Investigating interpreter-mediated interaction through the lens of depictions, descriptions, and indications

References

1. Baekelandt, Annelies, and Bart Defrancq
   2021 “Elicitation of particular grammatical structures in speeches for interpreting research: Enhancing ecological validity of experimental research in interpreting.” Perspectives29(4): 643–60. 10.1080/0907676X.2020.1849322
   https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2020.1849322 [Google Scholar]
2. Bauer, Anastasia
   2014 The Use of Signing Space in a Shared Sign Language of Australia. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614515470
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614515470 [Google Scholar]
3. Beal-Alvarez, Jennifer S., and Jessica W. Trussell
   2015 “Depicting verbs and constructed action: Necessary narrative components in deaf adults’ storybook renditions.” Sign Language Studies16(1): 5–29. 10.1353/sls.2015.0023
   https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2015.0023 [Google Scholar]
4. Beukeleers, Inez, and Myriam Vermeerbergen
   2019 “On the role of eye gaze in depicting and enacting in Flemish Sign Language: Some methodological considerations.” https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/536860
5. Blakemore, Diane, and Fabrizio Gallai
   2014 “Discourse markers in free indirect style and interpreting.” Journal of Pragmatics601: 106–120. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.003
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.003 [Google Scholar]
6. Bø, Vibeke
   2010 Verb sandwich constructions in Norwegian Sign Language: A syntactic analysis. MA thesis. Oslo: University of Oslo.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Busch, Brigitta
   2021 “The body image: Taking an evaluative stance towards semiotic resources.” International Journal of Multilingualism18(2): 190–205. 10.1080/14790718.2021.1898618
   https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2021.1898618 [Google Scholar]
8. Clark, Herbert H.
   1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
9. Clark, Herbert H.
   2005 “Coordinating with each other in a material world.” Discourse Studies7(4/5): 507–25. 10.1177/1461445605054404
   https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054404 [Google Scholar]
10. Clark, Herbert H.
    2016 “Depicting as a method of communication.” Psychological Review123(3): 324–47. 10.1037/rev0000026
    https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000026 [Google Scholar]
11. Clark, Herbert H., and Richard J. Gerrig
    1990 “Quotations as demonstrations.” Language66(4): 764–805. 10.2307/414729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
12. Cormier, Kearsy, Jordan Fenlon, and Adam Schembri
    2015 “Indicating verbs in British Sign Language favour motivated use of space.” Open Linguistics11: 684–707. 10.1515/opli‑2015‑0025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0025 [Google Scholar]
13. Crasborn, Onno
    2015 “Transcription and notation methods.” InResearch Methods in Sign Language Studies: A Practical Guide, ed. byEleni Orfanidou, Bencie Woll, and Gary Morgan, 74–88. Wiley. 10.1002/9781118346013.ch5
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346013.ch5 [Google Scholar]
14. Crasborn, Onno, and Han Sloetjes
    2008 “Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora.” Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on the representation and processing of sign languages: Construction and exploitation of sign language corpora. LREC 2008, Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Marrakech, Morocco.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea
    2017 “Embodied participation: What multimodal analysis can tell us about interpreter-mediated encounters in pedagogical settings.” Journal of Pragmatics1071: 105–28. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.008 [Google Scholar]
16. Dingemanse, Mark
    2015 “Ideophones and reduplication: Depiction, description, and the interpretation of repeated talk in discourse.” Studies in Language39(4): 946–70. 10.1075/sl.39.4.05din
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.4.05din [Google Scholar]
17. Dingemanse, Mark, et al
    2015 “Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences19(10): 603–15. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013 [Google Scholar]
18. Dudis, Paul
    2011 “The body in scene depictions.” InDiscourse in Signed Languages, ed. byCynthia B. Roy, 3–45. Washington D.C: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rh28s4.7
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh28s4.7 [Google Scholar]
