Book Review: Signed Language Interpretation and Translation Research. Selected papers from the first International Symposium (original) (raw)
Related papers
Deaf Voice and the Invention of Community Interpreting
The goal of this article is to propose three, action learning “hypotheses” to be considered by interpreter educators as conceptual pillars for a comprehensive pedagogical framework that reinvigorates the original Deaf invention of community interpreting. The theoretical claim is that temporality is neglected in most discourse and research about simultaneous interpreting because it has been taken for granted that the speed of information transfer is a highly significant and non-negotiable measure of effective interpretation. Arguments about the values and benefits of taking or using time to generate better interpretations and/or guarantee mutual understanding among interlocutors have been absent from scholarly reflection about simultaneous interpretation but present in Deaf criticism. This criticism shows how engineering-based metaphors about the interpreter as a transmission machine perpetuate an informational bias at the expense of relationships: the ideology of speed interferes with the Deaf voice. To counter this, “holding time” is suggested as the essential function of an authorized interpreter using role space according to culturally-Deaf principles for the special intercultural communication practice of community-oriented simultaneous interpretation. This relational model pre-exists within traditional Deaf cultures and can therefore be considered a Deaf invention.
Deaf nondeaf interpreter teams and the complexity of professional practice
This chapter draws on data from open-ended interviews with 4 Canadian Deaf interpreters (DIs) and 4 Canadian non-deaf interpreters (nDIs) examining their experiences providing interpreting services for Deaf people across a range of community based settings. Four major themes emerged from the informants' interviews: (i) The strategies required of DI/nDI teams when working with recent deaf immigrants are unique; (ii) Describing DI work is often confusing to both Deaf and non-deaf consumers; (iii) The types of communication strategies used in some settings may fall outside the perceptions of ethical tenets of interpreting; (iv) The specialized work may be better served by referring to the DI's work as " language specialist " in some contexts. These findings are contrasted with existing literature that frames interpreting in general and specifically with DI, raising questions about some of the current approaches used to educate DI and the dominant philosophical curriculum assumptions (Boudreault, 2005; Forestal, 2014). We ask if the current approaches to training DI is predominantly skewed to working with Deaf consumers who use American Sign Language (ASL). We consider how DI learn to work with consumers who are recent immigrants, who are not fluent in ASL, who may not possess another signed language, and who may never have had access to education in a formal sense. The findings challenge the nomenclature that is used to describe the work in appointments where there are language and cultural complexities that are unique. These results are discussed in relation to norms and practices that are embedded in our field's current DI training. Finally, recommendations are offered for further advanced research and evolving professional practices within the field of Deaf interpreting.
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 translators: What are they thinking?
2020
The examination of work performed by Deaf translators in creating translations between written texts and signed languages is an emerging area of inquiry in Translation Studies. Deaf people have been performing ad hoc translations within their community for hundreds of years (Adam, Carty & Stone, 2011; Bartley & Stone, 2008). More recently, Deaf translators have begun to work as paid professionals, creating a new subfield of Translation Studies, one that, to date, is largely unexplored. Using qualitative data, this pilot study examines the thought processes of two Deaf individuals in the rendering of an academic text from written English into American Sign Language (ASL). Early analysis suggests four themes shared by the participants: 1) the importance of preparation; 2) the need for contextualization, 3) moving between literal versus free translation; and 4) consideration of the audience. This data shows that Deaf translators rely on linguistic knowledge and prior translation experi...
It’s a Small World: International Deaf Spaces and Encounters, M. Friedner and A. Kusters (eds). , 2015
In July 2007 I was sitting in a cavernous auditorium in a convention center in Madrid watching the opening ceremonies of the World Federation of the Deaf's (WFD's) quadrennial World Congress. At the conclusion of a visually sumptuous theatrical production, the actors on stage chanted, "sign language rights!" using International Sign (IS) vocabulary, and encouraged the audience to sign along with them. Dinakar, 1 a Nepali delegate to the WFD with whom I was sitting, gamely joined in the chant, then turned to me and asked what the sign rights meant. I had understood because the sign articulated by the actors was identical to that used in American Sign Language (ASL). Although at the time I did not know the Nepali Sign Language (NSL) sign rights, I did my best to explain the meaning. I use the term informal interpreting to refer to how, as in the scene just described, signers at international deaf events ask for and offer translations or rewordings to facilitate their own and others' understanding. 2 The word "informal" emphasizes that the individuals providing these translations are not formally designated interpreters but instead are present in some other capacity, e.g., as board members, 1 Institutional names are all real; personal names are all pseudonyms. 2 In this chapter, I write deaf rather than Deaf or d/Deaf because the big D/little d distinction and its orthographic representation are grounded in the histories and cultural contexts of the United States and other Western countries. In international settings, this distinction may be relevant to or used by some participants but not to or by others; applying it to such settings thus risks positioning Western cultural logics as if they were-or should be-universal. I have chosen the term deaf as the least marked option available in written English; it is not intended to carry the meanings it takes on when used in contrast with Deaf.
Translation, representation and the Deaf 'voice'.
In this article, we introduce a complex world of working with qualitative data in multiple languages, modalities and media. We share some of the theoretical considerations that influenced our decisions about when to translate, what and how. We also report some of the multiple possibilities available to the researcher when analysing data in a visual language – in this case, British Sign Language – sharing considerations in choosing one method over another in differing circumstances. Through these discussions we draw attention to how translation issues are both similar and different from working solely with spoken language audio recordings. We then offer suggestions on the reporting and dissemination of results when more than one language is involved and when translation is at the heart of the research. While grounded in empirical Deaf Studies research, the methodological, cultural and theoretical issues raised here concerning translation, representation and ‘voice’ are applicable across social science disciplines, and particularly where minority communities and unwritten languages are at the heart of research activities.
This intent of this study is to investigate the experiences of Deaf children accessing public education through sign language interpreting services. The research incorporates an examination of the interpretation delivered within the classroom context, as well as interviews and on-line surveys with teachers, parents, interpreters, and administrators. Preliminary results suggest that there are several issues impacting the Deaf child’s ability to meaningfully access education, and this perception is held largely by the teachers, parents, and Deaf students themselves. In addition, there are various misconceptions amongst parents, teachers, and administrators regarding the interpreter’s role within the educational setting. Previous research supports the current findings of a trend to ‘include’ deaf students within the regular education model, without understanding the needs of deaf learners and whether the inclusive education model used in Canada is meeting these needs.
Lost in the Shuffle: Deaf-Parented Interpreters and Their Paths to Interpreting Careers
Deaf-parented individuals have experiences as child language brokers (Napier, in press) and as native and heritage users of signed language (Compton, 2014) prior to engaging in a formal interpreter education program or seeking training to become an interpreter. Anecdotally, deaf-parented interpreters say that educational opportunities do not meet their specific needs and skill sets but instead are designed for the L2 user of signed language. A goal of this study was to expand the limited research that currently exists in the field of interpreter education as it relates to L1 users of American Sign Language (ASL)—specifically, deaf-parented individuals. This study finds that they are achieving national credentials and education and training as interpreters through some coursework, formal and informal mentorships, and workshops, usually after already entering the field through informal induction practices within the deaf community. Participants in this study outline specific areas of skill weaknesses and share their perspectives on educational offerings that they have found most beneficial. The results of this research can benefit the field of signed/spoken language interpreting by influencing curriculum design and teaching approaches so that the unique demographic of deaf-parented interpreters is recruited to and retained within the profession. This article presents some of the principal findings pertinent to induction practices and interpreter education from a larger study of deaf-parented interpreters (Williamson, 2015).
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.