In my PhD dissertation (Hjulstad 2017), I observed and argued that sign language teachers continually monitor if their students are following along, and how they actively orchestrate students’ attention during classroom interactions. In this presentation, I extend this argument to signed language interactions more broadly. I contend that the realization and accomplishment of turn-taking and sequence organization in signed language interactions differ from spoken language interactions, perceiving it as a sign-exchange system – as opposed to a spoken exchange system.

Through analysis of examples of signed interaction extracts, I will illustrate how participants orient to each other's behavior also during the "whiles of interaction" (Erickson, 2011), focusing specifically on how participants monitor interlocutors and treat as relevant what they do “while” contingently producing utterances. Although we understand that utterances are recipient-designed, there has been limited attention to how speakers and signers monitor recipients during interaction. In signed language interactions, the orientation to visual cues is critical; for instance, if an interlocutor looks away, continuing the conversation becomes pointless, unlike in spoken interactions where the speaker may proceed even if the listener diverts their gaze.

This behavior highlights the unique nature of turn-taking in signed interactions, where visual attention is prerequisite. Conversely, auditory cues, such as sound, are often irrelevant in signed interactions, as they are not treated as meaningful within the interaction. This presentation argues that the turn-taking systems of spoken and signed interactions are realized differently, which might account for why attempts at combining them are difficult.

Conversational data in Norwegian Sign Language (NTS) recorded for corpus linguistics and conversation analysis (CA) are predominantly situated in naturalistic settings (i.e., neutral background, two camera angles,). While important for documenting the language, what is not yet understood is how deaf signers negotiate interaction in the workplace. Several recent CA works investigate interaction in manual work situations (Lilja et al., 2025; Lilja & Jokipohja, 2024; Urbanik, 2024). This study presents findings from a dataset of deaf NTS signing construction workers interacting as they work. Specifically, analysis focuses on gaze, summoning, mutual orientation and peripheral view. Through this analysis, it is shown that signers deploy these practices in slightly different ways than has been previously shown in non-work place interactions.

Lilja, N., Jan, S., Anna-Kaisa, J., Arja, P.-M., Laura, E., Søren, E., Jenny, G., Hanna-Ilona, H., Joona, P., Nathalie, S., Pawel, U., & and Wagner, J. (2025). Manual Interventions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 58(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2025.2450991

Lilja, N., & Jokipohja, A.-K. (2024). Gestural depictions in requests for objects. Language & Communication, 99, 159-173. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2024.10.002

Urbanik, P. (2024). Sharing procedural knowledge in manual work environments: Material-bodily actions as explanatory resources in construction-site interactions. Language & Communication, 99, 52-74. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2024.08.004

This paper explores the inherently interactional nature of linguistic choices in signed-to-spoken interpreting, arguing that renditions are designed to achieve common ground with addressees. Through the analysis of naturalistic interpreted conversations, it demonstrates how interpreters must navigate not only lexical choices but also the semiotic configuration of utterances. The examples are presented as video sequences, annotated using a version of Mondada’s (2018) conventions for transcribing multimodal conduct.

Establishing intersubjectivity in interpreted interactions is identified as a core challenge for interpreters (Davidson, 2002). Viewing languages as multimodal, semiotically complex systems reshapes our understanding of interpreting —requiring renditions to semiotically align with the target language. Constructed dialogue, a semiotically complex discourse device in which speakers depict discourse (Metzger, 1995; Tannen, 1986) serves as a focal point for this discussion. While constructed dialogue is a semiotic discourse strategy available in both signed and spoken languages, it may be more prevalent in Norwegian Sign Language (NTS) than in Norwegian. Interpreters are thus faced with a choice: to preserve the semiotic structure of the source utterance or to adapt it.

I argue that such decisions reflect recipient design, and I illustrate this with two examples: one in which the semiotics of the original utterance are largely maintained, and another in which they are significantly altered. The focus on multimodal conduct further reveals that determining whether an utterance constitutes constructing dialogue is not always clear-cut.


References

Metzger, M. (1995). Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities (pp. 255–271). Gallaudet University Press.
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
Tannen, D. (1986). Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and Indirect Speech. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.311

Interaction is a jointly achieved as participants make contributions to the conversation as it unfolds. In some cases, contributions may take the form of repetition of a fellow interactants turn (i.e., other-repetition). These are often derived from the proceeding turn (Bolden, 2010) and can be consdiered a type of turn-sharing practice (Pfänder & Couper-Kuhlen, 2019). Turn-sharing practices have been studied in spoken language interaction and have been shown serve a variety of functions including initiation of repair (Walker & Benjamin, 2017), displays of affective stance (Svennevig, 2004) as well as to project confirmations (Schegloff, 1996). While other-repetitions have been observed in signed language conversations (Baker, 1977) researchers have not yet investigated their interactive functions. This study explores how members of Norwegian Sign Language ecology deploy nonmanual other-repetitions during interaction in the (co)-design of these turn sharing practices. Specifically, this analysis focuses on how signers leverage their multilingualism through the repetition of Norwegian mouthings as confirmations.

The current analysis focuses on a random sample of 10 conversations (eight dyadic, one triadic, and one multiparty) from the Norwegian Sign Language Corpus (Ferrara in prep). The findings indicate signers that through these partial or full other-repetitions, signers overtly display their understanding as well as their affective stance toward the ongoing talk. By investigating signed language interaction, this study highlights that practices such as other-repetitions may be core to human sociality—regardless of language modality.


References
Baker, C. (1977). Regulators and turn-taking in American Sign Language discourse. In: L.A. Friedman (Ed.), On the other hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language. (pg.215-241). New York: Academic Press
Bolden, G. B. (2010). ‘Articulating the unsaid’ via and-prefaced formulations of others’ talk. Discourse Studies 12 (1), 5-32.
Ferrara, Lindsay. (in preparation). The Norwegian Sign Language Corpus. Common Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure Norway (CLARINO), Bergen Repository.
Pfänder, S. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2019). Turn-sharing revisited: An exploration of simultaneous speech in interactions between couples. Journal of Pragmatics. 147. 22-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.010
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology 102 (1), 161-216.
Svennevig, J. (2004). Other-repetition as display of hearing, understanding and emotional stance. Discourse Studies 6(4). 489-516.
Walker, T. & Benjamin, T. (2017). Phonetic and sequential differences of other-repetitions in repair initiation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(4). 330-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1340717