1887
Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study demonstrates how interpreters in a Swedish video relay service (VRS) between deaf and hearing users can simultaneously accomplish two different actions, each directed to a particular user of the service. The study takes a multimodal, ethnomethodological conversation analysis (EMCA) perspective and is empirically based on a corpus of 25 recordings from authentic video calls. Our analysis shows how interpreters, through what we call are able to: (1) offer the floor to one party while informing the other party, (2) refer to one of the participants using different forms of deictic reference for the two users of the service, and (3) request confirmation of a source statement from one party while rendering a statement to benefit the other party. The study contributes to current discussions relating to sequentiality, simultaneity, and positioning in interpreting studies and multimodal interaction research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tis.21016.war
2022-12-13
2024-06-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahlgren, Inger and Brita Bergman
    2006Det svenska teckenspråket [The Swedish Sign Language]. Stockholm University, Department of Linguistics. urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-14289
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arminen, Ilkka, and Alexandra Weilenmann
    2009 “Mobile presence and intimacy – Reshaping social actions in mobile contextual configuration.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (10): 1905–1923. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.016 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arminen, Ilkka, Christian Licoppe, and Anna Spagnolli
    2016 “Respecifying mediated interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction49 (4): 290–309. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1234614
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1234614 [Google Scholar]
  4. Braun, Sabine
    2007 “Interpreting in small-group bilingual videoconferences: Challenges and adaptation processes.” Interpreting9 (1): 21–46. 10.1075/intp.9.1.03bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.1.03bra [Google Scholar]
  5. 2013 Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice1. Interpreting15 (2): 200–228. 10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra [Google Scholar]
  6. 2020 “You are just a disembodied voice really.” InLinking up with Videoed. byHeidi Salaets and Geert Brône, 47–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.149.03bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.03bra [Google Scholar]
  7. Broth, Mathias
    2008 “The studio interaction as a contextual resource for TV-production.” Journal of Pragmatics40 (5): 904–926. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  8. Broth, Mathias, and Leelo Keevallik
    2014 “Getting ready to move as a couple accomplishing mobile formations in a dance class.” Space and Culture: 107–121. 10.1177/1206331213508483
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331213508483 [Google Scholar]
  9. Broth, Mathias, Eric Laurier, and Lorenza Mondada
    (eds) 2014Studies of Video Practices: Video at Work. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315851709
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315851709 [Google Scholar]
  10. Broth, Mathias, and Lorenza Mondada
    2013 “Walking away: The embodied achievement of activity closings in mobile interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics47 (1): 41–58. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.016 [Google Scholar]
  11. Coates, Jennifer, and Rachel Sutton-Spence
    2001 “Turn-taking patterns in deaf conversation.” Journal of Sociolinguistics5 (4): 507–529. 10.1111/1467‑9481.00162
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00162 [Google Scholar]
  12. Davitti, Elena
    2019 “Methodological explorations of interpreter-mediated interaction: Novel insights from multimodal analysis.” Qualitative Research19 (1): 7–29. 10.1177/1468794118761492
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118761492 [Google Scholar]
  13. Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea
    2017 “Embodied participation: What multimodal analysis can tell us about interpreter-mediated encounters in pedagogical settings.” Journal of Pragmatics1071: 105–128. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  14. de Cotret, Francois René, Camille Brisset, and Yvan Leanza
    2021 “A typology of healthcare interpreter positionings: When ‘neutral’ means proactive.’” Interpreting23(1): 103–126. 10.1075/intp.00052.cot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00052.cot [Google Scholar]
  15. De Meulder, Maartje, Oliver Pouliot and Karolien Gebruers
    2021Remote Sign Language Interpreting in Times of Covid-19. Research Report, January 2021. University of Applied Sciences Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2018 “Instruction practices in German driving lessons: Differential uses of declaratives and imperatives.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics28 (2): 265–282. 10.1111/ijal.12198
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12198 [Google Scholar]
  17. Enfield, Nick J., and Jack Sidnell
    2017The Concept of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139025928
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139025928 [Google Scholar]
  18. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodwin, Charles
    1981Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2000 “Action and embodiment within situated human interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics32 (10): 1489–1522. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  21. 2018Co-operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Groeber, Simone, and Evelyne Pochon-Berger
    2014 “Turns and turn-taking in sign language interaction: A study of turn-final holds.” Journal of Pragmatics651: 121–136. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.012 [Google Scholar]
  23. Grushkin, Donald A.
    2017 “Writing signed languages: What for? What form?” American Annals of the Deaf161 (5): 509–527. 10.1353/aad.2017.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2017.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Haddington, Pentti, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile
    (eds) 2013Interaction and Mobility Language and the Body in Motion. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110291278
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110291278 [Google Scholar]
  25. Heath, Christian
    1986Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511628221
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628221 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hole, Rachelle
    2007 “Working between languages and cultures: Issues of representation, voice, and authority intensified.” Qualitative Inquiry13 (5): 696–710. 10.1177/1077800407301186
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800407301186 [Google Scholar]
  27. Keating, Elizabeth, Tanja Edwards, and Gene Mirus
    2008 “Cybersign and new proximities: Impacts of new communication technologies on space and language.” Journal of Pragmatics40 (6): 1067–1081. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.009 [Google Scholar]
  28. Keating, Elizabeth, and Gene Mirus
    2003 “American Sign Language in virtual space: Interactions between deaf users of computer-mediated video communication and the impact of technology on language practicers.” Language in Society32 (5): 693–714. 10.1017/S0047404503325047
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404503325047 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kusters, Annelies
    2017 “Gesture-based customer interactions: Deaf and hearing Mumbaikars’ multimodal and metrolingual practices.” International Journal of Multilingualism14 (3): 283–302. 10.1080/14790718.2017.1315811
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1315811 [Google Scholar]
  30. Licoppe, Chirstian, and Julien Morel
    2014 “Mundane video directors in interaction: Showing one’s environment in skype and mobile video calls.” InStudies of Video Practices. Video at Work, ed. byMathias Broth, Eric Laurier, and Lorenza Mondada, 135–160. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 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]
  32. Liddell, Scott K.
    2003Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lucas, Cecile, Gene Mirus, Jeffrey Levi Palmer, Nicholas James Roessler, and Adam Frost
    2013 “The effect of new technologies on sign language research.” Sign Language Studies13 (4): 541–564. 10.1353/sls.2013.0018
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2013.0018 [Google Scholar]
  34. Luff, Paul, and Christian Heath
    1998 “Mobility in collaboration.” Proceedings of the 1998 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 305–314. 10.1145/289444.289505
    https://doi.org/10.1145/289444.289505 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mason, Ian
    2009 “Role, positioning and discourse in face-to-face interpreting.” InInterpreting and Translating in Public Service Settings, ed. byRaquel de Pedro Ricoy, Isabelle Perez and Christine Wilson, 52–73. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2012 “Gaze, positioning and identity in interpreted-mediated dialogues.” InCoordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting, ed. byClaudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli, 177–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.102.08mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.08mas [Google Scholar]
  37. Metzger, Melanie
    1999Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mesch, Johanna, and Lars Wallin
    2015 “Gloss annotations in the Swedish Sign Language Corpus.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics20 (1): 102–120. 10.1075/ijcl.20.1.05mes
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.1.05mes [Google Scholar]
  39. Mesch, Johanna and Krister Schönström
    2018 “From design and collection to annotation of a learner corpus of sign language.” InProceedings of the 8th workshop on the representation and processing of Sign Languages :involving the language community [Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC)], ed. byMayumi Bono , 121–126. Paris: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Mondada, Lorenza
    2006 “Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: Projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence.” Discourse Studies81: 117–129. 10.1177/1461445606059561
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059561 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2014 “The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics651: 137–156. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2016 “Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics20 (3): 336–366. 10.1111/josl.1_12177
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.1_12177 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2017 “Walking and talking together: Questions/answers and mobile participation in guided visits.” Social Science Information56 (2): 220–253. 10.1177/0539018417694777
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018417694777 [Google Scholar]
  44. Napier, Jemina
