Chapter published in:
Linking up with Video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research
Edited by Heidi Salaets and Geert Brône
[Benjamins Translation Library 149] 2020
► pp. 127–150

Chapter 5
The importance of video recordings in signed language interpreting research

In signed language interpreting studies, researchers have devoted attention to the role of video recordings in data collection since the very beginning. Given the visual nature of signed languages, such recordings are imperative in order to investigate various aspects of signed language interpreting such as for instance interpreting strategies, interpreting quality, and interactional aspects of the interpreter mediated communication.This differs from studies looking at spoken language interpreting, where traditionally audio recordings were and to some extent still are the primary source of data in research.In this chapter I claim that, in line with recent shifts in the understanding of communication and interaction (Mondada 2011), any research on interpreting – which is a communicative act – should be based on multimodal data, including the visual, audiological, gestural and any other layers of interaction.As a way of introduction, the chapter gives an overview of how and to which extent video recordings as a data collection tool have been used in three research fields in spoken and signed languages; spoken interaction studies, sign linguistics and interpreting studies, drawing primarily on Erickson (2011), Lucas et al. (2013), and Napier & Leeson (2016).This chapter goes on to discuss the advantages and possible challenges of the use of video as a recording tool in signed language interpreting research, based on a case study on interpreting strategies used by Flemish Sign Language interpreters (Heyerick forthcoming). The same example also illustrates the role of video as an elicitation tool within signed language interpreting research.While the chapter explores the benefits, opportunities and potential obstacles of working with video in research on signed language interpreting, I argue that including video recordings in any research examining communication and/or interaction has the potential to provide very rich data. Video allows for interactive events to be registered in their full multimodal effect and to be regarded and researched as multimodal events (Mondada 2011). This approach can broaden the understanding of human interaction in any field of study.
Article outline
  • Video recordings as a data collection tool
    • Spoken interaction: Acknowledging the multimodal layers
    • Signed interaction: Visual registration of visual languages
    • Spoken and signed interpreting studies: The emergence of corpora
    • Signed language interpreting: Visual registration of communication
  • Video as a data collection and elicitation tool: A case study
    • The case study
    • Use of video recordings: Data collection and elicitation
      • (1)Preparation session with Think-Aloud Process (TAP)
      • (2)The interpreting task
      • (3)The stimulated recall interview
        • Issues
        • Solutions
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 January 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.06hey
References
Beach, Wayne A.
1996 Conversations about illness: Family preoccupations with bulimia. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bendazzoli, Claudio, and Annalisa Sandrelli
2005 “An approach to corpus-based interpreting studies: developing EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus).” In MuTra 2005–Challenges of Multidimensional Translation: Conference Proceedings, 1–12.Google Scholar
2009 “Corpus-based interpreting studies: Early work and future prospects.” Tradumàtica: traducció i tecnologies de la informació i la comunicació 7.Google Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia
2001 “Think-aloud protocols in translation research: Achievements, limits, future prospects,” Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 13 (2): 241–263.Google Scholar
Bowles, Melissa A.
2010 The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cencini, Marco
2002 “On the importance of an encoding standard for corpus-based interpreting studies,” inTRAlinea, Special Issue: CULT2K. http://​www​.intralinea​.org​/specials​/article​/1678Google Scholar
Cokely, Dennis
1992 Interpretation: A sociolinguistic model. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Del Vecchio Silvia and Maria Luisa Franchi
1997 “Strategie di traduzione durante l‘esposizione di materiale visivo.” In LIS: studi, esperienze e ricerche sulla lingua dei segni in Italia. Proceedings of 1^ Convegno Nazionale sulla Lingua dei Segni 13–15 Oct 1995, ed. by Maria Cristina Caselli, and Serena Corazza, 276–280. Tirrenia, Pisa: Edizioni del Cerro.Google Scholar
Erickson, Frederick
2011 “Uses of video in social research: a brief history,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 14 (3): 179–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forestal, Eileen M.
2011 Deaf interpreters: Exploring their processes of interpreting, PhD dissertation, Capella University.Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy
1990 Interpreting: an introduction. Silver Spring, MD: Register of Interpreters for the Deaf.Google Scholar
Gass, Susan M. and Alison Mackey
2000 Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Gheorghita, Elena
2012 “Using Think-Aloud Protocols to investigate the Translation Process Methodological Aspects,” Review of the Air Force Academy 3: 15.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1994 “Opening Up in Interpretation Studies.” In Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline, ed. by Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker, and Klaus Kaindl, 149–158. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 “Interpretation research: realistic expectations.” In Transferre Necesse Est. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Kinga Klaudy, and János Kohn, 43–51. Budapest, Hungary: Scholastica.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1963 Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
1967 Interaction ritual. New York: Anchor Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1980 “Restarts, Pauses, and the Achievement of a State of Mutual Gaze at Turn-Beginning,” Sociological inquiry 50 (3–4): 272–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Gyde
2005 “Experience and emotion in empirical translation research with think-aloud and retrospection,” Meta: Journal des traducteursMeta:/Translators' Journal 50 (2): 511–521. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
2002 “Think-aloud protocol studies into translation: An annotated bibliography,” Target 14 (1): 107–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Think aloud protocol.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Luc van Doorslaer, and Yves Gambier, 371–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Kristen
1991 “Miscommunication in interpreted classroom interaction,” Sign Language Studies 70 (1): 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Stanley E., and D. LeBaron Curtis
2002 “Research on the relationship between verbal and nonverbal communication: Emerging integrations,” Journal of Communication 52 (3): 499–521. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kalina, Sylvia
1994 “Analyzing interpreters’ performance: methods and problems.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aims, Visions, ed by Cay Dollerup, and Annette Loddegaard, 225–232. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam
1977 Studies in the behavior of social interaction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
1990 Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1982 “The study of gesture: Some observations on its history,” Recherches Sémiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry 2: 45–62.Google Scholar
Kiraly, Donald C.
1995 Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process. No. 3. Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Kohn, Kurt and Sylvia Kalina
1996 “The strategic dimension of interpreting,” Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators' Journal 41 (1): 118–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kussmaul, Paul and Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit
1995 “Think-aloud protocol analysis in translation studies,” TTR: Traduction, terminologie, rédaction , 8 (1), 177–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Defeng
2004 “Trustworthiness of think-aloud protocols in the study of translation processes,” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14 (3): 301–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Ceil, Gene Mirus, Jeffrey Levi Palmer, Nicholas James Roessler, and Adam Frost
2013 “The effect of new technologies on sign language research,” Sign Language Studies 13 (4): 541–564. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, Melanie
1999 Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2011 “Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction,” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2): 542–552. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina
2004 “Sign language interpreter training, testing, and accreditation: an international comparison,” American Annals of the Deaf 149 (4): 350–359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Cooperation in interpreter-mediated monologic talk,” Discourse & Communication 1 (4): 407–432. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina and Lorraine Leeson
2016 Sign Language in Action. Palgrave Macmillan UK. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pashler, Harold
1989 “Dissociations and dependencies between speed and accuracy: evidence for a two-component theory of divided attention in simple tasks,” Cognitive Psychology 21: 469–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
2008 “Inside the ‘black box’. Can Interpreting Studies help the profession if access to reallife settings is denied?,” The Linguist 48 (2): 22–23.Google Scholar
Russell, Debra, and Betsy Winston
2014 “TAPing into the interpreting process: Using participant reports to inform the interpreting process.” Translation & Interpreting 6 (1): 102–127.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, and Diane Lillo-Martin
2006 Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheflen, Albert E.
1964 “The significance of posture in communication systems,” Psychiatry 27: 316–331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1965 “Quasi-courtship behavior in psychotherapy,” Psychiatry 28: 245–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1973 Communicational structure: Analysis of a psychotherapy transaction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
1998 “Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies as an Offshoot of Corpus-Based Translation Studies,” Meta 43(4): 486–493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Strategic allocation of working memory and other attentional resources in simultaneous interpreting. PhD dissertation, Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar
Solow, Sharon Neumann
1981 Sign Language Interpreting: A Basic Resource Book. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C.
1960 Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. Vol. 8. Silver Spring MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Stone, Christopher
2005 Towards a deaf translation norm. Unpublished dissertation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
ten Have, Paul
1999 Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Van Herreweghe, Mieke, and Myriam Vermeerbergen
2012 “Data collection.” In Sign language: an international handbook, ed. by Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach, and Benice Woll, 1023–1045. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1992 Interpreting as interaction: On dialogue-interpreting in immigration hearings and medical encounters. PhD dissertation, Linköpings universitet.Google Scholar
Wehrmeyer, Jennifer
2014 “Eye-tracking Deaf and hearing viewing of sign language interpreted news broadcasts,” Journal of Eye Movement Research 7 (1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Wehrmeyer, Ella
2015 “Comprehension of television news signed language interpreters: A South African perspective,” Interpreting 17 (2): 195–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, Xiaoyan and Feiyan Li
2013 “Sign language interpreting on Chinese TV: A survey on user perspectives,” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (1), 100–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar