1

Embodied participation: What multimodal analysis can tell us about interpreter-mediated encounters in

pedagogical settings

Elena Davitti, Centre for Translation Studies, University of Surrey, UK Sergio Pasquandrea, Independent researcher, Italy

ABSTRACT: In the last two decades, Dialogue Interpreting (DI) has been studied extensively through the lenses of discourse analysis and conversation analysis. As a result, DI has been recognised as an interactional communicative event, in which all the participants jointly and actively collaborate. Nevertheless, most of these studies focused merely on the verbal level of interaction, whereas its multimodal dimension has not received much attention so far, and the literature on this subject is still scarce and dispersed. By analysing and comparing two sequences, taken from a corpus of face-to-face interpreter-mediated encounters in pedagogical settings, this study aims at showing how multimodal analysis can contribute to a deeper understanding of the interactional dynamics of DI. In particular, the paper shows how participants employ multimodal resources (gaze, gesture, body position, proxemics, object manipulation) to co-construct different participation frameworks throughout the encounters, and how the “ecology of action” (i.e., the relationships between the participants and the surrounding environment) influences the development of interaction. KEYWORDS: conversation analysis, multimodality, participation framework, ecology of action, interpreting in pedagogical settings

Introduction and focus of the paper

Over the last few decades, the role of embodiment in human communication has been increasingly

scrutinised, within a wide range of settings (see, among many others, Deppermann 2013; Goodwin

2000; Hazel et al. 2014a; Kendon 2004; Mondada 2014; Scollon & Scollon 2004; Stivers & Sidnell

2005; Streeck et al. 2011; Nevile et al. 2014a). Despite the different conceptual and methodological

tools adopted (see section 3), it has become clear that the production of socially shared meaning

needs to be situated within a multi-layered context, including not only human interactants and their

verbal exchanges, but also the physical environment in which they operate and the wide range of

bodily resources they use in order to communicate. In other words, “human interaction is

fundamentally embodied, and as such any research into human social interaction is research into

embodied interaction” (Hazel et al. 2014b: 3, italics in the original). As a consequence, the verbal

side of interaction has been increasingly integrated with “concurrently relevant semiotic fields”

(Goodwin, 2000a: 1499) such as gaze, gesture, posture, body and space orientation, and object

manipulation, in an attempt to achieve a holistic model, capable of accounting for the complexity of

naturally-occurring communicative events.

Building on these premises, the present paper explores the impact of embodied semiotic

resources (especially gaze, object manipulation and body posture/orientation) on participation during

2

interpreter-mediated interaction (IMI). In particular, the paper contributes to this line of enquiry

through a detailed single-case analysis (Schegloff 1987; Mondada 2012a) consisting of two

sequences from a corpus of video-recorded face-to-face encounters in Italian and English

pedagogical settings (parent-teacher meeting, henceforth PTMs). These have been selected on the

basis of the fact that the same specific activity (i.e. reading and signing teachers' reports) is

performed in both sequences. This activity is prototypical of the type of communicative event

analysed, and it involves the manipulation of an artefact (i.e. the school report). The paper describes

how the different ‘multimodal formatting’ of the activity, i.e. the multimodal resources mobilised

throughout its development in each sequence, generate different participation frameworks (Goffman,

1981), and entail changes of the interactional space (Mondada 2009) as well as reconfigurations of

participants’ engagement that would escape a purely verbal analysis.

Our aim is to investigate participation as a situated, temporally unfolding process, embedded

in its physical environment, actively negotiated and reconfigured by participants through embodied

actions. Building on a micro-analytical approach largely based on Multimodal Conversation Analysis

(Deppermann 2013; Hazel et al. 2014a), we will show how participation is the result of the concerted

efforts of all parties-at-talk to articulate objects, gestures, gaze, body posture and talk within

collaborative activities in context. The main research questions are: (a) How is participation

negotiated and displayed multimodally in IMI?; (b) What interactional practices do participants (both

interpreters and primary parties) implement in order to manage and coordinate participation?; (c)

How do participants display, make recognisable and communicate to others their

engagement/disengagement through their talk and embodied conduct?; (d) In particular, what is the

role of objects (namely, written artefacts) in the negotiation of participation during the interaction?

2. Embodied actions and participation

Participation and embodiment have been treated extensively in the existing literature on monolingual

interaction, both separately and in connection with each other. In order to set the background for the

analysis, the following sections will provide an overview of how participation has been described as

a situated achievement (2.1.), how it has been conceptualised and analysed within IMI, particularly

in relation to multimodal semiotic resources (2.2.), and finally, how the ecology of objects (i.e. the

peculiar positioning of objects and other physical resources within the environment, in relationship

to the interactants; see Gibson 1979, Hindmarsh & Heath 2003; Nevile et al. 2014b) exerts an

influence on the organisation of social interaction, which is the specific focus of this article (2.3).

2.1. Participation as a situated achievement

Participating in a conversation is one of the most common experiences in everyday social life. Yet,

research has shown that it requires subtle, but complex, coordination among the participants, who

need to adjust to and actively negotiate constantly shifting participation frameworks (Goffman 1981).

3

Such a dynamic conceptualisation of participation opens up the possibility for different encounters

to entail different participation frameworks, depending on their goals, participants and settings.

Similarly, a single encounter can switch through different participation formats, depending on its local

contingencies. Participation is therefore a locally negotiated and co-constructed achievement, which

can be shaped in a variety of ways (cf. Goodwin & Goodwin 2004), employing a wide range of

multimodal resources. These resources play a crucial role in defining the different participation

frameworks which can take place in a conversation, and in negotiating the shifts from one framework

to another. For example, displays of engagement and recipiency can be conveyed through gaze

(see Goodwin 1980; Heath 1982; Rossano 2012) and body position (Schegloff 1998); mutual

orientation can be achieved through gesture (Goodwin 1986; Goodwin & Goodwin 1986) or through

an interplay of gaze, gesture and posture (Mondada 2009, 2012a); turn-taking mechanisms are

influenced by the multimodal behaviour of the interactants (Mondada 2007). More broadly,

participating in a social interaction requires the interplay of different semiotic modalities (see

Goodwin 2007; Kendon 1967, 1990; Heath 1986; Kidwell & Zimmerman 2007).

These interactional phenomena have received little consideration in the literature on IMI,

where priority has been given to the vocal-aural modality over the visuospatial one (Enfield 2005) for

the creation of interactional meaning. Yet, the inherently multiparty, multilingual and socio-culturally

situated nature of IMI requires the mobilisation of multimodal resources on the part of all participants,

interpreter included, to manage and negotiate complex participation dynamics.

2.2. Participation and coordination in IMI

Undoubtedly the presence of an interpreter in a communicative event modifies the very structure

and flow of interaction. Since the development of the dialogic discourse-based interactionist

paradigm in the late 1990s thanks to Wadensjö’s (1998) groundbreaking work, empirical studies on

authentic IMI, particularly in community settings, have characterised the multitasking role of

interpreters as one integrating translation, coordination and intercultural mediation (e.g. Angelelli

2004; Baraldi and Gavioli 2012; Davidson 2000; Gavioli 2009; Mason 2001; Roy 2000; Wadensjö

1998).

Such an active role of the interpreter may lead to shifts between two main participation

frameworks, namely the triadic format (which is the one expected to be maintained throughout an

encounter, according to most codes of conduct) and the dyadic format (which normally involves the

interpreter and one of the primary parties, thus leading to the exclusion of the other). Given this fluid

and dynamic nature of participation, coordination becomes an unavoidable facet of the interpreter’s

activity, who is called upon to manage and negotiate constant shifts between these formats.

Coordinating with a view to ensuring inclusion and participation requires not only linguistic, but

multimodal monitoring and literacy by all parties-at-talk, interpreters in particular.

Much work still needs to be done in order to fully understand the nexus between participation,

4

coordination and multimodality in IMI. Literature on this subject is still scarce and fairly dispersed.

Besides the pioneer study by Lang (1978) on gaze in courtroom interpreting and research on sign

language interpreting, a practice which has always been considered through a multimodal lens due

to the visual nature of sign language itself (e.g. import of body shifts, gaze and pointing as turn-

management devices – see Metzger 1999; Roy 2000: Metzger et al. 2004), few studies on spoken-

language interpreting have attempted to cross the verbal communication boundaries. Apfelbaum

(1998) focuses on the rhythmic synchronisation of interpreter-mediated interaction, while Wadensjö

(2001) examines the interpreters’ proxemics during joint narratives in psycotherapeutic sessions.

Both studies conclude that “rhythmic regularity [...] is intimately connected with how the participants

are positioned in relation to one another; that is, whether or not they share the same ‘communicative

radius’” (Wadensjö 2001: 82-83). Davitti (2012, 2013, 2015) investigates the role of gaze and body

orientation in interpreter-mediated parent-teacher meetings1 as resources for triggering, modulating

and disambiguating specific conversational moves. The gaze patterns identified in her datasets

differed considerably from Mason’s (2012) study on interpreter-mediated asylum seekers’ interviews,

and Bot’s (2005) study, which analyses the interplay between turn organisation and embodied

resources (gaze and gestures) in therapeutic encounters. In the healthcare setting, Krystallidou

(2014) and Pasquandrea (2011, 2012) shed light on the role of gaze and body posture in negotiating

inclusion and exclusion, while Ticca (2010) takes into account the influence of non-verbal signals in

triggering dyadic sequences during medical examinations mediated by ad-hoc interpreters. Although

the peculiar patterns of behaviour identified may differ from one study to another, there is widespread

consensus on the key role of bodily resources in enhancing or hindering participation.

Such literature, although promisingly growing, does not seem to rely on shared, systematic

grounds for the analysis of multimodal resources. Most studies build on the conceptual and

methodological underpinnings of Multimodal Conversation Analysis (e.g. Davitti 2012; Pasquandrea

2011, 2012; Davitti & Pasquandrea 2013, 2014; Ticca 2010), or Discourse Analysis (e.g. Wadensjö

2001), or otherwise adopt a mixed approach (e.g. Bot 2005, which integrates a fine-grained

discourse analysis with interviews and concept maps, or Krystallidou 2014, which combines

Conversation Analysis with Norris' 2004 framework for multimodal analysis). The diversity of the

approaches adopted, although providing a richness and variety of perspectives on data, makes a

comparison between the findings a quite problematic issue.

Moreover, one common drawback in the current literature looking at IMI as a multimodal

activity is that the embodied dimension often seems to be regarded as ancillary to talk, rather than

integrated with it. The manipulation of artefacts in interaction has been particularly neglected in IMI,

despite it being a fairly recurrent activity in these encounters.

1 See also Davitti & Pasquandrea (2013) for a similar study based on a comparison between two different

settings, i.e. pedagogical and medical.

5

2.3. Action and embodiment: the interactional ecology of objects

Objects can be crucial in human interaction, in that they are often not merely used as tools for

performing social actions2, but rather may become constitutive of actions. Objects’ affordances

(Gibson, 1979)3 influence the way actions are performed, and are actively employed in turns by the

interactants as means for performing actions. As such, they must be regarded as situated resources

and as “emergent entities in fieri” (Mondada 2012b: 329; see also Hazel et al. 2014b).

Research shows that objects are used to perform a wide range of actions, within a variety of

different activities, including instructing, co-constructing knowledge, ordering interaction, building

temporally emergent action, embodying meaningful semiotic resources, claiming relevance, invoking

collaboration, constituting shared purposes, etc. (see Hazel et al. 2014a for a thorough collection of

studies on objects in interaction). It is therefore necessary to analyse their interactional ecology (as

defined in section 2) in order to fully understand their role in human interaction.

In particular, written objects, which are the specific focus of this study, can exert an influence

on the organisation of social interaction in a such diverse contexts as workplace meetings (Asmuß

& Svennevig 2009; Deppermann et al. 2010), journalism (Hindmarsh & Heath, 2000; Weilenmann &

Lymer 2014), archaeological fieldwork (Goodwin 2000a, 2003), medical visits (Frers 2009; Heath

1982; Jones 2009), academic supervision (Hazel & Mortensen 2014; Svinhufvud & Vehviläinen

2013), bureaucracy (Klein et al. 2014) and planning of professional activities, such as plumbing

(Sakai et al. 2014) and architectural design work (Mondada 2012a). In all these contexts, a wide

range of inscribed artefacts, such as notes, files, reports, IDs, forms, maps, sketches, drawings,

plans, are actively employed and negotiated by the participants in order to perform meaningful social

actions.

This paper will show how, within the context of PTMs, the way a particular object (i.e. the

teacher's report) is handled, in combination with speech, gaze and posture, can be actively

constructed as a sense-making device and exert a different influence on the unfolding interaction,

thus leading to different shifts and reconfigurations of the participation framework. Section 3 will

briefly outline the main methodological principles which will guide the analysis, while section 4 will

provide more details about the actual selected sequences.

2 Conversation Analysis regards human interaction as constituted upon a series of actions (e.g. greetings,

proposals, requests, invitations). Such actions are emergent, cooperative and socially shared, in that they require participants to constantly monitor each other's observable behaviour and display their own understanding of it. In this regard, any semiotic resource put in use by the interactants (talk, gesture, gaze, posture, object manipulation, etc.) can be constitutive of a social action.

3 Gibson first introduced the concept of “affordances”, defining it as all “action possibilities” latent in the environment, independent of the individual's ability to recognize them, but always in relation to agents and dependent on their capabilities. Therefore a social actor may or may not perform certain social actions, according to the available resources in their interactional environment.

6

3. Methodological underpinning

As already pointed out in the introduction, various disciplines have developed different approaches

to look at interaction through multimodal lenses: for instance, Conversation Analysis (Deppermann,

2013; Hazel et al. 2014), Social Semiotics (Hodge & Kress 1988; Kress & Van Leeuwen 1996, 2001),

Mediated Discourse Analysis (Norris 2004; Norris & Jones 2005; Scollon 2001; Scollon & Scollon

2004), Critical Discourse Analysis (Blommaert 2013), Actor-Network Theory (Latour 1987, 2005).

Such approaches differ not only in terms of the methodology employed, but also with regards to the

very definition of what is meant by multimodality and what aspects of the context should be taken

into account by the analyst.

The approach adopted in this paper largely builds upon some of the basic tenets of

Multimodal Conversation Analysis, which broadens up the scope of ‘traditional’ Conversation

Analysis to encompass a wider range of resources mobilised in interaction. The starting point for the

analysis remains the same, i.e. bottom-up, empirical approach to the observation of data, with a view

to collecting and comparing instances of naturally-occurring interaction and identifying recurrent

patterns of social practices. The guiding principle is what Schegloff (1992a) calls demonstrable

relevance, i.e. social actions (whatever semiotic resources interactants employ to perform them)

must be demonstrably linked to their outcome, in terms of observable interactional dynamics.

Nevertheless, a multimodal framework provides the conceptual and methodological tools to

take a more holistic approach to human interaction, where “linguistic and embodied resources [are

treated] in principle in the same way, without prioritizing a priori one type of resource over other

ones”, rather reconstructing in its entirety the interactants’ “complex multimodal Gestalt” (Mondada,

2014: 139-140). This is achieved through another fundamental principle, i.e. that human interaction

must be regarded as lamination, i.e. “a set of different semiotic fields organized as layers of diverse

resources”, each of which

can be selectively decomposed, reused and transformed to build a next action, a proposal for how the future will be organized. Thus human beings build action by combining diverse resources (e.g., language structure, categories, prosody, postural configurations, the embodied displays of a hearer, tools, etc.) to perform both simultaneous and sequential transformative operations” (Goodwin 2013: 21).

As underlined by Mondada (2014: 138), such layers need to be regarded as integrated with

each other, thus overcoming the dichotomy between “verbal” and “non-verbal” communication,

which

organizes human conduct and communication in a bipartite way, opposing language, on the one hand, to other types of conduct, on the other. [...] Moreover, the negative particle in ‘non’-verbal seems to imply reference to a body resources which are not related to the verbal. As stated by Kendon, 'it makes no sense to speak of ‘verbal communication’ and ‘nonverbal communication.’ There is only communication' (1972:443).

7

A further step can be made by recognising that social behaviour is very much dictated not

only by the actions performed by human interactants (e.g. speech, gaze, posture), but also by the

configuration of the settings and environments in which they operate, i.e. what was previously

referred to as (interactional) ecology of objects. The data analysis will show how such aspects can

be integrated in a multimodal investigation of interpreter-mediated interaction.

4. Dataset

The materials analysed in this paper are two sequences taken from a four-hour corpus of naturally-

occurring mediated PTMs. To start with, this section will review some general features of this type

of encounter, which has been mostly explored by studies on monolingual interaction. The second

part of the section will focus on the two sequences specifically selected for the purpose of this study.

4.1 On interpreter-mediated PTMs

PTMs (both monolingual and mediated) are normally characterised as collaborative events during

which participants are oriented towards fulfilling common goals and tasks in the interest of a third

party who is often not present, i.e. the child. Despite their institutional nature, the “shape, form,

trajectory, content or character” (Schegloff 1992b:111) of PTMs seem to be open to local negotiation

among the participants, compared to other institutional contexts (e.g. Cuttance and Stokes 2000;

Christenson and Sheridan 2001; Walker 1998). Similarly to doctor-patient encounters, parent-

teacher interaction “may have an institutional mooring, but it also has an interactional bedrock”

(Maynard 1991:486), i.e. all the parties-at-talk engage in actions that are systematically shaped and

reshaped over the course of the talk. In other words, the default assumption regarding the

collaborative and inclusive nature of these encounters is actually the result of the finely-tuned

negotiations of embodied resources among all the parties on a moment-by-moment basis.

In terms of overall structural organisations, PTMs do not follow a rigid agenda, but they have

been found to have a fairly ritualised and, to some extent, ceremonial nature (Badger 2007), and to

proceed through some prototypical interactional phases, namely (Pillet-Shore 2001: 24):

Co-participants progress through a series of phases, starting with an introductory phase featuring social talk (Phase 1), which leads to the reasons for the conference (Phase 2), which in turn gradually yields to the phase in which the parent questions the teacher (Phase 3), followed by a future-oriented discussion of the student (Phase 4), and finally an orientation toward closing down the conference (Phase 5), which, once ratified by both co-participants, gives way to an exchange of thanks and farewells (Phase 6).

The professional activity analysed in this paper is a recurring practice across our data and a highly

predictable one in PTMs in general, i.e. ‘reading and signing’ the record, which is commonly used

“as a method of reviewing the student’s current class standing for and with parents, providing an

8

opportunity for both co-participants to be on the same page, armed with the information they will

subsequently use to evaluate and discuss the student’s past, as well as strategize about the

student’s future” (ibid.:19). This practice can be integrated at different moments in the overall

structural organisation: in our data, it is a prelude to the closing down of the meeting. After discussing

the overall achievements, performance, and attitude of each child in the classroom, as well as any

potential problems or difficulties they may be confronted with, the school report is presented to the

parents, who are requested to ‘read and sign’ it. By doing so, parents acknowledge the content of

the report and formalise its acceptance whilst providing evidence that the meeting has taken place.

The actions accomplished in order to perform this practice revolve around an artefact, i.e. a

school report, which is discussed and manipulated in interaction. Fulfilling the request to ‘read and

sign’ the report in a mediated PTM is more complex than in a monolingual scenario. Such complexity

is partly due to the materiality and affordances of the artefact itself (for instance the fact that it is

written in a language not spoken by the parent) and partly to the way and sequential moment in

which it is introduced in interaction. In particular, three intermediate steps are required, namely (a)

the familiarisation with the content of the school report on the part of the interpreter, who has never

seen the document before; (b) the rendition of its content into the parents’ language; (c) the

explanation of the function and features of such document within the educational system of the host

country. The way such actions are sequentially handled and embodied will have an impact on the

unfolding of the interaction and on participation dynamics. The artefact therefore plays a key role in

the event, in that it is the means whereby a necessary bureaucratic procedure is actively negotiated

and eventually accomplished.

4.2 Selected sequences

The two selected sequences are taken from two distinct encounters taking place in two different

Italian schools (geographically located in the same region). They both feature four participants, i.e.

two teachers (T1/T2), one migrant mother (M) and one interpreter (INT). The two mothers are from

India (sequence 1, Figure 1) and Nigeria (sequence 2, Figure 2): they have just moved to the host

country (Italy) with their family and they have been invited to the meeting to discuss the performance

of their children at school after one semester. The mothers are not proficient in Italian yet, so an

interpreter has been called in to facilitate communication with them in English.

Figure 1: Screenshot from Sequence 1 Figure 2: Screenshot from Sequence 2

9

The two sequences are perfectly comparable in terms of:

specific actions implemented, wider activity performed, general purpose and development of

the encounter: the request to ‘read and sign’ the school report, which is lying at the centre of

the table (as shown in Figures 1 and 2) is in both cases launched by one of the teachers.

The ongoing activity revolves around the artefact, which becomes the “centre of collective

attention” (Mondada 2007: 198). Similarly, neither the parents nor the interpreter had access

to the report prior to the actual meeting;

number of participants: four in both cases and featuring the same interpreter, who is qualified

and regularly works in dialogic settings, but who has never worked with any of the parties

before;

duration of the sequence: over five minutes each, possibly due to the fact that the activity

performed, however typical of PTMs, requires more interactional work in mediated

encounters (as explained in 4.1).

ecology of action: the encounter takes place in a classroom, with all parties seated around a

table but with a different seating arrangement.

These features were captured via video-recordings obtained with two fixed cameras both enabling

a perspective view of the scene from two slightly different angles (Figure 3) to make sure that the

facial expression and body posture of all participants sitting around the table, as well as the way the

object was manipulated, could be analysed on a moment-by-moment basis.

Figure 3: Camera frontal and lateral views

The presence of the same interpreter in both sequences may appear idiosyncratic, particularly given

the very active role that she takes up in interaction that goes beyond merely interpreting verbal

content uttered by the teachers. Despite this, fine-grained analysis of all participants’ behaviour in

relation to the “read and sign” activity in the two extracts shows contrasting ways of displaying and

mobilising multimodal resources to manipulate the artefact and negotiate its function and meaning.

10

This seems to lead to several changes and reconfigurations of the participation framework and

distribution of tasks and responsibilities and, ultimately, it contributes to framing the interaction as

more or less collaborative.

5. Sequence 1: a case of constantly shifting participation framework

This section focuses on the analysis of sequence 1, in which the triadic format of the participation

framework undergoes a number of reconfigurations before the activity is brought to completion (i.e.

the content of the report is conveyed and the document is signed). The analysis illustrates how such

shifts in the participation format are often constructed through the manipulation of the school report

in combination with several other multimodal resources.

5.1 Introducing the artefact

Figure 4 shows the few seconds immediately preceding the start of sequence 1, i.e. the launch of

the request on the part of T1. This is a moment of silent interaction where INT is still involved in a

previous action (i.e. jotting down some notes for the mother) while both teachers are monitoring what

INT is doing. A close multimodal look, however, shows that T1 is already projected towards the

activity which is about to start (i.e. reading and signing the report), even before uttering the first turn.

Her right arm is partially stretched towards the report, which is laying midway between her and the

interpreter on the table. T1’s gesture is, however, momentarily suspended while waiting for the

interpreter to complete the preceding course of action.

Figure 4: Sequence 1, part I

The second screenshot in Figure 4 shows that, as soon as INT signals completion of the preceding

activity (which is visibly displayed by putting the pen down, setting her elbow on the table and

11

reorienting her gaze), T1 resumes her handover gesture by stretching the arm towards the report

and sliding it towards INT, thus crossing the imaginary line separating her “personal space” (Hall

1966) from the interpreter’s one. While doing so, T1 self-selects4 also verbally (ecco, line 1, Figure

4) and utters her turn while addressing INT (line 2, Figure 5), thus officially opening sequence 1. As

an immediate response to T1’s move, all participants (including M, who does not speak Italian) visibly

reorient to the artefact, by repositioning their bodies and gaze towards the artefact itself, which is

now being held and handled by INT.

Figure 5: Sequence 1, part II

In other words, the sequence starts when the artefact, which has been lying on the table since the

beginning of the encounter, is made progressively relevant through a process of “multimodal

focalization” (Klein et al. 2014: 231). The sequential placement of T1's arm gesture, particularly its

preparatory phase, shows a very close monitoring and understanding of INT’s ongoing action and is

used to anticipate and project that a change of speakership is imminent. This shows that it “is not a

mere individual isolated gesture, but a finely coordinated one, synchronised with the format of the

turn in progress and adjusted to other’s actions” (Mondada, 2007: 202), thus confirming findings from

monolingual interaction (Mondada 2007; Streeck 1995; Streeck and Hartge 1992). This is further

strengthened in Figure 5 by verbal deixis/identification (questa è la parte finale della scheda, line 2),

followed by an indirect request (se vuoi leggere, se vuole firmare, line 2) coupled with an embodied

action (stretching arm to slide the document towards INT wile gazing up). Through such moves, T1

4 Turn allocation, and the subtle mechanics which govern it, are traditionally one of the main areas of interest

within Conversation Analysis studies (see, among many others, Sacks et al. 1974; Sacks 1992). Basically, two main turn allocation modalities exist: self-selection (i.e., when participants take the turn on their own initiative) and other-selection (i.e., when turn is allocated by another speaker). Both modalities can be conveyed via different semiotic resources, such as speech, gaze, gesture, body movement, etcetera (Lerner 2003; Mondada 2007; Rossano 2012).

12

steers the overall organisation by marking the beginning of the new sequence.

The formulation of T1’s turn is noteworthy, in that it ratifies INT as the addressee of the

request, i.e. as the participant in charge of ensuring that the action is fulfilled. Evidence is provided

by the use of the second person to address INT (se vuoi leggere) and of the third person singular to

refer to M (se vuole firmare) coupled with embodied resources (lack of visual engagement with M

and handing over gesture). This is multimodally enhanced by T1’s retracting movement into her own

personal space after uttering the turn, which seems to emphasise the act of passing the baton of the

interaction to INT, who is now in charge. In other words, the physical movements of the artefact,

coupled with talk and gaze orientation, not only mark, but actively construct and materialise the

transfer of interactional control to INT and, consequently, the shift in the participation format. The

artefact therefore is not just a passive tool, but rather a structural component of the ongoing activity,

which is influenced by the artefact’s affordances.

5.2 First split in the participation format

At this point in the sequential unfolding of the interaction (Figure 6), INT quickly glances at the

artefact, then redirects her gaze to M (whose gaze is fixed on the artefact) and self-selects to produce

an autonomous turn (lines 3-7) which deviates in terms of content from T1’s source utterance, thus

representing an instance of non-rendition (Wadensjö 1998). In particular, the turn explains the

function of the document for M, which is in line with the task of interpreters as intercultural mediators

in IMI (see 2.2). After a short pause and hesitation (line 5) during which a minimal embodied uptake

is performed by M (ok in a low tone of voice combined with slight nodding, line 6), INT utters let’s

see what they wrote (line 7) while gradually shifting her gaze away from M and down to the artefact.

This move accounts for INT’s temporary disengagement and prefaces the next action, i.e.

familiarising with the content of the school report, which is fundamental to enable INT to then sight-

translate the document for M. Both teachers monitor the sequence without intervening throughout

this chunk.

13

Figure 6: Sequence 1, part III

INT’s move leads to a momentary suspension of the progressivity of the turn that is probably

perceived by T1, who has been monitoring the ongoing interaction until this moment: as soon as INT

shifts her gaze down to the artefact, T1 starts a parallel conversation with T2. To this end, as shown

in Figure 7, she reorients her head and gaze towards her colleague, performing a “body torque” 5

(Schegloff 1998).

Figure 7: First split in the participatory framework

5 A “body torque” is a particular posture, in which “the divergent orientation of different body sectors” signals

“engagement with multiple courses of action and interactional involvements, and differential ranking of those courses of action and involvements” (Schegloff 1998:536). In this case, T1's arms and torso remain oriented towards INT and M (main activity), while her head and gaze are turned towards T2 (side activity).

14

The way in which the artefact is multimodally managed by INT (through verbal and embodied

actions) is, once again, conducive to a change in the participation framework, which clearly splits

into two units, thus providing further evidence of the fact that the artefact is not accessory to the

event, but rather constitutive of it and constantly influencing the ongoing interaction. The triadic

format of the interaction is therefore, at least momentarily, suspended, with the teachers showing

disengagement and lack of monitoring of the main activity.

5.3 Multimodal attempt towards self-inclusion (teacher)

The participatory configuration changes again after approximately 9 seconds when, as shown in

Figure 8, INT slightly leans towards the report, while maintaining her gaze oriented to the artefact,

and utters some words (convivenza democratica, line 8) in an interrogative tone. This clearly signals

a comprehension problem related to the understanding of the report during her familiarisation phase.

As a result, the teachers suspend their parallel conversation but two different reactions are triggered:

T2 responds only verbally to INT’s question (si, line 10), without engaging visually or reorienting her

head. Conversely, T1 reorients her gaze towards INT without however being visually reciprocated.

While continuing to gaze at INT, T1 utters a question (c’è scritto così?, line 9) complemented with

gesture which engages the whole body (i.e. bending upper body, stretching arm towards the

document being held by INT).

Figure 8: Sequence 1, part IV

T1’s gesture and posture can be interpreted as an offer to look at the document herself to clarify its

content. These embodied moves reinforce T1’s attempt to re-integrate into the participation

15

framework, which was not successfully implemented via gaze reorientation alone. Such attempt

mirrors T1’s gesture at the beginning of the sequence: while Figures 4 and 5 showed how T1 yielded

interactional control to INT by passing over the report, in Figure 8 her gesture seems to be performed

to regain such interactional control. In both cases, the gesture is oriented towards the artefact.

Nevertheless, her attempt does not prove successful this time, given that INT continues to perform

her familiarisation phase by gazing down at the report and reading its content aloud. By doing so,

INT also retains control over the ongoing activity. As a result, T1’s offer of help is not pursued any

further, but is reflexively adjusted to INT’s (lack of) response: T1 retracts her arm and body, falling

back into her own side of the interactional space, without nevertheless engaging in any other parallel

conversation.

5.4 Multimodal attempt towards self-inclusion (mother)

Figure 9 shows that, while INT continues to read out the report, M self-selects. The self-selection is

achieved via an indexical gesture pointing to the report, combined with a question uttered in a broken

Italian (scrivere in italiano, line 12); the multimodal formatting of the action is similar to the one used

by T1 in Figure 8, line 9 (i.e. a pointing gesture coupled with talk and gaze reorientation).

Nevertheless, unlike T1’s, M’s move succeeds in grabbing INT’s attention. This can be due to two

main factors: on the one hand, the ecology of action, on the other hand, the broader goals of the

interaction.

With regard to the ecology of action, M’s position next to INT gives her direct visual and

physical access to the artefact, which is within reach; this enables her to touch the school report

while pointing at it, thus attracting INT’s attention. INT interrupts her activity to answer M’s question

and follows it up by signalling that she is ready to start the rendition of the report (lines 13-15).

Consequently, INT proceeds to re-including M not only verbally (i.e. by responding to her question)

but also multimodally (i.e. by interrupting her familiarisation process with the content of the report,

reorienting the sheet and making it accessible to M). Once again, the artefact is used as a means

through which participation undergoes some structural changes: in this case, in particular, it is used

to reintegrate one of the parties, namely M, in the participation framework.

M’s question is treated by INT as a complaint, hinting at M's scant competence in Italian, and

at her consequent exclusion from the ongoing interaction. INT’s response (i.e. reassuring M that the

content of the report will now be translated into English) is therefore in line with her role in the

interaction, i.e. coordinating and ensuring a triadic framework.

16

Figure 9: Sequence 1, part V

Between lines 17-28 (Figure 10), the actual rendition of the report starts, with INT engaging in a

sight-translation of the document which is interspersed with M’s acknowledgment tokens (okay, hm

lines 21, 23, 28) signalling understanding despite being uttered in a very low tone of voice and without

any visible embodied confirmation (e.g. nodding). Throughout this chunk, the teachers maintain a

certain degree of monitoring of the interaction by gazing towards INT without engaging in any parallel

activities.

17

Figure 10: Sequence 1, part VI

5.5 Multimodal attempt towards other-inclusion (mother)

Another key point in the interaction is what follows INT’s turn signalling that her rendition has been

completed (that’s it, figure 12 - line 29). At this moment M keeps her gaze down to the report, thus

generating a 4.28s gap in the conversation (line 30): the lack of a clear uptake from her is

dispreferred in conversation6 and needs to be repaired by other-selection. During this gap, T1 and

T2 are oriented towards INT while INT is oriented towards M.

