Content uploaded by Sabine Braun
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sabine Braun on Sep 13, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Sabine Braun
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sabine Braun on Nov 22, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
This is the final draft of an article to appear as: Braun, S. (2017). What a micro-analytical
investigation of additions and expansions in remote interpreting can tell us about interpreter’s
participation in a shared virtual space. Journal of Pragmatics Special Issue “Participation in
Interpreter-Mediated Interaction”. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.011
What a micro-analytical investigation of additions and expansions in remote interpreting
can tell us about interpreter’s participation in a shared virtual space
Abstract
This paper explores data from video-mediated remote interpreting (RI) which was originally
generated with the aim of investigating and comparing the quality of the interpreting
performance in onsite and remote interpreting in legal contexts. One unexpected finding of this
comparison was that additions and expansions were significantly more frequent in RI, and that
their frequency increased further after a phase of familiarisation and training for the
participating interpreters, calling for a qualitative exploration of the motives and functions of
the additions and expansions. This exploration requires an appropriate methodology. Whilst
introspective data give insights into interpreting processes and the motivations guiding the
interpreter’s choices, they tend to be systematic and incomplete. Micro-analytical approaches
such as Conversation Analysis are a promising alternative, especially when enriched with
social macro-variables. In line with this, the present paper has a dual aim. The primary aim is
to explore the nature of additions and expansions in RI, examining especially to what extent
they are indicative of interpreting problems, to what degree they are specific to the
videoconference situation, what they reveal about, and how they affect the interpreter’s
participation in RI. The secondary aim is to evaluate the micro-analytical approach chosen for
this exploration.
Keywords: interpreter-mediated communication, remote interpreting, videoconference, virtual
presence, additions
1 Introduction
Remote interpreting (RI) is a modality of interpreting whereby the interpreter is linked to the
main participants by communication technologies such as videoconference, entailing that the
space in which the interpreter-mediated interaction takes place is virtual rather than physical.
This modality of interpreting is becoming more frequent, as public services are turning to
communication technologies to optimise access to interpreters and reduce interpreting costs.
However, research shows that RI is challenging and that it differs from onsite interpreting (e.g.
Braun 2013, Braun & Taylor 2012a, Moser-Mercer 2005, Price et al. 2012, Roziner &
Shlesinger 2010). In a series of experiments conducted to investigate the quality of the
interpreter’s performance in video-mediated RI in legal settings (Braun 2013, Braun & Taylor
2
2012a) we observed significant differences between onsite and remote interpreting, including
a significantly higher number of additions and expansions in RI. A replication of the
experiments, which took place after the interpreters had received short-term training in RI and
had gained more practical experience with this method of interpreting (Braun & Taylor 2016),
painted a complex picture, making it difficult to determine the impact of training and increased
exposure to RI. However, there was one unexpected result: the interpreters produced more
additions and expansions after receiving training and gaining experience.
In a normative approach, reflected in many current codes of conduct, additions and expansions
are conceptualised as a deficiency. Bearing this in mind, it is striking that familiarisation and
training would have led to an increase in such ‘deficiencies’. The findings of our study therefore
raise questions about the nature of these additions and expansions. In accordance with this, the
primary aim of this paper is to explore the motives for additions and expansions in RI. Of
particular interest is whether they are indicative of interpreting problems, to what extent they
are likely to be specific to the videoconference (VC) situation and what they reveal about the
interpreter’s participation in RI.
Studies of monolingual VC communication have highlighted tendencies towards reformulation
and redundancy, which the participants attributed to a perceived lower rapport with the others
(Braun 2004, Braun & Kohn 2001). A lower rapport, articulated as a feeling of ‘remoteness’
or reduced social presence, was also reported by interpreters using RI (Braun & Taylor 2012b,
Moser-Mercer 2005, Mouzourakis 2006, Price et al. 2012, Roziner & Shlesinger 2010). In line
with this, the additions and expansions in RI could be analysed as attempts by the interpreters
to overcome their problems of rapport, regardless of whether the added elements are necessary,
effective or appropriate from a normative point of view. The increase in additions and
expansions after familiarisation and training could then be an indicator of the interpreters’
efforts to resolve perceived problems of RI.
However, investigations of the motives guiding interpreters’ choices are notoriously
problematic, as researchers have no direct access to their mental processes. Interpreting process
research shows that introspection is a possible solution (Braun 2004, 2007, Kalina 1998, Mead
2002) but the outcomes are by necessity incomplete, in the sense that it would be unrealistic to
expect interpreters to be able to recall and comment on each aspect of their performance. An
alternative approach in terms of achieving systematicity is a micro-analytical exploration of
the data. Previous research using micro-analytical approaches to explore additions and
expansions in interpreter-mediated communication has examined not only what interpreters
add but also where and how additions and expansions occur, and how they contribute to the
interaction and to the interpreter’s participation status (Angelelli 2012, Baraldi, 2012, Davitti
2013, Merlini & Favaron 2005, Wadensjö 1998). Building on these approaches, the secondary
aim of this paper is to evaluate the usefulness of micro-analytical approaches in identifying the
functions and motives of additions/expansions in RI, and in exploring their impact on the
interpreter’s participation.
3
Section 2 reviews previous research into additions and expansions in interpreting and discusses
the distinction between additions and expansions. Section 3 gives an overview of relevant
micro-analytical approaches and explains their application to the analysis of RI in the study
reported here. Section 4 presents and discusses the findings from this analysis. Section 5
concludes the paper with a summary of the main insights and implications for RI and an
assessment of the chosen micro-analytical approach.
2 Additions and expansions in interpreting
Codes of conduct commonly assert that interpreters should not omit or alter any part of the
message the interlocutors intend to convey and that nothing should be added. For instance,
Article 6.4 of the code published by the Chartered Instituted of Linguists in the UK states that
interpreters “shall interpret truly and faithfully what is uttered, without adding, omitting or
changing anything”. Codes of conduct may be understood as a normative ‘ideal’ or as a product
of an oversimplified view of interpreters as ‘translation machines’ (Jacobsen 2002). The crucial
point is that the codes are sometimes at odds with observed interpreting practice. This
discrepancy has prompted scholarly interest in all fields of interpreting.
Before reviewing this research, a word on definitions is in order. Schjoldager (1996:128) has
defined additions as elements in the interpreted version that have no precedent in the original
utterance, whilst Wadensjö (1998) distinguishes between “non-renditions”, i.e. elements which
the interpreter adds on his/her own initiative, and “expanded renditions”, i.e. elements which
elaborate on ideas explicitly expressed or implied in the original utterance. Following this
distinction, this paper will refer to “additions” and “expansions” respectively, although it
should be noted that the distinction is not clear-cut; for example, it may be difficult to know
whether something that the interpreter makes ‘explicit’ in the target version was indeed implied
in the source text.
