Cover not available

Article published In: Translation and Interpreting Studies
Vol. 19:3 (2024) ► pp.335–361

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

Investigating interpreter-mediated interaction through the lens of depictions, descriptions, and indications

An ecological approach

ORCiD logo with link | OsloMet
Published online: 28 April 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.21073.bx
Abstract
When interpreting from a signed to a spoken language, interpreters transition from a visual ecology (without sound) to an ecology that includes both auditory and visual resources. This transition entails situating renderings in a new environment using appropriate semiotic resources. Applying the analytical concepts of depictions, descriptions, and indications (Ferrara, Lindsay, and Gabrielle Hodge. 2018. “Language as description, indication, and depiction.” Frontiers in Psychology 91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), this article documents how one interpreter navigates this transition. The applied framework highlights how the interpreter engages her entire semiotic repertoire, including visual resources that are used as important cues. The findings also show that renderings are often framed with discourse markers, regardless of whether the semiotic resource of depiction is adopted.
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Language ecology
    • Framing
  • Analytical framework: Depictions, descriptions, and indications
    • Depictions
    • Descriptions
    • Indications
    • Depicting strategies: Constructed action and constructed dialogue
  • Method
    • Setting
    • Positionality
    • Participants and task
    • Annotation and analysis — clause-like units
    • Overview of CA/CD strategies in source utterances
  • Data analyses
    • Presenting examples
    • Framing and changing semiotic strategy
    • Framing and adopting semiotic strategy
  • Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (87)
References
Baekelandt, Annelies, and Bart Defrancq. 2021. “Elicitation of particular grammatical structures in speeches for interpreting research: Enhancing ecological validity of experimental research in interpreting.” Perspectives 29(4): 643–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, Anastasia. 2014. The Use of Signing Space in a Shared Sign Language of Australia. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beal-Alvarez, Jennifer S., and Jessica W. Trussell. 2015. “Depicting verbs and constructed action: Necessary narrative components in deaf adults’ storybook renditions.” Sign Language Studies 16(1): 5–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beukeleers, Inez, and Myriam Vermeerbergen. 2019. “On the role of eye gaze in depicting and enacting in Flemish Sign Language: Some methodological considerations.” [URL]
Blakemore, Diane, and Fabrizio Gallai. 2014. “Discourse markers in free indirect style and interpreting.” Journal of Pragmatics 601: 106–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bø, Vibeke. 2010. Verb sandwich constructions in Norwegian Sign Language: A syntactic analysis. MA thesis. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Busch, Brigitta. 2021. “The body image: Taking an evaluative stance towards semiotic resources.” International Journal of Multilingualism 18(2): 190–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. “Coordinating with each other in a material world.” Discourse Studies 7(4/5): 507–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. “Depicting as a method of communication.” Psychological Review 123(3): 324–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Richard J. Gerrig. 1990. “Quotations as demonstrations.” Language 66(4): 764–805. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy, Jordan Fenlon, and Adam Schembri. 2015. “Indicating verbs in British Sign Language favour motivated use of space.” Open Linguistics 11: 684–707. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno. 2015. “Transcription and notation methods.” In Research Methods in Sign Language Studies: A Practical Guide, ed. by Eleni Orfanidou, Bencie Woll, and Gary Morgan, 74–88. Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, and Han Sloetjes. 2008. “Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora.” Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on the representation and processing of sign languages: Construction and exploitation of sign language corpora. LREC 2008, Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Marrakech, Morocco.
Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea. 2017. “Embodied participation: What multimodal analysis can tell us about interpreter-mediated encounters in pedagogical settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 1071: 105–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, et al. 2015. “Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19(10): 603–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dudis, Paul. 2011. “The body in scene depictions.” In Discourse in Signed Languages, ed. by Cynthia B. Roy, 3–45. Washington D.C: Gallaudet University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2009. The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fangen, Katrine. 2010. Deltagende Observasjon. 2nd ed. Bergen: Fagbokforl.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrara, Lindsay. 2020. “Some interactional functions of finger pointing in signed language conversations.” Glossa 5(1): 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrara, Lindsay, and Gabrielle Hodge. 2018. “Language as description, indication, and depiction.” Frontiers in Psychology 91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrara, Lindsay, and Torill Ringsø. 2019. “Spatial vantage points in Norwegian Sign Language.” Open Linguistics 5(1): 583–600. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feyne, Stephanie. 2015. “Typology of interpreter-mediated discourse that affects perceptions of the identity of deaf professionals.” In Signed Language Interpretation and Translation Research: Selected Papers from the First International Symposium, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus and Keith Cagle, 49–70. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, S., and Wynne Janis. 1990. “Verb sandwiches in American Sign Langauge.” In Current Trends in European Sign Language Research. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garner, Mark. 2004. Language: An Ecological View. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1994. “Opening up in interpretation studies.” In Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline, ed. by Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker, and Klaus Kaindl, 149–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “Interpretation research: A new impetus?” Hermes — Journal of Language and Communication in Business 8(14): 15–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2000. “Action and embodiment within situated human interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32(10): 1489–1522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, Beth C. 2018. The impact of translation on constructed action and constructed dialogue in ASL Texts. MA thesis, University of North Dakota.
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halley, Mark. 2020. “Rendering depiction: A case study of an American Sign Language/English interpreter.” Journal of Interpretation 28(2). [URL]
Hassemer, Julius, and Bodo Winter. 2018. “Decoding gestural iconicity.” Cognitive Science 42(8): 3034–3049. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haualand, Hilde M., and Anna-Lena Nilsson. 2019. “Working with active interpreters: A commentary about interpreting terminology and concepts.” International Journal of Interpreter Education 11(2), 40–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1971. “The Ecology of language.” Linguistic Reporter 13(1): 19–26.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hodge, Gabrielle. 2014. “Patterns from a signed language corpus: Clause-like units in Auslan (Australian Sign Language).” Sydney: Macquarie University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hodge, Gabrielle, and Kearsy Cormier. 2019. “Reported speech as enactment.” Linguistic Typology 23(1): 185–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hodge, Gabrielle, and Lindsay Ferrara. 2014. Showing the Story: Enactment as Performance in Auslan Narratives. University of Melbourne.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hodge, Gabrielle, and Trevor Johnston. 2014. “Points, depictions, gestures and enactment: Partly lexical and non-lexical signs as core elements of single clause-like units in Auslan (Australian Sign Language).” Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(2): 262–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 2003. “Language standardization and signed language dictionaries.” Sign Language Studies 3(4): 431–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. “Auslan corpus annotation guidelines.” Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro, and Max Planck. 2003. Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet. New York: Taylor & Francis. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther R., and Theo van Leeuwen. 2010. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leeson, Lorraine, and Susan Foley-Cave. 2007. “Deep and meaningful conversation: Challenging interpreter impartiality in the semantics and pragmatics classroom.” In Translation, Sociolinguistic, and Consumer Issues in Interpreting, ed. by Melanie Metzger and Earl Fleetwood, 45–70. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 2005. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Minhua. 2011. “Methodology in interpreting studies: A Methodological review of evidence-based research.” In Advances in Interpreting Research, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus and Laurie Swabey, 85–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mapson, Rachel, and George Major. 2021. “Interpreters, rapport, and the role of familiarity.” Journal of Pragmatics 1761: 63–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, Ian. 2006. “On mutual accessibility of contextual assumptions in dialogue interpreting.” Journal of Pragmatics 38(3): 359–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D. 2020. “Positionality in public service interpreting research.” FITISPos International Journal 7(1): 92–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metzger, Melanie. 1995. “Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language.” In Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, ed. by Ceil Lucas, 255–71. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohammad, Abeer, and Camilla Vásquez. 2015. “‘Rachel’s not here’: Constructed dialogue in gossip.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 19(3): 351–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2012. “The dynamics of embodied participation and language choice in multilingual meetings.” Language in Society 41(2): 213–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S., and Cécile B. Vigouroux. 2017. “Individuals, populations, and timespace: Perspectives on the ecology of language revisited.” Language Ecology 1(2): 75–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Napier, Jemina. 2007. “Cooperation in interpreter-mediated monologic talk.” Discourse & Communication 1(4): 407–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Linguistic Coping Strategies in Sign Language Interpreting. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Opsahl, Toril, and Jan Svennevig. 2007. “Må Ha Det. Bare Må Ha Det: Bare Som Pragmatisk Partikkel i Samtale.” Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peirce, C. P. 1965. “Basic concepts of Peircean sign theory.” In Semiotics, ed. by M. Gottdiener Boklund-Lagopoulou, K. & Lagopoulos, A. P. Vol. 20031. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perlman, Marcus, Hannah Little, Bill Thompson, and Robin L. Thompson. 2018. “Iconicity in signed and spoken vocabulary: A comparison between American Sign Language, British Sign Language, English, and Spanish.” Frontiers in Psychology 91: 1433–1433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Robin Thompson, and Gabriella Vigliocco. 2010. “Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages.” Frontiers in Psychology 11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Puupponen, Anna. 2019. “Towards understanding nonmanuality: A semiotic treatment of signers’ head movements.” Glossa 4(1): 39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reddy, Michael J. 1993. “The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language.” In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 164–201. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Abigail. 2009. “Lost in transcription: The problematics of commensurability in academic representations of American Sign Language.” Text & Talk 29(5): 595–614. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roy, Cynthia B. 2000. Interpreting as a Discourse Process. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roy, Cynthia B., and Melanie Metzger. 2014. “Researching signed language interpreting through a sociolinguistic approach.” Translation & Interpreting 6(1): 158–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sagli, Gry, and Tatjana Radanović Felberg. 2022. “Hvilken Kropp? Tolkefaget i Samtale Med Medisinsk Antropologi.” In Tango För Tre. En Dansant Festskrift till Cecilia Wadensjö, ed. by Magnus Dahnberg and Yvonne Lindqvist. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skedsmo, Kristian. 2020. “Other-initiations of repair in Norwegian Sign Language.” Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality 3(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. “How to use comic-strip graphics to represent signed conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 54(3): 241–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, and D. L. Harman. 2017. “Biological diversity and language diversity: Parallels and differences.” In Handbook of Ecolinguistics, ed. by Hermine Penz and Alwin Fill, 11–25. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen. 2015. “Embodiment in human communication.” Annual Review of Anthropology 44(1): 419–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Svennevig, Jan. 2008. “Ikke Sant Som Respons i Samtale.” In Språk i Oslo. Ny Forskning Omkring Talespråk, 127–38. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1986. “Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative.” In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 311–360. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thumann, Mary. 2011. “Identifying depiction: Constructed action and constructed dialogue in ASL Presentations.” In Discourse in Signed Languages, ed. by Cynthia B. Roy, 46–66. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiselius, Elisabet. 2022. “Tolkar Du Med Knoppen Eller Med Kroppen? Om Förkroppsligad Kognition i Dialogtolkning.” In Tango För Tre. En Dansant Festskrift till Cecilia Wadensjö, ed. by Magnus Dahnberg and Yvonne Lindqvist. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vonen, Arnfinn Muruvik. 2020. Norsk Tegnspråk : En Grunnbok. 11. utgave. Oslo: Cappelen Damm akademisk.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
Wilbur, Ronnie B., and Evguenia Malaia. 2008. “Contributions of sign language research to gesture understanding: What Can multimodal computational systems learn from sign language research.” International Journal of Semantic Computing 2(1): 5–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman E., and Barbara Shaffer. 2005. “Towards a cognitive model of interpreting.” In Topics in Signed Language Interpreting. Theory and Practice, ed. by Terry Janzen, 27–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zahle, Julie. 2012. “Practical knowledge and participant observation.” Inquiry 55(1): 50–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhou, Feifei. 2020. “Haugen, Mühlhäusler and Mufwene: System and language ecology.” In Models of the Human in Twentieth-Century Linguistic Theories. Springer, Singapore, 55–62. Singapore: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue