1887
Volume 21, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The aim of this article is to explore how affiliation (Stivers 2008) with the patient is displayed and interactionally achieved in the context of an interpreter-mediated therapeutic dialogue. More specifically, we focus on the interplay between affiliative listener responses – especially head nods – and gaze in this setting. Interpreter-mediated therapeutic talk is not only a setting that has received very little systematic scrutiny in the literature, but it is also particularly interesting for the study of listener responses. Drawing on the insights from Conversation Analysis, a naturally occurring interpreter-mediated therapeutic session was analysed that had been recorded using mobile eye-tracking technology. This approach allowed for a detailed analysis of the interlocutors’ synchronous gaze behaviour in relation to speech and head nods during the interaction. The results revealed differences in the interpreter’s and the therapist’s affiliative listener responses that were linked to the interactional goals of the encounter and to their social roles. Moreover, we found a strong relationship between mutual gaze and head nods as tokens of affiliation. Thus, these findings provide support for the inclusion of gaze in studies of interpreter-mediated dialogue and, more broadly, in the study of affiliation in social interaction.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00028.vra
2019-11-11
2019-12-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agentschap Integratie & Inburgering
    Agentschap Integratie & Inburgering (2017) Deontologische code van de sociaal tolk. www.agii.be/sites/default/files/bestanden/deontologische_code_sociaal_tolken.pdf (accessed11 March 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allwood, J. & Cerrato, L.
    (2003) A study of gestural feedback expressions. InP. Paggio, K. Jokinen & A. Jönsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Nordic Symposium on Multimodal Communication (CST Working Papers 6). Copenhagen: Center for Sprogteknologi, 7–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Argyle, M. & Cook, M.
    (1976) Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Auer, P.
    (2018) Gaze, addressee selection and turn-taking in three-party interaction. InG. Brône & B. Oben (Eds.), Eye-tracking in interaction: Studies on the role of eye gaze in dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 197–232. 10.1075/ais.10.09aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.10.09aue [Google Scholar]
  5. Bänninger-Huber, E.
    (1992) Prototypical affective microsequences in psychotherapeutic interaction. Psychotherapy Research2 (4), 291–306. 10.1080/10503309212331333044
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10503309212331333044 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baraldi, C. & Gavioli, L.
    (2007) Dialogue interpreting as intercultural mediation: An analysis in healthcare multicultural settings. InM. Grein & E. Weigand (Eds.), Dialogue and culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 155–175. 10.1075/ds.1.12bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.1.12bar [Google Scholar]
  7. (2012) Unterstanding coordination in interpreter-mediated interaction. InC. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.102.01intro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.01intro [Google Scholar]
  8. Bavelas, J., Coates, L. & Johnson, T.
    (2002) Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication52 (3), 566–580. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02562.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02562.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Bot, H.
    (2003) The myth of the uninvolved interpreter in mental health and the development of a three-person psychology. InL. Brunette, G. Bastin, I. Hemlin & H. Clarke (Eds.), The critical link 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 27–35. 10.1075/btl.46.07bot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.46.07bot [Google Scholar]
  10. (2005) Dialogue interpreting in mental health. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brône, G. & Oben, B.
    (2015) InSight interaction. A multimodal and multifocal dialogue corpus. Language Resources and Evaluation49 (1), 195–214. 10.1007/s10579‑014‑9283‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-014-9283-2 [Google Scholar]
  12. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2012) Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. InM.-E. Sorjonen & A. Peräkylä (Eds.), Emotion in interaction. London: Oxford University Press, 113–146. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  13. Davitti, E.
    (2013) Dialogue interpreting as intercultural mediation: Interpreter’s use of upgrading moves in parent-teacher meetings. Interpreting15 (2), 168–199. 10.1075/intp.15.2.02dav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.02dav [Google Scholar]
  14. Drummond, K. & Hopper, R.
    (1993) Backchannels revisited: Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency. Research on Language and Social Interaction26 (2), 157–177. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2602_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2602_3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Enfield, N. J.
