DOCSLIB.ORG

An Ontology for a Web Dictionary of Italian Sign Language

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Ontology for a Web Dictionary of Italian Sign Language AN ONTOLOGY FOR A WEB DICTIONARY OF ITALIAN SIGN LANGUAGE Rosella Gennari KRDB, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Piazza Domenicani 3, 39100 Bolzano [email protected] Tania di Mascio University of L’Aquila, I-67040 Monteluco di Roio, L’Aquila [email protected] Keywords: ontology and the semantic web; knowledge management; web-based education. Abstract: Sign languages are visual languages used in deaf communities. They are essentially tempo-spatial languages: signs are made of manual components, e.g., the hand movements, and non-manual components, e.g., facial expressions. The e-LIS project aims at the creation of the first web bidirectional dictionary for Italian sign language–verbal Italian. Whereas the lexicographic order is a standard and ‘natural’ way of ordering hence retrieving words in Italian dictionaries, there is nothing similar for Italian sign language dictionaries. Stokoe- based notations have been successfully employed for decomposing and ordering signs in paper dictionaries for Italian sign language; but consulting the dictionaries requires knowing the adopted Stokoe-based notation, which is not as easy-to-remember and well-known as Italian alphabet is. Users of a web dictionary cannot be expected to be expert of this. There the role of ontologies comes into play. The ontology presented in this paper analyses and relates the formational components of a sign; in some sense, the ontology allows us to ‘enrich’ the e-LIS dictionary with expert information concerning classes of sign components and, above all, their mutual relations. We conclude this paper with several open questions at the intersection of knowledge representation and reasoning, semantic web, sign and computational linguistics. 1 INTRODUCTION was already in progress, it was realised that potential users of a web dictionary would also be non-experts Sign languages are visual languages used in deaf of Italian sign language. Then the idea of an ontol- communities, mainly. They are essentially tempo- ogy and the associated technology for the dictionary Section 3 spatial languages, simultaneously combining shapes, took shape. We explain our ontology in , and Section 4 Section 5 orientations and movements of the hands, as well as comment on it in . outlines the ar- non-manual components, e.g., facial expressions. A chitecture of the ontology-driven dictionary, and the Section 6 sign language and the verbal language of the coun- role that our ontology plays in it. In , we try of origin are generally different languages. The compare our ontology-driven dictionary to other elec- Section 7 creation of an electronic dictionary for Italian sign tronic dictionaries for sign languages. con- language is part of the e-LIS project (E-LIS project, cludes this paper with an assessment of our work and 2004), which is lead by the European Academy of several open questions. Bozen-Bolzano. The project commenced at the end of 2004 with the involvement of the ALBA cooperative from Turin, active in deaf studies. Section 2 outlines 2 BACKGROUND the essential background on Italian sign language and the e-LIS project’s history. 2.1 Sign language and dictionaries Initially, the e-LIS dictionary from Italian sign language to verbal Italian was intended for expert A sign language (SL) is a visual language based on signers searching for the translation of an Italian sign. body gestures instead of sound to convey meaning. At the start of 2006, when the development of e-LIS SLs are commonly developed in deaf communities. They can be used to discuss any topic, from the simple and concrete to the lofty and abstract. Contrary to popular belief, SL is not universal; SLs vary from nation to nation; even more, SLs such as Italian sign language (LIS) have dialects of their own. LIS is not a visual rendition of Italian verbal language; LIS has a grammar, syntax and lexicon of its own, e.g., a word can be translated into more than one sign and vice versa (see Figure 1). As highlighted in (Pizzuto et al., 2006), SLs can be assimilated to verbal languages “with an oral-only tradition”; their tempo-spatial nature, essentially 4- dimensional, have made it difficult to develop a writ- ten form for them. “However” — as stated in (Piz- Figure 1: Sign for Italian expression Parlare dietro le spalle, as in (Radutzky, 2001). zuto et al., 2006) — “Stokoe-based notations can be successfully employed primarily for notating single, 1 decontextualized signs” . As such, they are used to of current research, e.g., see (Garcia, 2006; Pizzuto transcribe signs and order them in (Radutzky, 2001), et al., 2006). We do not discuss this here for it goes a paper dictionary of LIS to Italian. beyond the scopes of our work which, at present, is of The transcription is based on a decomposition of experimental nature mainly. signs into so-called ‘formational units’. The fol- lowing classes correspond to the formational units 2.2 The e-LIS project adopted in (Radutzky, 2001): • the handshape class collects the shapes the The e-LIS dictionary is part of a research project lead hand/hands takes/take while signing; this class by the European Academy of Bozen-Bolzano (EU- alone counts more than 50 terms in LIS; RAC); e-LIS stands for dizionario Elettronico per la • the orientation class gives the the palm orienta- Lingua Italiana dei Segni (Electronic dictionary for tions, e.g., palm up; LIS). The project was conceived at the end of 2004 at • the movement of the hand/hands class lists the EURAC (E-LIS project, 2004). The ALBA coopera- movements of the hands in LIS; tive from Turin, active in deaf studies, was involved in • the location of the hand/hands