Video remote interpreting is commonly seen as an efficient and future-oriented way of providing interpreting. Although the use of technology to provide interpreting services is increasing, and video remote interpreting is commonly appreciated as a better option to telephone interpreting, there is still much left to learn about interaction through video technology. Projects have reported that while the interpreter often experiences problems concerning turn-taking, the other participants do not experience the same type of problems. In this thesis I attempt to explore the interpreter’s turn-taking through a comparative analysis of authentic video recordings of video remote interpreting and on-site interpreting in medical meetings. To learn more about the interpreter’s turn-taking in video remote and on-site interpreting, I have used conversation analysis as a methodological and theoretical framework to explore authentic interaction. I thus assume an understanding of interpreting as interaction. The material in the thesis illustrates how interpreting is a communicative activity which is carried out through the collaboration and orientation of the participants present. The participants display a range of resources available for organizing the activity. The thesis shows that although the technology affected the interaction, it perhaps did not do so in the ways which were expected. In these extracts, the interpreter’s turn-taking seemed to be more sensitive to the sequential environment in which a turn was claimed by the interpreter, than to the media through which the interaction was carried out. However, the way the participants interacted with the technical representation of an interpreter and through technology, differed from how the participants interacted while all in the same room. This affected the interaction. The activity of ‘interpreting’ in itself seemed to affect the interaction. Not only in the traditional notion that the activity of ‘interpreting’ involves the interpreter taking turns at talk, but furthermore, in how the participants accommodated their other ongoing interactional activities to the activity of ‘interpreting’.
Page 53: In line 22 I have erroneously written Cage, while the correct reference is Clark.
Page 64: In line 19 the word "not" has been left out.
Page 75: In line 21 the term "A-mouth", which I have credited Depperman (2013) for, occurs. The correct term is "[a]-face" and should be credited Mortensen, 2009. The term reoccurs on page 84 and 96. The correct reference is: Mortensen, K. (2009) Establishing Recipiency in Pre-Beginning Position in the Second Language Classroom. Discourse Processes 46 (5), 491-515.