Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation and Interpreting Studies
Vol. 18:2 (2023) ► pp.191–212

Embodying dual actions as interpreting practice

How interpreters address different parties simultaneously in the Swedish video relay service

ORCID logo | Örebro University
ORCID logo | Linköping University

This study demonstrates how interpreters in a Swedish video relay service (VRS) between deaf and hearing users can simultaneously accomplish two different actions, each directed to a particular user of the service. The study takes a multimodal, ethnomethodological conversation analysis (EMCA) perspective and is empirically based on a corpus of 25 recordings from authentic video calls. Our analysis shows how interpreters, through what we call dual action design, are able to: (1) offer the floor to one party while informing the other party, (2) refer to one of the participants using different forms of deictic reference for the two users of the service, and (3) request confirmation of a source statement from one party while rendering a statement to benefit the other party. The study contributes to current discussions relating to sequentiality, simultaneity, and positioning in interpreting studies and multimodal interaction research.

Keywords: dual actions, multimodal interaction analysis, sequential organization, signed language, simultaneous interpreting, video relay service
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Resources for constituting action in embodied interactions
  • Mediated action-in-interaction
  • Interpreting and mediation
  • Method
  • Analysis: Dual actions in VRS calls
    • Offering the floor and informing
    • Simultaneous second and third person references
    • Requesting confirmation of a source statement and rendering a question
  • Concluding discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.21016.war
References
Ahlgren, Inger and Brita Bergman
2006 Det svenska teckenspråket [The Swedish Sign Language]. Stockholm University, Department of Linguistics. [URL]
Arminen, Ilkka, and Alexandra Weilenmann
2009 “Mobile presence and intimacy – Reshaping social actions in mobile contextual configuration.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (10): 1905–1923. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arminen, Ilkka, Christian Licoppe, and Anna Spagnolli
2016 “Respecifying mediated interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49 (4): 290–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 “You are just a disembodied voice really.” In Linking up with Video ed. by Heidi Salaets and Geert Brône, 47–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broth, Mathias
2008 “The studio interaction as a contextual resource for TV-production.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (5): 904–926. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broth, Mathias, and Leelo Keevallik
2014 “Getting ready to move as a couple accomplishing mobile formations in a dance class.” Space and Culture: 107–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broth, Mathias, Eric Laurier, and Lorenza Mondada
(eds) 2014 Studies of Video Practices: Video at Work. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broth, Mathias, and Lorenza Mondada
2013 “Walking away: The embodied achievement of activity closings in mobile interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 47 (1): 41–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer, and Rachel Sutton-Spence
2001 “Turn-taking patterns in deaf conversation.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (4): 507–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davitti, Elena
2019 “Methodological explorations of interpreter-mediated interaction: Novel insights from multimodal analysis.” Qualitative Research 19 (1): 7–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea
2017 “Embodied participation: What multimodal analysis can tell us about interpreter-mediated encounters in pedagogical settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 1071: 105–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Cotret, Francois René, Camille Brisset, and Yvan Leanza
2021 “A typology of healthcare interpreter positionings: When ‘neutral’ means proactive.’” Interpreting 23(1): 103–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Meulder, Maartje, Oliver Pouliot and Karolien Gebruers
2021 Remote Sign Language Interpreting in Times of Covid-19. Research Report, January 2021. University of Applied Sciences Utrecht.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2018 “Instruction practices in German driving lessons: Differential uses of declaratives and imperatives.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28 (2): 265–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J., and Jack Sidnell
2017 The Concept of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold
1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1981 Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2000 “Action and embodiment within situated human interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10): 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Co-operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Groeber, Simone, and Evelyne Pochon-Berger
2014 “Turns and turn-taking in sign language interaction: A study of turn-final holds.” Journal of Pragmatics 651: 121–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grushkin, Donald A.
2017 “Writing signed languages: What for? What form?” American Annals of the Deaf 161 (5): 509–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddington, Pentti, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile
(eds) 2013 Interaction and Mobility Language and the Body in Motion. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Christian
1986 Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hole, Rachelle
2007 “Working between languages and cultures: Issues of representation, voice, and authority intensified.” Qualitative Inquiry 13 (5): 696–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keating, Elizabeth, Tanja Edwards, and Gene Mirus
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, Elizabeth, and Gene Mirus
2003 “American Sign Language in virtual space: Interactions between deaf users of computer-mediated video communication and the impact of technology on language practicers.” Language in Society 32 (5): 693–714. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Annelies
