CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Interpreting was formally
recognized as a necessary service during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference after
World War I (Frishberg, 1990, p. 8).
From that time, schools started training interpreters for spoken
language interpretation and translation.
In 1960, William C. Stokoe published Sign Language Structure in
which he showed evidence of sign language being a true language (Maher, 1996,
p. 71). Four years later, the Registry
of Interpreters for the Deaf was established in order to work towards making
the field professional (Frishberg, 1990, p. 12). Stokoe further researched the formation of signs and sign
language and published the Dictionary of American Sign Language in 1965
(Maher, 1996, p. 88). Through his work,
the process of changing American Sign Language (ASL) into English, or vice
versa, can be officially called interpreting.
Prior to this, sign language interpreting had been performed, but it was
not known that it was between two true languages.
Interpreting is commonly
known as changing what is said in one language into another language
(Frishberg, 1990, p. 18). In applying
this to sign languages, the definition must be changed slightly: "Where a
message in a natural [their emphasis]
sign language is recreated in a spoken language, or vice versa, the process is
known as interpretation. Where the conversion involves an artificial
sign language, the process is called transliteration" (Dominigue
& Ingram, 1978, p. 81). A natural
sign language refers to a sign form such as ASL, as opposed to an artificial
sign system such as Signed English.
Fant (1972) wrote that because "neither fingerspelling, writing,
nor Morse Code constitute a language, they are merely media for conveying a language";
however, ASL has been found to be a language, not simply a medium for conveying
English (p. iii). Diversity has had an
influence, changing the definition to include mediation between communities and
cultures as well as languages (Humphrey & Alcorn, 1995, p. 194; Pergnier,
1978, p. 203). One final consideration
when making sense of the definition includes Pergnier's (1978) idea that an
interpreter "transfers not the words but the meaning of the message"
from one language to another (p. 200).
Often interpretations are
classified or referred to as "accurate" or "perfect." This is not possible because between
languages word equivalents which represent fully all the denotations and
connotations of the original word rarely occur. Instead, Dively (1995) has suggested interpretations be
classified as "outstanding, acceptable or unacceptable" (p. 99). In order to distinguish between the
classifications, the basis for evaluation must be understood. An acceptable or outstanding interpretation
will convey the meaning of the text in as exact a form as possible (Pergnier,
1978, p. 200). An unacceptable
interpretation may impart part of the meaning, but it will have omitted major
details or otherwise important information.
An outstanding interpretation will also convey all the details in the
text, be in the same register as the speaker, and will be at a similar level of
difficulty and without awkward phrases or constructions (Tytler, 1978, p.
9).
Interpreters are the medium
by which the interpretation is produced.
They are the receivers of messages in the source language and producers
of the interpretation of those messages in the target language. Research by Barik (1972, 1973) and Gerver
(1972) has shown that, many times, interpreters receive and produce messages at
the same time, making the job more difficult (as cited in Moser, 1978, p.
353). In current thought, interpreters
are the medium through which the communication occurs, yet they are not
machines. They are also not the helpers
of the deaf client. The deaf client is
a competent person; interpreters are there to facilitate the communication
which occurs and to give the deaf person greater opportunities with larger
groups of people.
Interpretation of a text can
be done consecutively or simultaneously.
Consecutive interpreting allows for the speaker to finish all or part of
the text before the interpreter begins the production of the interpretation. This allows the interpreter to take notes
and understand all of the message received before producing it in another
language. Consequently, fewer errors
occur in the production. Simultaneous
interpreting, on the other hand, is an immediate target language production of
the incoming message. Less than one
minute elapses between the incoming message and producing the
interpretation. Often, while the
previous information is being processed and produced in the target language,
more information is being received.
Because of such dependence on the memory, errors and subsequent
corrections often occur in the productions.
According to Harris and Sherwood (1978), "Simultaneous
interpretation is the least natural mode of interpretation: few people are
gifted with the talent to do it professionally. . . . [It] is stressful and tiring, even for professionals" (p.
158).
Researchers have studied and
been able to develop theories about the mental processes of interpreting. These processes are the steps from receiving
the message through the production of the interpreted message. They can be used to teach students how to
interpret and to allow further development of the skills of working
interpreters. Some models of the
process have been developed through data collection and research whereas other
models have come from application and interpretation of the research and
experience as an interpreter (Humphrey & Alcorn, 1995, p. 195). Some are sociolinguistic models, others are
pedagogical models, and still others are called communication models of
interpreting. Because of the different
approaches to the processes, many different models have been developed and no
one model exactly matches any other.
In developing a model of
interpreting, several researchers started with a model of communication in
which a source encodes a message and sends it through a channel, and a receiver
decodes the message (Ingram, 1974, p. 3).
In the sign language interpreting model which Ingram proposed (see
Appendix A, Figure 1), an interpreter is entered into the diagram, along with
language forms, either signed or spoken, and the three language systems of
lexicon, syntax, and semology. The full
process then adds a communication-binding context. The communication-binding context is the purpose of the communication
and the communication environment. The
environment includes "clothing, lighting, backgrounds, visual barriers and
auditory barriers" (Ingram, 1974, pp. 3-4, 7-9).
