Cover not available

Article published In: Signed Language Interpreting and Translation
Edited by Laurie Swabey and Brenda Nicodemus
[Translation and Interpreting Studies 13:1] 2018
► pp. 87–109

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

“Hold the phone!”

Turn management strategies and techniques in Video Relay Service interpreted interaction

 | Gallaudet University
Published online: 2 March 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00006.mar
Abstract
The initial paradigm of Video Relay Service (VRS) in the United States viewed interpreters as merely conduits for telephone communication; however, this paradigm has begun to shift. Recent research suggests that VRS interpreters are actively involved in coordinating interpreted interaction (. 2015. “Investigating Footing Shifts in Video Relay Service Interpreted Interaction.” In Selected Papers from the International Symposium on Signed Language Interpretation and Translation Research, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus and Keith Cagle, 71–96. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Warnicke, Camilla and Charlotta Plejert. 2012. “Turn-organisation in Mediated Phone Interaction using Video Relay Service (VRS).” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (10): 1313–1334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, . 2016. “The Positioning and Bimodal Mediation of the Interpreter in a Video Relay Interpreting (VRI) Service Setting.” Interpreting 18 (2): 198–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). This study aims add to the body of VRS research by analyzing features of turn management in ASL-English video relay interpreted calls. These features of turn management are grouped into two categories: techniques and strategies. Techniques denote acts that are performed in addition to the rendition, and strategies refer to instances of turn management that are embedded within renditions. Results show that VRS interpreters employ a variety of turn management techniques and strategies, especially in cases of overlapping talk between Deaf and hearing callers. The findings presented are relevant to the shifting paradigm of VRS interpreter work and training.
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Turns in spoken language conversation
    • Turn organization in signed language conversations
    • Turn taking in interpreted discourse
    • Telephone and VRS interpreted interaction
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedures
    • Coding and transcription
  • Analysis
    • Turn management strategies
    • Omissions
    • Fillers in English and ASL
    • Extended handshape holds
    • Turn management techniques
    • Eye contact and gaze
    • Offering or holding turns
    • Headset contact
  • Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (36)
References
Alley, Erica. 2016. Professional Autonomy in Video Relay Service Interpreting: Perceptions of American Sign Language-English Interpreters. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington, DC, Gallaudet University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101–336, approved July 26, 1990).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Charlotte. 1977. “Regulators and Turn-taking in ASL Discourse.” In On the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language, ed. by Lynn A. Friedman, 215–241. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bower, Kathryn. 2015. “Stress and Burnout in Video Relay Service (VRS) Interpreting.” Journal of Interpretation 24 (1): Article 2.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” In Question and Politeness, ed. by Esther N. Goody, 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brunson, Jeremy. 2011. Video Relay Service Interpreters. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer and Rachel Sutton-Spence. 2001. “Turn-taking patterns in Deaf conversation.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (4): 507–529. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edelsky, Carole. 1981. “Who’s Got the Floor?” Language in Society 10 (3): 383–421. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, John. J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keating, Elizabeth, Terra Edwards, and Gene Mirus. 2008. “Cybersign and New Proximities: Impacts of New Communication Technologies on Space and Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (6): 1067–1081. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marks, Annie. 2012. “Participation Framework and Footing Shifts in an Interpreted Academic Meeting.” Journal of Interpretation 22 (1): Article 4.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Investigating Footing Shifts in Video Relay Service Interpreted Interaction.” In Selected Papers from the International Symposium on Signed Language Interpretation and Translation Research, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus and Keith Cagle, 71–96. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mather, Susan. 1996. “Initiation in Visually Constructed Dialogue: Reading Books to Three-to Eight-Year-Old Students Who Are Deaf and Hard-of-hearing.” In Multicultural Aspects of Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, ed. by Ceil Lucas, 109–131. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metzger, Melanie. 1999. Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Napier, Jemina. 2002. Sign Language Interpreting: Linguistic Coping Strategies. Coleford, UK: Douglas McLean.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. “Interpreting Omissions: A New Perspective.” Interpreting 6 (2): 117–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nicodemus, Brenda. 2009. Prosodic Markers and Utterance Boundaries in American Sign Language Interpretation. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peterson, Rico. 2011. “Profession in Pentimento: A Narrative Inquiry into Interpreting in Video Settings.” In Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in Action, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus and Laurie Swabey, 199–224. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roy, Cynthia. 2000. Interpreting as a Discourse Process. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking in Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 695–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanheim, Laura. 2003. “Turn Exchange in an Interpreted Medical Encounter.” In From Topic Boundaries to Omission: New Research on Interpretation, ed. by Melanie Metzger, Steven Collins, Valerie Dively, and Risa Shaw, 27–54. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53 (2): 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sloetjes, Han and Wittenburg, Peter. 2008. “Annotation by Category – ELAN and ISO DCR.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1984. Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, Marty. 2005. “Video Relay Service Interpreting Task Analysis Report.” Distance Opportunities for Interpreter Training Center (DO IT Center).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Herreweghe, Mieke. 2002. “Turn-taking Mechanisms and Active Participation in Meetings with Deaf and Hearing Participants in Flanders.” In Turn-taking, Fingerspelling, and Contact in Signed languages: Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, ed. by Ceil Lucas, 73–103. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warnicke, Camilla and Charlotta Plejert. 2012. “Turn-organisation in Mediated Phone Interaction using Video Relay Service (VRS).” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (10): 1313–1334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wessling, Dawn and Sherry Shaw. 2014. “Persistent Emotional Extremes and Video Relay Service Interpreters.” Journal of Interpretation 23 (1): Article 6.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie. 2000. “Phonological and Prosodic Layering in American Sign Language.” In The Signs of Language Revisited, ed. by Karen Emmorey and Harlan Lane, 215–244. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winston, Elizabeth. 2000. “It Just Doesn’t Look like ASL! Defining, Recognizing, and Teaching Prosody in ASL.” In Proceedings of the 13th National Convention: Conference of Interpreter Trainers, 103–112. Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winston, Elizabeth and Christine Monikowski. 2003. “Marking Topic Boundaries in Signed Language Interpretation and Transliteration.” In From Topic Boundaries to Omission: New Research on Interpretation, ed. by Melanie Metzger, Steven Collins, Valerie Dively, and Risa Shaw, 187–227. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Dalle-Nazebi, Sophie, Isabelle Gonzalez, François Lefebvre-Albaret & Jean-Dominique Journet
2022. Relais téléphonique, aphasie et médiation communicationnelle. Un encastrement d’innovations. Aequitas: Revue de développement humain, handicap et changement social 28:2 ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Warnicke, Camilla & Sarah Granberg
2022. Interpreter-mediated interactions between people using a signed respective spoken language across distances in real time: a scoping review. BMC Health Services Research 22:1 DOI logo
Warnicke, Camilla
2021. Signed and spoken interaction at a distance. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 23:2 ► pp. 296 ff. DOI logo
Warnicke, Camilla & Charlotta Plejert
2021. The use of the text-function in Video Relay Service calls. Text & Talk 41:3 ► pp. 391 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 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