    (2008) Common ground as a resource for social affiliation. InI. Kecskes & J. L. Mey (Eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 223–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Englund Dimitrova, B.
    (1997) Degree of interpreter responsibility in the interaction process in community interpreting. InS. E. Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour & D. Steyn (Eds.), The critical link: Interpreters in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 147–164. 10.1075/btl.19.17eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.19.17eng [Google Scholar]
  17. Gardner, R.
    (2001) When listeners talk: Respon se tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.92
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gavioli, L.
    (2012) Minimal responses in interpreter-mediated medical talk. InL. Baraldi & C. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 201–208. 10.1075/btl.102.09gav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.09gav [Google Scholar]
  19. Gerhardt, J. & Beyerle, S.
    (1997) What if Socrates had been a woman? The therapist’s use of acknowledgment tokens (mm-hm, yeah, sure, right) as a nonreflective means of intersubjective involvement. Contemporary Psychoanalysis33 (3), 367–410. 10.1080/00107530.1997.10746995
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00107530.1997.10746995 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goffman, E.
    (1981) Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Goodwin, C.
    (1980) Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry50, 272–302. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00023.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x [Google Scholar]
  22. (1981) Conversational organization. Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York/London: Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1986) Between and within: alternative treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies9, 205–217. 10.1007/BF00148127
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148127 [Google Scholar]
  24. Heath, C.
    (1992) Gesture’s discreet tasks: Multiple relevancies in visual conduct and in the contextualization of language. InP. Auer & A. di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 101–128. 10.1075/pbns.22.08hea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.08hea [Google Scholar]
  25. Heritage, J.
    (2011) Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. InT. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 159–183. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jokinen, K.
    (2010) Non-verbal signals for turn-taking & feedback. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources & Evaluation (LREC) International Universal Communication Symposium. Mediterranean Conference Centre, Valletta, Malta, 17–23May. Paris: European Language Resources Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kendon, A.
    (1967) Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica26, 22–63. 10.1016/0001‑6918(67)90005‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kita, S. & Ide, S.
    (2007) Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in Japanese conversation: How conversation reflects the ideology of communication and social relationships. Journal of Pragmatics39 (7), 1242–1254. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.009 [Google Scholar]
  29. Krystallidou, D.
    (2014) Gaze and body orientation as an apparatus for patient inclusion into exclusion from a patient-centred framework of communication. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer8 (3), 399–417. 10.1080/1750399X.2014.972033
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.972033 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lang, R.
    (1978) Behavioral aspects of liaison interpreters in Papua New Guinea: Some preliminary observations. InD. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication. New York/London: Plenum Press, 231–244. 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑9077‑4_21
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9077-4_21 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lee, S.-H. & Tanaka, H.
    (2016) Affiliation and alignment in responding actions. Journal of Pragmatics100, 1–7. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.008 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lindström, A. & Sorjonen, M. L.
    (2013) Affiliation in conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 350–369.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mandelbaum, J.
    (2013) Storytelling in Conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 493–507.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mason, I.
    (2012) Gaze, positioning and identity in interpreter-mediated dialogues. InL. Baraldi & C. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 177–199. 10.1075/btl.102.08mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.08mas [Google Scholar]
  35. Merlini, R. & Favaron, R.
    (2005) Examining the “voice of interpreting” in speech pathology. Interpreting7 (2), 263–302. 10.1075/intp.7.2.07mer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.2.07mer [Google Scholar]
  36. Mondada, L.
    (2007) Multimodal resources for turn-taking: pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies9 (2), 195–226. 10.1177/1461445607075346
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075346 [Google Scholar]
  37. Muntigl, P., Knight, N. & Watkins, A.
    (2012) Working to keep aligned in psychotherapy: using nods as a dialogic resource to display affiliation. Language and Dialogue2 (1), 9–27. 10.1075/ld.2.1.01mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.2.1.01mun [Google Scholar]
