Merkitysten muodostuminen ja muuttuminen perheterapeuttisessa keskustelussa : diskurssianalyyttinen tutkimus

Abstract

The main focus of interest in this study was on how meanings given to life experiences and the activities of family members evolve and change during therapeutic conversation. How do the different realities constructed by family members, and by members of the therapeutic team, interact with and modify each other? What characteristics of the therapeutic conversation make possible semantic changes related to the beliefs, attributions, and definitions of family members? In order to answer these questions a study consisting of 39 videotaped sessions involving one therapeutic team and 18 cases was undertaken. Using concepts borrowed from discourse analysis, contextualism, and social constructionism, a theoretical model of semantic change within the therapeutic conversation was constructed. This model was applied in a detailed analysis of six of the 18 cases. The videotaped sessions were transcribed into computer textfiles and were qualitatively analyzed. The object of the analysis was to reconstruct the semantic structures that had emerged within the therapeutic conversations and to follow the evolution and change of these structures. This reconstruction was guided by the conceptual model developed in this study. When describing problem-related actions, family members constructed semantic structures which were not predominantly dependent on a cognitive appraisal of the situation but rather reflected their rhetorical aspirations. These had to do with how each interlocutor saw him/herself positioned in relation to the problem and the system of interactions surrounding it. The object of the therapeutic team was to deal with the semantic anomalies which resulted from the fact that different family members applied conflicting discourses when speaking about the problems of family life. A semantic anomaly could be resolved only when a change in the semantic structures embedded in the conversation was achieved. The analysis of the material showed that this change in meanings could be approached from any of the three levels of the model: 1) The level of the sign and/ or the text, 2) the level of the context, and 3) the level of the discourse.