Medical interpreters function as active co-constructors of meaning rather than neutral conduits

Narrative synthesis #

Conversation-analytic and discourse-analytic studies of interpreter-mediated encounters consistently show that, although interpreters are trained and nominally described as neutral "conduits" producing word-for-word renderings, in practice they actively manage understanding — clarifying, brokering culture, and co-constructing meaning with provider and patient. This reframes interpreted care as a collaborative communication process whose quality depends on the active facilitation work, not only literal accuracy. The contradicting EVDs are negative cases from the same Estrada corpus: when the conduit ideal or an interpreter's unstated assumption dominates, trouble spots go unrepaired — evidence that the conduit framing itself can degrade communication. All evidence here is qualitative and mechanism-level (small triadic samples), so the pattern is well-triangulated but not quantified.

"Interpreted health care interactions can be collaborative, co-constructive communications through which the participants come to a mutual understanding." (Estrada, 2015, p. 286)