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


Humans have the unique capability of using language to talk about language ( Jakobson 1957 ). For example, one can say, “The Italian word for is ” These metalinguistic references can create a dilemma for interpreters because the critical linguistic term (i.e., ) must be maintained in the target language to create meaning. Spoken language interpreters can render the original form since both working languages are expressed in the same modality (speech-speech). However, signed language interpreters who work between languages having distinct modalities (speech-sign), thus, must interpret forms between different phonological structures. We videorecorded ten experienced American Sign Language-English interpreters as they interpreted a mock training session containing metalinguistic references. Results showed interpreters employed numerous strategies to manage and coordinate the target language output.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, Laurie
    2012 “Code-switching and Coordination in Interpreter-mediated Interaction.” InCoordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting, ed. by Claudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli , 115–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.102.06and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.06and [Google Scholar]
  2. Authier-Revuz, Jaqueline
    1995Ces Mots qui ne vont pas de soi. Boucles Réfléxives et non Coïncidences du Dire. Paris: Larousse.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cappelen, Herman , and Ernie Lepore
    2007Language turned on itself. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metalinguistic Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231195.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231195.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. De Brabanter, Philippe
    2003Making Sense of Mention, Quotation, and Autonymy. A Semantic and Pragmatic Survey of Metalinguistic Discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Paris, France, Université Paris IV.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Del Vecchio, Silvia , Marcello Cardarelli , Fabiana De Simone , and Giulia Petitta
    2015 “Interacting with Participants Outside of Interpretation.” InSigned Language Interpretation and Translation Research: Selected Papers from the First International Symposium, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus and Keith Cagle , 24–48. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Grbić, Nadja and Sonja Pöllabauer
    2006 “Community interpreting: signed or spoken? Types, modes, and methods.” Linguistica Antverpiensia5: 247–261.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Jakobson, Roman , and Morris Halle
    1956Fundamentals of Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Jakobson, Roman
    1957Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb. Harvard University, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, Russian Language Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Janzen, Terry
    (ed) 2005Topics in Signed Language Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.63
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63 [Google Scholar]
  11. Janzen, Terry and Barbara Shaffer
    2008 “Intersubjectivity in Interpreted Interactions.” InThe Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity, ed. by Jordan Zlatev , Timothy P. Racine , Chris Sinha , and Esa Itkonen , 333–355. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.12.18jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.12.18jan [Google Scholar]
  12. 2013 “The Interpreter’s Stance in Intersubjective Discourse.” InSign Language Research Uses and Practices: Crossing Views on Theoretical and Applied Sign Language Linguistics, ed. by Laurence Meurant , Aurélie Sinte , Mieke Van Herreweghe , and Myriam Vermeerbergen , 63–84. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9781614511472.63
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511472.63 [Google Scholar]
  13. Kelly, Jean Elaine
    2004ASL-to-English Interpretation. Say it like they mean it. Alexandria, VA: RID Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Llewellyn-Jones, Peter and Robert G. Lee
    2013 “Getting to the Core of Role: Defining Interpreters’ Role Space.” International Journal of Interpreter Education5 (2): 54–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2014Redefining the Role of the Community Interpreter: The Concept of Role-space. Lincoln, UK: SLI Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lucy, John
    (ed) 1993Reflexive Language. Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621031
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031 [Google Scholar]
  17. Marks, Annie
    2015 “Investigating Footing Shifts in Video Relay Service Interpreted Interaction.” InSigned Language Interpretation and Translation Research: Selected Papers from the First International Symposium, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus and Keith Cagle , 71–96. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Mason, Ian and Wen Ren
    2012 “Power in face-to-face interpreting events.” Translation and Interpreting Studies7 (2): 234–253. doi: 10.1075/tis.7.2.08mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.7.2.08mas [Google Scholar]
  19. Metzger, Melanie
    1999Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Napier, Jemina
    2004 “Interpreting omissions: A new perspective.” Interpreting6 (2): 117–142. doi: 10.1075/intp.6.2.02nap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.2.02nap [Google Scholar]
  21. Palmer, Jeffrey , Wanette Reynolds , and Rebecca Minor
    2012 “‘You want What on your Pizza!?’ Videophone and Video-relay Service as Potential Influences on the Lexical Standardization of American Sign Language.” Sign Language Studies12 (3): 371–397. doi: 10.1353/sls.2012.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2012.0005 [Google Scholar]
  22. Petitta, Giulia
    2015 “Metalinguistic References in Cross-modal Translations: Sign Language Interpreting and its Issues.” InLanguage across Languages: New Perspectives on Translation, ed. by Emanuele Miola and Paolo Ramat , 59–79. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Petitta, Giulia , Mark Halley , and Brenda Nicodemus
    2016 “Managing Metalinguistic References in Signed-spoken Interpreted Discourse.” Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata, 16 (2): 53–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ramat, Paolo
    2007 “The Problem of (Un)translatability.” R.I.L.A., Rivista Italiana di Linguistica Applicata39 (1–2): 21–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Roy, Cynthia
    1989 A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Interpreter’s Role in the Turn Exchanges of an Interpreted Event. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Washington, DC, Georgetown University.
  26. Santiago, Roberto and Lisa Barrick
    2007 “Handling and Incorporation of Idioms in Interpretation.” InTranslation, Sociolinguistic, and Consumer Issues in Interpreting, ed. by Melanie Metzger and Earl Fleetwood , 3–44. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Straniero Sergio, Francesco
    2012 “‘You are not too Funny.’ Challenging the Role of the Interpreter in Italian Talk Shows.” InCoordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting, ed. by Claudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli , 71–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.102.04str
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.04str [Google Scholar]
  28. Valli, Clayton , Ceil Lucas , Kristin Mulrooney , and Miako Villanueva
    2011Linguistics of American Sign Language. 5th Edition. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Viaggio, Sergio
    1996 “The pitfalls of metalingual use in simultaneous interpreting.” The Translator2 (2): 179–198. doi: 10.1080/13556509.1996.10798973
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1996.10798973 [Google Scholar]
  30. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    1998Interpreting as Interaction. London, UK: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wilcox, Sherman and Barbara Shaffer
    2005 “Towards a Cognitive Model of Interpreting.” InTopics in Signed Language Interpreting, 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]
  32. Witter-Merithew, Anna , Leilani Johnson , and Brenda Nicodemus
    2010 “Relational Autonomy and Decision Latitude of ASL-English Interpreters: Implications for Interpreter Education.” InProceedings of the Seventeenth National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainer, ed. by Len Roberson and Sherry Shaw , 49–66. San Antonio, Texas.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): autonymy; discourse; interpreting; metalinguistics; signed languages; strategies
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