1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies
  4. Volume 34, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 34, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article presents the results of an exploratory study on the timing of turn-taking in face-to-face dialogue interpreting based on a corpus of interpreted interactions that were recorded with mobile eye-trackers. Our aims were to: (1) investigate the timing of interpreters’ turns in dialogic interaction; and (2) identify features that have an impact on interpreters’ turn-taking speed. These include input processing factors (including turn type and turn duration) and gaze, which have been shown to play an important role in turn-taking. The analysis shows that, although interpreters in our study tend to orient to the maxim ‘one speaker at a time’, turn transitions between the primary speaker and the interpreter contain more gaps and longer overlaps than have been found for same-language interactions. It also shows that the type of turn produced by the primary speaker (question vs. non-question), the primary speaker’s speech rate, and, to a certain extent, turn duration affect the interpreter’s turn-taking speed. Thus, the present study contributes to a better understanding of the processes that impact the timing of turn-taking in face-to-face dialogue interpreting.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/target.20121.vra
2022-04-04
2023-03-31

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/target.20121.vra
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, Anne, Miles Bader, Ellen Gurman Bard, Elizabeth Boyle, Gwyneth Doherty, Simon Garrod, Stephen Isard, Jacqueline Kowtko, Jan McAllister, Jim Miller, Catherine Sotillo, Henry S. Thompson, and Regina Weinert
    1991 “The HCRC Map Task Corpus.” Language and Speech341: 83–97. 10.1177/002383099103400404
     https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099103400404 [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, Peter
    2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse25 (1): 7–36. 10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  3. Balota, David A., Melvin J. Yap, Keith A. Hutchinson, Michael J. Cortese, Brett Kessler, Bjorn Loftis, James H. Neely, Douglas L. Nelson, Greg B. Simpson, and Rebecca Treiman
    2007 “The English Lexicon Project.” Behavioral Research Methods391: 445–459. 10.3758/BF03193014
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, and Steven Walker
    2014 “lme4: Linear Mixed-effects Models Using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0-6.” CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
  5. Bavelas, Janet B., Linda Coates, and Trudy Johnson
    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]
  6. Bot, Hanneke
    2005 Dialogue Interpreting in Mental Health. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004458574
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004458574 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brady, Paul T.
    1968 “A Statistical Analysis of On-Off Patterns in 16 Conversations.” Bell System Technical Journal47 (1): 73–91. 10.1002/j.1538‑7305.1968.tb00031.x
     https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1968.tb00031.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Braun, Sabine
    2013 “Keep Your Distance? Remote Interpreting in Legal Proceedings: A Critical Assessment of a Growing Practice.” Interpreting15 (2): 200–228. 10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra [Google Scholar]
  9. Brône, Geert, Bert Oben, Annelies Jehoul, Jelena Vranjes, and Kurt Feyaerts
    2017 “Eye Gaze and Viewpoint in Multimodal Interaction Management.” Cognitive Linguistics28 (3): 448–483. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0119
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0119 [Google Scholar]
  10. Calhoun, Sasha, Jean Carletta, Jason M. Brenier, Neil Mayo, Dan Jurafsky, Mark Steedman, and David Beaver
    2010 “The NXT-Format Switchboard Corpus: A Rich Resource for Investigating the Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics and Prosody of Dialogue.” Language Resources and Evaluation44 (4): 387–419. 10.1007/s10579‑010‑9120‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-010-9120-1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Casillas, Marisa, and Michael C. Frank
    2013 “The Development of Predictive Processes in Children’s Discourse Understanding.” InCooperative Minds: Social Interaction and Group Dynamics, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Berlin, German, July 31 – August 3, 20131, edited byMarkus Knauff, Michael Pauen, Natalie Sebanz, and Ipke Wachsmuth, 299–304. Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    1993 English Speech Rhythm: Form and Function in Everyday Verbal Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.25
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.25 [Google Scholar]
  13. Davidson, Brad
    2002 “A Model for the Construction of Conversational Common Ground in Interpreted Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics34 (9): 1273–1300. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00025‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00025-5 [Google Scholar]
  14. Davitti, Elena
    2013 “Dialogue Interpreting as Intercultural Mediation: Interpreters’ 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]
  15. 2019 “Methodological Explorations of Interpreter-Mediated Interaction: Novel Insights from Multimodal Analysis.” InMultimodality: Methodological Explorations, edited byRosie Flewitt, Sara Price, and Terhi Korkiakangas, special issue ofQualitative Research:19 (1): 7–29. 10.1177/1468794118761492
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118761492 [Google Scholar]
  16. De Boe, Esther
    2020 Remote Interpreting in Healthcare Settings: A Comparative Study on the Influence of Telephone and Video Link Use on the Quality of Interpreter-Mediated Communication. PhD diss.University of Antwerp.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. De Ruiter, Jan-Peter, Holger Mitterer, and Nick J. Enfield
    2006 “Projecting the End of a Speaker’s Turn: A Cognitive Cornerstone of Conversation.” Language82 (3): 515–535. 10.1353/lan.2006.0130
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0130 [Google Scholar]
  18. Edlund, Jens, Mattias Heldner, and Julia Hirschberg