  38. Muntigl, P. & Horvath, A. O.
    (2014) The therapeutic relationship in action: How therapists and clients co-manage relational disaffiliation. Psychotherapy Research24 (3), 327–345. 10.1080/10503307.2013.807525
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.807525 [Google Scholar]
  39. Oben, B. & Brône, G.
    (2015) What you see is what you do. On the relationship between gaze and gesture in multimodal alignment. Language and Cognition7, 546–562. 10.1017/langcog.2015.22
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.22 [Google Scholar]
  40. Pasquandrea, S.
    (2011) Managing multiple actions through multimodality: Doctors’ involvement in interpreter-mediated interactions. Language in Society40 (4), 455–481. 10.1017/S0047404511000479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404511000479 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2012) Co-constructing dyadic sequences in healthcare interpreting: A multimodal account. New Voices in Translation Studies8, 132–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Peräkylä, A.
    (2013) Conversation analysis in psychotherapy. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 251–274.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Peräkylä, A., Henttonen, P., Voutilainen, L., Kahri, M., Stevanovic, M., Sams, M., & Ravaja, N.
    (2015) Sharing the emotional load: recipient affiliation calms down the storyteller. Social Psychology Quarterly78 (4), 301–323. 10.1177/0190272515611054
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272515611054 [Google Scholar]
  44. Peräkylä, A. & Ruusuvuori, J.
    (2012) Facial expression and interactional regulation of emotion. InA. Peräkylä & M. L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 64–91. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pfeiffer, U. J., Vogeley, K. & Schilbach, L.
    (2013) From gaze cueing to dual eye-tracking: Novel approaches to investigate the neural correlates of gaze in social interaction. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews37, 2516–2528. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.017 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pöchhacker, F. & Shlesinger, M.
    (Eds.) (2007) Healthcare interpreting: discourse and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.9 [Google Scholar]
  47. Rossano, F.
    (2012) Gaze behavior in face-to-face interaction. PhD Thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  48. (2013) Gaze conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 308–329.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Ruusuvuori, J.
    (2001) Looking means listening: coordinating displays of engagement in doctor-patient interaction. Social Science & Medicine52, 1093–1108. 10.1016/S0277‑9536(00)00227‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00227-6 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language50, 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  51. Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H.
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53, 361–382. 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1982) Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. InD. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1981. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 71–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J. R., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K. & Hartung, M.
    (2009) Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion10, 353–402. www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2009/px-gat2.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Stivers, T.
    (2008) Stance, alignment and affiliation during story telling: when nodding is a token of preliminary affiliation. Research on Language in Social Interaction41, 29–55. 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  55. Stivers, T. & Rossano, F.
    (2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction43 (1), 3–31. 10.1080/08351810903471258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  56. Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J.
    (2011) Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. InT. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–26. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 [Google Scholar]
  57. Suchman, A., Markakis, K., Beckman, H. B. & Frankel, R.
    (1997) A model of empathic communication in the medical review. Journal of the American Medical Association277 (8), 678–82. 10.1001/jama.1997.03540320082047
    https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540320082047 [Google Scholar]
  58. Vertegaal, R., Slagter, R., Van der Veer, G. & Nijholt, A.
    (2001) Eye gaze patterns in conversations: There is more to conversational agents than meets the eyes. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, WA, 31 March 31–5 April, 301–308. New York City, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Vranjes, J., Brône, G. & Feyaerts, K.
    (2018) Dual feedback in interpreter-mediated interactions: on the role of gaze in the production of listener responses. Journal of Pragmatics134, 15–30. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wadensjö, C.
    (1998) Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (2001) Interpreting in crisis: The interpreters’ position in therapeutic encounters. InMason, I. (Ed.) (2001) Triadic exchanges. Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome, 71–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A. & Sloetjes, H.
    (2006) ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. InProceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Genoa, 22–28May. Paris: European Language Resources Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Yngve, V. H.
    (1970) On getting a word in edgewise. InPapers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 567–577.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00028.vra
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00028.vra
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): affiliation , eye-tracking , gaze , head nods , listener responses and mental healthcare interpreting
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