Volume 16, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Until now, investigations of strategies used by signed language interpreters in the simultaneous mode have been sporadic and restricted to analyses of short transcripts. This article presents the first corpus-driven exploration of interpreter additions in news broadcasts simultaneously interpreted into South African Sign Language. Using grounded theory, it explores the types of additions made, the reasons for their production, and their downstream consequences. The results show that interpreters mainly add discourse markers, linguistic extrapolations such as filling in ellipsis and obvious co-text, repetitions, contextual information, and to a lesser extent, second translations, pragmatic markers, and new information. However, the cost is high as additions often result in concomitant omissions and occasional incoherence. From the results, a model is extrapolated to explain additions in terms of the interpreter’s perceived roles and status in the Deaf community.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Angelelli, Claudia
    2004Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511486616
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486616 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anthony, Lawrence
    2018 AntConc (software) Version 3.5.7 (Windows). www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/. Last accessed21 January 2020.
  3. Barik, Henri
    1994 “A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation.” InBridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. bySylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer. 121–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.3.12bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.12bar [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
    2006 “Strategies of simultaneous interpreting and directionality.” Interpreting8 (2): 149–174. doi:  10.1075/intp.8.2.03bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.2.03bar [Google Scholar]
  5. Baumgarten, Nicole, Bernd Meier, and Demet Özçetin
    2008 “Explicitness in translation and interpreting: A critical review and some empirical evidence (of an elusive concept).” Across Languages and Cultures9 (2): 177–203. doi:  10.1556/Acr.9.2008.2.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.9.2008.2.2 [Google Scholar]
  6. Braun, Sabine
    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 Pragmatics107: 165–177. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.011 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chernov, Ghelly
    2004Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.57
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.57 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cokely, Denis
    1992Interpretation: A Sociolinguistic Model. Burtonsville, MD: Linstock Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Corbin, Juliet and Anselm Strauss
    2014Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:  10.4135/9781452230153
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dose, Stephanie
    2010 Patterns of Growing Standardization and Interference in Interpreted German Discourse. Pretoria: University of South Africa. MA dissertation. hdl.handle.net/10500/4710. Last accessed21 January 2020.
  11. Gile, Daniel
    1995Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.8(1st)
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8(1st) [Google Scholar]
  12. Gumul, Ewa
    2006 “Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting: A strategy or a byproduct of language mediation?” Across Languages and Cultures7 (2): 171–190. doi:  10.1556/Acr.7.2006.2.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.7.2006.2.2 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2017 “Explicitation and directionality in simultaneous interpreting.” Linguistica Silesiana38: 311–329.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jacobsen, Bente
    2003 “Pragmatics in court interpreting: Additions.” InCritical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community, ed. byLouise Brunette, . 223–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.46.23jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.46.23jac [Google Scholar]
  15. Johnston, Trevor
    2010 “Transcription and annotation in the creation of signed language corpora.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15 (1): 106–131. doi:  10.1075/ijcl.15.1.05joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.1.05joh [Google Scholar]
  16. Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta
    2018 “Interpretese vs. non-native language use: The case of optional that.” InMaking Way in Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies, ed. byMariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Bart Defrancq. 97–113. Singapore: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_6 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kia, Mehdi and Helen Ouliaeinia
    2016 “Explicitation across literary genres: Evidence of a strategic device?” Translation & Interpreting8 (2): 82–95. doi:  10.12807/ti.108202.2016.a06
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.108202.2016.a06 [Google Scholar]
  18. Klaudy, Kalina
    2009 “Explicitation.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd edition, ed. byMona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha. 104–108. London: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9780203872062
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203872062 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kohn, Kurt and Sylvia Kalina
