Pronouns in ASL and English (2004)

This paper was first published on my old blog back in 2004, as such the information for this topic may be out of date. Still, it can be useful as a historical document. I am bringing it here in order to have everything in one place. This series of squibs were written between 2002 and 2004. They can be read for CEUs at CEUs on the Go!

1.         ASL, like English is a complete and naturally occurring language.  Both share features that linguists have described as endemic of all languages.  First, language is infinitely variable; it can be used to discuss any and all concepts that humans can conceive.  This means that language can be used to discuss things, events and concepts that are not immediately present.  Both ASL and English have symbols to represent the concepts of time, place, conditional events and things that are entirely fictional.  This infinite variability also allows the language to be used in order to analyze itself.  It is clear that English possesses these qualities because without them it would not be able to write this paper. 

Being infinitely variable means that a language has ways of introducing new symbols to refer to new concepts and things.  Both ASL and English have come up with symbols that refer to modern technology and concepts.  Another feature that allows languages to adapt is that single symbols may have more than one meaning.  This polysemousness allows new meanings to be introduced without the creation of new symbols. 

Languages involve sets of symbols that are used to encode meaning.  An example of this in English is letters and words, in ASL and example would be signs.  These symbols may be either arbitrary or iconic.  That is, they can clearly represent their referent (iconic), or the symbol may bear no relation to its referent (arbitrary).  An English example of iconicity is found in words that are onomatopoeic like “cock-a-doodle-doo” or “bang”.  An ASL common ASL example of iconicity is the sign MILK in which the hand mimics the motion of milking a cow.  These symbols are made up of discreet, meaningless parts called phonemes, which combine to form meaningful parts called morphemes.  English phonemes are the different sounds that speakers make that are part of the language.  In ASL phonemes consist of handshape, location, palm orientation, movement, and non-manual markers.  Morphemes in English are words and other units that have meaning, for example the affix “-s” that makes a singular noun into a plural. 

In ASL morphemes are individual signs as well as other features such as numeral incorporation that can modify the meaning of a basic sign.  These morphemes are then combined to form clauses, which combine to form sentences, which combine to form texts.  Combinations at each level are governed by rules that vary from language to language.  On the larger levels, these rules are referred to as “grammar”, the system of rules that governs how words are put together to make sentences, and “syntax” the rules that govern the order and relationships between words and other structural elements in sentences and larger texts.  These rules establish a system in which language is used to communicate information, as well as relationships between chunks of information.  The grammars of ASL and English are different.  An example of this difference can be seen in how each language uses tense to refer to time.  In English speakers use affixes and internal modification to show when an event took place.  For example, walk (present tense) and walked (past tense).  ASL does not use affixes to show tense; rather the signer will establish the time first and then give the action.  For example, MAN WALK (present tense) and YESTERDAY MAN WALK (past tense). 

For more on ASL as a language and differences between ASL and English see Valli & Lucas (1992) and Klima & Bellugi (1979)

2.         The remainder of this text will discuss basic pronoun systems in ASL and English.  Pronouns are symbols in a language that are used in place of nouns and function as simple noun phrases.  Languages may use these parts of speech in place of a noun that has already been established earlier in the text in order to refer back to that noun.  Pronouns may also be used to describe referents that do not have an antecedent.  Pronouns fall into the following categories:

-Personal: Generally refers to people or animate nouns

-Possessive: Shows ownership

-Reflexive: Refers back to a noun within the same sentence, often functions as an object

-Reciprocal: Shows a “mutuality of action[1]”

-Relative: Refers to an antecedent that was previously established.  Can initiate a relative clause.

-Interrogative: Can be used to begin questions

-Demonstrative: Indicates specificity

-Indefinite: Does not refer to a specific referent

            While languages are constantly evolving, adding new words and meanings while others fall into disuse, pronouns are considered a minor category.  This means that the set of pronouns within a language is fixed and that no new forms may be added to the lexical category “pronouns”.

For more on the definition of pronouns see Teschner & Evans (2000) and Valli & Lucas (1992)

---

[1] Teschner and Evans, pg. 183

3.         As described in the definition above ASL pronouns refer to nouns that have already been established earlier in the text.

