Gestural style of the interpreter impacts performance appraisal in public service settings

2.1The multimodal turn in Interpreting Studies

Spoken interactions involve a mixture of verbal and visuospatial resources (Enfield 2005Enfield, N. J. 2005 “The Body as a Cognitive Artifact in Kinship Representations.” Current Anthropology 46 (1): 51–81. Enfield, N. J. 2005 “The Body as a Cognitive Artifact in Kinship Representations.” Current Anthropology 46 (1): 51–81. ; Müller et al. 2013Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva Ladewig, David McNeill, and Sedinha Tessendorf eds. 2013 Body — Language — Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter.Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva Ladewig, David McNeill, and Sedinha Tessendorf eds. 2013 Body — Language — Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter.; Davitti 2018Davitti, Elena 2018 “Methodological Explorations of Interpreter-Mediated Interaction: Novel Insights from Multimodal Analysis.” Qualitative Research 19 (1): 7–29. Davitti, Elena 2018 “Methodological Explorations of Interpreter-Mediated Interaction: Novel Insights from Multimodal Analysis.” Qualitative Research 19 (1): 7–29. ; Vranjes and Brône 2021Vranjes, Jelena, and Geert Brône 2021 “Interpreters as Laminated Speakers: Gaze and Gesture as Interpersonal Deixis in Consecutive Dialogue Interpreting.” Journal of Pragmatics 181: 83–99. Vranjes, Jelena, and Geert Brône 2021 “Interpreters as Laminated Speakers: Gaze and Gesture as Interpersonal Deixis in Consecutive Dialogue Interpreting.” Journal of Pragmatics 181: 83–99. ; Cavents, De Wilde, and Vranjes 2025Cavents, Dries, July de Wilde, and Jelena Vranjes 2025 “Towards a Multimodal Approach for Analysing Interpreter’s Management of Rapport Challenge in Onsite and Video Remote Interpreting.” Journal of Pragmatics 235: 220–237. Cavents, Dries, July de Wilde, and Jelena Vranjes 2025 “Towards a Multimodal Approach for Analysing Interpreter’s Management of Rapport Challenge in Onsite and Video Remote Interpreting.” Journal of Pragmatics 235: 220–237. ). A multimodal perspective frames embodied cues such as gaze, facial expressions, gestures, body postures, and movements as integrated in the same system as speech (McNeill 1992McNeill, David 1992 Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.McNeill, David 1992 Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.; Kendon 2004Kendon, Adam 2004 Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kendon, Adam 2004 Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ; Mondada 2016Mondada, Lorenza 2016 “Challenges of Multimodality: Language and the Body in Social Interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20 (3): 336–366. Mondada, Lorenza 2016 “Challenges of Multimodality: Language and the Body in Social Interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20 (3): 336–366. ). In monolingual communication, these natural resources exploiting different communication channels are deployed simultaneously and can be instantly decoded. However, exolingual interactions among speakers without a shared language offer extra layers of complexity. In face-to-face dialogue interpreting (DI), all participants can access visual cues in real-time; but the inherent lag in the consecutive interpreting mode, defaulted to in DI, means users have to wait for the interpreter to make the source message accessible in their language. This delay often causes impatience; hence users tend to focus on visual cues from speakers and interpreters, trying to infer the source message’s meaning before the translation is delivered (Pasquandrea 2012Pasquandrea, Sergio 2012 “Co-Constructing Dyadic Sequences in Healthcare Interpreting: A Multimodal Account.” New Voices in Translation Studies 8 (1): 132–157.Pasquandrea, Sergio 2012 “Co-Constructing Dyadic Sequences in Healthcare Interpreting: A Multimodal Account.” New Voices in Translation Studies 8 (1): 132–157.; Gerwing and Li 2019Gerwing, Jennifer, and Shuangyu Li 2019 “Body-Oriented Gestures as a Practitioner’s Window into Interpreted Communication.” Social Science & Medicine 233: 171–180. Gerwing, Jennifer, and Shuangyu Li 2019 “Body-Oriented Gestures as a Practitioner’s Window into Interpreted Communication.” Social Science & Medicine 233: 171–180. ). This desynchronized access to verbal and visual cues makes interpreting particularly interesting for multimodal analyses.

Growing access to video recordings showcasing interpreter-mediated interactions has spurred micro-analyses and corpus-based research, initiating a multimodal turn in studies of DI (Davitti and Pasquandrea 2017Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea 2017 “Embodied Participation: What Multimodal Analysis Can Tell Us about Interpreter-Mediated Encounters in Pedagogical Settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 107: 105–128. Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea 2017 “Embodied Participation: What Multimodal Analysis Can Tell Us about Interpreter-Mediated Encounters in Pedagogical Settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 107: 105–128. ; Davitti 2018Davitti, Elena 2018 “Methodological Explorations of Interpreter-Mediated Interaction: Novel Insights from Multimodal Analysis.” Qualitative Research 19 (1): 7–29. Davitti, Elena 2018 “Methodological Explorations of Interpreter-Mediated Interaction: Novel Insights from Multimodal Analysis.” Qualitative Research 19 (1): 7–29. ; Vranjes and Bot 2021Vranjes, Jelena, and Hanneke Bot 2021 “Optimizing Turn-Taking in Interpreter-Mediated Therapy: On the Importance of the Interpreter’s Speaking Space.” The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 13 (1): 101–117. Vranjes, Jelena, and Hanneke Bot 2021 “Optimizing Turn-Taking in Interpreter-Mediated Therapy: On the Importance of the Interpreter’s Speaking Space.” The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 13 (1): 101–117. ). Davitti (2018Davitti, Elena 2018 “Methodological Explorations of Interpreter-Mediated Interaction: Novel Insights from Multimodal Analysis.” Qualitative Research 19 (1): 7–29. Davitti, Elena 2018 “Methodological Explorations of Interpreter-Mediated Interaction: Novel Insights from Multimodal Analysis.” Qualitative Research 19 (1): 7–29. , 12) argues that “understanding the complexity of DI requires careful investigation of the interplay between multiple interactional resources, i.e., verbal in conjunction with visual, aural, embodied and spatial meaning-making resources.” Research in this vein has examined the interplay of multimodal resources at different scope levels: from (1) the ecology of working with the physical environment in interpreter-mediated sessions, to (2) investigating interactional dynamics with a primary focus on bodily resources, and (3) concentrating on a specific embodied communication tool, such as the interpreter’s hand gestures.

The most comprehensive approaches aim at including all visuospatial cues recruited in multiparty communication (1), covering participant sitting arrangements, proxemics, and artifact use, in addition to all the ‘natural media’ (Gibbon 2005Gibbon, Dafydd 2005 “Spoken Language Lexicography: An Integrative Framework.” Forum Translationswissenschaft 5: 247–289.Gibbon, Dafydd 2005 “Spoken Language Lexicography: An Integrative Framework.” Forum Translationswissenschaft 5: 247–289.) offered by a human body. In Interpreting Studies, early multimodal analysis of conference interpreting communicative events was carried out by Poyatos (1997)Poyatos, Fernando 1997 “The Reality of Multichannel Verbal-Nonverbal Communication in Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpretation.” In Nonverbal Communication and Translation: New Perspectives and Challenges in Literature, Interpretation and the Media, edited by Fernando Poyatos, 249–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Poyatos, Fernando 1997 “The Reality of Multichannel Verbal-Nonverbal Communication in Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpretation.” In Nonverbal Communication and Translation: New Perspectives and Challenges in Literature, Interpretation and the Media, edited by Fernando Poyatos, 249–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. who sought to reference and categorize all ‘nonverbal’ elements which had previously been marginalized in (interpreted) discourse analysis. Authors such as Roy (2000)Roy, Cynthia B. 2000 Interpreting as a Discourse Process. New York: Oxford University Press.Roy, Cynthia B. 2000 Interpreting as a Discourse Process. New York: Oxford University Press. and Wadensjö (1998Wadensjö, Cecilia 1998 Interpreting as Interaction. London: Routledge.Wadensjö, Cecilia 1998 Interpreting as Interaction. London: Routledge., 2001Wadensjö, Cecilia 2001 “Interpreting in Crisis: The Interpreter’s Position in Therapeutic Encounters.” In Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting, edited by Ian Mason, 71–85. Manchester: St Jerome.Wadensjö, Cecilia 2001 “Interpreting in Crisis: The Interpreter’s Position in Therapeutic Encounters.” In Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting, edited by Ian Mason, 71–85. Manchester: St Jerome., 2004Wadensjö, Cecilia 2004 “Dialogue Interpreting: A Monologising Practice in a Dialogically Organised World.” Target 16 (1): 105–124. Wadensjö, Cecilia 2004 “Dialogue Interpreting: A Monologising Practice in a Dialogically Organised World.” Target 16 (1): 105–124. ) brought scholarly attention to dialogue interpreting through encompassing micro-analytical studies in which they investigated interpreters’ behavior as an integral part of the ongoing interaction. By adopting this angle, they also paved the way for a heightened interest in a multimodal approach to the study of interpreter-mediated events.

