To date, research examining adherence to genetic counseling principles has focused on specific counseling activities such as the giving or withholding of information and responding to client requests for advice. We audiotaped 43 prenatal genetic counseling sessions and used data-driven, qualitative, sociolinguistic methodologies to investigate how language choices facilitate or hinder the counseling process. Transcripts of each session were prepared for sociolinguistic analysis of the emergent discourse that included studying conversational style, speaker-listener symmetry, directness, and other interactional patterns. Analysis of our data demonstrates that: 1) indirect speech, marked by the use of hints, hedges, and other politeness strategies, facilitates rapport and mitigates the tension between a client-centered relationship and a counselor-driven agenda; 2) direct speech, or speaking literally, is an effective strategy for providing information and education; and 3) confusion exists between the use of indirect speech and the intent to provide nondirective counseling, especially when facilitating client decision-making. Indirect responses to client questions, such as those that include the phrases "some people" or "most people," helped to maintain counselor neutrality; however, this well-intended indirectness, used to preserve client autonomy, may have obstructed direct explorations of client needs. We argue that the genetic counseling process requires increased flexibility in the use of direct and indirect speech and provide new insights into how "talk" affects the work of genetic counselors.

No abstract

Prenatal genetic counseling involves an exchange of information between counselors and clients, including verbal descriptions of the potential pain of invasive prenatal diagnosis procedures such as amniocentesis. This paper describes the use of one linguistic feature in one context. It considers how two counselors describe procedural pain in 17 prenatal genetic counseling sessions, audiotaped as part of a larger data-driven study using sociolinguistic methodologies to characterize the discourse of genetic counseling. Analysis reveals that "constructed dialogue," or reporting something another person said, is a strategy used frequently by the counselors for describing procedural pain. Examination of the content and form of the constructed dialogue uncovered three recurring patterns that relate to its functions in the sessions: (1) inclusion of colloquial vocabulary; (2) references to common experiences through similes; and (3) explicit downplaying of pain. This analysis suggests that the naturally occurring phenomenon of quoting the words of others can be used in genetic counseling to impart information while simultaneously reassuring the client and creating counselor-client rapport. The complex relationship between the use of constructed dialogue and the enactment of genetic counseling principles through talk is also discussed.