ASL personal pronouns can be used to refer to three classes of referent, the speaker (1^st person), the person being addressed (2^nd person), and other nouns that are not the speaker or the addressee (3^rd person). The referent in this case will be established somewhere in the signing space.  For example #BOB IX-rt establishes that, until the topic shifts, or a new referent is established, and “Bob” is no longer a topic of conversation, the signers may use a pronominal sign to point to that space when referring to “Bob”.  The sign is generally produced using the  “1” handshape with the index finger pointing towards the referent.  According to Valli & Lucas (1992), “The third person pronoun in ASL can also be produced with the thumb” (pg. 102).  However the pronouns for these three referents have only two forms, 1^st person and not 1^st person.  Which referent the signer is referring to depends on the context in which it appears.  Because sings with a 3^rd person referent are made in space consideration has been given to the function of space in ASL pronoun use.  The consensus is that the space “is articulatory – that is location is simply part of the pronoun sign and it does not have independent morphological meaning” (Valli & Lucas, 103[1]).  This has been determined because the 3^rd person referent can be established anywhere in the signing space, therefore the space itself does not have meaning, it merely holds a spot for the referent.

There are two sub categories that indicate ownership, possessive determiners, which function syntactically like other determiners, and possessive pronouns.  Again ASL seems to only make distinctions between 1^st (MY, OUR) and non-1^st person [POSS-straight-line (singular), POSS-trace-path (plural)[2]] forms.  It is not clear whether or not ASL uses possessive pronouns.

ASL has three indefinite pronouns, these are glossed as SOMEONE, NOTHING, and NONEosc[3].  The form SOMEONE is also used to represent the idea expressed in English as, “something”.  As stated above these pronouns do not have a specific referent.  This is emphasized by the fact that these are not pointing signs, that is, they do not indicate any specific part of the signing space.  Rather, they are produced in neutral space.

ASL has three demonstrative pronouns, these are glossed as THAT, THAT-PRO, and THAT’S-THE-ONE.  As stated earlier these pronouns indicate a degree of specificity.  For example, “REMEMBER LAST-WEEK SEE CAR BLUE?  THAT.”

For more on pronouns in ASL see Valli & Lucas (1992)

4.         English pronouns stand in place of other nouns that have already been established in the text.  In English, sentences must be constructed in such a way that it is clear which antecedent is being referred to.  Here are some examples of personal pronouns in English[4]. In the English sentence, “Bob and Joe went to the park, and then he went home.” it is not clear to whom “he” refers.  On the other hand, in the sentence, “Bob went for a run and then he had lunch.” it is clear the “he” refers to “Bob”.  Still, English pronouns do not always need to have an antecedent in the text if the referent is clear form the context.  For example, in the sentence, “You don’t have any money” it is clear that the pronoun “You” refers to the addressee.  English also shows ownership by using possessive determiners and possessive pronouns.  These two classes are distinguished in English “by the word final /s/ in all but one instance[5]”, that is, adding an –s to the possessive determiner form creates a possessive pronoun for all forms except “my”, which becomes “mine”.

            English reflexive pronouns are used as objects to refer back to subjects in the same sentence.  Thus, the subject and object of the sentence have the same referent.  For example in the sentence, “Moe hit himself with a hammer”; “himself” refers back to Moe.  Therefore, “Moe hit Moe with a hammer.”

            English uses reflexive pronouns to show “mutuality of action: A does to B what B does to A.[6]“ In these cases the reciprocal construction appears in the same clause as its antecedents.  For example “Bob and Joe ran into each other” but never “Bob went into town and Joe ran into each other.[7]”

            English uses demonstrative pronouns to show specificity.  Note the difference between “Bob was gored by a bull” and “Bob was gored by that bull.”  In the first sentence any bull could have been responsible, the image conjured up in the listener’s mind is that of whatever a typical bull is to them.  The pronoun “that” in the second sentence has a specific bull as its referent[8].

            Indefinite pronouns are the opposite of demonstrative pronouns in that they do not have a specific referent.  As such, they do not always bear an antecedent.  In fact the only indefinite pronoun to bear an antecedent is “one; in “That’s the one I saw yesterday”, “one” refers to “that”.  The other indefinite pronouns are combinations of “any” or “some” with “body”, “one”, “thing”, or “where”.  That they do not need antecedents is proven by the sentence, “Someone stole my car.”  In this case the speaker does not know who stole his or her car, therefore “someone” does not have specific referent, thus no antecedent is possible.