    1996 “The strategic dimension of interpreting.” Meta41 (1): 118–138. doi:  10.7202/003333ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003333ar [Google Scholar]
  20. Krüger, Ralph
    2013 “A cognitive linguistic perspective on explicitation and implicitation in scientific and technical translation.” Trans-kom. Journal of Translation and Technical Communication Research6 (2): 285–314.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Leeson, Lorraine
    2005 “Making the effort in simultaneous interpreting: Some considerations for signed language interpreters.” InTopics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice, ed. byTerry Janzen. 51–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.63.07lee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.07lee [Google Scholar]
  22. Merlini, Raffaela
    2015 “Dialogue interpreting.” InThe Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. byFranz Pöchhacker. 102–103. London: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9781315678467
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678467 [Google Scholar]
  23. Merlini, Raffaela and Roberta Favaron
    2005 “Examining the ‘voice of interpreting’ in speech pathology.” Interpreting7 (2): 263–302. doi:  10.1075/intp.7.2.07mer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.2.07mer [Google Scholar]
  24. Moser-Mercer, Barbara, Alexander Künzli, and Marina Korac
    1998 “Prolonged turns in interpreting: effects on quality, physiological and psychological stress (pilot study).” Interpreting3 (1): 47–64. doi:  10.1075/intp.3.1.03mos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.3.1.03mos [Google Scholar]
  25. Pym, Anthony
    2005 “Explaining explicitation.” InNew Trends in Translation Studies: In Honour of Kinga Klaudy, ed. byKrisztina Károly and Ágota Fóris. 29–43. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Russo, Mariachiara
    2018 “Speaking patterns and gender in European Parliament Interpreting Corpus: A quantitative study as a premise for qualitative investigations.” InMaking Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies, ed. byMariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Bart Defrancq. 115–131. Singapore: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  27. Sandler, Wendy
    2010 “Prosody and syntax in sign languages.” Transactions of the Philological Society108 (3): 298–328. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2010.01242.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2010.01242.x [Google Scholar]
  28. Schreiber, Michael
    1993Übersetzung und Bearbeitung: zur Differenzierung und Abgrenzung des Übersetzungsbegriffs. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Shlesinger, Miriam
    2008 “Towards a definition of interpretese: An intermodal, corpus-based study.” InEfforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile, ed. byGyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast. 237–253. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.80.18shl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.80.18shl [Google Scholar]
  30. Stone, Christopher
    2009Towards a Deaf Translation Norm. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Stratiy, Angela
    2005 “Best practices in interpreting: A deaf community perspective.” InTopics in Signed Languages and Interpreting: Theory and Practice, ed. byTerry Janzen. 231–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.63.14str
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.14str [Google Scholar]
  32. Tang, Fang
    2018Explicitation in Consecutive Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.135
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.135 [Google Scholar]
  33. Toury, Gideon
    1995Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2012Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Revised Edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.100
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.100 [Google Scholar]
  35. Van Besien, Fred and Chris Meuleman
    2004 “Dealing with speakers’ errors and speakers’ repairs in simultaneous interpreting.” The Translator10 (1): 59–81. doi:  10.1080/13556509.2004.10799168
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2004.10799168 [Google Scholar]
  36. Van Besien, Fred
    1999 “Anticipation in simultaneous interpretation.” Meta44 (2): 250–259. doi:  10.7202/004532ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/004532ar [Google Scholar]
  37. Venuti, Lawrence
    1995The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge. doi:  10.1080/07374836.1996.10523686
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.1996.10523686 [Google Scholar]
  38. Vinay, Jean-Paul and Jean Darbelnet
    1958/1995Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.11 [Google Scholar]
  39. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    1998Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Wehrmeyer, Ella
    2014a “Introducing grounded theory into translation studies.” SALALS32 (3): 373–387. doi:  10.2989/16073614.2014.997069
    https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2014.997069 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2014b “Eye tracking deaf and hearing viewing of sign language interpreted news broadcasts.” JEMR7 (1,3): 1–16. doi:  10.16910/jemr.7.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.7.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2015 “An annotation system for signed language interpreting corpora.” Hermeneus17: 279–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2019 “A corpus for signed language research.” Interpreting21 (1): 62–90. doi:  10.1075/intp.00020.weh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00020.weh [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