Deaf people interpreting on television (original) (raw)
Related papers
Media for All
This paper explores the notion of a Deaf translation norm and its use in the rendering of English mainstream television broadcast news into British Sign Language (BSL). The Deaf translation norm incorporates the community identity and fluency of the translator/interpreter (T/I). Historically this is a role that Deaf bilinguals have undertaken and in part involves the higher level of agency that the T/I exerts within the situation. In present day this differs from a historic role now that the translation event happens in the public sphere rather than within the community. To ensure that the Deaf audience has an optimally relevant BSL text to watch and understand, the Deaf translation norm incorporates enrichments and impoverishments into the BSL text according to their understanding of the English text and the video footage that is shown simultaneously on screen. This creates a BSL text that utilises the multimedia environment to reduce the cognitive effort of the Deaf audience. The Deaf Community Convention has arisen that a person who has a Deaf cultural identity and is audiologically deaf is called 'Deaf' (Senghas & Monaghan, 2002) and this distinction has been made within the community for several hundred years (Ladd, 1998). Membership of the Deaf community in the past has predominantly been due to being born deaf or losing hearing at an early age so that no sense of loss is felt. Cultural identity was then forged by attending schools for the deaf in early life and Deaf clubs throughout the rest of life. As Ladd (2003: 44) says: This traditional community therefore consists of Deaf people who attended Deaf schools and met either in Deaf clubs or at other Deaf social activities. In more recent years membership of the Deaf community has been defined by Baker and Padden as follows The most useful basic factor determining who is a member of the deaf community seems to be what is called 'attitudinal deafness'. This occurs when a person identifies him/herself as a member of the deaf community, and other members accept that person as part of the community (Baker & Padden, 1978:4). The attitudinal deafness discussed by Padden clearly refers to the traditional community discussed in Ladd. As discussed by Ladd (2003:42) the community is strengthened by 90% endogamous marriage. Five percent of Deaf people born deaf have Deaf parents and a further five percent have one parent who is Deaf (Kyle & Allsop, 1982; Kyle & Woll, 1985). The extent to which these families have many generations of Deaf is unknown, but there are known cases of one Deaf family having documented seven generations (with a grand child resulting in eight generations) in Britain (Taylor, 1998) although there are anecdotal stories from this family suggesting there are ten generations (with a grand child being the eleventh). These multi-generational Deaf people are seen as the core members of the Deaf community. They are the ones who have experienced life, at least within the home, as a Deaf haven from a hearing world. As the guardians of sign languages, Deaf history and culture there is an expectation that they will preserve and pass on Deaf ways of being in the world (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Taking my Deaf T/Is from this group enables me to explore what a Deaf translation might be like if it were not for the 'hearing' institutional barriers that the T/Is face in the news studio. The historic Deaf community is described as a collective community (Ladd, 2003), and therefore allegiance is to the minority community rather than the individualistic values of the (mainstream) 'hearing' community. Although this can be contested, and arguably the present day Deaf community is a heterogeneous community (Skelton & Valentine, 2003a, 2003b), the Deaf T/Is in this study, from multigenerational Deaf families, adhere to traditional notions of collective identities (Smith, 1996). The research The research draws on data from ethnographic interviews (Carmel & Monaghan, 1991; Cook & Crang, 1995; Spindler & Spindler, 1992; Spradley, 1979) of five Deaf T/Is (all of whom chose pseudonyms 1) who regularly work in broadcast television news. All five have graduate level training in linguistics and experience both in working as and training interpreters. In an attempt to ensure that the research was Deaf-led or Deafhood (Ladd, 2003) informed 2 (whilst Deafhood-informed ensures that research is undertaken in a Deaf culturally sensitive way it does not have to be carried out by Deaf people) semi-structured interviews of Deaf informants were used to generate grounded theories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The research aimed to be Deaf-led and to explore what was deemed to be relevant to Deaf T/Is (the informants are quote throughout this article) and as such no hearing interpreters were interviewed. The British context for BSL on television Under the Broadcasting Act 1996 3 , broadcasters are obliged to provide five percent of programming by 2005 4 , either presented in, or translated into, sign language. This does not mean that the broadcasters feel political affinity with the provision of BSL access but rather see it as a legal obligation, like other equality laws, that needs to be fulfilled (Squires, 2004). There are institutional constraints on how T/Is work in broadcast media similar to the institutional constraints that interpreters face in other domains. Inghilleri (2003) considers interpreters within an asylum-seeking context. She discusses the need for the interpreters to ensure the believability of the interviewee by constructing their narrative as believable to the interviewer. This requires the interviewee to be perceived as a victim by the target audience within target cultural norms rather than constructing the story in a way that is believable and valid in the source language and culture. This is mirrored by BSL T/Is working within a broadcasting context, although we see that the power dynamic is flowing in a different direction, from majority to minority audience. In the context of asylum seeker interviews, where the person's history must
Interpreting in international sign: decisions of Deaf and non-Deaf interpreters.