Seleskovitch (1978) has
proposed a spoken language model of interpreting. The process has been described in words and separated into
stages. The first stage involves
receiving the incoming message and analyzing it in order to understand what is
being said. The second stage discards
the language form and keeps the meaning and "mental representation of the
message." The third stage is the
creation of the message in the target language. This must fulfill two conditions: "it must express the
original message in its entirety, and it must be geared to the recipient"
(p. 8). A few years after
Seleskovitch's processes were published, Roy (1980) adapted them for sign language
interpreting (as cited in Frishberg, 1990, pp. 48-49).
Moser (1978) hypothesized a
model of simultaneous interpretation of spoken languages which was rather
complex (see Appendix A, Figure 2).
This model focuses on processing and analyzing the incoming message and
describes the processes of production only briefly. It starts with reception of the auditory message. Then it asks if what has been received is a
word, and later, a meaningful phrase.
The interpreter then evaluates whether the meaning of the message is
understood without words. Once it is
determined that the interpreter understands what is being received, the
interpreter can start to form the message in the target language. Each step of the process is either linked to
another step by way of a yes/no question or to the long-term memory for
supplemental information (p. 355).
Ford (1982) described the
interpreter as "a facilitator of communication" and "a communication specialist"
(pp. 94, 96). The interpreting process
(see Appendix A, Figure 3) starts with the basic idea of the communication
process, adding the interpreter as a medium through which the language form
changes (pp. 94-96). Later, Isham
(1985) described the interpreting process as "identifying what needs to be
relayed; searching for equivalents in the target language; and finally,
producing them" (p. 112).
Cokely's (1992) theoretical
sociolinguistic model of interpreting (see Appendix A, Figure 4) focuses on the
stages of language processing and application of the societies and cultures
which are involved in the message. His
seven main stages are supplemented by the processes which occur in these stages
and the concepts considered when passing through the stages. It is a fairly complicated model and must be
so in order to incorporate societies, cultures, and languages into one
model. His main processes start with
message reception, next going to preliminary processing, short-term message
retention, semantic intent realized, which is understanding of the incoming
message in the context of the culture, then to semantic equivalent determined,
syntactic message formulation, and finally, message production in the target
language (pp. 124-128).
Colonomos (1992a, 1992b) has
devised a pedagogical model of the interpreting process which is based on
Seleskovitch's model (1978) and Cokely's theoretical model (1992). This model is shown in a flow chart (see Appendix
A, Figure 5) which considers the source message in terms of context and
speaker. That message goes through
receptive channels in which the interpreter analyzes it. The analysis factors lead to mental
representation of the message, then to composition factors. What is composed mentally is then expressed
as the equivalent target message in the environment of the audience and the
context. The interpreter then continues
to monitor the message for accuracy through internal and external cues (1992a). The model is given in diagram format as well
(see Appendix A, Figure 6). In this
version, the interpreter concentrates on the incoming message, analyzes it and
discards the language form. The meaning
is then filtered through the source frame for application to the speaker's
goals. It is then represented in the
form of pictures, mental images, or concepts.
The target switch applies cultural differences and adjustments to the
message, leading the message to the planning stage where the interpreter
constructs, corrects and produces the message in the target language (1992b).
Each model has a different
perspective to offer, different ideas on how the mind works, and different ways
in which to go from message reception to message production. The five stages common to most process
models (see Appendix B, Table 1) include: the general incoming source message
in the context of the surrounding environment and situation; analysis of the
message to find the speaker's intent, goals, surface and underlying ideas, and
context implications on the message; creation of a mental or conceptual
representation of the message, without words or signs; finding equivalents in
the target language; and production of the equivalents. An equally important stage which is not
frequently discussed is monitoring of the message for necessary correction
during output.
The development of models is
important because from these models interpreters can improve their own skills
and interested students can be taught the skills, the knowledge, and the
process needed for interpreting. Not
everyone who is taught these will have the ability to interpret, but those who
can interpret will be able to interpret successfully. Considering all of the models together, they can be regarded as
representative of the process itself as fully as is now possible. Exercises can then be developed in order to
improve the skills required for each stage.
These skills are illustrated in Appendix B, Table 2. Many of the exercises associated with these
skills have the same name as the skills themselves (see Appendix B, Table
3). These exercises include
attending/concentrating, memory, text analysis, and self-monitoring. Others can be subdivided into more focused
exercises. An exercise included in
attending and concentrating is shadowing which involves the interpreter
listening to the text and repeating it, with or without a time lag, in the
source language. A variation can
include paraphrasing the source text.
Text analysis can be divided into many areas including lag time,
prediction and cloze, chunking, and visualization and verbalization. All of these exercises can be important to
the development of skills used in the interpreting process.
Moser (1978) suggested
several exercises to work on the different stages in her process model. One of the exercises is called abstraction
of ideas. In this exercise, the interpreting
student locates the "keyword"
of one or more sentences as they are presented increasingly faster (p.
362). A variation on this exercise
involves the use of sentences which seem to ramble. The interpreter is to produce the main idea in a few words. These sentences should be presented in both
(or all) of the interpreter’s languages, starting with the native language, and
can also include presentation in one language and response in another. A second exercise is called paraphrasing. In this exercise the interpreter simply
restates what is presented in different words.