            Relative pronouns in English tend to initiate relative clauses.  These pronouns replace other nouns that function as the subject of the relative clause.  This subject is identical to that of the object in the first clause as in “Bob hit himself with the hammer that was used to build the barn.”  Here we have two clauses that could stand as sentences; “Bob hit himself with the hammer” and “The hammer was used to build the barn.”  The relative pronoun “that” replaces “The hammer” in the second clause.

            Finally, English uses interrogative pronouns to begin questions.  These are well known by journalists as what, when, when, where, why, how and variations of who (whom/ whose).  These can be use to begin questions such as, “Whom did Bob hit with the hammer?”

For more on pronouns in English see Teschner & Evans (2000)

5.         ASL and English both use pronouns to perform similar functions.  However they do not perform all of the same functions, nor do the pronominal forms of each language encode the same information. 

Many personal pronouns (including possessives) in English encode information regarding person (1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd), gender, (male, female) and case (subject, object) in the form.  For example “I” (1^st, subject), “you” (2^nd), “him” (masculine, 3^rd, object), and “she” (feminine, 3^rd).  Conversely, ASL shows only 1^st and non-1^st person, and does not encode information regarding case or gender in the form.  Case information in ASL is dependent on context and the order of signs in a sentence. There are also some English forms that do not encode case or gender information, such as, “you”.

 Both ASL and English encode number related meaning in their pronominal forms, but they do it in different ways.  Both languages have forms that indicate plurality without indicating a specific number.  For example, English has “you”, “they” and “we”, while ASL has YOU-ALL, THEY, and US among others.  ASL, unlike English, also has plural forms that show a specific number. By using numeral incorporation ASL can encode specific numbers from one through five.  One example is the ASL sign FOUR-OF-THEM produced palm up with a “4” handshape and an oscillating movement.

As discussed, reflexive pronouns in English are used as objects that are co-referential to the subject of the same sentence.  English also uses reflexive forms that are not used to express reflexive concepts but instead are used to express emphasis or exclusivity.  For example, “The bull gored Bob all by itself.” indicates that the bull did not receive any help in goring Bob.  ASL also has a sign that appears to function in this manner.  The sign is glossed as SELF and is used in sentences like, “BOY SELF LEARN++” meaning the boy learned without help.  The one possible reflexive use of SELF in ASL is the sign THINK-SELF, which means “think for ones self”.  In the sentence “IMPORTANT THINK-SELF”, THINK-SELF means that the referent should think for them self, thus the implied subject and is also acted upon by the verb, thus the subject and object are co-referential.  This idea has not been proven and is provided for discussion purposes.

Finally both ASL and English use demonstrative pronouns.  In English the demonstrative form also encodes information as to the proximity of the referent.  The forms “this” (singular) and “these” (plural) indicate referents with a closer proximity to the speaker than the forms “that” and “those”.  ASL demonstratives do not encode information regarding proximity.

---

[1] Valli and Lucas cite Liddell (1993, 1994, 1995)

[2] Liddell power point handout 10/22/02

[3] Liddell, power point handout 10/22/02

[4] For a list of personal pronouns see the appendix.

[5] Teschner & Evans pg. 181

[6] Teschner & Evans pg. 183

[7] For a list of reflexive pronouns in English see the appendix.

[8] For a list of demonstrative pronouns in see the appendix.

Appendix

Appendix Personal Pronouns: English[1]:                                                              Possessive                 Possessive   Subjects                  Objects               Determiners               Determiners I            we            me         us           my         our              mine        ours you       you          you        you         your       your            yours       yours he         they         him        them        his         their            his           theirs she       they          her        them        her         their            hers         theirs it          they          it           them        its          their            its            theirs ASL[2]:            1st Person                        Non-1st Person N 1     PRO-1                              PRO U  2    WE-2                               THEY-2 M 3    THREE-OF-US               THREE-OF-THEM B  4    FOUR-OF-US                 FOUR-OF-THEM E  5    FIVE-OF-US                   FIVE-OF-THEM R Pl.  WE                                   THEY Possessive Determiners:                 1st person               Non-1st person singular:   MY                     POSS-straight-line plural:      OUR                   POSS-trace-path Reflexive Pronouns: English:                                                     singular                plural 1st person                                    myself                 ourselves 2nd person                                   yourself               yourselves 3rd person masculine                  himself                themselves 3rd person feminine                    herself                 themselves 3rd person neuter                         itself                   themselves ASL: SELF, this sign is generally not used reflexively. [1] English charts from Teschner & Evans Chapter 5 [2] ASL charts from Liddell power point handout 10/22/02

Translating Poetic Discourse (2004)

This paper was first published on my old blog back in 2004. I am bringing it here in order to have everything in one place. This series of squibs were written between 2002 and 2004. They can be read for CEUs at CEUs on the Go!

Introduction

The debate over the merits of literal (form based) versus free (meaning based) translation has raged for centuries.  Hatim & Mason (1993) cite “fourteenth-century translator Salah al-Din al-Safadi[‘s]” critique of literal translation methods written seven-hundred years ago.  Yet the debate continues, as evidenced by Vladimir Nabokov’s (1955) defense of literal translation.  Today translation theorists (Larson, 1998) propose that literal and free represent opposite ends of a continuum rather than unconnected polar extremes.  Both Hatim & Mason (1993) and Gutt (1991) use the literal versus free debate to frame an exploration of the translatability of poetic discourse.  In this paper I will review the ideas these authors present and examine their implications for translations of ASL poetry into English.  I will propose that such a task cannot be accomplished in the traditional sense, that is, the differences between visual/ manual and oral/ aural/ written modes of communication do not allow for translation in the same manner that one might translate a novel from English to French because the literal versus free debate can never be reconciled in this case.  Instead, the translator must determine the goal of their translation and be willing to accept that much of the poetic quality of the ASL text will be lost in the translation.

Literal versus Free Translation

            Before I examine the problems translating ASL poetry into English I would like to take a moment to define some of the terms used to discuss translation.  A literal translation is form based in that the translator attempts to translate each individual lexical item from the source-language text (ST) into the target-language text (TT)[i].  The result is a target text that is not likely to appear natural to the TT audience.  For example the literal English translation of the Spanish phrase “Como te llamas” is “How do you call yourself?”  While this construction may be intelligible to a native English speaker discerning its meaning would take more effort than would a more natural English construction of the same message.  Some of the arguments against literal translation methods are that they ignore important TT features such as grammar, syntax and cultural norms associated with discourse genre and register.

            On the other hand a free or idiomatic translation strives to release the translator from a strict adherence to ST forms by prescribing a translation based on meaning rather than form.  By applying free translation principles to the “Como te llamas” example we come up with the English translation “What is your name?”  This translation is produced by looking at the phrase as a whole rather than looking only at individual lexical items.  This process includes examining the function of the ST rather than its form, and then choosing a TT form that performs the same function while also sounding normal to native target language speakers.  Among the arguments against free translation methods is that free translations do not provide the “textual sense” (Nabokov, 1955) of the author.

            Larson (1998) offers a range of translation options between the two poles discussed above.  Larson defines “interlinear translation” (Larson, 17) as “a completely literal translation” (Larson, 17).  She goes on to discuss the limits of this type of translation as well as to provide examples of when this type of translation may be useful.

“For some purposes, it is desirable to reproduce the linguistic features of a source text, as for example, in a linguistic study of that language...Although...they are of little help to speakers of the receptor language who are interested in the meaning of the source language text” (Larson, 17).

This idea can be applied to ASL-English translation by looking at ASL-English transcription conventions.  This method of trying to represent ASL texts using English forms, also known as “glossing”, would be unintelligible to TT reader who has no knowledge of ASL.  Take for example the glossed ASL text[ii] in the appendix, this type of transcription, used in linguistic studies of ASL, may not be immediately understood by a bilingual ASL/ English user.  Larson posits that most translators that adhere to literal translation methods produce a “modified literal translation.  They modify the word[iii] order and grammar enough to use acceptable sentence structures in the receptor language. However the lexical items are translated literally” (Larson, 18).

            Free translations focus on translating the meaning of the text as a whole as opposed to focusing on the meaning of each individual lexical item.  Larson offers the following description, saying that free translations, “use the natural forms of the receptor language, both in the grammatical constructions, and in the choice of lexical items” (Larson, 18).  This means that the translator must consider many factors when crafting their translations, including the goal of the original author, the intended audience of the ST, and the era in which the ST was created.  The translator must then consider their own goals, why they are translating the text, for who, and the impact of the ST message in their own era.  With this in mind the translator chooses words, phrases and TT structural components that preserve the register, style, and affect of the ST.  It should also be noted that placed at the far end of Larson’s continuum are “unduly free translations” (Larson, 19) which are no longer faithful to the original text in one or many of the areas discussed above and are therefore inaccurate and inadequate as translations.     