19. Enfield, N. J.
    2009 The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511576737
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576737 [Google Scholar]
20. Fangen, Katrine
    2010 Deltagende Observasjon. 2nd ed.Bergen: Fagbokforl.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Ferrara, Lindsay
    2020 “Some interactional functions of finger pointing in signed language conversations.” Glossa5(1): 1–26. 10.5334/gjgl.993
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.993 [Google Scholar]
22. Ferrara, Lindsay, and Gabrielle Hodge
    2018 “Language as description, indication, and depiction.” Frontiers in Psychology91. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716 [Google Scholar]
23. Ferrara, Lindsay, and Torill Ringsø
    2019 “Spatial vantage points in Norwegian Sign Language.” Open Linguistics5(1): 583–600. 10.1515/opli‑2019‑0032
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2019-0032 [Google Scholar]
24. Feyne, Stephanie
    2015 “Typology of interpreter-mediated discourse that affects perceptions of the identity of deaf professionals.” InSigned Language Interpretation and Translation Research: Selected Papers from the First International Symposium, ed. byBrenda Nicodemus and Keith Cagle, 49–70. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rh2b69.6
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh2b69.6 [Google Scholar]
25. Fischer, S., and Wynne Janis
    1990 “Verb sandwiches in American Sign Langauge.” InCurrent Trends in European Sign Language Research. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Garner, Mark
    2004 Language: An Ecological View. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Gile, Daniel
    1994 “Opening up in interpretation studies.” InTranslation Studies: An Interdiscipline, ed. byMary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker, and Klaus Kaindl, 149–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.2.20gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.2.20gil [Google Scholar]
28. Gile, Daniel
    2017 “Interpretation research: A new impetus?” Hermes — Journal of Language and Communication in Business8(14): 15–29. 10.7146/hjlcb.v8i14.25100
    https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v8i14.25100 [Google Scholar]
29. Goffman, Erving
    1981 Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Goffman, Erving
    1986 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Goodwin, Charles
    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]
32. Gray, Beth C.
    2018 The impact of translation on constructed action and constructed dialogue in ASL Texts. MA thesis, University of North Dakota.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Gumperz, John J.
    1982 Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
34. Hale, Sandra
    2004 Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.52
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.52 [Google Scholar]
35. Halley, Mark
    2020 “Rendering depiction: A case study of an American Sign Language/English interpreter.” Journal of Interpretation28(2). https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol28/iss2/3
    [Google Scholar]
36. Hassemer, Julius, and Bodo Winter
    2018 “Decoding gestural iconicity.” Cognitive Science42(8): 3034–3049. 10.1111/cogs.12680
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12680 [Google Scholar]
37. Haualand, Hilde M., and Anna-Lena Nilsson
    2019 “Working with active interpreters: A commentary about interpreting terminology and concepts.” International Journal of Interpreter Education11(2), 40–45.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Haugen, Einar
    1971 “The Ecology of language.” Linguistic Reporter13(1): 19–26.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Hodge, Gabrielle
    2014 “Patterns from a signed language corpus: Clause-like units in Auslan (Australian Sign Language).” Sydney: Macquarie University.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Hodge, Gabrielle, and Kearsy Cormier
    2019 “Reported speech as enactment.” Linguistic Typology23(1): 185–196. 10.1515/lingty‑2019‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0008 [Google Scholar]
41. Hodge, Gabrielle, and Lindsay Ferrara
    2014 Showing the Story: Enactment as Performance in Auslan Narratives. University of Melbourne.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Hodge, Gabrielle, and Trevor Johnston
    2014 “Points, depictions, gestures and enactment: Partly lexical and non-lexical signs as core elements of single clause-like units in Auslan (Australian Sign Language).” Australian Journal of Linguistics34(2): 262–91. 10.1080/07268602.2014.887408
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2014.887408 [Google Scholar]
43. Johnston, Trevor
    2003 “Language standardization and signed language dictionaries.” Sign Language Studies3(4): 431–68. 10.1353/sls.2003.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2003.0012 [Google Scholar]
44. Johnston, Trevor
    2019 “Auslan corpus annotation guidelines.” Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Kendon, Adam
    2004 Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
46. Kita, Sotaro, and Max Planck
    2003 Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet. New York: Taylor & Francis. 10.4324/9781410607744
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607744 [Google Scholar]
47. Kress, Gunther R., and Theo van Leeuwen
    2010 Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Leeson, Lorraine, and Susan Foley-Cave
    2007 “Deep and meaningful conversation: Challenging interpreter impartiality in the semantics and pragmatics classroom.” InTranslation, Sociolinguistic, and Consumer Issues in Interpreting, ed. byMelanie Metzger and Earl Fleetwood, 45–70. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Liddell, Scott K.