In relation to simultaneous conference interpreting, Barik (1994: 135) analyses additions as a
type of “departure from the original”, but notes that the better qualified interpreters in his
sample added more than less qualified interpreters and attributes this “to their very expertise,
which frees them from following the text too closely”. Schjoldager (1996), who focuses on
norms in simultaneous interpreting, finds that norm abidance can legitimise additions,
especially additions made to avoid violating target text norms. Kohn & Kalina (1996) and
Setton (2002) discuss both additions and expansions as strategies aimed at making the target
text better suited to the needs of the target audience. These include linguistically and culturally
motivated additions and/or expansions making explicit information that is implicitly present in
the ST and/or conveying new, e.g. culturally relevant information. Palazzi Gubertini (1998)
furthermore emphasises the role of additions and expansions in disambiguation. All in all,
research in conference interpreting reveals a wide range of motivations for additions and
expansions, far from Barik’s view that they constitute a type of interpreting problem.
4
Research in legal interpreting corroborates this, but has placed more emphasis on analysing
additions/expansions that stem from difficulties in relaying the source speech, including
hedges, fillers, rephrasing and repetition. Whilst Jacobsen (2002) considers such elements to
have minimal or no impact, others argue that they can alter the speech style of a defendant or
witness and/or the illocutionary force of the utterance, and that they can ultimately have an
impact on the defendant’s or witness’s credibility (Berk-Seligson 1990, Hale 2004, Krouglov
1999). Whilst these studies include paralinguistic means of expressions in the analysis of
additions, others focus on elements related to semantic content and/or pragmatic meaning.
Mason & Stewart (2001), for example, analyse the addition of politeness markers by
interpreters in a legal setting, arguing that these are pragmatic additions to protect the
interpreter’s or the client’s face. Similarly, Jacobsen (2002) argues that many of the
additions/expansions she found in her analysis of court interpreting are motivated by the
interpreter’s aim to convey the speaker’s pragmatic meaning rather than the semantic content.
She identifies different types of additions/expansions and assesses their respective impact on
the communication, as shown in Table 1 below.
In the medical setting, Angelelli (2012) and Baraldi (2012) reach conclusions that are
comparable to Jacobsen’s, arguing that additions/expansions can support cultural
understanding; Angelelli uses examples of interpreters giving patients explanations about the
meaning of pain scales. Similarly, Baraldi examines ‘formulations’ (a term introduced by
Heritage 1985), i.e. rephrased and expanded renditions aligning a doctor’s utterance with a
patient’s culture and expectations, and multi-turn expansions, i.e. exchanges between
interpreter and patient that take place between a doctor’s question and a summarised rendition.
Baraldi believes that expansions promote empowerment, empathy, cooperation and trust (2012:
317). However, Davitti’s (2013) study of upgrading moves by interpreters in a pedagogical
setting illustrates that such additions can also achieve the opposite of empowerment. This
illustrates Mikkelson’s (2008) point about the difficulties in distinguishing between
unacceptable, acceptable and desirable additions, and links the discussion of
additions/expansions to ethical questions. These difficulties notwithstanding, Merlini &
Favaron (2005) propose a classification of additions with reference to medical interpreting, as
shown in Table 1, which maps the classifications proposed by Merlini & Favaron and Jacobsen
(2003) respectively onto Wadensjö’s broad distinction between and non-renditions
(“additions”) and expanded renditions (“expansions”).
Table 1: Classifications of additions and expansions
Wadensjö (1998: 107-108; 123)
Merlini & Favaron (2005: 287-293)
Jacobsen (2003: 227-235)
Expansions
Expanded renditions: more
explicitly expressed information
than the preceding original
Emphatic additions: interpreter-
initiated repetitions/reiterations
Emphasizing additions: increasing
the force of an utterance;
significant impact
Down-toning additions: mitigate or
reduce the force of an utterance;
significant impact
Repetitions, fillers: minimal impact
5
Explanatory additions: explanation
of meaning to clarify a potentially
obscure message
Explicating additions: adding
culture-bound information,
explicating non-verbal information;
minimal impact
Elaborating additions: elaborating
on an item already rendered, e.g.
use of additional synonym; minimal
impact
Additions
Non-renditions: not corresponding
to a prior original
Phatic additions: backchanneling
function (e.g. ensuring recipient’s
attention) and reassuring function
New-information additions: adding
an aspect not mentioned in original;
significant impact
Other additions e.g. asking for
clarification, alerting a client to a
possible missed inference, giving
instructions
In relation to RI, Hornberger et al. (1996) examined additions in a comparison of onsite
interpreting and RI (via audio link), aimed at establishing whether RI is a viable method for
delivering interpreting services. Using Barik’s (1994) outline of ‘departures’ from the source
text as an analytical framework they found fewer additions in RI than in onsite interpreting.
However, as the study involved two different modes of interpreting—simultaneous in RI and
consecutive in onsite interpreting—this result may have been caused by differences between
the modes rather than the methods of delivery. Braun (2004, 2007) studied remote simultaneous
interpreting in bilingual dialogue situations in three-way videoconferences where the
interlocutors and the interpreter were each in a different location, and found a number of
additions and expansions in the interpreters’ utterances. Notably, these include expansions
aimed at ensuring the communicative message gets across (re-formulations), expansions
resulting from ‘approximation’ (Kohn & Kalina 1996), and additions of meta-discourse, either
to control turn-taking or to signal comprehension difficulties induced by poor sound quality.
Based on these observations and introspective data from the interpreters, we hypothesised that
these additions and expansions are VC-related, constituting more or less strategic attempts by
the interpreters to adapt to this situation. This seems to be corroborated by the comparative
study of onsite and remote (consecutive) interpreting in legal settings that was conducted in the
European AVIDICUS projects (Braun & Taylor 2012a, 2016) and that formed the starting point
for the analysis of additions/expansions presented in this paper. The two main findings of this
comparison with regard to additions/expansions, i.e. that their number was significantly higher
in RI than in onsite interpreting (Braun 2013) and that this number increased further after
familiarisation and training (Braun 2016), suggest that the additions/expansions are at least in
part a result of the VC situation. It is against this backdrop that the present paper aims to shed
light on the nature of additions/expansions in RI.
3 Methodological basis
As was noted above, the data used in the present study were generated as part of a broader
study which aimed at comparing onsite and remote interpreting in legal settings primarily in
terms of interpreting quality. The study was based on a series of experiments simulating
6
interpreter-mediated investigative interviews. The design and outcomes of these experiments
are reported in detail in Braun & Taylor (2012a, 2016) and Braun (2013). This section first
gives an overview of the experiment which supplied the data for this paper (3.1) and then
provides a rationale for the specific micro-analytical framework used here (3.2).