Translating Poetry

            The special nature of poetic discourse makes it especially difficult to translate.  Hatim & Mason (1993) and Gutt (1991) both discuss the conflicts facing translators in regard to poetry.  According to these authors poetic discourse presents a special case where the poetic meaning, or the poetic sense is often tied directly to the form of the TT.  Poetic meaning is different than denotative meaning in that poetic meaning is the artistic quality that distinguishes poetry from prose.  It is this duality that is often difficult to translate, as in Gutt’s example of a German poem by Christian Morgenstern [iv].  According to Gutt, Morgenstern’s poem is written in a particular style of German poetry and contains two types of meaning.  The denotative meaning describes the actions of a weasel.  The poetic meaning gives the reason for the weasel’s actions, “The shrewd animal did it for the sake of the rhyme” (Gutt, 383).  It is from this last line that we can see that the fact that the poem rhymes is essential to the meaning of the text.  If the poem did not rhyme the last line would not have the impact that it does; namely, presenting the absurd notion that the weasel acted in this manner in order to produce a poetic event.  It is because the meaning is inexorably bound to the form that this type of text presents a problem for translators, for as Gutt points out, “while English has ways of expressing these denotations, and also of rhyming, it does not happen to offer a set of words or expressions that fulfill both conditions at once...Therefore, the translator has to make a choice about what properties he wants to preserve” (Gutt, 383).  Gutt provides examples of translations that attempt to preserve the poetic sense of Morgenstern’s poem.  Hatim & Mason (1993) present a similar case, and offer a list of features that may be preserved, when translating poetic discourse, depending on the goals of the translator ranging from “phonemic translation (imitation of ST sounds)” to “interpretation (complete change in form and/ or imitation)” (Hatim & Mason, 15).  Gutt points out that, generally, as one moves form one end of the continuum to the other the translator must sacrifice some aspect of the ST meaning in favor of another, therefore preserving the denotative meaning may come at the expense of the poetic sense and vice versa.

Translating ASL Poetry into English

            The task of translating ASL poetry into English adds even more obstacles to the list discussed above.  As in any language, ASL poetry incorporates features of rhyme, rhythm, and metaphor, which may be difficult to translate into another language due to a lack of convergence between TT forms that can reproduce both ST denotative meaning and ST poetic sense.  These difficulties are compounded by the difference in ST and TT modalities.  Language properties such as rhyme, punning, and metaphor in oral/ aural languages are often accomplished through the manipulation of sound based phonological and morphological components of the language.  In a visual/manual language these same functions are produced through the manipulation of manual phonological and morphological components as well as the use of spatial-linguistic components.  Thus, the choice of

translating meaning versus form is compounded by the fact that oral/aural languages do not have an equivalent way of using three-dimensional space to produce meaning of any kind and therefore cannot readily translate this aspect of poetic discourse in ASL. 

Another aspect of poetic discourse in ASL is the use of classifiers.  Classifiers are signs that have a high level of iconicity, though this iconicity is dependent upon the context in which it is used.  For example the classifier handshape that can be used to represent a car could also be used to represent other kinds of vehicles, the audience knows what the vehicle classifier represents due to the context in which it used.  In ASL poetry classifiers can be used to accomplish the linguistic tasks discussed above, rhyming, punning, and metaphor.  Classifiers present a problem for translators because while classifiers do have a denotative meaning they often do not have citation-form definitions.  Take for example the ASL poem “Eye Music” by Ella Mae Lentz.  In this poem the signer uses classifiers to draw a metaphor between telephone wires as seen from a moving car, to the lines and notes found on a page of sheet music.  While it is possible to translate the denotative meaning of the poem English does not have an equivalent means of representing the visual aspects of the ASL text, and it is these visual aspects that contain the poetic sense of the text.

Other features of ASL poetry highlight the dissonance between ST forms and TT expectations.  For example, repetition of signs can convey both denotative and poetic meaning in ASL.  In this case, translation of the ST denotative meaning loses the poetic sense held in the movement and repetition of the signs.  However, an attempt to reproduce the form, by repeating TT forms that carry glossed denotative “equivalents” of

ST forms also fails to convey the proper poetic sense because repetition in English carries a different poetic sense than repetition in ASL.

