Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 18:2 (2016) ► pp.137–171

Doing ‘understanding’ in dialogue interpreting

Advancing theory and method

| Heriot-Watt University
| York St John University

This paper asks what ‘understanding’ looks like in the presence of an interpreter. Much investigation of understanding in Interpreting Studies explores claims which treat it as axiomatic, rather than exploring the occurrence of comprehension itself (how participants come to accept that it is occurring, what form it takes, what its consequences are). Here we re-purpose a well-established research tool — the Map Task — to illustrate a robustly empirical approach to this issue, using complex multimodal and multilingual data. The Map Task, we contend, can play a potentially groundbreaking role in Interpreting Studies, mitigating the constraint created by the uniqueness of each interpreted exchange which otherwise hinders generalisability and theoretical expansion. In particular, we argue that the way interpreters and service users, through their talk, bring themselves collectively to points of assumed shared understanding is illuminated with particular clarity through the Map Task lens. Research within this paradigm, we suggest, may help to enable further development of Interpreting Studies, affording an opportunity to deepen our communal understanding of the collaborative and interactive nature of meaning-making in interpreted exchanges, starting with the recognition that what understanding consists of is, in essence, what interlocutors treat as understanding.

Keywords: construal, grounding, Map Task, interactional analysis, sign language, dialogue interpreting
Published online: 1 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.18.2.01tur
References
Adolphs, S. & Carter, R
(2013) Spoken corpus linguistics: From monomodal to multimodal. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, A.H. & Boyle, E.A
(1994) Forms of introduction in dialogues: Their discourse contexts and communicative consequences. Language and Cognitive Processes 9 (1), 101–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, A.H., Bader, M., Bard, E.G., Boyle, E., Doherty, G.M., Garrod, S., Isard, S.D., Kowtko, J.C., McAllister, J., Miller, J., Sotillo, C.F., Thompson, H.S. & Weinart, R
(1991) The HCRC Map Task Corpus. Language and Speech 34 (4), 351–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, A.H., O’Malley, C., Doherty-Sneddon, G., Langton, S., Newlands, A., Mullin, J., Fleming, A.-M. & Van der Velden, J
(1997) The impact of VMC on collaborative problem solving: An analysis of task performance, communicative process, and user satisfaction. In K. Finn, A. Sellen & S.P. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-mediated communication: Computers, cognition, and work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 133–156.Google Scholar
Anderson, A.H., Clark, A. & Mullin, J
(1991) Introducing information in dialogues: Forms of introduction chosen by young speakers and the responses elicited from young listeners. Journal of Child Language 181, 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992) Communication skills in children: Learning how to make language work in dialogue. Edinburgh: HCRC Publications, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
(1994) Interactive skills in children. Journal of Child Language 211, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J.M. & Heritage, J
(1984) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M
(1981) The dialogic imagination: Four essays. M. Holquist (Ed.), C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Trans.), Austin: Texas University Press.Google Scholar
Baraldi, C
(2012) Interpreting as dialogic mediation: The relevance of expansions. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 297–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baraldi, C. & Gavioli, L
(Eds.) (2012) Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bard, E.G., Sotillo, C.F., Anderson, A.H., Thompson, H.S. & Taylor, M.M
(1996) The DCLEM map task corpus: Spontaneous dialogue under SD and drug treatment. Speech Communication 201, 71–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeke, S., Dean, E.C., Kilborn, K., Anderson, A.H., Robertson, A. & Miller, J.E
(1996) The relationship between syntactic processing and communicative performance in aphasia. In T. Powell (Ed.), Pathologies of speech and language: contributions of Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics. New Orleans: International Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics Association, 75–88.Google Scholar
Bélanger, D
(2004) Interactional patterns in dialogue interpreting. Journal of Interpretation 171, 1–18.Google Scholar
Bergman, B., Boyes Braem, P., Hanke, T. & Pizzuto, E
(Eds.) (2001) Sign transcription and database storage of sign information. Special Issue of Sign Language and Linguistics 4 (1/2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S
(1990) The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boyle, E., Anderson, A.H. & Newlands, A
(1994) The effects of visibility on dialogue and performance in a cooperative problem solving task. Language and Speech 37 (1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brasel, B., Montanelli, D.S. & Quigley, S.P
(1974) The component skills of interpreting as viewed by interpreters. Journal of the Rehabilitation of the Deaf 7 (3), 27–28.Google Scholar
Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shillcock, R. & Yule, G
(1984) Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brugman, H. & Russel, A
(2004) Annotating multimedia/multi-modal resources with ELAN. In Proceedings of LREC 2004, Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation .
Clark, H.H
(1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H. & Brennan, S.E
(1991) Grounding in communication. In L. Resnick, J. Levine & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 127–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H. & Marshall, C.R
(1981) Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. Joshi, B. Webber & I. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H. & Schaefer, E.F
(1987a) Concealing one’s meaning from overhearers. Journal of Memory and Language 261, 209–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H. & Schaefer E.F
(1987b) Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language and Cognitive Processes 2 (1), 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989) Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science 131, 259–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D
