Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Applied Linguistics Review

Editor-in-Chief: Wei, Li


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.098
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.871

Online
ISSN
1868-6311
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Nine Types of Turn-taking in Interpreter-mediated GP Consultations

Shuangyu Li
Published Online: 2015-02-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0004

Abstract

This research investigated the systematicity of turn-taking organisation in naturally occurring GP consultations where either a professional or an ad hoc interpreter was involved to mediate language discordant doctor-patient talk-in-interaction. I found that participants systematically organise their turns to speak, following one of the nine types of turn-taking organisation identified in this study disregarding the patient’s native language and culture, the type of interpreter and their interpreting proficiency. The effect turn-taking organisation has on communication varies in different contexts. Teaching doctors about the cause and effect relation between turn-taking and communication outcomes may help them improve their clinical communication.

Keywords: interpreting; GP consultations; turn-taking; medical communication; UK

References

  • Bhatia, V. K., J. Flowerdew & R. H. Jones. 2008. Advances in discourse studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Bischoff, A. & L. Loutan. 2008. Other words other meanings-a guide to health care interpreting in international settings (M. Gubitz & C. White, Trans). Geneva: Service de medecine internationale et humanitaire.Google Scholar

  • Bolden, G. B. 2000. Toward understanding practices of medical interpreting: Interpreters’ involvement in history taking. Discourse Studies 2(4). 387–419.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • CILT. 2009. Community Languages [online]. http://www.cilt.org.uk/commlangs/index.htm (accessed 27 April 2009).

  • Davidson, B. 2002. A model for the construction of conversational common ground in interpreted discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 34(9). 1273–1300.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Drew, P., J. Chatwin & S. Collins. 2001. Conversation analysis: A method for research into interactions between patients and health-care professionals. Health Expectations 4(1). 58–70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Drew, P. & J. Heritage. 1992. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Flores, G. 2005. The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: A systematic review. Medical Care Research and Review 62(3). 255–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Flores, G., M. B. Laws, S. J. Mayo, B. Zuckerman, M. Abreu, L. Medina & E. J. Hardt. 2003. Errors in medical interpretation and their potential clinical consequences in pediatric encounters. Pediatrics 111(1). 6–14.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gavioli, L. & C. Baraldi. 2011. Interpreter-medicated interaction in healthcare and legal settings, talk organisation, context and the achievement of intercultural communication. Interpreting 13(2). 205–233.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hale, S. B. 2007. Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, J. & T. Stivers. 1999. Online commentary in acute medical visit: A method of shaping patient expectations. Social Science & Medicine 49. 1501–1517.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jefferson, G. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 300 pp. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Kai, J. 2003. Ethnicity, health and primary care. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Karliner, L. S., E. A. Jacobs, A. H. Chen & S. Mutha. 2007. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Services Research 42(2). 727–754. CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Li, S. 2013. Co-construction of interpreted conversation in medical consultations. Applied Linguistics Review 4(1). 127–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Li, S., D. Pearson & S. Escott. 2010. Language barriers within primary care consultations: An increasing challenge needing new solutions. Education for Primary Care 21. 385–391.Google Scholar

  • Liddicoat, A. 2011. An introduction to conversation analysis, 2nd ed. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Mason, I. 2000. Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar

  • Mason, I. 2006. On mutual accessibility of contextual assumptions in dialogue interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics 38(3). 359–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Merlini, R. & R. Favaron. 2007. Examining the ‘voice of interpreting’ in speech pathology. In F. Pochhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.), Healthcare interpreting: Discourse and interaction, viii, 155 pp. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Moerman, M. 1988. Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

  • Roberts, C. & B. Moss. 2004. Doing the Lambeth talk. London: King’s College London.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, H. & G. Jefferson. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, E. A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement In D. Tannen (ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk, 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, E. A., H. Sacks & G. Jefferson. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language 53. 361–382.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Seale, C., C. Rivas & M. Kelly. 2013. The challenge of communication in interpreted consultations in diabetes care: A mixed methods study. British Journal of General Practice. CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Sheikh, A., R. Gatrad & S. Dhami. 2008. Consultations for people from minority groups. BMJ 337. a273.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wadensjo, C. 1998. Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar

About the article

Shuangyu Li

Shuangyu Li is lecturer of clinical communication at King’s College London, UK. He has a background in medical education, applied linguistics and conference interpreting. He is interested in using linguistic methodology to investigate communication in clinical settings and linking linguistic analysis with medical education. He is particularly interested in doctor-patient consultations across linguistic and cultural barriers.


Published Online: 2015-02-27

Published in Print: 2015-03-01


Citation Information: Applied Linguistics Review, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 73–96, ISSN (Online) 1868-6311, ISSN (Print) 1868-6303, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0004.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Jelena Vranjes, Geert Brône, and Kurt Feyaerts
Language and Dialogue, 2018, Volume 8, Number 3, Page 439

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in