Real Space blends in Swedish Sign Language as an indicator of discourse complexity in relation to interpreting Anna-Lena Nilsson Contents Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ v List of tables .................................................................................................................. v Introduction ..................................................................................................... 6 Theoretical background................................................................................... 7 Real Space blending ..................................................................................................... 8 Surrogate blends and partitionable zones ..................................................................... 9 Creating and understanding Real Space blends ......................................................... 10 Interpreting studies...................................................................................................... 11 Interpreters and their linguistic background ................................................................. 15 The study ...................................................................................................... 17 Aims and hypothesis ................................................................................................... 18 Materials and methods ................................................................................................ 19 Description and analysis ............................................................................... 22 Analyzed segments ..................................................................................................... 22 Segment 1 .................................................................................................................. 22 Content and structure ............................................................................................ 22 Interpretation ......................................................................................................... 28 Segment 2 .................................................................................................................. 33 Content and structure ............................................................................................ 33 Interpretation ......................................................................................................... 37 Segment 3 .................................................................................................................. 41 Content and structure ............................................................................................ 41 Interpretation ......................................................................................................... 50 The interpretations in more detail .......................................................................... 54 Concluding discussion .................................................................................. 61 Identifying discourse entities and perspectives ........................................................... 61 Interpreting unexpected content .................................................................................. 64 Final comments on interpreting ................................................................................... 66 References .................................................................................................... 68 Appendix 1: Transcription key ....................................................................... 73 Appendix 2: Glossing and translation of the segments in the study. ............ 76 Appendix 3: Translation of the whole discourse. .......................................... 81 Abbreviations AIIC International Association of Conference Interpreters ASL American Sign Language CIT Conference of Interpreter Trainers EKR Elisabeth Kübler Ross ELAN EUDICO Linguistic Annotator NSL Norwegian Sign Language RID Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf RSB Real Space blend List of tables Table 1. Analyzed segments 22 Table 2. RSB table, segment 1, chunk 1–3 24 Table 3. Interpretation segment 1 30 Table 4. Interpretation chunk 2 31 Table 5. RSB table, segment 2, chunk 4–6 34 Table 6. Interpretation, segment 2 40 Table 7. RSB table, segment 3, chunk 25–26 43 Table 8. Interpretation segment 3 52 Introduction The present study builds directly on knowledge gained while working with three previous studies on the same signed discourse: Nilsson 2004, 2007 & 2008. In this study, an initial analysis is also made of additional material comprising eight interpretations of that signed discourse into spoken Swe- dish. Before any of the studies were undertaken, the signed discourse was used as part of an admittance test for a diploma program for Swedish Sign Lan- guage interpreters at Stockholm University. Grading that test, I had noted that certain passages in the signed discourse seemed to pose greater prob- lems for the interpreters than other passages. In addition, there was variation in the degree of difficulty such passages presented to different interpreters. Thus I became interested in identifying factors that make a piece of dis- course more complex and therefore make it harder to understand and more difficult to interpret. Identifying such factors could both increase our know- ledge of discourse structure in Swedish Sign Language in general and help determine what makes a piece of signed discourse easy or difficult to under- stand. Such knowledge could also benefit the training of interpreting stu- dents and improve the quality of interpretation between Swedish Sign Lan- guage and spoken Swedish. The study consists of two main parts. First, an analysis is performed on three segments of signed discourse, describing them in terms of their Real Space blend (RSB) structure. The aim of this analysis is to provide increased knowledge regarding the creation of RSBs in Swedish Sign Language. Se- condly, an initial analysis of eight interpretations of these segments into spo- ken Swedish is conducted, specifically focusing on whether the interpreters managed to identify preselected content units in the discourse correctly in their spoken renditions of it. It was hypothesized that the more Real Space blends a piece of signed discourse contained, the more problems there would be for interpreters to produce an equivalent target language discourse in terms of content units. 6 Theoretical background The present study is grounded in Cognitive Linguistics, in particular Mental Space Theory (Fauconnier, 1985) and Conceptual Blending Theory (Faucon- nier & Turner, 1998). More specifically, the study applies a comprehensive, descriptive model for the use of space in signed language developed by Lid- dell for American Sign Language (ASL).1 The model was developed over several years and resulted in an expansion of Mental Space Theory. This can be followed in a number of publications, e.g. Liddell 1990, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2000, and 2003. Central to Liddell’s model is the fact that signers “frequently conceive of areas of the space around them, or even themselves, as if they were something else” (2003:141). The concepts of Real Space and Real Space blending, which Liddell uses to describe how signers do this, are described briefly below. According to Mental Space Theory, all entities that we speak about are conceptual entities that exist within conceptual structures called mental spaces. Mental spaces are “small conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk, for purposes of local understanding and action” (Fauconnier & Turner, [1998] 2006:307). They can be veridical, i.e. be an accurate model of (some part of) reality, but they can also be hypothetical, fictional, counter- factual, or represent the desires or hopes of a speaker (Taylor, 2002:590). Linguistic structures prompt the construction of mental spaces in the listener as well, and in order for us to understand each other, the mental spaces con- structed by speaker and listener need to correspond. Conceptual Blending Theory, or the Theory of Conceptual Integration, has its roots in Mental Space Theory and deals with a special type of relation between mental spaces called blending. Blending is a general cognitive process, and it operates on two (or more) input spaces to yield a new mental space – the blended space, or the blend. When blending occurs, structure from the input spaces is projected onto the new blended space. This blended space (or blend) does not inherit all of the entities and relations of the input spaces. A blend can also contain emergent structure which was not present in the inputs. A more detailed account of the theory can be found in e.g. Fau- connier & Turner (1998), Liddell (2003) and Selvik (2006). 1 The same theoretical framework is used in Nilsson (2008), and described in some more detail there. 7 Real Space blending According to Liddell, a person’s mental representation of the immediate surroundings constitutes a special type of mental space: Real Space.2 Liddell defines Real Space as “a person’s current conceptualization of the immediate environment based on sensory input” (2003:82, referring to 1995). In order to produce or understand a stretch of signed discourse, signers and addres- sees must know that signs that seem to be pointing to an empty area in space are actually directed towards invisible blended entities in Real Space. Real Space, as