3.1 The data
The experiment that produced the data used in the analysis of additions/expansions involved
simulated police-suspect interviews with eight police-certified English/French interpreters with
a minimum of five years’ experience of police interpreting. The other participants were
English-speaking police officers with experience in working with interpreters and French-
speaking students playing the role of the suspects. The simulations were based on authentic
interviews. Transcripts of these interviews had been obtained from a UK police force. They
were adapted to the local situation in Guildford, Surrey, where the simulations took place, and
then acted out—rather than read out verbatim—by the role players (Braun & Taylor 2012a,
2016). Each interpreter worked in four conditions, including on site and three different RI
conditions. RI1 took place without specific training, and at the time of the RI1 experiment the
interpreters had very little practical experience with RI. RI2 and RI3 took place two years later,
i.e. after the interpreters had gained practical experience, mainly thanks to their work for the
Metropolitan Police Service in London (which had since then implemented RI), and had
participated in short-term training in RI designed by the research team (Braun et al. 2012). RI2
and RI3 differed only in the quality of the equipment used. The 32 interviews (eight per
condition) were video-recorded, transcribed and coded using parameters for assessing
interpreting quality and taking into account the specific challenges of legal interpreting such as
a high requirements for accuracy. One of the entities coded was additions/expansions.
As was reported above, additions/expansions were more frequent in RI1 compared to onsite
interpreting, and they increased further after training and familiarisation. In total, the
interpreters produced 10 additions/expansions in onsite interpreting (1.3 per half-hour
interview), 29 (3.6) in RI1, 70 (8.8) in RI2 and 62 (7.8) in RI3. This tendency, which can be
observed in all but one interpreter, was deemed to be particularly interesting given that other
content-related ‘departures’ from the original utterance, especially omissions, inaccuracies and
coherence problems, were reduced in RI2/3 compared to RI1. A summary of the frequency
distribution in the content-related categories is shown in Figure 1 below. Details of the
quantitative analysis are discussed in Braun (2013, 2016).
7
Figure 1: Comparison of content-related ‘departures’ from the original utterance in
onsite interpreting (OI) and the three RI conditions
An initial qualitative analysis of the additions and expansions showed the following:
• Some of the added elements in RI2/3 are additions that relate directly to the VC
condition. In one interview, for example, the interpreter had difficulty seeing one of the
speakers properly. After completing her rendition of his utterance she added uhm if the
gentleman can turn his head a little bit more toward me, making direct reference to the
speaker’s position in relation to the camera.
• Other additions have an explicating function regarding, for example, non-verbal actions
such as showing pieces of evidence. The normal routine is that the police officer, upon
showing a piece of evidence, asks the suspect a question about it and then explains for
the benefit of the audio tape recording, which is still common practice in English police
interviews, what he is showing to the suspect. In RI, some of the interpreters took it
upon themselves to initiate this explanation process as soon as they had interpreted the
initial question about the piece of evidence by adding and adapting the formula the
police officer normally uses (For the benefit of the tape, the police officer is showing…).
• Yet other added elements fall in the category of cultural expansions. For example, when
the suspect was asked to state his date of birth, some interpreters explained how to state
this (ici on fait jour, mois, année/here they go day, month, year).
• There was also a number of expansions where interpreters added synonymous
expressions (e.g. vous l'avez frappée, vous l'avez donnée un coup/you hit her).
These additions and expansions fall easily into existing classifications, although they arguably
have additional dimensions. Explanations of non-verbal actions and advice about the date
format, for instance, can be construed as interactional shortcuts to reduce the turn-taking effort
or pre-empt clarification questions respectively; the addition of synonyms is in line with
strategies observed in monolingual VC communication. In contrast to this, the classification of
many other additions in the corpus using the categories outlined in the previous section turned
out to be problematic. Some additions did not seem to have a specific reason; in other instances,
multiple reasons seemed to be at play. It was because of these classification problems that
micro-analytical frameworks were evoked, assuming that because of their attention to even the
8
smallest detail, they can provide more comprehensive insights into the nature of the additions
and expansions.
3.2 Analytical framework
Perhaps the most widely used micro-analytical framework is rooted in Conversation Analysis
(CA), which has been developed to analyse social interaction in every-day situations (Sacks et
al. 1974) and has also been applied to institutional interaction (e.g. Drew & Heritage 1993).
What sets CA apart from other methods of analysing interaction is its interest in examining
how the participants themselves understand their respective contributions to the interaction.
CA aims to do this through a close scrutiny of these contributions in terms of what is said or
done, how it is said or done and where in the interaction it occurs (Schegloff 2007). CA is thus
mainly interested in the resources that participants employ to co-construct meaning-in-
interaction. Those working in the CA framework generally believe that interaction is a system
in its own right, i.e. distinct from other systems such as language and culture. There is therefore
a tendency to reject a priori assumptions about, and references to, social macro-variables such
as the participants’ background. The elaborate transcripts normally used in CA highlight not
only the sequential order of utterances in conversation and the resources that participants
deploy to move from one turn to the next, but they also support the analysis of the small and
seemingly ‘unimportant’ features of talk-in-interaction such as micro-pauses, hesitations and
self-repairs (Sacks et al. 1974, Schegloff 2007), and the analysis of nonverbal resources (e.g.
Mondada 2008).
The reluctance of CA to draw on social macro-variables in the analysis, which is seen as a
strength by its founders (e.g. Schegloff 2007), has been criticised as potential “interactional
reductionism” by Levinson (2005) and may be one of the limitations of CA. Interestingly,
applications of CA to the analysis of interpreter-mediated communication have placed stronger
emphasis on demonstrating how the selection of interactional resources is shaped by macro-
variables including the communicative situation and the participants’ communicative goals. As
Baraldi (2012) demonstrates, for example, it would be difficult to grasp fully the interactional
significance of the interpreters’ additions and expansions in the doctor-patient consultations he
analysed without taking into account the wider (political) context of healthcare communication,
which is often characterised by time pressure. This can help explain, for example, why
interpreters sometimes engage in multi-turn expansions with a patient before producing a
summary rendition for the doctor and why doctors do not intervene in these ‘side
conversations’.
The RI data analysed in the present study also highlight the importance of connecting the
interaction system with other social variables. The situations created for the simulations of legal
communication were set in Guildford and referred, for example, to Guildford’s main shopping
precinct. A number of expansions and additions emerged around such references. In identifying
possible reasons for these, it proved useful to combine the micro-analysis with the knowledge
that the interpreters participating in our study were not from Guildford and had, according to
their own account, limited or no knowledge of Guildford and its local infrastructure. This is
9
particularly important in so far as a lack of local knowledge could turn out to be one of the
more persistent problems of remote interpreting.
A combination of ‘pure’ CA with approaches highlighting the embeddedness of interaction in
other social systems is therefore likely to strengthen the insights gained from focussing on the
interaction only. Gumperz (1982), for instance, champions approaches that rely on in-depth
knowledge about the participants’ background in the very belief that it affects the way in which
they produce and understand contributions to the interaction. Levinson (2005) acknowledges
conversational interaction as a separate ‘system’ but advocates an approach whereby this
system is linked to language and culture by intermediate variables such as types of social
relationships and inferential heuristics. In relation to RI, Gumperz’ and Levinson’s approaches
enable us to engage in a fine-grained analysis without rejecting other (e.g. pragmatic or
cognitive) frameworks that rely on inferential heuristics, especially if these bring us closer to
an explanation of the interpreter’s moves. The next section applies such an ‘enriched’ CA
framework to the analysis of additions and expansions in RI in a legal setting in order to explore
and appreciate their impact on the interpreter’s participation under the conditions of virtual
presence.