Multimodal approaches to DI span various settings, including medical, legal, police, courtroom, pedagogical, and administrative interactions (for a review see Davitti 2018Davitti, Elena 2018 “Methodological Explorations of Interpreter-Mediated Interaction: Novel Insights from Multimodal Analysis.” Qualitative Research 19 (1): 7–29. Davitti, Elena 2018 “Methodological Explorations of Interpreter-Mediated Interaction: Novel Insights from Multimodal Analysis.” Qualitative Research 19 (1): 7–29. ). A few examples include Davitti and Pasquandrea (2017)Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea 2017 “Embodied Participation: What Multimodal Analysis Can Tell Us about Interpreter-Mediated Encounters in Pedagogical Settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 107: 105–128. Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea 2017 “Embodied Participation: What Multimodal Analysis Can Tell Us about Interpreter-Mediated Encounters in Pedagogical Settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 107: 105–128. , who analyze artifact manipulation in onsite parent–teacher meetings; Klammer and Pöchhacker (2021)Klammer, Martina, and Franz Pöchhacker 2021 “Video Remote Interpreting in Clinical Communication: A Multimodal Analysis.” Patient Education and Counseling 104 (12): 2867–2876. Klammer, Martina, and Franz Pöchhacker 2021 “Video Remote Interpreting in Clinical Communication: A Multimodal Analysis.” Patient Education and Counseling 104 (12): 2867–2876. , who examine how spatial arrangements and visual access to embodied resources are impacted by technical constraints in video remote interpreting (VRI) during medical consultations; and Licoppe (2023)Licoppe, Christian 2023 “Consecutive Interpreting and Embodied Sequences: Showing Evidence at a Distance in a Video-Mediated Courtroom Setting.” In Interactional Dynamics in Remote Interpreting, edited by Esther de Boe, Jelena Vranjes, and Heidi Salaets, 135–154. New York: Routledge. Licoppe, Christian 2023 “Consecutive Interpreting and Embodied Sequences: Showing Evidence at a Distance in a Video-Mediated Courtroom Setting.” In Interactional Dynamics in Remote Interpreting, edited by Esther de Boe, Jelena Vranjes, and Heidi Salaets, 135–154. New York: Routledge. , who discusses the multimodal dimension of using video link to present documents in multilingual courtroom hearings.

In studies of embodied resources in interpreter-mediated communication (2), eye gaze (for reviews see Vranjes et al. 2018Vranjes, Jelena, Hanneke Bot, Kurt Feyaerts, and Geert Brône 2018 “Displaying Recipiency in an Interpreter-Mediated Dialogue.” In Eye-Tracking in Interaction: Studies on the Role of Eye Gaze in Dialogue, edited by Geert Brône and Bert Oben, 303–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vranjes, Jelena, Hanneke Bot, Kurt Feyaerts, and Geert Brône 2018 “Displaying Recipiency in an Interpreter-Mediated Dialogue.” In Eye-Tracking in Interaction: Studies on the Role of Eye Gaze in Dialogue, edited by Geert Brône and Bert Oben, 303–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ; De Boe, Vranjes, and Salaets 2023De Boe, Esther, Jelena Vranjes, and Heidi Salaets eds. 2023 Interactional Dynamics in Remote Interpreting. New York: Routledge. De Boe, Esther, Jelena Vranjes, and Heidi Salaets eds. 2023 Interactional Dynamics in Remote Interpreting. New York: Routledge. ), head nods, and hand gestures are the most discussed elements. In onsite interactions, gaze patterns are investigated as a means for turn-taking management (Bot 2005Bot, Hanneke 2005 Dialogue Interpreting in Mental Health. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Bot, Hanneke 2005 Dialogue Interpreting in Mental Health. Amsterdam: Rodopi. ; Mason 2012Mason, Ian 2012 “Gaze, Positioning and Identity in Interpreter-Mediated Dialogues.” In Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting, edited by Claudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli, 177–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mason, Ian 2012 “Gaze, Positioning and Identity in Interpreter-Mediated Dialogues.” In Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting, edited by Claudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli, 177–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ; Pasquandrea 2012Pasquandrea, Sergio 2012 “Co-Constructing Dyadic Sequences in Healthcare Interpreting: A Multimodal Account.” New Voices in Translation Studies 8 (1): 132–157.Pasquandrea, Sergio 2012 “Co-Constructing Dyadic Sequences in Healthcare Interpreting: A Multimodal Account.” New Voices in Translation Studies 8 (1): 132–157.; Vranjes et al. 2018Vranjes, Jelena, Hanneke Bot, Kurt Feyaerts, and Geert Brône 2018 “Displaying Recipiency in an Interpreter-Mediated Dialogue.” In Eye-Tracking in Interaction: Studies on the Role of Eye Gaze in Dialogue, edited by Geert Brône and Bert Oben, 303–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vranjes, Jelena, Hanneke Bot, Kurt Feyaerts, and Geert Brône 2018 “Displaying Recipiency in an Interpreter-Mediated Dialogue.” In Eye-Tracking in Interaction: Studies on the Role of Eye Gaze in Dialogue, edited by Geert Brône and Bert Oben, 303–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ; Vranjes, Brône, and Feyaerts 2018Vranjes, Jelena, Geert Brône, and Kurt Feyaerts 2018 “On the Role of Gaze in the Organization of Turn-Taking and Sequence Organization in Interpreter-Mediated Dialogue.” Language and Dialogue 8 (3): 439–467. Vranjes, Jelena, Geert Brône, and Kurt Feyaerts 2018 “On the Role of Gaze in the Organization of Turn-Taking and Sequence Organization in Interpreter-Mediated Dialogue.” Language and Dialogue 8 (3): 439–467. ; Vranjes and Bot 2021Vranjes, Jelena, and Hanneke Bot 2021 “Optimizing Turn-Taking in Interpreter-Mediated Therapy: On the Importance of the Interpreter’s Speaking Space.” The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 13 (1): 101–117. Vranjes, Jelena, and Hanneke Bot 2021 “Optimizing Turn-Taking in Interpreter-Mediated Therapy: On the Importance of the Interpreter’s Speaking Space.” The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 13 (1): 101–117. ), but also for coordinating multiple actions in medical consultations (Pasquandrea 2011Pasquandrea, Sergio 2011 “Managing Multiple Actions through Multimodality: Doctors’ Involvement in Interpreter-Mediated Interactions.” Language in Society 40 (4): 455–481. Pasquandrea, Sergio 2011 “Managing Multiple Actions through Multimodality: Doctors’ Involvement in Interpreter-Mediated Interactions.” Language in Society 40 (4): 455–481. ) and fostering more inclusive, patient-centered communication (Krystallidou 2014Krystallidou, Demi 2014 “Gaze and Body Orientation as an Apparatus for Patient Inclusion into/Exclusion from a Patient-Centred Framework of Communication.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8 (3): 399–417. Krystallidou, Demi 2014 “Gaze and Body Orientation as an Apparatus for Patient Inclusion into/Exclusion from a Patient-Centred Framework of Communication.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8 (3): 399–417. ). Head nods are reportedly used as a backchannelling tool in doctor–patient interactions (Englund Dimitrova 1997Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta 1997 “Degree of Interpreter Responsibilty in the Interaction Process in Community Interpreting.” In The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community, edited by Silvana E. Carr, Roda P. Roberts, Aideen Dufour, and Dini Steyn, 147–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta 1997 “Degree of Interpreter Responsibilty in the Interaction Process in Community Interpreting.” In The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community, edited by Silvana E. Carr, Roda P. Roberts, Aideen Dufour, and Dini Steyn, 147–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ) and as affiliation tokens in therapeutic talk (Vranjes et al. 2019Vranjes, Jelena, Hanneke Bot, Kurt Feyaerts, and Geert Brône 2019 “Affiliation in Interpreter-Mediated Therapeutic Talk.” Interpreting 21 (2): 220–244. Vranjes, Jelena, Hanneke Bot, Kurt Feyaerts, and Geert Brône 2019 “Affiliation in Interpreter-Mediated Therapeutic Talk.” Interpreting 21 (2): 220–244. ). Among gestures, deictic ones have received the most attention, as tools for directing attention to common referents in parent–teacher encounters (Davitti and Pasquandrea 2017Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea 2017 “Embodied Participation: What Multimodal Analysis Can Tell Us about Interpreter-Mediated Encounters in Pedagogical Settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 107: 105–128. Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea 2017 “Embodied Participation: What Multimodal Analysis Can Tell Us about Interpreter-Mediated Encounters in Pedagogical Settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 107: 105–128. ), and for their role in multimodal stance-taking in student counseling (Vranjes and Brône 2021Vranjes, Jelena, and Geert Brône 2021 “Interpreters as Laminated Speakers: Gaze and Gesture as Interpersonal Deixis in Consecutive Dialogue Interpreting.” Journal of Pragmatics 181: 83–99. Vranjes, Jelena, and Geert Brône 2021 “Interpreters as Laminated Speakers: Gaze and Gesture as Interpersonal Deixis in Consecutive Dialogue Interpreting.” Journal of Pragmatics 181: 83–99. ).