The professional use of Deaf Interpreters (DIs) is increasing in several countries and across several contexts. However, there have been few studies that have explored the nature of the work when it involves a Deaf and non-deaf interpreting team. The current study examined the work of two teams of Deaf/non-deaf interpreters providing service in a conference setting. The participants were videotaped while providing service in order to examine the linguistic decisions made by non-deaf interpreters acting as a natural signed language feed, the linguistic decisions made by Deaf interpreters working into International Sign (IS), as well as the meta-communication strategies the team used while constructing the interpretation. The data suggest that interpreting teams that are more familiar with each other rely on different strategies when chunking information, asking for feeds, and for making accommodations. There also appear to be significant differences in the work when the two interpreters share a common natural signed language. All of the data analyzed thus far offer insight into the nature of the relationship and may provide guidance to those arranging interpreting services for international events.
Of pride and prejudice: The divide between subtitling and sign language interpreting on television
2007
It is no longer questionable whether d/Deaf and hardof-hearing viewers should be offered accessibility services on television. This matter has been widely discussed at a European level and most countries have taken legislative action, while television broadcasters have implemented different solutions -mainly closed captioning/teletext subtitling and sign language interpreting -to make their programmes accessible to people with hearing impairment. It is common to find d/Deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers complaining about what they are offered on television. It is also common to hear that television providers are doing their best to make their services available to all. There is still another group of voices turning down or singing the praise of one or the other solution, for a number of reasons which range from technical and aesthetic issues to political and social motivation. This paper examines the advantages and drawbacks of using subtitling and/or sign language interpreting on television while trying to establish why both are much loved or much hated accessibility solutions.
Christopher Stone. Toward a Deaf translation norm
Interpreting, 2011
Reviewed by Jeremy L. Brunson Is there a difference between the products of a translator/interpreter for whom the target language is their native language and the products of those who are working into their second language? If so, what is that difference? These questions are at the heart of Christopher Stone's study. In his book, Toward a Deaf Translation Norm, Stone explores the burgeoning profession of Deaf translators/interpreters in the United Kingdom in an attempt to answer these questions. His focus is on translators/interpreters who perform translation/interpreting work presenting English news footage in British Sign Language (BSL). Stone begins by providing a discussion of the theories that have been employed to explain the translation/interpreting process. A wealth of knowledge is provided here that would undoubtedly be very interesting to the expert or aspiring linguist; however, for those of us whose area of study falls outside this field, this information can, at times, become overwhelming as we attempt to conceptualize the myriad theories with respect to the study we have yet to begin to read. This should not keep the reader from continuing on the journey Stone is aptly qualified to lead. Once the theories applicable to the study of translation and interpreting are understood, Stone asks the reader: "What makes BSL unique?" That is, what are the features of BSL that are similar to and different from those of spoken language? In identifying these, Stone identifies the variables he plans to examine in his study: head movements and eye-blinking; and whether they differ between Deaf translators/interpreters and non-deaf translators/interpreters. The goal is to determine how non-deaf interpreters can "domesticate" (p. 41) the target language so that it resembles that of Deaf interpreters. Stone finds his voice in explaining the methodology by which he gathered his data. In describing the participants and the source texts, he is extremely clear and articulate. He performs a critical ethnography that relies on semi-structured interviews with Deaf translators/interpreters who regularly work presenting news footage from English (via autocue) to BSL. Relying on Think-Aloud Protocols (TAPs), Stone talks with three Deaf translators/interpreters from Deaf families and two non-deaf translators/interpreters in order to discover the processes by which the translators/interpreters render a message in the target language.
Deaf Community’s Expectations On The Roles Of Sign Language Interpreters
The European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2019
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
MA Thesis, 2019
This thesis explores one aspect of the emerging profession of Deaf Interpreters (DIs), specifically; how the target text accommodates an audience’s communication style, whilst allowing the audience to conceptualise information. Literature is surveyed on the theory and practice of interpreting by and for Deaf people, with a preference for European sources in the latter. Definitions of the DI’s role are investigated, and Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) is discussed, alongside Audience Design, and back-channelling cues. The study extracts data from retrospective and task review interviews with two DIs, both experienced in broadcast television news. The DIs were asked to perform two interpreting tasks (Assignments 2 and 3); one task without an audience (Assignment 2) and one task with (Assignment 3). The findings reveal differences between the two tasks in both the interpreting style used and number of omissions featured. Utilising ELAN software, back-channelling from audience members and its effect on the DI’s interpretation is investigated. Findings from Assignment 2 provide insight into the relationship between the DI and the Pragmatic Other, whilst findings from Assignment 3 reveal the uses of eye contact between the DI and their audience. Findings on Strategic Omissions are compared with those in studies by Napier (2001, 2004) and Kauling (2015). In the case of CSOs (Conscious Strategic Omissions), the findings of this study concur with those studies. In this study, however, there were no instances of CAOs (Conscious Attention Omissions)— a finding contrary to Kauling’s (2015) research. The use of preparation materials (Assignment 1) is investigated and proves to be influential on the DIs’ interpretations. The importance of back-channelling and eye contact is identified. Further factors influencing the DIs’ interpretations are discussed. Key words: Deaf Interpreters, Communication Accommodation Theory, Audience Design, Omissions, Back-channelling, Pragmatic Other.