    2003 Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
50. Linell, Per
    2005 The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. 2nd ed.London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Liu, Minhua
    2011 “Methodology in interpreting studies: A Methodological review of evidence-based research.” InAdvances in Interpreting Research, ed. byBrenda Nicodemus and Laurie Swabey, 85–120. 10.1075/btl.99.08liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.99.08liu [Google Scholar]
52. Mapson, Rachel, and George Major
    2021 “Interpreters, rapport, and the role of familiarity.” Journal of Pragmatics1761: 63–75. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.020
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.020 [Google Scholar]
53. Mason, Ian
    2006 “On mutual accessibility of contextual assumptions in dialogue interpreting.” Journal of Pragmatics38(3): 359–73. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.022 [Google Scholar]
54. Mellinger, Christopher D.
    2020 “Positionality in public service interpreting research.” FITISPos International Journal7(1): 92–109. 10.37536/FITISPos‑IJ.2020.7.1.250
    https://doi.org/10.37536/FITISPos-IJ.2020.7.1.250 [Google Scholar]
55. Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson
    2022 “Considerations of ecological validity in cognitive translation and interpreting studies.” 5(1): 1–26. 10.1075/tcb.00061.mel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00061.mel [Google Scholar]
56. Metzger, Melanie
    1995 “Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language.” InSociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, ed. byCeil Lucas, 255–71. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Mohammad, Abeer, and Camilla Vásquez
    2015 “‘Rachel’s not here’: Constructed dialogue in gossip.” Journal of Sociolinguistics19(3): 351–71. 10.1111/josl.12125
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12125 [Google Scholar]
58. Mondada, Lorenza
    2012 “The dynamics of embodied participation and language choice in multilingual meetings.” Language in Society41(2): 213–35. 10.1017/S004740451200005X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740451200005X [Google Scholar]
59. Mufwene, Salikoko S., and Cécile B. Vigouroux
    2017 “Individuals, populations, and timespace: Perspectives on the ecology of language revisited.” Language Ecology1(2): 75–102. 10.1075/le.1.1.05muf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/le.1.1.05muf [Google Scholar]
60. Napier, Jemina
    2007 “Cooperation in interpreter-mediated monologic talk.” Discourse & Communication1(4): 407–32. 10.1177/1750481307082206
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307082206 [Google Scholar]
61. Napier, Jemina
    2016 Linguistic Coping Strategies in Sign Language Interpreting. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rcnffb
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rcnffb [Google Scholar]
62. Opsahl, Toril, and Jan Svennevig
    2007 “Må Ha Det. Bare Må Ha Det: Bare Som Pragmatisk Partikkel i Samtale.” Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Peirce, C. P.
    1965 “Basic concepts of Peircean sign theory.” InSemiotics, ed. byM. Gottdiener Boklund-Lagopoulou, K. & Lagopoulos, A. P.Vol.20031. London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Perlman, Marcus, Hannah Little, Bill Thompson, and Robin L. Thompson
    2018 “Iconicity in signed and spoken vocabulary: A comparison between American Sign Language, British Sign Language, English, and Spanish.” Frontiers in Psychology91: 1433–1433. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01433
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01433 [Google Scholar]
65. Perniss, Pamela, Robin Thompson, and Gabriella Vigliocco
    2010 “Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages.” Frontiers in Psychology11. 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227 [Google Scholar]
66. Puupponen, Anna
    2019 “Towards understanding nonmanuality: A semiotic treatment of signers’ head movements.” Glossa4(1): 39. 10.5334/gjgl.709
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.709 [Google Scholar]
67. Reddy, Michael J.
    1993 “The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language.” InMetaphor and Thought, ed. byAndrew Ortony, 164–201. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.012 [Google Scholar]
68. Rosenthal, Abigail
    2009 “Lost in transcription: The problematics of commensurability in academic representations of American Sign Language.” Text & Talk29(5): 595–614. 10.1515/TEXT.2009.031
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2009.031 [Google Scholar]
