqlanadi. Bulardan birinchisida shifokor o
‘
zning professional mahoratiga
tayangan holda, muloqot vaziyati va shartlarini belgilashga erishishni nazarda tutsa,
ikkinchisida bemorga psixoemotsional ta
’
sir o
‘
tkazish asosida, uning ruhiy holatini
barqarorlashtirish hamda do
‘
stona muloqot muhiti uchun zamin hozirlash hamda
salomatligiga ijobiy ta
’
sir ko
‘
rsatishni nazarda tutadi [V.V. Jura. 2008: 12].
Tibbiy muloqot tub asosiga ko
‘
ra institutsional (muayyan bir ijtimoiy institut
muloqoti asosida shakllangan) diskurslar tizimiga mansub bo
‘
lsa ham, uning bemorlar
bilan muloqotga asoslanuvchi og
‘
zaki janrlari o
‘
zining universalligi, ko
‘
pchilik vaziyatlari
prototip (o
‘
zaro o
‘
xshash) xarakterli ekani bilan ajralib turadi. L.S. Beylinson tibbiy
nutqni professional muloqotning o
‘
ziga xos turi sifatida e
’
tirof etgani holda, uning har bir
vaziyatini alohida diskursiv tuzilma sifatida ajratib o
‘
rganishni tavsiya qilishining boisi
ham shundandir [L.S. Beylinson. 2009: 16].
Demak, tibbiy muloqotning sotsiopragmatik tahlilida diskursiv pozitsiya hurmat va
xushmuomalalikning vujudga kelishida muhim bo
‘
lgan kommunikativ kompetensiyalar
hamda shaxslararo munosabatlar paradigmalarini belgilash imkonini yaratsa, diskursiv
vaziyatlar xushmuomalalik kategoriyasini shifokor-bemor muloqotining diskursiv
vaziyatlarda qo
‘
llanishi va ularning vaziyatlar bilan birga shakllanishiga e
’
tibor qaratish
imkonini yaratadi.
Shularga ko
‘
ra, shifokor
–
bemor muloqotini
“
hayot bilan bog
‘
langan yoki hayotga
sho
‘
ng
‘
igan
”
yaxlit diskurs sifatida emas [LES, 1990: 136-137], balki muloqotning
sotsiomadaniy va lingvopragmatik faktorlarga asoslanuvchi diskursiv pozitsiya va
vaziyatlardan tashkil topadigan yaxlitlik sifatida o
‘
rganishga to
‘
g
‘
ri keladi. Tibbiy
muloqotga xos bunday qism-butun munosabatlari esa tub mohiyatiga ko
‘
ra, olam lisoniy
manzarasining konsetosfera, freym, ssenariy (skript), geshtalt, konsept singari ichki
tuzilmalar asosida tasavvurda gavdalantirilishiga muvofiq keladi.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
5 № 2
(2024) / ISSN 2181-1415
40
L.S. Beylinson tavsiya qilingan tibbiy diskursning
: “
maqsad, ishtirokchilar,
xronotop, terapiya, strategik turlar, janrlar bilan bog
‘
liq
”
vaziyatlari tibbiy muloqotga
kengroq ko
‘
lamda yondashishga asoslangani bilan xarakterlanadi. Shu bois, shifokor va
bemor muloqotining konsultativ maslahat diskursiga xos diskursiv vaziyatlarni
“
Kalgari-
Kembridj modeli
”
ga qiyosan tahlil qilishni lozim topdik [Dj. Sil'verman, S. Kyors,
Dj. Dreyper. 2018: 29-41].
