1. Neutrality in Translation and Interpretation
1. Signed English codes, often referred to as manually coded English (MCE), are contrived systems that manipulate signs in an attempt to represent the morphology and syntax of English visually. Although there have been problems with the use of MCE as a model for language acquisition (Supalla 1986, 1991), the use of such systems frequently occurs among bilingual adults. While it is possible that bilingual adults are able to make up for any deficiencies in the contrived code as a result of their prior knowledge of both ASL and English, it is also possible that these systems are actually “altered” and might frequently represent a form of contact between English and ASL (Lucas and Valli 1989, 1991, 1992).
2. Analyzing Interpreted Medical Interviews
1. As Roy (1986) points out, the definition of “native speaker” is not as simple in signed language research as it is in spoken language studies. Because the majority of deaf children are born to hearing parents who are not fluent in a signed language, language acquisition issues are often unique for deaf children. As Winston (1993) indicates, many deaf children are not exposed to an accessible, natural language until they attend a residential school at which some students and staff are fluent signers. Thus, the definition of “native” could be based on one or more of a variety of factors (e.g., only those whose parents are fluent signers or also those who are exposed to the signed language at a residential school by a certain age). Roy (1986) finds that the definition used among researchers depends somewhat on the purpose of the research. For this study, the term “native signer” refers to those who either have Deaf parents who sign ASL as a first language, or who were exposed to ASL at a residential school from an early age and who are judged by other native signers to be native users of ASL.
4. Participation Frameworks
1. Whereas spoken language interpreters are not expected to speak two languages simultaneously, ASL-English interpreters might attempt to, or be expected to attempt to, communicate in both languages simultaneously. Unique features of language contact between signed and spoken languages are addressed by Lucas and Valli 1992.
2. Although not included as a part of the two cases under examination here, the mock medical interview was reenacted by the class with the same student interpreter interpreting. Although there was no discussion of footing shifts per se, it is interesting to note the manner in which the participants decided to improve upon the original mock interview. The awkwardness described with regard to the interpreter’s linguistic errors resulting from simultaneous output did not occur in the reenactment.
3. Tannen (1986, 1989) argues that reported speech is not really a report of other people’s words. Instead, she suggests that speakers construct the dialogue of other people, altering the original in order to fit the dialogue into the speaker’s current context. The use of body shifting (as well as other nonmanual signals) to construct the actions and dialogue of characters in ASL discourse has been discussed by numerous researchers. Previously termed role shifting or role playing, the first reference to the construction of dialogue and actions in ASL on the basis of Tannen’s distinction can be found in Roy (1989b), Winston (1991, 1992, 1993), Metzger (1995), and Liddell and Metzger (1995).
5. The Interpreter’s Paradox
1. Pronouns in ASL and English will not match in terms of gender and number. In fact, the issue of person reference in ASL has been questioned. For example, Meier (1991) has suggested that ASL has only a first-person/non-first-person distinction. Regardless of whether or not person is distinguished by separate pronominal forms, the referent is retrievable from the discourse. Therefore, for the purpose of the current analysis, the relative consistency between pronominal forms will be based on the latter.
2. The total number of ASL pronouns is actually based on the total number visible on the videotape. There are several occasions during which the interpreter’s signing is not clearly visible, either because she is off-camera or blocked from the camera’s view by one of the other participants.
3. Dissemination of information regarding interpreting services is clearly an area that needs to be pursued. Nevertheless, it is important to mention here that a tremendous amount of research remains to be done. Moreover, many medical practitioners and medical institutions are not even aware of the need to provide interpreters, not only in pursuit of effective communication but also on legal grounds as specified in legislation such as the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Further, many medical practitioners and medical institutions do not know how to secure professional interpreting services. Clearly, much work remains to be done in this area.