A Comparison of Transitions used in ASL Interpreting

“A Comparison of Transitions used in ASL Interpreting & Transliterating: Are transitions triggered by explicit or implicit cues from the speaker? ” By: Tiffany Taylor Introduction ◆ The goal of this research is to analyze how interpreters incorporate transitions into their work and if the target language mode, whether it be interpreting or transliterating, has an effect on how the transitions are used. The researcher will mainly focus on whether or not the interpreter will be relying on explicit or implicit cues from the speaker and if the interpreter will choose signs that are closely tied to the lexical form of the transition the speaker used in English. Terminology Defined ◆ Transliterating is typically referred to as Conceptually Accurate Signed English (CASE). Transliterators follow English sentence structure, include mouthed English, incorporate ASL features (use of space & non-manual markers), and recognize that meaning is more critical than sound or spelling (Kelly, 2001). ◆ Discourse markers are used for cohesion by organizing levels of detail, noting new information versus old information, and providing logical and fluid shifts in topics (Napier, 2002). Methodology ◆ The researcher selected video samples 715 minutes in length and at least 5 minutes into the interpretation. While analyzing the segment the researcher noted which transitions were used and whether the transitions were triggered by the speaker’s explicit cues or implicit cues. Finally, the researcher compared the data from the interpreting samples with the data noted from the transliteration samples. Analysis Limitations Results ◆ The transitions used by the interpreters were analyzed and assigned to one of the three following categories. If the speaker had an explicit cue, meaning that the speaker used a transition lexically, and the interpreter chose a sign that was a close lexical match to the English word or phrase used by the speaker was noted as “explicit with lexical match”. ◆ Speaker: “For example…” ◆ Interpreter: (eyebrows up) FOR EXAMPLE… ◆ If the speaker had an explicit cue but the interpreter chose a sign that was not a close lexical match this is noted as “explicit without lexical match”. ◆ Speaker: “Again the words can be misleading…” ◆ Interpreter: UNDERSTAND… ◆ The last category occurred when the speaker did not have an explicit cue, and instead relied on an implicit cue such as a slide change to note a transition. If the interpreter added an explicit lexical item in the target language this was noted as “implicit cues”. ◆ Speaker: revisiting that but… (looks back at powerpoint), umm interactive collaborative tools… ◆ Interpreter: CONSIDER W-H-Y. NEXT (vertical) I-N-T-E-R-A-C-T-I-V-E… Interpreting Samples: 37 total transitions 11% Explicit Cues (with lexical match) Inexplicit Cues 22% 67% Explicit Cues (without lexical match) Transliteration Samples: 32 total transitions 3% 6% Explicit Cues (with lexical match) ◆ The 3 interpreting and 3 transliterating were all existing samples. Therefore, there was no way to discuss the interpreter’s decision making, background, education, certification, or experience. The source language speakers and the interpreters also varied in setting, content, and intent. ◆ This research did not focus on, or note, less straightforward strategies an interpreter may have used to note a transition. Recommendations ◆ If interpreters can become aware of the speaker’s use of transitions, as well as their function and frequency, it might be possible to enhance the interpretation. The interpreter should know how transitions function in ASL and English to provide equivalency and improve the prosody of the product. Conclusion Implicit Cues Explicit Cues (without lexical match) 91% Discussion and Findings ◆ The most frequently used types of transitions were to ◆ In most samples the interpreters and transliterators add (16), show sequence (12), and to compare (11). relied solely on the explicit cues. Sample (I 3) Other, less frequent purposed could have included to impacted the results of the data because 7 of the emphasize, to give an example, to repeat, to show 16 transitions that the interpreter included in the target time, and to summarize. Some transitions served more message were triggered by implicit cues from the than one function. speaker. This could be due to the speaker having ◆ If the speaker does not have a lot of transitional lexicon minimal explicit cues, instead the speaker chose to then the interpreter may be more inclined to add rely on the slide presentation to note topic changes. transitions triggered by implicit cues. ◆ Results show that while working into both interpreting and transliterating the interpreter incorporated the speaker’s explicit transitions. The use of implicit cues did occur more frequently in the interpreting samples. This may be due to the speakers use of transitions as well as the interpreters experience. None of the samples had errors in use of transitions but some samples had less total transitions. This may be due to interpreter experience or background or the nature of the sample setting and speaker. References Kelly, J. (2001). Trans lit e ration : Show M e the Eng lish. Alexandria, VA: RID Press. Napier, J. (2002). S ign language in te rpre ting : L ingu is tic cop ing s trateg ie s (pp. 26, 51 -52). Coleford, England: D. Mc. Lean.