Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 16:1 (2014) ► pp.81–105
Social and private speech in an interpreted meeting of deafblind persons
Published online: 10 March 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.1.05ber
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.1.05ber
The article explores how the distinction between egocentric and social speech affects the dynamics of interpreter-mediated interaction, during a meeting among five deafblind board members in Norway. Extracts from a videotape of the meeting were analysed, with a specific focus on two sequences of exchanges involving a board member (Inger), her interpreter and the rest of the group. Inger uses Norwegian Tactile Sign Language with her interpreter, who in turn uses spoken Norwegian and Norwegian Sign Language with the rest of the group. The analysis shows that, while most of Inger’s utterances were social and oriented to the other board members, some were of a private nature and directed only to herself. The interpreter evaluated Inger’s communicative project constantly and acted accordingly, interpreting the socially oriented utterances but not the private utterances. Based on these findings, the interpreter’s performance is discussed in relation not only to professional ethics but also to monological and dialogical perspectives on language and interpreting.
Keywords: social speech, tactile sign language, deafblind, inner speech, interpreting
References (46)
Berge, S. S. (2003).
Tegnspråktolkens handlinger
[Interpreter-mediated action]. Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag.
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.
Collins, S. D. (2004).
Adverbial morphemes in tactile American Sign Language
. Project demonstrating excellence, Union Institute and University, Cincinnati.
Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition create each other. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.),
Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives
. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. (1998).
Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions
. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamaki (Eds.),
Perspectives on activity theory
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19–38.
Erlenkamp, S., Amundsen, G., Berge, S. S., Grande, T., Mjoen, O. M. & Raanes, E. (2011). Becoming the ears, eyes, voice and hands of someone else: Educating generalist interpreters in a three-year programme. In L. Leeson, S. Wurm & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.),
Signed language interpreting: Preparation, practice and performance
. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 12–36.
Frankel, M. A. (2002). Deaf-blind interpreting: Interpreters’ use of negation in tactile American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 21, 169–181.
Gullacksen, A. C. & Göransson, L. (2011).
Life adjustment and combined visual and hearing disability/deafblindness - an internal process over time
. Stockholm: Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues.
Harrington, F. J. & Turner, G. H. (2001).
Interpreting interpreting: Studies and reflections on sign language interpreting
. Coleford: Douglas McLean.
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J. & Luff, P. (2010).
Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life
. London: Sage..
John-Steiner, V. & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist 31, 191–206..
Knoblauch, H., Soeffner, H. G., Schnettler, B. & Raab, J. (2006).
Video analysis: Methodology and methods
. Frankfurt: Peter Lang..
Lahtinen, R. (2008).
Haptices and haptemes: A case study of developmental process in social-haptic communication of acquired deafblind people
. Essex: Management.
Linell, P. (1990). The power of dialogue dynamics. In I. Marková & K. Foppa (Eds.),
The dynamics of dialogue
. Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
(1998).
Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives
. Amsterdam: John Benjamins..
Linell, P. & Gustavsson, L. (1987).
Initiativ och respons. Om dialogens dynamik, dominans och koherens
. Linköping: Linköping University.
Marková, I. (1990). A three-step process as a unit of analysis in dialogue. In I. Marková & K. Foppa (Eds.),
The dynamics of dialogue
. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 130–145.
Marková, I., Linell, P. & Gillespie, A. (2008). Trust and distrust in society. In I. Marková & A. Gillespie (ed.),
Trust and distrust: Sociocultural perspectives
. Charlotte: Information Age, 3–27.
Marková, I., Linell, P., Grossen, M. & Orvig, A. S. (2007).
Dialogue in focus groups: Exploring socially shared knowledge
. London: Equinox.
Mesch, J. (2000).
Tactile Swedish sign language: Turn taking in conversations of people who are deaf and blind
. In M. Metzger (Ed.), Bilingualism and identity in deaf communities. Washinton, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 187–203.
Metzger, M. (1999).
Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality
. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Napier, J. (2007). Cooperation in interpreter-mediated monologic talk.
Discourse & Communication
11, 407–432.
Napier, J., McKee, R. & Goswell, D. (2006).
Sign language interpreting: Theory & practice in Australia and New Zealand
. Sydney: The Federation Press.
Raanes, E. (2006).
Å gripe inntrykk og uttrykk: Interaksjon og meningsdanning i døvblindes samtaler [To catch impressions and expressions: Interaction and meaning construction in deafblind people’s conversation: A study on Tactile Norwegian Sign Language dialogues]
. PhD thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
Raanes E. & Berge, S. S. (2011). Tolketjenesten: Avgjørende for døvblindes deltagelse [Interpreter services: Decisive for participation for the deaf-blind]. Fontene Forskning 11, 4–17.
RTV/Rikstrygdeverket (2004).
Nasjonal standard for tolketjenesten [National standard for interpreter and communication services for the deaf, deafblind and hearing impaired]
. Oslo: The National Social Security System.
Rommetveit, R. (1974).
On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication
. London: Wiley.
(1985). Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behavior control. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.),
Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183–204.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.
Language
501, 696–735.
Tate, G. & Turner, G. H. (1997). The code and the culture: Sign language interpreting – in search of the new breed’s ethics.
Deaf Worlds
13 (3), 27–34.
Turner, G. H. (2005). Toward real interpreting. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson & E. A Winston (Eds.),
Sign language interpreting and interpreting education: Directions for research and practice
. New York: Oxford University Press, 29–56.
(1978).
Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes
. Ed. by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wadensjö, C. (1998).
Interpreting as interaction
. New York: Longman.
(2004). Dialogue interpreting: A monologising practice in a dialogically organised world.
Target
161, 105–124..
Wertsch, J. V. (1985).
Vygotsky and the social formation of mind
. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Slettebakk Berge, Sigrid
Raanes, Eli & Sigrid Slettebakk Berge
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 march 2026. 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.
