Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 20:1 (2018) ► pp.102–131

How sign language interpreters use multimodal actions to coordinate turn-taking in group work between deaf and hearing upper secondary school students

| Norwegian University of Science and Technology

This study examines interpreted group work situations involving deaf and hearing senior high school students, using Norwegian Sign Language and spoken Norwegian. The research question is: how does the sign language interpreter explicitly coordinate turn-taking in group work dialogues among deaf and hearing students? Video recordings of authentic learning situations constitute the basis for analysis of how a sign language interpreter uses multimodal actions to convey information that is used by the deaf and hearing students in establishing a shared focus of attention and thus coordinating their turn-taking. Five types of actions were recurrently identified: construction of visual gestures; timing of the interpreter’s input; use of gaze to negotiate for the deaf students’ speaking turns; left-right shifts in body position to convey information about which of the hearing students is speaking; and backward-forward shifts in body position to negotiate for shared attention. The analysis draws mainly on concepts developed by Goffman (1959, 1981), Goodwin (1994, 2000, 2007) and Wadensjö (1998). The discussion examines implications for the educational interpreter’s role set (Sarangi 2010, 2011), and the dual responsibility s/he fulfils by not only interpreting the students’ utterances, but also explicitly coordinating their interaction.

Keywords: sign language interpreting, multimodal, video-analysis, explicit coordination, turn-taking, role set
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Earlier research
  • Turn-taking and establishing shared attention
  • Role set and shifts of footing
  • Multimodal interaction analysis
  • Analysis
    • Excerpt 1: Gestures
    • Excerpt 2: Timing of the interpreter’s input
    • Excerpt 3: Use of gaze
    • Excerpt 4: Left-right shifts in body position to give information about who is speaking
    • Excerpt 5: Backward-forward shifts of body position to negotiate for attention
  • Discussion
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00004.ber
References
Antia, S. D. & Kreimeyer, K. H.
(2001) The role of interpreters in inclusive classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf 146 (4), 355–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bagga-Gupta, S.
(2004) Visually oriented language use: Discursive and technological resources in Swedish deaf pedagogical arenas. In M. V. Herreweghe & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), To the lexicon and beyond: Sociolinguistics in European Deaf communities. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, 171–207.Google Scholar
Berge, S. S.
(2012) Deaf pupils’ access in interpreted, peer group dialogues. Paper presented at Marginalization processes: International multidisciplinaryworkshop, Ørebro, 26–28 April 2012.
Berge, S. S. & Kermit, P. S.
(2017) Deaf students’ access to informal group-work avtivities seen in light of the educational interpreter’s role. In S. Bagga-Gupta (Ed.), Marginalization processes: Studies of participation across sites. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Berge, S. S.
(2014) To negotiate for the other’s turn to talk. Paper presented at ALAPP 4: Applied linguistics and professional practice, Geneva, 10–12 Sept 2014.
Berge, S. S. & Raanes, E.
(2013) Coordinating the chain of utterances: An analysis of communicative flow and turn-taking in an interpreted group dialogue for deaf-blind persons. Sign Language Studies, 13 (3), 350–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berge, S. S. & Thomassen, G.
(2015) Visual access in interpreter-mediated learning situations for deaf and hard-of-hearing high school students where an artifact is in use. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21 (2), 187–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berge, S. S. & Ytterhus, B.
(2015) Deaf and hearing high-school students’ expectations for the role of educational sign-language interpreter. Society, Health and Vulnerability 61, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinkman, S. & Kvale, S.
(2015) Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Edelsky, C.
(1981) Who’s got the floor? Language in Society 10 (3), 383–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E.
(1991) Lærebok i tegnsprogs gramatik (Textbook in sign-language grammar). Copenhagen: Døves Center for Total Kommunikation.Google Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
(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. Inquiry 50 (3–4), 272–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986) Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica 62 (1–2), 29–49.Google Scholar
(1994) Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96 (3), 606–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 321, 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society 18 (1), 53–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H.
(2004) Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 222–243.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J.
(1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, A. L.
(2005) Kommunikative praksiser i visuelt orienterte klasserom (Communicative practises in visually oriented classrooms). PhD Dissertation, Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Harrington, F. J.
(2000) Sign language interpreters and access for deaf students to university curricula: The ideal and the reality. In R. P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham & A. Dufour (Eds.), The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the community. Selected papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal,, Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, Canada, 19–23 May 1998. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 219–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) A study of the complex nature of interpreting with deaf students in higher education. In M. Metzger & E. Fleetwood (Eds.), Attitudes, innuendo and regulators: Challenges of interpretation. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 162–187.Google Scholar