Micro-analytical approaches embracing multimodal frameworks are also gaining ground in video remote interpreting (De Boe, Vranjes, and Salaets 2023De Boe, Esther, Jelena Vranjes, and Heidi Salaets eds. 2023 Interactional Dynamics in Remote Interpreting. New York: Routledge. De Boe, Esther, Jelena Vranjes, and Heidi Salaets eds. 2023 Interactional Dynamics in Remote Interpreting. New York: Routledge. ), with a focus on signaling turn-taking with gaze (Vranjes 2023Vranjes, Jelena 2023 “Where to Look? On the Role of Gaze in Regulating Turn-Taking in Video Remote Interpreting.” In Interactional Dynamics in Remote Interpreting, edited by Esther de Boe, Jelena Vranjes, and Heidi Salaets, 113–134. New York: Routledge. Vranjes, Jelena 2023 “Where to Look? On the Role of Gaze in Regulating Turn-Taking in Video Remote Interpreting.” In Interactional Dynamics in Remote Interpreting, edited by Esther de Boe, Jelena Vranjes, and Heidi Salaets, 113–134. New York: Routledge. ), achieving common ground (De Boe 2023De Boe, Esther 2023 “Synchronization of Interaction in Healthcare Interpreting by Video Link and Telephone.” In Interactional Dynamics in Remote Interpreting, edited by Esther de Boe, Jelena Vranjes, and Heidi Salaets, 22–41. New York: Routledge. De Boe, Esther 2023 “Synchronization of Interaction in Healthcare Interpreting by Video Link and Telephone.” In Interactional Dynamics in Remote Interpreting, edited by Esther de Boe, Jelena Vranjes, and Heidi Salaets, 22–41. New York: Routledge. ) and using bodily semantic resources in face-work (Cavents and De Wilde 2023Cavents, Dries, and July de Wilde 2023 “Face-Work in Video Remote Interpreting: A Multimodal Micro-Analysis.” In Interactional Dynamics in Remote Interpreting, edited by Esther de Boe, Jelena Vranjes, and Heidi Salaets, 155–175. New York: Routledge. Cavents, Dries, and July de Wilde 2023 “Face-Work in Video Remote Interpreting: A Multimodal Micro-Analysis.” In Interactional Dynamics in Remote Interpreting, edited by Esther de Boe, Jelena Vranjes, and Heidi Salaets, 155–175. New York: Routledge. ).

2.2The gestural style of the interpreter

Selecting the gestural production of the interpreter as a focal point of the multi­modal analysis (3) is tantamount to examining the interpreter’s gestural style (Iriskhanova and Cienki 2018Iriskhanova, Olga K., and Alan Cienki 2018 “The Semiotics of Gestures in Cognitive Linguistics: Contributions and Challenges.” Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki [Issues of cognitive linguistics] 4: 25–36. Iriskhanova, Olga K., and Alan Cienki 2018 “The Semiotics of Gestures in Cognitive Linguistics: Contributions and Challenges.” Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki [Issues of cognitive linguistics] 4: 25–36. ; Zagar Galvão 2020Zagar Galvão, Elena 2020 “Gesture Functions and Gestural Style in Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Linking up with Video: Perspectives on Interpreting Practice and Research, edited by Heidi Salaets and Geert Brône, 151–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zagar Galvão, Elena 2020 “Gesture Functions and Gestural Style in Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Linking up with Video: Perspectives on Interpreting Practice and Research, edited by Heidi Salaets and Geert Brône, 151–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ; Iriskhanova et al. 2023Iriskhanova, Olga K., Alan Cienki, Maria V. Tomskaya, and Alina I. Nikolayeva 2023 “Silent, but Salient: Gestures in Simultaneous Interpreting, Research Result.” Theoretical and Applied Linguistics 9 (1): 99–114.Iriskhanova, Olga K., Alan Cienki, Maria V. Tomskaya, and Alina I. Nikolayeva 2023 “Silent, but Salient: Gestures in Simultaneous Interpreting, Research Result.” Theoretical and Applied Linguistics 9 (1): 99–114.). The term refers to recurrent gesture use patterns by a particular interpreter, including: (a) the frequency of produced gestures, calculated as a proportion of gestures to word count or gestures to speech length, and (b) the frequency distribution of gesture types based on function. The percentage of gestures belonging to a particular type compared to the total gesture production by a particular speaker is also described as a gestural profile (Chwalczuk 2021Chwalczuk, Monika 2021 Co-Speech Gestures in Public Service Interpreting: Contextual Analysis of Multimodal Corpora. PhD thesis. Université Paris Cité.Chwalczuk, Monika 2021 Co-Speech Gestures in Public Service Interpreting: Contextual Analysis of Multimodal Corpora. PhD thesis. Université Paris Cité., 2025Chwalczuk, Monika 2025 “Interpreters’ Gestural Profiles across Settings: A Corpus-based Analysis of Healthcare, Educational and Police Interactions.” Parallèles 37 (1): 105–123.Chwalczuk, Monika 2025 “Interpreters’ Gestural Profiles across Settings: A Corpus-based Analysis of Healthcare, Educational and Police Interactions.” Parallèles 37 (1): 105–123.). A more fine-grained analysis of the interpreter’s gestural style may also incorporate each gesture phrase’s size (spatial duration) and time (temporal duration), composing a gesturelect (Iriskhanova and Cienki 2023).

Research applying multimodal analysis highlights a significant idiosyncratic variability in how frequently interpreters gesture during their performance; nevertheless, certain recurrent patterns emerge. Regarding quantity, a corpus-based study by Chwalczuk (2021)Chwalczuk, Monika 2021 Co-Speech Gestures in Public Service Interpreting: Contextual Analysis of Multimodal Corpora. PhD thesis. Université Paris Cité.Chwalczuk, Monika 2021 Co-Speech Gestures in Public Service Interpreting: Contextual Analysis of Multimodal Corpora. PhD thesis. Université Paris Cité. suggests that interpreters gesture more in naturalistic public service interactions in comparison to simulated ones, while an experimental study by Martín de León and Zagar Galvão (2025)Martín de León, Celia, and Elena Zagar Galvão 2025 “Making Gestures inside and outside the Booth: A Comparative Study.” Parallèles 37 (1): 8–28.Martín de León, Celia, and Elena Zagar Galvão 2025 “Making Gestures inside and outside the Booth: A Comparative Study.” Parallèles 37 (1): 8–28. indicates that professional interpreters show higher gestural rates during simultaneous interpreting than in spontaneous speech. Moreover, experimental research with simultaneous interpreters shows that their gestural production increases under high cognitive load (Cienki and Iriskhanova 2020Cienki, Alan, and Olga K. Iriskhanova 2020 “Patterns of Multimodal Behavior under Cognitive Load: An Analysis of Simultaneous Interpretation from L2 to L1.” Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki [Questions from cognitive linguistics] 1: 5–11. Cienki, Alan, and Olga K. Iriskhanova 2020 “Patterns of Multimodal Behavior under Cognitive Load: An Analysis of Simultaneous Interpretation from L2 to L1.” Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki [Questions from cognitive linguistics] 1: 5–11. ) and correlates with instances of speech disfluency. These findings lead to an assumption that beginner interpreters should exhibit more frequent and prominent gesture production than interpreters with several years of professional experience.

