Sign and spoken language interpreting: a componential approach to skills development (original) (raw)
Related papers
SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETING see SIGNED LANGUAGE INTERPRETING SIGNED LANGUAGE INTERPRETING
Signed language interpreting (SLI) prototypically means interpreting between a signed language and a spoken or another signed language, and is sometimes referred to as visual language interpreting, particularly in CANADA. (Since this may involve language modes other than sign languages proper, such as TRANSLITERATION, signed language interpreting is preferred as the broader term, whereas practitioners are commonly referred to as sign language interpreters.) Sign(ed) languages are different in every country; they are naturally occurring languages that are independent from, but related to, the spoken languages of the countries where they are used, and are used by deaf people as their first or preferred language of communication. Spoken-language interpreters work between two linear languages, whereby one word is produced after another and the message is built up sequentially. Sign languages, however, are visual-spatial languages that can create meaning using space, location, referents and other visually descriptive elements. Therefore sign language interpreters are constantly transferring information between two alternate modalities, which requires the representation of information in very different ways. This is referred to as bimodal, as opposed to unimodal, interpreting (Nicodemus & Emmorey 2013). Signed languages inherently encode 'real-world' visual information. When hearing certain abstract concepts or generic descriptions, it is necessary for sign language interpreters to visualize the information, and implicitly encode it in their interpretation. Brennan and Brown (1997) cite an example: In order to render 'X broke the window', the British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter ideally needs to know the shape of the window, and how it was broken, in order to give an accurate visual representation of the event. In the reverse direction, when 'voicing' for hearing people, interpreters need to distil visual information into idiomatic spoken-language usage. For example, a deaf person can immediately convey visually where a person they were having a conversation with was seated, but a hearing person would not expect to hear something like: 'I was chatting with John who was sitting on my right', unless this were relevant in a legal context. Thus, the bimodal nature of SLI creates additional COGNITIVE LOAD for interpreters (Padden 2000). Profile of practitioners Sign language interpreters are employed in any context where deaf signers and non-deaf, non-signing 'hearing' people need to interact. One of the unique aspects of SLI is that it is often described as a 'cradle to grave' profession: even if deaf people are bilingual in a signed and a written/spoken language, interpreters will still accompany them in all aspects of their lives in so far as they cannot hear the majority spoken language. Only individuals who grow up with a sign language used in the home (because of parents, siblings or other family members) can claim to be native signers or to have acquired a sign language as their first language (L1). Many of these hearing people with deaf parents, referred to as Children of Deaf Adults (CODAs, or Codas), begin interpreting informally SIGNED LANGUAGE INTERPRETING 376
Exploring cognitive aspects of competence in signed language interpreting : First impressions
2018
Sign language interpreting of dialogues shares many features with the interpreting of dialogues between non-signed languages. We argue that from a cognitive perspective in dialogue interpreting, despite some differences between the two types of interpreting, sign language interpreters use many of the same processes and handle similar challenges as interpreters between non-signed languages. We report on a first exploration of process differences in sign language interpreting between three novice and three experienced Swedish Sign Language interpreters. The informants all interpreted the same dialogue and made a retrospection of their interpreting immediately after the task. Retrospections were analyzed using tools for identifying reported processing problems, instances of monitoring, and strategy use (see Ivanova 1999). Furthermore, the interpreting products (both into Swedish Sign Language and into Swedish) and their differences were qualitatively analyzed. The results indicate that...
Salient studies of signed language interpreting in the context of community interpreting scholarship
Linguistica Antverpiensia, 2006
During the past four decades, signed language interpreting (SLI) scholars have created a growing body of research. This work covers a broad range of topics, from a psycholinguistic perspective to a sociolinguistic one, from analyses of the cognitive processes in which signed language interpreters engage, to analyses of the management and participation framework of interpreted events, from linguistically-oriented studies to studies focused on aspects of the environment in particular settings or various applications of the interpreting process that impact on the flow and outcome of the interpreted event, be it consecutive or simultaneous work, in-person or via technology. Yet these contributions to our understanding of SLI neither occur in a vacuum, nor do they reflect issues limited to SL interpreters. This paper examines seminal studies in SLI research, and contextualizes them within the larger framework of community interpreting research.
Sign Language Interpreter: What Makes it Different
Sino-US English Teaching, 2018
Understanding the situation of sign language (SL) and its history is essential to comprehend the role of sign language interpreter better. It has often implied fundamental questions that refer to the identity construction of the person, his/her attachment to a linguistic community and the place of this community in the current social scheme. Sign language is like any other human languages; it spontaneously develops through deaf communities using this language and without external interference from hearing persons. All living human languages, whether spoken or signed, are characterised by the multiplicity, diversity, and the evolving nature of their vocabulary and this is what determines and proves of the richness of a language. Those who interpret from spoken to sign language are usually referred to as "sign language interpreters" and "deaf interpreters", but both terms are unsatisfactory because both apply only to the language or community to which they serve. This article will try to shed light on the origins of sign language as well as the emergence of sign language interpreters as key players in an everlasting debate round the deaf and the deaf rights throughout nearly three centuries.
in - Signed Language Interpreting: Preparation, Practice and Performance, 2011
This paper investigates the use of 'role shift' by interpreters working from spoken English into Australian Sign Language (Auslan). Role shift is a highorder linguistic skill, which students typically find difficult to master. The study looks at possible source text (ST) motivations for its use by four skilled signed language interpreters in an English to Auslan interpreting task, with a view to later pedagogical application. Auslan target texts (TT) rendered by the interpreters were mapped against the English ST using ELAN annotation software. Salient features of the role shift generated by the participants are documented, including: incidence of roleshift, native/non-native signer advantage, persona adopted, constructed action versus constructed dialogue, and length and intensity of role shift. Examination of ST segments which trigger role shift in the TT reveals that agentfocussed active clause constructions in particular, require little manipulation and most readily lead to role shift outcomes. Whereas, passive constructions, nominalisations and complex/higher register segments are frequently re-structured into simpler active clauses, with role shift incorporated (or not). The data does not support a strict cause-effect relationship between any particular ST feature and the production of role shift in the TTs, rather, it points to the need for interpreters to recognise ready opportunities for inclusion of role shift, and/or to reconfigure the ST content and form, with role shift as a further layer of depiction.