class provides the the project for the necessary support and feedback on articulation places, i.e., the positions of the hands LIS. As clearly stated in (Vettori et al., 2004), most (e.g., on your forehead, in the air). sign language dictionaries form a hybrid between a Let us see an example entry of (Radutzky, 2001): the reference dictionary and a learner’s dictionary. On the sign for “parlare dietro le spalle” (to gossip behind contrary, the e-LIS dictionary is conceived a ‘semi- one’s back) in Figure 1 is a one-hand sign; the hand- bidirectional dictionary’, explaining LIS signs using shape is flat with five stretched fingers; as for the ori- LIS as meta-language and vice-versa. entation, the palm orientation is forward and towards The electronic format is particularly suited to an the left so that the hand fingers get in touch once with SL; for instance, it allows for videos and animations the location which is the neck; as for the movement of to be integrated in the dictionary and used to render the hand, this moves to the left only once. the movement of signs in space. Since the dictionary This information is readable in the transcription aims at reaching as many users as possible, it was con- ceived as a web application. in the upper-left corner of Figure 1 (namely, B⊥< Π ∗•). However, figuring out this information from the However the dictionary from LIS to verbal Italian transcription requires some expert knowledge of the was initially intended only for expert signers search- adopted transcription system and, above all, of the un- ing for the translation of a sign into verbal Italian. derlying formational rules of signs. Only subsequently it was realised that the potential Before proceeding further, a word on the written users of a web dictionary could also be non-experts representation of SLs is in order. The representation of LIS, willing to learn it; we cannot expect that they of SLs in written form is a difficult issue and a topic become expert of the transcription system outlined in Subsection 2.1 and, in particular, that they know how 1They were adopted for transcribing and ordering Amer- to compose the formational units of signs of that sys- ican signs in (Stoke et al., 1965). tem. Then, at the start of 2006, we commenced to work on a domain ontology (Guarino, 1998) for the LIS-to-Italian dictionary of e-LIS in order to repre- sent and make available to all such a knowledge. In the following Sections 3 and 4, we focus on the domain ontology at the core of our ontology-driven dictionary, whose architecture is outlined in Section 5. 3 THE DOMAIN ONTOLOGY The domain of our e-LIS ontology is the Stokoe-based classification outlined in Subsection 2.1 above. The ontology was constructed in a top-down manner start- ing from (Radutzky, 2001) with the expert assistance of linguists and deaf users of the e-LIS project (see Subsection 2.2). It was designed using the ICOM on- tology editor (Fillottrani et al., 2006). Note that our ontology is ‘richer’ than that clas- sification: the ontology introduces novel classes and relations among classes, thereby making explicit rel- evant pieces of information which were implicit and somehow hidden in that classification and in the ref- erence paper dictionary. For instance: it makes ex- plicit that each one hand sign is composed of at least one handshape by introducing an appropriate relation among the corresponding classes, One-hand sign and Handhsape; it groups together all the twelve different types of cyclic movements of hands in the Movement in circle class, not present in the paper dictionary. Figure 2: At the bottom: the ontology diagram. At the top: a snippet of the ontology diagram. See also the high- The current domain ontology in diagrammatic for- resolution version (E-LIS ontology, 2006). mat and a snippet of it are shown in Figure 2 (see also the high-resolution version (E-LIS ontology, 2006)).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Sign Language Creation Teaches Us About Language Diane Brentari1∗ and Marie Coppola2,3
    Focus Article What sign language creation teaches us about language Diane Brentari1∗ and Marie Coppola2,3 How do languages emerge? What are the necessary ingredients and circumstances that permit new languages to form? Various researchers within the disciplines of primatology, anthropology, psychology, and linguistics have offered different answers to this question depending on their perspective. Language acquisition, language evolution, primate communication, and the study of spoken varieties of pidgin and creoles address these issues, but in this article we describe a relatively new and important area that contributes to our understanding of language creation and emergence. Three types of communication systems that use the hands and body to communicate will be the focus of this article: gesture, homesign systems, and sign languages. The focus of this article is to explain why mapping the path from gesture to homesign to sign language has become an important research topic for understanding language emergence, not only for the field of sign languages, but also for language in general. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. How to cite this article: WIREs Cogn Sci 2012. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1212 INTRODUCTION linguistic community, a language model, and a 21st century mind/brain that well-equip the child for this esearchers in a variety of disciplines offer task. When the very first languages were created different, mostly partial, answers to the question, R the social and physiological conditions were very ‘What are the stages of language creation?’ Language different. Spoken language pidgin varieties can also creation can refer to any number of phylogenic and shed some light on the question of language creation.
    [Show full text]
  • Negation in Kata Kolok Grammaticalization Throughout Three Generations of Signers
    UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM Graduate School for Humanities Negation in Kata Kolok Grammaticalization throughout three generations of signers Master’s Thesis Hannah Lutzenberger Student number: 10852875 Supervised by: Dr. Roland Pfau Dr. Vadim Kimmelman Dr. Connie de Vos Amsterdam 2017 Abstract (250 words) Although all natural languages have ways of expressing negation, the linguistic realization is subject to typological variation (Dahl 2010; Payne 1985). Signed languages combine manual signs and non-manual elements. This leads to an intriguing dichotomy: While non-manual marker(s) alone are sufficient for negating a proposition in some signed languages (non- manual dominant system), the use of a negative manual sign is required in others (manual dominant system) (Zeshan 2004, 2006). Kata Kolok (KK), a young signing variety used in a Balinese village with a high incidence of congenital deafness (de Vos 2012; Winata et al. 1995), had previously been classified as an extreme example of the latter type: the manual sign NEG functions as the main negator and a negative headshake remains largely unused (Marsaja 2008). Adopting a corpus-based approach, the present study reevaluates this claim. The analysis of intergenerational data of six deaf native KK signers from the KK Corpus (de Vos 2016) reveals that the classification of KK negation is not as straightforward as formerly suggested. Although KK signers make extensive use of NEG, a negative headshake is widespread as well. Furthermore, signers from different generations show disparate tendencies in the use of specific markers. Specifically, the involvement of the manual negator slightly increases over time, and the headshake begins to spread within the youngest generation of signers.
    [Show full text]
  • Deaf and Non-Deaf Research Collaboration on Swiss German Sign Language (DSGS) Interpreter Training in Switzerland
    Deaf and non-deaf research collaboration on Swiss German Sign Language (DSGS) interpreter training in Switzerland The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research trans-int.org Patty Shores HfH University of Applied Sciences of Special Needs Education, Sign-Language Interpreting, Zurich [email protected] Christiane Hohenstein ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, School of Applied Linguistics [email protected] Joerg Keller ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, School of Applied Linguistics [email protected] DOI: ti.106201.2014.a03 Abstract. Teaching, training, and assessment for sign language interpreters in Swiss German sign language (DSGS) developments since 1985 have resulted in the current Bachelor level at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Special Needs Education (HfH). More recently, co-teaching with Zurich University of Applied Sciences, School of Applied Linguistics (ZHAW) non-deaf linguists in linguistics and intercultural competence training has led to Deaf and non-deaf research collaboration. At present, there are considerable skills gaps in student proficiency in DSGS- interpreting. Standards that evaluate student second language competencies in DSGS do not yet exist for those who graduate from training programs. Despite DSGS being taught by Deaf sign language instructors, socio-linguistic and pragmatic standards reflecting the practices of the Deaf community are lacking in hearing second language learners. This situation calls for community based research on the linguistic practices embedded in the DSGS community and its domains. The ongoing need for research is to adapt unified standards according to the Common European Reference Frame (CEFR) and the European Language Portfolio (ELP) describing learners’ abilities and competencies, rather than deficiencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Maria Josep Jarque
    Chapter 9. WHAT ABOUT? FICTIVE QUESTION-ANSWER PAIRS FOR NON-INFORMATION-SEEKING FUNCTIONS ACROSS * SIGNED LANGUAGES Maria Josep Jarque [To appear in: Pascual, E. & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins] This chapter deals with the multifunctional use of the question-answer sequence, which constitutes a prototypical conversational and intersubjective structure, across signed languages. Specifically, I examine the use of polar and content questions, and their subsequent answers, for the expression of non-information-seeking functions, namely topicality, conditionality, focus, connection, and relativization. The study is based on cross-linguistic data of 30 signed languages, supplemented with a qualitative analysis of Catalan Sign Language. The analysis shows that the question-answer sequence has been grammaticalized and constitutes the unmarked or by-default option to encode these linguistic functions. I argue that the pattern