It is true of any language that no two interpretations are exactly the same. This does not mean either one of the interpretations is wrong even if both interpreters are fluent in their respective languages. It is perfectly normal as different translations and interpretations happen all the time as each and every individual has a unique upbringing in the environments that helped foster one’s language development and background knowledge. In his Le Ton beau de Marot book, Hofstadter (1997) had a French poem translated in other languages by one hundred people, including some of his own relatives, friends, colleagues, and strangers that he met at conferences. After receiving the multiple translations, he compared their translations of the poem and shared his thoughts about how he would have translated the poem differently in his book. He was amazed at how many different translations of the poem turned out.

I never intended that my challenge to translate a charming French poem into other languages should be thought of as an Olympic event with gold, silver, and bronze medals! No—a far better metaphor for the “Ma Mignonne” challenge and all that it inspired would be a mineralogical display featuring sparkling crystals of all sorts of dazzling colors and an unimaginable array of forms. Some of these crystalline translations will appeal more to one reader, others to another. The real point of the exhibit is simply to allow readers to revel in the diversity of this collection of deeply related gems, so beautifully illustrative of the endless inventive spark residing in the human spirit. (Hofstadter, 1997, p. 13)

When we think about American Sign Language (ASL) an–English interpreting, it is also clear that no translations (or interpretations) are the same. A Deaf person might have a preference for one particular interpreter over another because they like the way the interpreter constructs and reconstructs the information in ASL on the basis of the interpreter’s understanding of the English.

Another Deaf person might have a different opinion of the same interpreter similarly to the metaphor of the mineralogical display described by Hofstadter (1997). This analogy is akin to a museum, where visitors can examine a variety of gems, rocks, and minerals in the mineralogical exhibition. Some might have sparkling crystalline surfaces, whereas others have a more natural nonsparkling surface. Some of the visitors will prefer the more sparkling-looking gems, whereas others will prefer the non-sparkling kind. Some will find rocks of certain colors more appealing to them. This is similar to Deaf people’s preferences of how our interpreters provide their interpretations/translations (see Swabey et al., 2016). For example, at a center of the exhibition, there was a 360-degree glass exhibit that appeared to be admired by many visitors. This analogy also applies to interpreters—some interpreters might have more consumers requesting their services. All of this depends on the person’s worldly experience and how they embody the information based on their view, physical experience, brain maturity, social interaction, and interpretation and translation skills, including cognitive processing.

American Sign Language Linguistic Features From a Cognitive Linguistic Perspective

For some reason, anecdotal evidence indicates that rhetorical questions (questions that are asked merely for effect with no answer expected) seem to be more natural if they are signed by ASL speakers (in this chapter, we use the term “speakers” to refer to those who use ASL as their first language) as compared with second language learners who learn ASL after acquiring their first language. Kurz and Hill (2018) conducted a focus group of Deaf professionals and asked them what linguistic and other qualities they wanted from their sign language interpreters. The group wanted to see more use of depiction features, such as use of classifiers, space, depicting verbs, constructed actions/constructed dialogues, all of which are considered to be ASL’s most complex linguistic features and functions. Depiction in ASL (Dudis, 2007; Liddell, 1996, 2003; Liddell & Metzger, 1998; Metzger, 1995; Thumann, 2010) also encompasses spatial mapping (Mather & Winston, 1998; Winston, 1991, 1995, 1996). Cognitive linguistics allows us to consider how what we interpret might reflect others’ perspectives and compare the ways they reflect them through language. We tend to look into our worldly knowledge—the decision-making of how to interpret these concepts depends heavily on our knowledge of the subject and our experience.

Langacker’s Construal Framework Related to Perspective and the Vantage Point

Using a cognitive linguistic approach to educational interpreting is one way to understand interpreting in classrooms more effectively. Wilcox and Shaffer (2005) explain the importance of understanding language through cognitive models of communication and emphasize that a cognitive linguistic approach explains how our minds function in communication and interpreting. Furthermore, Healy (2018) proposed using Langacker’s stage model as a framework for comparing source and target text construals of events based on Wilcox and Shaffer’s (2005) work using a cognitive model of communication.

Langacker (2008) describes how “an expression’s meaning is not just the conceptual content it evokes—equally important is how that content is construed” (p. 55). When the speaker views a scene in their mind, it depends on how closely the speakers examine their view (specificity), what they choose to look at (focusing), choosing the elements they want to pay most attention to (prominence), and where they view it from (perspective). Focusing on the perspective domain, Langacker (2008) describes a viewing arrangement as the viewers and the situations that are being viewed. Some of the viewing arrangements are considered “default.” For example, Langacker uses this sentence, “The lamp is on the table.” Although not necessarily wrong, it would seem awkward if the speaker said, “The table is under the lamp.”

Another consideration relates to the default arrangement involving the relative positions of the viewers, “instead of occupying a fixed location, the viewer is often conceived as being in motion” (p. 74), which usually means a spatial distance. For example, “walking through the buildings” implies a spatial distance and a conceived default arrangement of being in motion. One part of the viewing arrangement is called a “vantage point,” which means the actual location of the speaker and hearer. Langacker (2008) describes how the same objective situation can be observed and described from any number of vantage points, resulting in different construals—for example, “in front of” and “in the back.” These concepts are discussed in relation to interpreting, with examples in the next section.

Constructing Meaning Through Interpretations

One of the interpreter’s tasks is to pay attention to the Deaf or hearing speaker’s expression of their own constructed meaning in each setting. Angelelli (2004) suggests

this broader perspective helps us see that meaning is not objective and independent of the parties who are constructing it. The professional discourse on interpreting is, for the most part, based on a belief of an objective meaning, arguing that interpreting is about conveying that same meaning in a different language. (p. 44)

The problem associated with interpreter education programs (IEPs) nowadays is that the standards for interpreting are designed for a specific setting (e.g., legal interpreting) instead of a variety of settings, such as educational settings for Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students. Angelelli (2004) also raises a point that having a sole standard for all types of interpreting can be detrimental to the interpreting field. Each type of setting requires unique performance skills. We need to ask ourselves the following question: How can IEPs effectively teach their interpreter candidates and show them that there are different ways to construct meanings in various settings?

Each person construes different understandings; therefore, the understandings, and the interpretations are, by nature, different (Janzen & Shaffer, 2008; Wilcox & Shaffer, 2005). Applying the cognitive linguistic approach (Langacker, 2008) to educational interpreting is one way to understand interpreting more effectively. Wilcox and Shaffer (2005) explain the importance of understanding language through cognitive models of communication and emphasize that a cognitive linguistic approach explains how our minds function in communication and interpreting. Angelelli (2004) argues that

the underlying assumptions suggested by statements in their codes of ethics and/or standards of practice, is that in a given sentence there is only one meaning, which is not subject to co-construction by all participants to their interaction (including the interpreter) but rather that meaning exists independently of the parties. (p. 21)

Educational Interpreters as Second Language Learners

According to a report from the National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers (NCIEC), a large majority of the interpreters who graduated from IEPs started to learn ASL when they enrolled in college (Cogen & Cokely, 2015; Winston & Cokely, 2009). In one study, 62% of interpreter training programs reported that they did not have any ASL native speakers in their entering class (Cogen & Cokely, 2015). For a vast majority of hearing learners, learning ASL as a second language in a second modality (for example, bodily and viewed) is more challenging than acquiring one’s first language and modality (for example, aural and oral English). In this chapter, we refer to the other/second modality as “a different modality from one’s first language” (Pichler & Koulidobrova, 2015, p. 219). Interpreter candidates, graduates, and educational interpreters who work in educational settings find some ASL features difficult to learn. For example, research has confirmed that some language features in ASL, such as constructed actions and constructed dialogue, require more time and effort to learn as compared with basic lexicon, some phonological features (i.e., handshape and location), and syntax (Jacobs, 1996; Kurz et al., 2019; McKee & McKee, 1992; Thumann, 2010). It is the modality of these structures, as well as the functions that are uniquely distinct between ASL and English (Roy & Winston, 2018) that may take longer for hearing second language learners to learn, although more research is needed to confirm this hypothesis (Kurz et al., 2019).

