Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper asks what ‘understanding’ looks like in the presence of an interpreter. Much investigation of understanding in Interpreting Studies explores claims which treat it as axiomatic, rather than exploring the occurrence of comprehension itself (how participants come to accept that it is occurring, what form it takes, what its consequences are). Here we re-purpose a well-established research tool — the Map Task — to illustrate a robustly empirical approach to this issue, using complex multimodal and multilingual data. The Map Task, we contend, can play a potentially groundbreaking role in Interpreting Studies, mitigating the constraint created by the uniqueness of each interpreted exchange which otherwise hinders generalisability and theoretical expansion. In particular, we argue that the way interpreters and service users, through their talk, bring themselves to points of assumed shared understanding is illuminated with particular clarity through the Map Task lens. Research within this paradigm, we suggest, may help to enable further development of Interpreting Studies, affording an opportunity to deepen our communal understanding of the and nature of meaning-making in interpreted exchanges, starting with the recognition that what understanding consists of is, in essence, what interlocutors as understanding.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adolphs, S. & Carter, R
    (2013) Spoken corpus linguistics: From monomodal to multimodal. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, A.H. & Boyle, E.A
    (1994) Forms of introduction in dialogues: Their discourse contexts and communicative consequences. Language and Cognitive Processes9 (1), 101–122. doi: 10.1080/01690969408402111
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402111 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, A.H. , Bader, M. , Bard, E.G. , Boyle, E. , Doherty, G.M. , Garrod, S. , Isard, S.D. , Kowtko, J.C. , McAllister, J. , Miller, J. , Sotillo, C.F. , Thompson, H.S. & Weinart, R
    (1991) The HCRC Map Task Corpus. Language and Speech34 (4), 351–366.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, A.H. , O’Malley, C. , Doherty-Sneddon, G. , Langton, S. , Newlands, A. , Mullin, J. , Fleming, A.-M. & Van der Velden, J
    (1997) The impact of VMC on collaborative problem solving: An analysis of task performance, communicative process, and user satisfaction. In K. Finn , A. Sellen & S.P. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-mediated communication: Computers, cognition, and work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 133–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson, A.H. , Clark, A. & Mullin, J
    (1991) Introducing information in dialogues: Forms of introduction chosen by young speakers and the responses elicited from young listeners. Journal of Child Language18, 663–687. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900011302
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900011302 [Google Scholar]
  6. (1992) Communication skills in children: Learning how to make language work in dialogue. Edinburgh: HCRC Publications, University of Edinburgh.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (1994) Interactive skills in children. Journal of Child Language21, 1–25. doi: 10.1017/S030500090000934X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500090000934X [Google Scholar]
  8. Atkinson, J.M. & Heritage, J
    (1984) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bakhtin, M
    (1981) The dialogic imagination: Four essays. M. Holquist (Ed.), C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Trans.), Austin: Texas University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Baraldi, C
    (2012) Interpreting as dialogic mediation: The relevance of expansions. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 297–326. doi: 10.1075/btl.102.13bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.13bar [Google Scholar]
  11. Baraldi, C. & Gavioli, L
    (Eds.) (2012) Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.102
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bard, E.G. , Sotillo, C.F. , Anderson, A.H. , Thompson, H.S. & Taylor, M.M
    (1996) The DCLEM map task corpus: Spontaneous dialogue under SD and drug treatment. Speech Communication20, 71–84. doi: 10.1016/S0167‑6393(96)00045‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(96)00045-3 [Google Scholar]
  13. Beeke, S. , Dean, E.C. , Kilborn, K. , Anderson, A.H. , Robertson, A. & Miller, J.E
    (1996) The relationship between syntactic processing and communicative performance in aphasia. In T. Powell (Ed.), Pathologies of speech and language: contributions of Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics. New Orleans: International Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics Association, 75–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bélanger, D
    (2004) Interactional patterns in dialogue interpreting. Journal of Interpretation17, 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bergman, B. , Boyes Braem, P. , Hanke, T. & Pizzuto, E
    (Eds.) (2001) Sign transcription and database storage of sign information. Special Issue ofSign Language and Linguistics4 (1/2). doi: 10.1075/sll.4.1‑2.02ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.4.1-2.02ber [Google Scholar]
  16. Berk-Seligson, S
    (1990) The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Boyle, E. , Anderson, A.H. & Newlands, A
    (1994) The effects of visibility on dialogue and performance in a cooperative problem solving task. Language and Speech37 (1), 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Brasel, B. , Montanelli, D.S. & Quigley, S.P
    (1974) The component skills of interpreting as viewed by interpreters. Journal of the Rehabilitation of the Deaf7 (3), 27–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Brown, G. , Anderson, A. , Shillcock, R. & Yule, G
    (1984) Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Brugman, H. & Russel, A
    (2004) Annotating multimedia/multi-modal resources with ELAN. In Proceedings of LREC 2004, Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation .
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Clark, H.H
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  22. Clark, H.H. & Brennan, S.E
    (1991) Grounding in communication. In L. Resnick , J. Levine & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 127–149. doi: 10.1037/10096‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006 [Google Scholar]
  23. Clark, H.H. & Marshall, C.R
    (1981) Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. Joshi , B. Webber & I. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Clark, H.H. & Schaefer, E.F
    (1987a) Concealing one’s meaning from overhearers. Journal of Memory and Language26, 209–225. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596X(87)90124‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90124-0 [Google Scholar]
  25. Clark, H.H. & Schaefer E.F
    (1987b) Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language and Cognitive Processes2 (1), 19–41. doi: 10.1080/01690968708406350
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968708406350 [Google Scholar]
  26. (1989) Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science13, 259–294. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1302_7
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302_7 [Google Scholar]
  27. Clark, H.H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D
    (1986) Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition22, 1–39. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(86)90010‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7 [Google Scholar]
  28. Cokely, D
    (1985) Towards a sociolinguistic model of the interpreting process: Focus on ASL and English. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Cronin, M
    (2006) Translation and identity. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Davies, B.L
    (1997) An empirical examination of cooperation, effort and risk in task-oriented dialogues. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Davitti, E
    (2012) Dialogue interpreting as intercultural mediation: Integrating talk and gaze in the analysis of mediated parent-teacher meetings. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Dean, R.K. & Pollard, R.Q
    (2001) Application of demand-control theory to sign language interpreting: Implications for stress and interpreter training. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education6 (1), 1–14. doi: 10.1093/deafed/6.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/6.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  33. Doherty-Sneddon, G. & Kent, G
    (1996) Visual signals and the communication abilities of children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry37 (8), 949–959. doi: 10.1111/j.1469‑7610.1996.tb01492.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01492.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Drew, P
    (2009) The unrequited relationship between Bush and Blair: On making offers in conversation. Public Colloquium lecture at York St John University, 4 November 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Drew, P. & Heritage, J
    (Eds.) (2006) Conversation analysis. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446261156
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446261156 [Google Scholar]
  36. (Eds.) (2013) Contemporary studies in Conversation Analysis. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446286364
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446286364 [Google Scholar]
  37. Duranti, A
    (1986) The audience as co-author: An introduction. Text6 (3), 239–247.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Firth, J.R
    (1957) Papers in linguistics 1934-1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Fujii, Y
    (2012) Differences of situating Self in the place/ba of interaction between the Japanese and American English speakers. Journal of Pragmatics44 (5), 636–662. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  40. Garfinkel, H
    (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Gile, D. , Dam, H.V. , Dubslaff, F. , Martinsen, B. & Scholdager, A
    (Eds.) (2011) Getting started in interpreting research: Methodological reflections, personal accounts and advice for beginners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.33
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.33 [Google Scholar]
  42. Grbić, N
    (2007) Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? A bibliometrical analysis of writings and research on sign language interpreting. The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter1 (1), 15–51. doi: 10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798748
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798748 [Google Scholar]
  43. Grosz, B. & Sidner, C
    (1986) Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics12, 175–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hale, S. & Napier, J
    (2013) Research methods in interpreting. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Harrington, F.J. & Turner, G.H
    (2001) Interpreting interpreting: Studies and reflections on sign language interpreting. Coleford: Douglas McLean.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hurwitz, T.A
    (1980) Interpreters’ effectiveness in reverse interpreting: Pidgin signed English and American sign language. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hymes, D.H
    (1962) The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W.C. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behaviour. Washington, DC: Anthropology Society of Washington, 15–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Ingram, R.M
    (1978) Sign language interpretation and general theories of language, interpretation and communication. In D. Gerver & H.W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication. New York: Plenum Press, 109–118. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑9077‑4_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9077-4_11 [Google Scholar]
  49. Janzen, T. & Shaffer, B
    (2013) The interpreter’s stance in intersubjective discourse. In L. Meurant , A. Sinte , M. Van Herreweghe & M. Vermeerbergen, M . (Eds.), Sign language research uses and practices: Crossing views on theoretical and applied sign language linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 63–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Johnston, T. & Crasborn, O
    (2006) The use of ELAN software annotation software in the creation of sign language corpora. Paper presented at E-MELD workshop on digital language documentation , Michigan State University, US, 20-22 June 2006.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Johnston, T. & Schembri, A
    (2007) Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511607479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607479 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kelly, J. & Local, J
    (1989) Doing phonology. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kowtko, J.C
    (1997) The function of intonation in task-oriented dialogue. Edinburgh: HCRC Publications, University of Edinburgh.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Krystallidou, D
    (2013) The interpreter’s role in medical consultations as perceived and as interactionally negotiated: A study of a Flemish hospital setting, using interview data and video recorded interactions. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kyle, J.G. , Llewellyn-Jones, P. & Woll, B
    (1979) Sign language communication. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Psychology of Language , University of Bristol, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Labov, W
    (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Llewellyn-Jones, P
    (1981) Simultaneous interpreting. In B. Woll , J. Kyle & M. Deuchar (Eds.), Perspectives on British Sign Language and Deafness. London: Croom Helm, 89–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Local, J
    (1996) Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 177–230. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.007 [Google Scholar]
  59. Liu, M
    (2011) Methodology in interpreting studies: A methodological review of evidence-based research. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 85–119. doi: 10.1075/btl.99.08liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.99.08liu [Google Scholar]
  60. Malinowski, B
    (1922) Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Mason, I
    (Ed.) (2001) Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. (2009) Role, positioning and discourse in face-to-face interpreting. In R. de Pedro Ricoy , I. Perez & C. Wilson (Eds.), Interpreting and translating in public service settings: Policy, practice, pedagogy. Manchester: St. Jerome, 52–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Merrison, A.J
    (2002) Politeness in task-oriented dialogue. Working Papers on the WebNo 3, April 2002 extra.shu.ac.uk/wpw/politeness/merrison.htm (accessed2 June 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Merrison, A.J. & Turner, G.H
    . (in prep.). Construing understandings and understanding construals: Insights into meaning-making from simultaneously-interpreted multimodal task-oriented interactions.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Metzger, M
    (1999) Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Murphy, H.J
    (1976) Selected readings in the integration of deaf students at CSUN. Centre on Deafness series (No 1). Northridge: California State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Murphy, H. & Fleischer, L
    (1977) The effects of Ameslan versus Siglish upon test scores. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf11 (2), 15–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Napier, J
    (2002) Sign language interpreting: Linguistic coping strategies. Coleford: Douglas McLean.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Nicodemus, B. & Swabey, L
    (Eds.) (2011) Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.99
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.99 [Google Scholar]
  70. Orfanidou, E. , Woll, B. & Morgan, G
    (Eds.) (2015) Research methods in sign language studies: A practical guide. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Pasquandrea, S
    (2012) Co-constructing dyadic sequences in healthcare interpreting: A multimodal account. New Voices in Translation Studies8, 132–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Pöchhacker, F
    (2004) Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. (2012) Interpreting participation: Conceptual analysis and illustration of the interpreter’s role in interaction. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 45–69. doi: 10.1075/btl.102.03poch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.03poch [Google Scholar]
  74. Quinn, G. , Merrison, A.J. , Davies, B.L. , Pollitt, K. & Turner, G.H
    (2008) Task-oriented discourse between British Sign Language (BSL) users. Paper presented at the British Association for Applied Linguistics 41st Annual Meeting , Swansea University UK, 11-13 September 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Roy, C.B