“International Association for Communication in Healthcare / Soliqni saqlash
xalqaro aloqa assosiatsiyasi”ning [http://www.each.eu] tavsiyalari tarkibidan o‘rin olgan
ushbu modelning birinchi qismi “Shifokor qabulining boshlanishi” deb nomlanadi. Uning
dastlabki qismi, “Birlamchi munosabat o‘rnatish” bilan bog‘liq bo‘lib, unda shifokorning
bemor bilan salomlashishi, tanishishi, bemorga qisqacha intervyu bergan holda, o‘zi
haqida ma’lumot berishi, unga hurmat va xushmuomalalik bilan munosabat bo‘lishini
ma’lum qilishi nazarda tutiladi. Ushbu diskursiv vaziyatda xushmuomalalikning asosiy
vositalari sifatida quyidagilarni qayd etish mumkin:
1)
xushmuomalalikning “sizlash va senlash” formalari. Shifokor
-bemor muloqoti
aksariyat hollarda notanishlik vaziyatida sodir bo‘lgani bois, har ikkala tilda ushbu
formalardan “sizlash” ko‘proq qo‘llaniladi. Xususan, ingliz tilida “sizlash”ning alohida
formal ko‘rsatkichlari mavjud bo‘lmagani bois, ushbu shakl ikkinchi shaxs birlik va
ko‘plik uchun qo‘llaniladigan “you” olmoshini hurmat belgisi sifatida qo‘llash asosida
ifodalanadi:
Pass me that cannula would you, nurse? (Hamshira, menga ignani uzatib
yubora olasizmi?) Hang on a minute, please. (Bir daqiqa, marhamat). Would you give me a
hand, please? (Iltimos, menga yordam bera olasizmi?).
O‘zbek madaniyatida suhbatdoshga “
sizlab
”
murojaat qilish hurmat ko‘rsatishning
ommaviy turi bo‘lib, quyidagicha ifodalanadi:
1)
“Siz” olmoshi vositasida: Siz ertaga
qabulimga keling; 2) egalikning 2-
shaxs ko‘plik qo‘shimchasi vositasida: Bugun
qabulingizga kelaymi?3) shaxs-son formasining 2-
shaxs ko‘plik qo‘shimchasi vositasida:
Ha, soat 11 da keling; 4) hurmat ma’nosidagi –
lar qo‘shimchasi vositasida:
Bu bosh
shifokorimizning sumkalari.
Xushmuomalalikning ushbu shakllari: 1) tanish bo‘lmagan
har qanday shaxs bilan muloqotida, 2) jinsidan qati nazar, kichik yoshdagilarning o‘zidan
kattalarga murojaatida, 3) xotin-qizlarning tanish va notanish, kichik va katta yoshdagi
yigitlar va erkaklarga murojaatida, 4) o‘rta va katta avlod, ziyolilarning o‘zaro
muloqotida, 3) yoshi va mansabidan qati nazar rasmiy munosabatlarda qo‘llaniladi;
2)
salomlashish vositalari. Ingliz lingvomadaniyati, o‘zbek tilidan farqli ravishda,
salomlashishning turli sotsiomadaniy shakllarga egaligi bilan xarakterlanadi. Xususan,
shaxslararo ijtimoiy tenglik vaziyatida:
“Hello, Nice to meet you, How are you”
shakllari,
teng bo‘lmagan, ya’ni alohida ehtirom ko‘rsatish zarur bo‘lgan vaziyatlarda esa:
“Good morning, Good evening, Good afternoon
kabi shakllari “salom
-
alik” ma’nolarida
qo‘llaniladi.
O‘zbek muloqot madaniyatida esa
har qanday vaziyatda:
“Assalomu alaykum!”
(Sizga tinchlik-omonlik tilayman),
“Vaalaykum assalom!” (
sizga ham tinchlik-omonlik
tilayman) iboralari xushmuomalalikning eng ommaviy vositalari
sifatida qo‘llanadi.
Yoshlar va tengdoshlar o‘rtasida, ba’zan uning
“Salom, Assalom”
shakllarini qo‘llash
hollari ham kuzatiladi. Shuningdek, keyingi yillarda salomlashish bilan birga
“Xayrli tong,
erta, kun, kech, tun”, “Kuningiz / tuningiz xayrli o‘tsin”
singari istak iboralarini qo‘llash
ham odat tusiga aylanib bormoqda. Har ikkala tilga xos salomlashish madaniyatini
quyidagi suhbatda kuzatish mumkin:
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
5 № 2
(2024) / ISSN 2181-1415
41
D:
Hello! Come in. What brings you here today?
Sh:
Assalomu alaykum! Keling onaxon,
marhamat!
P:
Well, I’ve got a problem with my eye. It’s
been itchy and swollen since last night.
B: Vaalaykum salom, shifokor qizim! Baraka
toping qizim, ko‘zimni tekshirib qo‘ying,
kechadan beri ko‘zim qichib va
shishib ketdi!