6 The terms “preferred” and “dispreferred” are to be considered technical conversation analytic terms used

to characterise “sequential properties of turn and sequence construction, not participant desires or motivations” (Schegloff 1988:445, see also Heritage 1984). As explained by Heritage (1984:267), “actions which are characteristically performed straightforwardly and without delay are termed ‘preferred’ actions, while those which are delayed, qualified and accounted for are termed ‘dispreferred’”.

18

Figure 11: Gaze lines during 4.28s gap in sequence 1

Mutual gaze between T1 and INT is not established; consequently, the triadic format is not restored

(see Pasquandrea 2011, 2012 for an analysis of how lack of mutual alignment may lead to

maintaining dyadic sequences in interpreter-mediated encounters). Instead, INT takes the floor at

this point and makes the report entirely available to M while inviting her to read it independently (line

31). Once again, the artefact is used as a means to change the participation format and introduce a

new activity. This is complemented by an offer to help in case of lack of understanding (if you don’t

understand I can help you, line 34).

Figure 12: Sequence 1, part VII

19

It is worth noting that, based on her partial understanding of English and monitoring of the interaction,

T1 could also have self-selected to respond to M’s lack of response, considering that teachers are

supposed to steer the development of these meetings. Nevertheless, this does not happen in

sequence 1; conversely, teachers respond to INT’s autonomous turn (suggesting that M would be

able to read the report herself) with a light giggle (lines 32-33), as suggested by the proximity of the

two actions and the emphasis on yourself in INT’s turn (line 31). As a result, the strong coordinating

role played by INT, which emerges through her autonomous handling of the artefact, seems to be

tacitly endorsed by the teachers.

5.6 Further split in the participation format

A further split in the participation framework is produced at this point (Figure 13): INT and M start to

collaboratively work towards clarifying the meaning of specific sentences in the report (lines 35-50,

not reported here) with M becoming more involved by physically holding the artefact while teachers

gradually self-exclude by engaging in another parallel conversation. The gradual decrease in

monitoring on the part of the teachers, coupled with the starting of a concurrent activity linked to the

artefact, leads again to the yielding of interactional control to INT, who continues to be tacitly

legitimised as a coordinator and interactional pivot.

Figure 13: Sequence 1, part VIII

20

5.7 Closing the sequence

Another long gap in conversation occurs at the end of INT’s second attempt at rendering the content

of the school report (line 51, Figure 14), during which M does not produce a clear uptake and does

not engage multimodally with INT. Differently from the previous instance (Figure 12, line 30), though,

teachers are not monitoring what is going on at this point, as they are completely absorbed in a

concurrent activity. At lines 52-54, INT once again self-selects: her turn shows an alternation of

English and Italian, seemingly using code-switching as a resource to reinclude the teachers into the

participation framework while bringing the sequence to a close, without attempting to pursue a clear

uptake on the part of M.

Figure 14: Sequence 1, part IX

Similarly to part VII (Figure 12), while uttering the turn, INT does not visually engage with the

teachers, who have in turn reoriented towards her, and answer the question through embodied

deixis/identification, i.e. verbal explanation of where to sign (quassù, Figure 15 - line 55) combined

with a gesture pointing to the exact part in the report. Despite the triadic format of the interaction

being restored, and the purpose of the sequence being accomplished (i.e. signing the report, which

eventually happens at line 57), no checking of M’s understanding of the content of the report is

performed. While M is signing the report, T1 self-selects to round off the encounter and explicitly

21

bring it to a close (line 58). Once again, the artefact helps to re-establish contact among the parties,

thus contributing to producing another shift in the participatory framework and, in this case, to

bringing the meeting to a close.

Figure 15: Sequence 1, part X

Analysis of Sequence 1 has shown that the combination and sequential organisation of specific

verbal and embodied resources on a moment-by-moment basis to handle the artefact is conducive

to participation shifts and contributes to materialising the transfer of interactional control. In this

specific case, interactional control is shifted from the teachers, who are supposedly in charge of the

development of the event, to the interpreter. Section 6 will examine an instance of completely

22

different multimodal handling of the same activity, highlighting in particular its implications in terms

of participation and distribution of tasks and responsibilities.

6. Sequence 2: a case of stable participation framework

Sequence 2 exhibits shows how, within the framework of the same activity, the multimodal handling

of the same artefact leads to a much more stable participation framework, i.e. not subject to as many

shifts and reconfigurations as in sequence 1. For reasons of space, the sequence will be presented

in a contrastive manner, mostly to point out similarities and differences in terms of multimodal

practices and impact on participation dynamics.

Similarly to sequence 1, the artefact is introduced at the beginning of the sequence by T1,

who makes it relevant through verbal deixis/identification (allora guarda questa è la scheda…, Figure

16 - line 1) and embodied action, i.e. by sliding it towards the centre of the table and reorienting it so

that everyone (INT in particular) has access to its content. This is a recurrent practice in the data: in

both sequences, the artefact is introduced by one of the teachers, and multimodal resources are

mobilised to make it accessible to all parties while explaining its function.

Figure 16: Sequence 2, part I

Also similarly to sequence 1, talk is addressed to INT, as evidenced by the use of pronouns (poi lo

leggi…, Figure 17 - line 8). Nevertheless, differently from sequence 1, T1 maintains her control over

the artefact: the explanation of the structure and features of the document is entirely taken up by T1,

23

and complemented with a pointing gesture to each relevant part (cf. screenshots on Figures 17 and

18a/b), which are conducive towards channelling the participants’ attention towards the artefact.

Figure 17: Sequence 2, part II

T1’s active role relieves INT from the task of producing an autonomous explanation of the document,

without nevertheless preventing her from fulfilling her role as intercultural mediator and as

coordinator. Regarding the former, at lines 9-14 (Figure 18a), INT produces an autonomous

expansion to provide M with background information necessary to make sense of T1’s turns (in

particular, INT explains to M how the Italian marking system works). This is performed without INT

taking the lead over the interaction (which is retained by T1). Nevertheless, the artefact remains the

main point of collective attention throughout INT’s rendition too, which maintains not only the verbal

component of T1’s original utterances, but is also accompanied by gestures pointing to the relevant

parts in the report, thus ‘replaying’ the source turn in all its multimodal facets. Turn-taking is also

handled multimodally, with change of speakership being strongly projected by INT’s redirection of

gaze towards T1 while uttering the acknowledgment token ok (line 21), thus indicating that the latter

can resume the turn.

24

Figure 18a: Sequence 2, part III

Figure 18b: Sequence 2, part III

The remainder of the sequence is characterised by T1 alternating the reading of excerpts from the

report with her own comments; this verbal alternation is complemented by gaze shifts from the report

(when reading) to M and INT (when expanding), thus creating a sense of inclusion of all parties

throughout the sequence. INT’s renditions are seamlessly inserted at relevant transition spaces (e.g.

Figure 20, line 28; Figure 21, line 43), without disrupting the flow of the conversation and ultimately

providing for a more stable participation framework.

25

This is shown by the sequence of screenshots below, which exemplifies the recurrent multimodal

handling of the sequence by T1.

Figure 19: Screenshots showing the multimodal handling of sequence 2

The way interaction is handled in sequence 2 presents a marked difference when compared to

sequence 1: instead of leaving INT with the task of familiarising herself with the content of the report,

in sequence 2 the actual content is read out by the teacher herself and interspersed with her own

expansions to clarify the mere written content (introduced, for instance, by cioè, line 24). One

downside of this practice is that it often results in long chunks which may be difficult for INT to

manage, as shown by the tendency to provide a summarised rendition, where the information is

often reordered and/or explicitated with respect to the source turn uttered by T1 (e.g. Figure 19, lines

28-33). This way of managing turns on the part of T1 also causes an increase in the multitasking

activity of INT, who has to sight-translate chunks of text while keeping track of the additional

information produced by T1.

26

Figure 20: Sequence 2, part IV

Figures 21 and 23 represent the final part of the sequence, where the same pattern described in this

section can be found, i.e. fairly long chunk produced by T1 (alternating reading aloud from the report

with personal remarks) followed by INT’s rendition. The overlap at lines 41-42 between T1 and T2

shows an instance of other-completion of the turn, indicating that T2, although mostly silent, is

actually monitoring what T1 is saying, thus remaining engaged in the interaction.

