Gaze and body orientation as an apparatus for patient inclusion into/exclusion from a patient-centred framework of communication

Abstract

Dialogue interpreter training has traditionally focused on the way in which the interpreter manages, and maintains, verbal interaction between the primary participants while it seems to overlook the importance of specific non-verbal aspects that are inherent in mediated interaction. This article presents an alternative method for the training of medical interpreters by drawing on research on non-verbal communication in interpreter-mediated consultations with a view to drawing attention to the interpreter's impact on the patient's inclusion in a patient-centred framework during mediated consultations. More specifically, it provides evidence of non-verbal interaction that might open up new trajectories in the interpreters' training by foregrounding the impact of the interpreter's and others' direction of gaze and body orientation on the accomplishment and maintenance -or lack thereof -of a patient-centred framework of communication. The present article reports on findings that emerged from the analysis of selected excerpts of authentic interpreter-mediated consultations within the framework of a training experiment. Coded instances of interaction are analysed by relying on Goffman's 'ratification process', Goodwin's 'participation and engagement frameworks' and Norris' 'modal density foreground-background continuum'. Hospital ethical approval and participants' written informed consent were obtained prior to the collection of data.

Gaze and eye movement in dialogue interpreting: An eye-tracking study

“…Dialogue interpreters use gaze in many different ways, for instance to monitor turn-taking or to indicate understanding or misunderstanding (Mason, 2012). In dialogue interpreting, mobile eye-trackers have been used to study how gaze affects feedback, so-called backchanneling (Vranjes, Brône & Feyaerts, 2018), while video recordings have been used to study how gaze patterns affect inclusion in the interpreted conversation (Krystallidou, 2014) and how turn-taking affects participation (Bot, 2005; Davitti, 2013; Mason, 2012). None of these studies investigate gaze patterns in relation to cognitive load.…”

Informal interpreting in general practice: Are interpreters’ roles related to perceived control, trust, and satisfaction?

“…For instance, posture, gaze, gesturing and touch are all well-known aspects of adequate doctor-patient communication in general (e.g. [37]), and of interpreters' roles specifically [38]. As there is a dearth of research on non-verbal aspects of interpreter-mediated communication, more research attention is urgently needed addressing this topic in the context of interpreters' roles.…”

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

“…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 (2011Pasquandrea ( , 2012 shed light on the role of gaze and body posture in negotiating inclusion and exclusion, while Ticca (2010) 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.…”