2017 “Gesture-based customer interactions: Deaf and hearing Mumbaikars’ multimodal and metrolingual practices.” International Journal of Multilingualism 14 (3): 283–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Licoppe, Chirstian, and Julien Morel
2014 “Mundane video directors in interaction: Showing one’s environment in skype and mobile video calls.” In Studies of Video Practices. Video at Work, ed. by Mathias Broth, Eric Laurier, and Lorenza Mondada, 135–160. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K.
2003 Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Cecile, Gene Mirus, Jeffrey Levi Palmer, Nicholas James Roessler, and Adam Frost
2013 “The effect of new technologies on sign language research.” Sign Language Studies 13 (4): 541–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luff, Paul, and Christian Heath
1998 “Mobility in collaboration.” Proceedings of the 1998 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 305–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Ian
2009 “Role, positioning and discourse in face-to-face interpreting.” In Interpreting and Translating in Public Service Settings, ed. by Raquel de Pedro Ricoy, Isabelle Perez and Christine Wilson, 52–73. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
2012 “Gaze, positioning and identity in interpreted-mediated dialogues.” In Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting, ed. by Claudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli, 177–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metzger, Melanie
1999 Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.Google Scholar
Mesch, Johanna, and Lars Wallin
2015 “Gloss annotations in the Swedish Sign Language Corpus.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20 (1): 102–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mesch, Johanna and Krister Schönström
2018 “From design and collection to annotation of a learner corpus of sign language.” In Proceedings of the 8th workshop on the representation and processing of Sign Languages :involving the language community [Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC)], ed. by Mayumi Bono et al., 121–126. Paris: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2006 “Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: Projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence.” Discourse Studies 81: 117–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 651: 137–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20 (3): 336–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Walking and talking together: Questions/answers and mobile participation in guided visits.” Social Science Information 56 (2): 220–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina
2013 “You get that vibe”: A pragmatic analysis of clarification and communicative accommodation in legal video remote interpreting. In Sign Language Research Uses and Practices, ed. by Laurence Meurant et al., 85–110. Nijmegen: De Gruyter Mouton and Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Linguistic Coping Strategies in Sign Language Interpreting. Gallaudet University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina, Robert Skinner, and Graham H. Turner
2018 “Enabling political participation through video remote interpreting: A case study.” In Here or there: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. by Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 230–263. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina and Marcel Leneham
2011 ”It was difficult to manage the communication: Testing the feasibility of video remote signed language interpreting in court.” Journal of Interpretation 21 (1): Article 5.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
2004 Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Consecutive interpreting.” The Oxford handbook of translation studies. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regeringskansliet
2006 Teckenspråk och teckenspråkiga: översyn av teckenspråkets ställning [Sign Language and Signers: Review of the Sign Language]. Stockholm: Fritze.Google Scholar
Roy, Cynthia B.
2002 “The problem with definitions, descriptions, and the role methaphors of interpreters.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 345–353. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Russell, Debra
2005 “Consecutive and simultaneous interpreting.” In Topics in Signed Language Interpreting, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, 135–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1984 “Notes on methodology.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage, 21–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, and Gail Jefferson
1995 Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation.” Language in Society 50 (4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1968 “Sequencing in conversational openings.” American Anthropologist 70 (6): 1075–1095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers
(eds) 2013 The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis D. LeBaron
(eds) 2011 Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1998 Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2002 “The double role of a dialogue interpreter.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, and Miriam Shlesinger, 355–370. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Warnicke, Camilla, and Sarah Granberg
2022 “Interpreter mediated interaction between people using a signed respective a spoken language on a distance in real time – A scoping review.” BMC Health Services Research 22 (387). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warnicke, Camilla
2018 “The co-creation of communicative projects within the Swedish Video Relay Service (VRS).” In Here Or There: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. by Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 210–229. Washington: Gallaudet University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warnicke, Camilla, and Charlotta Plejert
2012 “Turn-organisation in mediated phone interaction using Video Relay Service (VRS).” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (10): 1313–1334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “The positioning and bimodal mediation of the interpreter in a Video Relay Interpreting (VRI) service setting.” Interpreting 18 (12): 198–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H.
1998 “Identity, context and interaction.” In Identities in Talk, ed. by Charles Antaki and Susan Widdicombe, 87–106. London: Sage.Google Scholar