Audience Design Effects in Sign Language Interpretation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SSStttooonnnyyy BBBrrrooooookkk UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttyyy The official electronic file of this thesis or dissertation is maintained by the University Libraries on behalf of The Graduate School at Stony Brook University. ©©© AAAllllll RRRiiiggghhhtttsss RRReeessseeerrrvvveeeddd bbbyyy AAAuuuttthhhooorrr... Audience Effects in American Sign Language Interpretation A Dissertation Presented by Julia Weisenberg to The Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics Stony Brook University August 2009 Copyright by Julia Weisenberg 2009 Stony Brook University The Graduate School Julia Weisenberg We, the dissertation committee for the above candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree, hereby recommend acceptance of this dissertation Mark Aronoff - Advisor Professor, Department of Linguistics Robert Hoberman - Chairperson of Defense Professor, Department of Linguistics Frank Anshen Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics Wendy Sandler Professor, Department of English Language and Literature The University of Haifa This dissertation is accepted by the Graduate School Lawrence Martin Dean of the Graduate School ii Abstract of the Dissertation Audience Effects in American Sign Language Interpretation by Julia Weisenberg Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics Stony Brook University 2009 There is a system of English mouthing during interpretation that appears to be the result of language contact between spoken language and signed language. English mouthing, is a voiceless visual representation of words on a signer‟s lips produced concurrently with manual signs. It is a type of borrowing prevalent among English-dominant bilingual-bimodal sign language interpreters who use American Sign Language (ASL) and spoken English when interpreting for deaf consumers (Davis, 1989; Weisenberg, 2003). It is distinct from other systems of grammatical mouthing observed in native deaf signers. Bilingual-bimodal interpreters have the advantage of simultaneity: the two channels of expression are distinctly different: one, a visual-gestural channel, the other, oral-aural. When sign language interpreters organize abstract oral English discourse into a concrete visual-spatial form, they borrow from their dominant language, English. This study tested audience effects during interpretation from spoken English to ASL. Interpreters shifted their style to accommodate their addressees. A style shift was measured by the rate of English mouthing. Based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) F(1,3) = 6.25, p = .08, the study demonstrates that the perceived cultural identity of the audience has more of an effect on English mouthing than topic, F(1, 3) = .046, p = .84. A pattern of mouthing reduction was also discovered. At least two experimental contexts contained technical terminology that was repeated. When there were no manual equivalents in ASL, interpreters interpreted these terms by overlapping mouthing with a manual sign of approximate meaning. Once they had expressed the combination, the mouthing was reduced or removed completely. This study confirms what is a commonly held notion in audience design, that speakers adjust their language in reaction to their addressees, and also opens up an inquiry to the use of the sign language interpreting context as a means of examining neologisms and language variability. iii Table of Contents List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………v List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………….vi Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………...vii 1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 2 Background -American Sign Language ....................................................... 22 3 Mouthing...................................................................................................... 53 3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 53 3.2 Non-manual elements in sign language ............................................... 53 3.3 Gesture and language .......................................................................... 56 3.3.1 Gesture and speech as an integrated system ............................... 58 3.4 Sign language evolution ....................................................................... 59 3.5 Mouthing insertions .............................................................................. 62 4 Audience design .......................................................................................... 68 4.1 Background of audience design ........................................................... 68 5 Audience effect: Experiment ........................................................................ 76 5.1 Introduction to the experiment .............................................................. 76 5.2 Virtual audience design ........................................................................ 76 5.3 Experiment design................................................................................ 78 5.4 General results ..................................................................................... 83 5.5 General discussion ............................................................................... 91 6 Summary and future directions .................................................................... 93 6.1 Summary .............................................................................................. 93 References……………………………………………………………………..96 Appendix………………………………………………................................115 iv List of Figures Figure 1 Source Material – Lectures and audience ............................................ 80 Figure 2 Mouthing metamorphosis in interpretation ............................................ 92 v List of Tables Table 1 Features of code-mixing and borrowing................................................ 10 Table 2Challenges of interpreting between ASL and English ............................. 33 Table 3 Non-manual markers and corresponding meaning ................................ 55 Table 4 Total signs realized per subject ............................................................ 81 Table 5 Total mouthing per lecture .................................................................... 82 Table 6 Percentages of mouthings relative to overall signs produced ............... 82 Table 7 Average amount of mouthing per sign relative to audience and lecture type .................................................................................................................... 83 Table 8 Overall percentage of subject mouthing by part of speech ................... 84 vi Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude to my family, colleagues, and friends who have supported my journey at Stony Brook University. First, I would like to mention that despite many professional and personal challenges I faced in the last nine years, the Department of Linguistics has been my steady rock. The department has continuously supported my family and me, and has been the most influential in shaping my research interests and teaching. The friendships I have made here have extended beyond the classroom, and our department truly feels like a second family. I am thankful for the networking opportunities that led to Long Island University and Lehman College, and I am especially indebted to my friends and colleagues Margo Dellicarpini and Cecilia Cutler. I will also never forget the good times and laughs with my classmates Carlos DeCuba, Jonathan MacDonald, Ruiqin Miao, Anne Miller, Hiroko Yamakido, Zheng Xu, Tanya Scott, Margo Dellicarpini, Marianne Boroff, Lanko Marusic, Yiya Chen, Meghan Sumner, and Mark Volpe. When I see you all at conferences or during visits, I feel love and respect for you, and I am proud of all your accomplishments. Secondly I would like to extend thanks to the faculty of our department, who guided and inspired me. A special thanks to Prof. Sridhar and Prof. Anshen who fostered my interest in bilingualism back when I was a first year student. Despite changes in their own lives, they somehow found ways to always be available to me. I will miss Prof. Anshen‟s dry humor, but I promise to pass along his best jokes! When my father passed away, Prof. Anshen and his wife were particularly helpful, along with Lori Repetti and Marie Huffman, and their support I will never forget. In more recent years, I am very thankful for having the opportunity to work with Prof. Aronoff, whose research and explorations into sign languages I have always admired. I also feel privileged to have had Prof. Sandler on my committee, whose comments and contributions were the most valuable to my dissertation. Thank you Wendy! I would also like to acknowledge the support and kindness shown to me by professors at both Stony Brook and Suffolk Community College: Christina Bethin, Bob Hoberman, Marie Huffman, Barbara Brownworth, Marianne Catalano, Lilia Ruiz-Debbe, Alan Weber, Virginia Walker, and Cuthbert Juettner. Outside of our department, I am also indebted to Prof. Susan Brennan of the Department of Psychology. Susan spent many hours outside of her own duties to guide me through statistical analyses, and clarify ideas for my project. I am also grateful for her financial support for conference attendance in Chicago. Though she was not an official advisor, Prof. Brennan was always behind-the- scenes, fostering my interest in audience design. Her excitement was contagious. Thank you, Susan.