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 (67)
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
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Warnicke, Camilla & Marie Matérne
2024. Sign language interpreters’ experiences of remote interpreting in light of COVID-19 in Sweden. Interpreting and Society DOI logo

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