1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
  4. Volume 25, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 25, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study offers a unique contribution through the construction of an annotated text-based sign language interpreting corpus and its application in analyzing shifts (defined as deviations from source semantic content), which in turn enables researchers to identify and categorize interpreter strategies and norms. The corpus comprises ten half-hour news broadcasts in English and their simultaneously signed interpretations into South African Sign Language. The analysis of shifts shows that interpreters mainly strive to produce a fluent output, combatting cognitive overload through condensation, use of synonyms and omission. However, they also cater for target language norms through attention to discourse features and syntactic reformulation and by addressing perceived target audience knowledge gaps through explanations. Time constraints limit full deverbalization and repair strategies, and Deaf communicative norms occasionally conflict with interpreting norms. Although most shifts could be related to interpreter strategies and norms, the interpreters occasionally made syntactic errors, hindering comprehension.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.18059.weh
2020-10-14
2025-04-30

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.18059.weh
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aitpayev, K., S. Islam, & A. Imashev
    (2016) Semi-automatic annotation tool for sign languages. In2016 IEEE 10th International Conference on Application of Information and Communication Technologies (AICT). IEEE. doi:  10.1109/ICAICT.2016.7991803
     https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAICT.2016.7991803 [Google Scholar]
  2. Angelelli, C.
    (2004) Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role. John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.55
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.55 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anthony, L.
    (2019) AntConc(Version 3.5.7) [Computer software]. Waseda University. www.laurenceanthony.net/software
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Athel
    Athel (2020) ParaConc(Build 269) [Computer software]. www.athel.com/para.html
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, M.
    (1993) Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. InM. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair (pp.233–250). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.64.15bak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak [Google Scholar]
  6. (2004) A corpus-based view of similarity and difference in translation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(2), 167–193. 10.1075/ijcl.9.2.02bak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.2.02bak [Google Scholar]
  7. (2011) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation (2nd ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9780203832929
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832929 [Google Scholar]
  8. Barik, H.
    (1975) Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language and Speech, 18, 272–297. 10.1177/002383097501800310
     https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097501800310 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bartłomiejczyk, M.
    (2006) Strategies of simultaneous interpreting and directionality. Interpreting, 8(2), 149–174. 10.1075/intp.8.2.03bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.2.03bar [Google Scholar]
  10. Baumgarten, N., Meier, B., & Özçetin, D.
    (2008) Explicitness in translation and interpreting: A critical review and some empirical evidence (of an elusive concept). Across Languages and Cultures, 9(2), 177–203. 10.1556/Acr.9.2008.2.2
     https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.9.2008.2.2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bendazzoli, C.
    (2018) Corpus-based interpreting studies: Past, present and future developments of a (wired) cottage industry. InM. Russo, C. Bendazzoli, & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies (pp.1–20). Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bernadini, S., Ferraresi, A., Russo, M., Collard, C., & Defrancq, B.
    (2018) Building interpreting and intermodal corpora: A how-to for a formidable task. InM. Russo, C. Bendazzoli, & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies (pp.21–42). Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_2 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bono, M., Sakaida, R., Okada, T., & Miyao, Y.
    (2020) Utterance-unit annotation for the JSL Dialogue Corpus: Toward a multimodal approach to corpus linguistics. InProceedings of the 9th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages. Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2020) (pp.13–20). ELRA. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.signlang-1.3/
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Braun, S.
    (2017) What a micro-analytical investigation of additions and expansions in remote interpreting can tell us about interpreters’ participation in a shared virtual space. Journal of Pragmatics, 107, 165–177. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.011 [Google Scholar]
  15. British Sign Language Corpus Project
    British Sign Language Corpus Project (2020) BSL Corpus Project. RetrievedMay 18, 2020fromwww.bslcorpusproject.org/
  16. Camayd-Freixas, E.
    (2011) Cognitive theory of simultaneous interpreting and training. InProceedings of the 52nd Conference of the American Translators Association. American Translators Association. dll.fiu.edu/people/faculty/erik-camayd-freixas/cognitive-theory-2011.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chernov, G.
    (1978) Teoriya i Praktika Sinkronnogo Perevoda [Theory and Practice of Simultaneous Interpretation]. Mezhdunarodniye Otnosheniya.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2004) Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting. John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.57
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.57 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cokely, D.
