Chapter Two
48
as implicit volitional Agent (who is supposed to take the drug except in the
mentioned circumstances) is only secondary.
Conclusions
In this chapter we have examined a number of properties of specialized
and popularized medico-pharmaceutical language, with special application
to the discourse of SmPCs and PILs. Even though the legibility and
functionality of both text types have been investigated by numerous
studies, there are still significant gaps in our knowledge of the respective
nature of knowledge in these documents, the kind of interrelationships
between their conceptual and surface structures, and the linguistic
implications resulting from the adaptation of specialized medico-
pharmaceutical knowledge structures to Common Ground knowledge.
This requires more than a purely descriptive investigation of the surface
structures, which offers insights into the linguistic properties of the
respective discourse, but which does not specify at the same time how the
linguistic structures reflect the implicit relationship with the respective
conceptualizations. This is a shortcoming as there is evidence that
particular grammatical patterns (such as the use of the passive vs. active
and nominal vs. verbal style) can only be adequately explained in relation
to the underlying conceptual structures. We therefore proposed a
cognitively inspired approach, which starts from the basic principle in
Cognitive Linguistics that meaning is a cognitive matter. Inspired by Fage-
Butler’s study (2013b) on perspective in PILs we investigated specific
facets of meaning conveyed by the respective documents using notions
such as context, cognitive model, frame, perspective, and construal.
The proposed approach allows, first of all, to capture specific aspects
of conceptualizations involving also the subjects of conceptualization (i.e.
medical doctor, pharmacist vs. patient). We have identified two cognitive
models associated with the specialized topics addressed in the expert vs.
patient version. These cognitive models have been described by
investigating in greater detail the specific features of specialized vs.
everyday knowledge, which made evident that there are substantial
differences. The differences have been further explained by introducing
the notion of intralingual translation, which allows for characterizing PILs
as ‘rewording’ or ‘reframing’ of expert knowledge in a patient-oriented
format. In the following step we explored how the deviant cognitive
models and perspectives result into alternate construals. We identified
different kinds of construals such as Figure/Ground distinction, action
chains, tense marking and deictic elements, which occur in both