4 Results and discussion
Given the space limitations, this section focuses on two aspects of the additions/expansions
identified in RI, i.e. their complexity and their appropriateness. Complexity will be addressed
in section 4.1., demonstrating how the ‘enriched’ micro-analytical framework adopted here can
capture the multi-dimensional nature of the additions/expansions, and how this analysis can
resolve obscure cases and identify VC-related reasons for additions/expansions. Furthermore,
the fine-grained look at the additions/expansions in section 4.1 will prepare the ground for a
critical analysis in terms of their appropriateness in section 4.2. Whilst a normative framework
distinguishing between necessary and unnecessary additions seems unhelpful for research into
the interpreters’ motivations for adding elements and expanding turns, section 4.2 will illustrate
the benefits—including the educational benefits—of a micro-analysis for understanding why
some additions are more appropriate than others.
4.1 Capturing the complexity of additions and expansions in RI
This section draws on one interview sequence which contains a number of additions and
expansions that are characteristic of the RI2/3 data; this also highlights the usefulness of
analysing series of additions/expansions together. The sequence is taken from an interview
with a female suspect (S) who was arrested after starting a fight with her friend Pauline outside
a pub. The police officer (PO) tries to elicit how much S had drunk when the fight started,
asking her to use a scale from one to ten to describe her state at that time. The additions and
elaborations that will be analysed in this sequence are highlighted in bold.
Example 1
10
01
PO
Yeah yeah ok. Right. W-we quite often use a scale of
one being sober and ten being drunk. Whe:re were you on
that one to ten scale?
02
I
One being sober and ten being drun-. (.hh) Donc euh
nous- nous utilise(h)z (hh) nous utilisons une échelle,
hein, pour, euh: (.hh) pour graduer le:: (.hhh) le
degré d'ébriété dans lequel vou::s vous trouvez si vous
voulez. Donc d- un, c'est vous êtes sobre et dix euh
vous êtes euh:: vous êtes saoule. Donc vous e- vous
diriez vous étiez euh: où sur-sur cette échelle? (.)
Quel chiffre vous donneriez?
Well we use a scale to grade the level of drunkenness
in which you found yourself, if you like. So one, you
are sober and ten you are drunk. So where we- would you
say you were on that scale? Which figure would you
assign?
03
S
Peut-être quatre ou cinq. Je n'en suis pas sure.
[Pas si saoule que ça. Pauline [était au moins à sept.
Maybe four or five. I’m not sure. Not that drunk.
Pauline was at least at seven.
04
I
[Maybe [Maybe four or five. Not
not not rea:l-, I wasn't that drunk, you know. I'm not
really sure but Pauli- I would say Pauline was on a:
seven=I would grade her at seven (.) She was drunk.
05
PO
Do you often go drinking at the Red Lion on a week
night?
An initial exploration, drawing only on the existing frameworks for analysing
additions/expansions in interpreter-mediated communication, i.e. without a micro-analytical
focus, could be as follows:
(1) The interpreter begins turn 2 by repeating the values of the scale that the PO used (one
being sober and ten being drun-) in English, i.e. in the source language. Starting a turn
in the source language is not uncommon in (dialogue) interpreting and is normally linked
to the cognitively demanding conditions under which interpreters process the source
language and the speaker’s meaning (immediacy, stress, fatigue etc.). In this example,
however, the use of the source language by the interpreter is unlikely to be an instance
of interpreting ‘into the wrong language’. Rather than being a formulation of the PO’s
entire utterance, the interpreter’s utterance seems to be an attempt to repeat only selected
elements of the PO’s utterance and could therefore be understood as an attempt to request
clarification. However, there is no exchange with the PO. Furthermore, unlike other
clarification requests, it is not a non-rendition in Wadensjö’s (1998) terms, as it takes up
some of the source speech elements. The utterance may also be candidate for Merlini &
Favaron’s (2005) category of phatic additions, used to confirm understanding to the PO,
but all in all it does not easily fall into any category of addition/expansion discussed in
section 2.
(2) In the same turn, the interpreter then seems to make the idea of the scale more explicit
(pour graduer le:: (.hhh) le degré d'ébriété dans lequel vou::s vous trouvez si vous
voulez/to grade the level of drunkenness in which you found yourself, if you like). This is
similar to expanding utterances as a way of designing them for a specific addressee
11
(Baraldi 2012) and explaining the meaning of pain scales for patients (Angelleli 2012).
It is also reflected in Jacobsen’s (2002) category of explicating additions, which add
culture-specific information. Alternatively, the added element could be classified as an
elaborating addition in Jacobsen’s scheme, because it expands on an item already
mentioned (the scale). At the same time, the hesitant manner of presenting the utterance
suggests that other factors, not captured by these classifications, are at play here.
(3) At the end of turn 2, the interpreter expands the officer’s main question (Whe:re were
you on that one to ten scale?) into two questions (Donc vous e- vous diriez vous étiez
euh: où sur-sur cette échelle?(.) Quel chiffre vous donneriez?/So where we- would you
say you were on that scale? Which number would you assign?). This expansion has
similarities with the expansion in (2) above, but given that the first question omits the
reference to the points on the scale, whilst the second question makes a (vague) reference
to numbers, the rationale for this expansion seems different.
(4) In turn 4 the interpreter expands the suspect’s description of Pauline (Pauline était au
moins à sept./Pauline was at least at seven.) by offering two versions (Pauli- I would say
Pauline was on a: seven=I would grade her at seven). Apart from the omission of au
moins/at least in both versions, the expansion is similar to the previous expansion, and
as above, the reason is not obvious.
(5) At the end of turn 4, the interpreter adds an assessment (She was drunk.). In Jacobsen’s
(2002) scheme, this could be conceptualised as an emphasising addition increasing the
pragmatic force of the utterance, i.e. here the assumed suspect’s intention to set herself
apart from her friend Pauline, and would have significant pragmatic impact. Davitti
(2013) treats similar cases as upgrade moves by the interpreter, also highlighting the
significant impact on the outcomes of the communication. A number of questions arise
here. One concerns the appropriateness of the conclusion that the friend was drunk, i.e.
the question of whether or not this was indeed part of the suspect’s intended meaning.
This is a question for pragmatics. Assuming the interpreter had come to the conclusion
that it was, a related question would be whether it is appropriate for the interpreter to
present this conclusion explicitly here. As this is particularly important in the legal
setting, the crucial question in relation to RI is why the interpreter decided to present this
conclusion explicitly, to what extent this decision was shaped by the RI situation and
how it affects the interaction.
The picture emerging here is that this initial analysis, which draws on a priori categories,
remains largely inconclusive. It omits many of the small details that play a crucial role in micro-
analytical approaches and does not take into account possible links between individual
additions. The next step will be to examine in more detail how the interpreter constructs and
designs her utterances in this sequence, i.e. the resources she uses, and what can be inferred
from this regarding the additions and expansions in this sequence.
(1') Although the interpreter begins turn 2 by repeating the values of the scale in the source
language, which may sometimes be construed as a clarification request, she continues her
utterance in French without waiting for confirmation. She briefly looks at the screen at the very
beginning of this utterance but then looks down at her notes. Repeats of a previous speaker’s
12
utterance are common in monolingual conversation. They were originally analysed as a display
of understanding (Sacks et al. 1974), which is reflected in Merlini & Favaron’s (2005) category
of phatic additions. However, Svennevig (2004) highlights the crucial role of intonation here,
pointing out that falling intonation in repeats is normally associated with a display of
understanding, whilst rising intonation can indicate a problem of understanding or a degree of
uncertainty, with the result that repeats can have very different interactional values. The
addition in question has a slightly rising intonation contour before it ends abruptly. Taking into
account the addition’s composition including its intonation contour and the abrupt end it seems
plausible that it is indeed motivated by the interpreter’s initial difficulty in processing the idea
of the scale and meant as a clarification request, as also suggested by the brief look at the
screen, but that the repetition of the decisive elements of the original utterance enables her to
confirm the idea to herself, making further confirmation redundant. This is supported by
another important element of the micro-analysis, i.e. the position of the utterance both within
the turn, where it occurs in turn-initial position, preceding the interpretation into French, and
within the episode, where it occurs 19 minutes into the interview. Analyses of interpreting
problems in RI, which show signs of fatigue and a decline in performance after approximately
15-16 minutes (Moser-Mercer 2005, Braun 2013), corroborate the assumption that this addition
is rooted in an interpreting problem (here: grasping the idea of the scale). Moreover, the
phenomenon of “speaking to oneself” may have been encouraged by the interpreter’s physical
separation from the others.
(2') The expansion regarding the scale of drunkenness in turn 2 is marked by paralinguistic
features including hesitations, self-repairs, word repetitions, elongations of syllables, and
breathing in, which occur before the main lexical units (graduer/grade, degré d'ébriété/level
of drunkenness, se trouver/find oneself). Paralinguistic features occurring in this position have
elsewhere been shown to indicate speech planning problems (Levelt 1983) or search for a word
(Schegloff 2010). Whilst this expansion then may indeed be what Angelelli (2012) describes
as a culturally appropriate explanation in such contexts, the paralinguistic cues, which form
part of the composition of this addition, suggest that the interpreter finds it difficult to produce
a concise and coherent account of how the scale works and that this interferes with her intention
to produce a cultural explanation. Furthermore, here again, the position of the paralinguistic
cues both within the turn, where they precede key lexical items, and within the episode as a
whole, i.e. 19 minutes into the interview, lend support to the hypothesis that the interpreter
struggles to produce a coherent utterance.
(3') The pair of questions at the end of turn 2 begins with a self-repair and an elongated
syllable before the first question word (où/where) is uttered. This verbal hesitation is
accompanied by a repeated circular hand movement, i.e. a co-speech gesture that frequently
accompanies the search for a word or concept (Ladewig 2011). Interestingly, the end points of
the scale, one and ten, which are included in the PO’s question, are omitted from the
interpreter’s first formulation. Whilst the second formulation may have the effect of an
elaborating addition (Jacobson 2002) or a re-formulation to optimise audience design (Baraldi
2012), as described above, the micro-context suggests that it is at least partly a result of
difficulties with producing this question in the first place. The two formulations may thus
13
constitute an approximation (Kohn & Kalina 1996). The abstract first question où sur-sur cette
échelle/where on that scale, which omits the numbers constituting the end points of the scale,
is followed by a concrete reference to the numbers of the scale (quel chiffre/which number) in
the second question. The small pause between the two questions suggests that the reformulation
is likely to be a result of the interpreter’s output monitoring (for similar cases, see Braun 2004,
2007).
(4') The elaboration in turn 4 (I would grade her at seven.) is again likely to have the effect
of an elaborating addition, here elaborating on the preceding element (Pauline was on a:
seven), but the micro-analysis suggests that it is brought about by a (partially) different set of
circumstances than elaboration (3) above. It is produced following two instances of overlapping
speech with the suspect, which were initiated by the interpreter. From the position of the
overlaps it seems that the interpreter begins to speak as soon as the suspect finishes the expected
part of the answer, i.e. grading herself, but the interpreter’s rendition overlaps with the
unexpected continuation of the suspect’s turn, i.e. the grading of her friend (Pauline était au
moins à sept./Pauline was at least at seven.). The interpreter then produces two versions of the
overlapped utterance. Notably the second is latched onto the first without a pause and is uttered
without a falling intonation contour. One possibility is that the added second version is again a
result of monitoring and an attempt to repair the unidiomatic first version (Pauline was on a:
seven) and/or to integrate the originally omitted element au moins/at least. Given the absence
of even the slightest pause or hesitation marker between the two versions, these hypotheses are
less likely. At least the monitoring would have had to take place while the interpreter is
speaking, which is possible (‘simultaneous monitoring’, Braun 2004, 2007). At the same time,
the latching of the two utterances and their parallel intonation pattern (slightly rising intonation
contour, repetition of, and emphasis on, the final word) suggest that the interpreter elaborates
this element to put emphasis on it in an attempt to ensure that the message is not lost after the
overlaps. This is also in line with the observation that overlapping speech is perceived to be
disturbing in videoconference communication (Braun 2004, 2012).
(5') The final added element (She was drunk.) is undoubtedly the most controversial one
from a normative point of view. Following Jacobsen’s (2002) account, this element was
characterised above as increasing the pragmatic force of the original utterance, but its motive
remains obscure in this analysis. The micro-analysis shows that the addition is produced after
a small gap, making it a candidate for a turn increment (Schegloff 1996), i.e. an element that is
produced after a turn is potentially complete. The micro-context preceding the increment yields
important cues as to the motive for it. Firstly, the overlapping speech, self-repairs and
hesitations in the interpreter’s turn may have led her to believe that a clarification or upgrade
is in order. Secondly, the segment preceding the increment (i.e. I would grade her at seven),
which is the elaboration discussed in (4’) above, is uttered without falling intonation contour,
calling for another element to complete the turn. The increment, which sums up the
interpreter’s assessment of the suspect’s meaning and has a falling intonation pattern, is likely
to be an attempt to achieve both further clarification and closure. It could be the result of a
monitoring process, taking place during the pause preceding the increment. As in the upgrade
moves that Davitti (2013) identified in her data, the added assessment brings the turn and the
14
sequence to a close; the officer’s subsequent turn constitutes a topic change. However, the
closure comes at a price, ending in a statement whose semantic accuracy and pragmatic
appropriateness is debatable. The interpreter’s repeated attempt at completing turn 4 may in
itself not be RI-specific, but Braun (2004) finds increments to be frequent in VC
communication. Although her analysis of monolingual videoconferences linked increments to
the transmission delay and the resulting unnatural pauses between turns, the interpreter’s
remoteness could have a similar effect.
Considering how the sequence analysed above unfolds, it seems fair to say that the interpreter
struggles to understand and express the idea of the scale here and that the additions and
elaborations she produces are linked to these difficulties. At the very least, their motivations
and functions seem to be more complex than the initial analysis based on existing categories
suggests. They often have a VC-specific or VC-related dimension. Two of the common drivers
for the additions/expansions seem to be emphasis to ensure that the message gets across, and
clarification.
4.2 Exploring the appropriateness of additions: the case of added tag questions
As outlined above, this section explores what the micro-analytical approach can contribute
regarding the appropriateness of an addition/elaboration. The section uses one group of
additions that occurs only in RI2/RI3, i.e. the experiments conducted after a phase of
familiarisation and training of the interpreters involved. It is a group of French expressions
such as d’accord and c’est ça in the interpreters’ versions of utterances by the PO. These
expressions have a range of functions in French but when used in turn-final position and with
rising intonation, they normally serve as general tag questions. The following example, in
which the PO explains to the suspect the practicalities of the right to access a lawyer at the
beginning of the interview, illustrates this.
Example 2
01
P
If you wish to speak to a solicitor please let me know
and we'll stop the interview to allow you to speak to
one [(.) either the duty solicitor or s- or=or one of
your own choosing.
02
I
[(.hh) (.hh) Si vous souhaitez eh consulter
un avocat, à n'importe quel moment durant cette
interrogation, (.h) vous n'avez qu'à me le faire
savoir, e::t nous ferons venir un avocat ou p- vous
vous allons- vous allez pouvoir vous entretenir avec un
avocat de votre choix. (.) D'accord?
If you wish to consult a lawyer at any time during this
interrogation you need but let me know and we will call
for a lawyer or you will- you will be able to speak
with a lawyer of your choice. Ok?
03
((S nods))
This utterance occurs in the introductory phase of the interview. In this phase rapport-building
and alignment between PO and suspect play an important role (Rombouts 2012), suggesting
15
that the officer’s statement carries an implicit request for confirmation. The interpreter’s
addition seems to hone this request. At a more basic level, it also ensures the suspect’s attention
to what is being said. Merlini & Favaron (2005) would probably classify this as a phatic
addition. Although tag questions like this rarely invite full responses, they normally open up
the communication channel for feedback. Further support for this analysis comes from the first
part of the interpreter’s utterance. She elaborates on the possibility of consulting a lawyer by
adding that this can be done at any time during the interview, which can be analysed as an
attempt to align the understanding of the interlocutors, who are from different speech
communities (Angelelli 2012). Eliciting confirmation or feedback from the suspect could be a
complementary way of achieving alignment.
Arguably, however, this addition has an additional dimension. In the second part of the
interpreter’s utterance, the original idea that the interview can be stopped to enable the suspect
to speak to a duty solicitor or a lawyer of his choice becomes blurred, as the interpreter conflates
the idea that a lawyer can be called to the police station with the idea of talking to a lawyer the
suspect chooses (as opposed to a duty solicitor). It is possible that the interpreter either did not
know or was unable to retrieve the French equivalent for duty solicitor. Whatever the reason,
the tag question may, in part, have been prompted by this and may have the additional function
of checking the suspect’s understanding not of the PO’s question but of the interpreter’s
formulation. The pause preceding the tag question points to a monitoring process. The addition
could thus be an instance of the interpreter’s increasing her visibility. The interpreter’s
remoteness may also have contributed to this.
A similar case arises in the next example, which features a procedural routine. The suspect
demonstrates a physical action, and the PO explains the action to ensure it is recorded on the
audio tape (see also section 3).
Example 3
01
P
O::k so for the benefit of the tape you're s- you're
showing how she shoved you. [One-handed, on the left-
hand side of your body.
02
I
[(.hh)
Donc euh: ce- je- v- pour euh
pour que ce soit précisé da:ns dans l'enregistrement,
vous avez montré:: euh phy- comment elle vous a:
poussée, hein. Vous avez montré votre bras gauche qu-
qui a poussé c- (.) enfin le bras gauche qui vous
aurait poussée, hein, sur- sur le côté gauche de votre
corps=c’est ça?
So uhm for uh to make this clear in in the recording,
you have shown uhm phy- how she pushed you, right. You
have shown your left arm uhm which which pushed or in
fact the left arm that pushed you, er, on at the left-
hand side of your body. Is this so?
03
(0.5) ((S looks down))
04
I
[C'est bien ça?
Is this the case?
16
05
P
[Right.
Here again, the PO’s description implicitly invites confirmation, and perhaps even more so
than the explanation of the suspect’s rights in the previous example, as the description
represents only one possible way of depicting the suspect’s physical action and could thus be
disputed. Moreover, the description occurs in the phase of the interview in which the suspect
tells his version; clarification and confirmation are crucial here. The chosen question tag c’est
ça/is this so reflects this insofar as it arguably carries a stronger pragmatic force than
d’accord//OK, and the interpreter’s reformulation of the question with more emphasis (C'est
bien ça/Is this the case) after the 0.5 second gap corroborates this, making the case similar to
example 2.
As in example 2, however, further analysis also suggests that the elicitation of feedback from
the suspect is not the only reason for the addition. The many hesitations and self-repairs in the
interpreter’s utterance point to her difficulty in visualising and relaying the PO’s description of
what the suspect shows. It is possible that the interpreter’s physical separation from the main
interlocutors contributed to the difficulty of processing and rendering this abstract description
after seeing the actual physical action being demonstrated by the suspect. Following this
assumption, the added question could, as in example 2, have the additional function of checking
understanding (and prompting the suspect to correct the interpreter’s description if necessary),
and the interpreter becomes ‘visible’. The overlap of the tagged question with the PO’s
utterance (turn 5) is likely to have reinforced this impression for the other participants, although
this is coincidental.
There are two points to note in relation to the two examples, both ensuing from the micro-
analysis. The first is that the additions have multiple reasons. They are at least in part a result
of the interpreters’ difficulty in rendering the original utterances, which in one case is
potentially compounded by the interpreter’s remoteness. This likens them to the additions and
expansions discussed in section 4.1 above in terms of complexity.
The second point concerns the intention underlying the POs’ utterances. The analysis of the
content and position of these utterances suggests that they are manifestations of an interviewing
technique and implicitly warrant confirmation. The professional profile of the interpreters, who
are experienced police interpreters, implies familiarity with interviewing techniques. In line
with this, the added questions can be analysed as being part of the interpreters’ utterance design
for the recipient, making something explicit that was implicitly present in the original utterance.
However, familiarity with interviewing techniques did not always prevent problems at a micro-
level in RI. This is illustrated by the following example, which refers to the suspect’s claim
that she had lent money to her friend Pauline and that their argument in the pub was about
paying the money back. In turn 1, the PO recalls an earlier statement by suspect before putting
a question about this to her in turn 3.
Example 4
17
01
P
You sai:d that you and Pauline could not reach an
agreement in the pub:h.
02
I
(.hh) Vou- vous avez dit que P- vous et Pauline vous
vous n:'êtes pas arrivées à vou:: à vous entendre,
hein, quand vous étiez dans le pub:h. C'est ça?
You- you said that P- you and Pauline you could not
come to an agreement, mhm, when you were in the pub. Is
that right?
03
P
Do you think anybody witnessed or overheard your
conversation about the loan of two thousand pounds?
The example is taken from the phase in which the PO asks specific questions, which follows
the phase in which the suspect is allowed to tell her version. In this phase, the PO is interested
in questioning the details provided, e.g. to uncover potential inconsistencies. Bearing this in
mind, the micro-analytical framework is well-suited to explain why the addition of the question
tag in the interpreter’s turn is not appropriate here. Turn 1 constitutes a type of pre-sequence
(Schegloff 2007), which projects the question asked in turn 3. Turn 1 is delivered with falling
intonation, indicating that it serves to establish the specific information to which this question
pertains (i.e. you and Pauline could not reach an agreement in the pub:h) as background, i.e.
as information that is ‘given’ rather than requiring confirmation. The tagged question, which
has the effect of eliciting confirmation, interferes with the PO’s strategy.
The instance occurs close to the end of the interview. The interpreter may have begun to lose
concentration and may not have fully engaged with the content of the PO’s utterance. At the
same time, it is the PO’s behaviour that needs to be scrutinised here. As Schegloff (2007: 46)
points out, pre-sequences “need to be fashioned as such” in order to prevent them from being
understood “as what the speaker means to be saying/doing in its own right, often with untoward
results”. Shegloff assumes that “specific practices of talking” are involved in marking an
utterance as a pre-sequence. Pausing for the interpreter after the completion of the pre-sequence
may send the wrong signal to the interpreter. This is especially important in the VC situation,
where it is normally more difficult for the interpreter to pick up all the small conversational
features that could indicate the speaker’s intention to continue his talk.
This section demonstrates that by combining the micro-analysis of the interpreter’s moves with
considerations of macro-variables such as his/her professional profile and assumed procedural
knowledge it is possible to examine the appropriateness of an addition/expansion in the context
in which it is produced. The analysis shows, for instance, that the added elements explicitating
procedurally relevant aspects of the interaction (such as eliciting confirmation from the
suspect) in examples 2 and 3 are highly appropriate regardless of any further functions they
may have or any other aspects they may reveal. At the same time, example 4 illustrates how
the VC situation may interfere with the interpreter’s procedural knowledge, especially when
the PO’s communicative behaviour is not adapted to the VC situation, leading to inappropriate
additions/expansions on the part of the interpreter. In line with the dual aim of this paper, this
section thus shows that the interpreter’s virtual (as opposed to physical) presence in RI may
undermine his/her participation in the interaction and that the ‘enriched’ micro-analytical
approach is useful for uncovering the reasons why.
18
5 Conclusions
The aims of this paper were to explore the functions and motives of additions and expansions
in RI with special reference to legal contexts, to examine what they reveal about interpreting
problems and the interpreter’s participation in RI, and to evaluate the affordances of a micro-
analytical approach to this exploration. The fine-grain analysis, taking into account not only
the resources that interpreters employ in the production of added elements but also macro-
variables such as the interpreters’ professional profile and the specifics of RI and VC
communication, has highlighted the complex and multidimensional nature of additions and
expansions in RI.
One observation that should be highlighted is the dichotomy of motivations for the
additions/elaborations in RI. Like those in onsite interpreting, additions/elaborations in RI
often represent strategic attempts at producing a target version that meets the perceived needs
of the recipient, as outlined in section 2 of this paper. At the same time, several of the
additions/elaborations found in RI seem to be induced by, and indicative of, interpreting
difficulties that can be linked to cognitive overload, fatigue, stress or physical distance to the
primary participants. This dichotomy is illustrated, for instance, by example 1 (section 4.1),
where the interpreter’s strategic attempt to explicitate the meaning of the scale of drunkenness
for the suspect is partially obscured by the many reformulations and approximations which are
indicative of her difficulties in expressing the very idea of this scale itself. Moreover,
additions/elaborations in RI sometimes cause other problems, as evidenced by example 4
(section 4.2), i.e. the tagged question that interferes with the police officer’s interviewing
strategy.
All of this suggests that the VC situation itself is an important driving force for the added
elements, either overtly (as in the interpreter’s instruction to one of the participants to turn his
head more towards the camera) or covertly (as evidenced by approximations, reformulations
and increments, which are indicative of interpreting problems), while further
additions/expansions are aimed at reducing the perceived lack of social presence in the VC and
increasing the rapport with the primary interlocutors (especially tag questions to check
understanding).
Arguably, the multidimensionality of the additions/elaborations in RI and the interpreter’s
virtual presence bring about subtle changes to the patterns of participation that have been
identified for face-to-face interpreting by Wadensjö (1998), Baraldi (2012) and others, as
outlined in section 2. On the one hand, there is a danger that the interpreters’ strategic attempts
at tailoring their renditions to the recipients’ needs become less successful when they are
conflated with additions/elaborations caused by, or leading to, interpreting problems. On the
other hand, the additions/elaborations triggered by the interpreter’s virtual presence seem to
increase his/her visibility. The impact of this on the participants’ perception of the interpreter
will need to be further investigated but the following two tendencies can be noted.
19
The combination of the quantitative analysis of the additions in RI in our original study with
the findings of the micro-analytical investigation reported here reveals a tendency on the part
of the interpreters to over-elaborate their utterances. This creates lengthy interpreter turns
which—apart from being inefficient and potentially tiring to listen to—fragment the talk-in-
interaction and carry the risk of shifts in meaning through ‘over-interpretations’ of the original
utterances. The implications are twofold. At the informational level, there are consequences in
terms of accuracy. At the interactional level, as said above, the interpreter’s participation status
and visibility may be affected. Both has potentially negative implications for the perception of
the interpreter’s professionalism and ultimately for the trust in the interpreter working in the
virtual space.
At the same time, the additions and expansions in RI are also associated with a positive
tendency, i.e. an adaptation process. Whilst expansions in the form of multiple reformulations
and approximations resulting from interpreting difficulties may not be elegant, they are
evidence of the interpreters’ achievement orientation, i.e. a strong trait of professionalism, as
they are normally aimed at ensuring the communicative message is conveyed irrespective of
problems. Such patterns have been identified as being characteristic of early stages of
adaptation processes in RI (Braun 2004). The addition of some of the meta-discursive elements,
especially the comments on technical problems and tag questions, have a similar function,
whilst other such elements operate on the interactional level, resulting in a more explicit co-
ordination of the interaction. The ultimate impact of potentially RI-specific patterns of
addition/expansion on the communicative event is likely to depend on the communicative
situation (e.g. legal or medical interpreting) and will require further investigation potentially
involving larger data samples.
