Towards a Deaf translation norm

ESRC Deafness Cognition and Language Research Centre

1

Towards a Deaf translation norm

Dr Christopher Stone

This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council of Great Britain (Grant RES-620-28-6001), Deafness,

Cognition and Language Research Centre (DCAL)


2

Introduction

� Who am I?

� What is my background?

� Hearing heritage

� Volunteer with Deaf children

� Centre for Deaf Studies training

� Work with Deaf interpreters

� PhD dissertation ‘Towards a Deaf translation Norm’


3

Structure of the presentation

� Some history

� Translation and interpreting in the community

� My research

� Some ethnographic data

� Some linguistic data

� Some pragmatic data


4

Deaf interpreters/translators

� Deaf community reciprocity (Ladd 2003)

� Skills exchange includes English

� Deaf people have undertaken a variety of translation and interpreting roles (Stone 2006)

� Deaf ‘Aides’ 1817, Glasgow High Court (Hay 2007)

� 1680 - hearing interpreters and Deaf translator/interpreter (Carty et al 2009)


5

Deaf interpreters/translators

� Deaf interpreters are on the increase:

there is a new trend around the world for

the Deaf interpreter service provider to be

an integral part of Deaf life’ (Boudreault 2005)

� A community-based model has yet to be developed

� Why, how and what do they do?


My Research

� Study one - semi-structured interviews

� The two round of interviews

� Study two - linguistics and translation

� Videos of regional interpreted news (headlines or weekly review)

� Study three - think-aloud protocols

� 5 Participants (3 D, 2 n-D) rendering the same news clip


The Interview participants

� Interview participants

� 5 Deaf interpreters

� Involved in training

� Have linguistics knowledge

� Have 10+ years experience

� Known as community leaders

� Known to me


Findings - Historic Role

�Personal

Deaf have letter know someoneexcellent English ask them explainalways have but that has always been inthe community rather than open andpublic



�Wider societal

means for example maybe hearing thatstraight away sign it to Deaf no meanwhat’s going on in society tell Deaf thatinteresting that Deaf oh wow interestingthat we’ve always had that to me that’spart of interpreting



�Newspaper and television

like newspaper morning been read orTV been read then let people know ohthat was really bad you know andexplain that Deaf really interested thatalways have


11

From private to public: 1982 on

� Deaf translators/interpreters started working on television in the UK

�See Hear (BBC Deaf magazine programme like Deaf Mosaic but still running after 28 years)

�Sign On (Channel 4)

�Deaf Broadcasting Campaign lobbies for captions AND ‘in-vision’ signing

�Regional News

�National broadcasts


12

From private to public: 1982 on


13

Findings - identity

� Deaf Translator/Interpreter ‘skopos’ (Vermeer 1989)

� News-reader rather than T/I

� Presence, authorship, naturalness

� Membership of the news team (Vuorinen 1995)

� Given news stories and not chosen

� Relevance of stories (Ruuskanen 1996)

� So Deaf club values on the big screen


14

� In interview the participants also discussed differences in the type of language Deaf T/Is when compared with non-Deaf interpreters

�They also discussed their process

�Study 2 provided data on language

�Study 3 provided data on process

Translation vs Intepreting


15

� Preparedness of the TL product (Kade 1968):

a form of Translation in which a first and final

rendition in another language is produced on

the basis of a one-time presentation of an

utterance in a source language (emphasis in

Pöchhacker).

Translation or Interpreting?


16

SL presence

Renderings

TL performance

always there once

many one

live/online not online

Translation Interpretation

Translation vs Interpreting


17

Translation or interpreting

� Deaf T/Is re-read the SL

� Deaf T/Is re-produce and ‘re-edit(?)’their BSL

� Non-Deaf interpreters read the SL

� Non- Deaf interpreters produced the BSL once

� Both must produce the final version live


18

Translation or interpreting

�Data suggests:

�Deaf professionals render a translation

�Non-Deaf professionals render an interpretation

� Prosody and it’s use for cohesion can also tell us if language is prepared (a translation) or no (an interpretation)


19

Prosody and cohesion

� In spoken language intonation and rhythm

� In signed language facial expression, head movements, torso movements (Jouison 1985) and eye blinks (Sze 2004; Wilbur 2000)

� ‘L plate drivers’


20

Type 1

physiologically induced by the contact of hand(s) near the eyes, or forearm movement which

triggers a corresponding head position change

Type 2produced towards the end of the movement or after the sign at phrasal/clausal boundaries

Type 3co-occur with head turns and gaze change but cannot be accounted for by syntactic reasons

Type 4produced during the movement of the sign and are

lexically or semantically motivated

Type 5 produced during hesitations and long pauses

Eyeblinks and prepared language


21


�Wilbur 2000 found types 2 and 4; these were in prepared sentences

�Sze 2004 found all types in naturally occurring discourse

� Implication if just type 2 and 4 then language is prepared


22



23


�Only one instance of type 5 because of autocue error

�Only type 2 and type 4 suggests prepared texts

�This suggests both Deaf and non-Deaf render something that is prepared


24

Head movements and prepared language

[[WEST] SCOTLAND]

NOW MEANS IX-C [OTHER [OUR ()

GROWING-PLANT FISH] THING++ ]

� TL has phrasal and discourse level prosodic marking (Jouison 1985) by Deaf professionals e.g.:


25

Head movements and prepared language

� Deaf professionals are less consistent

� Deaf professionals have less movements and larger cohesive units

� Non-Deaf T/Is have less nested clusters

� Non-Deaf T/Is also have shorter segments marked by head movement


26

Translation or interpretation

� Shlesinger (1995) shows that interpreted language has shorter segments

� Deaf T/Is blink rates and head movements indicate longer segments

� Non-Deaf T/Is have shorter segments

� This suggests again: Deaf professionals render a translation, non-Deaf an interpretation


27

Pragmatics

� The interview participants discussed the pragmatic differences between Deaf and non-Deaf in-vision professionals

� Study 3 provided data on pragmatic decisions

� I used Relevance Theory as my framework - the Deaf interview participants did not disagree when I explained this framework to them


28

Relevance Theory

the aim of information processing is to recover as many contextual effects as possible for the least cost of processing. (Blakemore 1992, 34)

If the linguistically encoded information is too vague, or too incomplete, to yield an adequately relevant interpretation, it will be enriched using immediately accessible contextual assumptions, to the point where it is relevant enough. (Wilson and Sperber 1993, 293)


29

Enrichments / impoverishments

� Sequeiros (1998, 2002) discusses enrichment and impoverishment in translation

� I found several categories of enrichment and impoverishment:

� Locational

� Temporal

� Thematic - agent / goal / source

�Discourse relations

� Implicature


30


� Temporal enrichment:

�English: this afternoon

�BSL: AFTERNOON AT-THE-MOMENT

� Temporal impoverishment:

�English: earlier this year

�BSL: RECENTLY


31


� Locational enrichment:

�English: the seas off Scotland

�BSL: SCOTLAND -s-e-a- WEST-COAST

� Explicature impoverishment:

�English: being given vaccines

�BSL: BEEN INJECT-IN-ARM


32


Data type Shifts s-1 % Enrich % Impov

D-Headlines 7 83 17

H-Headlines 7 100 0

D-Weekly 12 60 40

H-Weekly 12 75 25

D-TAP 5 83 17

H-TAP 4 75 25


33


� Deaf and non-Deaf professionals make a similar number of pragmatic shifts

� Deaf professional have a wider range of shifts

� Deaf have more impoverishments

� Non-Deaf prefer enrichments


34

A Deaf translation norm?

� For the television news has a Deaf norm emerged in the UK?:

� From an historic Deaf bilingual role

� Approaching the task as a translation

� Ensuring prepared prosody

� Larger cohesive and discourse unit

� Specific types of pragmatic decisions


35

What can we learn?

� Identity

� Deaf vs non-Deaf

� Does it matter?

� What can insiders do?

� What can outsiders do?


36

What can we learn?

�Process

�Translation vs interpreting

�When should we translate?

�When should we interpret (consec vs sim, [cf. Russell 2004])?

�How should we use our preparation?


37

What can we learn?

�Product

� Prosody and cohesion

� How do we make sense?

� It’s not just our hands!

� How do we lose our accent

� It’s easier on the eye!


38

What can we learn?

� Product

� Enrichment and impoverishment

� How do we know:

� when less is less,

� when less is more,

� when more is less

� when more is more?�


39

Conclusions

�Deaf T/Is enable us to develop a Deaf-community based models of translation interpreting

�Deaf T/Is can show us how to work in different and more effective ways


40

Conclusions

�Deaf T/Is can teach us to negotiate our identities

�Deaf T/Is should be teaching us

�Deaf T/Is should be trained alongside and apart from non-Deaf interpreters


41

Towards a Deaf translation norm

Dr Christopher Stone

This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council of Great

Britain (Grant RES-620-28-6001), Deafness, Cognition and Language Research

Centre (DCAL)

Documents

Towards a Deaf translation norm