It is not uncommon for new IEP graduates to start their interpreting career as educational interpreters on the assumption that it would be easier to work in schools and that Deaf children have a smaller vocabulary in their repertoire (Brizendine, 2018; Humphrey & Alcorn, 2007; Stewart et al., 2004). This assumption is fundamentally wrong and problematic for Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students. Brizendine (2018), for example, recounts that in her experience as an interpreter educator most IEPs lack proper training or exposure related to interpreting for younger DHH children in the classroom. She points out that because most of the higher qualified interpreters seek higher paying and higher status employment, such as video relay service, which pays well and requires higher qualifications, school administrators tend to hire “left-over, less skilled interpreters.” The lack of access to highly qualified educational interpreters and direct instruction in ASL is one of several hindrances to Deaf children’s academic content learning in both languages (ASL and English).

Method

In this descriptive study, two sentences, mentioned later in the chapter, were cited as examples to demonstrate and discuss the differences in interpretation of the same sentence between three interpreter participants. All of the participants agreed to participate in this research project. All participants except one gave permission to show their faces and work publicly. A replacement signing model to mimic that participant was used for the purpose of dissemination.

Participants

The researchers recruited a hearing professor with expertise in the American–Spanish War who taught history to college undergraduate students. This professor had taught history at a high school for 3 years and at a 4-year college for 7 years.

Three interpreters were also recruited for this research project. One interpreter was a child of Deaf adults (Coda) who grew up as the only hearing person in his extended Deaf family and regularly interprets for DHH students at the college level.

The second interpreter was a second language learner of ASL and an educational interpreter who regularly interprets college liberal arts courses, including history. This interpreter agreed to participate in this study and gave permission to use her data but preferred not to have her face revealed publicly. For this reason, the researcher was the signing model in place of this interpreter for this book chapter. Both hearing interpreters are certified by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID). The Deaf signing model has an advanced level in the sign language proficiency interview.

The last interpreter was a certified Deaf interpreter who graduated from an interpreting program. He was a native ASL signer and came from a Deaf family—both of his parents were Deaf. He attended a school for the Deaf when he was young. He learned ASL from his Deaf parents and at a Deaf school. He is currently working as a Deaf interpreter in educational, medical, and community facilities in Rochester, New York, and receives interpreting assignments on a regular basis.

Data

Source Text Selection

Among the materials were some from a lesson called “Imperialism, American Style: The World Stage” from an undergraduate history course. The lesson covers the American–Spanish War in the late 19th century and its impact on the world. This topic was selected because the content required extensive use of space (locations are frequently mentioned) and constructed actions (people are involved). The professor gave a lecture on this lesson in spoken English for approximately 30 minutes in a film studio in front of a few people and the video camera. For consistency and reliability of the source text (ST), all three interpreters were asked to view the same original source (the video) rather than doing it live. There would be more variables if the live lecture is given to each interpreter at different times (Winston & Swabey, 2010).

Collection of Interpretations for Analysis

None of the interpreters viewed the lecture video prior to their interpretation, but all of them received a summary of the lesson notes prepared by the professor a few days in advance. Each interpreter recorded their interpretation work individually in a studio. Both of the hearing interpreters watched the video of the lecture and proceeded with their interpretation for 20 minutes. The Deaf interpreter had an additional large monitor set up in front to watch and interpret the hearing L2 interpreter’s work. The Deaf interpreter, on occasion, stopped the video and rewatched some parts of the video. This was allowable because this is what most Deaf interpreters would do, by asking for clarifications and expanding or reinterpreting the original work into ASL. This is the nature of Deaf interpreting work as opposed to hearing interpreters who tend to do simultaneous interpretation. There were a few people in the audience, all of whom were Deaf, so the stage felt more “real” to all of the interpreters in this study.

