Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 17:2 (2015) ► pp.195–225

Comprehension of television news signed language interpreters

A South African perspective

 | North-West University
This questionnaire-based study evaluates interpretations of TV news broadcasts into South African Sign Language from the perspective of 360 adult Deaf respondents, who identify factors hindering comprehension. Methodologically, findings are based on both open-ended and closed questions. The sources of difficulty identified, together with viewer assessments of current interpreting services and viewer expectancy norms, are explored in relation to the profile of the Deaf target audience represented by the study sample. Despite potentially low literacy levels, the study found a stronger stated preference for subtitles than for signed interpretation. The limited size of the signed language screen inset and the type of signed language used by the interpreters were found to be the main factors limiting comprehension; to a lesser extent, problems can also be related to various features of the interpreters’ performance (facial expression, mouthing, sign articulation and general language proficiency), viewers’ insufficient background knowledge and signing skills, the difficulty of dividing attention between different forms of visual input, as well as the positioning of the screen inset showing the interpreter. The cultural and linguistic heterogeneity of the South African Deaf community poses a further challenge to interpreters. Recommendations for both interpreting practice and further research emerge from the discussion.
Keywords: expectancy norms, Deaf Studies, reception-oriented evaluation, signed language interpreting, South African Sign Language
Published online: 3 September 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.2.03weh
References (105)
Aarons, D. & Akach, P. (2002). South African Sign Language: One language or many? In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Language in South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 127–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aarons, D. & Morgan, R. (2003). Classifier predicates and the creation of multiple perspectives in South African Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 3 (2), 360–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antonsen, S. (2006). A live interpreter channel in Norway: NRK1 Tegnspråk/NRK1 Sign Language. In R. McKee (Ed.), Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the World Association of Sign Language Interpreters. Coleford, Gloucestershire: Douglas McLean, 101–105.Google Scholar
Berke, J. (2009). Deaf community — South Africa: Schools, organisations and television. [URL] (accessed 11 November 2009).
Bidoli, C. (2009). Sign language: A newcomer to the interpreting forum. Paper given at the International Conference on Quality in Conference Interpreting . [URL] (accessed 21 December 2009).
Brownlie, S. (1999). Investigating norms. [URL] (accessed 15 September 2014).
Business Day (2013). Sign language interpreter at Mandela event says he is ‘a great fake’. Business Day, December 27, 2013.Google Scholar
Cambra, C., Silvestre, N. & Leal, A. (2008). Comprehension of television messages by deaf students at various stages of education. American Annals of the Deaf 51, 425–434.Google Scholar
Casey, B. (2013). Promoting the use of South African Sign Language in schools. [URL] (accessed 7 October 2014).
Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cokely, D. (1992). Interpretation: A sociolinguistic model. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Collados Aís, A. (1998). La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea. La importancia de la comunicación no verbal. Granada: Editorial Comares.Google Scholar
[Constitution] (1996a). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. [URL] (accessed 12 October 2010).
[Constitution] (1996b). Chapter 1:1–6. Founding provisions. [URL] (accessed 12 October 2010).
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeafSA (2009). Policy on the provision and regulation of South African sign language interpreters. [URL] (accessed 20 June 2012).
[DBE] Department of Basic Education. (2014). The development of the South African Sign Language Curriculum for Grades R-12. [URL] (accessed 7 October 2014).
Emmorey, K., Thompson, R. & Colvin, R. (2008). Eye gaze during comprehension of American Sign Language by native and beginning signers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 14 (2), 237–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erlenkamp, S., Amundsen, G., Berge, S., Grande, T., Mjøen, O. & Raanes, E. (2011). Becoming the ears, eyes, voice and hands of someone else: Educating generalist interpreters in a three-year programme. In L. Leeson, S. Wurm & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), Signed language interpreting: Preparation, practice and performance. Manchester: St Jerome, 12–36.Google Scholar
Forestal, L. (2005). Attitudes of Deaf leaders towards signed language interpreters and interpreting. In M. Metzger & E. Fleetwood (Eds.), Attitudes, innuendo and regulators: Challenges in interpretation. Coleford, UK: Douglas McLean, 71–91.Google Scholar
[Gazette] (2014). Act No. 8 of 2014: South African Language Practitioners’ Council Act, 2014. Government Gazette 587 (37660), 19 May.Google Scholar
Gile, D. (1990). L’évaluation de la qualité de l’interprétation par les délégués: une étude de cas. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 31, 66–71.Google Scholar
. (1991). A communication-oriented analysis of quality. In M. Larson (Ed.), Translation: Theory and practice. Binghamton, NY: SUNY, 188–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
Heap, M. & Morgans, H. (2006). Language policy and SASL: Interpreters in the public service. In B. Watermeyer, L. Swartz, T. Lorenzo, M. Schneider & M. Priestley (Eds.), Disability and social change: A South African agenda. Cape Town: HSRC Press, 134–147.Google Scholar
Hi Hopes (2012). [URL] (accessed 03 December 2012).
Hogg, L. (2011). Funds of knowledge: An investigation of coherence within the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education 271, 666–677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, D., Paul, P. & Smith, J. (1997). Prior knowledge and reading comprehension ability of deaf adolescents. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2 (3), 172–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, L. (1977). The efficiency of interpreting input for processing lecture information by deaf college students. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf 111, 10–14.Google Scholar
Johnston, T. (2010). From archive to corpus: Transcription and annotation in the creation of signed language corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15 (1), 106–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[Kielitoimisto]. Institute for the Languages of Finland (2013). Language planning and regulation. [URL] (accessed 16 April 2013).
Kopczyński, A. (1994). Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 87–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, A. & Wallmach, K. (1997). Research methodology for the description of a source text and its translation(s) — a South African perspective. South African Journal of African Languages 17 (4), 119–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurz, I. (1993). Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 51, 13–21.Google Scholar
. (1994). What do different user groups expect from a conference interpreter? The Jerome Quarterly 9 (2), 3–7.Google Scholar
. (2001). Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user. Meta 46 (2), 394–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurz, K. & Langer, E. (2004). Student perspectives on educational interpreting: Twenty Deaf and hard of hearing students offer insights and suggestions. In E. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 9–47.Google Scholar
Kyle, J. (2007). Sign on television: Analysis of data. Deaf Studies Trust. [URL] (accessed 12 August 2012).
Laing, A. (2013). ‘Fake’ sign language interpreter at Mandela memorial claims it was ‘schizophrenic episode’. Telegraph, 12 December, 2013.Google Scholar
Leeson, L. (2005a). Making the effort in simultaneous interpreting: Some considerations for signed language interpreters. In T. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in signed language interpreting: Theory and practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 51–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005b). Vying with variation: Interpreting language contact, gender variation and generational difference. In T. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in signed languages and interpreting: Theory and practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 251–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeson, L. & Saeed, J. (2012). Irish Sign Language: A cognitive linguistic account. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Leeson, L., Wurm, S. & Vermeerbergen, M. (2011). Hey presto! Preparation, practice and performance in the world of signed language interpreting and translating. In L. Leeson, S. Wurm & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), Signed language interpreting: Preparation, practice and performance. Manchester: St Jerome, 1–11.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (Ed.) (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. (16th ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. & Jackson, D. (2001). Television literacy: Comprehension of program content using closed captions for the deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 6 (1), 43–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locker, R. (1990). Lexical equivalence in transliterating for Deaf students in the university classroom: Two perspectives. Issues in Applied Linguistics 1 (2), 167–95.Google Scholar
Lotriet, A. (2011). Sign language interpreting in South Africa: Meeting the challenges. [URL] (accessed 30 March 2012).
Mack, G. & Cattaruzza, L. (1995). User surveys in simultaneous interpretation: A means of learning about quality and/or raising some reasonable doubts. In J. Tommola (Ed.), Topics in interpreting research. Turku: University of Turku, 51–68.Google Scholar
Magongwa, L. (2012). The current state of South African Sign Language. Lecture given at the University of Pretoria, 31 May 2012.
Mariani, D. (2011). Learning English without sound: The pros and cons of South African Sign Language. [URL] (accessed 19 April 2013).
Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Convertino, C., Seewagen, R. & Maltzen, H. (2004). Comprehension of sign language interpreting: Deciphering a complex task situation. Sign Language Studies 4 (4), 345–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marschark, M., Peterson, R. & Winston, E.A. (Eds.) (2005). Sign language interpreting and interpreter education: Directions for research and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohr, S. (2011). Mouth actions in Irish Sign Language — their system and functions. PhD dissertation, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Morgan, R. (2008). Deaf me normal: Deaf South Africans tell their stories. Pretoria: Unisa Press.Google Scholar
. (2001). Barriers to justice: Deaf people and the courts. Issues in Law, Race and Gender 81. Law, Race and Gender Research Unit, University of Cape Town.Google Scholar
Moser, P. (1996). Expectations of users of conference interpretation. Interpreting 1 (2), 145–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in interpreting: Some methodological issues. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 71, 43–55.Google Scholar
Muir, L. & Richardson, I. (2005). Perception of sign language and its application to visual communications for deaf people. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10 (4), 390–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, J. (2002). University interpreting: Issues for consideration. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7 (4), 281–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, J. & Barker, R. (2004). Accessing university education: Perceptions preferences and expectations for interpreting by Deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9 (2), 228–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, J. & Rohan, M. (2007). An invitation to dance: Deaf consumers’ perceptions of signed language interpreters and interpreting. In M. Metzger & E. Fleetwood (Eds.), Translation, sociolinguistic and consumer issues in interpreting. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 159–203.Google Scholar
Napier, J., McKee, R. & Goswell, D. (2010). Sign language interpreting: Theory and practice in Australia and New Zealand (2nd ed.). Sydney: Federation Press.Google Scholar
Napier, J., Major, G. & Ferrara, L. (2011). Medical signbank: A cure-all for the aches and pains of medical signed language interpreting? In L. Leeson, S. Wurm & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), Signed language interpreting: Preparation, practice and performance. Manchester: St Jerome, 110–137.Google Scholar
[NDCS] National Deaf Children’s Society (2005). In their own words: young deaf people’s access to television. [URL] (accessed 7 October 2014).
Newhoudt-Druchen, W. (2006). Working together. In R. McKee (Ed.), Proceedings of the inaugural conference of the World Association of Sign Language Interpreters. Gloucestershire: Douglas Maclean, 8–11.Google Scholar
Nieder-Heitmann, N. (1980). Talking to the deaf/Praat met die dowes. Pretoria: Government Printer.Google Scholar
Norwood, M. (1979). Comparison of an interpreted and captioned newscast among deaf high school graduates and deaf college graduates. [URL] (accessed 15 October 2014).
Parks, E. & Parks, J. (2012). A survey report of the Deaf people of Northern Ireland. SIL International. [URL] (accessed 20 May 2013).Google Scholar
Penn, C., Doldin, D., Landman, K. & Steenekamp, J. (1992). Dictionary of Southern African signs for communication with the Deaf. Pretoria: HSRC.Google Scholar
Penn, C. & Reagan, T. (1994). The properties of South African Sign Language: Lexical diversity and syntactic unity. Sign Language Studies 851, 319–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perreira, M. & Fronza, C. (2011). The Prolibras test as an assessment of Brazilian sign language interpreter proficiency: A critique. In L. Leeson, S. Wurm & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), Signed language interpreting: Preparation, practice and performance. Manchester: St Jerome, 37–49.Google Scholar
[PMG] Parliamentary Monitoring Group (2007). Recognition of South African Sign Language as official language: Briefing by Deaf Federation of South Africa. [URL] (accessed 13 November 2009).
(2009). Language issues: proposed recognition of South African Sign Language as official language, Sepedi/Sesotho sa Leboa issues: briefings by Deaf SA, CRL Commission, Pan South African Language Board. [URL] (accessed 12 November 2012).
Pöchhacker, F. (1994). Quality assurance in simultaneous interpreting. In C. Dollerup & A. Lindegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 2: Insights, aims and visions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta 46 (2), 410–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). Researching interpreting quality. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 95–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Coping with culture in media interpreting. Perspectives 15 (2), 123–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, A. 2008. On omission in simultaneous interpreting: Risk analysis of a hidden effort. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 83–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riccardi, A. (2002). Interpreting research: Descriptive aspects and methodological proposals. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 15–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reagan, T. (2008). South African Sign Language and language in education policy in South Africa. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 381, 165–190.Google Scholar
. (2012). The sign language used by TV interpreters. Personal correspondence 27 July.
[SADA] (2012). South African Disability Alliance — the collective voice of the disability sector in collaboration. [URL] (accessed 20 June 2012).
[SATI] South African Translator’s Institute (2012). Guidelines: Simultaneous interpreter accreditation testing. [URL] (accessed 14 June 2012).
Schermer, T. (2012). Sign language planning in the Netherlands between 1980 and 2010. Sign Language Studies 12 (4), 467–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selzer, M. (2010). South African Sign Language used in Parliament: Is there a need for standardization? MA dissertation, Stellenbosch University.Google Scholar
Setton, R. (2011). Corpus-based interpretation studies: Reflections and prospects. In A. Kruger & K. Wallmach (Eds.), Corpus-based translation studies: Research and applications. London/New York: Continuum, 33–75.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, M. (1997). Quality in simultaneous interpreting. In Y. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research. Proceedings of the International conference on interpreting: What do we know and how? Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2000). Strategic allocation of working memory and other attentional resources in simultaneous interpreting. PhD dissertation, Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar
[StatsSA] Statistics SA (2012). Census 2011: Methodology and highlights of key results. [URL] (accessed 18 April 2013).
(2014). Census 2011: Profile of persons with disabilities in South Africa. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. [URL] (accessed 18 October 2014).Google Scholar
Stone, C. (2009). Towards a Deaf translation norm. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
. (2010). Sign language interpreting: Is it that special? Journal of Specialized Translation 141, 1–9. [URL] (accessed 6 July 2011).Google Scholar
Stratiy, A. (2005). Best practices in interpreting: A Deaf community perspective. In T. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in signed languages and interpreting: Theory and practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 231–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies — and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeerbergen, M., Van Herreweghe, M., Akach, P. & Matabane, E. (2007). Constituent order in Flemish Sign Language (VGT) and South African Sign Language (SASL). Sign Language & Linguistics 10 (1), 25–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vuorikoski, A.-R. (1998). User responses to simultaneous interpreting. In L. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny & J. Pearson (Eds.), Unity in diversity? Current trends in translation studies. Manchester: St Jerome, 184–197.Google Scholar
Warner, G. (2008). Get these manic sign-language gnomes off our television screens. The Telegraph, August 26. [URL] (accessed 16 September 2009).Google Scholar
Wehrmeyer, J. (2014). Eye-tracking deaf and hearing viewers of sign language interpreted news broadcasts. Journal of Eye Movement Research 7 (1):3, 1–16.Google Scholar
Witter-Merithew, A. & Johnson, L. (2005). Towards competent practice: Conversations with stakeholders. Alexandria, VA: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.Google Scholar
Woll, B. (1991). Sign language on television: Final report to Channel 4. Bristol: Centre for Deaf Studies.Google Scholar
Xiao, X. & Li, F. (2013). Sign language interpreting on Chinese TV: A survey on user perspectives. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (1), 100–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiao, X. & Yu, R. (2009). Survey on sign language interpreting in China. Interpreting 11 (2), 137–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Cheung, Andrew K. F.
2024. Cognitive load in remote simultaneous interpreting: place name translation in two Mandarin variants. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1 DOI logo
Leeson, Lorraine, Sara Morrissey, Dimitar Shterionov, Daniel Stein, Henk van den Heuvel & Andy Way
2024. How It Started and How It’s Going: Sign Language Machine Translation and Engagement with Deaf Communities Over the Past 25 Years. In Sign Language Machine Translation [Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications, 5], ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Tamayo, Ana
2024. Multimodality on Screen and the Filmic Potential of Sign Languages. In The Palgrave Handbook of Multilingualism and Language Varieties on Screen, ► pp. 533 ff. DOI logo
Hu, Bei
2023. Flowing to the reception side. In Translation Flows [Benjamins Translation Library, 163], ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Yuhong
2023. “Feel sorry for Miss translator!!!”. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 25:1 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Alexander, Dhoest & Jorn Rijckaert
2022. News ‘with’ or ‘in’ sign language? Case study on the comprehensibility of sign language in news broadcasts. Perspectives 30:4 ► pp. 627 ff. DOI logo
De Meulder, Maartje & Hilde Haualand
2021. Sign language interpreting services. Translation and Interpreting Studies 16:1 ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
DOĞAN, Caner
2021. Televizyon Haber Bültenlerindeki İşaret Dili Çeviri Hizmetine Yönelik Sağır Topluluğun Tutum Ve Beklentileri. Çeviribilim ve Uygulamaları Dergisi 2021:30 ► pp. 18 ff. DOI logo
Zanettin, Federico
2021. News Media Translation, DOI logo
Heyerick, Isabelle
2020. The importance of video recordings in signed language interpreting research. In Linking up with Video [Benjamins Translation Library, 149], ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
Wehrmeyer, Ella
2019. A corpus for signed language interpreting research. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 21:1 ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo
Wehrmeyer, Ella
2019. Linguistic Interference in Interpreting from English to South African Sign Language. In English in Multilingual South Africa, ► pp. 371 ff. DOI logo
Wehrmeyer, Ella
2020. Shifts in signed media interpreting. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 25:3 ► pp. 270 ff. DOI logo
Wehrmeyer, Ella
2022. Psycholinguistic errors in signed simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:2 ► pp. 192 ff. DOI logo
Pöchhacker, Franz
2018. Media interpreting. In Reception Studies and Audiovisual Translation [Benjamins Translation Library, 141], ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.