http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2016/mar/09/im-going-to-get-cancer-and-theres-nothing-i-can-do-about-it


This article displays the need for change in lexical choice when referring to Cancer in everyday context. The argument is that through lexical choice, of declaratives for example; "everything gives you cancer these days!', this lexis indicates imminent development through anything, which is obviously a misconception that is potentially socially constructed. Therefore the alternative of knowing there are specific precautions one can take in order to prevent the illness developing, is a lot clearer and correct phrase to prevent it seem as if everything does give you cancer - which it doesn't. Another argument in which this article proposes is the lexical choice of 'gives you' [cancer], this article argues that the semantics of this phrase needs to shift as nothing literally gives you cancer, in the sense that it for example hands you it. There's things that theoretically could potentially trigger a pre-existing condition, therefore it is wrong to say ' everything gives you cancer these days'.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2016/mar/09/im-going-to-get-cancer-and-theres-nothing-i-can-do-about-it

Language and occupation- doctors

 

This is a letter from one doctor to another written in 2003. Due to the format of this text, it is expected that there is Latinate and formal lexis, this may differ from a conversation between two doctors. This implies that the job of a doctor is to be professional and educated in all parts of their occupation and that the receiver of the letter is expecting a professional and formal standard. An example of the Latinate lexis are examples such as ‘deficiencies’, ‘initially’, ‘unambiguous’, ‘jeopardy’ and ‘institution’.

Within this letter, there is no occupational specific lexis, although there is semantic field, there are no form of words that are exclusive to being a doctor (jargon).  As this is a letter, the primary purpose may be different to one of a conversation between two doctors; this is more likely to include jargon. However it shows that the doctors role within a medical association is not limited to its primary function; there is also necessary interactions as written reports and letters; in which show differing factors of discourse between different job roles.

The letter is closed with ‘thank you for your attention’, which is less assertive and more focused on politeness and appreciation; this shows that within this occupational community, the writer of the letter is not the one with the power, and therefore in this occupation there is a system of hierarchy in which power can be negotiated.

 

Doctor’s slang

Within the occupational discourse, I found that exclusive to the doctors’ occupational community, there is such thing as ‘doctor’s slang’ in which is a folk linguistic allegedly created by doctors in order to secretly insult each other or their patients. For example NFN (Normal for Norfolk), FLK (Funny looking kid) or GROLIES (Guardian Reader of Low Intelligence in Ethnic Skirt).

Dr Fox recounts the tale of one doctor who had scribbled TTFO - an expletive expression translated as "Told to fuck off" - on a patient's notes.

Other examples of the slang are "Whopper with Cheese", "Handbag positive" or "Coffin dodger" could be lost forever.

(Source: BBC news)

 

Occupational lexis

HARRY

What do we have Kelsey?

KELSEY

GI obstruction...

HARRY

What do you need me to do?

KELSEY

(beat) Nothing really, he’s been referred and we’re getting ready to move him to theatre.

 

This is a section of a transcript from the hospital based programme. In this example they display the wide use of occupational specific lexis; as if it’s their own way of communicating.