Signed Language Interpretation and Translation Research by Brenda Nicodemus

Author:Brenda Nicodemus
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Gallaudet University Press
Published: 2015-03-16T04:00:00+00:00

DISCUSSION

The first of the two research questions in this study was the following: Can a model of interpretation based on pragmatics be operationally defined and tested? Would testing this model reveal quantifiable and significant differences between a source text in English and a target text in ASL? If so, what would those differences look like? The findings indicate that it is possible to break a text down into three levels of meaning. Such a system can then be used by different raters, in this case the hearing principal researcher and a Deaf rater, to consistently rate the target texts of interpreters. Factoring out omissions, the interpreters in this study produced a literal meaning approximately 50% of the time. They enriched approximately 39% of their target utterances and broke from form to produce a potential implicature approximately 11% of the time.

The study also looked at expectations of Deaf native signers around the type and frequency of acceptable or expected enrichments and potential implicatures, with the following research question: Using an interpreting model of three levels of meaning, what are the expectations of Deaf native signers’ and hearing native English speakers’ regarding the amount, type, and degree of clarity in an English to ASL interpretation? According to the findings, the Deaf raters agreed with many of the choices made by the interpreters to work at a literal, enriched, or implicature level. However, at the literal level, they preferred to see more use of nonmanual grammar (raised or lowered eyebrows to indicate topics, questions) and nonmanual markers (such as adverbials “mm,” “cs”). In terms of specific vocabulary, they noted the lack of an acronym for Deaf Support Services (DDS), and the sign for A PLUS (instead of the preferred A–T). They would have also preferred to see the sign GONE instead of DEAD for “Bill lived to 78.”

Support was found in the Deaf raters’ comments and the literature review for the interpreters’ decision to enrich various aspect of the English target text. The Deaf raters preferred the enrichment of adjectives or adverbs (e.g., taking an ASL class “for free” was paired with “did not pay”), described in the literature as creating contrast through negation (Livingston et al., 1995). They wanted to see counterfactual conditionals or the subjunctive mood clarified (which some interpreters did for the phrase “If my parents had been Deaf” because they paired it with “but they weren’t”), which was also supported by other authors (Livingston, 1991; Santiago, 2004). The Deaf reviewers appreciated it when the interpreters enriched various rhetorical structures as was identified in the literature (Livingston et al., 1995) such as focus particles (by including other students or other applicants when the speaker said “I was the only one who …”) and by clarifying indefinite pronouns and ambiguous references (where the indefinite pronoun “anything” as in “anything else doesn’t cut it” was replaced with “watching videos or working with an ASL dictionary”).

Other aspects of the source text that the Deaf raters wanted clarified included superordinate words (so they liked seeing “resources” translated as “videos, books, etc.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.