SPEECH MODELS OF PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION: RUSSIAN-LANGUAGE AND ENGLISH-LANGUAGE CONTEXT

Kuznetsova T.N.

Institute of the Higher School of Public Administration of the Presidential Academy
119 571, Vernadsky Avenue, 82, building 4.
Moscow, Russia
Email: tktrener@mail.ru

Introduction

Professional communication is defined as the interaction between a representative of an organization – a specialist performing professional functions – and a client or user of services, while the nature of their relationship is determined by the scope of the organization’s activities [5].

This study examines the speech patterns used by staff in private clinics and public healthcare institutions in both Russian- and English-speaking professional settings. This analysis is relevant because patients and their families, when experiencing physical discomfort, anxiety, and uncertainty, are highly sensitive to the communicative behavior of healthcare personnel. In such circumstances, the speech patterns of call center administrators or receptionists can significantly influence a patient's emotional state: the chosen communication model can either increase stress or, conversely, reduce it and foster trusting relationships between the participants.

The study draws on key tenets of the theory of speech activity developed by A.A. Leontiev. According to this concept, speech activity is viewed as a multi-level system in which the formation of an utterance occurs at the intersection of motivational factors, communicative goals, and available linguistic resources. The program of a speech act is initially formed in a pre-linguistic code and only then receives linguistic expression: "the program of a speech act usually exists in a non-linguistic, or rather, not strictly linguistic (only one that has developed on a linguistic basis) code" [1, p. 27]. This approach allows us to consider speech behavior as the result of a complex interaction of cognitive, socio-cultural, and communicative factors.

Developing the provisions of the theory of speech activity, E.F. Tarasov emphasizes that the variability of speech behavior is determined not so much by the objective characteristics of the communicative situation, but by its cognitive interpretation by the participant in the communication. Between the real situation of interaction and the speech utterance, there is a mechanism of interpretation, within the framework of which a person models what is happening, correlating it with his own experience and system of ideas. In this regard, "speech (the choice of alternative speech options, the variability of speech) depends not on the situation itself, but on the model of this situation, which is formed in the communicant" [3, p. 17]. "The community of consciousness of communicants is never complete, since consciousness, being a product of the active appropriation of ethnic culture, is unique both in content and in scope, reflecting the individual life path of each subject of consciousness" [4, p. 15]. Consequently, the speech behavior of communicants is formed on the basis of individual experience of interpreting the communicative situation.

I.A. Sternin offers a significant addition to this concept, examining speech behavior within the context of a society's communicative culture. The model of a communicative situation is formed not spontaneously, but within the framework of stable cultural and social norms of communication. Communicative behavior is understood as "the totality of norms and traditions of communication among people, social, age, gender, professional, and other groups, as well as individuals" [2, p. 3]. Thus, communicative practices are entrenched within a specific cultural environment and are reproduced in the professional activities of the participants in the communication.

In the professional sphere, these norms are realized through stable speech patterns and communicative interaction strategies. Professional and social experience imbues communicators with a specific repertoire of speech strategies, communicative stereotypes, and interaction models, from which the most relevant option is selected in a specific communication situation. Consequently, organizational employees interpret communicative situations through the prism of professional norms, organizational goals, and cultural expectations. Accordingly, analyzing the speech patterns of administrative staff allows us to identify the specific features of service interactions with patients and determine the communicative strategies used in various professional and cultural contexts.

In international studies, professional interaction is considered a type of institutional discourse [6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 13]. In the medical field, communication strategies have a direct impact on the effectiveness of interactions between patients and staff [12; 15]. It is at the stage of initial contact with reception or contact center staff that the patient's first impression of the medical organization is formed, which directly influences the perception of the quality of services provided and the subsequent behavior.

International communication standards emphasize that clear, accessible information and a respectful attitude toward patients are key to ensuring quality service and patient safety [16; 17; 18; 19]. In this context, a comparative analysis of Russian-language and English-language practices allows us to identify both universal and culturally specific features of professional communication, which has practical implications for the development of effective speech models in the medical field.

Materials and methods of research

The study used methods of discourse and comparative analysis aimed at identifying the characteristics of speech strategies for communication with patients in medical organizations.

The empirical basis of the study consisted of Russian-language statements and phrases collected through observation of reception staff in real-life settings, analysis of call recordings and chat messages, and review of official documents outlining standards for communication with patients and their families. Data collection was conducted in compliance with ethical standards and without the use of patients' personal data, allowing for the recording of recurring elements of professional communication.

The English-language corpus was compiled using open online sources, including official websites of healthcare organizations (e.g., NHS, MayoClinic), training materials for administrative staff, and publicly available descriptions of patient interaction scenarios. This approach allowed us to capture current English-language professional communication standards and compare them with similar practices in Russian-language healthcare institutions.