Increasing speed and difficulty is important to improving skills in this
area, but presenting in one language and responding in another is not
beneficial at this stage. Moser has
called the next exercise probabilistic prognosis. Students are given a topic of discussion and the first few words
of a statement are said. The student is
to finish the statement accurately as quickly as possible. Again, difficulty can be increased by making
the statement more difficult or more technical (pp. 362-363).
The fourth exercise
presented is called decreasing reaction time.
Students are asked questions which require a yes or no answer. While they are answering one question, the
next is being asked. Later, difficulty
may be increased by asking questions which require a longer answer, first
slowly, then increasing in speed.
Finally, the questions can be asked in one language with a response
expected in another language. Another
exercise works with dual-tasking. In
this exercise the interpreting student listens to a text and performs a
mentally demanding task at the same time.
This second task could include counting backwards in any language,
reading aloud a different text on the same subject, or working on a handout. After the exercise is performed, a recall
test is given on the information contained in the incoming text. Languages should be the same in the
beginning and later can be interchanged.
Finally, shadowing is suggested as an activity. This involves repeating what is said, in the
same language at first, word for word or by paraphrasing. The text should start slowly and as the
student becomes increasingly comfortable with the task, the speed should
increase to and above normal discourse level.
This exercise can then be changed into actual interpretation between
languages (Moser, 1978, pp. 363-364).
The South East Regional
Interpreter Training Consortium's (SERITC) analysis of the mental processes of
interpreting divided the skills into 14 stages, seven for sign to voice and
seven for voice to sign. Each of the
seven stages have the same name as the other seven, with the exception of the
contrast between visual and auditory sources and targets. The seven stages are perception, processing
(memory), processing (discrimination), processing (attach meaning), target
equivalent, prediction, and delivery.
These skills are then divided into exercises to develop the skills. Some of these activities include using item
or sequence recall, shadowing, paraphrasing, minimal difference pairs work,
voicing silent films, vocabulary development, attaching meaning activities,
cloze exercises, and public speaking on tape.
These are just a few of the exercises suggested by SERITC, but they are
some of the most frequently used (Griffin et al., 1983).
Lambert (1989) also
suggested several exercises for interpreters.
The first of her exercises involves listening and memory skills. This requires the interpreter to listen to a
text in one language and remember it in either the same or a different
language. Several of these exercises
are similar to Moser's activities. One
is shadowing which is when the interpreter repeats the text directly after the
speaker. Dual-task training is the next
area. It is almost identical to Moser's. Paraphrasing is also emphasized by both;
however, Lambert asks the interpreter to paraphrase every word one time and
only main ideas the next time. Next is
abstracting or telescoping practice.
This is similar to Moser’s except that Lambert uses main ideas instead
of key words. The sixth exercise is
cloze skills. It requires the
interpreter to listen to a speech and fill in the blanks as they arrive. This simulates not being able to hear
clearly due to someone's coughing or laughing or other environmental
noise. The next activity is sight
translation which seems to be solely Lambert's idea. This involves the interpreter reading in one language from a
script written in another language.
Then the student works on digit processing. This is a particularly difficult task because numbers can be
quite random within a sentence. The
exercise allows interpreters to become used to seeing or hearing numbers and
handling them effectively. Lag time is
then developed by hearing a word and waiting until the after the next word is
said before translating the first word.
This develops patience in the interpreter. Anticipation is much like Moser's probabilistic prognosis. The interpreter becomes comfortable with
interpreting a text, then the speaker stops suddenly and the interpreter must
finish the statement. Finally, further
stress is added to any activity by increasing the speed of the text,
incorporating many numbers into the text, having a speaker who speaks with an
accent, increasing the environmental noise, and continuing beyond 20 minutes to
produce fatigue in the interpreter (Lambert, 1989, pp. 47-64).
Isham (1985) proposed a
method to analyze messages. He compared
a text to a "many-sided crystal."
Six sides of the crystal represent the six parts of his process. These include content, function, register,
affect, contextual force, and metanotative qualities. All of these are also related to the context or background
information of the situation. The
content contains the ideas being conveyed.
The function is the purpose of the discourse. Register is the way the material is presented, be it formal or
intimate. Affect is the emotion or tone
the text imparts to the audience.
Contextual force is the impact the speaker's message has on the
audience, rated from low to high.
Finally, metanotative qualities are the attitudes and opinions the
audience has developed about the speaker.
This exercise can be used as a critique of an interpreted text or for
understanding of any text. Ideally, it
is to be used while interpreting in order to convey the meaning of the
message. By identifying the parts in a
text, the interpreter can understand the meaning of what is being conveyed,
then reconstruct that meaning into the target language (pp. 112-120).
Witter-Merithew (1987)
offered a PIE (no terms for abbreviation given) method of analyzing a
text. This involves taking the message
and dividing it into four sections or slices of the pie. The first slice is content or the topic of
the discourse. The second is context,
the situation of the discourse. This is
followed by the function or purpose of the text and, finally, style includes
register and affect. This is another
method for the student or interpreter to divide the message into its parts in
order to fully understand the meaning of what is being said (pp. 78-79).