Heath, C. & Hindmarsh, J.
(2002) Analysing interaction: Video, ethnography and situated conduct. In M. Tim (Ed.), Qualitative research in action. London: Sage Publications, 99–121.Google Scholar
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J. & Luff, P.
(2010) Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herreweghe, M. V.
(2002) Turn-taking mechanisms and active participation in meetings with deaf and hearing participants in Flanders. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Turn-taking, fingerspelling and contact in signed languages. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 73–103.Google Scholar
Kendon, A.
(2009) Language’s matrix. Gesture 9 (3), 355–372.Google Scholar
Linell, P.
(1997) Interpreting as communication. In Y. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Llewellyn-Jones, P. & Lee, R. G.
(2013) Getting to the core of role: Defining interpreters’ role-space. International Journal of Interpreter Education 5 (2), 54–72.Google Scholar
Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Convertino, C. & Seewagen, R.
(2005) Access to postsecondary education through sign language interpreting. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10 (1), 38–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McIlvenny, P.
(1995) Seeing conversations: Analyzing sign language talk. In P. T. Have & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities. Washington DC: University Press of America, 129–150.Google Scholar
Metzger, M.
(1999) Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Interpreted discourse: Learning and recognizing what interpreters do in interaction. In C. B. Roy (Ed.), Advances in teaching sign language interpreters. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Metzger, M. & Fleetwood, E.
(2004) Educational interpreting: Developing standards of practice. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 171–177.Google Scholar
Mondada, L.
(2009) Emergent focused interaction in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (10), 1977–1997. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgenthaler, L.
(1988) A study of group process: Who’s got what floor? Journal of Pragmatics 14 (4), 537–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, J.
(2002) Sign language interpreting: Linguistic coping strategies. Coleford: McLean.Google Scholar
Nilsson, A. -L.
(2016) Embodying metaphors: Signed language interpreters at work. Cognitive Linguistics 27 (1), 35–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, C. B.
(2000) Interpreting as a discourse process. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. In P. Cobey (Ed.), Communication theories. London: Routledge, 262–308.Google Scholar
Sarangi, S.
(2007) The anatomy of interpretation: Coming to terms with the analyst’s paradox in professional discourse studies. Text & Talk 27 (5/6), 567–584. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Reconfiguring self/identity/status/role: The case of professional role performance in healthcare encounters. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 7 (1), 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Role hybridity in professional practice. In S. Sarangi, V. Polese & G. Caliendo (Eds.), Genre(s) on the move: Hybridisation and discourse change in specialised communication. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 271–296.Google Scholar
Schick, B.
(2004) How might learning through an educational interpreter influence cognitive development? In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, 73–88.Google Scholar
Solow, S. N.
(1981) Sign language interpreting: A basic resource book. Silver Spring, MD: The National Association for the Deaf.Google Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. & LeBaron, C.
(2011) Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin & C. LeBaron (Ed.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tate, G. & Turner, G. H.
(1997/2002) The code and the culture: Sign language interpreting - in search of the new breed’s ethics. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 373–383.Google Scholar
Thoutenhoofd, E.
(2005) The sign language interpreter in inclusive education: Power of authority and limits of objectivism. The Translator 11 (2), 237–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S.
(1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C.
(1993) The double role of a dialogue interpreter. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 1 (1), 105–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998) Interpreting as interaction. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Warnicke, C. & Plejert, C.
(2012) Turn-organisation in mediated phone interaction using Video Relay Service (VRS). Journal of Pragmatics 44 (10), 1313–1334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. V.
(1991) Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Winston, E. A.
(2004) Interpretability and accessibility of mainstream classrooms. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 132–167.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Adami, Elisabetta & Ruth Swanwick
2024. Signs of understanding and turns-as-actions: a multimodal analysis of deaf–hearing interaction. Visual Communication 23:1 ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo
Napier, Jemina
2022. Review of Salaets & Brône (2020): Linking up with Video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:1 ► pp. 147 ff. DOI logo
Pöchhacker, Franz
2020. Chapter 1. “Going video”. In Linking up with Video [Benjamins Translation Library, 149], ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo
Stone, Christopher & Jeremy L. Brunson
2019. Sign language interpreting. In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Education, ► pp. 367 ff. DOI logo
Young, Alys, Jemina Napier & Rosemary Oram
2019. The translated deaf self, ontological (in)security and deaf culture. The Translator 25:4 ► pp. 349 ff. DOI logo
王, 春丽
2022. Multimodal Interpreting Studies: A State-of-the-Art Review and Prospects. Modern Linguistics 10:11 ► pp. 2598 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2024. 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.