On the role of eye gaze in the coordination of interpreter-mediated interactions: an eye-tracking study

Traditionally, the interpreting process was considered as the production of ‘texts’ and the interpreter as a ‘linguistic conduit’ who renders messages from one language into the other (Wadensjö 1998). More recently, detailed examinations of actual interpreter-mediated encounters have contributed to a view of the interpreting process as ‘interaction’ and the interpreter as an active participant within the exchange (Davidson 2002). Studies have shown that participants in interpreter-mediated encounters collaboratively manage their talk through both verbal and visual resources (such as eye gaze) (Pasquandrea 2011, Mason 2012). Especially gaze direction is starting to attract increasing interest as an important resource in signaling conversational attention and in negotiating participation (Davitti & Pasquandrea 2017, Mason 2012). Yet, it is unclear how gaze and other modalities interact and contribute to the management of interpreter-mediated encounters (Mason 2012).

Drawing on the insights from interpreting studies, Conversation Analysis and joint action theory (Clark 1996),  I focus on two key phenomena that are manifest in any type of interaction: (1) turn-taking, through which the participants manage speaking turns (Sacks et al. 1974) and (2)  backchannel responses (e.g. mm hm, yeah, head nods), through which a  recipient displays to the interpreter how s/he understands the ongoing talk (Gardner 2001). The analyses draw on a dataset of interpreter-mediated interactions (Dutch-Russian) that were recorded with mobile eye-tracking glasses (Brône & Oben 2015). This approach allows for a highly detailed analysis of interlocutors’ gaze behavior in relation to speech and other modalities in ongoing interaction.

As a starting point for the analyses of those two phenomena, I first mapped all participants’ gaze distributions in the recorded sessions. The results present some striking differences in the distribution of gaze orientation of the participants that are linked to the differences in their position and professional status. Second part of this dissertation focused on the role of gaze in the management of turn-taking. It demonstrates how the interpreter contributes to a specific activity (‘chunking’ of a multi-unit turn) through her gaze. The results show how gaze direction creates certain expectations with respect to the development or progression of the ongoing talk that are not expressed on a verbal level. These findings corroborate the view of the interpreter as a co-participant in the conversation, who not only co-manages the interaction on a verbal level, but also visually, through gaze orientation. Third part of this dissertation focused on the role of gaze in the production of backchannel responses (such as mm hm and head nods) in interpreter-mediated interaction. Results reveal differences in the interpreters’ and primary participants’ production of backchannel responses, and show that backchannel responses are for the most part realized visually (through e.g. head nods). Moreover, the results indicate a strong correlation between the occurrence of mutual gaze and the interpreter’s production of nonverbal backchannel responses. Finally, the analysis shows how primary participants, who have no access to each other’s language, can (and indeed do) achieve reciprocity of understanding through gaze and backchannel responses. Gaze is more than an additional layer in the analysis, but is closely intertwined with the production of backchannel responses in face-to-face interpreted interaction.