Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 16:1 (2014) ► pp.81–105

Social and private speech in an interpreted meeting of deafblind persons

 | Norwegian University of Science and Technology
The article explores how the distinction between egocentric and social speech affects the dynamics of interpreter-mediated interaction, during a meeting among five deafblind board members in Norway. Extracts from a videotape of the meeting were analysed, with a specific focus on two sequences of exchanges involving a board member (Inger), her interpreter and the rest of the group. Inger uses Norwegian Tactile Sign Language with her interpreter, who in turn uses spoken Norwegian and Norwegian Sign Language with the rest of the group. The analysis shows that, while most of Inger’s utterances were social and oriented to the other board members, some were of a private nature and directed only to herself. The interpreter evaluated Inger’s communicative project constantly and acted accordingly, interpreting the socially oriented utterances but not the private utterances. Based on these findings, the interpreter’s performance is discussed in relation not only to professional ethics but also to monological and dialogical perspectives on language and interpreting.
Keywords: social speech, tactile sign language, deafblind, inner speech, interpreting
Published online: 10 March 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.1.05ber
References (46)
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. DOI logo
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. DOI logoGoogle 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 21, 169–181. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holquist, M. (1990). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world . London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
John-Steiner, V. & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist 31, 191–206.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knoblauch, H., Soeffner, H. G., Schnettler, B. & Raab, J. (2006). Video analysis: Methodology and methods . Frankfurt: Peter Lang.. DOI logoGoogle 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
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 11, 407–432. DOI logoGoogle 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 11, 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 501, 696–735. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Slettebakk Berge, Sigrid
2023. Interpreters’ use of environmentally coupled gestures to achieve mutual understanding of speaker identity in a deaf and hearing classroom. Lingua 284 ► pp. 103486 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Raanes, Eli & Sigrid Slettebakk Berge
2021. Intersubjective Understanding in Interpreted Table Conversations for Deafblind Persons. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 23:1 ► pp. 260 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 august 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.