Keltirilganlardan ko‘rinadiki, ingliz tilida shifokor qisqa salomlashish va taklifdan
so‘ng, bemorning tashrif sababi bilan qiziqqan bo‘lsa, uning o‘zbekcha variantida kichik
yoshdagi shifokorning salomiga, alik olish va hurmat yuzasidan salom bilan murojaat
qilgani holda, unga hurmati uchun minnatdorchilik bildirish amallariga ham rioya
qilingan. Bunday farq o‘zbek lingvomadaniyatida salomlashish bilan birga amalga
oshiriladigan so‘rashish, ehtiromiga javoban aytiladigan olqashlar iboralarining qo‘llash
udumi tufayli yuz beradi;
3)
so‘rashish va olq
i
shlash vaziyatlari. O‘zbek madaniyatida salomlashish bilan birga
“Sog‘liqlaringiz yaxshimi”, “Yaxshi yuribsizmi”, “Bola
-chaqalar / uy ichi / oiladagilar (ismlar)
yaxshi yurishibdimi”
singari ritorik so‘roq iboralardan iborat so‘rashish, kattalarning yoshlar
ehtiromiga javoban:
“umringizdan baraka toping, otangizga rahmat, kasbingizning barakasini
bersin, bolalaringizni huzurini ko‘ring, boringizga shukur”
singari olqishlash udumi ham
kuzatiladi. Shaxslararo hurmat munosabatini ta’minlaydigan ushbu vositalar ingliz tilida har
qanday vaziyatda qo‘llanishi mumkin bo‘lgan:
“How are you!, How do you do?” / “And how are
you?, And you?”
singari ritorik ifodalar orqali ko‘zga tashlanadi;
4) murojaat birliklari. Ingliz tilida ushbu vositalar suhbatdoshlarning tanish va
notanishligi jihatidan farqlanadi. Xususan, yoshi va ijtimoiy mavqeidan qat'iy nazar
notanish bo‘lgan erkaklarning ayollarga murojaatida
“miss, misses”,
ayollarning
erkaklarga murojaatida esa
“sir, mister”
ehtirom birliklari qo‘llanadi. Tanish bo‘lgan
holatda esa “old chap, old man, my friend” singari umumiy vositalar hamda murojaat
qilinayotgan kishining
(Doctor, professor, assistant, surgeon, therapist, a nurse)
ism-
shariflari, mansabi, vazifa nomlari shunday vosita vazifasini o‘taydi.
Ushbu vositalar ko‘proq tibbiy muloqotning hamkasblar bilan bo‘ladigan
suhbatlarida kuzatiladi:
Mr Lewis is a very handsome man / Mister L'yuis juda chiroyli
erkak. Mrs Lane is cooking a Christmas dinner / Missis Leyn rojdestvoning kechki ovqati
tayyor.
Shifokor-bemor muloqotida esa ular suhbatdoshlarning tanish va notanishligiga
qarab qo‘llanadi. Shuningdek, ular har ikkala tilda ruxsat so‘rash va berish kabi
mazmunlarini ham ifodalashi mumkin:
P:
Good morning,
Mr. Smith!?
B: Xayrli kun, mister Smit!?
D:
Good morning! Come on please.
Sh: Xayrli kun! Keling marhamat
P:
Good morning,
Doctor!?
B: Xayrli kun, shifokor!?
D
: Yes, please come in.
Sh: Marhamat, keling.