For data transcription and analysis, ELAN, a linguistic software tool, was used to transcribe and analyze the linguistic features of all three interpreters (Pichler et al., 2010). A hearing student assistant transcribed the professor’s spoken lecture into written English for the purpose of analyzing and comparing the two languages. ELAN has a video at the top and a transcription that is in sync with the video on the bottom of the screen. The transcriptions and glosses of each sentence in ASL by transcribing and analyzing the STs were entered by one person and verified by another person. The ST was the professor’s delivery of a history lesson lecture to undergraduate students in English. Similarly, all three interpreters had a small audience of people to interpret for in the studio, and the subsequent analyses focused on what was evoked in the TT related to their conceptualization of the ST. An example of an ST sentence from the lecture in written English reads as: “The Spanish–American War of 1898 was a truly global war.” The ASL translation of the ST in ASL or ASL translation of the ASL interpretation of the ST is called the target text (TT). The Coda interpreter is referred to as “Interpreter A,” the interpreter who is an L2 user is referred as “Interpreter B,” and the Deaf interpreter is referred to as “Interpreter C.” The transcription coding symbols used for this research project can be found in the Appendix.

Results

English Sentence 1: “The Spanish–American War of 1898 Was a Truly Global War.”

Figure 1 shows an RIT history professor speaking this ST sentence.

Figure 1. ST: RIT history professor speaking in English, “The Spanish–American War of 1898 was a truly global war.”

The first ASL interpretation of the ST is by the Coda certified interpreter (see Figure 2).

The next interpretation was done by the certified interpreter who was a graduate of an IEP, an L2 user, and a second modality learner of ASL (Interpreter B). However, a signing replacement copied her nonmanual markers and signs for this translation (see Figure 3).

Figure 2. ASL interpretation by the Coda interpreter (Interpreter A).

Figure 3. Interpretation by the second language and second modality learner as portrayed by the replacement signer (Interpreter B).

Figure 4. Interpretation by the Deaf certified interpreter of the second interpretation (Interpreter C).

The next and final translation was done by the Deaf certified interpreter (Interpreter C) who was doing a translation from the second interpreter (Interpreter B) (see Figure 4).

The following TT gloss from all three interpreters can be referenced related to the ST statements:

a.ST (written English): The Spanish–American War of 1898 was a truly global war.

b.Interpreter A: THAT SPAIN AMERICA WAR fs-1898 TRUE dv-ALL-OVER-the-WORLD fs-GLOBAL.

c.Interpreter B: HAPPEN fs-1898 TRUE-BUSINESS HAPPEN LOCAL AMERICA ONLY? HAPPEN cl-WORLD points to some locations around the world with her index finger+++

d.Interpreter C: AMERICA THAT-ALL? NO. COUNTRIES ALL-OVER HAVE HAPPEN+++

Notice how Interpreter A’s interpretation was probably the closest structurally to the ST by following the sentence literally. Instead of “The,” Interpreter A chooses to sign THAT, which is a common way of introducing a new topic in ASL (Aarons, 1996). Overall, it is more similar to “transliteration” based primarily on the form of the ST sentence, rather than on the expected form of an ASL sentence.

Use of TRUE and HAPPEN

Like the sign TRUE produced by Interpreter A, Interpreter B chose the sign TRUE-BUSINESS as a way of marking and emphasizing that it really happened, which is part of ASL structure (Dively, 2001). Interpreter B also decided to use the sign HAPPEN three times during her interpretation to show that there was some action and events going on related to the war for emphasis. The hearing professor does not emphasize such features in his ST; however, this particular interpreter made a personal choice to emphasize it three times in her interpretation. It is likely that she had some prior knowledge from reviewing the professor’s notes about the war.

Concept of “Global”

Next, we found it interesting that all three interpreters interpreted “a global war” differently. According to Langacker’s perspective and/or the viewing arrangement, how interpreters viewed the concept of “global” differently is based on how the interpreter views the world in their mind. Interpreter A decided to use the sign “all-over-the-globe” by using a classifier of WORLD with his nondominant hand (closed S handshape) and using his dominant hand SPREAD on the cl-WORLD. It appears like one war started at a specific place in the world and then spread to other places across the world. In this analysis, the strong mouth movement is used to emphasize “sudden and wide-spread.” In the second translation by Interpreter B, she chose to sign cl-WORLD (opened, claw-C) on her nondominant hand and uses her index finger on her dominant hand to point randomly to different locations in the world. It appears as if wars are localized in different parts of the world instead of all over the world. On the other hand, Interpreter C chose not to use a classifier for the world. Instead, he used a rhetorical question approach (THAT-ALL?), which is a common linguistic feature in ASL (see Figure 5). Interpreter B also used the rhetorical question ONLY? in her interpretation. Rhetorical questions are sentences that contain a question that the speaker does not expect the other person to answer the question directly (Baker-Shenk, 1983). Valli et al. (2011) explain,

Figure 5. Examples of rhetorical questions: ONLY? by Interpreter B and THAT-ALL? by Interpreter C are used in this interpretation.

The function of these structures is to provide the connections between related comments. They are called rhetorical questions because while they look like questions, they are not seeking a yes or no answer or any information from the other person. (p. 94)

Interpreter C decided to emphasize that the Spanish–American War had battles not only in North America but also in other countries. This was signed using HAPPEN repeatedly and horizontally in his signing space. Similarly, Interpreter B also used a type of rhetorical question in her interpretation. She signs LOCAL AMERICA ONLY? then provides a follow-up answer by signing, HAPPEN cl-WORLD and points to different locations around the world+++, Interpreter C incorporated information from Interpreter B.

Omission

Both Interpreter A and Interpreter B chose to repeat the year of 1898 in this interpretation, whereas Interpreter C did not. That is because Interpreter C had already mentioned the year “1898” in a previous sentence and did not repeat it. Similarly, Interpreter B does not sign SPAIN and AMERICA as in “Spanish–American” in her interpretation. Decision-making related to omission is a process and not an easy task for interpreters. Interpreters have to constantly filter the information received and decide whether they want to keep or omit this information (Metzger & Shaw, 2003; Napier, 2002, 2005). It depends on their world knowledge and embodied experiences related to this topic, and may also depend on whom they are interpreting for as well as the consumer’s background.

English Sentence 2: “Looking at This Map of the War Shows How Far-Flung the Conflict Was.”

Another example from the lecture occurs a few minutes after the first ST sentence example. The written English transcription of the ST from the professor reads: “Looking at this map of the war shows how far-flung the conflict was.” The professor showed a map of the world on his lecture PowerPoint slides that were projected onto the screen while speaking the quoted sentence. Figure 6 shows the RIT history professor saying, “Looking at this map of the war shows how far-flung the conflict was.”

The ASL interpretation of the ST by Interpreter A can be seen in Figure 7. The translation in Figure 8 was done by Interpreter B.

The next and final translation was done by the Deaf certified interpreter (Interpreter C) who interpreted the information from Interpreter B (see Figure 9).

The following TT gloss from all three interpreters can be referenced related to the ST statements:

a.ST (English): Looking at this map of the war shows how far-flung the conflict was …

b.Interpreter A: LOOK-AT fs-MAP dv-LOOKING at map dv-FAR FLUNG-ON-THE-MAP

c.Interpreter B: PICTURE (map) SHOW ALL-OVER-the-place

d.Interpreter C: fs-MAP dv-points to map+++ HAVE MANY DIFFERENT dv-points to map+++

Figure 6. RIT history professor speaking in English, “Looking at this map of the war shows how far-flung the conflict was.”

Figure 7. ASL interpretation by the Coda interpreter (Interpreter A).

Again, in this example, Interpreter A’s interpretation is syntactically more aligned with the ST by following the sentence literally. For example, for the English phrase “how far-flung the conflict was,” Interpreter A used a depicting verb of “far-flung-on-the-map.” Interpreter B decided to show the seriousness of the conflict via her facial expression while signing ALL-OVER-THE-PLACE with the palm orientation upward, although this sign production was not clear. Interpreter C decided to sign HAVE MANY DIFFERENT and point repeatedly to the imaginary map.

Next, we find it interesting that all three interpreters interpreted “the map” differently. The map in Interpreter A was depicted as if it were right in front of him and he was looking directly at it. Interpreter B decided to sign PICTURE for the map and literally signed SHOW to refer to the map. Interpreter C, who translated Interpreter B’s work, depicted the map as if it was projected on a screen behind him on his right by pointing to the imaginary map several times (as if pointing to different locations on the map) with his index finger. What is interesting about this is how each interpreter viewed the map. Langacker (2008) refers to this as perspective or the viewing arrangement and how the viewer views the map in their mind. Interpreter A viewed the map as if he was standing in front of it and looking directly at it, whereas Interpreter C evoked the map as if he were teaching in a classroom and it was on the screen behind him. Both Interpreters A and B held their hand to refer to the map while their other hand produced signs. For example, Interpreter A held his hand as if the map was on the wall in front of him while he produced a depicting verb as in “far-flung-on-the-map.” Interpreter C did not hold his hand to refer to the map as Interpreters A and B did; instead, he repeated the MAP part at the end of the phrase when he looked sideways as if the map was behind him on the screen and pointed at it in different places on the map.

Figure 8. Translation of the L2 interpreter as portrayed by the signing replacement (Interpreter B).

Figure 9. Interpretation by the Deaf certified interpreter (Interpreter C) of the second interpretation (Interpreter B).

Discussion and Recommendations

As described previously, although all of the interpreters were interpreting the same ST, none of their interpretations were exactly the same. Each interpretation evoked slightly different conceptualizations, meanings, and perspectives. Using Langacker’s description of perspective as part of his cognitive grammar’s construal framework, all of the interpreters had different “viewing arrangements” and “vantage points” when describing the world in the first example and the map in the second. Both Interpreters A and B appeared to construe and then represented a globe as the “world” and chose to sign WORLD in the middle of their signing space with their eyes looking down it. They both represented the globe on a much smaller scale as if it were a ball. It appears that Interpreter C might have had a different construal of globe, based on his signing space. Instead of signing WORLD in the middle of his signing space, he depicted the world as a vast flat landscape rather than a circular object. Interpreter C signed ALL-OVER as if he were looking horizontally at landscape that was far, far away from his torso. His eye gaze focused on the flat landscape as if he was standing on the land. Interpreter C added the sign HAPPEN and repeatedly signed it horizontally in front of his torso to show that the battles were happening across the world in the timeline.

Does it mean that the other interpreters were wrong in their interpretations? Not necessarily; as Langacker (2008) explains, the speakers’ language use depends on how they evoke the concepts visually in their minds. Speakers’ construals of concepts in their minds do differ from that of other speakers.

To address that hindrance, ASL and IEP programs should provide advanced ASL pedagogy to introduce ASL structures, strategies, and repertoires to learners. IEPs need to prepare interpreter candidates to work in the field of education by providing in-depth courses in educational interpreting, ASL, and English skills, discourse analysis, translation and interpreting processes, and linguistics of ASL, including ASL language development and comparative linguistics. Ideally, interpreter candidates are exposed to a spectrum of heritage ASL speakers, including speakers of diverse backgrounds, to see how they discuss academic concepts in ASL. They would see how there are multiple ways to express equivalent meanings. Teaching and interpreting are two completely different tasks (Fitzmaurice, Chapter 14, this volume). Teaching in ASL requires an understanding that there is not only one way to express meaning. Interpreting between ASL and English requires an understanding that no two interpretations are exactly the same, a point discussed in the next section.

Conclusions

So how does this fit the idea of interpreting using ASL in an academic context? There is no one size that will fit all. Each interpreter’s ASL construction of the ST from the teacher or the student depends on their background knowledge of the content, language proficiency, understanding of the viewer’s language proficiency and background knowledge, and repertoire of techniques and tools for delivering the academic content in ASL. It is expected that interpretation of the ST varies between interpreters. An interpreter with strong content knowledge in literature might be a better fit for English and literature courses. If this same interpreter wants to interpret in a science course, her learning curve would be steeper as compared with interpreters who have had more content knowledge in science. Educational interpreters and interpreter candidates should view and analyze the language used by Deaf ASL native speakers of diverse backgrounds (e.g., gender, age, race, socioeconomic status) with expertise in the academic subject, especially how they use complex ASL features to construct the content. It should be kept in mind that Deaf speakers do vary in regard to how they deliver the content in ASL as well. Doing a language analysis allows interpreters to identify complex linguistic features used to construct the content (scene) in a shared space between the speaker (interpreter) and the viewer (Deaf student), and vice versa.

Although this is one of many first steps in addressing ASL in the academic context, more research and resources related to ASL in education are needed, especially for educational interpreters, parents, and, most importantly, for Deaf students themselves. We owe Deaf children the best possible education by providing them access to ASL as a language, promoting language development in ASL, and providing them with an accurate language model of ASL. We recognize that there is a great need for more resources, especially for interpreters who want to improve their language and interpreting skills in academic settings, specifically in content areas such as math, science, and technology (Chapter 15, this volume; Kurz et al., 2018; Kurz & Pagliaro, 2020).

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank the interpreters for their willingness to share their expertise and a hearing professor for doing his history lecture for this research project. Thanks are also due to Kellie Mullaney for her translation and transcription work for this project. Also special thanks go to Dr. Miako Villanueva and Wink Smith Jr. for lengthy discussions related to cognitive linguistics and translation and how their work influenced my thinking and research framework for this chapter.

References

Aarons, D. (1996). Topics and topicalization in American Sign Language. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 30, 65–106.

Angelelli, C. V. (2004). Revisiting the interpreter’s role: A study of conference, court, and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. John Benjamins.

Baker-Shenk, C. (1983). A microanalysis of the nonmanual components of questions in American Sign Language [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley]. eScholarship. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7b03x0tz

Brizendine, F. (2018). Hey listen: Mainstreamed Deaf children deserve more! In T. Holcomb & D. Smith (Eds.), Deaf eyes on interpreting (pp. 187–196). Gallaudet University Press.

Cogen, C., & Cokely, D. (2015). Preparing interpreters for tomorrow: Report on a study of emerging trends in interpreting and implications for interpreter education. National Interpreter Education Center.

Dively, V. (2001). Signs without hands: Non-handed signs in American Sign Language. Signed languages: Discoveries from international research (pp. 62–73). Gallaudet University Press.

Dudis, P. (2007). Types of depiction in ASL [Unpublished manuscript, Gallaudet University].

Healy, C. (2018). Construal of content. Translation & Interpreting Studies, 13(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00003.hea

Hofstadter, D. R. (1997). Le ton beau de Marot: In praise of the music of language. Basic Books.

Humphrey, J. H., & Alcorn, B. J. (2007). So, you want to be an interpreter? An introduction to sign language interpreting. H & H Publishing.

Jacobs, R. (1996). Just how hard is it to learn ASL? The case for ASL as a truly foreign language. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Multicultural aspects of sociolinguistics in Deaf communities (pp. 183–226). Gallaudet University Press.

Janzen, T., & Shaffer, B. (2008). Intersubjectivity in interpreted interactions: The interpreter’s role in co-construction of meaning. In J. Zlatev, T. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itoken (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 333–355). John Benjamins.

Kurz, C., Kurz, K., & Harris, R. (2018). Effectively interpreting the content areas utilizing academic language strategies. In T. Holcomb & D. Smith (Eds.), Deaf eyes on interpreting (pp. 253–268). Gallaudet University Press.

Kurz, C., & Pagliaro, C. (2020). Sign language pedagogy in mathematics classroom. In R. Rosen (Ed.), Handbook on sign language pedagogy (pp. 85–99). Routledge.

Kurz, K., & Hill, J. (2018). The heart of interpreting from Deaf perspectives. In T. Holcomb, & D. Smith (Eds.), Deaf eyes on interpreting (pp. 58–76). Gallaudet University Press.

Kurz, K. B., Mullaney, K., & Occhino, C. (2019). Constructed action in American Sign Language: A look at second language learners in a second modality. Languages, 4(4), 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4040090

Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.

Liddell, S. (1996). Spatial representations in discourse: Comparing spoken and signed language. Lingua, 98(1–3), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(95)00036-4

Liddell, S. (2003). Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press.

Liddell, S., & Metzger, M. (1998). Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 657–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00061-7

Mather, S., & Winston, E. (1998). Spatial mapping and involvement in ASL storytelling. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Pinky extension and eye gaze: Language use in deaf communities (pp. 183–210). Gallaudet University Press.

McKee, R., & McKee, D. (1992). What’s so hard about learning ASL? Students’ & teachers’ perceptions. Sign Language Studies, 75(1), 129–157. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1992.0000

Metzger, M. (1995). Constructed action and constructed dialogue in American Sign Language. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf communities (pp. 255–271). Gallaudet University Press.

Metzger, M., & Shaw, R. (2003). From topic boundaries to omission: New research on interpretation. Gallaudet University Press.

Napier, J. (2002). Sign language interpreting: Linguistic coping strategies. Douglas McLean.

Napier, J. (2005). Teaching interpreting students to identify omission potential. In C. Roy (Ed.), Advances in teaching sign language interpreters (pp. 123–137). Gallaudet University Press.

Pichler, D. C., Hochgesang, J. A., Lillo-Martin, D., & de Quadros, R. M. (2010). Conventions for sign and speech transcription of child bimodal bilingual corpora in ELAN. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 1(1), 11–40. https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.1.1.03che

Pichler, D. C., & Koulidobrova, H. (2015). Acquisition of sign language as a second language. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of Deaf studies in language: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 218–230). Oxford University Press.

Roy, C., & Winston, E. (2018). The next generation of research in interpreter education: Pursuing evidence-based practices. Gallaudet University Press.

Stewart, D. A., Schein, J. D., & Cartwright, B. E. (2004). Sign language interpreting: Exploring its art and science. Allyn & Bacon.

Swabey, L., Nicodemus, B., Cagle, K., & Beldon, J. (2016). “My fellow citizens”: Deaf perspectives on translating the opening line of a presidential inaugural address into American Sign Language. Journal of Interpretation, 25(1), 9.

Thumann, M. (2010). Identifying depiction in American Sign Language presentations [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gallaudet University.

Valli, C., Lucas, C., Mulrooney, K., & Villanueva, M. (2011). Linguistics of American Sign Language: An introduction (5th ed.). Gallaudet University Press.

Wilcox, S., & Shaffer, B. (2005). Towards a cognitive model of interpreting. In T. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in signed language interpreting: Theory and practice (pp. 27–50). John Benjamins.

Winston, E. (1991). Spatial referencing and cohesion in an American Sign Language text. Sign Language Studies, 73, 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1991.0003

Winston, E. (1995). Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames. In K. Emmorey & J. Reilly (Eds.), Language, gesture, and space (pp. 87–114). Erlbaum.

Winston, E. (1996). Spatial mapping in ASL discourse. In D. M. Jones (Ed.), Assessing our work: Assessing our worth (pp. 1–28). CIT.

Winston, E., & Cokely, D. (2009). The National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers in the United States of America. In J. Napier (Ed.), International perspectives on sign language interpreter education (pp. 267–292). Gallaudet University Press.

Winston, E., & Swabey, L. (2010). Garbage in = garbage out: The importance of source text selection in assessing interpretations and translations. In Synergy. Moving forward together. EFSLI.

Appendix

Transcription Coding Symbols