If the additions/expansions encountered in our RI data are at least in part a result of the VC
situation, then regardless of their impact on the communication as such, another important
question arising is to what extent they are appropriate in the context of legal interpreting. This
also needs further study, e.g. in the form of perception studies involving the legal stakeholders.
However, as the brief analysis of the appropriateness of tag questions in relation to their
sequential position in the interview demonstrates, micro-analytical methods represent a
promising approach. In the meantime, the exploration of added tag questions in particular is
also a useful reminder that interpreter-mediated interaction is a joint venture of all participants
and that the ways in which the primary interlocutors participate, use their interactional
resources and shape their interactional contributions also play an important part in the success
(or otherwise) of RI. This, in turn, raises important points for education and training not only
for interpreters but also for the legal, medical or other stakeholders participating in RI.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by two grants from the European Commission Directorate-General
for Justice (JLS/2008/JPEN/03, JUST/2010/JPEN/AG/1558).
20
References
Angelelli, C. (2012) Challenges in Interpreters’ Coordination of the Construction of Pain. In
Claudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli (Eds.) Coordinating participation in dialogue
interpreting (pp.244-260). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Baraldi, C. (2012) Interpreting as Dialogic Mediation: The Relevance of Expansions. In
Claudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli (Eds.) Coordinating participation in dialogue
interpreting (pp.297-326). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Barik, H.C. 1994. A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of
translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. In B. Moser-Mercer, S. Lambert
(Eds.), Bridging the gap: empirical research into simultaneous interpretation.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, 121-137.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990) The Bilingual Courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Braun, S. (2004). Kommunikation unter widrigen Umständen? Einsprachige und
gedolmetschte Kommunikation in der Videokonferenz. Tübingern: Narr.
Braun, S. (2007). Interpreting in small-group bilingual videoconferences: Challenges and
adaptation processes. Interpreting, 9(1), 21-46.
Braun, S. (2012). Recommendations for the use of video-mediated interpreting in criminal
proceedings. In S. Braun, & J. Taylor (Eds.), (pp. 301-328).
Braun, S. (2013). Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical
assessment of a growing practice. Interpreting 15(2), 200-228.
Braun, S. (2016, forthcoming) Comparing traditional and remote interpreting in police settings:
quality and impact factors. In Braun, S., & Taylor, J. (Eds).
Braun, S., & et al. (2012) Training in video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings:
modules for interpreting students, legal interpreters and legal practitioners. In S. Braun,
& J. Taylor (Eds.), (pp. 233-288).
Braun, S., & Taylor, J. (Eds.) (2012a). Videoconference and remote interpreting in legal
proceedings. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Braun, S., & Taylor, J. (2012b). Video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings: two
European surveys. In S. Braun, & J. Taylor (Eds.), (pp. 69-98).
Braun, S., & Taylor, J. (Eds) (2016, forthcoming). Advances in videoconferencing and
interpreting in legal proceedings. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Davitti, E. (2013) Dialogue Interpreting as Intercultural Mediation: Interpreters’ Use of
Upgrading Moves in Parent-teacher Settings. Interpreting 15(2): 168–199.
Drew, P. & J. Heritage (1993) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J.J. (1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hale, S. (2004) The discourse of court interpreting. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Heritage, J. (1985) Analysing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an
overhearing audience. In T. Van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol. 3.
Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 95-117). London: Academic.
Hornberger, J., Gibson, C., Wood, W., Dequeldre C., Corso, I., Palla, B. & Bloch, D. (1996)
Eliminating language barriers for non-English-speaking patients. Medical Care 34(8),
845-856.
21
Jacobsen, B. (2002) Pragmatic Meaning in Court Interpreting: an Empirical Study in
Consecutively Interpreted Question-Answer Dialogues. Doctoral thesis. The Aarhus
School of Business.
Kohn, K. & S. Kalina (1996) The strategic dimension of interpreting. Meta, 41(1), 118-138.
Krouglov, A. (1999) Police interpreting. Politeness and sociocultural context. The Translator,
5, 285- 302.
Ladewig, S. (2011) Putting the cyclic gesture on a cognitive basis. Cognitextes 6.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1983) Monitoring and Self-repair in Speech. Cognition 14, 41-104.
Levinson, S. (2005) Living with Manny’s dangerous idea. Discourse Studies 7(4-5), 431-53.
Mason, I. & M. Stewart (2001) Interactional Pragmatics, Face and the Dialogue Interpreter. In
Triadic Exchanges. Studies in Dialogue Interpreting, Mason, I. (ed.), 51-70.
Manchester: St Jerome.
Mead, P. (2002) Exploring hesitation in consecutive interpreting. In Giuliana Garzone and
Maurizio Viezzi (eds.) Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities
73-82. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Merlini, R. & R. Favaron (2005) Examining the “voice of interpreting” in speech pathology.
Interpreting 7(2), 263–302.
Mondada, L. (2008) Doing video for a sequential and multimodal analysis of social interaction:
Videotaping institutional telephone calls. FQS 9(3), Art. 13 (http://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1161).
Moser-Mercer, B. (2005) Remote interpreting: issues of multi-sensory integration in a
multilingual task. Meta 50(2), 727-738.
Mouzourakis, P. (2006) Remote interpreting: a technical perspective on recent experiments.
Interpreting 8(1), 45-66.
Palazzi Gubertini, M. C. (1998) Des ajouts en interpretation. Pourquoi pas? The Interpreters'
Newsletter 8, 135-149.
Price EL, Pérez-Stable EJ, Nickleach D, López MKL (2012) Interpreter perspectives of in-
person, telephonic, and videoconferencing medical interpretation in clinical encounters.
Patient Educ Couns, 87(2), 226–232.
Rombouts, D. (2012) The police interview using videoconferencing with a legal interpreter: a
critical view from the perspective of interview techniques. Braun, S. & J. Taylor (Eds),
159-166.
Roziner, I. & Shlesinger, M. (2010) Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance
in remote interpreting. Interpreting 12(2), 214–247.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of
turn taking in conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735.
Schegloff, E. (1996) Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor
Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff & Sandra Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp.
52–133). Cambridge: CUP.
Schegloff, E. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: a Primer in Conversation Analysis
Vol. 1. Cambridge: CUP.
Schegloff, E. (2010) Some Other “Uh(m)”s. Discourse and Society, 47(2), 130-174.
Schjoldager, A. (1996) Assessment of Simultaneous Interpreting. In C. Dollerup & V. Appel
(Eds), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3, 187-195. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
22
Setton, R. (2002) A Methodology for the Analysis of Interpretation Corpora. In Garzone, G. &
M. Viezzi (eds.) Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities (pp.
29-45). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Svennevig (2004) Other-repetition as Display of Hearing, Understanding and Emotional
Stance. Discourse Studies 6(4), 489-516.
Wadensjö, C. (1998) Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.