When the poetic meaning of the TT is bound to the form it becomes impossible to translate to the text as a whole.  It is here that the translator must choose between translating the form, or translating the meaning.  Gutt gives examples of possible translations of Morgenstern’s “Aesthetic Weasel” that maintain the poetic sense of the work, but stray into the realm of unduly free translation because they do not maintain the denotative meaning of the poem.  This is the problem that appears when the poetic meaning of an ASL poem is tied to an aspect of the visual/manual  mode (i.e. use of three-dimensional space) that does not translate into an oral/aural modality.

Because of these problems in translating poetic meaning Hatim & Mason (1993) note that some poets simply refuse to translate their poetry into other languages [v].  This has been the stance taken recently by some people at Gallaudet University.  In a recent project, students in the MA Interpreting program were given a text that consisted of a lecture and three examples of ASL literature.  The students were asked to translate the lecture parts of the text, but not the literature portions.  The reason for this is that the goal of the text was to present ASL literature while allowing the audience to focus solely on the ASL features being discussed without auditory interference.  In another recent event at Gallaudet a Deaf poet presented her work at the end of an interpreted panel discussion.  The poet asked that the poem not be interpreted, citing the differences between ASL and English as the reason.  If it is difficult, if not impossible, to maintain both denotative meaning and poetic sense when the translator has plenty of time to conceive their translation, it stands to reason that maintaining these elements in a live interpretation is out of the question.

Conclusion

            Despite the many challenges facing translators working with poetic discourse there are some solutions.  For example, in both of the previous examples involving Gallaudet University the signer explained for the non-signing audience what they were about to see, giving them and idea of both the denotative and the poetic meanings of the text.  Both Gutt and Hatim & Mason offer a similar solution, proposing that when an accurate translation cannot be produced the translator may decide which aspect of the TT to translate, and offer an explanation of whatever aspects are missing.  Also, providing access to the ST along with this explanation can help the audience understand what aspects of the ST the translator decided to translate and which aspects they chose to leave alone.

            I would like to offer one more possibility for those seeking to translate ASL poetry into English.  This method would automatically exclude spoken English translations [vi].  I believe that some of the visual aspects of ASL may be reproduced in written English because the written form can be manipulated in space in such a way that some of the spatial and iconic aspects of ASL can be maintained.  Of course there are still significant limitations to this idea; for example the ability of the signer to not only use space for linguistic functions, but to use this space over time cannot be replicated with written English.  Also, written English uses two-dimensional space while ASL uses three-dimensional space.  Still, this is the only manner in which some of these elusive aspects

of ASL can be replicated in English.  Even if this concept could be realized the translator would still need to include an explanation of their work with the translation.  Also, the discrepancy between classifiers and other aspects of ASL that may not have a denotative meaning in English may never be rectified.  In any case, a translation of an ASL poem must be accompanied by the original work in order to make sense.  Access to the ST is of paramount importance in this case as no translation from visual/ manual poetic discourse to an oral/ aural/ written language will be complete enough to maintain both denotative and poetic meaning.

---

[i] Notations taken from Hatim & Mason (1993).

[ii] Gloss taken from Marie Jean Philip’s ASL lecture “Cross Cultural Comparison," transcription by R. Santiago.

[iii] Bracket, added for clarity, is not in the original text.

[iv] Appendix #2

[v] Hatim & Mason, 14

[vi]  While translation is often thought of as the conversion of information from a written text (frozen form) in one language to a written text in another language this definition is expanded when discussing signed texts.  In the case of signed texts the frozen form of the language is a text on videotape, therefore translations of these texts are often spoken, for the purpose of including the English translation on the videotape, as well as written.

Appendix

Appendix

1. Glossed ASL Text:

“-NOW [wh-cl-3-(list)/ sh-IX-(run down list)

                                                                                                                             af

-[wh-cl-3-(list)/ sh-hs-B-(indicate break between each item on the list)] NHS-YES

-PRO.1 GOAL [wh-cl-3-(list)/ sh-IX-(first on list)] FOCUS THEORY TOPIC

LINGUISTIC (wh perseveration-S) THEORY CULTURE (wh perseveration-1) THEORY

                                                                                                                                                      

-PROCESS ANALYZE++ IDENTITY++ [sh-UNDERSTAND wh-hs-1-(place holder)]

                                                                                                                                               

2h-POSS.3++ KNOW-THAT [wh-cl-3-(list)/ sh-hs-B-(indicate break)] [wh-cl-3-(list)/ sh-

                                                                                       topic

hs-B-(second on list)] [wh-cl-3-(list)/ sh-IX-(second on list)]

                                                                                                           af

THATc NHS-YES FOCUS DEAF HEARING PEOPLE COMPARE”

2. Morgenstern’s “The Asthetic Weasel” as found in Gutt (1991, 381):

“Ein Wiesel

sass auf einem Kiesel

inmitten Bachgeriesel

[A weasel

sat on a pebble

in the midst of a ripple of a brook]

(translation from Levy 1967)

Das raffinier-

te Tier

Tat’s um des Reimes Willen

[The shrewd

animal

did it for the sake of the rhyme]

      (translation my own)”

References

The essays "Translating Poetic Discourse,' "Tense in English and ASL: Implications for Interpreters," and "Consecutive Interpreting: a Brief Review" were orginally written as one volume. As such they share one bibliography. Works cited in these three papers can be found below.

References --Becker, A.L. 1988, Language in Particular: A Lecture, in Tannen, D (ed.), Linguistics in Context: Connecting observation and understanding, Norwood, NJ --Cokely, D.  2001, Interpreting Culturally Rich Realities: Research for Successful Interpretations in Watson, D. (ed.) The Journal of Interpretation, RID Publications, Alexandria, VA --Colonomos, B. 1992, Processes in Interpreting and Transliterating: Making Them Work for You, Front Range Community College, Maryland --Evans, E.E. and Teschner, R.V.  2000. Analyzing the Grammar of English: A Brief Undergraduate Textbook (second edition), Georgetown University Press, Washington DC --Gish, S. 1986. “I understood All the Words but I Missed the Point”: a Goal-To-detail/ Detail-To-Goal Strategy for Text Analysis, in New Dimensions in Interpreter Education: Curriculum and Instruction. The 6th National CIT Convention --Frishberg, N. 1990, Interpreting: An Introduction, RID Publications, Arlington, VA --Gutt, E.A. 1991. Translation as Interlingual Interpretive Use, in Venuti, L. (ed.) 2001, The Translation Studies Reader, Routledge, NY, NY --Hatim, B and Mason, I.  1993, Discourse and the Translator, Longman, NY, NY --Isham, W. 1986.  The Role of Message Analysis in Interpretation, in Interpreting: The Art of Cross Cultural Mediation.  Proceedings of the Ninth National Convention of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, RID Press --Labov, W. The Transformation of Experience in Narrative, in A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (eds.) 1999, The Discourse Reader, Routledge, NY, NY. 8 --Larson, M.L. 1998, Meaning Based Translation: A Guide to Cross Cultural Equivalence (Second Edition), University Press of America, Inc., Lanham, MA --Lentz, E.M. 1995 (video), The Treasure, In Motion Press --Liddell, S.  2002 (power point), LIN 707 The Structure of Language: English and American Sign Language, Gallaudet University --Nabokov, V. 1955. Problems of Translation: “Onegin” in English, in Venuti, L. (ed.) 2001, The Translation Studies Reader, Routledge NY, NY --Palma, J. 1995, Textual Density and the Judiciary Interpreter’s Performance, in American Translators Association, Translation and the Law, Vol. VIII --Parker, F. and Riley, K.  1994, Linguistics for Non-Linguists: A Primer with Exercises (2nd printing, 2000), Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA --Philip, M.J. date unknown, (video telecourse) Cross Cultural Comparison --Seleskovitch, D. 1978. Interpreting for International Conferences, (2nd printing 2001), Pen and Booth, Arlington, VA. --Seleskovitch, D. 1991.  Fundamentals of the interpretive theory of translation, in Expanding Horizons. Proceedings of the 12th National RID Convention 1991, RID Press, --Shaw, R.  2002 (class notes) ITP 724, Cognitive Processing Skills: English Gallaudet University --Smith, F. 1985, Reading Without Nonsense, NY Teacher’s College Press, NY, NY --Valli, C. and Lucas, C.  2000 (3rd edition), Linguistics of American Sign Language: An Introduction, Gallaudet University Press, Washington DC