Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Interpreting requires a nuanced understanding of language, and Wilcox and Shaffer (2005) propose that interpreting is enhanced by adopting a cognitive model of communication rather than the conduit model implicit in many interpreting pedagogy models. The present study used a cognitive linguistic approach to investigate affective constructions in American Sign Language (ASL). Relative cognitive linguistic principles are reviewed in the context of English affective constructions and applied in reporting the ASL findings. Then the article explores how these theoretical concepts can support meaning-transfer work. Specifically, Langacker’s Stage Model ( 2008 ) is expanded as a framework for comparing source and target text construals of events and for presenting a message with equivalent impact through different language-specific strategies.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi
    1988 “Psych-verbs and Theta Theory.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory6 (3): 291–352. doi: 10.1007/BF00133902
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133902 [Google Scholar]
  2. Boroditsky, Lera
    2011 “How language shapes thought.” Scientific American304 (2): 62–65. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0211‑62
    https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0211-62 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bouchard, Denis
    1995The Semantics of Syntax: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Clark, Herbert and Richard Gerrig
    1990 “Quotations as demonstrations.” Language66 (4): 764–805. doi: 10.2307/414729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cokely, Dennis
    1992Interpretation: A Sociolinguistic Model. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Colonomos, Betty
    1989 “Integrated Model of Interpreting Handout.” Bilingual Mediation Center. www.visitbmc.com/index.php/publications/integrated-model-of-interpreting-imi. Last accessed on19 September 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Croft, William
    2012Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dudis, Paul
    2007 “ Types of Depiction in ASL .” Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC, Gallaudet University.
  9. 2010 “Some observations on form-meaning correspondences in two types of verbs in ASL.” Deaf Around the World: The Impact of Language, 83. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732548.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732548.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fillmore, Charles
    1975 “An alternative to checklist theories of meaning.” Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society1: 123–131.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gile, Daniel
    2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  12. Goldberg, Adele
    2003 “Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language.” Trends in Cognitive Science7 (5): 219–224. doi: 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  13. Healy, Christina
    2015Construing Affective Events in American Sign Language. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Washington, DC, Gallaudet University.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ingram, Robert
    1978 “Sign Language Interpretation and General Theories of Language, Interpretation and Communication.” InLanguage Interpretation and Communication. NATO Conference Series 6, ed. by David Gerver and Wallace Sinaiko , 109–118. Boston: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑9077‑4_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9077-4_11 [Google Scholar]
  15. Katada, Fusa
    2013 “Weak transitivity: Another view of psych-predicates.” Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo”38: 81–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kegl, Judy
    1990 “Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the ASL lexicon.” InSign Language Research: Theoretical Issues, ed. by Ceil Lucas , 149–175. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. King, Martin Luther
    1963 “I have a dream…” archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf. Last accessed8 October 2016.
  18. Lakoff, George
    1970Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 1987Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Langacker, Ronald
    1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2008Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Leeson, Lorraine
    2005 “Making the effort in simultaneous interpreting.” InTopics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice, ed. by Terry Janzen , 51–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.63.07lee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.07lee [Google Scholar]
  24. Levin, Beth
    1993English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Liddell, Scott
    2003Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. New YorkCambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
  26. Napier, Jemina
    2003 “A sociolinguistic analysis of the occurrence and types of omissions produced by Australian Sign Language/English interpreters.” InFrom topic boundaries to omission: New Research on Interpretation, ed. by Melanie Metzger , Steven Collins , Valerie Dively , and Risa Shaw , 99–153. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Oomen, Marloes
    2015Psych-Verbs in Sign Language of the Netherlands: How humans’ emotional experiences leave their traces in the grammar of languages in the manual modality. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, University of Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Oyharçabal, Beñat
    2013 “Lexical causatives and causative alternation in Basque.” Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo,”223–253.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Quer, Josep
    2009 “Agreement and argument structure in SLs: A case study in LSC psychological predications.” Paper presented at The 21st European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information . Bordeaux, France.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ramchand, Gillian
    2008Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  31. Rankin, Miako
    2013Form, Meaning, and Focus in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Sapountzaki, Galini
    2012 “Agreement auxiliaries.” InSign Language. An International Handbook, ed. by Roland Pfau , Markus Steinbach , and Bencie Woll , 204–227. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110261325.204
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.204 [Google Scholar]
  33. Talmy, Leonard
    2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Concept Structuring System, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2003Toward a cognitive semantics: Typology jyoti and process in concept structuring (Language, speech, and communication) Volume 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Thumann, Mary
    2010Identifying Depiction in American Sign Language Presentations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Washington, DC, Gallaudet University.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Turner, Mark
    1991Reading Minds. Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Valli, Clayton , Ceil Lucas , Kristin Mulrooney and Miako Villanueva
    2011Linguistics of American Sign Language: An Introduction. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Wilcox, Sherman and Barbara Shaffer
    2005 “Towards a cognitive model of interpreting.” InTopics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice, ed. by Terry Janzen , 27–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.63.06wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.06wil [Google Scholar]
  39. Winston, Charlotte
    2013Psychological Verb Constructions in American Sign Language. Unpublished M.A. thesis. West Lafayette, IN, Purdue University.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Witter-Merithew, Anna
    2001 Understanding the meaning of texts and reinforcing foundation skills through discourse analysis. InTapestry of Our Worlds: Proceedings of the 17th National Conference of Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, ed. by Clay Nettles , 177–192. Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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