Negotiated exchanges in the Spanish–English bilingual courtroom

References

• Angelleli, C. (2003). The visible co-participant: Interpreter’s role in doctor/patient encounters. In M. Metzger, S. Collins, V. Dively, & R. Shaw (Eds.), From topic boundaries to omission: New research in interpretation (pp. 3–26). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119–153. doi: 10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru
   Google Scholar
• Arundale, R. B. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 2, 193–216.
   Google Scholar
• Berk-Seligson, S. (2002). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berk-Seligson, S. (2011). Negotiation and communicative accommodation in bilingual police interrogations. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 207, 29–58.
   Google Scholar
• Blakemore, D. (1994). Echo questions: A pragmatic account. Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics. Revue internationale De Linguistique Generale, 94(4), 197–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, G. (1998). Memory in the real world. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• De jongh, E. (2012). From the classroom to the courtroom: A guide to interpreting in the U.S. Justice system. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analysing talk at work. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dueñas Gonzalez, R., Vásquez, V., & Mikkelson, H. (2012). Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy and practice. Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context and consequence. In H. Giles, N. Coupland, & J. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hale, S. B. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness, and the interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Haworth, K. (2006). The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse. Discourse and Society, 17(6), 739–759. doi: 10.1177/0957926506068430
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linell, P., & Luckmann, T. (1991). Asymmetries in dialogue: Some conceptual preliminaries. In I. Marková & K. Foppa (Eds.), Asymmetries in dialogue (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
   Google Scholar
• Luchjenbroers, J. (1997). ‘In your own words … ’: Questions and answers in a supreme court trial. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 477–503. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00033-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, M. (2008). Courtroom interpreting. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, M. (2015). The role of interpreters in adjudicating blame: An examination of clitics and active-passive voice in a Spanish-English bilingual criminal trial. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 10(2), 187–202. doi: 10.1075/tis.10.2.02mas
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noh, E. (1998). Echo questions: Metarepresentation and pragmatic enrichment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21(6), 603–628. doi: 10.1023/A:1005361528891
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noh, E. (2001). Metarepresentation: A relevance-theory approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does It reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?. Language Learning, 44, 493–527. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pöchhacker, F. (2012). Interpreting participation: Conceptual analysis and illustration of the interpreter’s role in interaction. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting (pp. 45–69). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, C. (2000). Interpreting as a discourse process. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 101–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2012). The handbook of conversation analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Street, R. L., & Giles, H. (1982). Speech accommodation theory: A social cognitive approach to language and speech behavior. In M. E. Roloff & C. R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 193–226). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 57–76). NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thornborrow, J., & Coates, J. (Eds.). (2005). The sociolinguistics of narrative. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar