Deaf signing diversity and signed language translations

Abstract

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.

Sociolinguistic Variation in Mouthings in British Sign Language: A Corpus-Based Study

“…In this sense, code-blending is not that different from what happens when speakers mix various elements of their linguistic repertoires, particularly when they do so multimodally and/ or simultaneously. This is consistent with other recent works on translanguaging in deaf signers which mention mouthing as one of the elements that is often included when signers mix multimodal linguistic repertoires (De Meulder et al, 2019;Hodge & Goswell, 2021;Kusters et al, 2017). We agree with Bank et al (2011) that code-blending is typologically different from codeswitching in spoken languages.…”

“…More recent research on bilingual/multilingual practices has broadened the remit beyond code-switching to translanguaging. Translanguaging is the use of multiple linguistic repertoires: this may include switching or mixing of any number of languages—spoken and/or signed—as well as gesture, intonation, and writing (García, 2009; Hodge & Goswell, 2021; Kusters et al, 2017). There is some debate about whether the traditional notion of code-switching is included within translanguaging and whether code-switching can/should be studied separately at all (Chan, 2021; Wei, 2018a, 2018b).…”

Effectiveness of tailored COVID-19 messages for vulnerable Australians: A study protocol

“…Furthermore, the cost of producing one animation that can be repeated across all individual population groups would be more cost-effective than having to produce individual pieces of media for each group, particularly if they are found to have a similar effect on behavioural intentions. However, where groups may require a message to be translated into another language, pre-recorded videos can impair the quality and accessibility of the translation because they force the translators to work within the time restraints of the existing visuals, rather than allowing the message to take as long as it needs in the new language [54].…”

Iconicity as Multimodal, Polysemiotic, and Plurifunctional

“…For example, imagistic iconicity has been shown to be central to the evolution of displacement in language, supporting the transition of functionally referential signs to conceptually referential signs ( Perniss and Vigliocco, 2014 ). Some communicative strategies that particularly suit the creation of imagistic iconicity may be useful in specific contexts, such as deaf signers’ use of manual depicting actions for talking about referents or processes that do not have a readily available lexical form, or when such a conventionalised form is unknown due to oppressive social and/or educational experiences ( Klima and Bellugi, 1979 ; Fusellier-Souza, 2006 ; Major et al, 2012 ; Hodge and Goswell, 2021 ). Particular types of iconicity can be useful in interactions involving people who have experienced cognitive disruptions such as aphasia (e.g., Neils, 1995 ; Schveiger, 1995 ; Wilkinson et al, 2010 ; Meteyard et al, 2015 ; Pritchard et al, 2015 ) and people who are neurodiverse (e.g., Dargue et al, 2021 ).…”

“…The example chosen for our purposes here most closely reflects the choices made by experienced and highly respected Auslan signers who are proficient in making meaningful use of space. Thus, this particular construction also indexes specific Auslan socialities: people who have signed since birth or early childhood, or who have otherwise experienced maximal opportunities to sign this way (see Hodge and Goswell, 2021 ). Then, there is the Alice Springs air writing example in Figure 3 , which indexes the development of English literacy practices used by young and older people in Ngaanyatjarra communities ( Ellis et al, 2019 : 105).…”