27

Figure 21: Sequence 2, part V

Another point of difference with respect to sequence 1 is that the teachers monitor the interaction

during INT’s rendition as well; there are no instances of disengagement on their part, and the

participatory framework maintains a triadic configuration throughout the sequence. For instance, line

50 (Figure 21) shows a short gap in the interaction, during which INT is looking at the report, possibly

retrieving what to say next; throughout this long rendition, the teachers do not engage in any parallel

activity or conversation, but keep (silently) monitoring the interaction, as per Figure 22 below.

Figure 22: Sequence 2, multimodal behaviour at line 50

28

Figure 23 shows what follows this short gap (line 50): INT resumes her rendition of T1’s turn, while

splitting her gaze between M and the report, thus providing multimodal evidence of her multitasking

activity (sight translating the relevant chunk of the report while integrating it with T1’s additional

information). One instance of autonomous, coordinating intervention on INT’s part is found in lines

62-63, where INT autonomously asks M whether she understood everything or had any questions.

This is followed by a brief remark on the part of M, who thanks the teachers for what they have done

for her child (not reported here), and by the final signature of the report, which signals the

accomplishment of the main goal of the sequence.

Figure 23: Sequence 2, part VI

What seems to emerge from the two extracts analysed are two completely different ways of handling

the interaction, with different repercussions on the distribution of tasks and responsibilities: in

sequence 1, INT seems almost tacitly ‘legitimised’ to take the lead and handle what is ultimately a

complex action while teachers detach themselves from this process. While this is not negotiated a

priori, it seems to be the result of a more complex, yet fine-grained, multimodal negotiation, where

artefact manipulation plays a key role. What emerges from sequence 2 is, instead, what we could

call a form of “shared coordination” of the interaction, where the interpreter intervenes without

nevertheless taking the lead. Far from being an evaluative judgement, the point here is also to show

how participatory frameworks are highly sensitive to multimodal, embodied behaviour displayed by

all participants on a moment-by-moment basis throughout the encounter, which therefore need to

be accounted for in any fine-grained analysis of interaction

7. Discussion and concluding remarks

To recap, analysis has shown that participation is to be regarded as situated, co-constructed via the

joint efforts of the participants in the interpreter-mediated encounter. Moreover, it is influenced not

only by their verbal resources, but rather by a complex interplay of different semiotic resources,

which also include the manipulation of physical objects present in the environment. This paper deals

29

in particular with the management of a specific object, i.e. the school report, which becomes the

focus of attention for the participants due to its central role in the activity being performed. Two

comparable sequences, in which two similar constellations of participants perform the same activity

(i.e., reading and signing the report) have been presented with a view to showing how different ways

of managing the object may be more or less conducive towards the inclusion/exclusion of some of

the primary parties, and generate more (sequence 1) or fewer (sequence 2) shifts in the participatory

framework.

7.1. A recurring practice: pointing at the report

Some recurring practices emerge from the analysis of the two sequences. For instance, in both

cases participants frequently recur to pointing as a way of dealing with the teacher’s report. This

resonates with the findings from other studies on the local management of inscribed artefacts in

interaction (see, for instance, Goodwin 2000b; Mondada 2012a), which show that pointing at a

document is an orderly organised activity, through which interactants perform a number of social

actions, such as introducing new topics, focusing participants' attention, claiming epistemic

responsibility, prefacing other actions, and more generally mobilising the artefact as a meaningful

semiotic resource.

In our data, pointing at the report not only serves the purpose of helping to explain and clarify

specific points of it, but also exerts other functions. In particular, during the extensive analysis of

Sequence 1, pointing has been shown to contribute towards:

making the object relevant for the ongoing interaction and creating a joint focus of attention

for the participants (5.1);

projecting the next action, thus making the report progressively relevant to it (5.1., 5.3.);

projecting next speakers and allowing them to self-select (5.3., 5.4.) (cf. Mondada 2007 on

pointing as a way of projecting next speakers);

triggering and facilitating progression through different phases of the encounter (5.7.).

In Sequence 2, beside the functions highlighted above, pointing is also used by the teacher in order

to retain control over the interaction via a constant focus on the report, which is shared and

collectively managed. By so doing, T1 generates a more stable participation format, without the

fractures and schisms observed in Sequence 1.

The pointing gesture is employed by the participants in accordance with the different local

configuration of participation, thus displaying their constant monitoring of the different, concurrent

courses of actions. At the same time, analysis shows how this semiotic resource is implemented

simultaneously with others (posture, gaze, speech, proxemics) in a multimodal ensemble that needs

to be analysed in all its complexity to be able to fully understand how participation dynamics unfold.

30

In particular, it has been noticed that monitoring is performed by the interactants not only through

speech, but also (and mostly) via other available semiotic resources (particularly gaze). As a

consequence, participation can also be displayed when a participant is silent and seemingly

disengaged from the ongoing interaction.

7.2. Ecology of objects and participation

Analysis has highlighted a very different development of sequence 1 and sequence 2, particularly

with regard to what participants keep or yield control of during the interaction. The differences that

have emerged can be related to a different ecology of objects, which involves, among other things,

the participants' positioning, their ability to directly interact with the report, and more broadly the

objects' affordances.

The multimodal resources mobilised during the communicative event under investigation are

related to and constrained by the peculiar ecology of action of the event, which is shaped by the

spatial arrangement of the participants and their limited workspace (seated around a table), the

artefact they manipulate (school report) and the specific action carried out (reading and signing the

report). A very clear example is M’s gesture of touching the report, thus attracting INT's attention, as

opposed to the similar (and failed) attempt on the part of T1 (see 6.4). We argued that the two

different outcomes can be (at least partly) related to M having the report physically accessible and

being located in a more proximal position with respect to INT than T1.

During the interaction, the report is far from being a “static” and “neutral” object: rather, it is

actively used by the participants as a means for triggering changes in the participation format. In this

respect, analysis of sequence 1 shows that each participation shift is marked by the use of the report

as a semiotic resource. In terms of participation formats, one of the main differences between the

two sequences analysed lies in the fact that, in sequence 1, the report is mostly managed by INT,

whereas in sequence 2 it is mostly handled by the teachers: in both cases, physical access to the

report embodies the participants' possibility of managing the unfolding of the interaction. This

provides evidence of the fact that coordination and participation are negotiated by all the parties-at-

talk on a moment-by-moment basis.

7.3. Exploring alternative patterns of behaviour

A holistic approach to the analysis of interaction, going beyond the verbal level, also helps identify

the impact that different sequential displays and combinations of multimodal resources of all parties

may (or may not) have in terms of participation. For instance, during the first gap in conversation

(sequence 1, line 31), INT self-selects at a time when M’s response is missing but T1 is monitoring

the interaction. At that sequential point, INT could have tried to pursue T1’s contribution via other-

selection through gaze (Rossano 2012), without having recourse to any verbal resource; if taken up

by T1, this move could have given the latter the opportunity to steer the unfolding of the interaction,

31

as is normally expected in this kind of meeting. Furthermore, evidence has also been provided of

how a different management of the artefact can lead to different participation formats (dyadic vs

triadic as visually represented in Figure 24) and, particularly, of its impact on the retaining or yielding

of interactional control as well as on the distribution of tasks and responsibilities.

Figure 24: instances of dyadic (left) and triadic (right) participation formats

An empirical and micro-analytical look at different ways of handling the interaction also provides for

a more nuanced view of how interaction is co-constructed, which is often the result of tacit agreement

between the parties, particularly in inherently collaborative settings such as the one considered here.

Identifying and comparing micro-discourse multimodal routines can contribute to raising awareness

of specific phenomena as well as of the complexity of interpreter-mediated interaction. Sequence 1

is a particularly striking example of underestimation of the complexity of the ongoing action;

sequence 2 also shows lack of awareness of key principles when working with an interpreter, such

as of the importance of chunking long turns. More studies of this nature across different institutional

settings could help identify empirical strategies for interactional management which could enhance

interactional competence of all parties involved in a triadic exchange, with implications for interpreter

education and for the efficiency of institutional communication.

7.4. Directions for future research

This paper’s contribution to the goals of the Special Issue can be placed at the intersection between

the embodied-disembodied and the collaborative-conflictual continuums, as participation is subject

to shifts towards more or less collaborative configurations and affected by a range of multimodal and

multilingual resources mobilised by participants.

By contributing to our understanding of how participation is co-constructed and finely-tuned,

multimodal analysis can also give us insights into how and, most importantly, to what extent

interpreters can intervene in the ongoing encounter without substituting any of the primary parties.

Increasing such awareness can support the moment-by-moment decision-making process, which is

an integral part of an interpreter’s work as a coordinator.

More broadly, the case study presented in this paper addresses the call for “expanding

32

territories” (Bezemer 2015) to advance the field of multimodal studies through the exploration of an

‘a-typical’ communicative event such as an interpreter-mediated interaction. This paper also

strengthens the call for a multimodal turn in interpreting studies, with research accounting

systematically not only for interpreter-mediated interaction as a situated social activity, but also

integrating the very ecology of such activity, which includes the spatial arrangement of the

participants, their embodied actions and their use of various material resources (such as objects,

documents and technologies), with a view to gaining further insights into the interactional dynamics

of this complex practice.

TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS

(1.5) pause (in seconds and tenths of

seconds)

(.)

micro-pause (shorter than 0.5

seconds)

? ascending intonation - abrupt interruption of talk

((text)) inaudible (text) dubious text

°text° quiet volume °°text°° very quiet volume

text emphasis : lengthened sound

[ start of overlapping talk @ laughter

- - - - - continuation of embodied action >> start of embodied action

>text< faster pace of speech

Acknowledgments Our special thanks go to Vassilis Korkas for his invaluable help and support throughout the process.

References Anderson, Laurie, 2012. Code-switching and coordination in interpreter-mediated interaction. In: Baraldi, C., Gavioli, L. (Eds.), Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 115-148. doi:10.1075/btl.102.06and Angelelli, Claudia V., 2004. Revisiting the interpreter's role: a study of conference, court, and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico and United States. Benjamins, Amsterdam Apfelbaum, Birgit, 1998. Instruktionsdiskurse mit Dmolmetscher-beteiligung. Aspekte der Turnkonstruktion un Turnzuweisung. In: Brock, A., Hartung, M. (Eds.), Neuere Entwicklungen in der Gesprächforschung. Narr, Tübingen, pp. 11-36. Asmuß, Birte, Svennevig, Jan, 2009. Meeting talk: an introduction. Journal of Business Communication 46 (1), 3-22. doi:10.1177/0021943608326761

33

Badger, Lynne May, 2007. The construction of students’ identities in teacher-parent interviews. PhD thesis, School of Education, University of Queensland. Baraldi, Claudio, 2012. Interpreting as dialogic mediation: The relevance of expansions. In: Baraldi, C., Gavioli, L. (Eds), Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Benjamins. Amsterdam, pp. 297-326. doi:10.1075/btl.102.13bar Baraldi, Claudio, Gavioli, Laura, 2012. Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Benjamins, Amsterdam. Bot, Hanneke, 2005. Dialogue Interpreting in Mental Health. Rodopi, Amsterdam/New York. Bezemer, Jeff, 2015. Workplace learning and multimodality. Paper presented at the MODE Conference – Multimodality: Methodological Explorations. University College London, 15 January 2015. Blommaert, Jan, 2013. Semiotic and spatial scope: Towards a materialistic semiotics. In: Pachler, N., Boech, M. (Eds.), Multimodality and Social Semiosis. Communication, Meaning-making, and Learning in the Work of Gunther Kress. Springer, New York, pp. 29-38. Christenson, Sandra L., Sheridan, Susan M. 2001. Schools and Families: Creating essential connections for learning. The Guilford Press, New York. Cuttance, Peter, Stokes, Shirley A., 2000. Reporting on student and school achievement, research report prepared for the Commonwealth of Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. Davidson, Brad, 2000. The interpreter as institutional gatekeeper: The sociolinguistic role of interpreters in Spanish-English medical discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (3), 379-405. doi:10.1111/1467-9481.00121 Davidson, Brad, 2002. A model for the construction of conversational common ground in interpreterd discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (9) 1273-1300. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00025-5 Davitti, Elena, 2012. Dialogue Intepreting As Intercultural Mediation: Integrating Talk and Gaze in the Analysis of Mediated Parent-Teacher meetings. PhD thesis, School of Arts, Languages & Cultures, University of Manchester. Davitti, Elena, 2013. Dialogue interpreting as intercultural mediation: Interpreters’ use of upgrading moves in parent–teacher meetings. Interpreting 15 (2), 168-199. doi: 10.1075/intp.15.2.02dav Davitti, Elena, 2015. Interpreter-mediated parent-teacher talk. In: Alatriste, L. (Ed.), Linking Discourse Studies to Professional Practice. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 176-200. Davitti, Elena, Pasquandrea, Sergio, 2013. Interpreters in intercultural communication: How to modulate the impact of their verbal and non-verbal practices?. In: Best Practice Catalogue, http://bridge-it.communicationproject.eu/Publications.htm. Last accessed: 19 September, 2015. Davitti, Elena, Pasquandrea, Sergio, 2014. Enhancing research-led interpreter education: An exploratory study in Applied Conversation Analysis. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8 (3), 374-398. doi: 10.1080/1750399X.2014.972650

34

Deppermann, Arnulf, Schmitt, Reinhold, Mondada, Lorenza, 2010. Agenda and emergence: Contingent and planned activities in a meeting. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (6), 1700-1718. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.006. Deppermann, Arnulf (Ed.), 2013. Conversation Analytic Studies of Multimodal Interaction. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 46 (1). Enfield, Nicholas James, 2005. The body as a cognitive artifact in kinship representations: Hand gesture diagrams by speakers of Lao. Current Anthropology 46 (1), 1–26. Frers, Lars, 2009. Space, materiality and the contingency of action: A sequential analysis of the patient's file in doctor-patient interactions. Discourse Studies 11 (3), 285-303. doi:10.1177/1461445609102445 Gavioli, Laura, 2009. La mediazione linguistico-culturale: una prospettiva interazionista. Guerra, Perugia. Gavioli, Laura, 2012. Minimal responses in interpreter-mediated medical talk. In: Baraldi, C., Gavioli, L. (Eds.), Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 201-228. doi: 10.1075/btl.102.09gav Gibson, James J., 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Goffman, Erving, 1981. Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Goodwin, Charles, 1980. Restarts, Pauses, and the Achievement of Mutual Gaze at turn-Beginning. Sociological Enquiry, 20 (3-4), 272-302. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x Goodwin, Charles, 1986. Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica 62 (1-2), 29-49. doi:10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.29 Goodwin, Charles, 2000a. Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10), 1489-1522. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X Goodwin, Charles, 2000b. Practices of color classification. Mind, Culture, and Activity 7 (1-2), 62-82. Goodwin. Charles, 2003. The Body in Action. In: Coupland, J., Gwyn, R. (Eds.), Discourse, the Body and Identity, Palgrave/Macmillan, New York, pp. 19-42. Goodwin, Charles, 2007. Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society 18 (1), 53–73. doi:10.1177/0957926507069457 Goodwin, Charles, 2013. The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46 (1), 8-23. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003 Goodwin, Marjorie H., Goodwin, Charles, 1986. Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica 62, 51–75. doi:10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.29 Goodwin, Charles, Goodwin, Marjorie H., 2004. Participation. In: Duranti, A. (Ed.). A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 222-244. Hall, Edward T., 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday, New York.

35

Hazel, Spencer, Mortensen, Kristian, Rasmussen, Gitte (Eds.), 2014a. A Body of Resources – CA Studies of Social Conduct. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 65. Hazel, Spencer, Mortensen, Kristian, Rasmussen, Gitte, 2014b. Introduction: A body of resources – CA studies of social conduct. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.10.007 Hazel, Spencer, Mortensen, Kristian, 2014. Embodying the institution – Object manipulation in developing interaction in study counselling meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 10-29. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.016. Heath, Christian, 1982. The display of recipiency: An instance of sequential relationship between speech and body movement. Semiotica 42 (2/4), 147–161. Heath, Christian, 1986. Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge . Hindmarsh, Jon, Heath, Christian, 2000. Sharing the tools of the trade. The interactional constitution of workplace objects. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 29 (5), 523-562. doi:10.1177/089124100129023990 Hindmarsh, Jon, Heath, Christian, 2003. Transcending the object in embodied interaction. In: Coupland, J., Gwyn, R. (Eds.) Discourse, the body, and identity. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 43–69. Hodge, Robert, Kress, Gunther, 1988. Social Semiotics. Polity, Cambridge. Jacobsen, Bente, 2004. Pragmatic meaning in court interpreting: An empirical study of additions in consecutively interpreted question-answer dialogues. In: Brunette, L.G., Bastin, G., Hemlin, I., Clarke, H. (Eds.) The Critical Link 3. Interpreters in the community. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 223-238. Kendon, Adam, 1967. Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica Psychologica 26, 22-63. Kendon, Adam, 1972. Review of the book Kinesics and context by Ray Birdwhistell. American Journal of Psychology 85, 441-455 Kendon, Adam, 1990. Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kendon, Adam, 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kidwell, Mardi, Zimmerman, Don H., 2007. Joint attention as action. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (3), 592-611. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.012 Klein, Gabriella B., Dossou, Koffi M., Pasquandrea, Sergio (2014). Embodying epistemicity. Negotiating (un)certainty through semiotic objects. In: Zuczkowski, A., Bongelli, R., Riccioni I., Canestrari, C. (Eds.), Communicating Certainty and Uncertainty in Medical, Supportive and Scientific Contexts. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 223-246. doi:10.1075/ds.25.11kle Kress, Gunther, Van Leeuwen, Theo, 1996. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. Routledge, London. Kress, Gunther, Van Leeuwen, Theo, 2001. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. Arnold, London.

