Exploring team interpreting in multi-party interaction
Kuronen, Saija (2019)
Avaa tiedosto
Lataukset:
Kuronen, Saija
2019
All rights reserved. This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2019112021652
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2019112021652
Tiivistelmä
This study explores team interpreting in multidirectional multi-party interaction, applying Conversation Analytic methods drawing from data recorded in two workplace meetings that were interpreted between Finnish and Finnish Sign Language by two different teams of two interpreters. The study focuses on interpreters’ in situ coordination of their work, and it reflects the implications of interpreters’ actions for the participants’ interaction and for the interpreters’ work. Additionally, the study explores interpreters’ actions from the lens of multiactivity.
Interpreters’ work-division, i.e. the way(s) interpreters divide up the discourse, and alternate interpreting turns, directs their work in situ. In the data studied for this paper, interpreters worked according to participants’ turn-taking (with/without having a dedicated speaker’s interpreter for the presenter). This work-division enabled interpreters to modify their working practices depending on the number of participants interacting at the same time. Thus, interpreters could render dialogic interaction without problems if both of them were rendering interpreters and render a turn while ensuring ‘accuracy’ and smooth turn-taking during the single-participant talk if one of them was a rendering and the other a non-rendering interpreter. In this study, “problematically” overlapping participants’ talk that required overlap-resolutions as described by (Roy, 1992/2015) occurred when more than two participants overlapped in their talk. In such situations, that were scant in the data, only one of the interpreters was responsible for resolving it.
The findings of the study indicate that the interpreters’ work-division studied in this paper enables rendering most of the participants’ interaction unproblematically. It does not, however, come without trade-offs. If interpreters focus on ensuring accuracy, they may be unable to render all participants’ turns, and if they focus on rendering all participants’ turns, they compromise in the ability to support each other, both of which may hinder the access to information for participants relying on renditions. Thus, in interpreted multidirectional multi-party interaction, it is crucial that interpreters and participants work with each other in ensuring equal access to information for everybody and discuss what aspects, each of which limit the interaction in one way or another, should be foregrounded in team interpreting. Additionally, the findings of the study indicate that interpreters may be engaged in multiactivity during the problematically overlapping talk, in situ turn management, and support sequences.
Interpreters’ work-division, i.e. the way(s) interpreters divide up the discourse, and alternate interpreting turns, directs their work in situ. In the data studied for this paper, interpreters worked according to participants’ turn-taking (with/without having a dedicated speaker’s interpreter for the presenter). This work-division enabled interpreters to modify their working practices depending on the number of participants interacting at the same time. Thus, interpreters could render dialogic interaction without problems if both of them were rendering interpreters and render a turn while ensuring ‘accuracy’ and smooth turn-taking during the single-participant talk if one of them was a rendering and the other a non-rendering interpreter. In this study, “problematically” overlapping participants’ talk that required overlap-resolutions as described by (Roy, 1992/2015) occurred when more than two participants overlapped in their talk. In such situations, that were scant in the data, only one of the interpreters was responsible for resolving it.
The findings of the study indicate that the interpreters’ work-division studied in this paper enables rendering most of the participants’ interaction unproblematically. It does not, however, come without trade-offs. If interpreters focus on ensuring accuracy, they may be unable to render all participants’ turns, and if they focus on rendering all participants’ turns, they compromise in the ability to support each other, both of which may hinder the access to information for participants relying on renditions. Thus, in interpreted multidirectional multi-party interaction, it is crucial that interpreters and participants work with each other in ensuring equal access to information for everybody and discuss what aspects, each of which limit the interaction in one way or another, should be foregrounded in team interpreting. Additionally, the findings of the study indicate that interpreters may be engaged in multiactivity during the problematically overlapping talk, in situ turn management, and support sequences.