6.1 Introduction
In Chapter Two I outlined the case for the SLI as an engaged and active participant in interpreted discourse. Certain aspects of the SLI’s interactive role were highlighted, with attention being drawn to the ways in which the SLI manages turn-taking and overlapping talk. I suggested that whilst theoretically our understanding of the interpreter’s role has moved on from the invisible language conduit model towards that of a more collaborative and participatory discourse co-coordinator, the former still persists on the practical local level, thus influencing the behaviour of all primary participants. SLIs’ responses in the preceding chapter emphasise the complexity of their role in this domain and evidence that the concept of the interpreter as a non- involved and invisible translating machine is a common perception amongst primary participants.
Chapter Two also highlighted the problems caused by multi-party talk in workplace meetings, exploring how participants create and maintain a collaborative floor. In addition, the use of small talk and humour in workplace settings was examined. I proposed that access to these elements of workplace discourse is essential in enabling the deaf employee to fully integrate into the employment domain and to bond with their hearing peers. Chapter Five has demonstrated the challenges posed by multi- party talk and the importance of ensuring that the deaf employee is informed of, and engaged in, aspects of workplace culture such as small talk, banter and humorous exchanges.
In this chapter I will analyse sequences of transcribed interpreter-mediated workplace discourse, with contextualised transcripts of video-recorded interaction in workplace meetings used to demonstrate how the flow of communication between deaf and hearing participants is affected by the presence and actions of the SLI. In addition to the excerpts of interpreted workplace interaction, the views of the main participants
are explored. The aim therefore is to develop a ‘thick’ (Sarangi & Roberts 1999: 1-2) description of the SLI’s role in workplace settings, as referred to in Chapter One. The primary focus of the selected data samples is meeting talk, an aspect of workplace interaction that can build on, exploit, construct and maintain collegiality (Holmes & Stubbe 2003). In the following sections, selected extracts are used to demonstrate how SLIs can alter, change and disrupt the ways in which deaf and hearing employees interact, thus influencing the tone, direction and outcome of the communicative event. In each example I have provided information regarding the setting and participants in order to contextualise the discourse events, thus enabling a deeper understanding of the status of participants and the type of discourse event under examination.
The chapter begins with Section 6.2 The SLI’s Role in Small Talk and Humorous Exchanges. The samples have been chosen to illustrate the use of small talk and humorous exchanges within a CofP. I examine two examples of small talk occurring prior to the formal business of a meeting, as well as five episodes of workplace humour occurring during interpreted team meetings. In Section 6.3 Managing the Collaborative Floor I use a number of examples to highlight the difficulty that multi- party talk poses to the SLI, particularly in relation to source attribution. Finally, in Section 6.4 Interpreted Workplace Interaction- Participant Interviews, the views of the main participants, gathered during video playback interviews, are outlined. The main points from the video data are then summarised in Section 6.5 before moving on to the discussion in Chapter Seven.
6.2 The SLI’s Role in Small Talk and Humorous Exchanges
In this section I offer a sociolinguistic analysis of sequences of small talk and humour, including teasing, occurring during workplace meetings. The importance of small talk in the workplace has been outlined in Chapter Two (see section 2.2), clearly demonstrating that these ‘unplanned, informal interactions among coworkers’ (Emerton et al. 1996: 47) can be vital to ensuring that employees are integrated into the workplace. However, informal, casual conversations and asides occurring between colleagues can be particularly difficult for the deaf employee to access
(Kendall 1999; Bristoll 2008). One of the most challenging forms of small talk for SLIs is possibly that of jokes and humorous banter (Bristoll 2008). In intercultural communication humorous exchanges can require careful handling (Rogerson-Revell 2007), calling for the SLI to utilise their awareness and understanding of the differing norms in both deaf and hearing culture. The examples outlined in this section therefore illustrate some of the complexities in interpreting the more informal and casual discourse events embedded within workplace meeting discourse.
6.2.1 Pretty sandals
The following example is taken from the beginning of a team meeting at Radford Educational Services. The formal business of meeting has not yet started and team members are waiting for the chairperson (Mary) to bring in refreshments. There are eight participants in total, three of whom are deaf. The SLI is Sonya, a registered qualified interpreter with considerable interpreting experience, who has previously interpreted in Radford Educational Services meetings. Only one of the team members is male. All of the team members know each other relatively well, having worked together on a regular basis and the discourse can be characterised as what Clyne (1994) describes as collaborative, with a light-hearted atmosphere. The exchange begins just as Mary returns with tea and coffee.
Excerpt 1: Pretty Sandals15
Time Frame: 00: 00- 49: 23 (seconds)
1---
Jane: I like your sandals Janice they’re pretty
Janice: they’re last years
2---
Jane: nice
Janice: I did buy some new ones for this year
Sonya:
[SA, MP] [MP, head back, facial expression]
LIKE THEIR SHOES ME OH LAST YEAR BOUGHT NEW THIS YEAR
3--- Janice: they were bloomin expensive
Sonya: EXPENSIVE
4--- Mary:
[everybody looks at Janice’s sandals] like
Sonya: LIKE
5--- Jane: I bet she’s bloomin expensive
Sonya: HOW MUCH MEANS CLARIFY
6---
Jane how much?
Sonya: HOW MUCH
7--- Janice: fifty
Sonya: SAID FIFTY POUNDS
8--- Jack: no:o:o:o
Jane: that’s not bad
Sonya: NOT BAD
9--- Sally:
[directed to interpreter? not voiced] FIFTY?
Jack: fifty what? P?
Sonya: FIFTY P?
10--- Jane: pounds!
Sonya: FIFTY POUNDS
Janice:
[puts her head on the table]
Jack: you’re joking
11--- Sonya:
[multi-channel sign] ‘V’ JOKING
Janice: no:o
12--- Jane: gaw, that’s alright
Jack: you’re nuts Janice
Sonya: MAD
13--- Jane: get real
Janice: [sits back up, nodding and looking at her sandals]
Jack:
[looking at Janice’s sandals] fifty quid for a pair of—
Sonya: [multi-channel sign]
FIFTY POUNDS SANDALS ‘V’
14--- Janice:
[quietly]
no (x) these cost ten so over the two years
Sonya: TEN POUNDS MEANS TEN POUNDS
15--- Sonya: PLUS TEN POUNDS TWO YEARS
Janice: that’s fine
Jane:
[unintelligible background comment] that’s fine God I think you should have a third pair
16--- Sonya:
[indicates Jane as speaker]
FINE THIRD HAVE BARGAIN
Janice: they’re either really trendy or they’re old ladies sandals
17--- Sonya:
[indicates Janice as speaker]
MEANS EITHER NEW FASHIONABLE
Janice:
[laughs quietly] I’m not sure which but I’ve decided they must be really trendy hehe
Sonya: OLD LADY SANDALS NOT SURE
Mary: okay everybody
The entire discussion regarding Janice’s sandals and their worth takes less than 50 seconds, and this excerpt serves to demonstrate just how complex and multifunctional a brief episode of small talk can be. The exchange functions as small talk on a number of levels. It clearly comes into the category of small talk or non-transactional discourse (Koester 2006) in that it is a discussion entirely unrelated to either the meeting in which the participants are engaged or the nature of their work. Occurring at the beginning of a workplace meeting, it enables participants to ease into the main business of the day, thus creating a boundary between social interaction and the more formal purpose of the meeting. The episode also fills the time whilst participants are waiting for the meeting to start and for Mary to distribute the refreshments, maintaining the relationships and engagement between participants (Holmes 2000a). The favourable comment on the appearance of a colleague by Jane in Stave 1 ‘I like your sandals Janice, they’re pretty’, is a prime example of a speech act which takes notice of and attends to Janice’s ‘interests, wants, needs, goods’ (Brown & Levinson 1987: 102). This is in line with Holmes’ (2000c) assertion that small talk is a core example of positively polite talk. Paying compliments is one of the most obvious ways of expressing positive politeness, and functions as ‘social lubricant’, creating and maintaining relationships and rapport, thus making bonds of solidarity between the speaker and addressee (Holmes 1998a: 101). Jane’s compliment can be viewed as an expression of unity with Janice as she is engaging in a positive politeness strategy. As we saw in Chapter Two, small talk can be an essential element in building team relationships and fostering group life (Holmes & Schnurr 2005). The extent of the repartee between participants in this example enables them to show affiliation and solidarity, with the female members of the team supporting Janice’s expenditure on footwear. The exchange potentially contributes to a positive working relationship in that it allows the team members to comfortably tease each other. The episode also fits in with the characteristics constituting the shared repertoire as described by Wenger in relation to a CofP. The exchange is a shared discourse which reflects a certain world perspective, and contains inside jokes and knowing humour (Wenger 1998). The