SuttaCentral
It doesn’t. It means “conception”, which is, of course, an interdependent process, but that’s not what the word means.
The suttas talk about interdependent processes all the time, but they don’t have a term that explicitly means “interdependence”, so the Abhidhamma coined the term aññamaññapaccaya.
Well, that’s a relief!
Nama consists of Feeling Perception Intention Contact and Attention and Rupa consists of the four great elements or Maha Bhutha and the form derived from the 4 maha bhutha. To cite an example take Gold. Gold is made up of nothing but the four maha bhutha but the ordinary person takes it to mean Gold in the sense of something valuable and so on. So the moment he sees gold he starts to feel perceive intend and attend to it unwisely because of the Nama which is Gold.
The Madhupindika Sutta MN 18 says this.
‘Friends, due to eye and to a visible object eye consciousness arises. The coincidence of the three is contact. With contact as condition there is feeling. What a man feels that he perceives. What he perceives, he thinks about. What he thinks about, he diversifies (papañceti). Owing to his having diversified, the evaluation of diversifying perceptions besets a man with respect to past, future and present visible objects’ and so on."
This is an idea I come across quite often. Does it have any justifications in the text of the Suttas themselves? I am not asking this because I think this idea is not true, on the contrary, I suspect I may be a little bit ignorant on the matter 
It’s in SN 12.2
That is interesting, because it makes the Dependent Origination circular in several more ways. If namarupa includes vedana, which it explicitly does in the suttas, then why does vedana appear as a separate nidana a bit earlier? If sankharas are volitional formations and thus, in effect, cetanas, why are they included once again in the namarupa if they precede it?
By the way, just note how absurd this translation is:
the bodily volitional formation, the verbal volitional formation, the mental volitional formation
They are equated in MN 44 with breathing, thinking and reflection and - ta-da! - perception and feeling (one more circularity here!).
I know…it’s a mess 
But I think the absurdness comes more from the limitations of the unenlightened conceptual mind than from the translation.
I mean the translation of sankhara as ‘volitional formation’ seems absurd, not the Pali term of the circularity of the DO formula. I think this circularity is very interesting in the light of Bucknell’s article that seniya linked earlier. It is definitely worth researching whether it is a result of oral transmission or a feature of the original (or later) DO doctrine.
Dear Bhante Sujato
“When it is conceived there is name and form”
This leads to a few questions. The embryo itself is the form because it is made up of the four great elements. Can the nama be there without vinnana? Or is the arrival of form ie: embryo simultaneous with nama and vinnana?
Is there support in the canon to say that the form ie: embryo (rupa) can exist without vinnana?.
I guess I’ve gotten too used to ‘volitional formations’ and jumped straight to the part that was of interest to ME 
But to make things even more confusing, here’s a few paragraphs from MN 43:
So basically I think it’s a waste of time trying to draw sequencial diagrams of DO to see how things work…it just shows what has to “exist” in order for something else to “exist”.
These are separate groups, taught in distinct contexts. The confusion between them was one of the key flaws in Nyanavira’s work which, as Ven Brahmali pointed out, was thoroughly debunked by Ven Bodhi.
The process of rebirth is described in many ways, and all of them include a conscious component. The physical and mental always go together.
When speaking of what constitutes this process, “consciousness” (viññāṇa) is the most common and characteristic term. It occurs in several specialized forms that explicitly denote its role in rebirth, for example, the saṁvattanikaviññāṇa or the viññāṇasota.
However, rebirth is spoken of in countless contexts and ways in the suttas, and in some cases the aggregates, name and form, and so on, are used instead of or as well as viññāṇa.
There is no support for the idea that rūpa (in the sense meant here, i.e. the embryo) can exist without nāma. They always go together (leaving aside exotic contexts like the formless states, etc.)
This is interesting, Bhante, can you give me a link of the article on Ven Bodhi’s debunking?
Thank you, I just have found it on Google drive too: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-hsdYkUAIMJYjFiNjM4ODYtNmY0NC00NjVhLTkyZDEtZjA2OTUyNTg3MDQ3/view?pref=2&pli=1 
Thanks for a nice explaination, bhante. It still doesn resolve all the circularities in the DO formula:
I think, this circularity may a be sign of the composite nature of SN 12.2, but I wonder if there is any other explaination.
I think the 12-step chain catechism is almost certainly a composite item, but in the case of vedana & namarupa, this part of the series seems to be always together in this way. But it’s not a problem; we can say the same thing in very simple language:
The mind cannot go past the interaction of (1) an awareness of the contact between an (2) internal sense sphere & some (3) external input, because the mind (citta) is conditioned by the six senses’ operation, and cannot move beyond these conditions.
(So, vinnana-namarupa → salayatana)
The operation of each of these sense spheres is the same as saying ‘sense contact’ or simply ‘contact’. With contact one can observe three, four, or five aggregates, but always feeling, and right there it becomes possible to see whether or not craving is an actual or potential response.
(So, salayatana → phassa → vedana -->? tanha)
Steps 11-12-1-2 describe the common Wanderer understanding of the cosmos, where getting out of samsara was seen as the goal, with special knowledge of one sort or another allowing this to occur.
The Buddha’s innovation was the emphasis on clinging as the cause, instead of the other causes posited by other wanderers, but the 4-fold medical framework was not his invention. So, with craving as the diagnosis, I think of SN 12.23.
I think putting the vinnana-namarupa vortex at the base of all of these series is the correct move; a preceding ‘avijja → sankhara’ is in a space from which the mind turns back. So, with that space set aside & the epistemic vortex in view, SN 12.23 offers a very practical sort of paticcasamuppada, one observable here and now, without past life recall or kamma-clairvoyance.
I listened to a talk today that claims that PS in its earliest form was a “one life” explanation by the Buddha of dependent arising that excluded birth, aging and death in its original composition. Thus, the claim is that the Buddha was teaching only the dependent cause and effect related to dukkha, and did not extend this teaching to be inclusive of rebirth. I recall from the talk that Ven. Satti came along, only to be rebuked by the Buddha for Satti’s view that consciousness was not conditional, and thus, per the Buddha’s focus on dukkha in this Sutta, not amendable to surviving death or part of a cycle of rebirth (the 12 links being in part a later addition). I thought DO was confusing enough, and then ran into this discussion. Is there evidence that the Buddha’s PS teaching is focused solely on “one life” dukkha, and not as a three life platform for explanation of both dukkha and rebirth?
Also ( more confusing bits) if consciousness is dependently arisen, is the consciousness that we discuss as part of the fuel of rebirth a different entity, or in other words, is there a mundane consciousness that is dependent on the sense bases, and another entity, or another aspect of consciousness, that is supermundane, that is the sixth sense or metaphysical fuel/vehicle for rebirth when conditions bring it into contact with a new life form?
As I mentioned in the first post, there are 2 kind of consciousness according to the suttas, i.e cognitive consciousness (depends on sense-bases and its objects) and rebirth consciousness (depends on volitional formations). But, it doesn’t mean that the rebirth consciousness is some kind of higher metaphysical consciousness (it sounds like an eternal soul/Atta to me).
I think the rebirth consciousness is just another mode of mind-consciousness (mano-vinnana), that is conditioned by mind as a sense-base (mind = mano = nama?) and its object (sankhara?). So, it is not different from the cognitive consciousness.
This area of discussion is so important in our time and place. I think I agree with the figure of speech argument as the first step towards arriving at an understanding of what is meant.
I agree with what you’re saying about rebirth consciousness. So much misunderstanding is likely to arise unless we constantly revisit an essential notion of what the Buddha taught; ie anatta.