Following analytical frameworks established in Gesture Studies (McNeill 1992McNeill, David 1992 Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.McNeill, David 1992 Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.; Kendon 2004Kendon, Adam 2004 Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kendon, Adam 2004 Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ) hand movements are divided into two categories. Co-speech gestures accompany utterance production and present both semantic and pragmatic relations with the speech content (Martín de León and Zagar Galvão 2025Martín de León, Celia, and Elena Zagar Galvão 2025 “Making Gestures inside and outside the Booth: A Comparative Study.” Parallèles 37 (1): 8–28.Martín de León, Celia, and Elena Zagar Galvão 2025 “Making Gestures inside and outside the Booth: A Comparative Study.” Parallèles 37 (1): 8–28.). Adapters consist of self-touching movements, such as scratching oneself or rubbing one’s fingers (Cienki 2025Cienki, Alan 2025 “Functions of Gestures during Disfluent and Fluent Speech in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Parallèles 37 (1): 29–42.Cienki, Alan 2025 “Functions of Gestures during Disfluent and Fluent Speech in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Parallèles 37 (1): 29–42.), or actions such as playing with an object or adjusting one’s jewelry, produced to decrease stress. In DI, co-speech gestures are analyzed from the perspective of the interactional dynamics in the mediated exchange, where they have been documented as helping to monitor the interpreted interaction (Pasquandrea 2012Pasquandrea, Sergio 2012 “Co-Constructing Dyadic Sequences in Healthcare Interpreting: A Multimodal Account.” New Voices in Translation Studies 8 (1): 132–157.Pasquandrea, Sergio 2012 “Co-Constructing Dyadic Sequences in Healthcare Interpreting: A Multimodal Account.” New Voices in Translation Studies 8 (1): 132–157.; Gerwing and Li 2019Gerwing, Jennifer, and Shuangyu Li 2019 “Body-Oriented Gestures as a Practitioner’s Window into Interpreted Communication.” Social Science & Medicine 233: 171–180. Gerwing, Jennifer, and Shuangyu Li 2019 “Body-Oriented Gestures as a Practitioner’s Window into Interpreted Communication.” Social Science & Medicine 233: 171–180. ), establish conceptual grounding (Davitti and Pasquandrea 2017Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea 2017 “Embodied Participation: What Multimodal Analysis Can Tell Us about Interpreter-Mediated Encounters in Pedagogical Settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 107: 105–128. Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea 2017 “Embodied Participation: What Multimodal Analysis Can Tell Us about Interpreter-Mediated Encounters in Pedagogical Settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 107: 105–128. ), and encourage participatory meaning-making processes (Chwalczuk 2022Chwalczuk, Monika 2022 “Construction of Shared Semantic Spaces through Gestures in Interpreter-Mediated Psychotherapy Sessions.” International Visual Culture Review 9 (2): 207–221. Chwalczuk, Monika 2022 “Construction of Shared Semantic Spaces through Gestures in Interpreter-Mediated Psychotherapy Sessions.” International Visual Culture Review 9 (2): 207–221. ). Studies focusing on the use of adapters demonstrate that, since novice interpreters experience extremely high cognitive load, especially working in simultaneous mode (Cienki and Iriskhanova 2020Cienki, Alan, and Olga K. Iriskhanova 2020 “Patterns of Multimodal Behavior under Cognitive Load: An Analysis of Simultaneous Interpretation from L2 to L1.” Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki [Questions from cognitive linguistics] 1: 5–11. Cienki, Alan, and Olga K. Iriskhanova 2020 “Patterns of Multimodal Behavior under Cognitive Load: An Analysis of Simultaneous Interpretation from L2 to L1.” Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki [Questions from cognitive linguistics] 1: 5–11. ), the urge to cope with this pressure might lead to an increased use of adapters, such as nervous fiddling with a pen or adjusting one’s hair. These findings lead to an overarching observation: while co-speech gestures are predominantly highlighted as embodied tools of fostering information-transfer in interpreter-mediated interactions, adapters are portrayed mainly as a means of regulating bodily tension appearing as a symptom of stress.

Zooming in on the use of co-speech gestures alone, early corpus studies highlight above all their usefulness in supporting turn-taking management (Davitti and Pasquandrea 2017Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea 2017 “Embodied Participation: What Multimodal Analysis Can Tell Us about Interpreter-Mediated Encounters in Pedagogical Settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 107: 105–128. Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea 2017 “Embodied Participation: What Multimodal Analysis Can Tell Us about Interpreter-Mediated Encounters in Pedagogical Settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 107: 105–128. ; Licoppe and Veyrier 2020Licoppe, Christian, and Clair-Antoine Veyrier 2020 “The Interpreter as a Sequential Coordinator in Courtroom Interaction ‘Chunking’ and the Management of Turn Shifts in Extended Answers in Consecutively Interpreted Asylum Hearings with Remote Participants.” Interpreting 22 (1): 56–86. Licoppe, Christian, and Clair-Antoine Veyrier 2020 “The Interpreter as a Sequential Coordinator in Courtroom Interaction ‘Chunking’ and the Management of Turn Shifts in Extended Answers in Consecutively Interpreted Asylum Hearings with Remote Participants.” Interpreting 22 (1): 56–86. ). Nevertheless, the investigation of a full panel of functions supported by co-speech gestures (Chwalczuk 2021Chwalczuk, Monika 2021 Co-Speech Gestures in Public Service Interpreting: Contextual Analysis of Multimodal Corpora. PhD thesis. Université Paris Cité.Chwalczuk, Monika 2021 Co-Speech Gestures in Public Service Interpreting: Contextual Analysis of Multimodal Corpora. PhD thesis. Université Paris Cité., 2025Chwalczuk, Monika 2025 “Interpreters’ Gestural Profiles across Settings: A Corpus-based Analysis of Healthcare, Educational and Police Interactions.” Parallèles 37 (1): 105–123.Chwalczuk, Monika 2025 “Interpreters’ Gestural Profiles across Settings: A Corpus-based Analysis of Healthcare, Educational and Police Interactions.” Parallèles 37 (1): 105–123.) indicates that such interactive gestures account for only 14% of interpreters’ gestural production, as observed in medical, police, and education settings. Frequency analyses reveal the predominant use of pragmatic gestures, exhibited both by simultaneous (Iriskhanova and Cienki 2023) and dialogue interpreters (Chwalczuk 2021Chwalczuk, Monika 2021 Co-Speech Gestures in Public Service Interpreting: Contextual Analysis of Multimodal Corpora. PhD thesis. Université Paris Cité.Chwalczuk, Monika 2021 Co-Speech Gestures in Public Service Interpreting: Contextual Analysis of Multimodal Corpora. PhD thesis. Université Paris Cité.). These studies suggest not only that co-speech gestures are a semantic resource routinely used both in unidirectional and bidirectional interpreting, but also that they have a potential to ease the cognitive effort inherent in the extreme language processing task of interpreting.

The output of interpreting is not a product of spontaneous speech but an attempt to use the information units delivered by the original speaker and re-package them in the target language. Thus, it combines the challenges of spontaneous speech production with the effort of recreating meaning from memory. As a result, the interpreter’s gestural style is always analyzed in conjunction with the original multimodal message delivered by the speaker. A comparison of the source and target discourse in interpreting brings to light similarities in gesture production. They reflect a phenomenon first described in spontaneous, same-language interactions, known as gestural alignment (see Oben and Brône 2016Oben, Bert, and Geert Brône 2016 “Explaining Interactive Alignment: A Multimodal and Multifactorial Account.” Journal of Pragmatics 104: 32–51. Oben, Bert, and Geert Brône 2016 “Explaining Interactive Alignment: A Multimodal and Multifactorial Account.” Journal of Pragmatics 104: 32–51. , 32 for a review of the terminology) also referred to as gestural mimicry (Kimbara 2006Kimbara, Irene 2006 “On Gestural Mimicry.” Gesture 6 (1): 39–61. Kimbara, Irene 2006 “On Gestural Mimicry.” Gesture 6 (1): 39–61. , 41) where “the form–meaning relationship of a given speaker’s gesture appears to influence how the interlocutor’s gesture is formed when the interlocutor refers to the same topic in subsequent discourse.” In the interpreting context, it describes the fact that interpreters tend to reproduce speakers’ salient gestures in their renditions, as if they were mirroring selected hand movements present in the original speech. This multimodal pattern has been documented in dialogic settings (Gerwing and Li 2019Gerwing, Jennifer, and Shuangyu Li 2019 “Body-Oriented Gestures as a Practitioner’s Window into Interpreted Communication.” Social Science & Medicine 233: 171–180. Gerwing, Jennifer, and Shuangyu Li 2019 “Body-Oriented Gestures as a Practitioner’s Window into Interpreted Communication.” Social Science & Medicine 233: 171–180. ; Chwalczuk 2021Chwalczuk, Monika 2021 Co-Speech Gestures in Public Service Interpreting: Contextual Analysis of Multimodal Corpora. PhD thesis. Université Paris Cité.Chwalczuk, Monika 2021 Co-Speech Gestures in Public Service Interpreting: Contextual Analysis of Multimodal Corpora. PhD thesis. Université Paris Cité.) and booth interpreting, where the target users are not present (Zagar Galvão 2020Zagar Galvão, Elena 2020 “Gesture Functions and Gestural Style in Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Linking up with Video: Perspectives on Interpreting Practice and Research, edited by Heidi Salaets and Geert Brône, 151–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zagar Galvão, Elena 2020 “Gesture Functions and Gestural Style in Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Linking up with Video: Perspectives on Interpreting Practice and Research, edited by Heidi Salaets and Geert Brône, 151–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ; Leonteva, Cienki, and Agafonova 2023Leonteva, Anna V., Alan Cienki, and Olga V. Agafonova 2023 “Metaphoric Gestures in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Russian Journal of Linguistics 27 (4): 820–842. Leonteva, Anna V., Alan Cienki, and Olga V. Agafonova 2023 “Metaphoric Gestures in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Russian Journal of Linguistics 27 (4): 820–842. ).

Existing studies indicate that interpreters’ gesture production is not purely idiosyncratic but shows stable trends in all examined samples of interpreters. Nevertheless, no studies so far have measured how these gestural patterns influence the way interpreters are perceived by users. If gesture production increases when dealing with cognitive overload (Cienki and Iriskhanova 2020Cienki, Alan, and Olga K. Iriskhanova 2020 “Patterns of Multimodal Behavior under Cognitive Load: An Analysis of Simultaneous Interpretation from L2 to L1.” Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki [Questions from cognitive linguistics] 1: 5–11. Cienki, Alan, and Olga K. Iriskhanova 2020 “Patterns of Multimodal Behavior under Cognitive Load: An Analysis of Simultaneous Interpretation from L2 to L1.” Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki [Questions from cognitive linguistics] 1: 5–11. ), are interpreters who use vivid gesticulation perceived as struggling with rendering the text in the target language? Are highly expressive interpreters who constantly move their hands regarded as less proficient in their craft than those who limit their gestures to the minimum? Is interpreters’ frequent gesture production a distractor or a successful communication strategy in the eyes of the users? These underlying questions will be examined in the context of interpreting performance appraisal.

2.3Appraisal vs quality of interpreting performances

The issue of interpreting quality has been at the heart of numerous scientific publications (Kalina 2005Kalina, Sylvia 2005 “Quality Assurance for Interpreting Processes.” Meta 50 (2): 768–784. Kalina, Sylvia 2005 “Quality Assurance for Interpreting Processes.” Meta 50 (2): 768–784. ; García Becerra, Pradas Macías, and Barranco-Droege 2013García Becerra, Olalla, E. Macarena Pradas Macías, and Rafael Barranco-Droege eds. 2013 Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Volume 1. Granada: Editorial Comares.García Becerra, Olalla, E. Macarena Pradas Macías, and Rafael Barranco-Droege eds. 2013 Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Volume 1. Granada: Editorial Comares.). The common essential finding of such studies is that the key parameters driving the quality assessment of the interpreting output differ depending on the population performing the evaluation (e.g., teachers, fellow interpreters, end-users) (Pöchhacker 2001Pöchhacker, Franz 2001 “Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting.” Meta 46 (2): 410–425. Pöchhacker, Franz 2001 “Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting.” Meta 46 (2): 410–425. ). Moreover, the same subjects who declare that a particular feature of interpreting (i.e., intonation) is irrelevant blindly assess quality differently when this feature is present as the dependent variable (Collados Aís 2007). Wadensjö (1998)Wadensjö, Cecilia 1998 Interpreting as Interaction. London: Routledge.Wadensjö, Cecilia 1998 Interpreting as Interaction. London: Routledge., cited in Pöchhacker (2001)Pöchhacker, Franz 2001 “Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting.” Meta 46 (2): 410–425. Pöchhacker, Franz 2001 “Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting.” Meta 46 (2): 410–425. summarizes this as follows:

In practice, there are no absolute and unambiguous criteria for defining a mode of interpreting which would be ‘good’ across the board. Different activity-types with different goal structures, as well as the different concerns, needs, desires, and commitments of primary parties imply various demands on the interpreters.(Wadensjö 1998Wadensjö, Cecilia 1998 Interpreting as Interaction. London: Routledge.Wadensjö, Cecilia 1998 Interpreting as Interaction. London: Routledge., 287)

The term ‘quality’ suggests an objective evaluation of how good or bad the analyzed product is. However, some populations do not have the means to objectively evaluate the interpreting outcome, as this requires full proficiency in both languages. From this perspective, the end-users of interpreting services are not in a position to assess interpreting quality as they can only base their judgment on the output, ignoring what the verbal layer of the input actually means (Gerwing and Li 2019Gerwing, Jennifer, and Shuangyu Li 2019 “Body-Oriented Gestures as a Practitioner’s Window into Interpreted Communication.” Social Science & Medicine 233: 171–180. Gerwing, Jennifer, and Shuangyu Li 2019 “Body-Oriented Gestures as a Practitioner’s Window into Interpreted Communication.” Social Science & Medicine 233: 171–180. ). Nevertheless, users’ minimal knowledge of what exactly is being said in the source language does not stop them from formulating opinions on the quality of the interpreting service. Since such views cannot be fully informed (due to a lack of understanding of the input) and thus are bound to be subjective and biased, we opt for using the term ‘appraisal’ instead of ‘quality’, focusing on the action of formulating judgment. Using the term ‘appraisal’ acknowledges these subjective dimensions and emphasizes that individual perceptions and situational contexts influence assessments of interpreting services.

4.1Stimuli preparation

The experimental design relies on the recording of a mock parent–teacher meeting where the gestural production of the interpreter is manipulated. Two different approaches to the same communicative situation mediated by an interpreter were shown to participants: one in which the interpreter’s gestural production is spontaneous and non-restricted, and contains elements of gestural alignment with the speaker; and another one in which the interpreter has been instructed to keep her hands folded on the table, with the goal of deliberately limiting gesture production. No other restrictions regarding facial expressions, head movements, or posture shift were introduced. The interpreter took no notes. The next two sections explain the approach taken to design the script and to record and edit the videos.

4.2Questionnaire and metrics

After watching each of the videos, experiment participants answered identical twelve-item closed-ended questionnaires through which they evaluated the performance of the Turkish–English interpreter. The set of questions covered parameters typically included in interpreting quality assessment, but there was no direct inquiry regarding gestures. The questionnaire was broken down into four domains, each counting three items (see Table 1). It covered: (1) (perceived) level of professionalism, (2) (perceived) completeness and accuracy, (3) delivery, and (4) social features (such as liking and endorsement of the interpreter based on their performance).

Some items included in the questionnaire (i.e., accuracy, completeness, and terminology) could not, in actuality, be assessed by participants due to their lack of proficiency in Turkish. Yet, they were intentionally included in the questionnaire to help assess the influence of gestural style by the interpreter on the perception of such parameters.

4.3Experimental protocols

Participants (N = 57; female = 44; male = 13; mean age = 24; SD = 2.9) were MA students of interpreting programs, which had provided them with some criteria on what to look for in an interpreter, even thought they could only understand one of the languages of the interaction. They attended programs at the three different universities that collaborated on this study: (1) the Institute of Applied Linguistics, University of Warsaw, Poland; (2) the Department of Intercultural Studies and Applied Languages, Université Paris Cité, France; and (3) the Department of Translation and Interpreting, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain. Participation in the study was voluntary. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants and their data were anonymized.

The task, at each institution, was part of a more extensive experimental protocol implemented in the CoGCIn Project.55.The CoGCIn Project (Cognitive Processes behind the Use of Gestures in Consecutive Dialogue Interpreting) was implemented at the Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences, thanks to a Marie-Curie Fellowship for Research and Innovation awarded to the first author. See https://​gestureinterpreting​.com/. Participants were invited to the lab individually. The experiment materials were presented in PsychoPy (Peirce et al. 2019Peirce, Jonathan, Jeremy R. Gray, Sol Simpson, Michael MacAskill, Richard Höchenberger, Hiroyuki Sogo, Erik Kastman, and Jonas Kristoffer Lindeløv 2019 “PsychoPy2: Experiments in Behavior Made Easy.” Behavior Research Methods 51 (1): 195–203. Peirce, Jonathan, Jeremy R. Gray, Sol Simpson, Michael MacAskill, Richard Höchenberger, Hiroyuki Sogo, Erik Kastman, and Jonas Kristoffer Lindeløv 2019 “PsychoPy2: Experiments in Behavior Made Easy.” Behavior Research Methods 51 (1): 195–203. ), which allowed for the display of the videos and recording of the questionnaire responses within the same software. The procedure took place in the steps illustrated in Figure 2:

1. Completing a socio-demographical questionnaire on language skill, interpreting education and experience, level of studies, etc. (shared by all).

2. Viewing Video 1, split into Gesture condition (for participants allocated odd participant numbers) and No-gesture condition (for participants allocated even participant numbers).

3. Completing the interpreter appraisal questionnaire (shared by all).

4. Viewing Video 2, split into No-gesture condition (for participants allocated odd participant numbers) and Gesture condition (for participants allocated even participant numbers).

5. Completing the interpreter appraisal questionnaire (shared by all).

6. A debriefing session (5–10 minutes) with the participant regarding the rationale behind their video evaluation. The sessions were filmed or recorded in the form of lab notes. The lab notes were mainly used to record comments about participants’ behaviors and/or any events that might have been relevant to further data analyses (e.g., if the participant watched the recordings carefully and in full).

5.1Data pre-processing

The pool of recruited participants counted thirteen students in the Barcelona cohort, ten in Paris, and thirty-four in Warsaw. Two of the Parisian participants had to be excluded due to incomplete datasets, as they had to leave before the end of the experiment. The Warsaw cohort counted four participants in the pilot study and thirty in the main study. Of the Warsaw cohort, two out of four pilot study participants were excluded from the data set due to the software malfunctioning. Two of the thirty main study participants of the same cohort were removed from the data set as well. One did not meet the language requirement (recorded B1 proficiency in Turkish). The other presented outlier characteristics, showing abnormally high variance (SD = 1.370 in Gesture and SD = 1.168 in No-gesture conditions) that significantly deviated from the variance of the other participants (SD = 0.642 in Gesture and SD = 0.793 in No-gesture conditions).

As a result, the dataset used for statistical analyses encompasses a sample of fifty-one participants: thirteen from Barcelona, eight from Paris, and thirty from Warsaw.

5.2Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics of the scores obtained for the three cohorts are presented in Table 2. We observe that, for all three cohorts, the mean value of scores attributed to the Turkish–English interpreter who used vivid gesticulation is higher than the mean for the performance where the interpreter kept their hands folded on the table (mean Gesture: Barcelona = 6.333, Paris = 6.344, Warsaw = 6.100; mean No-gesture: Barcelona = 5.795, Paris = 5.563, Warsaw = 5.864). A closer look at Table 2 offers further insight: not only is the overall score for the non-gesturing interpreter lower, the results for this condition also present more variability from one participant to the other (respectively SD Gesture: Barcelona = 0.638, Paris = 0.608, Warsaw = 0.655; SD No-gesture: Barcelona = 0.860, Paris = 0.631, Warsaw = 0.814). Indeed, the No-gesture condition is characterized by a larger standard deviation across participants in every cohort. In other words, there is more consensus about and more satisfaction with the performance of the style of interpretation involving more gestures than that involving fewer.

Although these first conclusions are interesting, especially since they show the same trends for each cohort, we cannot ignore the sample character of these data: different samples yield different means and variances. To be able to extrapolate scientifically sound conclusions from our results, arithmetical comparisons of descriptive statistics are only the first step, and statistical inference is in order. For statistical inference, the data set per cohort is too small, as the Barcelona and Paris cohorts present insufficient sample sizes. However, given that the same trends are observed in all three cohorts, we are able to pool the data of all three cohorts together and into a single sample, with a size appropriate for inferential analysis. Further statistical tests are therefore run based on a total sample of fifty-one participants including all three cohorts. Summary descriptive statistics for this sample are shown in Table 3.

For the Gesture condition, the mean score is 6.198 (SD = .642), whereas for the No-gesture condition the mean score is 5.799 (SD = .793). Overall, then, the Gesture condition yields a higher mean score with less variability compared to the No-gesture condition. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 3. The scatter plot on the left and the box plot on the right use the same color code: the green data points refer to the scores of the Gesture condition whereas the red ones refer to the No-gesture condition. The scatter plot on the left helps to visualize the ratings provided by each of the participants. The box plot on the right shows the general trend. The relative position of the boxes visually reflects that the overall performance appraisal of the Gesture condition is higher than for the No-gesture condition. In these box plots, the horizontal line crossing the boxes indicates the median value, while the height of the boxes indicates where the 25% of scores below the median and the 25% above the median are.

5.3Statistical analysis

The Shapiro-Wilk test indicated no significant departure from normality in the data (W = 0.984, p = .709); therefore, a parametric paired samples t-test was used to test whether the difference between the mean scores in the Gesture and No-gesture conditions is statistically significant.

The results confirm that the difference between ratings provided in the Gesture (mean = 6.198, SD = .642) and No-gesture (mean = 5.799, SD = .793) conditions is highly statistically significant (t(50) = 2.951, p = .002, Cohen’s d = .413). This confirms the validity of the observation that the interpreter who uses vivid gesticulation and gesturally aligns with speakers is perceived as a better professional than their counterpart exhibiting scarce gesture production. Cohen’s d is a measure used in statistics to quantify the intensity of the difference between two compared groups, known as the size effect, used to indicate the magnitude of an examined phenomenon. According to the conventional criteria for interpreting Cohen’s d values, 0.2 is considered to reflect a small impact, 0.5 a medium impact, and 0.8 a large impact. Thus, the Cohen’s d value of 0.413 in our study indicates a small to medium impact of vivid gesticulation on evaluating the performance of the interpreter.

6.1Bias towards/against gestures in interpreting

As described in Section 2, the role of gestures by the interpreter in mediated interactions in public service and community settings has traditionally been studied with a focus on how they either support or interfere with the flow of communication. Krystallidou (2017)Krystallidou, Demi 2017 “Non-Verbals in Dialogue Interpreter Education: Improving Student Interpreters’ Visual Literacy and Raising Awareness of Its Impact on Interpreting Performance.” In Teaching Dialogue Interpreting: Research-Based Proposals for Higher Education, edited by Letizia Cirillo and Natacha Niemants, 259–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Krystallidou, Demi 2017 “Non-Verbals in Dialogue Interpreter Education: Improving Student Interpreters’ Visual Literacy and Raising Awareness of Its Impact on Interpreting Performance.” In Teaching Dialogue Interpreting: Research-Based Proposals for Higher Education, edited by Letizia Cirillo and Natacha Niemants, 259–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. is a rare exception among pedagogically oriented studies in calling for the importance of including ‘visual literacy’ as part of dialogue interpreting training. Her proposal extends the focus beyond the impact of the interpreter’s presence on the communicative situation to the “ability [of interpreting students] to construct meaning in a more comprehensive way by relying on participant’s verbal as well as non-verbal clues” (272).

Beyond the interactional dimension or the multimodal meaning-making by the interpreter as a receiver, gestures in interpreting have typically been viewed in a negative light. When it comes to considering the interpreter as a producer of multimodal messages herself/himself, guidelines for interpreter training so far do not generally, and certainly not explicitly, align with an understanding of interpreters’ gesturing as supportive of positive communicative outcomes. To the contrary: interpreting trainees (in conference interpreting especially) and supervised professional interpreters are often advised that gestures act as distractors, creating unnecessary noise that saturates the visual channel (Zagar Galvão 2013Zagar Galvão, Elena 2013 “Hand Gestures and Speech Production in the Booth: Do Simultaneous Interpreters Imitate the Speaker?” In Estudos de Linguística II, edited by Conceição Carapinha and Isabel A. Santos, 109–125. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.Zagar Galvão, Elena 2013 “Hand Gestures and Speech Production in the Booth: Do Simultaneous Interpreters Imitate the Speaker?” In Estudos de Linguística II, edited by Conceição Carapinha and Isabel A. Santos, 109–125. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.; Cienki 2024Cienki, Alan 2024 “Variable Embodiment of Stance-Taking and Footing in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Frontiers in Psychology 15: 1429232. Cienki, Alan 2024 “Variable Embodiment of Stance-Taking and Footing in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Frontiers in Psychology 15: 1429232. ). As vivid hand movements may attract visual attention to the interpreter instead of promoting a focus on the speaker, novices are instructed to keep their gesture production limited. Another argument, stemming from a study of dialogue interpreting in healthcare settings, is that gesturing interpreters might be performing multimodal stance-taking, using ‘nonverbal’ cues to convey their own opinions about the speaker’s utterances (Vranjes and Brône 2021Vranjes, Jelena, and Geert Brône 2021 “Interpreters as Laminated Speakers: Gaze and Gesture as Interpersonal Deixis in Consecutive Dialogue Interpreting.” Journal of Pragmatics 181: 83–99. Vranjes, Jelena, and Geert Brône 2021 “Interpreters as Laminated Speakers: Gaze and Gesture as Interpersonal Deixis in Consecutive Dialogue Interpreting.” Journal of Pragmatics 181: 83–99. ). From this perspective, such ‘visual comments’ might be seen as a threat to the impartial position of the interpreter, thus potentially compromising professional standards. Certain civil servants who work with interpreters voice such concerns when they request ‘please translate exactly what I am saying’ (Chwalczuk 2021Chwalczuk, Monika 2021 Co-Speech Gestures in Public Service Interpreting: Contextual Analysis of Multimodal Corpora. PhD thesis. Université Paris Cité.Chwalczuk, Monika 2021 Co-Speech Gestures in Public Service Interpreting: Contextual Analysis of Multimodal Corpora. PhD thesis. Université Paris Cité.).

These stances seem to be rooted in a limiting, yet default, understanding of the interpreting process: one that overemphasizes the vocal and oral dimensions of the communicative process. This view has been contested since the 1990s by the emphasis on embodiment as part of the interactional turn in Interpreting Studies, as discussed in Section 2. Beyond the role of body language as crucial for interactional management, it is surprising that the multimodal transfer of meaning across languages has not received more attention. Our findings reinforce the idea that cross-linguistic meaning transfer ought not to be considered at the level of words only (Seleskovitch and Lederer 2014Seleskovitch, Danica, and Marianne Lederer 2014 Interpréter Pour Traduire [Interpreting for translating]. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Seleskovitch, Danica, and Marianne Lederer 2014 Interpréter Pour Traduire [Interpreting for translating]. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.). Since speech itself is a multimodal phenomenon (Mondada 2016Mondada, Lorenza 2016 “Challenges of Multimodality: Language and the Body in Social Interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20 (3): 336–366. Mondada, Lorenza 2016 “Challenges of Multimodality: Language and the Body in Social Interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20 (3): 336–366. ), the aspiration for complete and accurate message transferal should not disregard the role of visual cues in the meaning-making process (Krystallidou 2017Krystallidou, Demi 2017 “Non-Verbals in Dialogue Interpreter Education: Improving Student Interpreters’ Visual Literacy and Raising Awareness of Its Impact on Interpreting Performance.” In Teaching Dialogue Interpreting: Research-Based Proposals for Higher Education, edited by Letizia Cirillo and Natacha Niemants, 259–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Krystallidou, Demi 2017 “Non-Verbals in Dialogue Interpreter Education: Improving Student Interpreters’ Visual Literacy and Raising Awareness of Its Impact on Interpreting Performance.” In Teaching Dialogue Interpreting: Research-Based Proposals for Higher Education, edited by Letizia Cirillo and Natacha Niemants, 259–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ).

Another plausible source of apprehension towards gesture production, especially for interpreting students and early-career interpreters, might be rooted in lecturers’ potential conflation of co-speech gestures (which carry meaning) with adapters (which help to ease stress-induced tension in the body without bearing communicative value) (Ekman and Friesen 1969Ekman, Paul, and Wallace V. Friesen 1969 “The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage, and Coding.” Semiotica 1 (1): 49–98. Ekman, Paul, and Wallace V. Friesen 1969 “The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage, and Coding.” Semiotica 1 (1): 49–98. ). Given the findings of this study, we suggest that the conceptual difference between these two types of hand movement ought to be addressed in interpreter training as part of building awareness of interpreters’ gestural patterns. While co-speech gestures can support message transfer both for the interpreter and the end receiver, an abundance of adapters may interfere with clear communication while using interpretation services.

Inadvertently placing all gestures under the same conceptual category of unhelpful ‘noise’ during interpreted encounters appears to be a default approach. While understandable, this study demonstrates why it should be challenged in interpreting research and training. Such an approach may lead to reducing all comments on ‘nonverbal’ behavior to the oversimplified recommendation to refrain from gesturing altogether. This may in turn lead to a bias against all gesture production in interpreters’ renditions, based on the assumption that vivid gesticulation during interpreting is symptomatic of poor professionalism and proficiency. An example of such bias was shared during the third CITEI (Congreso Internacional de Traducción e Interpretación) conference held in Lima in May 2024, in personal exchanges between the authors and quality assurance professionals of interpreting services. In their positions held in remote interpreting companies supporting healthcare communication in the United States, these quality assurance professionals were required to fill out grading charts to report on interpreters’ compliance with company guidelines. One of the chart’s fields is designed to report whether the hands of the interpreter are visible (negative mark) or not (positive mark). This policy reflects a generalized bias against gestures in interpreting practice.

Given the positive effect of gesture production on the overall performance appraisal of the interpreter in our study, there are two identified avenues for further consideration that we deem essential if we are to progressively counter the bias against gesture production in interpreting. If gesture production by the interpreter has a positive impact on appraisal, the question shifts from ‘should the interpreter gesture?’ towards ‘how should the interpreter gesture?’. And, if gestures are to be incorporated, guilt-free, as a sign of professionalism, what are the best mechanisms to promote interpreter reflexivity around the use of gestures?

The latter is critical, since, as will be discussed in Section 6.2, gesturing is in and of itself a trust generator. Understanding how to use this tool is essential when considering the role the interpreter ought to play in the communicative situation. This is discussed further in Section 6.3, on limitations and future research, after we consider the social correlates of gestural mimicry.

6.2Social correlates of gestural mimicry

A gesturally active interpreter might not be the archetype that comes to mind when imagining the professional role, yet it aligns with the wider spectrum of sociological and psychological research on gestural production. In interpreter-mediated interactions, gestures become points of reference bridging the source and the target speech, thus helping to follow the flow of conversation in exolingual encounters (Pasquandrea 2012Pasquandrea, Sergio 2012 “Co-Constructing Dyadic Sequences in Healthcare Interpreting: A Multimodal Account.” New Voices in Translation Studies 8 (1): 132–157.Pasquandrea, Sergio 2012 “Co-Constructing Dyadic Sequences in Healthcare Interpreting: A Multimodal Account.” New Voices in Translation Studies 8 (1): 132–157.; Gerwing and Li 2019Gerwing, Jennifer, and Shuangyu Li 2019 “Body-Oriented Gestures as a Practitioner’s Window into Interpreted Communication.” Social Science & Medicine 233: 171–180. Gerwing, Jennifer, and Shuangyu Li 2019 “Body-Oriented Gestures as a Practitioner’s Window into Interpreted Communication.” Social Science & Medicine 233: 171–180. ). That is why gestural mimicry plays an important part in building harmonious interactional dynamics in discordant language communication.

Mimicry, the unconscious imitation of behaviors, serves as a fundamental aspect of human social interactions, contributing significantly to the establishment and maintenance of social relationships (Muniak and Kulesza 2024Muniak, Paweł, and Wojciech Kulesza 2024 “The Impact of Mimicry Behavior on Guilt.” Social Psychological Bulletin 19: e12697. Muniak, Paweł, and Wojciech Kulesza 2024 “The Impact of Mimicry Behavior on Guilt.” Social Psychological Bulletin 19: e12697. ). This phenomenon is not limited to conscious awareness but rather operates as a subtle yet powerful force in shaping social dynamics (McIntosh et al. 2006McIntosh, Daniel N., Aimee Reichmann-Decker, Piotr Winkielman, and Julia L. Wilbarger 2006 “When the Social Mirror Breaks: Deficits in Automatic, but Not Voluntary, Mimicry of Emotional Facial Expressions in Autism.” Developmental Science 9 (3): 295–302. McIntosh, Daniel N., Aimee Reichmann-Decker, Piotr Winkielman, and Julia L. Wilbarger 2006 “When the Social Mirror Breaks: Deficits in Automatic, but Not Voluntary, Mimicry of Emotional Facial Expressions in Autism.” Developmental Science 9 (3): 295–302. ). Research indicates that mimicry plays a crucial role in fostering empathy, understanding, and rapport between individuals (Kimbara 2006Kimbara, Irene 2006 “On Gestural Mimicry.” Gesture 6 (1): 39–61. Kimbara, Irene 2006 “On Gestural Mimicry.” Gesture 6 (1): 39–61. ; Van Swol and Drury‐Grogan 2017Van Swol, Lyn M., and Meghann L. Drury-Grogan 2017 “The Effects of Shared Opinions on Nonverbal Mimicry.” SAGE Open 7 (2): 215824401770724. Van Swol, Lyn M., and Meghann L. Drury-Grogan 2017 “The Effects of Shared Opinions on Nonverbal Mimicry.” SAGE Open 7 (2): 215824401770724. ). By mimicking others, individuals can enhance their social bonds, increase liking, and promote prosocial behavior (Van Swol and Drury‐Grogan 2017Van Swol, Lyn M., and Meghann L. Drury-Grogan 2017 “The Effects of Shared Opinions on Nonverbal Mimicry.” SAGE Open 7 (2): 215824401770724. Van Swol, Lyn M., and Meghann L. Drury-Grogan 2017 “The Effects of Shared Opinions on Nonverbal Mimicry.” SAGE Open 7 (2): 215824401770724. ). Mimicry is not only about imitation but also about creating a sense of togetherness and shared understanding, leading to positive social outcomes (Chartrand and Baaren 2009Chartrand, Tanya L., and Rick van Baaren 2009 “Chapter 5. Human Mimicry.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 41: 219–274. Chartrand, Tanya L., and Rick van Baaren 2009 “Chapter 5. Human Mimicry.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 41: 219–274. ).