    (1992) Interpretation: A Sociolinguistic Model. Linstock Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.
    (2014) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (4th ed.). Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Dal Fovo, E.
    (2018) European-Union politics interpreted on screen: A corpus based investigation on the interpretation of the third 2014 EU presidential debate. InM. Russo, C. Bendazzoli, & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies (pp.157–184). Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_9 [Google Scholar]
  22. De Bot, K.
    (2000) Simultaneous interpreting as language production. InB. England Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting (pp.65–88). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.40.06bot
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.40.06bot [Google Scholar]
  23. Defrancq, B.
    (2015) Corpus-based research into the presumed effects of short EVS.Interpreting, 17(1), 26–45. 10.1075/intp.17.1.02def
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.1.02def [Google Scholar]
  24. Dreuw, P., & Ney, H.
    (2008) Towards automatic sign language annotation for the ELAN tool. InLREC Proceedings, Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Construction and Exploitation of Sign Language Corpora (pp.50–53). ELRA. lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/workshops/W25_Proceedings.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  25. ELAN
    ELAN (2019) ELAN(Version 5.2) [Computer software]. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. https://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Gerver, D., Longley, P., Long, J., & Lambert, S.
    (1989) Selection tests for trainee conference interpreters. Meta, 34(4), 724–735. 10.7202/002884ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/002884ar [Google Scholar]
  27. Gile, D.
    (1995) Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8(1st)
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8(1st) [Google Scholar]
  28. Gumul, E.
    (2017) Explicitation and directionality in simultaneous interpreting. Linguistica Silesiana, 38, 311–329.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Harris, B.
    (1990) Norms in interpretation. Target, 2(1), 115–119. 10.1075/target.2.1.08har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.2.1.08har [Google Scholar]
  30. Isham, W.
    (1994) Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation: Evidence both for and against verbalization. InS. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation (pp.191–211). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.3.15ish
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.15ish [Google Scholar]
  31. Jacobsen, B.
    (2003) Pragmatics in court interpreting: Additions. InL. Brunette, G. Bastin, I. Hemlin, & H. Clarke (Eds.), The Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community: Selected Papers from the Third International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Montreal, Quebec, Canada 22–26 May 2001 (pp.223–238). John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Johnston, T.
    (2010) Transcription and annotation in the creation of signed language corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(1), 106–131. 10.1075/ijcl.15.1.05joh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.1.05joh [Google Scholar]
  33. (2016) Auslan Corpus Annotation Guidelines (November 2016version). media.auslan.org.au/attachments/Auslan_Corpus_Annotation_Guidelines_November2016.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Johnston, T., Van Roekel, J., & Schembri, A.
    (2016) On the conventionalization of mouth actions in Australian Sign Language. Language and Speech, 59(1), 3–42. 10.1177/0023830915569334
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830915569334 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kalina, S.
    (1998) Strategische Prozesse beim Dolmetschen: Theoretische Grundlagen, Empirische Fallstudien, Didaktische Konsequenzen [Strategic Processes in Interpretation: Theoretical Foundations, Empirical Case Studies, Didactic Consequences]. Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kajzer-Wietrzny, M.
    (2018) Interpretese vs. non-native language use: The case of optional that. InM. Russo, C. Bendazzoli, & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies (pp.97–113). Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_6 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kenny, D.
    (2000) Lexis and Creativity in Translation: A Corpus-based Study. St Jerome.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Konrad, R.
    (2011) Die lexikalische Struktur der Deutschen Gebärdensprache im Spiegel empirischer Fachgebärdenlexikographie: Zur Integration der Ikonizität in ein korpusbasiertes Lexikonmodell [The Lexical Structure of German Sign Language in the Mirror of Empirical Specialist Sign Language Lexicography: On the Integration of Iconicity into a Corpus-based Lexicon Model]. Narr Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kruger, A., & Wallmach, K.
    (1997) Research methodology for the description of a source text and its translation(s) – A South African perspective. South African Journal of African Languages, 17(4), 119–126. 10.1080/02572117.1997.10587173
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02572117.1997.10587173 [Google Scholar]
  40. Laviosa, S.
    (2002) Corpus-based Translation Studies: Theory, Findings, Applications. Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lederer, M.
    (1981) La Traduction Simultanée [Simultaneous Interpreting]. Minnard Letteres Modernes.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Leeson, L.