    2009 “Pause and Gap Length in Face-to-Face Interaction.” Proceedings Interspeech:2779–2782. 10.21437/Interspeech.2009‑710
     https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2009-710 [Google Scholar]
  19. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
    1997 “Degree of Interpreter Responsibility in the Interaction Process in Community Interpreting.” InThe Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community: Papers from the 1st International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Geneva Park, Canada, 1–4 June 1995, edited bySilvana E. Carr, Roda P. Roberts, Aideen Dufour, and Dini Steyn, 147–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.19.17eng
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.19.17eng [Google Scholar]
  20. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta, and Elisabet Tiselius
    Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta, and Elisabet Tiselius 2016 “Cognitive Aspects of Community Interpreting: Toward a Process Model.” InReembedding Translation Process Research, edited byRicardo Muñoz Martín, 195–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.128.10eng
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128.10eng [Google Scholar]
  21. Ford, Cecilia E., and Sandra A. Thompson
    1996 “Interactional Units in Conversation: Syntactic, Intonational, and Pragmatic Resources for the Management of Turns.” InInteraction and Grammar, edited byElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 134–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fox, John, and Sanford Weisberg
    2019 An R Companion to Applied Regression, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Gavioli, Laura
    2016 “Conversation Analysis.” InResearching Translation and Interpreting, edited byClaudia V. Angelelli and Brian James Baer, 185–194. Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Gavioli, Laura, and Cecilia Wadensjö
    2021 “Reflections on Doctor Question – Patient Answer Sequences and on Lay Perceptions of Close Translation.” InWhen Clinicians and Patients Do Not Speak the Same Language – Interpreting in Health Care, edited byClaudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli, special issue ofHealth Communication36 (9): 1–11. 10.1080/10410236.2020.1735699
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1735699 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gile, Daniel
    1997 “Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem.” InCognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, edited byJoseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael McBeath, 196–214. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hayashi, Makoto
    2013 “Turn Allocation and Turn Sharing.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited byJack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 167–190. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Heldner, Mattias, and Jens Edlund
    2010 “Pauses, Gaps and Overlaps in Conversations.” Journal of Phonetics38 (4): 555–568. 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  28. Helgason, Pétur
    2006 “SMTC: A Swedish Map Task Corpus.” Proceedings from Fonetik 2006: 57–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Heritage, John
    1997 “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analysing Data.” InQualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, edited byDavid Silverman, 161–182. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Holler, Judith, and Kobin H. Kendrick
    2015 “Unaddressed Participants’ Gaze in Multi-Person Interaction: Optimizing Recipiency.” InHoller (2015a, 76–89). 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00098
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00098 [Google Scholar]
  31. Holler, Judith, Kobin H. Kendrick, Marisa Casillas, and Stephen C. Levinson
    eds. 2015a Turn-Taking in Human Communicative Interaction, special issue ofFrontiers in Psychology61.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 2015b “Editorial: Turn-Taking in Human Communicative Interaction.” InHoller (2015a, 6–9). 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01919
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01919 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jefferson, Gail
    1974 “Error Correction as an Interactional Resource.” Language in Society3 (2): 181–199. 10.1017/S0047404500004334
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004334 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kendon, Adam
    1967 “Some Functions of Gaze-Direction in Social Interaction.” Acta Psychologica261: 22–63. 10.1016/0001‑6918(67)90005‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kendrick, Kobin H., and Francisco Torreira
    2015 “The Timing and Construction of Preference: A Quantitative Study.” Discourse Processes52 (4): 255–289. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997 [Google Scholar]
  36. Komter, Martha
    2013 “Conversation Analysis in the Courtroom.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited byJack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 612–629. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Lammertink, Imme, Marisa Casillas, Titia Benders, Brechtje Post, and Paula Fikkert
    2015 “Dutch and English Toddlers’ Use of Linguistic Cues in Predicting Upcoming Turn Transitions.” InHoller (2015a, 279–291). 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00495
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00495 [Google Scholar]
  38. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  39. Levinson, Stephen C., and Francisco Torreira
    2015 “Timing in Turn-Taking and Its Implications for Processing Models of Language.” InHoller (2015a 10–26). 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731 [Google Scholar]
  40. Licoppe, Christian, and Clair-Antoine Veyrier
    2020 “The Interpreter as a Sequential Coordinator in Courtroom Interaction: ‘Chunking’ and the Management of Turn Shifts in Extended Answers in Consecutively Interpreted Asylum Hearings with Remote Participants.” Interpreting22 (1): 56–86. 10.1075/intp.00034.lic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00034.lic [Google Scholar]
  41. Mason, Ian
    2009 “Role, Positioning and Discourse in Face-to-Face Interpreting.” InInterpreting and Translating in Public Service Settings: Policy, Practice, Pedagogy, edited byRaquel De Pedro Ricoy, Isabelle Perez, and Christine Wilson, 52–73. Manchester: St Jerome.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 2012 “Gaze, Positioning and Identity in Interpreter-Mediated Dialogues.” InCoordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting, edited byClaudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli, 177–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.102.08mas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.08mas [Google Scholar]
  43. Oostdijk, Nelleke
    2000 “Het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands [Corpus of spoken Dutch].” Nederlandse Taalkunde31: 280–284.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Pasquandrea, Sergio
    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]
  45. Plevoets, Koen, and Bart Defrancq
    2016 “The Effect of Informational Load on Disfluencies in Interpreting: A Corpus-Based Regression Analysis.” Translation and Interpreting Studies11 (2): 202–224. 10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple [Google Scholar]
  46. 2018 “The Cognitive Load of Interpreters in the European Parliament: A Corpus-Based Study of Predictors for the Disfluency uh(m).” Interpreting20 (1): 1–32. 10.1075/intp.00001.ple
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00001.ple [Google Scholar]
  47. Roberts, Seán G., Francisco Torreira, and Stephen C. Levinson
    2015 “The Effects of Processing and Sequence Organization on the Timing of Turn Taking: A Corpus Study.” InHoller (2015a, 119–134). 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00509
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00509 [Google Scholar]
  48. Rogers, Shane L., Craig P. Speelman, Oliver Guidetti, and Melissa Longmuir
    2018 “Using Dual Eye Tracking to Uncover Personal Gaze Patterns During Social Interaction.” Scientific Reports81: 1–8. 10.1038/s41598‑018‑22726‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22726-7 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  50. Seeber, Kilian G.
    2011 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Existing Theories – New Models.” Interpreting13 (2): 176–204. 10.1075/intp.13.2.02see
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see [Google Scholar]
  51. Selting, Margret
    1996 “On the Interplay of Syntax and Prosody in the Constitution of Turn-Constructional Units and Turns in Conversation.” InInteraction-Based Studies of Languages, edited byCecilia E. Ford and Johannes Wagner, special issue ofPragmatics6 (3): 371–388. 10.1075/prag.6.3.06sel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.06sel [Google Scholar]
  52. Setton, Robin
    1999 Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.28
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  53. Stivers, Tanya, and Nick J. Enfield
    2010 “A Coding Scheme for Question–Response Sequences in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (10): 2620–2626. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  54. Stivers, Tanya, Nick J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann,
    2009 “Universals and Cultural Variation in Turn-Taking in Conversation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America106 (26): 10587–10592. 10.1073/pnas.0903616106
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106 [Google Scholar]
  55. Tiselius, Elisabet, and Kayle Sneed
    2020 “Gaze and Eye Movement in Dialogue Interpreting: An Eye-Tracking Study.” InInterpreting: A Window into Bilingual Processing, edited byYanping Dong and Ping Li, special issue ofBilingualism: Language and Cognition23 (4): 780–787. 10.1017/S1366728920000309
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000309 [Google Scholar]
  56. Van Besien, Fred
    1999 “Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpretation.” Meta44 (2): 250–259. 10.7202/004532ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/004532ar [Google Scholar]
  57. Vranjes, Jelena
    2018 On the Role of Eye Gaze in the Coordination of Interpreter-Mediated Interactions: An Eye-Tracking Study. PhD diss.KU Leuven.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Vranjes, Jelena, Geert Brône, and Kurt Feyaerts
    2018 “On the Role of Gaze in the Organization of Turn-Taking and Sequence Organization in Interpreter-Mediated Dialogue.” Language and Dialogue8 (3): 439–467. 10.1075/ld.00025.vra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00025.vra [Google Scholar]
  59. Vranjes, Jelena, Hanneke Bot, Kurt Feyaerts, and Geert Brône
    2018 “Displaying Recipiency in an Interpreter-Mediated Dialogue: An Eye-Tracking Study.” InEye-Tracking in Interaction: Studies on the Role of Eye Gaze in Dialogue, edited byGeert Brône and Bert Oben, 303–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ais.10.12vra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.10.12vra [Google Scholar]
  60. Vranjes, Jelena, and Hanneke Bot
    2021 “A Multimodal Analysis of Turn-Taking in Interpreter-Mediated Psychotherapy.” Translation & Interpreting13 (1): 101–117.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    1998 Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 2018 “Involvement, Trust and Topic Control in Interpreter-Mediated Healthcare Encounters.” InInterpreter-Mediated Healthcare Encounters, edited bySrikant Sarangi, special issue ofCommunication & Medicine15 (2): 165–176.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Wittenburg, Peter, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann, and Hans Sloetjes
    2006 “ELAN: A Professional Framework for Multimodality Research.” InProceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006), edited byNicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Aldo Gangemi, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, and Daniel Tapias, 1556–1559. Genoa: ELRA.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/target.20121.vra
Loading
Anticipation and timing of turn-taking in dialogue interpreting
Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 34, 627 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/target.20121.vra
/content/journals/10.1075/target.20121.vra
/content/journals/10.1075/target.20121.vra
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus analysis; dialogue interpreting; eye-tracking; timing; turn-taking

Most Cited

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