O‘zbek lingvomadaniyatida esa, suhbatdoshlarning yoshi va jinsiga ko‘ra,
bemorlarning
duxtur / duxtir + jon, opa, xola, singilim, qizim, aka, tog‘a, amaki
singarilar
vositasida murojaat qilishi, shifokorlarning esa, ushbu qarindoshlikni ifodalovchi so‘zlar
hamda do‘stim, oshna, og‘ayni, qadrdon singarilar vositasida bemorlarga murojaat qilishi
kuzatiladi. Har ikkala tilda tibbiy murojaatning eng ommaviy va universal vositasi
“Doctor / duxtur” so‘zi bo‘lsa, shifokorlarning bemorlarga murojaatida dastlab, “siz”
olmoshi, tanishgandan keyin esa ism-sharifi bilan murojaat qilish hollari keng tarqalgan.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
5 № 2
(2024) / ISSN 2181-1415
42
Shifokor qabulining ikkinchi diskursiv vaziyati “Tashrif sababini aniqlash” bilan
bog‘liq bo‘lib, unda shifokor bemorning shaxsini aniqlaydi va savollar berib, uning
xastaligi sababi va oqibati haqidagi fikrlari tinglanadi, uning fikrini ma’qullash,
hamdardligini bildirish va rag‘batlantirish, kasallik boshlangan va rivojlangan vaqtiga
aniqlik kiritish kabilarga e’tibor beradi. Ushbu vaziyatda xushmuomalalikning qayd
etilgan vositalari bilan birga:
“Thank you, Thank you very much, Thank you ever so much /
Rahmat, Katta rahmat, Baraka toping; Arzimaydi, Hechqisi yo‘q, Marhamat”
kabi
minnatdorchilik hamda vaziyatga qarab:
“Excuse me..., I am sorry..., Sorry..., Forgive me...,
I apologize for..., I beg your pardon... / Kechirasiz..., Uzur..., Aybga buyurmaysiz...,
Hijolatdaman...”
singari uzur ifodalarining qo‘llanishi kuzatiladi:
P:
Thank you. My name is Doug Anders.
B:Rahmat,
men
Soraxon
Buvaxonovaman, Oqdaryodan keldim.
D: What have you come in for today Mr. Anders?
Sh: Xo‘sh onaxon, nima bezovta qilaypti
sizni?
P:
I’ve been having some pain in my legs, hands,
joints, especially in my the knees.
B: Meni oyoq, qo‘llarim, bo‘g‘imlarim
ayniqsa,
tizzalarimdagi
og‘riq
azob
beryapti.
D: How long have you been having the pain?
Sh: Qancha vaqtdan buyon
og‘riyapti?
P:
I’d say it started three or four months ago. It’s
been getting worse recently.
B: Taxminan uch yoki to‘rt oylar bo‘ldi,
keyingi kunlarda juda kuchaydi.
D: Are you having any other problems like
weakness, fatigue or headaches?
Sh: Sizda yana boshqa shikoyatlar bormi,
holsizlik, tez charchash yoki bosh og‘rig‘i?
P
: Sometimes I have.
B: Ba’zi paytlarda bo‘lib turadi
.
D: Right. How much physical activity do you get?
Do you play any sports?
D:
Xo‘sh,
Jismoniy
harakatlarga
qo‘lsolishib turasizmi? bajarasizmi? Biror
sport turi bilan shug‘ullanasizmi?
P:
Some. I like to play tennis about once a week. I
take my dog on a walk every morning.
B: Ba’zi biri bilan. Bir haftada bir marta
tennis o‘ynab turaman. Har kuni ertalab
kuchugimni sayrga olib chiqaman.
Professor Z. Ibodullaev tashxis qo‘yish vaziyatida faqat bemorning shikoyatlariga
suyanib ish ko‘rish xatoga yo‘l qo‘yishga olib kelishi mumkinligidan ogohlantirib:
“Shifokor, men o‘rnimdan turganimda boshim aylanib ketadi, gandiraklab o‘tirib
qolaman, keyin quloqlarim shang‘illab boshlaydi, ko‘nglim behuzur bo‘ladi”,
–
degan
shikoyatni eshitgan nevropatolog xayoliga “o‘tkir vertebrobazilyar sindrom”, terapevt
xayoliga “surunkali anemiyaning bir alomati”, LOR xayoliga “men'er sindromi” kabi
tashxislar keladi. Shu bois, haqiqiy shifokor bemorning shikoyatlariga bog‘lanib
qolmaydi, balki ularga tanqidiy ko‘z bilan qaraydi”, deb yozadi [Z.
Ibodullaev https://
asab.uz/ jenciklopediya/458-bemorning-shikojatlarini-rganish. html].
Shifokor-bemor konsultativ muloqotiga xos ushbu kompozitsion tuzilish uning
ichki tarkibida ham kuzatiladi. Yuqorida qayd etilganidek, har bir diskursiv vaziyat
ishtirokchilarning o‘ziga xos pragmatik maqsadiga xizmat qilishi bilan xarakterlanadi.
Xususan, shifokor pozitsiyasida bemor bilan iliq munosabat o‘rnatgan holda, xastalikning
kechish muddati va sabablari haqida aniq ma’lumot olish va ularni tibbiy vosita, usullar
yordamida qiyosiy tahlil qilib, yuqori aniqlikda tashxis qo‘yish hamda samarali
davolashga erishish asosiy pragmatik maqsad hisoblanadi.