    (1989) A sociolinguistic analysis of the interpreter’s role in the turn exchanges of an interpreted event. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. (1993) The problem with definitions, descriptions, and the role metaphors of interpreters. Journal of Interpretation6 (1), 127–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Rudner, L.M. , Getson, P. & Dirst, R.D
    (1981) Interpreter competence. Journal of Interpretation1, 10–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Sacks, H
    (1984) Notes on methodology. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. (1995) Lectures on conversation, Volumes 1 and 2. Jefferson, G . (Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  80. Sacks, H. , Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language50, 696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  81. Schober, M.F. & Clark, H.H
    (1989) Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology21, 211–232. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(89)90008‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90008-X [Google Scholar]
  82. Shlesinger, M
    (2009) Crossing the divide: What researchers and practitioners can learn from one another. International Journal for Translation and Interpreting Research1, 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Sotillo, C
    (1997) Phonological reduction and intelligibility in task-oriented dialogue. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Sutton-Spence, R. & Woll, B
    (1999) The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139167048
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167048 [Google Scholar]
  85. Taylor, T.J. & Cameron, D
    (1987) Analysing conversation: Rules and units in the structure of talk. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Turner, G.H
    (1995) The bilingual, bimodal courtroom: A first glance. Journal of Interpretation7 (1), 3–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. (2005) Towards real interpreting. In M. Marschark , R. Peterson & E.A. Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education: Directions for research and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29–56. doi: 10.1093/acprof/9780195176940.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof/9780195176940.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  88. (2006) Some essential ingredients of sign language interpreting. In R. Locker McKee (Ed.), Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the World Association of Sign Language Interpreters. Coleford: Douglas McLean, 106–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. (2007) Professionalisation of interpreting with the community: Refining the model. In C. Wadensjö , B. Englund Dimitrova & A.-L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 181–192. doi: 10.1075/btl.70
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.70 [Google Scholar]
  90. (2013) Ensemble interpreting for essential public services. Paper presented at ‘Assuring access to essential public services: Training issues in interpreter-mediated interaction’: 2nd Analysis of Interaction and Mediation Workshop , University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, 9-10 May 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Turner, G.H. & Brown, R.K
    (2001) Interaction and the role of the interpreter in court. In F.J. Harrington & G.H. Turner (Eds.), Interpreting interpreting: Studies and reflections on sign language interpreting. Coleford: Douglas McLean, 152–167.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Tweney, R.D. & Hoemann, H.W
    (1976) Translation and sign language. In R.W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research. New York: Gardner Press, 138–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Valli, C. & Lucas, C
    (2000) Linguistics of American Sign Language: An introduction (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Vargas Urpi, M
    (2012) State of the art in community interpreting research. Babel58 (1), 50–72. doi: 10.1075/babel.58.1.04var
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.58.1.04var [Google Scholar]
  95. Wadensjö, C
    (1992) Interpreting as interaction: On dialogue-interpreting in immigration hearings and medical encounters. PhD dissertation, Linköping University.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. (1995) Dialogue interpreting and the distribution of responsibility. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics14, 111–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Wilcox, S. & Shaffer, B
    (2005) Towards a cognitive model of interpreting. In T. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in signed language interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 27–50. doi: 10.1075/btl.63.06wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.06wil [Google Scholar]
  98. Wilkes-Gibbs, D
    (1986) Collaborative processes of language use in conversations. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Winston, E.A. & Monikowski, C
    (Eds.) (2013) Evolving paradigms in interpreter education. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Wolfson, N
    (1976) Speech events and natural speech: Some implications for sociolinguistic methodology. Language in Society5, 189–209. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500007028
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500007028 [Google Scholar]
  101. Young, A. & Temple, B
    (2014) Approaches to social research: The case of Deaf Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199929535.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199929535.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): construal; dialogue interpreting; grounding; interactional analysis; Map Task; sign language
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