This study investigates visual and tactile ASL-English interpreters' influences on interactive discourse through an interactional sociolinguistic analysis of videotaped, interpreted interactions. We examine the participation framework of each of the interactions to determine whether the interpreters' utterances influence the interaction. For example, how do interpreters' code choices align them with the Deaf-sighted, Deaf-Blind, or hearing participants? How do interpreters create footings within their renditions and self-generated nonrenditions? Based on a growing body of research on tactile signed languages and on signed language interpretation of dyadic interaction such as student-teacher meetings, medical interviews, and multi-party genres such as classroom discourse, this study examines ways in which discourse genre and linguistic mode contribute to those interpreter-generated influences.
This article focuses on nonsigning hearing parents of deaf children who share the goals of bilingual-bicultural (BiBi) programs for their child, opt for their home language to be their deaf child's first language (L1), and have questions about communication options (e.g., oral methods, manually coded English [MCE] systems, or Cued Speech) for conveying that language. We present research findings related to the effectiveness of MCE systems and Cued Speech for conveying English and developing deaf children's reading abilities. We compare the cueing of English and the signing of MCE systems in terms of theoretical and practical advantages. Finally, we suggest research needs.
Sociolinguistic processes are inherent in communication and thus the practice of interpretation. Interpreting constitutes intentional sociolinguistic analyses by interpreters, and reflects the tacit, sociolinguistic knowledge of interpreters engaged in the task. Sociolinguistic approaches and methodologies are well suited to interpreting studies, precisely because interpreting involves such a complex array of language and social behavior. In this sense, not only is the sociolinguistic context a relevant aspect of interpretation as a profession, but also the larger sociolinguistic context in which interpreters work. Each interpreted interaction undertaken by a professional interpreter is situated within communities that harbor their own unique multilingual, bilingual, and language contact phenomenon; within a setting that represents a snapshot of what may be a long history of language policies and planning; and in a social environment beset with language attitudes about one or both of the languages involved.In this article, we will describe some major and minor sociolinguistic studies of interpretation with the underlying assumption that interpretation itself constitutes a sociolinguistic activity from the moment an assignment is accepted, including the products and processes inherent to the task, reflecting variously issues of bilingualism or multilingualism, language contact, variation, language policy and planning, language attitudes, and of course, discourse analysis.In short, sociolinguistic concerns are such an integral part of interpretation that relevant sociolinguistic areas are being studied by a variety of researchers from diverse and interdisciplinary backgrounds. Just as the study of sociolinguistic issues as they pertain to interpreting have a great potential to impact interpreting practice and pedagogy, the study of interpreters and interpretation has much potential to contribute to our understanding of sociolinguistics and the sociolinguistics of deaf communities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.