    (2005) Making the effort in simultaneous interpreting: Some considerations for signed language interpreters. InT. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice (pp.51–68). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.63.07lee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.07lee [Google Scholar]
  43. Mauranen, A.
    (2008) Universal tendencies in translation. InG. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Incorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator (pp.32–48). Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Mesch, J., & Wallin, L.
    (2015) Gloss annotations in the Swedish Sign Language corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(1), 102–120. 10.1075/ijcl.20.1.05mes
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.1.05mes [Google Scholar]
  45. Metzger, M., & Roy, C.
    (2011) The first three years of a three-year grant: When a research plan doesn’t go as planned. InB. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in Interpreting Research (pp.59–84). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.99.07met
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.99.07met [Google Scholar]
  46. Napier, J., & Barker, R.
    (2004) Sign language interpreting: The relationship between metalinguistic awareness and the production of interpreting omissions. Sign Language Studies, 4(4), 369–393. 10.1353/sls.2004.0020
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2004.0020 [Google Scholar]
  47. Noldus
    Noldus (2020) FaceReader [Computer software]. www.noldus.com/facereader/
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Nuance
    Nuance (2020) Dragon NaturallySpeaking(Version 12) [Computer software]https://supportcontent.nuance.com/dragon/12/doc/DNS_V12_5_ReleaseNotes.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Olohan, M.
    (2004) Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203640005
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203640005 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ortiz, I.
    (2011) Types of error in the learning of Spanish sign language as a second language. InL. Leeson, S. Wurm, & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), Signed Language Interpreting: Preparation, Practice and Performance (pp.50–60). St Jerome.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Pöchhacker, F.
    (1994) Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln [Simultaneous Interpretation as Complex Behaviour]. Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (2011) Researching TV interpreting: Selected studies of US presidential material. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 16, 21–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Pfau, R.
    (2016) Morphology. InBaker, A., B. van den Bogaerde, R. Pfau, & T. Schermer (Eds.), The Linguistics of Sign Languages: An Introduction (pp.197–228). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.199.09pfa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.199.09pfa [Google Scholar]
  54. Pym, A.
    (2008) On omission in simultaneous interpreting: Risk analysis of a hidden effort. InG. Hansen, A. Chesterman, & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile (pp.83–105). John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Riccardi, A.
    (2002) Interpreting research: Descriptive aspects and methodological proposals. InG. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities (pp.15–28). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.43.04ric
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.43.04ric [Google Scholar]
  56. Russo, M., Bendazzoli, C., Sandrelli, A., & Spinola, N.
    (2012) The European Parliament Interpreting Corpus (EPIC): Implementation and developments. InF. Straniero Sergio & C. Falbo (Eds.), Linguistic Insights 147: Breaking Ground in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies (pp.53–90). Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Roy, C.
    (1993) The problem with definitions, descriptions and the role of metaphors of interpreters. Journal of Interpretation, 6(1), 127–154.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Russell, D.
    (2002) Interpreting in Legal Contexts: Consecutive and Simultaneous Interpretation. Linstok Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Sandrelli, A.
    (2012) Introducing FOOTIE (Football in Europe): Simultaneous interpreting in football press conferences. InF. Straniero Sergio & C. Falbo (Eds.), Linguistic Insights 147: Breaking Ground in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies (pp.119–153). Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. (2018) Interpreter-mediated football press conferences: A study on the question and answering strategies. InM. Russo, C. Bendazzoli, & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies (pp.185–204). Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_10 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sandler, W.
    (2010) Prosody and syntax in sign languages. Transactions of the Philological Society, 108(3), 298–328. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2010.01242.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2010.01242.x [Google Scholar]
  62. Savvalidou, F.
    (2011) Interpreting (im)politeness strategies in a media political setting: A case study from the Greek prime ministerial TV debate as interpreted into Greek Sign Language. InL. Leeson, S. Wurm, & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), Signed Language Interpreting: Preparation, Practice and Performance (pp.87–109). St Jerome.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Schermer, T., & Pfau, R.
    (2016) Psycholinguistics. InA. Baker, B. Van den Bogaerde, R. Pfau, & T. Schermer (Eds.), The Linguistics of Sign Languages: An Introduction (pp.25–50). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.199.02sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.199.02sch [Google Scholar]
  64. Scott, M.
    (2020) WordSmith Tools(Version 8.0) [Computer software]. Lexical Analysis Software. https://lexically.net/wordsmith/downloads/
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Seleskovitch, D.
    (1975) Langage, Langues et Mémoire: Étude de la Prise de Notes en Interprétation Consécutive [Language, Languages and Memory: A Study of Note-taking in Consecutive Interpreting]. Minard Lettres Modernes.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Setton, R.
    (2011) Corpus-based Interpreting Studies (CIS): Overview and prospects. InA. Kruger, K. Wallmach, & J. Munday (Eds.), Corpus-based Translation Studies: Research and Applications (pp.33–75). Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Shlesinger, M.
    (1989) Extending the theory of translation to interpretation: Norms as a case in point. Target, 1(2), 111–115. 10.1075/target.1.1.09shl
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.1.1.09shl [Google Scholar]
  68. (1998) Corpus-based interpreting as an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies. Meta, 43(4), 486–493. 10.7202/004136ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/004136ar [Google Scholar]
  69. (2000) Strategic Allocation of Working Memory and other Attentional Resources in Simultaneous Interpreting [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Bar-Ilan University.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Stone, C.
    (2009) Towards a Deaf Translation Norm. Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Straniero Sergio, F., & Falbo, C.
    (2012) (Eds.). Linguistic Insights 147: Breaking Ground in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0377‑9
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0377-9 [Google Scholar]
  72. Stratiy, A.
    (2005) Best practices in interpreting: A Deaf community perspective. InT. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice (pp.231–250). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.63.14str
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.14str [Google Scholar]
  73. Strong, M., & Rudser, S.
    (1985) An assessment instrument for sign language interpreters. Sign Language Studies, 49(2), 343–362. 10.1353/sls.1985.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1985.0008 [Google Scholar]
  74. Tang, F.
    (2018) Explicitation in Consecutive Interpreting. John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.135
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.135 [Google Scholar]
  75. Toury, G.
    (1980) In Search of a Theory of Translation. Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. (2012) Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.100
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.100 [Google Scholar]
  77. Van Besien, F.
    (1999) Anticipation in simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 44(2), 250–259. 10.7202/004532ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/004532ar [Google Scholar]
  78. Venuti, L.
    (1995) The Translator’s Invisibility. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203360064
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203360064 [Google Scholar]
  79. Vuorikoski, A.
    (2004) A Voice of its Citizens or a Modern Tower of Babel? Interpreting Quality as a Function of Political Rhetoric in the European Parliament [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Tampere.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Wallmach, K.
    (2000) Examining simultaneous interpreting norms and strategies in a South African legislative context: A pilot corpus analysis. Language Matters, 31(1), 198–221. 10.1080/10228190008566165
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10228190008566165 [Google Scholar]
  81. Wang, B.
    (2012) Shifts in simultaneous interpreting. Meta, 57(1), 198–212. 10.7202/1012749ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1012749ar [Google Scholar]
  82. Wehrmeyer, E.
    (2011, October11–13). Deaf TV audience comprehension of signed news interpretation [Paper presentation]. International Postgraduate Conference in Translation and Interpreting, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. (2014) Introducing grounded theory into translation studies. SALALS, 17(1), 99–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. (2015) Comprehension of television news sign language interpreters – A South African perspective. Interpreting, 17(2), 195–225. 10.1075/intp.17.2.03weh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.2.03weh [Google Scholar]
  85. (2016) An annotation system for signed language interpreting corpora. Hermeneus, 17, 66–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. (2019) A corpus for signed language research. Interpreting, 22(1), 92–105.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. (2020a) Linguistic interference in interpreting from English to South African Sign Language. InR. Hickey (Ed.), English in Multilingual South Africa (pp.231–250). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. (2020b) The South African Sign Language Interpreting Corpus. researchgate.net/project/Sign-Language-Interpreting-Corpus-Project/
  89. Zanettin, F.
    (2012) Translation-driven Corpora: Corpus Resources for Descriptive and Applied Translation Studies. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.18059.weh
Loading
Shifts in signed media interpreting
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 25, 270 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18059.weh
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.18059.weh
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.18059.weh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus-driven interpreting studies; interpreting strategies; signed language interpreting; simultaneous interpreting; South African Sign Language

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error