The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toward Understanding Practices of Medical Interpreting: Interpreters' Involvement in History Taking
Abstract
This article examines the role of medical interpreters in structuring interaction between physicians and their patients. Through a detailed analysis of interpreters' involvement in the history-taking part of medical consultations, it is demonstrated that their participation in this activity is organized by their understanding of its goals rather than by the task of translation alone. Specifically, the different ways in which interpreters participate in history taking display their orientation to obtaining from the patient and conveying to the doctor medically relevant information about the patient's symptoms - and doing so as effectively as possible. Medical interpreters are found to share the physicians' normative orientation to obtaining objectively formulated information about relevant biomedical aspects of patients' conditions. Thus, far from being passive participants in the interaction, interpreters will often pursue issues they believe to be diagnostically relevant, just as they may choose to reject patients' information offerings if they contain subjective accounts of their socio-psychological concerns.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974) · Language · doi:10.2307/412243 · Cited by 11,350
Journal of the National Medical Association
(2010) · Journal of the National Medical Association · doi:10.1016/s0027-9684(15)30622-2 · Cited by 5,325
SCHEGLOFF, E. A., & SACKS, H. (1973) · Semiotica · doi:10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 · Cited by 4,589
(1985) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511665868 · Cited by 4,133
Goodwin, C. (1994) · American Anthropologist · doi:10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100 · Cited by 3,117
Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes
Pomerantz, A. (1985) · Structures of Social Action · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511665868.008 · Cited by 2,905
Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings.
Hopper, R., Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1994) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2076431 · Cited by 1,872
Wadensjö, C. (2014) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315842318 · Cited by 1,593
The discourse of medicine : dialectics of medical interviews
Mishler, E. G. (1984) · Cited by 1,557
Analyzing talk at work: an introduction
Drew, P. (1992) · Cited by 1,131
Cited by
Information Seeking and Avoiding in Health Contexts
Brashers, D. E. (2002) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1093/hcr/28.2.258 · Cited by 641
Exploring lexical gaps in Australian Sign Language for the purposes of health communication
Major, G., Napier, J., Ferrara, L., & Johnston, T. (2013) · Communication & Medicine · doi:10.1558/cam.v9i1.37 · Cited by 279
Metadata
- Authors
- BOLDEN, G. B.
- Venue
- Discourse Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-11
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 387-419
- ISSN
- 1461-4456 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7080
- OpenAlex
- W2009901747
- Cited by
- 585
- References
- 46
- FWCI
- 2.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Toward Understanding Practices of Medical Interpreting: Interpreters' Involvement in History Taking. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1461445600002004001
- The paper
- BOLDEN, G. B. (2000). Toward Understanding Practices of Medical Interpreting: Interpreters' Involvement in History Taking. Discourse Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445600002004001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.