forms a highly schematic symbolic unit and that the specific linguistic constructions, which are instances of fictive interaction, form a complex network. Keywords. Catalan Sign Language, conditionality, connectives, focus, relativization, topicality. * This research was partially funded by a Vidi grant by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, awarded to Esther Pascual (276.70.019). In addition, the work is embedded in the research group Grammar and diachrony, University of Barcelona (AGAUR 2014SGR994) and the research project FFI2013- 43092-P (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness). I would like to thank Esther Pascual and two anonymous reviewers for feedback on an earlier version and J.M. Segimon for allowing me to reproduce his image. 1. Introduction Face-to-face conversation has been argued to be fundamental in the phylogenetic, diachronic and ontogenetic dimensions of the human communicative action (Vygotsky 1934; Bakhtin 1963; Tomasello 2003; Enfield 2008; Zlatev et al.
    [Show full text]
  • A Sociolinguistic Study
    Chapter 1 Introduction This volume is the result of a study that addressed several unknowns about a signed language contact phenomenon known as International Sign. International Sign (abbreviated IS) is a form of contact signing used in international settings where people who are deaf attempt to communi- cate with others who do not share the same conventional, native signed language (NSL).1 The term has been broadly used to refer to a range of semiotic strategies of interlocutors in multilingual signed language situa- tions, whether in pairs, or in small or large group communications. The research herein focuses on one type of IS produced by deaf leaders when they give presentations at international conferences, which I con- sider to be a type of sign language contact in the form of expository IS. There has been very little empirical investigation of sign language contact varieties, and IS as a conference lingua franca is one example of language contact that has become widely recognized for its cross-linguistic com- municative potential. The larger piece of this research examines comprehension of exposi- tory IS lectures created by deaf people for other deaf people from different countries. By examining authentic examples of deaf people constructing messages with lecture IS, one can uncover features of more or less effec- tive IS, and one can become better informed about IS as a sign language contact strategy. By investigating sociolinguistic features of IS contact, and identifying factors impacting its comprehension, one might ascertain optimal contexts for using IS as a means of linguistic accessibility. This research contributes to a limited literature about IS and aims to help 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Deaf Leaders' Strategies for Working with Signed Language Interpreters
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Heriot Watt Pure Deaf leaders’ strategies for working with signed language interpreters: An examination across seven countries Tobias Haug1, 3, Karen Bontempo2, Lorraine Leeson3, Jemina Napier4, Brenda Nicodemus5, Beppie Van den Bogaerde6, and Myriam Vermeerbergen7 1University of Applied Sciences of Special Needs Education, 2Macquarie University, 3Trinity College Dublin, 4Heriot-Watt University, 5Gallaudet University, 6University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, 7KU Leuven & Stellenbosch University Corresponding Author: Tobias Haug University of Applied Sciences of Special Needs Education (HfH) Schaffhauserstrasse 239 / Postfach 5850 8050 Zurich Switzerland Email: [email protected] 1 Abstract In this paper, we report interview data from 14 Deaf leaders across seven countries (Australia, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States) regarding their perspectives on signed language interpreters. Using a semi-structured survey questionnaire, seven interpreting researchers interviewed two Deaf leaders each in their home countries. Following transcription of the data, the researchers conducted a thematic analysis of the comments. Four shared themes emerged in the data: (a) variable level of confidence in interpreting direction, (b) criteria for selecting interpreters, (c) judging the competence of interpreters, and (d) strategies for working with interpreters. The results suggest that Deaf leaders share similar, but not identical, perspectives about working with interpreters, despite differing conditions in their respective countries. Compared to prior studies of Deaf leaders’ perspectives of interpreters, these data indicate some positive trends in Deaf leaders’ experience with interpreters; however, results also point to a need for further work in creating an atmosphere of trust, enhancing interpreters’ language fluency, and developing mutual collaboration between Deaf leaders and signed language interpreters.
    [Show full text]
  • Phonetic Diversity in Internal Movement Across Sign Languages: a Study of ASL, BSL, LIS, LSF, and Auslan
    Phonetic Diversity in Internal Movement Across Sign Languages: A study of ASL, BSL, LIS, LSF, and Auslan MarkMai December 9, 2008 Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, P A 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS o. ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1. GENERAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ .4 1.2. MOVEMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.3. INTERNAL MOVEMENT ................................................................................................................................. 6 1.4. ANATOMY AND KINESIOLOGY OF THE ARTICULATOR ................................................................................. 9 1.5. CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 28 1.6. ABBREVIATIONS, CONVENTIONS, DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................... 29 2. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND METHODS ............................................................................................ 31 2.1. GENERAL SCHEME ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Quantitative Survey of the State of the Art in Sign Language Recognition
    QUANTITATIVE SURVEY OF THE STATE OF THE ART IN SIGN LANGUAGE RECOGNITION Oscar Koller∗ Speech and Language Microsoft Munich, Germany [email protected] September 1, 2020 ABSTRACT This work presents a meta study covering around 300 published sign language recognition papers with over 400 experimental results. It includes most papers between the start of the field in 1983 and 2020. Additionally, it covers a fine-grained analysis on over 25 studies that have compared their recognition approaches on RWTH-PHOENIX-Weather 2014, the standard benchmark task of the field. Research in the domain of sign language recognition has progressed significantly in the last decade, reaching a point where the task attracts much more attention than ever before. This study compiles the state of the art in a concise way to help advance the field and reveal open questions. Moreover, all of this meta study’s source data is made public, easing future work with it and further expansion. The analyzed papers have been manually labeled with a set of categories. The data reveals many insights, such as, among others, shifts in the field from intrusive to non-intrusive capturing, from local to global features and the lack of non-manual parameters included in medium and larger vocabulary recognition systems. Surprisingly, RWTH-PHOENIX-Weather with a vocabulary of 1080 signs represents the only resource for large vocabulary continuous sign language recognition benchmarking world wide. Keywords Sign Language Recognition · Survey · Meta Study · State of the Art Analysis 1 Introduction Since recently, automatic sign language recognition experiences significantly more attention by the community.
    [Show full text]
  • Italian Sign Language [Ise] (A Language of Italy)
    “Italian Sign Language [ise] (A language of Italy) • Alternate Names: Lingua Italiana Dei Segni, LIS • Population: 40,000 (2014 EUD). 40,000 deaf sign language users (2014 EUD). 70,000 profoundly deaf people, including 9,000 school age. (Van Cleve 1986). • Location: Scattered, including Sardinia and Sicily. • Language Status: 5 (Developing). • Dialects: Some variation between northern, central, and southern regions, possibly enough to be considered separate languages. Deaf Italians report that communication between signers from different regions requires negotiation. Opinions differ as to whether the variation is desirable or should be standardized (2013 D. Eberle and S. Eberle). Fingerspelling system similar to French Sign Language [fsl]. • Typology: One-handed fingerspelling. • Language Use: While Italian Sign Language is considered the primary language of communication for most deaf people, widely varying degrees of bilingualism (spoken and written) in Italian [ita] are common (2013 D. Eberle and S. Eberle). • Language Development: Theater. Videos. Dictionary. Grammar. • Other Comments: 300 sign language interpreters (2014 EUD). Classes in LIS for hearing people. Christian (Roman Catholic).” Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds.) 2015. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Eighteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com. Related Readings Geraci, Carlo 2009 Epenthesis in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 12(1): 3. Geraci, Carlo 2012 Language Policy and Planning: The Case of Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 12(4): 494-518. Cecchetto, Carlo, Carlo Geraci, and Sandro Zucchi 2006. Strategies of Relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24(4): 945-975. Pietrandrea, Paola 2002 Iconicity and Arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language.
    [Show full text]
  • Further Developing a Nonsense Sign Repetition Task
    Starting to make sense: Further developing a nonsense sign repetition task Ulrika Klomp (University of Amsterdam) [email protected] Abstract The nonsense sign repetition task that was developed for Sign Language of the Nether- lands in 2015 (the NGT-NSRT) is investigated further in this paper. Specifically, I look into differences in performances on the NGT-NSRT between deaf signers and CODAs, into the effect of movement complexity on the scores of the participants, and into the re- lationship between phoneme-based scores and binary correct/incorrect scores. It turns out that the deaf signers score significantly better than the CODAs, and that the partici- pants score significantly worse on signs with a combined movement compared to signs with a single movement. Furthermore, phoneme-based scores and correct/incorrect scores are significantly correlated. No evidence was found for a difference in complexity between signs with a hand-internal movement and signs with a path movement. Sug- gestions for further research and an alternative analysis of phonological complexity, as adopted by Vink (2018), are discussed. Keywords: nonsense sign repetition, Sign Language of the Netherlands, assessment, phonology, complexity 1 Introduction 1.1 Sign language assessment tools In comparison to spoken languages, there are very few assessment tools available for sign languages. Moreover, a quick look at www.signlang-assessment.info (Haug 2018) shows that so far, tests have only been developed for a handful of languages: American Sign Language (ASL), British Sign Language (BSL), German Sign Language, Sign Language of the Nether- lands (NGT), Australian Sign Language, French Sign Language and Italian Sign Language.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Names and Name Signs in American Sign Language- English Team Interpretation
    Names A Journal of Onomastics ISSN: 0027-7738 (Print) 1756-2279 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ynam20 “My Name is A-on-the-cheek”: Managing Names and Name Signs in American Sign Language- English Team Interpretation Giulia Petitta, Valerie Dively, Mark Halley, Marc Holmes & Brenda Nicodemus To cite this article: Giulia Petitta, Valerie Dively, Mark Halley, Marc Holmes & Brenda Nicodemus (2018): “My Name is A-on-the-cheek”: Managing Names and Name Signs in American Sign Language-English Team Interpretation, Names To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00277738.2018.1490521 Published online: 23 Oct 2018. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ynam20 NAMES, 2018, 1–14 “My Name is A-on-the-cheek”: Managing Names and Name Signs in American Sign Language-English Team Interpretation GIULIA PETITTA,VALERIE DIVELY,MARK HALLEY,MARC HOLMES AND BRENDA NICODEMUS Gallaudet University, Washington, DC, USA Interpreters face challenges when rendering names between languages. First, names may be unknown to the interpreter or contain culturally spe- cific information. Further, names lack contextual clues that aid the decod- ing process. Finally, names may be pronounced in a manner that is difficult to understand (e.g., rapidly or with an accent). Spoken language interpreters have the option of repeating names in their original form; however, signed language interpreters work between languages produced in distinct language modalities (sign-speech) that share no phonological features; thus, names cannot simply be reproduced across languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Buttering Their Bread on Both Sides?
    Buttering their bread on both sides? The recognition of sign languages and the aspirations of deaf communities Maartje De Meulder and Joseph J. Murray University of Namur / Gallaudet University In the past two decades, a wave of campaigns to recognise sign languages have taken place in numerous countries. These campaigns sought official recognition of national sign languages, with the aim of enhancing signers’ social mobility and protecting the vitality of sign languages. These activities differ from a long his- tory of sign language planning from a ‘language as a problem’ approach largely used by educators and policymakers to date. However, the instrumental rights and social mobility obtained as a result have thus far been limited with educa- tional linguistic and language acquisition rights especially lacking. This article identifies two reasons for this situation. First, a view of Sign Language Peoples (SLPs) from a medical perspective has led to confusion about the meaning of linguistic rights for them and led governments to treat sign language planning differently than that for spoken languages. Furthermore, SLPs political participa- tion is hindered by recognition being offered by governments without substantial commitments to financial resources, changes in government practices or greater inclusion of sign languages in public life. One exception to this trend are sign language planning bodies, but even these face challenges in the implementation phase. Going forward, we argue that sign language recognition legislation should centre on deaf communities’ concerns regarding sign language vitality. In addi- tion to a need to ensure acquisition for deaf signers, we contend that while the expansion of hearing (and deaf) new signers can be interpreted in terms of lan- guage endangerment it can also be seen as strengthening sign languages’ vitality.
    [Show full text]