36

Krystallidou, Demi, 2014. Gaze and body orientation as an apparatus for patient inclusion into/exclusion from a patient-centred framework of communication. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8 (3), 399-417. doi:10.1080/1750399X.2014.972033. Jones, Aled, 2009. Creating history: Documents and patient participation in nurse-patient interviews. Sociology of Health & Illness 31(6): 907–923. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01190.x Lang, Rainer, 1978. Behavioural aspects of liaison interpreters in Papua New Guinea: Some preliminary observations. In: Gerver, D., Sinaiko, W. H. (Eds.) Language, Interpretation and Communication. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 231 -244. Latour, Bruno, 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Latour, Bruno, 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lerner, Gene, 2003. Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society 32 (2), 177–201. Mason, Ian, 2001. Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting. St. Jerome, Manchester. Mason, Ian, 2012. Gaze, positioning and identity in interpreter-mediated dialogues. In: Baraldi, C., Gavioli, L. (Eds.), Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 177-200. doi:10.1075/btl.102.08mas Maynard, Douglas, W., 1991. Interaction and asymmetry in clinical discourse. The American Journal of Sociology 97 (2), 448-495. doi:10.1086/229785 Metzger, Melanie,1999. Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructiong the Myth of Neutrality. Gallaudet University Press, Washington, DC. Melanie Metzger, Fleetwood, Earl, Collins, Steven D., 2004. Discourse genre and linguistic mode: Interpreter Influences in Visual and Tactile Interpreted Interaction. Sign Language Studies 4(2), 118-137. doi: 10.1353/sls.2004.0004 Mondada, Lorenza, 2007. Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies 9 (2), 195–226. doi: 10.1177/1461445607075346 Mondada, Lorenza, 2009. Emergent focused interactions in public space: a systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (10), 1977-1997. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019. Mondada, Lorenza, 2012a. The dynamics of embodied participation and language choice in multilingual meetings. Language in Society 41 (2), 213–235. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S004740451200005X. Mondada, Lorenza, 2012b. Video analysis and the temporality of inscriptions within social interaction: the case of architects at work. Qualitative Research 12 (3), 304-333. doi:10.1177/1468794112438149. Mondada, Lorenza, 2014. The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 65: 137-156. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004 Nevile, Maurice, Haddington, Pentti, Heinemann, Trine (Eds.), 2014a. Interacting with objects. Benjamins, Amsterdam.

37

Nevile, Maurice, Haddington, Pentti, Heinemann, Trine, Rauniomaa, Mirka, 2014b. On the interactional ecology of objects. In Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T. (Eds.), 2014a. Interacting with objects. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 3-26. doi:10.1075/z.186.01int Norris, Sigrid, 2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A MethOdological Framework. Routledge, London. Norris, Sigrid, Jones, Rodney H., 2005. Discourse in Action: Introducing Mediated Discourse Analysis. Routledge, London. Pillet-Shore, Danielle, 2001. “Doing Pretty Well”: How teachers manage the interactional environment of unfavorable student evaluation in parent-teacher conferences, MA thesis, Sociology, University of California. Pasquandrea, Sergio, 2011. Managing multiple actions through multimodality: Doctors’ involvement in interpreter-mediated interactions. Language in Society 40, 455–481. doi:10.1017/S0047404511000479 Pasquandrea, Sergio, 2012. Co-constructing dyadic sequences in healthcare interpreting: a multimodal account. New Voices in Translation Studies 8, 132 157. Roy, Cynthia B., 2000. Interpreting As A Discourse Process. Oxford University Press, New York. Rossano, Federico, 2012. Gaze in conversation. In: Sidnell, J., Stivers, T. (Eds.). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.Malden, MA, pp. 308-329. Sakai, Shinichiro, Korenaga, Ron, Mizukawa, Yoshifumi, Igarashi, Motoko, 2014. Envisioning the plan in interaction: Configuring pipes during a plumbers’ meeting. In: Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T., Rauniomaa, M. (Eds.). Interacting with objects. Language, materiality and social activity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 339-356. doi:10.1075/z.186.15sak. Sacks, Harvey, 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel, Jefferson, Gail, 1974. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language 50 (4), 696-735. Schegloff, Emanuel, 1987. Analyzing single episodes of interaction: an exercise in Conversation Analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly 50, 101-14. Schegloff, Emanuel, 1988. On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjecture. Social Problems 35(4), 442-457. Schegloff, Emanuel, 1992a. In another context. In: Duranti, A., Goodwin, C. (Eds). Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 193-227 Schegloff, Emanuel 1992b. “On Talk and its institutional occasions”. In Drew, P., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 101-136. Schegloff, Emanuel, 1998. Body torque. Social Research 65(3), 535–596. Scollon, Ron, 2001. Mediated Discourse. The Nexus of Practice. Routledge, London. Scollon, Ron, Scollon, Suzie Wong, 2004. Discourse in Place. Language in the Material World. Routledge, London.

38

Stivers, Tanya, Sidnell, Jack, 2005. Multimodal interaction, Semiotica 156 (1-4), 1-20. Straniero Sergio, Francesco, 2012. “You are not too funny”. Challenging the role of the interpreter on Italian talkshows. In: Baraldi, C., Gavioli, L. (Eds.), Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp.71-98. doi: 10.1075/btl.102.04str Streeck, Jürgen, 1995. On Projection. In: Goody, E. (Ed.). Social intelligence and interaction. Expression and implication of the social bias in human intelligence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 87–110 Streeck, Jürgen, Hartge, Ulrike, 1992. Previews: gestures at the transition place. In: Auer, Peter, di Luzio, Aldo (Eds.). The Contextualization of Language. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 135--158. Streeck, Jürgen, Goodwin, Charles, LeBaron, Curtis (Eds.), 2011. Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Svinhufvud, Kimmo, Vehviänen, Sanna, 2013. Papers, documents, and the opening of academic supervision. Text & Talk 33(1). 139-166. doi:10.1515/text-2013-0007. Ticca, Anna Claudia, 2010. Configurazioni diadiche nel dialogo mediato medico-paziente. In: Carreras i Goicochea, M., Pérez Vázquez, M. E. (Eds.), La mediación lingüística y cultural y su didáctica: Un nuevo reto para la Universidad. Bononia, Bologna, pp. 102-119. Turner, G., Pollitt, A., Merrison, J., Davies, B., Quinn, G., 2009. The pragmatics of dialogue interpreting between sign and speech. Paper presented at the 11th IPrA - International Pragmatics Conference, Melbourne, July 12–17, 2009. Wadensjö, Cecilia, 1998. Interpreting As Interaction. Routledge, London. Wadensjö, Cecilia, 2001. Interpreting in crisis: The interpreter's position in therapeutic encounters. In: Ian Mason (Ed.), Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting. St. Jerome, Manchester, pp. 71-85. Walker, Barbara, 1998. Meetings without Communication. A study of parents’ evenings in secondary schools. British Educational Research Journal 24(2). 163-178. Weilenmann, Alexandra, Lymer, Gustav, 2014. Incidental and essential objects in interaction: Paper documents in journalistic work. In: Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T., Rauniomaa, M. (Eds.). Interacting with objects. Language, materiality and social activity. Benjamins, Amsterdam, 319-338. doi:10.1075/z.186.14wei.