In:Linking up with Video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research
Edited by Heidi Salaets and Geert Brône
[Benjamins Translation Library 149] 2020
► pp. 151–179
Chapter 6Gesture functions and gestural style in simultaneous interpreting
Published online: 13 January 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.07gal
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.07gal
Abstract
In recent decades, the advent of affordable digital
video-recording technology and freely downloadable specialised software for
storing, viewing, editing, and annotating video and audio has contributed to
a reassessment of the importance of the relation between the body, language,
and communication in a variety of scientific domains, such as psychology,
linguistics, anthropology, sociology, cognitive sciences and several others
(Müller et al 2013, 2014). One of the consequences has
also been the emergence of a new interdiscipline – Gesture Studies –
entirely devoted to the investigation of the gestural modality in human
interaction. However, while gesture and its relation to speech have been
examined in face-to-face conversations, oral narratives, public speaking,
task-based discourse, as well as other types of communicative situations,
only a handful of studies to date have documented, analysed and described
the range and functions of the gestures produced by conference interpreters
in the booth. One of the possible reasons for this lack of attention to the
body in interpreting has to do with the emphasis on decontextualised
cognitive processes in the simultaneous interpreting (SI) mode, which
dominated the academic field of conference interpreting research since its
beginning in the 1950s until the mid-1990s (Diriker 2004: 7; Gile 1998: 70; Pöchhacker 1995: 33). In addition, the historical shift from
consecutive to simultaneous interpreting in conference settings and the now
more generalised use of remote interpreting resulted in a removal of the
interpreter’s body from the public eye. All this, coupled with the still
prevalent notion that simultaneous interpreting (SI) is an essentially
verbal and monologic endeavour, as well as the difficulty in finding
interpreters willing to be filmed and/or securing permission for filming,
led to a dearth of multimodal data in Conference Interpreting Research. The
present volume constitutes a first clear attempt at redressing this
imbalance by ‘linking up with video’, while this specific chapter hopes to
start filling this gap by contributing to a better understanding of the role
played by gesture in SI discourse and by introducing the reader to a
qualitative microanalytical approach to gestural behaviour that may be
applied to the study of other modes of interpreting.
After defining gesture and its structural properties within the
framework of an integrated multimodal view of language and communication and
introducing some working concepts from the field of Gesture Studies, the
chapter presents a video-based quasi-experimental study with four
professional conference interpreters working simultaneously from English
into European Portuguese (henceforth ‘Portuguese’). The study constitutes
the first part of a larger research project which explores gesture
production in SI by triangulating the data, methods and results from the
open quasi-experiment described here, an observational field study with the
same subjects, and in-depth semi-structured interviews with a larger number
of interpreters. Due to space limitations, however, this chapter will only
cover the first investigation. The findings offer an insight into the rich
range of gestures deployed in the booth and shed some light on the
multimodal nature of meaning-making in simultaneous interpreting.
Article outline
- 1.What is gesture?
- 1.1Dimensions of gesture use
- 1.2The structural properties of gesture
- 1.3Segmenting gesture
- 2.Exploring gesture functions in SI
- 2.1Open experiment
- 2.1.1Interpreters, source speeches and setup
- 2.1.2Objectives and data treatment
- 2.2Findings
- 2.2.1Quantitative analysis
- 2.2.2Discussion of the quantitative results
- 2.2.3Interpreters’ referential gestures
- 2.2.4Why did interpreters gesture more in the second speech?
- 2.2.5Qualitative analysis
- 2.2.6Pragmatic gestures
- 2.2.6.1Example of gestures accompanying a repair
- 2.2.6.2Gestures with a cohesive function
- 2.2.7Descriptive gestures
- 2.2.8Gestural mimicry
- 2.1Open experiment
- 3.Conclusion: Gestural style in simultaneous interpreting
Acknowledgment Notes References Appendix
References (56)
Adam, Carolin and Ginette Castro. 2013. “Schlaggesten beim Simultandolmetschen –
Auftreten und Funktionen.” Lebende Sprachen 58 (1): 71–82.
Alonso Bacigalupe, Luis. 2009. El Procesamiento de la información durante la
inerpretación simultánea: un modelo en tres niveles. Granada: Editorial Atrio.
Bavelas, Janet B., Nicole Chovil, Linda Coates, and Lori Roe. 1995. “Gestures specialized for dialogue.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin(21) 4: 394–405.
Bavelas, Janet B. 2007. “Face-to-face dialogue as a micro-social context. The
example of motor mimicry.” In Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language. Essays in honor
of David McNeill, ed. by Susan D. Duncan, Justin Casselland, and Elena T. Levy, 127–146. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bavelas, Janet B., Jennifer Gerwing, Chantelle Sutton, and Danielle Prevost. 2008. “Gesturing on the telephone: Independent effects of
dialogue and visibility.” Journal of Memory and Language 58: 495–520.
Beattie, Geoff and Heather Shovelton. 1999. “Do iconic hand gestures really contribute anything to the
semantic information conveyed by speech? An experimental
investigation.” Semiotica 123: 1–30.
Boersma, Paul and David Weenink. 1996. PRAAT – a system for doing phonetics by computer, version
3.4 Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam,
Report 132 [URL] (accessed 30 March 2017).
Bressem, Jana, and Silva H. Ladewig. 2011. “Rethinking gesture phases: Articulatory features of
gestural movement?” Semiotica 184 (1/4), 53–91.
, 2013. “New insights into the medium hand: discovering recurrent
structures in gestures.” Semiotica 197, 203–231.
Bressem, Jana. 2013. “A linguistic perspective on the notation of form features
in gestures.” In Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on
Multimodality in Human Interaction, ed. by Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki et al.,1079–1098. Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter: Mouton.
Bressem, Jana, Silva H. Ladewig, and Cornelia Müller. 2013. “Linguistic annotation system for gestures
(LASG)” In Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on
Multimodality in Human Interaction, ed. by Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki et al., 1098–1125. Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Calbris, Geneviève. 2011. Elements of Meaning in Gesture. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cassell, Justine, David Mcneill, and Karl-Erik McCullough. 1998. “Speech-Gesture Mismatches: Evidence for One Underlying
Representation of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic
Information.”Pragmatics &Cognition 6 (2).
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten,.2011. “A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2.
English translation and adaptation of Selting.” Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12: 1–51.
Diriker, Ebru. 2004. De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting: Interpreters in
the Ivory Tower? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Duncan, Susan. n.d. Coding ManualUnder Perpetual Revision. [URL] (accessed 28 March 2017).
. 2013. “Transcribing gesture with speech.” In Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on
Multimodality in Human Interaction ed. by Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki et al. ,1007–1014. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Galhano-Rodrigues, Isabel. 2007. “Body in interpretation: Nonverbal communication of
speaker and interpreter and its relation to words and
prosody.” In Translationsqualität. Leipziger Studien zur
angewandten Linguistik und Translatologie, ed. by Peter Schmitt, and Heike Jüngst , 739–753. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Gile, Daniel. 1998. “Observational Studies and Experimental Studies in the
Investigation of Conference Interpreting.” Target(10)1: 69–93.
Gullberg, Marianne. 1998. Gesture as a Communication Strategy in Second Language
Discourse. Lund: Lund University Press.
Holler, Judith and Geoffrey Beattie. 2002. “A micro-analytic investigation of how iconic gesture and
speech represent core semantic features in talk.” Semiotica 142: 31–69.
Kendon, Adam. 1980. “Gesticulation and speech: two aspects of the process of
utterance.” In The Relation of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication, ed. by Mary R. Key, 207–227. The Hague: Mouton
. 1988. “How gestures can become like words.” In Cross-Cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication, ed. by Fernando Poyatos, 131–141. New York: C.J. Hogrefe.
. 1994. “Do gestures communicate? A review.”Research on Language and Social Interaction 27 (3): 175–200.
. 1995. “Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers
in southern Italian conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 23: 247–279.
. 2007. “Some Topics in Gesture Studies.” In Fundamentals of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication and the
Biometric Issue, ed. by Anna Esposito et al., 3–19. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
. 2013. “How the body relates to language and communication:
Outlining the subject matter.” In Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on
Multimodality in Human Interaction, ed. by Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki et al., 7–28. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kimbara, Irene. 2006. “On gestural mimicry.” Gesture 6: 39–61.