    2013 “You get that vibe”: A pragmatic analysis of clarification and communicative accommodation in legal video remote interpreting. InSign Language Research Uses and Practices, ed. byLaurence Meurant , 85–110. Nijmegen: De Gruyter Mouton and Ishara Press. 10.1515/9781614511472.85
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511472.85 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2016Linguistic Coping Strategies in Sign Language Interpreting. Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rcnffb
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rcnffb [Google Scholar]
  46. Napier, Jemina, Robert Skinner, and Graham H. Turner
    2018 “Enabling political participation through video remote interpreting: A case study.” InHere or there: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. byJemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 230–263. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rh2bs3.12
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh2bs3.12 [Google Scholar]
  47. Napier, Jemina and Marcel Leneham
    2011 ”It was difficult to manage the communication: Testing the feasibility of video remote signed language interpreting in court.” Journal of Interpretation21 (1): Article 5.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2004Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203504802
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203504802 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2011 “Consecutive interpreting.” The Oxford handbook of translation studies. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199239306.013.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199239306.013.0021 [Google Scholar]
  50. Regeringskansliet
    Regeringskansliet 2006Teckenspråk och teckenspråkiga: översyn av teckenspråkets ställning [Sign Language and Signers: Review of the Sign Language]. Stockholm: Fritze.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Roy, Cynthia B.
    2002 “The problem with definitions, descriptions, and the role methaphors of interpreters.” InThe Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. byFranz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 345–353. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Russell, Debra
    2005 “Consecutive and simultaneous interpreting.” InTopics in Signed Language Interpreting, ed. byFranz Pöchhacker, 135–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.63.10rus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.10rus [Google Scholar]
  53. Sacks, Harvey
    1984 “Notes on methodology.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage, 21–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Sacks, Harvey, and Gail Jefferson
    1995Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation.” Language in Society50 (4): 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  56. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1968 “Sequencing in conversational openings.” American Anthropologist70 (6): 1075–1095. 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  58. Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers
    (eds) 2013The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis D. LeBaron
    (eds) 2011Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    1998Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 2002 “The double role of a dialogue interpreter.” InThe Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. byFranz Pöchhacker, and Miriam Shlesinger, 355–370. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Warnicke, Camilla, and Sarah Granberg
    2022 “Interpreter mediated interaction between people using a signed respective a spoken language on a distance in real time – A scoping review.” BMC Health Services Research22 (387). 10.1186/s12913‑022‑07776‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07776-y [Google Scholar]
  63. Warnicke, Camilla
    2018 “The co-creation of communicative projects within the Swedish Video Relay Service (VRS).” InHere Or There: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. byJemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 210–229. Washington: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rh2bs3.11
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh2bs3.11 [Google Scholar]
  64. 2021 “Signed and spoken interaction at a distance: Interpreter practices to strive for progressivity at the beginning of calls via the Swedish Video Relay Service.” Interpreting23 (2): 296–320. 10.1075/intp.00054.war
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00054.war [Google Scholar]
  65. Warnicke, Camilla, and Charlotta Plejert
    2012 “Turn-organisation in mediated phone interaction using Video Relay Service (VRS).” Journal of Pragmatics44 (10): 1313–1334. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2016 “The positioning and bimodal mediation of the interpreter in a Video Relay Interpreting (VRI) service setting.” Interpreting18 (12): 198–230. 10.1075/intp.18.2.03war
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.18.2.03war [Google Scholar]
  67. Zimmerman, Don H.
    1998 “Identity, context and interaction.” InIdentities in Talk, ed. byCharles Antaki and Susan Widdicombe, 87–106. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tis.21016.war
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/tis.21016.war
Loading

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