Gish (1987) proposed an
exercise in which the interpreter divides the message from goal-to-detail and
reforms it from detail-to-goal. Goals
are the speaker's purpose for the speech.
Objectives, the next largest parts, are divisions of the goal into main
points. Units are manageable
propositions which contain ideas supporting the main points, and details are
the words and tone the speaker gives to the speech. The exercise starts with a preparation stage. In the preparation stage, student
interpreters are given the topic of the message and asked to determine goals,
objectives, units, and details that may be used. The students then listen or watch the text repeatedly,
identifying the goal first, then objectives, then units, and finally
details. The detail-to-goal section can
be performed in two ways. The first way
involves doing the opposite of what was done for the goal-to-detail
section. Again, the first step is
preparation. Then the interpreting
students identify the units and details, then the objectives, and finally the
goal. The last step of this method is
to discuss the process of interpreting including accuracy of the predictions
made in the preparation. The second way
to do detail-to-goal starts with preparation.
Then the student interpreters listen to the first unit of the text,
interpret it consecutively, listen to the next, interpret, and continue that
process until the text is finished. The
interpreting students are occasionally stopped to identify the objectives or
the goal of the message. The final step
in this process is discussion of the process.
Taking the message apart and putting it back together again will help
the interpreters to analyze the message and understand the meaning of it (pp.
129-136).
Stauffer (1993) researched
visualization, a key step to understanding meaning without influence from words
or word order. She suggested the use of
several exercises, using several sources, to increase the ability to visualize
and respond to the images. Her first
set of exercises is directed toward sign language students. The first activity is McKim's (1972)
"Clarity of Mental Imagery."
This requires the students to visualize what is said, generally a single
object or small phrase describing an object.
Then the students evaluate the image seen as clear, vague, or no
image. The next activity, also McKim's,
works on controlling the mental image produced. The objects described now also have motion accompanying them, and
the students try to produce the motion in the visualization. Again, the image is evaluated, this time as
controlled, unsure, or not controlled.
The next exercise uses mime to develop skills in visualization and use
of space when signing. The student
would use Eastman's (1989) From Mime to Sign book and videotapes. The following exercise uses action pictures
which are described by one student and drawn, from the description, by
another. A variation on this activity
was suggested by Colonomos and includes listening or watching a text and then
drawing what is being discussed. Her
next activity allows the students to analyze videotapes made by other people
for use of space, classifiers, and descriptions of objects (Stauffer, pp. 78-80).
The next tasks increase
attention to visual details. The
students are paired and asked to stand back-to-back. Then they are asked to describe each other in as much detail as
possible without looking at the other person again. Another activity to develop this skill allows the students to
draw a picture from memory in as much detail as possible. The best topics for such pictures include
objects that were experienced in abundance at an earlier point in the student’s
life. Another activity which concerns
details is giving directions using only gestured finger directions. This incorporates the use of ASL facial
expressions for distances such as near, moderate, and far away. "This and similar activities can be
found in the Vista Signing Naturally (Lentz & Mikos, 1992)
curriculum Level I, Unit 3" (Stauffer, 1993, p. 80). Still another exercise involves one student
creating a shape and passing it onto another person who creates an object from
it and passes it to another person who creates still another object. Visual poetry can also develop visual
skills. By using a poem which has
strong visual descriptions and asking the students to draw or sign the poem,
the students will be working on developing a full picture of the object. Finally, visual problem solving is another
exercise to develop visual acuity. In
this exercise, students are asked to
visualize the problem being described in order to solve it (Stauffer, pp.
80-81).
Stauffer’s second set of
exercises, to go along with the first, were designed for interpreting
students. In the first exercise, the
students learn to visualize a concept which does not have exact signs
associated with it in order to describe it in signs. In the second exercise, students are asked to read a visually
descriptive text and work together to translate it. A third activity involves the students using a signed text with a
few visual descriptions, interpreting it, and discussing as a class how to
approach the visual descriptions. The
next activity uses detailed descriptions of scenes, such as crime scenes in
legal transcripts, to interpret into ASL, being sure to keep all of the
information accurate. Finally, the
students work on conceptual accuracy of their interpreted messages. To do this they are presented with texts
which contain English words with multiple meanings. They are to use visualization in order to interpret the texts
correctly, using the appropriate meaning of the words. All of these exercises can develop the
visualization skills of the interpreter and add to the appropriate conveying of
the meaning of a message in the form most accessible to the deaf client (1993,
pp. 81-83).
Many of these exercises are
the same, but also many differences exist in the ways in which some of them are
approached. Although all of these are
important and necessary, it seems that some gaps remain in the process. Many interpreting students lack the
visualization necessary to convey the full meaning of a message. More information needs to be gathered on
visualization; exercises then need to be developed from that information in
order to prepare students to adequately transform the message and ensure
accurate relaying of the message and meaning.