Psychological research has focused mainly on facial mimicry, which plays a crucial role in emotion recognition and social bonding (De Stefani et al. 2019De Stefani, Elisa, Ylenia Nicolini, Mauro Belluardo, and Pier Francesco Ferrari 2019 “Congenital Facial Palsy and Emotion Processing: The Case of Moebius Syndrome.” Genes, Brain and Behavior 18 (1): e12548. De Stefani, Elisa, Ylenia Nicolini, Mauro Belluardo, and Pier Francesco Ferrari 2019 “Congenital Facial Palsy and Emotion Processing: The Case of Moebius Syndrome.” Genes, Brain and Behavior 18 (1): e12548. ). It enables individuals to convey and interpret emotions effectively, even in the absence of verbal communication (ibid.). By mimicking facial expressions, individuals can enhance emotional reciprocity, empathic understanding, and social bonding (Ardizzi et al. 2014Ardizzi, Martina, Mariateresa Sestito, Francesca Martini, Maria Alessandra Umiltà, Roberto Ravera, and Vittorio Gallese 2014 “When Age Matters: Differences in Facial Mimicry and Autonomic Responses to Peers’ Emotions in Teenagers and Adults.” PLoS ONE 9 (10): e110763. Ardizzi, Martina, Mariateresa Sestito, Francesca Martini, Maria Alessandra Umiltà, Roberto Ravera, and Vittorio Gallese 2014 “When Age Matters: Differences in Facial Mimicry and Autonomic Responses to Peers’ Emotions in Teenagers and Adults.” PLoS ONE 9 (10): e110763. ). Mimicry is deeply intertwined with processes such as joint attention and spontaneous facial mimicry, which are essential for empathic abilities and social interactions (Neufeld et al., 2016Neufeld, Janina, Christina Ioannou, Sebastian Korb, Leonhard Schilbach, and Bhismadev Chakrabarti 2016 “Spontaneous Facial Mimicry Is Modulated by Joint Attention and Autistic Traits.” Autism Research 9 (7): 781–789. Neufeld, Janina, Christina Ioannou, Sebastian Korb, Leonhard Schilbach, and Bhismadev Chakrabarti 2016 “Spontaneous Facial Mimicry Is Modulated by Joint Attention and Autistic Traits.” Autism Research 9 (7): 781–789. ). Behavioral mimicry, such as copying postures and mannerisms, communicates liking and affiliation during adult interactions (Van Schaik and Hunnius 2018Van Schaik, Johanna E., and Sabine Hunnius 2018 “Modulating Mimicry: Exploring the Roles of Inhibitory Control and Social Understanding in 5-Year-Olds’ Behavioral Mimicry.” PLOS ONE 13 (3): e0194102. Van Schaik, Johanna E., and Sabine Hunnius 2018 “Modulating Mimicry: Exploring the Roles of Inhibitory Control and Social Understanding in 5-Year-Olds’ Behavioral Mimicry.” PLOS ONE 13 (3): e0194102. ).

Speech delivered with gesture offers the advantage of dual coding (Paivio 2013Paivio, Allan 2013 Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York: Psychology Press. Paivio, Allan 2013 Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York: Psychology Press. ); in other words, representing the same semantic elements in visual and vocal modalities. This feature of multimodal utterances is linked to an increased processing fluency (Alter and Oppenheimer 2009Alter, Adam L., and Daniel M. Oppenheimer 2009 “Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 13 (3): 219–235. Alter, Adam L., and Daniel M. Oppenheimer 2009 “Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 13 (3): 219–235. ). This, in turn, is linked to a cognitive bias in which our opinions are influenced by how easily we process a certain piece of information. The human brain favors simplicity, and hence it generates more positive emotions and liking towards stimuli that are easy to understand and manipulate mentally (Forster, Leder, and Ansorge 2013Forster, Michael, Helmut Leder, and Ulrich Ansorge 2013 “It Felt Fluent, and I Liked It: Subjective Feeling of Fluency Rather than Objective Fluency Determines Liking.” Emotion 13 (2): 280–289. Forster, Michael, Helmut Leder, and Ulrich Ansorge 2013 “It Felt Fluent, and I Liked It: Subjective Feeling of Fluency Rather than Objective Fluency Determines Liking.” Emotion 13 (2): 280–289. ). Easy-to-process information is also perceived as more believable, which could explain why the vividly gesturing interpreter in our stimuli set received higher scores for trustworthiness and reliability.

Zooming in on particular gestural types, iconic gestures, reflecting formal features of the referents, are also reported to influence impression formation in the eyes of the audience. An experimental study on gestures in advertising showed that the speaker accompanying product presentation with iconic gestures was evaluated as more competent and convincing than the one who did not move their hands (Kita et al. forthcomingKita, Sotaro, Jacob Barker, and Jiahao Yang Forthcoming. “Gestures in Advertisement: Self-Oriented Study.”Kita, Sotaro, Jacob Barker, and Jiahao Yang Forthcoming. “Gestures in Advertisement: Self-Oriented Study.”). As scripted iconic gestures were part of the role-play scenario in our study, their presence could affect the raters in a similar way, prompting them to evaluate the gesturing interpreter as more confident and professional.

6.3Limitations and future directions

By design, the appraisers in this study had no access to the full message of the original Turkish utterances. For that reason, the appraisal of the interpreter’s performance is blind to the central aspect of accuracy, as well as to other aspects of the interpreter role such as the variety of protocols that are designed to support the communicative autonomy of the parties (García-Beyaert 2021García-Beyaert, Sofia 2021 “Framing the Societal Value of Community Interpreting.” QScience Connect 3: art. 6. García-Beyaert, Sofia 2021 “Framing the Societal Value of Community Interpreting.” QScience Connect 3: art. 6. ). If, in the presence of gestures that may (or may not) depart completely from accurate renditions, the positive appraisal can potentially be attributed to aspects such as trust, simplicity, and processing fluency, as discussed in Section 6.2, then the question that begs asking is how all these aspects interrelate with the mandate of the interpreter. Having established that gestures have a positive impact on appraisal for the samples studied, an important next step is to granularly examine what impact interpreter gestures have on the actual communicative autonomy of the parties, if the goal is to be true to the unique societal contribution of interpreters (see García-Beyaert 2021García-Beyaert, Sofia 2021 “Framing the Societal Value of Community Interpreting.” QScience Connect 3: art. 6. García-Beyaert, Sofia 2021 “Framing the Societal Value of Community Interpreting.” QScience Connect 3: art. 6. ) in public service and community settings.

Relatedly, the findings of this study are based on the perspective of a third-party observer of the interpreted interaction. Even though the participants presented the same lack of language proficiency as an end user presumably would, the fact that they were not the actual addressees of the interpreted speech is a limitation. Their ratings do not necessarily reflect the perspective of a real user who would be in fact engaged in the mediated interaction.

Additionally, the study was conducted on a sample of interpreting trainees, with a specific set of language pairs, and a given degree of interpreting training. The specific profile of the raters usually has a significant impact on the outcome of the evaluation (e.g., clients vs fellow interpreters vs researchers) (Pöchhacker 2001Pöchhacker, Franz 2001 “Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting.” Meta 46 (2): 410–425. Pöchhacker, Franz 2001 “Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting.” Meta 46 (2): 410–425. ), and thus future studies should be conducted to confirm that other populations perceive the interpreter’s vivid gesticulation in the same way. Such explorations could also focus on disentangling the potential effects of different gestural styles on ratings of specific dimensions of interpreter appraisal, such as professionalism, completeness, language quality, likability, endorsement, and delivery, using larger datasets.