1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interpreting
  4. Volume 18, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This study examined omissions, errors, and variability in lexical selection across simultaneous interpretations of President Obama’s 2009 inaugural address, in three spoken languages (French, German, Japanese) and in American Sign Language (ASL). Microanalysis of how information conveyed by 39 source speech lexical items was transferred into the target languages assessed to what extent omissions and errors reflected differences in lexical structure (relative frequency of ready lexical correspondents and of shared cognates between the source and target languages; and, for ASL in particular, size of lexicon compared to English). The highest number of errors and omissions was found in ASL, which has the smallest documented vocabulary, fewest lexical correspondents, and no shared cognates with English. If omission/error rates in interpretation of lexical units are taken as a rough indicator of interpreting difficulty, results suggest that it is more difficult to interpret the speech into Japanese than into French or German and, by the same token, more difficult to interpret it into ASL than into the three spoken languages. These findings are consistent with the idea that language structures impact cognitive load during interpreting, and that interpreting effort increases in relation to the degree of difference between the source and target languages.

© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.18.1.02swa
2016-04-08
2025-01-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/intp.18.1.02swa
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Fityani, K. & Padden, C
    (2010) Sign languages in the arab world. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 433–450. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.020
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.020 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, C. & Cokely, D
    (1980) American Sign Language: A teacher’s resource text on grammar and culture. Silver Spring, MD: TJ Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Battison, R
    (1978) Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Brentari, D. & Padden, C.A
    (2001) Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: A lexicon with multiple origins. In D. Bentari (Ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages: A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 87–120.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Brueck, P. , Rode, J. , Hessman, J. , Meinicke, B. , Unruh, D. & Bergmann, A
    (2014) Diagnosing healthcare assignments: A year of medical interpreting for deaf people in Austria and Germany. In B. Nicodemus & M. Metzger (Eds.), Investigations in healthcare interpreting. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 128–184.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Canadian Association of the Deaf
    (2012) Statistics on Deaf Canadians. www.cad.ca/statistics_on_deaf_canadians.php (accessed2 July 2014).
  7. Dudis, P
    (2007) Types of depiction in ASL. Unpublished manuscript . Gallaudet University , Washington, DC.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Fan, C. (Damien)
    (2013) Sentence comprehension in expert and novice interpreters: An ERP study. PhD dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Gile, D
    (2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2011) Errors, omissions and infelicities in broadcast interpreting: Preliminary findings from a case study. In C. Alvstad , A. Hild , & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 201–218. doi: 10.1075/btl.94.15gil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.15gil [Google Scholar]
  11. Hessman, J. , Salmi, E. , Turner, G.H. & Wurm, S
    (2011) Developing and transmitting a shared interpreting research ethos: EUMASLI – a case study. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 177–198. doi: 10.1075/btl.99.11hes
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.99.11hes [Google Scholar]
  12. Janzen, T
    (2005) Topics in sign language interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.63
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63 [Google Scholar]
  13. Johnston, T
    (2003) Language standardization and signed language dictionaries. Sign Language Studies3 (4), 431–468. Doi: 10.1353/sls.2003.0012
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2012) Lexical frequency in sign languages. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education17 (2), 163–193. Doi: 10.1093/deafed/enr036
     https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enr036 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lederer, M
    (1981) La pédagogie de la traduction simultanée. In J. Delisle (Ed.), L’enseignement de la traduction et de l’interprétation. Ottawa: Editions de l’université d’Ottawa, 47–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Leeson, L
    (2011) ‘Mark my words’: The linguistic, social, and political significance of the assessment of signed language interpreters. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 185–232. doi: 10.1075/btl.99.10lee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.99.10lee [Google Scholar]
  17. Liddell, S
    (2003) Grammar, gesture and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
  18. Major, G
    (2014) ‘Sorry could you explain that?’ Clarification requests in interpreted healthcare interaction. In B. Nicodemus & M. Metzger (Eds.), Investigations in healthcare interpreting. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 32–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. McKee, D. & Kennedy, G
    (2000) Lexical comparison of signs from American, Australian, British, and New Zealand Sign languages. In K. Emmorey & H. Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 43–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Metzger, M
    (1995) Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf communities. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 255–271.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Mitchell, R.E
    (2004) How many people use ASL? And other good questions without good answers. Paper given atGallaudet University7April 2004 research.gallaudet.edu/Presentations/2004-04-07-1.pdf (accessed15 October 2012).
  22. Mitchell, R.E. , Young, T.A. , Bachleda, B. & Karchmer, M.A
    (2006) How many people use sign language in the United States? Why estimates need updating. Sign Language Studies6 (3), 306–335. doi: 10.1353/sls.2006.0019
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2006.0019 [Google Scholar]
  23. Nicodemus, B. & Swabey, L
    (2014) Conveying medication prescriptions in American Sign Language. Translation & Interpreting6 (1), 1–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Padden, C.A
    (1988) Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (1998) The ASL lexicon. Sign Language and Linguistics1 (1), 39–60. doi: 10.1075/sll.1.1.04pad
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.1.1.04pad [Google Scholar]
  26. Pointurier-Pournin, S
    (2014) L’interprétation en Langue des Signes Française : contraintes, tactiques, efforts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle.
  27. Sandler, W
    (1989) Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and non-linearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. doi: 10.1515/9783110250473
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110250473 [Google Scholar]
  28. Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, D
    (2006) Sign language and linguistic universals. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139163910
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163910 [Google Scholar]
  29. Seeber, K.G. & Kerzel, D
    (2012) Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data. International Journal of Bilingualism16 (2), 228–242. Doi: 10.1177/1367006911402982
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911402982 [Google Scholar]
  30. Seleskovitch, D
    (1981) L’enseignement de l’interprétation. In J. Delisle (Ed.), L’enseignement de la traduction et de l’interprétation. Ottawa: Editions de l’université d’Ottawa, 23–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Stokoe, W.C. , Casterline, D.C. & Croneberg, C.G
    (1965) A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Woodward, J
    (1973) Some observations on sociolinguistic variation and American Sign Language. Kansas Journal of Sociology9 (2), 191–199.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Van den Bogaerde, B. & de Lange, R
    (2014) Healthcare accessibility and the role of sign language interpreters. In B. Nicodemus & M. Metzger (Eds.), Investigations in healthcare interpreting. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 326–358.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.18.1.02swa
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): American Sign Language; cognitive load; interpreting tactics; lexicon; spoken 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