Ayni pragmatik maqsadga erishish uchun esa shifokor bemor bilan dialogik
muloqotga kirishadi va muloqot vaziyatlariga qarab o‘ziga xos diskursiv taktikalar
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
5 № 2
(2024) / ISSN 2181-1415
43
qo‘llaydi. Xususan, birlamchi munosabat o‘rnatish vaziyatida shifokor bemorning
holatiga (ya’ni kasallikning og‘ir va yengilligi) va vaqt talabiga qarab, salomlashish,
murojaat, ruxsat iboralarini birlashtirish asosida munosabatga kirishi ana shunday taktik
yondashuvlardan biridir.
FOYDALANILGAN ADABIYOTLAR RO‘YXATI:
1.
Hein N., Wodak R. Medical interviews in internal medicine. Some results of an
empirical investigation. Text: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 7,
1987.
–
P 37
–
66.
2.
Holmes J., Stubbe M., Vine B. Constructing professional identity: ‘Doing power’ in
policy units // Talk, Work and Institutional Order. Discourse in Medical, Mediation and
Management Settings. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1999.
–
P 351
–
386.
3.
Heritage J, Maynard D. Problems and prospects in the study of physician
–
patient
interaction: 30 years of research. Annual Review of Sociology, 32: 2006.
–
P 351-374.
4.
Kline F., F. Acosta. The misunderstood Spanish-speaking patient. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 137 (2), 1980.
–
P 1530
–
1533.
5.
Lacoste, M. The old woman and the doctor: A contribution to the analysis of
unequal linguistic exchange. Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 1981.
–
P 169
–
180.
6.
Lassen L. C. Connections between the quality of consultations and patient
compliance in general practice, Fam. Pract., 8(2), 1991.
–
P 154
–
60.
7.
Maynard D. W. On clinicians co-
implicating recipients’ perspective in the
delivery of diagnostic news // Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992.
–
P 331
–
358.
8.
McCann S., Weinman J. Encouraging patient participation in general practice
consultations: Effects on consultation length and content, patient satisfaction and health.
Psychology and Health, 11 (6), 1996.
–
P 857
–
869.
9.
McKenzie P. Communication barriers and information-seeking counterstrategies
in accounts of practitioner
–
patient encounters. Library and Information Science
Research, 24, 2002.
–
P 31
–
47.
10.
McWhinney I. The need for a transformed clinical method // Communicating
with Medical Patients. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. 1989.
–
P 58-77.
11.
Mulholland J. Multiple directives in the doctor
–
patient consultation. Australian
Journal of Communication, 21 (2), 1994.
–
P 74
–
85.
12.
Ness D, Kiesling S. Language and connectedness in the medical and psychiatric
interview. Patient Education and Counseling; 68 (2): 2007.
–
P 139-144.
13.
Ong L.M. L., Dehaes J., Hoos A.M., Lammes F.B. Doctor
–
patient communication
–
a review of the literature. Social Science & Medicine;40(7): 1995.
–
P 903-918.
14.
Pawlikowska T. Consultation models // Learning to consult. Oxford: Radcliffe,
2007.
–Р
178
–
215.
15.
Pendleton D.A., Bochner S. The communication of medical information in
general practice consultations as a function of patients’ social class”.
Social Science and
Medicine, 14A, 1980.
–
P 669
–
673.
16.
Pomerantz A. Pursuing a response // Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional
Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992.
–
P 152
–
163.
17.
Pollard C. The fiction of Mitterrant and cultural policy: Politics and its
discontaints. 1994.
–Р
21-37.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Issue
–
5 № 2
(2024) / ISSN 2181-1415
44
18.
Roter D. The enduring and evolving nature of the patient
–
physician
relationship. Patient Education and Counseling, 39, 2000.
–
P 5
–
15.
19.
Royster L. Doctor
–
Patient Communication: An Exploration of Language Use
During the Informed Consent. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania. 1999.
–
P 11
–
16.
20.
Seijo R., H. Gomez, Freidenberg J. Language as a communication barrier in
medical care for Hispanic patients. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13, 1991.
–
P 363
–
376.
