Cover not available

Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 21:2 (2019) ► pp.220–244

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Affiliation in interpreter-mediated therapeutic talk

On the relationship between gaze and head nods

 | KU Leuven
 | KU Leuven
 | KU Leuven
 | KU Leuven
Published online: 11 November 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00028.vra
Abstract
The aim of this article is to explore how affiliation (Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment and affiliation during story telling: when nodding is a token of preliminary affiliation. Research on Language in Social Interaction 411, 29–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) with the patient is displayed and interactionally achieved in the context of an interpreter-mediated therapeutic dialogue. More specifically, we focus on the interplay between affiliative listener responses – especially head nods – and gaze in this setting. Interpreter-mediated therapeutic talk is not only a setting that has received very little systematic scrutiny in the literature, but it is also particularly interesting for the study of listener responses. Drawing on the insights from Conversation Analysis, a naturally occurring interpreter-mediated therapeutic session was analysed that had been recorded using mobile eye-tracking technology. This approach allowed for a detailed analysis of the interlocutors’ synchronous gaze behaviour in relation to speech and head nods during the interaction. The results revealed differences in the interpreter’s and the therapist’s affiliative listener responses that were linked to the interactional goals of the encounter and to their social roles. Moreover, we found a strong relationship between mutual gaze and head nods as tokens of affiliation. Thus, these findings provide support for the inclusion of gaze in studies of interpreter-mediated dialogue and, more broadly, in the study of affiliation in social interaction.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Affiliation in social interaction
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.Analyses
    • 4.1Interpreter’s listener responses
    • 4.2Therapist’s listener responses
    • 4.3Head nods as resources to affiliate
      • 4.3.1Interpreter’s head nods
        • Gaze as response inviting cue
        • Sustained mutual gaze and increased affiliative strength
      • 4.3.2Therapist’s head nods
        • Dual feedback and synchronisation with the patient’s stance displays
        • Nodding as a direct response to the client’s disagreement
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (63)
References
Agentschap Integratie & Inburgering (2017). Deontologische code van de sociaal tolk. [URL] (accessed 11 March 2019).
Allwood, J. & Cerrato, L. (2003). A study of gestural feedback expressions. In P. Paggio, K. Jokinen & A. Jönsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Nordic Symposium on Multimodal Communication (CST Working Papers 6). Copenhagen: Center for Sprogteknologi, 7–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Argyle, M. & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2018). Gaze, addressee selection and turn-taking in three-party interaction. In G. Brône & B. Oben (Eds.), Eye-tracking in interaction: Studies on the role of eye gaze in dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 197–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bänninger-Huber, E. (1992). Prototypical affective microsequences in psychotherapeutic interaction. Psychotherapy Research 2 (4), 291–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baraldi, C. & Gavioli, L. (2007). Dialogue interpreting as intercultural mediation: An analysis in healthcare multicultural settings. In M. Grein & E. Weigand (Eds.), Dialogue and culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 155–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Unterstanding coordination in interpreter-mediated interaction. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bavelas, J., Coates, L. & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication 52 (3), 566–580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bot, H. (2003). The myth of the uninvolved interpreter in mental health and the development of a three-person psychology. In L. Brunette, G. Bastin, I. Hemlin & H. Clarke (Eds.), The critical link 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 27–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Dialogue interpreting in mental health. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brône, G. & Oben, B. (2015). InSight interaction. A multimodal and multifocal dialogue corpus. Language Resources and Evaluation 49 (1), 195–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. In M.-E. Sorjonen & A. Peräkylä (Eds.), Emotion in interaction. London: Oxford University Press, 113–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drummond, K. & Hopper, R. (1993). Backchannels revisited: Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26 (2), 157–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2008). Common ground as a resource for social affiliation. In I. Kecskes & J. L. Mey (Eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 223–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, B. (1997). Degree of interpreter responsibility in the interaction process in community interpreting. In S. E. Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour & D. Steyn (Eds.), The critical link: Interpreters in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 147–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gavioli, L. (2012). Minimal responses in interpreter-mediated medical talk. In L. Baraldi & C. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 201–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerhardt, J. & Beyerle, S. (1997). What if Socrates had been a woman? The therapist’s use of acknowledgment tokens (mm-hm, yeah, sure, right) as a nonreflective means of intersubjective involvement. Contemporary Psychoanalysis 33 (3), 367–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry 501, 272–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1981). Conversational organization. Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York/London: Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). Between and within: alternative treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies 91, 205–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heath, C. (1992). Gesture’s discreet tasks: Multiple relevancies in visual conduct and in the contextualization of language. In P. Auer & A. di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 101–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 159–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jokinen, K. (2010). Non-verbal signals for turn-taking & feedback. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources & Evaluation (LREC) International Universal Communication Symposium. Mediterranean Conference Centre, Valletta, Malta, 17–23 May. Paris: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 261, 22–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kita, S. & Ide, S. (2007). Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in Japanese conversation: How conversation reflects the ideology of communication and social relationships. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (7), 1242–1254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krystallidou, D. (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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lang, R. (1978). Behavioral aspects of liaison interpreters in Papua New Guinea: Some preliminary observations. In D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication. New York/London: Plenum Press, 231–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, S.-H. & Tanaka, H. (2016). Affiliation and alignment in responding actions. Journal of Pragmatics 1001, 1–7. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindström, A. & Sorjonen, M. L. (2013). Affiliation in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 350–369.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Storytelling in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 493–507.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, I. (2012). Gaze, positioning and identity in interpreter-mediated dialogues. In L. Baraldi & C. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 177–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies 9 (2), 195–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muntigl, P. & Horvath, A. O. (2014). The therapeutic relationship in action: How therapists and clients co-manage relational disaffiliation. Psychotherapy Research 24 (3), 327–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oben, B. & Brône, G. (2015). What you see is what you do. On the relationship between gaze and gesture in multimodal alignment. Language and Cognition 71, 546–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pasquandrea, S. (2011). Managing multiple actions through multimodality: Doctors’ involvement in interpreter-mediated interactions. Language in Society 40 (4), 455–481. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Co-constructing dyadic sequences in healthcare interpreting: A multimodal account. New Voices in Translation Studies 81, 132–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peräkylä, A. (2013). Conversation analysis in psychotherapy. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 251–274.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peräkylä, A., Henttonen, P., Voutilainen, L., Kahri, M., Stevanovic, M., Sams, M., & Ravaja, N. (2015). Sharing the emotional load: recipient affiliation calms down the storyteller. Social Psychology Quarterly 78 (4), 301–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peräkylä, A. & Ruusuvuori, J. (2012). Facial expression and interactional regulation of emotion. In A. Peräkylä & M. L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 64–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, U. J., Vogeley, K. & Schilbach, L. (2013). From gaze cueing to dual eye-tracking: Novel approaches to investigate the neural correlates of gaze in social interaction. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 371, 2516–2528. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. & Shlesinger, M. (Eds.) (2007). Healthcare interpreting: discourse and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze behavior in face-to-face interaction. PhD Thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Gaze conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 308–329.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruusuvuori, J. (2001). Looking means listening: coordinating displays of engagement in doctor-patient interaction. Social Science & Medicine 521, 1093–1108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 501, 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 531, 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1981. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 71–93.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J. R., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K. & Hartung, M. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 101, 353–402. [URL]
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment and affiliation during story telling: when nodding is a token of preliminary affiliation. Research on Language in Social Interaction 411, 29–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (1), 3–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suchman, A., Markakis, K., Beckman, H. B. & Frankel, R. (1997). A model of empathic communication in the medical review. Journal of the American Medical Association 277 (8), 678–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vertegaal, R., Slagter, R., Van der Veer, G. & Nijholt, A. (2001). Eye gaze patterns in conversations: There is more to conversational agents than meets the eyes. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, WA, 31 March 31–5 April, 301–308. New York City, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
Vranjes, J., Brône, G. & Feyaerts, K. (2018). Dual feedback in interpreter-mediated interactions: on the role of gaze in the production of listener responses. Journal of Pragmatics 1341, 15–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Interpreting in crisis: The interpreters’ position in therapeutic encounters. In Mason, I. (Ed.) (2001). Triadic exchanges. Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome, 71–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A. & Sloetjes, H. (2006). ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. In Proceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Genoa, 22–28 May. Paris: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yngve, V. H. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. In Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 567–577.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (16)