Comparative analysis of speech patterns in Russian-language and English-language contexts

An analysis of speech patterns of professional communication among receptionists and contact center staff at medical institutions reveals certain differences in Russian-language and English-language communication practices with patients:

Initiating a dialogue in Russian-language practice often begins after the greeting with a specific question or proposed solution aimed at quickly clarifying the patient's request. Typical examples include:«What kind of specialist do you need?» or "«Would it be convenient for you to come tomorrow morning?»

This strategy allows for the rapid structuring of information and optimization of administrative processes, but it limits the patient's freedom to formulate a request.

In English-language practice, the initiating formula of communication is more often open, dialogical, for example: «How can I help you today?» (translated from English: "How can I help you today?"). This creates a more neutral communication framework, giving patients the opportunity to independently formulate their requests and participate in planning the interaction. This approach fosters trust, reduces patient stress, and increases satisfaction with the services provided.

Let's pay attention to an important nuance, which illustrates that directly borrowing wording from another culture can be ineffective. The word today (translated from English: "today") in the statement How can I help you today? (translated from English as "How can I help you today?") emphasizes the present moment and interest in helping right now, creating a more neutral frame and engaging the patient in planning the interaction. In a direct Russian translation, such a formula would sound unusual and could be perceived as formal or even slightly rude, as the emphasis on "today" in Russian does not convey the same sense of empathy.

2. Length of utterances. In Russian-speaking practice, responses from receptionists and contact center staff are typically short and functional, aimed at quickly completing administrative tasks. For example: What kind of specialist do you need? // Would it be convenient for you to come tomorrow morning? // Your appointment time is 12:30.

In English-language practice, patient interactions are often more detailed, including explanations of procedures and elements of patient engagement in dialogue: I see you'd like to book an appointment. Can you tell me which specialist you'd like to see, and what day works best for you? ("I see that you'd like to make an appointment. Could you please tell me which specialist you'd like to see and what day would be best for you?" //Thank you for calling. Could you tell me a bit about what you need so I can direct you to the right specialist? ((Translated from English: "Thank you for calling. Could you tell me a little about your needs so I can refer you to the right specialist?"). The expanded format increases patient engagement but also increases the duration of the interaction, requiring staff to balance service quality with efficiency.

3. Focus of employee questions: in the Russian-language model, questions are more often focused on the implementation of administrative procedures: What kind of specialist do you need? // What procedure would you like to schedule? These questions are aimed at quickly identifying the required resource and optimizing the recording process.

In English-language practice, the focus shifts to the patient's needs: What kind of appointment would you like to schedule? ((translated from English: "Which appointment would you like to make?") // Could you tell me a bit about the reason for your visit so I can direct you to the appropriate specialist? ((Translated from English: "Could you please tell me a little about the reason for your visit so I can refer you to the appropriate specialist?"). Such wording creates space for dialogue and allows the patient to participate more actively in planning the visit. However, the extended format increases the duration of the interaction, which can slow down the administrative process and requires staff to balance individual patient support with service efficiency.

4. Noticeable differences are also observed in the implementation of politeness formulas. In Russian-language administrative communication, politeness is expressed primarily through lexical markers, such as: please // be kind // thank you. For example: Could you please tell me what date you would like to sign up for? // Please state your last name to make an appointment. Such formulas serve as clear indicators of polite address and are added to functionally oriented remarks without changing their grammatical structure.

In English-language communication, politeness is often expressed through grammatical means, primarily through conditional and modal constructions that soften the directness of a statement. For example: Could you please tell me your date of birth? (Translation from English: "Could you please tell me your date of birth?")// Would you mind confirming your phone number? (translated from English: "Could you please confirm your phone number?") // May I ask what kind of appointment you would like to schedule? ((translated from English: "May I clarify which appointment you would like to make?"). In such cases, politeness is achieved not only by the lexeme "«please» (translated from English: "please"), but also through the use of modal verbs «"could"» (translated from English: "could"), «would» (translated from English: "would; couldn't") and «May» (translated from English: «can I»), which make the statement less categorical and more respectful towards the interlocutor.

Thus, differences manifest themselves in the linguistic implementation of politeness: in Russian-language practice, it is more often expressed by adding lexical markers to a functional remark, whereas in the English-language model, politeness is embedded in the grammatical structure of the utterance itself. This peculiarity of phrase construction reflects different communicative traditions: Russian-language administrative communication strives to maintain brevity and functionality in statements, whereas English-language practice places greater emphasis on softening the communicative impact and maintaining a comfortable atmosphere.

5. Furthermore, the distribution of communicative roles differs. In the Russian-language model, the employee more often actively directs the dialogue and offers ready-made solutions. In the English-language model, they act more as a communication facilitator, helping the patient formulate their request.

Conclusions

A comparative analysis of the speech patterns of professional communication among receptionists and contact center staff at healthcare organizations revealed both common elements and key differences between Russian- and English-language practices. In both practices, communication is structured around standard interaction stages: greeting, clarifying the request, and selecting a specialist or service. It is accompanied by formal politeness to maintain a professional atmosphere and minimize conflict.

In Russian-language practice, dialogue is often initiated by a specific question or proposed solution. Statements are brief and functional, and questions are focused on administrative outcomes. Politeness is expressed primarily through lexical markers, and the initiative in the dialogue is controlled by the staff member. This approach ensures efficiency and structure in administrative processes, but it limits the patient's freedom to formulate a request and reduces the level of engagement in the dialogue.

In the English-language model, the initiating formula is open and conversational, statements are more detailed, questions focus on the patient's needs, and politeness is integrated into the grammatical structure through modal verbs and intonation. The staff member acts as a facilitator, and the patient actively participates in planning the visit. This approach builds trust, reduces patient stress, and increases service satisfaction, but it also increases the duration of the interaction and requires a balance between customer-focusedness and the efficiency of the administrative process.

The practical significance of the identified differences lies in the possibility of adapting universal elements of effective communication and taking into account culturally determined characteristics when developing speech models for medical organization personnel.

Literature

1. Leontiev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. Moscow: Politizdat, 1975. 304 p.
2. Sternin I.A. Communicative culture and professional speech. St. Petersburg: Rech, 2000. 144 p.
3. Tarasov E.F. Linguistic consciousness and speech activity. Moscow: Nauka, 1979. 216 p.
4. Tarasov E.F., Golovina L.V. Understanding speech messages and the principle of complementarity // Organizational psycholinguistics. 2019. No. 2(6). P. 9–23.
5. Kharchenko E.V. Models of speech behavior in professional communication. Chelyabinsk: SUSU Publishing House, 2003. 336 p.
6. Brown P., Levinson SC. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 345 p.
7. Cameron D. Working with Spoken Discourse. London: SAGE Publications, 2001. 206 p.
8. Drew P., Heritage J. Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. 580 p.
9. Guffey ME, Loewy D. Essentials of Business Communication. 9th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2012. 592 p.
10. Heritage J., Maynard D. W. (eds.). Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 510 p.
11. King A., Hoppe RB. “Best Practice” for Patient-Centered Communication: A Narrative Review // Journal of Graduate Medical Education. 2013. Vol. 5, No. 3. pp. 385–393.
12. Levinson W., Lesser C.S., Epstein R.M. Developing Physician Communication Skills for Patient-Centered Care // Health Affairs. 2010. Vol. 29, No. 7. pp. 1310–1318.
13. Plug I., van Dulmen S., Stommel W., olde Hartman T.C., Das E. Physicians' and Patients' Interruptions in Clinical Practice: A Quantitative Analysis // Annals of Family Medicine. 2022. Vol. 20, No. 5. pp. 423–429.
14. Silverman J., Kurtz S., Draper J. Skills for Communicating with Patients. Oxford; Boston: Radcliffe Publishing, 2013. 336 p.
15. Street RL Jr. How Clinician–Patient Communication Contributes to Health Improvement: Modeling Pathways from Talk to Outcome // Patient Education and Counseling. 2009. Vol. 74, No. 3. pp. 295–301.
16. Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA). Patient-centered communication: good practices guide [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/en/education-events/good-practices/physician-patient/patient-centred-communication (date accessed: 09.03.2026).
17. GOV.WALES. Accessible communication and information standards in healthcare [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.gov.wales/accessible-communication-and-information-standards-healthcare-html (date accessed: 09.03.2026).
18. Joint Commission International. Communicating Clearly and Effectively to Patients: How to Overcome Common Communication Challenges in Health Care [Electronic resource]. 2018. URL: https://store.jointcommissioninternational.org/assets/3/7/jci-wp-communicating-clearly-final_(1).pdf (date accessed: 09.03.2026).
19. NHS England. Good communication with patients waiting for care: core principles [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/good-communication-with-patients-waiting-for-care-core-principles/ (date accessed: 09.03.2026).

References

1. Leontiev AN. Deyatel'nost'. Soznanie. Lichnost'. Moscow: Politizdat, 1975. 304 p.
2. Sternin IA. Communicative culture and professional speech. St. Petersburg: Rech, 2000. 144 p.
3. Tarasov EF. Linguistic consciousness and speech activity. Moscow: Nauka, 1979. 216 p.
4. Tarasov EF, Golovina LV Understanding of speech messages and the principle of complementarity. Organizational psycholinguistics, 2019, No. 2(6), pp. 9–23.
5. Kharchenko EV. Models of speech behavior in professional communication. Chelyabinsk: Publishing house of South Ural State University, 2003. 336 p.