Abstract
Sign language interpreting of dialogues shares many features with the interpreting of dialogues between non-signed languages. We argue that from a cognitive perspective in dialogue interpreting, despite some differences between the two types of interpreting, sign language interpreters use many of the same processes and handle similar challenges as interpreters between non-signed languages. We report on a first exploration of process differences in sign language interpreting between three novice and three experienced Swedish Sign Language interpreters. The informants all interpreted the same dialogue and made a retrospection of their interpreting immediately after the task. Retrospections were analyzed using tools for identifying reported processing problems, instances of monitoring, and strategy use (see Ivanova 1999). Furthermore, the interpreting products (both into Swedish Sign Language and into Swedish) and their differences were qualitatively analyzed. The results indicate that there are differences between the two groups, both in terms of the retrospective reports and in terms of the interpreting product. As expected, monitoring seems to be a factor determined by experience. The experienced interpreters seemed to have more efficient ways of handling turn taking and the internalization of new vocabulary. The study also concludes that to use instruments devised for simultaneous conference interpreting (Ivanova 1999; Tiselius 2013), the instruments need to be adapted to the dialogue setting, even though in the case of sign language interpreting the simultaneous interpreting technique is used even in dialogue interpreting.
Highlights
Sign language interpreting (SLI) in dialogue settings has much in common with dialogue interpreting between non-signed languages (NSLIs)
Three major differences can be identified: 1) SLI is bi-modal, with the interpreter working between the visual signed language and the oral spoken language; 2) SL interpreters almost always work in simultaneous mode, even when interpreting dialogues; and 3) SL interpreters mostly work for deaf clients of the same national background as the hearing clients
SL interpreters, on the other hand, rarely work in the consecutive mode, not even in a dialogue, as the two languages are produced in different modalities, and simultaneous interpreting into either of the languages can be performed while the speakers speak
Summary
Sign language interpreting (SLI) in dialogue settings has much in common with dialogue interpreting between non-signed languages (NSLIs). SL interpreters, on the other hand, rarely work in the consecutive mode, not even in a dialogue, as the two languages are produced in different modalities, and simultaneous interpreting into either of the languages can be performed while the speakers speak Despite this difference in the main technique when interpreting dialogues, we would argue that dialogue SLI requires the same skills as dialogue NSLI and that SLI in dialogue interpreting must handle many of the same challenges as interpreters of non-signed languages. There are, challenges and skills (other than bimodality) that are different as well, especially from an ethical and sociological perspective Examples of such differences are the positioning of the interpreter (the SL interpreter has to be seen by the deaf client at all times) or the minority language group interpreted for (deaf on the one hand and foreigners or migrants on the other). These aspects will not be focused on here, as the main objective of this study concerns the cognitive aspects of the interpreting process
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