69. Roy, Cynthia B.
    2000 Interpreting as a Discourse Process. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
70. Roy, Cynthia B., and Melanie Metzger
    2014 “Researching signed language interpreting through a sociolinguistic approach.” Translation & Interpreting6(1): 158–176. 10.12807/ti.106201.2014.a09
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.106201.2014.a09 [Google Scholar]
71. Sagli, Gry, and Tatjana Radanović Felberg
    2022 “Hvilken Kropp? Tolkefaget i Samtale Med Medisinsk Antropologi.” InTango För Tre. En Dansant Festskrift till Cecilia Wadensjö, ed. byMagnus Dahnberg and Yvonne Lindqvist. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
72. Skedsmo, Kristian
    2020 “Other-initiations of repair in Norwegian Sign Language.” Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality3(2). 10.7146/si.v3i2.117723
    https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i2.117723 [Google Scholar]
73. Skedsmo, Kristian
    2021 “How to use comic-strip graphics to represent signed conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction54(3): 241–60. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1936801
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1936801 [Google Scholar]
74. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, and D. L. Harman
    2017 “Biological diversity and language diversity: Parallels and differences.” InHandbook of Ecolinguistics, ed. byHermine Penz and Alwin Fill, 11–25. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315687391‑2
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315687391-2 [Google Scholar]
75. Slobin, Dan I., et al
    2001 “Sign language transcription at the level of meaning components: The Berkeley Transcription System (BTS).” Sign Language & Linguistics4(1–2): 63–104. 10.1075/sll.4.12.07slo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.4.12.07slo [Google Scholar]
76. Streeck, Jürgen
    2015 “Embodiment in human communication.” Annual Review of Anthropology44(1): 419–38. 10.1146/annurev‑anthro‑102214‑014045
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-014045 [Google Scholar]
77. Svennevig, Jan
    2008 “Ikke Sant Som Respons i Samtale.” InSpråk i Oslo. Ny Forskning Omkring Talespråk, 127–38. Oslo: Novus.
    [Google Scholar]
78. Tannen, Deborah
    1986 “Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative.” InDirect and Indirect Speech, ed. byFlorian Coulmas, 311–360. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110871968.311
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.311 [Google Scholar]
79. Thumann, Mary
    2011 “Identifying depiction: Constructed action and constructed dialogue in ASL Presentations.” InDiscourse in Signed Languages, ed. byCynthia B. Roy, 46–66. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rh28s4.8
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh28s4.8 [Google Scholar]
80. Tiselius, Elisabet
    2022 “Tolkar Du Med Knoppen Eller Med Kroppen? Om Förkroppsligad Kognition i Dialogtolkning.” InTango För Tre. En Dansant Festskrift till Cecilia Wadensjö, ed. byMagnus Dahnberg and Yvonne Lindqvist. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
81. Vonen, Arnfinn Muruvik
    2020 Norsk Tegnspråk : En Grunnbok. 11. utgave. Oslo: Cappelen Damm akademisk.
    [Google Scholar]
82. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    1998 Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
83. 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]
84. Wilbur, Ronnie B., and Evguenia Malaia
    2008 “Contributions of sign language research to gesture understanding: What Can multimodal computational systems learn from sign language research.” International Journal of Semantic Computing2(1): 5–9. 10.1142/S1793351X08000324
    https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793351X08000324 [Google Scholar]
85. Wilcox, Sherman E., and Barbara Shaffer
    2005 “Towards a cognitive model of interpreting.” InTopics in Signed Language Interpreting. Theory and Practice, ed. byTerry Janzen, 27–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.63.06wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.06wil [Google Scholar]
86. Zahle, Julie
    2012 “Practical knowledge and participant observation.” Inquiry55(1): 50–65. 10.1080/0020174X.2012.643626
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2012.643626 [Google Scholar]
87. Zhou, Feifei
    2020 “Haugen, Mühlhäusler and Mufwene: System and language ecology.” InModels of the Human in Twentieth-Century Linguistic Theories. Springer, Singapore, 55–62. Singapore: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑15‑1255‑1_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1255-1_7 [Google Scholar]