Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 20:2 (2018) ► pp.285–308

The headset as an interactional resource in a video relay interpreting (VRI) setting

 | Örebro University
 | Linköping University
Video relay interpreting (VRI) enables communication between a signed language user, remotely connected to an interpreter by videophone, and an interlocutor in spoken contact with the interpreter by telephone. Both users of the service are physically separated from each other and from the interpreter, who is in a studio. Essential technical components of the system include such items as videophones, telephones, computers, software, and a headset. This article explores how the interpreter orients towards the headset, turning it into an interactional resource. Examples of how this is done are identified in extracts from a corpus of VRI conversations between users of Swedish Sign Language (SSL) and spoken Swedish. Ethical approval and all participants’ consent were obtained. Three practices were identified: pointing towards the headset, orienting towards it in other ways (positioning, gesturing, direction of gaze), and holding it. All these practices have concrete pragmatic implications for the various steps in communication, such as establishing reference, repairs, and turn allocation. Enhancing VRI interpreters’ awareness of how equipment like a headset helps to organize the interaction is important, with a view to ensuring that the available technology is used to best effect for purposes of communication.
Keywords: headset, interpreting, signed language, telephone, video relay interpreting
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Using signed languages from a distance
    • 2.1The VRI setting
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Rationale
    • 3.2Materials and methods
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Pointing towards the headset
    • 4.2Orienting towards the headset with signs, movement and gaze
    • 4.3Holding the headset
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 September 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00013.war
References (37)
References
Ahlgren, I. (1990). Deictic pronouns in Swedish and Swedish sign language. In S. D. Fischer & P. Siple (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research. Chicago/ London: University of Chicago Press, 167–174.Google Scholar
Ahlgren, I. & Bergman, B. (2006). Det svenska teckenspråket. In SOU 2006:291, Teckenspråk och teckenspråkiga: kunskap och forskningsöversikt: delbetänkande, 11–70.Google Scholar
Baker-Shenk, C. & Cokely, D. (1991). American Sign Language: A teacher’s resource text on grammar and culture. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Bildtelefoni (2016). Välkommen till bildtelefoni.net. [URL] (accessed 25 April 2016).
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, 97–121.Google Scholar
(2003). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 217–242.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 191, 283–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haualand, H. M. (2012). Interpreting ideals and relaying rights. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1997). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing data. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. London: Sage, 161–182.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29 (3), 219–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keating, E., Edwards, T. & Mirus, G. (2008). Cybersign and new proximities: Impacts of new communication technologies on space and language. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (6), 1067–1081. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keating, E. & Mirus, G. (2003). American Sign Language in virtual space: Interactions between Deaf users of computer-mediated video communication and the impact of technology on language practices. Language in Society 32 (5), 693–714. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-directions in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 261, 22–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1970). Movement coordination in social interaction: Some examples described. Acta Psychologica 321, 100–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. & Klima, E. S. (1990). Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In S. D. Fischer & P. Siple (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 191–210.Google Scholar
(2010). Communicative activity types as organisations in discourses and discourses in organisations. In S. -K. Tanskanen, M. -L. Helasvuo, M. Johansson & M. Raitaniemi (Eds.), Discourses in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 33–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Samtalskulturer kommunikativa verksamhetstyper i samhället. (Cultures of talking: Communicative activity types in society). Linköping: Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication.Google Scholar
Marks, A. (2015). Investigating footing shifts in video relay service interpreted interaction. In B. Nicodemus & K. Cagle (Eds.), Signed language interpretation and translation research: Selected papers from the first international symposium. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 71–96.Google Scholar
Mason, I. (2012). Gaze, positioning and identity in interpreted-mediated dialogues. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 177–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metzger, M. (1999). Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Nilsson, A. -L. (2007). The non-dominant hand in a Swedish sign language discourse. In M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson & O. Crasborn (Eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 163–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reilly, J. (2000). Bringing affective expression into the service of language: Acquiring perspective marking in narratives. In K. Emmorey & H. Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 355–370.Google Scholar
Roy, C. B. (2002). The problem with definitions, descriptions, and the role metaphors of interpreters. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 344–353.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other‐initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23 (3), 499–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Svensk författningssamling (2003). Lag (2003:460) om etikprövning av forskning som avser människor. [URL] (accessed 22 December 2016).
Swedish Sign Language Lexicon (2016). Svenskt Teckenspråkslexikon. [URL] (accessed 25 April 2016).
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. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(1999). Telephone interpreting and the synchronization of talk. The Translator 5 (2), 247–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). In and off the show: Co-constructing ‘invisibility’ in an interpreter-mediated talk show interview. Meta 53 (1), 184–203. DOI logoGoogle 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
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Defrancq, Bart
2023. Chapter 12. Technology in interpreter education and training. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 302 ff. DOI logo
Dalle-Nazebi, Sophie, Isabelle Gonzalez, François Lefebvre-Albaret & Jean-Dominique Journet
2022. Relais téléphonique, aphasie et médiation communicationnelle. Un encastrement d’innovations. Aequitas: Revue de développement humain, handicap et changement social 28:2 ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Warnicke, Camilla
2021. Signed and spoken interaction at a distance. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 23:2 ► pp. 296 ff. DOI logo
Warnicke, Camilla & Charlotta Plejert
2021. The use of the text-function in Video Relay Service calls. Text & Talk 41:3 ► pp. 391 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 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.