Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation and Interpreting Studies
Vol. 16:3 (2021) ► pp.434–454

Additions in simultaneous signed interpreting

A corpus-driven grounded study

ORCID logo | North-West University, South Africa
Until now, investigations of strategies used by signed language interpreters in the simultaneous mode have been sporadic and restricted to analyses of short transcripts. This article presents the first corpus-driven exploration of interpreter additions in news broadcasts simultaneously interpreted into South African Sign Language. Using grounded theory, it explores the types of additions made, the reasons for their production, and their downstream consequences. The results show that interpreters mainly add discourse markers, linguistic extrapolations such as filling in ellipsis and obvious co-text, repetitions, contextual information, and to a lesser extent, second translations, pragmatic markers, and new information. However, the cost is high as additions often result in concomitant omissions and occasional incoherence. From the results, a model is extrapolated to explain additions in terms of the interpreter’s perceived roles and status in the Deaf community.
Keywords: additions, explicitation, sign language interpreting, corpus-driven interpreting studies, grounded theory, South African Sign Language
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Types of additions
  • Reasons for additions
  • Method
  • Results
    • Addition of discourse devices
    • Linguistic extrapolation
    • Repetitions
    • Pragmatic markers
    • Contextual information
    • Incoherent additions
    • New information
    • Second translations
    • Anticipations
    • Downstream effects of additions
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 September 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.18053.weh
References (43)
References
Angelelli, Claudia. 2004. Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, Lawrence. 2018. AntConc (software) Version 3.5.7 (Windows). [URL]. Last accessed 21 January 2020.
Barik, Henri. 1994. “A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation.” In Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. by Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer. 121–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena. 2006. “Strategies of simultaneous interpreting and directionality.” Interpreting 8 (2): 149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, Nicole, Bernd Meier, and Demet Özçetin. 2008. “Explicitness in translation and interpreting: A critical review and some empirical evidence (of an elusive concept).” Across Languages and Cultures 9 (2): 177–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Sabine. 2017. “What a micro-analytical investigation of additions and expansions in remote interpreting can tell us about interpreters’ participation in a shared virtual space.” Journal of Pragmatics 1071: 165–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chernov, Ghelly. 2004. Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cokely, Denis. 1992. Interpretation: A Sociolinguistic Model. Burtonsville, MD: Linstock Press.Google Scholar
Corbin, Juliet and Anselm Strauss. 2014. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dose, Stephanie. 2010. Patterns of Growing Standardization and Interference in Interpreted German Discourse. Pretoria: University of South Africa. MA dissertation. [URL]. Last accessed 21 January 2020.
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumul, Ewa. 2006. “Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting: A strategy or a byproduct of language mediation?” Across Languages and Cultures 7 (2): 171–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Explicitation and directionality in simultaneous interpreting.” Linguistica Silesiana 381: 311–329.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, Bente. 2003. “Pragmatics in court interpreting: Additions.” In Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community, ed. by Louise Brunette, et al.. 223–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 2010. “Transcription and annotation in the creation of signed language corpora.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15 (1): 106–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta. 2018. “Interpretese vs. non-native language use: The case of optional that .” In Making Way in Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies, ed. by Mariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Bart Defrancq. 97–113. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kia, Mehdi and Helen Ouliaeinia. 2016. “Explicitation across literary genres: Evidence of a strategic device?” Translation & Interpreting 8 (2): 82–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaudy, Kalina. 2009. “Explicitation.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd edition, ed. by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha. 104–108. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohn, Kurt and Sylvia Kalina. 1996. “The strategic dimension of interpreting.” Meta 41 (1): 118–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krüger, Ralph. 2013. “A cognitive linguistic perspective on explicitation and implicitation in scientific and technical translation.” Trans-kom. Journal of Translation and Technical Communication Research 6 (2): 285–314.Google Scholar
Leeson, Lorraine. 2005. “Making the effort in simultaneous interpreting: Some considerations for signed language interpreters.” In Topics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice, ed. by Terry Janzen. 51–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlini, Raffaela. 2015. “Dialogue interpreting.” In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker. 102–103. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlini, Raffaela and Roberta Favaron. 2005. “Examining the ‘voice of interpreting’ in speech pathology.” Interpreting 7 (2): 263–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara, Alexander Künzli, and Marina Korac. 1998. “Prolonged turns in interpreting: effects on quality, physiological and psychological stress (pilot study).” Interpreting 3 (1): 47–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2005. “Explaining explicitation.” In New Trends in Translation Studies: In Honour of Kinga Klaudy, ed. by Krisztina Károly and Ágota Fóris. 29–43. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Russo, Mariachiara. 2018. “Speaking patterns and gender in European Parliament Interpreting Corpus: A quantitative study as a premise for qualitative investigations.” In Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies, ed. by Mariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Bart Defrancq. 115–131. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 2010. “Prosody and syntax in sign languages.” Transactions of the Philological Society 108 (3): 298–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, Michael. 1993. Übersetzung und Bearbeitung: zur Differenzierung und Abgrenzung des Übersetzungsbegriffs. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 2008. “Towards a definition of interpretese: An intermodal, corpus-based study.” In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile, ed. by Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast. 237–253. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stone, Christopher. 2009. Towards a Deaf Translation Norm. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Stratiy, Angela. 2005. “Best practices in interpreting: A deaf community perspective.” In Topics in Signed Languages and Interpreting: Theory and Practice, ed. by Terry Janzen. 231–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, Fang. 2018. Explicitation in Consecutive Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Revised Edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Besien, Fred and Chris Meuleman. 2004. “Dealing with speakers’ errors and speakers’ repairs in simultaneous interpreting.” The Translator 10 (1): 59–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Besien, Fred. 1999. “Anticipation in simultaneous interpretation.” Meta 44 (2): 250–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul and Jean Darbelnet. 1958/1995. Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wehrmeyer, Ella. 2014a. “Introducing grounded theory into translation studies.” SALALS 32 (3): 373–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. “Eye tracking deaf and hearing viewing of sign language interpreted news broadcasts.” JEMR 7 (1,3): 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “An annotation system for signed language interpreting corpora.” Hermeneus 171: 279–318.Google Scholar
. 2019. “A corpus for signed language research.” Interpreting 21 (1): 62–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Balakhonov, Vladimir & Christopher D. Mellinger
2023. Developing and Using an Ad Hoc Corpus to Teach Specialized Interpreting: A Case Study of German Embassy Speeches. CLINA Revista Interdisciplinaria de Traducción Interpretación y Comunicación Intercultural 9:2 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Wehrmeyer, Ella
2023. Sign language corpus linguistics. In Advances in Sign Language Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 108], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 2024. 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.