In this study, we consider variation in a class of signs in Australian and New Zealand Sign Languages that includes the signs think, name, and clever. In their citation form, these signs are specified for a place of articulation at or near the signer's forehead or above, but are sometimes produced at lower locations. An analysis of 2667 tokens collected from 205 deaf signers in five sites across Australia and of 2096 tokens collected from 138 deaf signers from three regions in New Zealand indicates that location variation in these signs reflects both linguistic and social factors, as also reported for American Sign Language (Lucas, Bayley, & Valli, 2001). Despite similarities, however, we find that some of the particular factors at work, and the kinds of influence they have, appear to differ in these three signed languages. Moreover, our results suggest that lexical frequency may also play a role.

This article explores the development and application of rubrics to assess an experimental corpus of Auslan (Australian Sign Language)/English simultaneous interpreting performances in both language directions. Two rubrics were used, each comprising four main assessment criteria (accuracy, target text features, delivery features and processing skills). Three external assessorstwo interpreter educators and one interpreting practitionerindependently rated the interpreting performances. Results reveal marked variability between the raters: inter-rater reliability between the two interpreter educators was higher than between each interpreter educator and the interpreting practitioner. Results also show that inter-rater reliability regarding Auslan-to-English simultaneous interpreting performance was higher than for English-to-Auslan simultaneous interpreting performance. This finding suggests greater challenges in evaluating interpreting performance from a spoken language into a signed language than vice versa. The raters' testing and assessment experience, their scoring techniques and the rating process itself may account for the differences in their scores. Further, results suggest that assessment of interpreting performance inevitably involves some degree of uncertainty and subjective judgment.

This article explores what deaf signing diversity means for the creation of effective online signed language translations in Australia and for language theory more generally. We draw on the translanguaging and enregisterment literature to describe the communication practices and individual repertoires of deaf Auslan signers, and to problematise the creation of translations from English into Auslan. We also revisit findings from focus group research with deaf audiences and translation practitioners to identify key elements of existing translations that were problematic for many deaf viewers, and to illuminate what makes an act of translation from English into Auslan effective for signers who need these translations the most. One main challenge is the inherent hybridity of signed communication practices, resulting from variable language learning circumstances and other factors. Instead, signed communication practices are often shaped by what we refer to as the nascency principle: the perpetual redevelopment of new forms of expression for understanding the specific discourse and spatiotemporal context, by and for the signers who are physically present. This affects possibilities for enregisterment and therefore translations. We conclude with suggestions for improving translations and some broader implications for understanding and researching signed languages.

Interpreting is an applied linguistic activity; the act of mediating between languages and cultures involves the application of linguistic knowledge across a wide range of communicative settings.

No abstract