(1986) Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 221, 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cokely, D
(1985) Towards a sociolinguistic model of the interpreting process: Focus on ASL and English. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Cronin, M
(2006) Translation and identity. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, B.L
(1997) An empirical examination of cooperation, effort and risk in task-oriented dialogues. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Davitti, E
(2012) Dialogue interpreting as intercultural mediation: Integrating talk and gaze in the analysis of mediated parent-teacher meetings. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Dean, R.K. & Pollard, R.Q
(2001) Application of demand-control theory to sign language interpreting: Implications for stress and interpreter training. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 6 (1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doherty-Sneddon, G. & Kent, G
(1996) Visual signals and the communication abilities of children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 37 (8), 949–959. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P
(2009) The unrequited relationship between Bush and Blair: On making offers in conversation. Public Colloquium lecture at York St John University, 4 November 2009.
Drew, P. & Heritage, J
(Eds.) (2006) Conversation analysis. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (2013) Contemporary studies in Conversation Analysis. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duranti, A
(1986) The audience as co-author: An introduction. Text 6 (3), 239–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, J.R
(1957) Papers in linguistics 1934-1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fujii, Y
(2012) Differences of situating Self in the place/ba of interaction between the Japanese and American English speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5), 636–662. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H
(1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gile, D., Dam, H.V., Dubslaff, F., Martinsen, B. & Scholdager, A
(Eds.) (2011) Getting started in interpreting research: Methodological reflections, personal accounts and advice for beginners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grbić, N
(2007) Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? A bibliometrical analysis of writings and research on sign language interpreting. The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 1 (1), 15–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, B. & Sidner, C
(1986) Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 121, 175–204.Google Scholar
Hale, S. & Napier, J
(2013) Research methods in interpreting. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Harrington, F.J. & Turner, G.H
(2001) Interpreting interpreting: Studies and reflections on sign language interpreting. Coleford: Douglas McLean.Google Scholar
Hurwitz, T.A
(1980) Interpreters’ effectiveness in reverse interpreting: Pidgin signed English and American sign language. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Hymes, D.H
(1962) The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W.C. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behaviour. Washington, DC: Anthropology Society of Washington, 15–53.Google Scholar
Ingram, R.M
(1978) Sign language interpretation and general theories of language, interpretation and communication. In D. Gerver & H.W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication. New York: Plenum Press, 109–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janzen, T. & Shaffer, B
(2013) The interpreter’s stance in intersubjective discourse. In L. Meurant, A. Sinte, M. Van Herreweghe & M. Vermeerbergen, M. (Eds.), Sign language research uses and practices: Crossing views on theoretical and applied sign language linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 63–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnston, T. & Crasborn, O
(2006) The use of ELAN software annotation software in the creation of sign language corpora. Paper presented at E-MELD workshop on digital language documentation , Michigan State University, US, 20-22 June 2006.
Johnston, T. & Schembri, A
(2007) Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelly, J. & Local, J
(1989) Doing phonology. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kowtko, J.C
(1997) The function of intonation in task-oriented dialogue. Edinburgh: HCRC Publications, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Krystallidou, D
(2013) The interpreter’s role in medical consultations as perceived and as interactionally negotiated: A study of a Flemish hospital setting, using interview data and video recorded interactions. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Kyle, J.G., Llewellyn-Jones, P. & Woll, B
(1979) Sign language communication. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Psychology of Language , University of Bristol, UK.
Labov, W
(1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Llewellyn-Jones, P
(1981) Simultaneous interpreting. In B. Woll, J. Kyle & M. Deuchar (Eds.), Perspectives on British Sign Language and Deafness. London: Croom Helm, 89–104.Google Scholar
Local, J
(1996) Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 177–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, M
(2011) Methodology in interpreting studies: A methodological review of evidence-based research. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 85–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, B
(1922) Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mason, I
(Ed.) (2001) Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
(2009) Role, positioning and discourse in face-to-face interpreting. In R. de Pedro Ricoy, I. Perez & C. Wilson (Eds.), Interpreting and translating in public service settings: Policy, practice, pedagogy. Manchester: St. Jerome, 52–73.Google Scholar
Merrison, A.J
(2002) Politeness in task-oriented dialogue. Working Papers on the Web No 3, April 2002 [URL] (accessed 2 June 2015).Google Scholar
Merrison, A.J. & Turner, G.H
in prep.). Construing understandings and understanding construals: Insights into meaning-making from simultaneously-interpreted multimodal task-oriented interactions.
Metzger, M
(1999) Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, H.J
(1976) Selected readings in the integration of deaf students at CSUN. Centre on Deafness series (No 1). Northridge: California State University.Google Scholar
Murphy, H. & Fleischer, L
(1977) The effects of Ameslan versus Siglish upon test scores. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf 11 (2), 15–18.Google Scholar
Napier, J
(2002) Sign language interpreting: Linguistic coping strategies. Coleford: Douglas McLean.Google Scholar
Nicodemus, B. & Swabey, L
(Eds.) (2011) Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orfanidou, E., Woll, B. & Morgan, G
(Eds.) (2015) Research methods in sign language studies: A practical guide. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pasquandrea, S
(2012) Co-constructing dyadic sequences in healthcare interpreting: A multimodal account. New Voices in Translation Studies 81, 132–157.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F
(2004) Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Interpreting participation: Conceptual analysis and illustration of the interpreter’s role in interaction. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 45–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinn, G., Merrison, A.J., Davies, B.L., Pollitt, K. & Turner, G.H
(2008) Task-oriented discourse between British Sign Language (BSL) users. Paper presented at the British Association for Applied Linguistics 41st Annual Meeting , Swansea University UK, 11-13 September 2008.
Roy, C.B
(1989) A sociolinguistic analysis of the interpreter’s role in the turn exchanges of an interpreted event. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
(1993) The problem with definitions, descriptions, and the role metaphors of interpreters. Journal of Interpretation 6 (1), 127–154.Google Scholar
Rudner, L.M., Getson, P. & Dirst, R.D
(1981) Interpreter competence. Journal of Interpretation 11, 10–17.Google Scholar
Sacks, H
(1984) Notes on methodology. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21–27.Google Scholar
(1995) Lectures on conversation, Volumes 1 and 21. Jefferson, G. (Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 501, 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schober, M.F. & Clark, H.H
(1989) Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology 211, 211–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, M
(2009) Crossing the divide: What researchers and practitioners can learn from one another. International Journal for Translation and Interpreting Research 11, 1–16.Google Scholar
Sotillo, C
(1997) Phonological reduction and intelligibility in task-oriented dialogue. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, R. & Woll, B
(1999) The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, T.J. & Cameron, D
(1987) Analysing conversation: Rules and units in the structure of talk. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Turner, G.H
(1995) The bilingual, bimodal courtroom: A first glance. Journal of Interpretation 7 (1), 3–33.Google Scholar
(2005) Towards real interpreting. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson & E.A. Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education: Directions for research and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Some essential ingredients of sign language interpreting. In R. Locker McKee (Ed.), Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the World Association of Sign Language Interpreters. Coleford: Douglas McLean, 106–114.Google Scholar
(2007) Professionalisation of interpreting with the community: Refining the model. In C. Wadensjö, B. Englund Dimitrova & A.-L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 181–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Ensemble interpreting for essential public services. Paper presented at ‘Assuring access to essential public services: Training issues in interpreter-mediated interaction’: 2nd Analysis of Interaction and Mediation Workshop , University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, 9-10 May 2013.
Turner, G.H. & Brown, R.K
(2001) Interaction and the role of the interpreter in court. In F.J. Harrington & G.H. Turner (Eds.), Interpreting interpreting: Studies and reflections on sign language interpreting. Coleford: Douglas McLean, 152–167.Google Scholar
Tweney, R.D. & Hoemann, H.W
(1976) Translation and sign language. In R.W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research. New York: Gardner Press, 138–161.Google Scholar
Valli, C. & Lucas, C
(2000) Linguistics of American Sign Language: An introduction (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Vargas Urpi, M
(2012) State of the art in community interpreting research. Babel 58 (1), 50–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, C
(1992) Interpreting as interaction: On dialogue-interpreting in immigration hearings and medical encounters. PhD dissertation, Linköping University.Google Scholar
(1995) Dialogue interpreting and the distribution of responsibility. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 141, 111–129.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. & Shaffer, B
(2005) Towards a cognitive model of interpreting. In T. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in signed language interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 27–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkes-Gibbs, D
(1986) Collaborative processes of language use in conversations. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Winston, E.A. & Monikowski, C
(Eds.) (2013) Evolving paradigms in interpreter education. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N
(1976) Speech events and natural speech: Some implications for sociolinguistic methodology. Language in Society 51, 189–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, A. & Temple, B
(2014) Approaches to social research: The case of Deaf Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Anderson, Laurie Jane & Letizia Cirillo
2021. The Emergence and Relevance of Cultural Difference in Mediated Health Interactions. Health Communication 36:9 ► pp. 1101 ff. DOI logo
Dal Fovo, Eugenia & Caterina Falbo
2021. Non-Close Renditions: Ways and Consequences of Saying Something Different in Interpreter-Mediated Healthcare Interactions. Health Communication 36:9 ► pp. 1091 ff. DOI logo
Niemants, Natacha
2019. Des enregistrements aux corpus : transcription et extraction de données d’interprétation en milieu médical. Meta 63:3 ► pp. 665 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Teaching Dialogue Interpreting [Benjamins Translation Library, 138], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 september 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.