Introduction
One
of the basic theories of cognitive grammar (Langacker, 2008; Taylor, 2002;
Croft and Cruse, 2004) is that of content and construal, where content
represents the truth conditions of a circumstance and construal is, “our
ability to conceive and portray the
same situation in alternate ways” (Langacker, 2008, p. 43). In language,
constructed dialogue (CD) is used to report the words spoken by another person,
or that were spoken at a time other than the present. Different languages use
CD differently. Constructed dialogue has been shown to be an integral feature
in all types of American Sign Language discourse (Quinto-Pozos, 2007), while it
is less common in English. This difference in use of CD is especially stark in
formal lectures, where CD is still commonly used in ASL (Roy, 1989), but is
rarely used in English (Tannen, 1986; Shaw, 1987). The brief study below
examines one interpretation of an ASL lecture into English and applies the
theory of construal in examining how the interpreter renders the content of the
lecture when it is presented as CD in ASL.
The Study
Data
The
data for this study consisted of one 14-minute lecture presented in ASL and
interpreted into English. The presenter is a Gallaudet University employee. The
interpreter is a Masters student in the Department of Interpretation in her
fourth semester of study. The lecture was about mentoring. This is important in
that most of the constructed dialogue from the Deaf presenter involved |
participants | for whom one had more power (the mentor) and one had less power
(the person being mentored). How this may have impacted the interpreter’s
decisions will be discussed below. Another aspect to keep in mind is that all
of the constructed dialogue in the data represent hypothetical reported speech.
That is, in all cases the | participants | are not meant to represent actual
named people and their | conversation | is not meant to be taken as anything
that was actually uttered by any real world referential entities.
Analysis
The
data was analyzed for general instances of constructed dialogue. I did not
attempt a detailed analysis as I was looking for general trends. For example,
each segment of constructed dialogue was coded as one instance from the when
the presenter started the depiction until she returned to her presenter role
regardless of how many turns of conversation were depicted between |
participants |.
Results
During the presentation the
presenter produced 20 instances of constructed dialogue. Of these 20 the
interpreter used constructed dialogue in her interpretation 8 times. In 6 of
these cases the interpreter presented constructed dialogue from the perspective
of the person in the less powerful position. In the other 12 instances the
interpreter either omitted the constructed dialogue and went with an
interpretation that made no mention of the fact that CD had been present in the
source message (4 times), or used indirect reported speech by relaying the
result of the depicted conversation (8 times).
CD in ASL
|
Omission
|
3rd
Party Reported Speech
|
|
20
|
4
|
8
|
CD in English
|
8
|
Discussion
The
results showing that the interpreter used constructed dialogue are not a
surprise. Previous research (Nilsson,
2010; DeMeo, 2012), along with knowledge of some interpreter training
curricula leads us to expect this result. I would like to examine how the
differences in the two texts can be explained in terms of construal. There are
differences in Specificity, Focus,
and Foreground v. Background.
Difference in Specificity
Specificity
refers to the level of detail in an expression (Langacker, 2008). In this case
the ASL lecture contains greater specificity in that it shows actual dialogue
between two | participants |. In contrast, the interpreted text shows less
specificity by either omitting the dialogue in extreme cases, or by indicating
that a conversation takes place between | participants |, but instead of
providing the same type of dialogue, the interpreter tells the audience the
result of the | conversation |. This difference in specificity is diagrammed
below.
Other concepts that I find relevant
to this discussion are those of focusing, and backgrounding vs. foregrounding.
According to Langacker, “Through linguistic expressions, we access particular
portions of our conceptual universe. The dimension of construal referred to
here as focusing includes the selection of conceptual content for linguistic
presentation, as well as its arrangement into what can broadly be described
(metaphorically) as foreground vs. background” (2008, p. 53). In the case of constructed
dialogue in ASL the focus is on the not only the content of the | conversation
| but also on the | participants |. This means that how the | conversation | is
relayed is nearly as important as the end result. An audience fluent in ASL
sees depicted the manner in which the | participants | interact, which tells
the audience something about the speaker’s perception of both the |
participants | and the | conversation |. Conversely when the interpreter
chooses to relay only the result of the conversation then the result becomes
the focus rather than the content and the | participants |. When this happens
the content is pushed farther to the background and the | participants | become
more peripheral.
Possible Reasons for the Interpreter’s Decisions
This relates back to Nilsson’s (2010) assertion that instances
of constructed dialogue are so densely packed with information that it is
difficult for an interpreter working into a linear spoken language to convey
all of them while under the time pressure found in simultaneous interpretation.
It seems when there are multiple turns of conversation within an instance of
constructed dialogue an interpreter is more likely to shift to reporting the
outcome of the conversation. In the data for this study the interpreter never
relays more than one turn of constructed dialogue while interpreting any one
instance of CD.
There
are several possible reasons for this. First, it can be difficult for
interpreters to relay multiple turns of constructed dialogue due to the difference
in time needed to introduce each speaker. In ASL the switch can be done with
shifts of body position, head, or eye gaze. In English, establishing who is
speaking generally calls for an introductory phrase like, “Then the supervisor
says…” If there are multiple turns of constructed dialogue it may not be
feasible for the interpreter to keep up due to the inherent lag coupled with
the longer production time. In these cases it is more expedient in terms of
both production and processing to introduce the | participants | and then only
provide the result of the conversation.
Another
possibility is that while constructed dialogue is
often found in spoken English, it is typically found in narrative storytelling and it is not as heavily employed in formal
registers (Tannen, 1986; Shaw, 1987). The data for this study comprised a mock
formal setting of a lecture within the actual formal setting of a comprehensive
exam. Through both frames (as described in Metzger, 1999) the interpreter could
feel influenced to produce an interpretation that adheres to the expectations
of formal English discourse.
Possible Influence of Power Relationships
As
noted above, when the interpreter did employ constructed dialogue she relayed
the dialogue of the person with less power 6/8 times. While there are many
possible explanations for this pattern the statements about the perceived
formality of constructed action in a formal English seem plausible here. In
talking to faculty and students in the Department of Interpretation, some
English speakers believe that use of CD in English is often associated with
younger speakers engaged in narratives, the concept of the chatty teenager was
used by several informants. With this in mind it is worth noting that the
interpreter overwhelmingly used CD to represent the speech of the | person
being mentored |. In terms of conceptualization for both the general American
public and for the Deaf presenter the person being mentored is seen as being
younger. Also, according to Tannen (1995), the person seeking information is
often seen as being in a less powerful one down position. This
conceptualization of the | person being mentored | could lead the interpreter
to allow herself to employ CD to represent this | person’s | speech.
Possible Net Result of Construal on an Audience
In
examining the differences in construal of constructed dialogue between the ASL
presentation and the interpretation it is helpful to think of the impact on
construal on a mixed audience of people who know ASL and people who do not. In
a mixed audience, assuming, as is the case in the data for this study, that the
interpretation reaches a certain threshold for factual equivalence the two
groups that comprise the audience would be exposed to the same truth
conditions. It is plausible to think that if they were given a questionnaire on
the topic and facts of the lecture that the groups would score similarly.
However, their experience of the lecture will have been different. This is not
only because of the differences in linguistic resources available between the
two languages, but also because of how those resources are typically employed
in a given setting. As we have seen above ASL appears to require the use of
constructed dialogue. English is more limited in terms of how, where, and how
much constructed dialogue is employed. Thus the non-signing audience receives
the result of the depicted interaction but little if any of the manner in which
that result is derived. The non-signing audience does not get the same sense of
how accommodating the | mentor | is. Nor do they see the level of trepidation
on the part of the | person being mentored |. While some of these affectual
features are evident in the use of constructed dialogue by the interpreter
through the use of ventriloquizing (Tannen, 2010), the fact that the
interpreter employs this tactic far less than the presenter creates this
difference in construal. Even if the interpreter did endeavor to present more
formal equivalence in their product the experience of the lecture for the
non-signing audience would still not match that of the ASL fluent audience. As
noted above frequent use of constructed dialogue is not common in a formal
English presentation and could skew the contextual force (Isham, 1986) for the
non-signers. In this case their experience of the speaker’s approach to the
discourse would be more similar in terms of form, but their perception of the
speaker herself, (in terms of formality, appropriateness, adherence to
convention, etc) would likely be different. Thus, the interpreter’s goal of
providing a text that matches the audience expectations draws the construal of
the lecture further from that of the original source.
Conclusion:
Though
audiences attending to the ASL lecture or the English interpretation are
exposed to the same truth conditions they have different experiences of the
presentation. They are left with different impressions of the speaker’s style.
Future research in this area could explore difference in audience perception of
the presenter when the interpreter tries to produce a product closer in formal
equivalence than they might usually. I do not say closer since in terms of construal
because no two descriptions of any event will be exactly the same even if they are
produced in the same language. Thus it is impossible to have the same construal
of any content in a dual language situation. Other research might seek to
explore if there is a pattern of construal that can be found in multiple
interpretations of a text. For example, do specific ASL expressions of CD
trigger a CD or non-CD interpretation more often than others? This type of
study could help identify discourse features that are commonly accepted as
being appropriate for CD in an English interpretation. This knowledge could aid
future interpreter education.
References:
Croft, W. and Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
DeMeo, M. (2012). Interpreting Constructed Action and
Constructed Dialogue in American Sign Language into Spoken English, (Unpublished Master’s Thesis), Gallaudet University,
Washington, D.C.
Isham, W. (1986). The Role of Message Analysis in
Interpretation. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 9th National Convention of RID.
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Metzger, M. (1999). Sign Language Interpreting:
Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality,
Gallaudet University Press, Washington, DC
Nilsson, A. (2010). Studies in Swedish Sign Language:
Reference, real space
blending, and interpretation. (Doctoral dissertation).
Stockholm University,
Sweden.
Quinto-Pozos, D. (2007). Can constructed action be
considered obligatory? Lingua,
117, 1285-1314
Shaw, R. (1987) Determining register in sign-to-English
interpreting. Sign Language Studies Monographs. Burtonsville, MD: Linstock Press
Tannen, D. (1986). Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek
and American conversational and literary narratives. Direct and indirect
speech (pp. 311-322). Berlin: Mouton.
Tannen, D. (1995). Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men in
the Workplace: Language, Sex and Power, Avon Books, New York, NY
Tannen, D. (2010). Abduction and identity in family
interaction: ventriloquizing as indirectness. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 307-316.
Taylor, J. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press
No comments:
Post a Comment