Cover not available
Article published In:
Signed Language Interpreting and Translation
Edited by Laurie Swabey and Brenda Nicodemus
[Translation and Interpreting Studies 13:1] 2018
► pp. 27–48

Construal of content

A cognitive linguistic approach to interpreting affective constructions

Interpreting requires a nuanced understanding of language, and Wilcox and Shaffer (2005) propose that interpreting is enhanced by adopting a cognitive model of communication rather than the conduit model implicit in many interpreting pedagogy models. The present study used a cognitive linguistic approach to investigate affective constructions in American Sign Language (ASL). Relative cognitive linguistic principles are reviewed in the context of English affective constructions and applied in reporting the ASL findings. Then the article explores how these theoretical concepts can support meaning-transfer work. Specifically, Langacker’s Stage Model (2008) is expanded as a framework for comparing source and target text construals of events and for presenting a message with equivalent impact through different language-specific strategies.
Keywords: American Sign Language, cognitive linguistics, Stage Model, interpreting, affective constructions, psych-verbs
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Cognitive linguistic concepts
  • The stage model
  • English affective constructions
  • Affective constructions in American Sign Language
    • Methodology
    • Results
  • Discussion and conclusion
    • Applying the stage metaphor for interpreting practice
    • Beyond affective constructions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00003.hea
References (40)
References
Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. “Psych-verbs and Theta Theory.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6 (3): 291–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, Lera. 2011. “How language shapes thought.” Scientific American 304 (2): 62–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The Semantics of Syntax: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert and Richard Gerrig. 1990. “Quotations as demonstrations.” Language 66 (4): 764–805. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cokely, Dennis. 1992. Interpretation: A Sociolinguistic Model. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Colonomos, Betty. 1989. “Integrated Model of Interpreting Handout.” Bilingual Mediation Center. [URL]. Last accessed on 19 September 2017.
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dudis, Paul. 2007. “ Types of Depiction in ASL .” Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC, Gallaudet University.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Some observations on form-meaning correspondences in two types of verbs in ASL.” Deaf Around the World: The Impact of Language, 831. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1975. “An alternative to checklist theories of meaning.” Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 11: 123–131.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 2009. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2003. “Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language.” Trends in Cognitive Science 7 (5): 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Healy, Christina. 2015. Construing Affective Events in American Sign Language. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Washington, DC, Gallaudet University.Google Scholar
Ingram, Robert. 1978. “Sign Language Interpretation and General Theories of Language, Interpretation and Communication.” In Language Interpretation and Communication. NATO Conference Series 6, ed. by David Gerver and Wallace Sinaiko, 109–118. Boston: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katada, Fusa. 2013. “Weak transitivity: Another view of psych-predicates.” Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” 381: 81–91.Google Scholar
Kegl, Judy. 1990. “Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the ASL lexicon.” In Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues, ed. by Ceil Lucas, 149–175. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
King, Martin Luther. 1963. “I have a dream…” [URL]. Last accessed 8 October 2016.
Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeson, Lorraine. 2005. “Making the effort in simultaneous interpreting.” In Topics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice, ed. by Terry Janzen, 51–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. New York Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina. 2003. “A sociolinguistic analysis of the occurrence and types of omissions produced by Australian Sign Language/English interpreters.” In From topic boundaries to omission: New Research on Interpretation, ed. by Melanie Metzger, Steven Collins, Valerie Dively, and Risa Shaw, 99–153. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Oomen, Marloes. 2015. Psych-Verbs in Sign Language of the Netherlands: How humans’ emotional experiences leave their traces in the grammar of languages in the manual modality. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Oyharçabal, Beñat. 2013. “Lexical causatives and causative alternation in Basque.” Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo,” 223–253.Google Scholar
Quer, Josep. 2009. “Agreement and argument structure in SLs: A case study in LSC psychological predications.” Paper presented at The 21st European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information . Bordeaux, France.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rankin, Miako. 2013. Form, Meaning, and Focus in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Sapountzaki, Galini. 2012. “Agreement auxiliaries.” In Sign Language. An International Handbook, ed. by Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach, and Bencie Woll, 204–227. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Concept Structuring System, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
. 2003. Toward a cognitive semantics: Typology jyoti and process in concept structuring (Language, speech, and communication) Volume 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thumann, Mary. 2010. Identifying Depiction in American Sign Language Presentations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Washington, DC, Gallaudet University.Google Scholar
Turner, Mark. 1991. Reading Minds. Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Valli, Clayton, Ceil Lucas, Kristin Mulrooney and Miako Villanueva. 2011. Linguistics of American Sign Language: An Introduction. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman and Barbara Shaffer. 2005. “Towards a cognitive model of interpreting.” In Topics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice, ed. by Terry Janzen, 27–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winston, Charlotte. 2013. Psychological Verb Constructions in American Sign Language. Unpublished M.A. thesis. West Lafayette, IN, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Witter-Merithew, Anna. 2001. Understanding the meaning of texts and reinforcing foundation skills through discourse analysis. In Tapestry of Our Worlds: Proceedings of the 17th National Conference of Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, ed. by Clay Nettles, 177–192. Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications.Google Scholar