The purpose of this thesis
was to gather current information on the process of interpreting and on
visualization, to apply and develop exercises for visualization skills, and to
apply visualization to the process of interpreting. The researcher used current exercises and developed new exercises
to increase her visualization skills because she thought that doing so would improve
her interpreting performance. The
researcher had found that she did not often visualize the message before
changing it into another language. She
often resorted to interpreting word for word.
She thought that this was because she did not have the skills to
visualize the message enough to prepare a spatial representation of the message
in ASL or to make sense of the spatial message in English. By using the exercises, the researcher
intended to improve her visualization skills and to apply those skills to
interpreting situations for an overall improved interpretation of the text.
CHAPTER II
METHOD
Participants
The present study involved
the researcher, a hearing consultant, and a Deaf consultant. The researcher was a 21-year-old female who
was a senior in an interpreter degree program and has been signing regularly
for just over four years. She had
previous sporadic contact with sign language through her deaf cousin and a deaf
schoolmate from the time she was eight years old. She travelled to Europe for vacation and used her journey to
supply material for this study. Her
travel experiences were many; however, this was her first trip overseas and
without her parents.
Materials
The materials used in this
study consisted of a student's spoken story about a ski trip on videotape. It was designed as a humorous speech for a
second-year interpreting class. The
researcher also used exercises from Stauffer's article (see Appendix C), and
experiences from school and vacations for visualization. Some of the experiences from the European
vacation were both from memory and from pictures.
Procedure
Prior to leaving school for
summer vacation, the researcher videotaped herself interpreting a story in
spoken English from videotape. The
study began one month after the start of summer vacation when the researcher
went to the beach. The "Assessment
of Clarity of Mental Imagery" exercises found in Stauffer's (1993) article
were started and a journal was kept during the first week (see exercise
journal, Appendix D). A week later, the
researcher travelled to Europe and, instead of using pre-designed exercises,
actively talked to people, tried to visualize what they were talking about and
recalled people and places, trying to visualize them in detail. During this time, the journal was not kept
as work was done, but rather was prepared afterwards by recalling the
experiences. Most often, the researcher
used active visualization as an exercise.
This consisted of having a conversation with someone and actively trying
to visualize what was being described in the conversation. Upon the researcher's return to school in
late July, the journal was again maintained as visualization was done.
Final tests of accuracy were
performed as the researcher consulted with hearing and Deaf persons. The hearing consultant was a 19-year-old
male who had travel experience to other locations. He was familiar with the places to which the researcher travelled
only through pictures of these places.
He had little deaf experience and knew no sign. The Deaf consultant was a college professor
of American Sign Language and was chosen for her language skills and ability to
correct problems with ASL construction.
She had travel experience in foreign countries and was eager to learn
about the researcher's vacation in Europe.
The consultants advised the researcher and were not study subjects. The consultants asked questions for
clarification and detail as was necessary for their understanding of the places
being described.
The researcher then
videotaped herself interpreting the spoken English story again and compared the
tapes for improvement in use of visualization in interpreting and spatial
description of the story. The analysis
was based on changes in spatial descriptions of the same text, changes in
classifier use and role-shifting, and on the researcher's subjective feelings
of comfort with the visualization and interpretation. Classifiers are handshapes which are used to represent a noun
and/or its motion. They generally work
as pronouns or physical descriptions of a noun. Role-shifting occurs when the signer "steps into the role of
the [characters] involved in the communication exchange being discussed"
(Humphrey & Alcorn, 1995, p. 218).
After her own analysis of the video, the researcher asked the Deaf
consultant to analyze it for proper use of classifiers and clarity of
interpretation. The consultant watched
the first video, then the second, and watched the second again, explaining the
signing problems to the researcher.
CHAPTER III
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of this thesis
was to gather current information on the process of interpreting and on
visualization, apply and develop exercises for visualization skills, and apply
visualization to the process of interpreting.
Through her own research of
what has been done, the researcher found that although almost every model of
the interpreting process included visualization as a step in the process, very
little information was available on visualization for interpreters. Even fewer visualization exercises were
available for an interpreter to use.
Stauffer's (1993) article
focused mainly on gathering exercises and putting them together in a program in
order to enhance visualization. In this
thesis, the researcher instead used one of these exercises as a base from which
to begin and moved to creating another exercise. These two exercises do not cover the breadth of information and
focus which Stauffer's exercise program supplies, but they do cover other needs
such as fitting time constraints and being more convenient for someone to use.
The researcher performed
Stauffer's (1993) adaptation of McKim's (1972) "Clarity of Mental
Imagery" exercises. They were a
good basic introduction to what visualization should be because they focused on
still pictures and details. No movement
was included to distract the mind from the details of the image. The researcher thought this was an important
exercise for people who are unsure if they can visualize at all. By starting with familiar, still objects
people can work on shapes of the image and build to details as they are ready.
After a short time working
on this exercise, the researcher found it difficult to carry the list of images
to visualize with her or to find time to work on the exercise. As a result, the researcher found a method of
practicing visualization without extra materials or added time. She called this "active
visualization." Active
visualization requires the person to have a conversation with someone and,
while the other person is describing objects, the person doing the exercise
visualizes the objects according to the speaker's description. The listener can also re-describe the
objects to the original speaker in order to ensure correct understanding and
visualization. A journal should be kept
recounting the amount of visualization which is performed each day. This will keep the person aware of the amount
and frequency of visualization done every day and help see the outcome of the
project. By actively using visualization,
the researcher became more aware of it, which led her to use it more often and
to become comfortable with it. This, in
turn, increased her confidence in using visualization. The convenience of this activity is
important because it prevents procrastination due to lack of time, space, or
materials. This lack of materials is
also very much like real-life interpreting situations. The interpreter often does not have much
information on the topic of the discussion or lecture prior to performing the
interpretation.
In the present study, during
discussions with the Deaf and hearing consultants, the researcher at first did
not readily give details; however, the consultants' questioning could often
produce them. The researcher could
visualize and describe these details, but at first they were not foremost in
her mind when describing the object.
This suggested that the researcher needed to spend more time visualizing
important details, first for practice, then for verbalization, and finally
during the lag time portions of the interpreting process. She also might have needed to have learned
to determine and distinguish the important details to include for each
culture. The cultural differences might
have affected the importance of
details, especially those concerning sound rather than visual
descriptions. This distinction would be
more important for telling stories in each of the cultures rather than
interpreting between the cultures.
The videotape proved to be
very useful in recognizing the significance of visualization. This activity was designed in order to allow
the researcher to apply her improved visualization skills to
interpretation. The first video was
completed in May, prior to starting the visualization exercises. It showed nervousness through rushed
passages and multiple corrections in signs.
Some items were only fingerspelled rather than fingerspelled and
visually represented with classifiers.
Several wrong classifiers were used for descriptions which caused
confusion about what was happening. The
second video was completed in October.
The researcher could remember only the topic of the text prior to
re-interpreting it. This
reinterpretation was much clearer from the start. The nervousness was not present in this second videotape. More classifiers were correct and more role‑shifting
was used in the descriptions of conversations.
The researcher felt more confident in her second interpretation.
Prior to viewing the video,
the researcher thought that no signing differences would be found. She anticipated only having mental
differences, such as confidence.
However, differences in use of classifiers, role-shifting, and spatial
relationships and descriptions were evident.
Also evident was the increased confidence of the researcher. The researcher was obviously less rushed and
nervous in the second interpretation, as shown in that fewer sign corrections
were made. This could have been caused
in part by other variables such as taking an ASL class in the 1998 fall
semester and working on interpreting jobs; however the researcher thought the
visualization assisted in those events as well.
The classifier differences
were mainly changes in the classifiers which the interpreter chose to describe
certain nouns or the interaction between nouns. In the first performance, most of these classifiers were not the
proper classifiers for the shape and size of the object. In the second performance, some of the
previously misrepresented objects were properly represented with correct
classifiers. The amount of
role-shifting increased between the two performances. It became more clear who was saying what to whom in the second
interpretation. Spatial relationships and descriptions also increased, both in
number and accuracy. This was mostly
due to appropriate use of classifiers; however, some spatial descriptions did
not use classifiers at all.
The Deaf consultant also
viewed the videotapes of both performances and thought that both were fairly
equal. After viewing both performances,
she reviewed the second with the researcher and made corrections as mistakes
appeared. Her suggestions included
making the fingerspelling more clear, correcting body movements to match the
action being described, setting up character placement and staying with that
instead of renaming the character each time, and many corrections of
classifiers. The researcher accepted
these suggestions but still thought that the second interpretation improved in
its spatial representations. The
consultant's classifier corrections were often of descriptions of items which
the researcher had never learned how to describe. Instead, the researcher used the best classifiers she could think
of which would work for those objects.
Other problems the consultant found were a result of too short a lag
time with confusing corrections afterward.
Still others were because too much time was spent visualizing the scene
and incorrect signs were chosen due to lack of focus on semantic accuracy. The researcher will work to correct these in
the future as well.
Active visualization may not
work for everyone, but it helped the researcher achieve her goal for this
thesis. This project only focused on
the activities of one person and therefore cannot be generalized to any other
person or group. Also, the fact that
the journal was not kept as the work was conducted might have affected the
results of the exercises. In the
future, this project should be tried with a larger group of people and the
journal should be kept as work is conducted in order to see the results as time
passes.
Also, a future study should
set a length of time within which the exercises are to be performed in order to
determine minimum time for benefit to some people. This should then be repeated with another time length in order to
accommodate more people. The researcher
used four months to work on the exercises; however, less time might yield the
same results for some people. The
researcher also had to mainly depend on her subjective thoughts in order to
evaluate her performance. In addition to
this qualitative method, a method of quantitative analysis would be beneficial
to determine more accurately whether improvements actually occurred or whether
the exercises are just confidence builders.
Finally, research conducted on the cultural importance of different
topics would be beneficial to the telling of stories in each culture and to the
focus of details in these stories.
The researcher thought that
the visualization project was a success.
Her skills and confidence have improved in this area. Other people can use this information to
find and increase their own visualization skills. The researcher hoped that this study would also be used as a
source of information for future exercises and research in this area.
Exercise Journal
June 15, 1998
Today I am in Ocean City in
Maryland with the Westminster Municipal Band.
I started with Stauffer's Assessment of Clarity of Mental Imagery. The results were as follows (V=vague,
C=clear):
1. A familiar face -- my Mom's V
2. A horse V-C
3. A rosebud V-C
4. A body of water at sunset V-C
5. My bedroom C
6. Characteristics of a friend -- Trey V-C
7. A table laden with food V
8. A stop light C
9. The moon through the clouds C
10. A newspaper headline V
While doing this exercise, I
stared at a plain blue surface to avoid eye distractions from looking around a
room or from closing my eyes. I allowed
myself only a few seconds to create each image (no more than 10 seconds). I then went through each of them again,
imaging each until it was clear and I saw details. The first part took about 5 minutes, the second part took 15
minutes.
I found I used images stored
in memory for each of the items instead of creating a new image. Later, I should try to make a new list with
items I cannot recall from memory and try to visualize them.
The remaining 40 minutes was
spent listening to stories and gossip from my friends and visualizing what was
being said or recalling these tales for further visualization.
June 17, 1998 -- June 23, 1998
During this week I have
occasionally recalled the mental imagery words and images. When someone describes something, I work to
visualize it. I may have spent a total
of two hours working on these skills this week; however, I am becoming more
aware of when I am visualizing. I didn't
use the blue background this time and don't plan to use it again. It was good for a start, but it will not be
available during interpreting jobs.
June 24, 1998
I spent about an hour
working on visualization of my trip to Ocean City and college experiences while
on a plane to London. This time was
spent recalling figures and scenes, mostly vaguely. All scenes I used were more snapshots than fluid, moving scenes.
June 25, 1998
I spent half an hour or an
hour talking to someone from New York.
He's a theatre major and was describing sets and shows and I was trying
to visualize them while he described them.
I couldn't double check my visualization easily without being rude, so
I'm not sure how accurate they were in my mind.
June 28, 1998
This night I met a computer
engineering graduate from Montreal. I
spent about two hours talking to him and about 30 minutes to an hour
visualizing what he was describing to me.
The main topics were the city of Montreal, his university, Edinburgh,
and Dublin. I had never been to any of
these places, so it was purely use of imagination to construct visual
images. After visiting some of the
places, I learned how different my images were than the real thing, but they
were accurate according to the description I got.
June 29, 1998
I spent about 30 minutes
talking to two Spaniards and visualizing their descriptions of Madrid. Again, I had never been there, but had seen
pictures with the current description.
I think the Spanish are more descriptive than most English speakers. For example, they described the layout of
the area of Madrid in which we were to find a dance club, including the name of
many of the shops surrounding it, which side of the street it would be on
depending on from which metro station we came, and what the building looked
like. Many English speaker's directions
were more like "straight through the park" or "on the next
block."
July 2, 1998
I spent about 30 minutes
visualizing different parts of Australia and learning about climates and
landscapes there. Later that day, I
also spent about 30 minutes talking to local people on trains about their
schools and the countryside of Ireland.
That night I spent between thirty minutes and an hour talking to a few
Trinity College dental students about different parts of Ireland, what that
area looks like, and what college in Ireland is like.
July 14, 1998
I visited a castle today and
did about two hours of visualizing what life would be like in that castle. I was also talking to a boy from Holland and
visualizing what his life was like.
After that I spent 30 minutes talking to a friend from home, telling him
about my experiences in Europe.
July 25, 1998
I spent about two hours
today talking to American and International students at the college about their
summer vacations, their homes, and their classes. Although I didn't focus on visualizing, I found that I was
visualizing anyway. This feels like a
big step in the process. I didn't often
visualize before, for anything.
August 28, 1998
I spent half an hour today
revisiting Europe in my mind. I only
got vague pictures of places I saw and people I met, as I didn't take much time
to do it. I will have to go back and
focus more later and do more detail.
September 5, 1998
Tonight I played a
role-playing game with my friends and did a lot of visualization of the
buildings and areas we were travelling through. Not only did this help with the visualization skills, but it
helped me play my character in the game because I was more oriented to what was
around in the room or area. Also, while
I was working on my homework, I found myself more clearly visualizing what I
was reading from the Odyssey.
Finally, when working on my sign language homework, I was visualizing
what was being described and found it easier to reproduce what I had seen as
well as simply recall for answering comprehension questions.
September 18, 1998
Tonight we played our
role-playing game again, and I worked to visualize in as much detail as
possible and found it quite a bit easier than I had expected. I also started working on detailed
visualization of my trip to Europe. I
tried to see the faces and places clearly instead of just shapes and
outlines. I'm still visualizing my
homework. It is becoming more natural
and detailed the more I practice.
September 22, 1998
I'm finally finished
visualizing my Europe trip in detail. I
spent about three hours total over the last few days visualizing in as much
detail as I could. I have also picked a
few places to describe to a hearing and a deaf person to check accuracy and
ability to verbalize the pictures in my mind.
September 25, 1998
My friends and I played our
game again, and I visualized the scenery without giving it much thought or
planning. I feel very comfortable doing
it, and it is working to my advantage in interpreting as well. I have had one job so far in which I applied
the visualization, and I think it worked very well. I was able to use the visualization and was more confident about
my descriptions in ASL. The client also
seemed to understand what was being described.
September 29, 1998
Tonight I spent half an hour
describing, in detail, the Tower Bridge in London to a friend. He is familiar with pictures of the bridge
and compared my description to pictures he has seen, thereby checking my accuracy. He also asked questions to get more detail
for his understanding and my practice.
If his question was a particularly difficult one to see and answer, I
found myself closing my eyes to see it better.
October 1, 1998
Today I spent about an hour
with my deaf consultant, describing my trip to Europe in detail and getting
feedback on the accuracy of the descriptions.
It was mostly accurate, with occasional misused classifiers (used to
describe objects) or misunderstandings due to not going into enough
detail. I was visualizing the places
before I described them and used pictures to help clarify when I couldn't
decide how to sign something. At this
point, I think the project was a success.
I still have to redo a videotape and compare the descriptions for a
basis to measure.
REFERENCES
Cokely, D.
(1992). Interpretation: A sociolinguistic model. Burtonsville, MD:
Linstok Press.
Colonomos, B.
(1992a). The interpreting process. Unpublished manuscript.
Colonomos, B.
(1992b). Pedagogical model of the interpreting process. Unpublished
manuscript.
Dively, V. (1995).
English to ASL translation: Teaching techniques and materials. In E. A. Winston
(Ed.), Mapping our course: A collaborative venture. Proceedings of the tenth national
Conference of Interpreter Trainers convention (pp. 97-113). USA: Conference
of Interpreter Trainers.
Dominigue, R.
L., & Ingram, B. L. (1978). Sign language interpretation: The state of the
art. In D. Gerver and H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and
communication. NATO conference series, Series III: Human factors (pp.
81-86). New York: Plenum Press.
Fant, L. J., Jr.
(1972). Ameslan: An introduction to American Sign Language. USA: Joyce
Media.
Ford, L. (1982).
The interpreter as a communication specialist. The professional and the
consumer in interpreting. Proceedings of the third international symposium on
interpretion of sign languages (pp. 91-99). London: Royal National
Institute for the Deaf.
Frishberg, N.
(1990). Interpreting: An introduction (Rev. ed.). Silver Spring, MD:
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
Gish, S. (1987).
"I understood all the words but I missed the point": A
goal-to-detail/detail-to-goal strategy for text analysis. In M. L. McIntire
(Ed.), New dimensions in interpreter education: Curriculum &
instruction. Proceedings of the sixth national Conference of Interpreter
Trainers convention (pp. 125-137). Chevy Chase, MD: Registry of
Interpreters for the Deaf.
Griffin, M.,
Maiorano, J., Vidrine, J., Anderson, S., Lyons, B., & Thaldorf, A. (1983). SERITC
analysis of the mental processes of interpreting (handout at the Basic
Interpreter Training Program). Lexington, KY.
Harris, B.,
& Sherwood, B. (1978). Translating as an innate skill. In D. Gerver and H.
W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication. NATO
conference series, series III: Human factors (pp. 155-170). New York:
Plenum Press.
Humphrey, J. H.,
& Alcorn, B. J. (1995). So you want to be an interpreter? (2nd ed.).
Amarillo, TX: H & H.
Ingram, R.
(1974). A communication model of the interpreting process. Journal of
Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 7, 3-9.
Isham, W. P.
(1985). The role of message analysis in interpretation. In M. L. McIntire
(Ed.), Interpreting: The art of cross cultural mediation. Proceedings of the
ninth national Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf convention (pp.
111-122). Silver Spring, MD: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
Lambert, S.
(1989). Plenary session. In S. Wilcox (Ed.), New dimensions in interpreter
education: Evaluation and critique. Proceedings of the seventh national
Conference of Interpreter Trainers convention (pp. 47-64). USA: Conference
of Interpreter Trainers.
Maher, J.
(1996). Seeing language in sign: The work of William C. Stokoe.
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
McKim, R.
(1972). Experiences in visual thinking. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole
Publishing.
Moser, B.
(1978). Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical
application. In D. Gerver and H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation
and communication. NATO conference series, Series III: Human factors (pp.
353-368). New York: Plenum Press.
Pergnier, M.
(1978). Language-meaning and message-meaning. In D. Gerver and H. W. Sinaiko
(Eds.), Language interpretation and communication. NATO conference series,
series III: Human factors (pp. 199-204). New York: Plenum Press.
Seleskovitch, D.
(1978). Interpreting for international conferences (S. Dailey & E.
N. McMillan, Trans.). Washington, DC: Pen and Booth.
Stauffer, L. K.
(1993). Assessing and enhancing visualization skill of interpreting
students. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Student
competencies: Defining, teaching, and evaluating. Proceedings of the ninth
national Conference of Interpreter Trainers convention (pp. 75-91). USA:
Conference of Interpreter Trainers.
Tytler, A.
(1978). Essay on the principles of translation. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Witter-Merithew,
A. (1987). Text analysis. In M. L. McIntire (Ed.), New dimensions in
interpreter education: Curriculum & instruction. Proceedings of the sixth
national Conference of Interpreter Trainers convention (pp. 77-82). Chevy
Chase, MD: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
