Article published in:
Interpreting
Vol. 16:1 (2014) ► pp. 81105
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Raanes, Eli & Sigrid Slettebakk Berge
2017. Sign language interpreters’ use of haptic signs in interpreted meetings with deafblind persons. Journal of Pragmatics 107  pp. 91 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 2020. 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.

References

References

Bakhtin, M. M.
(1986)  Speech genres and other late essays . Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Berge, S. S.
(2003)  Tegnspråktolkens handlinger [Interpreter-mediated action]. Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag.Google Scholar
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. Crossref
Collins, S. D.
(2004)  Adverbial morphemes in tactile American Sign Language . Project demonstrating excellence, Union Institute and University, Cincinnati.Google Scholar
Cole, M.
(1985) The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition create each other. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives . New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Creswell, J.
(1998)  Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions . Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y.
(1999) Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erlenkamp, S., Amundsen, G., Berge, S. S., Grande, T., Mjoen, O. M. & Raanes, E.
(2011) Becoming the ears, eyes, voice and hands of someone else: Educating generalist interpreters in a three-year programme. In L. Leeson, S. Wurm & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), Signed language interpreting: Preparation, practice and performance . Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 12–36.Google Scholar
Frankel, M. A.
(2002) Deaf-blind interpreting: Interpreters’ use of negation in tactile American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 2, 169–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1959)  The presentation of self in everyday life . London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
(1967)  Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior . New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
(1981)  Forms of talk . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gullacksen, A. C. & Göransson, L.
(2011)  Life adjustment and combined visual and hearing disability/deafblindness - an internal process over time . Stockholm: Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J.
(1982)  Discourse strategies . New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, F. J. & Turner, G. H.
(2001)  Interpreting interpreting: Studies and reflections on sign language interpreting . Coleford: Douglas McLean.Google Scholar
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J. & Luff, P.
(2010)  Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life . London: Sage.Google Scholar
Holquist, M.
(1990)  Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world . London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
John-Steiner, V. & Mahn, H.
(1996) Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist 3, 191–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knoblauch, H., Soeffner, H. G., Schnettler, B. & Raab, J.
(2006)  Video analysis: Methodology and methods . Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lahtinen, R.
(2008)  Haptices and haptemes: A case study of developmental process in social-haptic communication of acquired deafblind people . Essex: Management.Google Scholar
Linell, P.
(1990) The power of dialogue dynamics. In I. Marková & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue . Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
(1998)  Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. & Gustavsson, L.
(1987)  Initiativ och respons. Om dialogens dynamik, dominans och koherens . Linköping: Linköping University.Google Scholar
Marková, I.
(1990) A three-step process as a unit of analysis in dialogue. In I. Marková & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue . New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 130–145.Google Scholar
Marková, I., Linell, P. & Gillespie, A.
(2008) Trust and distrust in society. In I. Marková & A. Gillespie (ed.), Trust and distrust: Sociocultural perspectives . Charlotte: Information Age, 3–27.Google Scholar
Marková, I., Linell, P., Grossen, M. & Orvig, A. S.
(2007)  Dialogue in focus groups: Exploring socially shared knowledge . London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Mesch, J.
(2000)  Tactile Swedish sign language: Turn taking in conversations of people who are deaf and blind . In M. Metzger (Ed.), Bilingualism and identity in deaf communities. Washinton, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 187–203.Google Scholar
Metzger, M.
(1999)  Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality . Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Napier, J.
(2007) Cooperation in interpreter-mediated monologic talk. Discourse & Communication 1, 407–432. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Napier, J., McKee, R. & Goswell, D.
(2006)  Sign language interpreting: Theory & practice in Australia and New Zealand . Sydney: The Federation Press.Google Scholar
Raanes, E.
(2006)  Å gripe inntrykk og uttrykk: Interaksjon og meningsdanning i døvblindes samtaler [To catch impressions and expressions: Interaction and meaning construction in deafblind people’s conversation: A study on Tactile Norwegian Sign Language dialogues] . PhD thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Raanes E. & Berge, S. S.
(2011) Tolketjenesten: Avgjørende for døvblindes deltagelse [Interpreter services: Decisive for participation for the deaf-blind]. Fontene Forskning 1, 4–17.Google Scholar
RTV/Rikstrygdeverket
(2004)  Nasjonal standard for tolketjenesten [National standard for interpreter and communication services for the deaf, deafblind and hearing impaired] . Oslo: The National Social Security System.Google Scholar
Rommetveit, R.
(1974)  On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication . London: Wiley.Google Scholar
(1985) Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behavior control. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183–204.Google Scholar
Roy, C. B.
(2000)  Interpreting as a discourse process . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tate, G. & Turner, G. H.
(1997) The code and the culture: Sign language interpreting – in search of the new breed’s ethics. Deaf Worlds 13 (3), 27–34.Google Scholar
Turner, G. H.
(2005) Toward real interpreting. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson & E. A Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreting education: Directions for research and practice . New York: Oxford University Press, 29–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S.
(1934)  Thinking and speech . Ed. by A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1978)  Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Ed. by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C.
(1998)  Interpreting as interaction . New York: Longman. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Dialogue interpreting: A monologising practice in a dialogically organised world. Target 16, 105–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. V.
(1985)  Vygotsky and the social formation of mind . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1991)  Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1998)  Mind as action . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar