Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 20:1 (2018) ► pp.102–131
How sign language interpreters use multimodal actions to coordinate turn-taking in group work between deaf and hearing upper secondary school students
Published online: 26 April 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00004.ber
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00004.ber
Abstract
This study examines interpreted group work situations involving deaf and hearing senior high school students, using Norwegian Sign Language and spoken Norwegian. The research question is: how does the sign language interpreter explicitly coordinate turn-taking in group work dialogues among deaf and hearing students? Video recordings of authentic learning situations constitute the basis for analysis of how a sign language interpreter uses multimodal actions to convey information that is used by the deaf and hearing students in establishing a shared focus of attention and thus coordinating their turn-taking. Five types of actions were recurrently identified: construction of visual gestures; timing of the interpreter’s input; use of gaze to negotiate for the deaf students’ speaking turns; left-right shifts in body position to convey information about which of the hearing students is speaking; and backward-forward shifts in body position to negotiate for shared attention. The analysis draws mainly on concepts developed by Goffman (Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin., (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.), Goodwin ( (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96 (3), 606–633. , (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 321, 1489–1522. , (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society 18 (1), 53–73. ) and (1998). Interpreting as interaction. New York: Longman.. The discussion examines implications for the educational interpreter’s role set ( (2010). Reconfiguring self/identity/status/role: The case of professional role performance in healthcare encounters. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 7 (1), 75–95. , (2011). Role hybridity in professional practice. In S. Sarangi, V. Polese & G. Caliendo (Eds.), Genre(s) on the move: Hybridisation and discourse change in specialised communication. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 271–296.), and the dual responsibility s/he fulfils by not only interpreting the students’ utterances, but also explicitly coordinating their interaction.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Earlier research
- Turn-taking and establishing shared attention
- Role set and shifts of footing
- Multimodal interaction analysis
- Analysis
- Excerpt 1: Gestures
- Excerpt 2: Timing of the interpreter’s input
- Excerpt 3: Use of gaze
- Excerpt 4: Left-right shifts in body position to give information about who is speaking
- Excerpt 5: Backward-forward shifts of body position to negotiate for attention
- Discussion
References
References (55)
Antia, S. D. & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2001). The role of interpreters in inclusive classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf 146 (4), 355–365.
Bagga-Gupta, S. (2004). Visually oriented language use: Discursive and technological resources in Swedish deaf pedagogical arenas. In M. V. Herreweghe & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), To the lexicon and beyond: Sociolinguistics in European Deaf communities. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, 171–207.
Berge, S. S. (2012). Deaf pupils’ access in interpreted, peer group dialogues. Paper presented at Marginalization processes: International multidisciplinaryworkshop, Ørebro, 26–28 April 2012.
Berge, S. S. & Kermit, P. S. (2017). Deaf students’ access to informal group-work avtivities seen in light of the educational interpreter’s role. In S. Bagga-Gupta (Ed.), Marginalization processes: Studies of participation across sites. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Berge, S. S. (2014). To negotiate for the other’s turn to talk. Paper presented at ALAPP 4: Applied linguistics and professional practice, Geneva, 10–12 Sept 2014.
Berge, S. S. & Raanes, E. (2013). Coordinating the chain of utterances: An analysis of communicative flow and turn-taking in an interpreted group dialogue for deaf-blind persons. Sign Language Studies, 13 (3), 350–371.
Berge, S. S. & Thomassen, G. (2015). Visual access in interpreter-mediated learning situations for deaf and hard-of-hearing high school students where an artifact is in use. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21 (2), 187–199.
Berge, S. S. & Ytterhus, B. (2015). Deaf and hearing high-school students’ expectations for the role of educational sign-language interpreter. Society, Health and Vulnerability 61, 1–26.
Brinkman, S. & Kvale, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Engberg-Pedersen, E. (1991). Lærebok i tegnsprogs gramatik (Textbook in sign-language grammar). Copenhagen: Døves Center for Total Kommunikation.
Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Inquiry 50 (3–4), 272–302.
(1986). Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica 62 (1–2), 29–49.
(2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 321, 1489–1522.
(2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society 18 (1), 53–73.
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 222–243.
Hansen, A. L. (2005). Kommunikative praksiser i visuelt orienterte klasserom (Communicative practises in visually oriented classrooms). PhD Dissertation, Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, Trondheim.
Harrington, F. J. (2000). Sign language interpreters and access for deaf students to university curricula: The ideal and the reality. In R. P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham & A. Dufour (Eds.), The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the community. Selected papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in Legal,, Health and Social Service Settings, Vancouver, Canada, 19–23 May 1998. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 219–238.
(2005). A study of the complex nature of interpreting with deaf students in higher education. In M. Metzger & E. Fleetwood (Eds.), Attitudes, innuendo and regulators: Challenges of interpretation. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 162–187.
Heath, C. & Hindmarsh, J. (2002). Analysing interaction: Video, ethnography and situated conduct. In M. Tim (Ed.), Qualitative research in action. London: Sage Publications, 99–121.
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J. & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage Publications.
Herreweghe, M. V. (2002). Turn-taking mechanisms and active participation in meetings with deaf and hearing participants in Flanders. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Turn-taking, fingerspelling and contact in signed languages. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 73–103.
Linell, P. (1997). Interpreting as communication. In Y. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49–67.
(2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Llewellyn-Jones, P. & Lee, R. G. (2013). Getting to the core of role: Defining interpreters’ role-space. International Journal of Interpreter Education 5 (2), 54–72.
Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Convertino, C. & Seewagen, R. (2005). Access to postsecondary education through sign language interpreting. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10 (1), 38–50.
McIlvenny, P. (1995). Seeing conversations: Analyzing sign language talk. In P. T. Have & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities. Washington DC: University Press of America, 129–150.
Metzger, M. (1999). Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.
(2005). Interpreted discourse: Learning and recognizing what interpreters do in interaction. In C. B. Roy (Ed.), Advances in teaching sign language interpreters. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Metzger, M. & Fleetwood, E. (2004). Educational interpreting: Developing standards of practice. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 171–177.
Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interaction in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (10), 1977–1997.
Morgenthaler, L. (1988). A study of group process: Who’s got what floor? Journal of Pragmatics 14 (4), 537–557.
Nilsson, A. -L. (2016). Embodying metaphors: Signed language interpreters at work. Cognitive Linguistics 27 (1), 35–65.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. In P. Cobey (Ed.), Communication theories. London: Routledge, 262–308.
Sarangi, S. (2007). The anatomy of interpretation: Coming to terms with the analyst’s paradox in professional discourse studies. Text & Talk 27 (5/6), 567–584.
(2010). Reconfiguring self/identity/status/role: The case of professional role performance in healthcare encounters. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 7 (1), 75–95.
(2011). Role hybridity in professional practice. In S. Sarangi, V. Polese & G. Caliendo (Eds.), Genre(s) on the move: Hybridisation and discourse change in specialised communication. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 271–296.
Schick, B. (2004). How might learning through an educational interpreter influence cognitive development? In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, 73–88.
Solow, S. N. (1981). Sign language interpreting: A basic resource book. Silver Spring, MD: The National Association for the Deaf.
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin & C. LeBaron (Ed.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tate, G. & Turner, G. H. (1997/2002). The code and the culture: Sign language interpreting - in search of the new breed’s ethics. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 373–383.
Thoutenhoofd, E. (2005). The sign language interpreter in inclusive education: Power of authority and limits of objectivism. The Translator 11 (2), 237–258.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wadensjö, C. (1993). The double role of a dialogue interpreter. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 1 (1), 105–121.
Warnicke, C. & Plejert, C. (2012). Turn-organisation in mediated phone interaction using Video Relay Service (VRS). Journal of Pragmatics 44 (10), 1313–1334.
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
Adami, Elisabetta & Ruth Swanwick
Napier, Jemina
2022. Review of Salaets & Brône (2020): Linking up with Video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:1 ► pp. 147 ff.
王, 春丽
Pöchhacker, Franz
Stone, Christopher & Jeremy L. Brunson
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 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.
