1887
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The initial paradigm of Video Relay Service (VRS) in the United States viewed interpreters as merely conduits for telephone communication; however, this paradigm has begun to shift. Recent research suggests that VRS interpreters are actively involved in coordinating interpreted interaction ( Marks 2015 ; Warnicke and Plejert 2012 , 2016 ). This study aims add to the body of VRS research by analyzing features of turn management in ASL-English video relay interpreted calls. These features of turn management are grouped into two categories: techniques and strategies. Techniques denote acts that are performed in addition to the rendition, and strategies refer to instances of turn management that are embedded within renditions. Results show that VRS interpreters employ a variety of turn management techniques and strategies, especially in cases of overlapping talk between Deaf and hearing callers. The findings presented are relevant to the shifting paradigm of VRS interpreter work and training.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tis.00006.mar
2018-03-02
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alley, Erica
    2016Professional Autonomy in Video Relay Service Interpreting: Perceptions of American Sign Language-English Interpreters. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington, DC, Gallaudet University.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
    Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101–336, approvedJuly26 1990).
  3. Baker, Charlotte
    1977 “Regulators and Turn-taking in ASL Discourse.” InOn the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language, ed. by Lynn A. Friedman , 215–241. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bower, Kathryn
    2015 “Stress and Burnout in Video Relay Service (VRS) Interpreting.” Journal of Interpretation24 (1): Article 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
    1978 “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” InQuestion and Politeness, ed. by Esther N. Goody , 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brunson, Jeremy
    2011Video Relay Service Interpreters. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Coates, Jennifer and Rachel Sutton-Spence
    2001 “Turn-taking patterns in Deaf conversation.” Journal of Sociolinguistics5 (4): 507–529. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9481.00162
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00162 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chomsky, Noam
    1965Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Edelsky, Carole
    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. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gumperz, John. J.
    1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  13. Keating, Elizabeth , Terra Edwards , and Gene Mirus
    2008 “Cybersign and New Proximities: Impacts of New Communication Technologies on Space and Language.” Journal of Pragmatics40 (6): 1067–1081. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.009 [Google Scholar]
  14. Marks, Annie
    2012 “Participation Framework and Footing Shifts in an Interpreted Academic Meeting.” Journal of Interpretation22 (1): Article 4.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2015 “Investigating Footing Shifts in Video Relay Service Interpreted Interaction.” InSelected Papers from the International Symposium on Signed Language Interpretation and Translation Research, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus and Keith Cagle , 71–96. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Mather, Susan
    1996 “Initiation in Visually Constructed Dialogue: Reading Books to Three-to Eight-Year-Old Students Who Are Deaf and Hard-of-hearing.” InMulticultural Aspects of Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, ed. by Ceil Lucas , 109–131. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Metzger, Melanie
    1999Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Napier, Jemina
    2002Sign Language Interpreting: Linguistic Coping Strategies. Coleford, UK: Douglas McLean.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2004 “Interpreting Omissions: A New Perspective.” Interpreting6 (2): 117–143. doi: 10.1075/intp.6.2.02nap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.2.02nap [Google Scholar]
  20. Nicodemus, Brenda
    2009Prosodic Markers and Utterance Boundaries in American Sign Language Interpretation. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Peterson, Rico
    2011 “Profession in Pentimento: A Narrative Inquiry into Interpreting in Video Settings.” InAdvances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in Action, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus and Laurie Swabey , 199–224. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.99.12pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.99.12pet [Google Scholar]
  22. Roy, Cynthia
    2000Interpreting as a Discourse Process. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking in Conversation.” Language50 (4): 695–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  24. Sanheim, Laura
    2003 “Turn Exchange in an Interpreted Medical Encounter.” InFrom Topic Boundaries to Omission: New Research on Interpretation, ed. by Melanie Metzger , Steven Collins , Valerie Dively , and Risa Shaw , 27–54. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Schegloff, Emanuel A. , Gail Jefferson , and Harvey Sacks
    1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language53 (2): 361–382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  26. Sloetjes, Han and Wittenburg, Peter
    2008 “Annotation by Category – ELAN and ISO DCR.” InProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008).
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Tannen, Deborah
    1984Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Taylor, Marty
    2005 “Video Relay Service Interpreting Task Analysis Report.” Distance Opportunities for Interpreter Training Center (DO IT Center).
  29. Van Herreweghe, Mieke
    2002 “Turn-taking Mechanisms and Active Participation in Meetings with Deaf and Hearing Participants in Flanders.” InTurn-taking, Fingerspelling, and Contact in Signed languages: Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, ed. by Ceil Lucas , 73–103. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    1998Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Warnicke, Camilla and Charlotta Plejert
    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]
  32. 2016 “The Positioning and Bimodal Mediation of the Interpreter in a Video Relay Interpreting (VRI) Service Setting.” Interpreting18 (2): 198–230. doi: 10.1075/intp.18.2.03war
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.18.2.03war [Google Scholar]
  33. Wessling, Dawn and Sherry Shaw
    2014 “Persistent Emotional Extremes and Video Relay Service Interpreters.” Journal of Interpretation23 (1): Article 6.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wilbur, Ronnie
    2000 “Phonological and Prosodic Layering in American Sign Language.” InThe Signs of Language Revisited, ed. by Karen Emmorey and Harlan Lane , 215–244. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Winston, Elizabeth
    2000 “It Just Doesn’t Look like ASL! Defining, Recognizing, and Teaching Prosody in ASL.” InProceedings of the 13th National Convention: Conference of Interpreter Trainers, 103–112. Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Winston, Elizabeth and Christine Monikowski
    2003 “Marking Topic Boundaries in Signed Language Interpretation and Transliteration.” InFrom Topic Boundaries to Omission: New Research on Interpretation, ed. by Melanie Metzger , Steven Collins , Valerie Dively , and Risa Shaw , 187–227. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tis.00006.mar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/tis.00006.mar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ASL-English interpreting , turn management , turn taking and Video Relay Service
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