Kita, Sotaro, Ingeborg van Gijn, and Harry van der Hulst. 1998.“Movement phases in signs and co-speech gestures and their
transcription by human encoders.” In Gesture and Sign Language in Human-Computer Interaction, ed. by Ipke Wachsmuth, and Martin Fröhlich, 23–35. Berlin: Springer.
Ladewig, Silva H. and Jana Bressem. 2013. “A linguistic perspective on the notation of gesture
phases.” In Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on
Multimodality in Human Interaction, ed. by Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki et al., 1060–1079. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
McClave, Evelyn. 2000. “Linguistic functions of head movements in the context of
speech.”Journal of Pragmatics 32: 855–878.
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. 2015. “Speech-gesture mimicry in performance: an actor →
audience, author → actor, audience → actor triangle.” Journal for Cultural Research(19) 1: 15–29.
Müller, Cornelia (2004). “The Palm-Up-Open-Hand: A Case of a Gesture Family?” in Cornelia Müller and Roland Posner (eds), The Semantics and Pragmatics of Everyday Gestures: The Berlin Conference, Berlin: Weidler, 233–56.
. 2010. “Gesture and Language.” In The Routledge Linguistics Encyclopedia, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjaer, 214–217. Abington, New York: Routledge.
Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki et al. (eds.). 2013. Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on
Multimodality in Human Interaction. Volume 1. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki et al. (eds.). 2014. Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on
Multimodality in Human Interaction. Volume 2. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Pöchhacker, Franz. 1995. “Simultaneous Interpreting: A Functionalist
Perspective.” Hermes, Journal of Linguistics (14): 31–53.
Poyatos, Fernando. 1997. “The reality of multichannel verbal – nonverbal
communication in simultaneous and consecutive
interpretation.” In Nonverbal Communication and Translation; ed. by Fernando Poyatos, 249–282. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rohlfing, Katharina et al. 2006. “Comparison of multimodal annotation tools –
Workshop Report.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur Verbalen
Interaktion 7: 99–123.
Schegloff, Emmanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sachs. 1977. “The preference for self-correction in the organization of
repair in conversation.” Language 53: 361–382.
Selting, Margret et al. 1998. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem
(GAT). Linguistische Berichte 173: 91–122.
Setton, Robin. 2002. “A methodology for the analysis of interpretation
corpora.” In Garzone, Giuliana, and Maurizio Viezzi (eds.) Interpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and Opportunities.
Selected Papers from the 1st Forlì Conference on Interpreting
Studies. November 9-11. 29–45. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 1999. A cognitive-pragmatic approach to Simultaneous
Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Seyfeddinipur, Mandana. 2006. “Disfluency: interrupting speech and
gesture.” MPI Series in Psycholinguistics, Vol. 39. Nijmegen: Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Sineiro de Saa, Marta. 2003. Linguaxe corporal e interpretación
simultânea: ¿Son os intérpretes un reflexo do
orador? In Investigación Experimental en Interpretación de
Linguas: Primeiros Passos, ed. by L. Alonso Bacigalupe, 39–59. Vigo: Universidade de Vigo.
Van Besien, Fred, and Chris Meuleman,. 2008. Style differences among simultaneous
interpreters. The Translator(14)1: 135–152.
Viaggio, Sergio. 1997. “Kinesics and the simultaneous interpreter. The advantages
of listening with one’s eyes and speaking with one’s
body.” In Nonverbal Communication and Translation, ed. by Fernando Poyatos, 283–293. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wittenburg, P. et al. 2006. “ELAN: a Professional Framework for Multimodality
Research.” In Proceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on
Language Resources and Evaluation.
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
Martín de León, Celia
2025. Mirrors and windows. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 27:1 ► pp. 87 ff.
Zhang, Qiuya & Youping Jing
Alan Cienki
Jerkovic, Tiana
2024. Space, body and presence. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 26:2 ► pp. 201 ff.
Chwalczuk, Monika
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2025. 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.
