Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This study examines interpreted group work situations involving deaf and hearing senior high school students, using Norwegian Sign Language and spoken Norwegian. The research question is: how does the sign language interpreter explicitly coordinate turn-taking in group work dialogues among deaf and hearing students? Video recordings of authentic learning situations constitute the basis for analysis of how a sign language interpreter uses multimodal actions to convey information that is used by the deaf and hearing students in establishing a shared focus of attention and thus coordinating their turn-taking. Five types of actions were recurrently identified: construction of visual gestures; timing of the interpreter’s input; use of gaze to negotiate for the deaf students’ speaking turns; left-right shifts in body position to convey information about which of the hearing students is speaking; and backward-forward shifts in body position to negotiate for shared attention. The analysis draws mainly on concepts developed by Goffman ( 1959 , 1981 ), Goodwin ( 1994 , 2000 , 2007 ) and Wadensjö (1998) . The discussion examines implications for the educational interpreter’s role set ( Sarangi 2010 , 2011 ), and the dual responsibility s/he fulfils by not only interpreting the students’ utterances, but also explicitly coordinating their interaction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Antia, S. D. & Kreimeyer, K. H.
    (2001) The role of interpreters in inclusive classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf146 (4), 355–365. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.0142
    https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0142 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bagga-Gupta, S.
    (2004) Visually oriented language use: Discursive and technological resources in Swedish deaf pedagogical arenas. In M. V. Herreweghe & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), To the lexicon and beyond: Sociolinguistics in European Deaf communities. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, 171–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Berge, S. S.
    (2012) Deaf pupils’ access in interpreted, peer group dialogues. Paper presented atMarginalization processes: International multidisciplinaryworkshop, Ørebro, 26–28 April 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Berge, S. S. & Kermit, P. S.
    (2017) Deaf students’ access to informal group-work avtivities seen in light of the educational interpreter’s role. In S. Bagga-Gupta (Ed.), Marginalization processes: Studies of participation across sites. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Berge, S. S.
    (2014) To negotiate for the other’s turn to talk. Paper presented atALAPP 4: Applied linguistics and professional practice, Geneva, 10–12 Sept 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Berge, S. S. & Raanes, E.
    (2013) Coordinating the chain of utterances: An analysis of communicative flow and turn-taking in an interpreted group dialogue for deaf-blind persons. Sign Language Studies, 13 (3), 350–371. doi: 10.1353/sls.2013.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2013.0007 [Google Scholar]
  7. Berge, S. S. & Thomassen, G.
    (2015) Visual access in interpreter-mediated learning situations for deaf and hard-of-hearing high school students where an artifact is in use. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21 (2), 187–199.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Berge, S. S. & Ytterhus, B.
    (2015) Deaf and hearing high-school students’ expectations for the role of educational sign-language interpreter. Society, Health and Vulnerability6, 1–26. doi: 10.3402/shv.v6.28969
    https://doi.org/10.3402/shv.v6.28969 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brinkman, S. & Kvale, S.
    (2015) Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Edelsky, C.
    (1981) Who’s got the floor?Language in Society10 (3), 383–421. doi: 10.1017/S004740450000885X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450000885X [Google Scholar]
  11. Engberg-Pedersen, E.
    (1991) Lærebok i tegnsprogs gramatik (Textbook in sign-language grammar). Copenhagen: Døves Center for Total Kommunikation.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Goffman, E.
    (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goodwin, C.
    (1980) Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Inquiry50 (3–4), 272–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00023.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x [Google Scholar]
  15. (1986) Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica62 (1–2), 29–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (1994) Professional vision. American Anthropologist96 (3), 606–633. doi: 10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics32, 1489–1522. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  18. (2007) Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society18 (1), 53–73. doi: 10.1177/0957926507069457
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069457 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H.
    (2004) Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 222–243.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gumperz, J. J.
    (1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hansen, A. L.
    (2005) Kommunikative praksiser i visuelt orienterte klasserom (Communicative practises in visually oriented classrooms). PhD Dissertation, Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, Trondheim.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Harrington, F. J.
    (2000) Sign language interpreters and access for deaf students to university curricula: The ideal and the reality. In R. P. Roberts , S. E. Carr , D. Abraham & A. Dufour (Eds.), The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the community. Selected papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal,, Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, Canada, 19–23 May 1998. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 219–238. doi: 10.1075/btl.31.22har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.31.22har [Google Scholar]
  23. (2005) A study of the complex nature of interpreting with deaf students in higher education. In M. Metzger & E. Fleetwood (Eds.), Attitudes, innuendo and regulators: Challenges of interpretation. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 162–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heath, C. & Hindmarsh, J.
    (2002) Analysing interaction: Video, ethnography and situated conduct. In M. Tim (Ed.), Qualitative research in action. London: Sage Publications, 99–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Heath, C. , Hindmarsh, J. & Luff, P.
    (2010) Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Herreweghe, M. V.
    (2002) Turn-taking mechanisms and active participation in meetings with deaf and hearing participants in Flanders. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Turn-taking, fingerspelling and contact in signed languages. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 73–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kendon, A.
    (2009) Language’s matrix. Gesture9 (3), 355–372.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Linell, P.
    (1997) Interpreting as communication. In Y. Gambier , D. Gile & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49–67. doi: 10.1075/btl.23.04lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.23.04lin [Google Scholar]
  29. (2009) Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Llewellyn-Jones, P. & Lee, R. G.
    (2013) Getting to the core of role: Defining interpreters’ role-space. International Journal of Interpreter Education5 (2), 54–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Marschark, M. , Sapere, P. , Convertino, C. & Seewagen, R.
    (2005) Access to postsecondary education through sign language interpreting. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education10 (1), 38–50. doi: 10.1093/deafed/eni002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eni002 [Google Scholar]
  32. McIlvenny, P.
    (1995) Seeing conversations: Analyzing sign language talk. In P. T. Have & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities. Washington DC: University Press of America, 129–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Metzger, M.
    (1999) Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2005) Interpreted discourse: Learning and recognizing what interpreters do in interaction. In C. B. Roy (Ed.), Advances in teaching sign language interpreters. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Metzger, M. & Fleetwood, E.
    (2004) Educational interpreting: Developing standards of practice. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 171–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mondada, L.
    (2009) Emergent focused interaction in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics41 (10), 1977–1997. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019 [Google Scholar]
  37. Morgenthaler, L.
    (1988) A study of group process: Who’s got what floor?Journal of Pragmatics14 (4), 537–557. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90031‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90031-8 [Google Scholar]
  38. Napier, J.
    (2002) Sign language interpreting: Linguistic coping strategies. Coleford: McLean.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Nilsson, A. -L.
    (2016) Embodying metaphors: Signed language interpreters at work. Cognitive Linguistics27 (1), 35–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Roy, C. B.
    (2000) Interpreting as a discourse process. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sacks, H. , Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. In P. Cobey (Ed.), Communication theories. London: Routledge, 262–308.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Sarangi, S.
    (2007) The anatomy of interpretation: Coming to terms with the analyst’s paradox in professional discourse studies. Text & Talk27 (5/6), 567–584. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2007.025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.025 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2010) Reconfiguring self/identity/status/role: The case of professional role performance in healthcare encounters. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice7 (1), 75–95. doi: 10.1558/japl.v7i1.75
    https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v7i1.75 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2011) Role hybridity in professional practice. In S. Sarangi , V. Polese & G. Caliendo (Eds.), Genre(s) on the move: Hybridisation and discourse change in specialised communication. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 271–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Schick, B.
    (2004) How might learning through an educational interpreter influence cognitive development?In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, 73–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Solow, S. N.
    (1981) Sign language interpreting: A basic resource book. Silver Spring, MD: The National Association for the Deaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Streeck, J. , Goodwin, C. & LeBaron, C.
    (2011) Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In J. Streeck , C. Goodwin & C. LeBaron (Ed.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Tate, G. & Turner, G. H.
    (1997/2002) The code and the culture: Sign language interpreting - in search of the new breed’s ethics. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 373–383.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Thoutenhoofd, E.
    (2005) The sign language interpreter in inclusive education: Power of authority and limits of objectivism. The Translator11 (2), 237–258. doi: 10.1080/13556509.2005.10799200
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2005.10799200 [Google Scholar]
  50. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wadensjö, C.
    (1993) The double role of a dialogue interpreter. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology1 (1), 105–121. doi: 10.1080/0907676X.1993.9961204
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.1993.9961204 [Google Scholar]
  52. (1998) Interpreting as interaction. New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Warnicke, C. & Plejert, C.
    (2012) Turn-organisation in mediated phone interaction using Video Relay Service (VRS). Journal of Pragmatics44 (10), 1313–1334. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  54. Wertsch, J. V.
    (1991) Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Winston, E. A.
    (2004) Interpretability and accessibility of mainstream classrooms. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 132–167.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error