Cover not available
Part of
Eye-tracking in Interaction: Studies on the role of eye gaze in dialogue
Edited by Geert Brône and Bert Oben
[Advances in Interaction Studies 10] 2018
► pp. 301–322

Chapter 12
Displaying recipiency in an interpreter-mediated dialogue

An eye-tracking study

This chapter discusses the findings of a study that used mobile eye-tracking in the context of a naturally occurring interpreter-mediated dialogue. This type of interaction is particularly interesting for the study of gaze and other (non-) verbal resources, as the primary interlocutors have no or limited access to each other’s languages and have to rely on the interpreter and other modalities for the successful accomplishment of the social interaction. The aim of the study was to examine the role of gaze in the multimodal displays of recipiency (backchannel responses) in one interpreter-mediated therapeutic encounter. Our study reveals asymmetrical gaze patterns of the three participants while listening to the ongoing talk. The analysis also shows that backchannel responses are found on different levels of communication and between all participants in an interpreter-mediated conversation. Moreover, this contribution demonstrates how eye-tracking technology can help us reveal specific micro-events between the participants in the conversation, which can strengthen our understanding of the interpreter-mediated talk as a joint action.

Keywords: eye gaze in interaction, multimodality, backchannel responses, mobile eye-tracking, interpreter-mediated dialogue, psychotherapy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Recipiency in face-to-face (monolingual) interaction
  • 3.Recipiency in interpreter-mediated interaction
    • 3.1Verbal backchanneling
    • 3.2Gaze as an instrument in multimodal backchanneling
  • 4.Method and data
  • 5.Analysis
    • 5.1Distribution of visual attention
    • 5.2Listener responses
  • 6.Discussion
  • Appendix: Transcription conventions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.10.12vra
References
Allwood, J. & Cerrato, L.
(2003) A study of gestural feedback expressions. In P. Paggio et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Nordic Symposium on Multimodal Communication, 7–22.Google Scholar
Argyle, M. & Cook, M.
(1976) Gaze and Mutual Gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baraldi, L. & Gavioli, C.
(2012) Understanding coordination in interpreter-mediated interaction. In L. Baraldi, & C. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting (pp.1–22). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bavelas, J., Coates, L. & Johnson, T.
(2002) Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52, 566–580.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertrand R., Ferré, G., Blache, P., Espesser, R. & Rauzy, S.
(2007) Backchannels revisited from a multimodal perspective. Proceedings of Auditory-Visual Speech Processing 2007 (AVSP2007) 2007, Kasteel Groenendaal, Hilvarenbeek, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bot, H.
(2005) Dialogue Interpreting in Mental Health. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi Publishers.Google Scholar
Brône, G. and B. Oben
(2015) InSight Interaction. A multimodal and multifocal dialogue corpus, Language Resources and Evaluation, 49, 195–214.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H.
(1996) Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. and Brennan, S.
(1991) Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp.127–149). Washington: APA Books.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davitti, E. & Pasquandrea, S.
(2016) Embodied participation: What multimodal analysis can tell us about interpreter-mediated encounters in pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 107, 105–128.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Kok, I. & Heylen D.
(2012) Analyzing nonverbal listener responses using parallel recordings of multiple listeners. Cognitive Processing, 13, 499–506.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dittmann, A. & Llewellyn, L.
(1968) Relationship between vocalizations and head nods as listener responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 79–84.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drummond, K. & Hopper, R.
(1993) Back channels revisited. Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 157–178.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duchowski, A.
(2007) Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice. London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, B.
(1997) Degree of Interpreter Responsibility in the Interaction Process in Community Interpreting. In S. E. Carr (Ed.), The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community (pp.147–164). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E. & Stickle, T.
(2012) Securing recipiency in workplace meetings: Multimodal practices. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 11–30.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R.
(2001) When Listeners Talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Publishing.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gavioli, L.
(2012) Minimal responses in interpreter-mediated medical talk. In L. Baraldi & C. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting (pp.201–228). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerhardt, J. & Beyerle, S.
(1997) “What if Socrates had been a woman? The therapist’s use of acknowledgment tokens (mm-hm, yeah, sure, right) as a nonreflective means of intersubjective involvement”. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 33(2), 367–410.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C.
(1980) Restarts,pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 272–302.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1981) Conversational Organization. Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York, London.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M. & Kita, S.
