Storytelling and Conversation: Discourse in Deaf Communities

Index

determined on the basis of thirty-one interpreter-initiated utterances within the data. Of these utterances, ten functions have been identified: four categorized as relayings (source attribution, requests for clarification , explanations, and repetitions), and six as management of the interaction (introductions, responses to questions, explicit frame bracketing, procedural instructions, prompts, and interference). The existence of these utterances and the variety of footings that they represent suggest that interpreters cannot help but be involved in interactions for which they are present. However, the function of many of the footings appears to be related to the goal of providing access to the interaction without participating in it. In future research, with a larger corpus of data, it would be beneficial to attempt to identify consistent patterns within which various types of footing shifts occur, and within which interactional outcomes appear to be effectively realized. Through examination of the production format within an interpreted encounter, and the different types of footing established by the interpreter with each interlocutor, it has become evident that the interpreter participated , in some capacity, in the interpreted interaction. The interpreter generated utterances for a variety of purposes including relaying information and managing the interactional structure. Because a given footing represents a participant-based frame of an event, the interpreter's footing types provide some insight into the interpreter's negotiation of the interpreter 's paradox. The interpreter appeared to frame her relationship with the Deaf and hearing interlocutors in two different ways. Evidence for this consists of the single utterance directed only to the hearing interlocutor, as compared with the numerous (twenty-six) utterances directed only to the Deaf interlocutor. Moreover, the interpreter directed very different types of utterances to each interlocutor. That is, the interpreter provided explanations , prompts, and source attributions to the Deaf interlocutor while providing introductions and procedural instructions to the hearing interlocutor . Examination of the functions of footing with each interlocutor suggests that the interpreter frames the interaction in two ways: interpreter -Deaf participant and Deaf participant-hearing participant. The interpreter attempted to avoid interpreter-hearing participant interactions so strongly that she actually avoided responding to an interpreter-directed question from the doctor. Whether or not this type of framing occurs in real interpreted encounters, and what effects such an asymmetrical perspective has on the interaction, is an area for future research. 214 : MELANIE METZGER determined on the basis of thirty-one interpreter-initiated utterances within the data. Of these utterances, ten functions have been identified: four categorized as relayings (source attribution, requests for clarification , explanations, and repetitions), and six as management of the interaction (introductions, responses to questions, explicit frame bracketing, procedural instructions, prompts, and interference). The existence of these utterances and the variety of footings that they represent suggest that interpreters cannot help but be involved in interactions for which they are present. However, the function of many of the footings appears to be related to the goal of providing access to the interaction without participating in it. In future research, with a larger corpus of data, it would be beneficial to attempt to identify consistent patterns within which various types of footing shifts occur, and within which interactional outcomes appear to be effectively realized. Through examination of the production format within an interpreted encounter, and the different types of footing established by the interpreter with each interlocutor, it has become evident that the interpreter participated , in some capacity, in the interpreted interaction. The interpreter generated utterances for a variety of purposes including relaying information and managing the interactional structure. Because a given footing represents a participant-based frame of an event, the interpreter's footing types provide some insight into the interpreter's negotiation of the interpreter 's paradox. The interpreter appeared to frame her relationship with the Deaf and hearing interlocutors in two different ways. Evidence for this consists of the single utterance directed only to the hearing interlocutor, as compared with the numerous (twenty-six) utterances directed only to the Deaf interlocutor. Moreover, the interpreter directed very different types of utterances to each interlocutor. That is, the interpreter provided explanations , prompts, and source attributions to the Deaf interlocutor while providing introductions and procedural instructions to the hearing interlocutor . Examination of the functions of footing with each interlocutor suggests that the interpreter frames the interaction in two ways: interpreter -Deaf participant and Deaf participant-hearing participant. The interpreter attempted to avoid interpreter-hearing participant interactions so strongly that she actually avoided responding to an interpreter-directed question from the doctor...