Argumentative discourse in clinical dialogues: An interdisciplinary perspective.

Objective: Building on existing literature, which has pointed out the acceptability of certain persuasive strategies used by specialists in clinical communication, the article aims to describe the forms and functions of argumentative discourse in clinical dialogues.

Methods: The article relies on classical definitions of argumentative discourse that describe argumentation as the communication process characterized by a standpoint and at least an expression of doubt, often also by the presence of arguments in favor or against the standpoint.

Results: Through examples from real-life cases, it is shown that besides the typical function of persuasion, argumentation in clinical dialogues may have also the function of finding agreement for the alignment of assessments and for deliberation.

Discussion: This implies that when analyzing argumentative discourse, wider stretches of dialogue should be taken into consideration, not limiting observations to single turns or adjacency pairs.

Conclusion: The article highlights the importance of correctly understanding the role argumentation can play in the medical context and offers some suggestions for the analysis of argumentative discourse in clinical dialogues, in view of study design and professionals' training.

Practice Implications: The article offers insights for the development of training materials in view of improving HCPs' abilities to put forward reasons for clinical decisions.