(2009) Attention to speech-accompanying gestures: Eye movements and information uptake. Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, 33, 251–277.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holler, J. & Kendrick, K. H.
(2015) Unaddressed participants’ gaze in multi-person interaction: Optimizing recipiency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–14.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, W. J.
(1986) Cognition, conversing and interpreting. In J. House, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication (pp.129–138). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Jokinen, K.
(2010) Non-verbal signals for turn-taking & feedback. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Language Resources & Evaluation (LREC) International Universal Communication Symposium .Google Scholar
Kendon, A.
(1967) Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krystallidou, D.
(2014) Gaze and body orientation as an apparatus for patient inclusion into exclusion from a patient-centred framework of communication. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(3), 399–417.Google Scholar
Lang, R.
(1978) Behavioral aspects of liaison interpreters in Papua New Guinea: some preliminary observations. In D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language Interpretation and Communication (pp.231–244). New York/London: Plenum Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H.
(2003) Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32, 177–201.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, P., Wadensjö, C. & Jönsson, L.
(1992) Establishing Communicative Contact through a Dialogue Interpreter. In A. Grindsted, & J. Wagner (Eds.), Communication for Specific Purposes – Fachsprachliche Kommunikation (pp.125–142). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Mason, I.
(2012) Gaze, positioning and identity in interpreter-mediated dialogues. In L. Baraladi, & C. Gavioli, C (Eds.), Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting (pp.177–199). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlini, R. & Favaron, R.
(2005) Examining the “voice of interpreting” in speech pathology. Interpreting, 7(2), 263–302.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oben, B. & Brône, G.
(2015) What you see is what you do: On the relation between gaze and gesture in multimodal alignment. Language and Cognition, 7(4), 546–562.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pasquandrea, S.
(2011) Managing multiple actions through multimodality: Doctors’ involvement in interpreter-mediated interactions. Language in Society, 40(4), 455–481.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Co-constructing dyadic sequences in healthcare interpreting: A multimodal account. New Voices in Translation Studies, 8, 132–157.Google Scholar
Peräkylä, A.
(2013) Conversation Analysis in Psychotherapy. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.251–274). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F.
(2012) Interpreting participation. Conceptual analysis and illustration of the interpreter’s role in interaction. In L. Baraldi, & C. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting (pp.201–228). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöllabauer, S.
(2004) Interpreting in asylum hearings: Issues of role, responsibility and power. Interpreting, 6(2), 143–180.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rea, L. M. & Parker, R. A.
(1992) Designing and conducting survey research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey– Bass.Google Scholar
Rossano, F.
(2013) Gaze in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.308–329). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks H., Schegloff E. A. & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. et al.
(2009) Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion , 10, 353–402.Google Scholar
Streeck, J.
(2009) Gesturecraft – The manufacture of meaning. Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T.
(2008) Stance, alignment and affiliation during story telling: when nodding is a token of preliminary affiliation. Research on Language in Social Interaction, 41, 29–55.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F.
(2010) Mobilizing Response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, C.
(1998) Interpreting as interaction. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
(2001) Interpreting in Crisis: The Interpreters Position in Therapeutic Encounters. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic Exchanges. Studies in Dialogue Interpreting (pp.71–85). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Wittenburg, P., H. Brugman, A. Russel, A. Klassmann & Sloetjes, H.
(2006) ELAN: a Professional Framework for Multimodality Research. In: Proceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.Google Scholar
Yngve, V. H.
(1970) On getting a word in edgewise. In Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.567–577). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Monteoliva-García, Eloísa
2020. The collaborative and selective nature of interpreting in police interviews with stand-by interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 22:2 ► pp. 262 ff. DOI logo
Salaets, Heidi & Katalin Balogh
2023. Are interpreters and interpreting technology ready for the post-Covid era?. In Introducing New Hypertexts on Interpreting (Studies) [Benjamins Translation Library, 160], ► pp. 254 ff. DOI logo
Vranjes, Jelena, Geert Brône & Kurt Feyaerts
2018. On the role of gaze in the organization of turn-taking and sequence organization in interpreter-mediated dialogue. Language and Dialogue 8:3 ► pp. 439 ff. DOI logo
Vranjes, Jelena & Bert Oben
2022. Anticipation and timing of turn-taking in dialogue interpreting. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 34:4 ► pp. 627 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 march 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.