Cited by 16 other publications

Cavents, Dries, July De Wilde & 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 ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Cavents, Dries, Jelena Vranjes & July De Wilde
2025. Interpreters’ use of embodied resources to manage rapport challenge in video remote interpreting. Perspectives ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Ta, Binh, Mai Nhia Yang, Alice Hu & Maichou Lor
2025. Interpretation inaccuracies in pain communication between Hmong patients and clinicians in the USA: A conversation analysis informed study. Social Science & Medicine 384 ► pp. 118502 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Hairuo
2025. Analysis of Studies on Interpreter’s Role on International Journals by Citespace (2000-2022) . International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation 11:1 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Hockaday, Tamsyn
2024. Exploring hearing people’s experiences of working with sign language interpreters in the workplace. Interpreting and Society DOI logo
Gryesten, Jasmin Rejaye, Kathrine Jastrup Brodersen, Laura Glahder Lindberg, Jessica Carlsson & Stig Poulsen
2023. Interpreter-mediated psychotherapy – a qualitative analysis of the interprofessional collaboration between psychologists and interpreters. Current Psychology 42:2 ► pp. 1420 ff. DOI logo
Gilbert, Andrew Simon, Samantha Croy, Kerry Hwang, Dina LoGiudice & Betty Haralambous
2022. Video remote interpreting for home-based cognitive assessments. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:1 ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
Hu, Ting, Xinyu Wang & Haiming Xu
2022. Eye-Tracking in Interpreting Studies: A Review of Four Decades of Empirical Studies. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Scarvaglieri, Claudio & Peter Muntigl
2022. Interpreter-mediated communication in cognitive assessments and psychotherapy. Language and Dialogue 12:3 ► pp. 448 ff. DOI logo
Klammer, Martina & Franz Pöchhacker
2021. Video remote interpreting in clinical communication: A multimodal analysis. Patient Education and Counseling 104:12 ► pp. 2867 ff. DOI logo
Pöchhacker, Franz
2021. Multimodality in interpreting. In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 5], ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Salus, Sanae, Tomoya Kita, Yuki Aoyama & Eriko Sugimori
2021. Evaluating the Effect of Listeners' Response on Speakers' Later Recollection and Impression of the Story. Japanese Psychological Research 63:4 ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020. Researching Professional Translator/Interpreter Experiences and Roles. In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Vranjes, Jelena & Geert Brône
2020. Eye-tracking in interpreter-mediated talk. In Linking up with Video [Benjamins Translation Library, 149], ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Vranjes, Jelena & Geert Brône
2021. Interpreters as laminated speakers: Gaze and gesture as interpersonal deixis in consecutive dialogue interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics 181 ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. The Multimodal Performance of Conversational Humor [Figurative Thought and Language, 13], DOI logo

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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue