Coordinating the Chain of Utterances: An Analysis of Communicative Flow and Turn Taking in an Interpreted Group Dialogue for Deaf-Blind Persons

Abstract

This article explains how interpreters for deaf-blind people co ordinate and express turn-taking signals in an interpreted dialogue. Empirical materials are derived from a video-ethnographic study of an interpreted-mediated board meeting with five deaf-blind participants. The results show that the interpreters provide access to visual and auditory signals for orientation and attention, exchange miniresponse signals, and actively take part in the negotiation of turns. As a result of these action patterns, a sequential order of interaction is established in the dialogue, and despite their inability to see or hear one another, the board members participate actively, and communication flows.

Social and private speech in an interpreted meeting of deafblind persons

“…In this setting, the backstage exchanges are very seldom included in the front dialogue. These different, but highly interdependent levels of performance are essential to the board members' ability to interact in sequential order (Berge & Raanes 2013). However, the analysis also showed speech that was part of neither the front performance nor the backstage exchanges just described.…”

“…However, the interpreter's tactile signing enables her to follow the meeting and to take the floor when expected. This is an example of coordinated mediated action (Berge & Raanes 2013;Wadensö 1998). The dialogue between Inger and her interpreter is not shared with the others, nor are the exchanges between the two interpreters.…”

“…Wadensjö (1998Wadensjö ( , 2002 thus argues that the interpreter has the function not only of interpreting the participants' utterances but also of coordinating the interaction between the participants. This support is critical for deafblind persons, who are unable to see or hear others' turn-taking signals, as it allows them to join in the dialogue confidently and appropriately (Berge & Raanes 2013).…”

“…By the same token, Linell (1998: 70) points out that social speech cannot be adequately characterized as a series of individual actions: Each utterance, act or turn by any speaker is thoroughly dependent on what his or her interlocutor(s) do(es) in the same interaction; we are confronted with a "social practice, " in which actors interact and communicate, and in which the individual contributions cannot be understood in isolation from each other. This means that the meaning of a word, a gesture or a response signal is the result of both an individual mental process and a social process (Cole 1985;Wertsch 1991: 66).…”

“…The meeting worked well: the agenda was followed, the board members were all involved in the discussion, and decisions were made. While readers with no experience of deafblind interaction might find it difficult to envisage a group dialogue involving participants who could neither see nor hear each other properly, the interpreters' work of coordinating the interaction between the board members has been documented in two earlier studies (Berge & Raanes 2013;. Both studies analyse the interpreter's actions in relation to Goffman's (1959Goffman's ( , 1981 concept of social interaction as taking place on different stages -an expressively accentuated front performance which is presented for an audience, and backstage behaviour which is visible only to the actors.…”