Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting: Theoretical Aspects and Pragmatic Issues 1433177439, 9781433177439

Table of contents :
Dedication
Contents
List of Tables
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgments
List of Abbreviations
1 Introduction
2 Taiwan Sign Language
3 TSL Interpreting
4 Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting
5 Empirical Research
6 Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting
7 Conclusion
Dictionaries of Taiwan Sign Language Used
Appendix
Index

Citation preview

Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting Theoretical Aspects and Pragmatic Issues

Riccardo Moratto

Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting 

This book is part of the Peter Lang Regional Studies list. Every volume is peer reviewed and meets the highest quality standards for content and production.

PETER LANG New York • Bern • Berlin Brussels • Vienna • Oxford • Warsaw

Riccardo Moratto

Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting Theoretical Aspects and Pragmatic Issues

PETER LANG New York • Bern • Berlin Brussels • Vienna • Oxford • Warsaw

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Moratto, Riccardo, author. Title: Taiwan Sign Language interpreting: theoretical aspects and pragmatic issues / Riccardo Moratto. Description: New York: Peter Lang, 2020. Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020014842 (print) | LCCN 2020014843 (ebook) ISBN 978-1-4331-7743-9 (hardback) | ISBN 978-1-4331-8095-8 (ebook pdf ) ISBN 978-1-4331-8096-5 (epub) | ISBN 978-1-4331-8097-2 (mobi) Subjects: LCSH: Taiwan Sign Language. | Interpreters for the deaf—Taiwan. | Translating and interpreting—Taiwan. Classification: LCC HV2476.5.T35 M67 2020 (print) | LCC HV2476.5.T35 (ebook) | DDC 419/.512490802—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020014842 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020014843 DOI 10.3726/b17072       Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.              

© 2020 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 80 Broad Street, 5th floor, New York, NY 10004 www.peterlang.com   All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.  

Dedicated to my parents, who opened my eyes to the wonders of alternative communication channels, and whose support, encouragement, and constant love have sustained me throughout my life.

Contents

List of Tables Foreword Preface Acknowledgments List of Abbreviations 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Research Hypothesis 1.3 Background and Rationale for the Book 1.4 General Method 1.5 The Anticipated Contribution of the Book 1.6 Outline of the Chapters

2 Taiwan Sign Language 2.1 Introduction 2.2 A Diachronic Analysis of TSL: A Historical Excursus 2.3 Diatopic and Diachronic Variation 2.4 A Historical Journey Toward Dignity

xi xiii xv xix xxi 1 6 7 8 9 9 17 17 18 20 25

viii | Taiwan



Sign Language Interpreting

2.4.1 Language “Evolution”: From Hands to Mouth 2.5 Cued Speech 2.6 Manually Coded Languages (MCLs) 2.7 Lip Reading 2.8 Oralism 2.9 Signed Chinese vs. Natural Sign Language 2.10 Concluding Remarks

26 29 30 32 34 35 37

3 TSL Interpreting 3.1 TSL Interpreting History 3.2 Status Quo of TSL Interpreters 3.3 Professional Volunteers 3.4 Conclusion

43 48 49 51

4

Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting 4.1 Introduction 4.2 The Importance of Metaphors and Figurative Speech 4.3 Diachronic Literature Review 4.4 Iconicity in Sign Languages 4.5 Metaphors in Sign Languages 4.6 Examples from TSL 4.7 Conclusion

55 57 58 63 64 65 73

5

Empirical Research 5.1 Introduction 81 5.2 Sign Languages are Natural Languages: Neurolinguistics Evidence83 5.3 A Review of Neurolinguistics Research in Simultaneous Interpreting (SI) 90 5.4 Qualitative and Quantitative Studies 98 5.4.1 Qualitative Pilot Study: Quality Assessment 98 5.4.2 Quantitative Pilot Study 104 5.4.2.1 Participants 104 5.4.2.2 Materials 104 5.4.2.3 Tasks 105 5.4.2.4 Results 105 5.4.2.5 Discussion 108 5.5 Concluding Remarks 110



Table of Contents | ix 6

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Assessment and Evaluation 6.3 The Issue of Interpreting Quality 6.4 Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting Assessment and Evaluation (TSLIAE) 6.4.1 EIPA 6.4.2 TSLIAE 6.4.3 The Issue of “Naturality”: Natural Sign Language (NSL) vs. Manual Sign Language (MSL) 6.5 Tentative New TSLIAE (nTSLIAE) Evaluation Sheet 6.6 Conclusion and Limitations

7 Conclusion 7.1 A Review of the Chapters 7.2 Concluding Remarks and Future Research 7.3 Limitations of the Book Dictionaries of Taiwan Sign Language Used Appendix Index

119 121 122 125 126 131 135 143 146 151 153 155 157 159 175

Tables

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9

Services, requirements, and retribution of sign language interpreters3 Four different Aristotelian metaphors 60 Quantitative analysis 108 EIPA rating form 128 Spoken to sign language interpretation evaluation sheet (first part of the exam) 132 Sign to spoken language interpretation evaluation sheet (second part of the exam) 134 Spoken sign language bidirectional interpretation evaluation sheet (hearing evaluator only) (third part of the exam) 136 Spoken to sign language bidirectional interpretation evaluation sheet (deaf evaluator only) (third part of the exam) 138 Sign language interpreter certification on technical subjects evaluation sheet (hearing evaluator only) 139

xii | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Table 10 Sign language interpreter certification on technical subjects evaluation sheet (deaf evaluator only) Table 11 Sign language interpreter certification on technical subjects (final general evaluation sheet) Table 12 New TSLIAE (nTSLIAE) evaluation sheet

140 141 144

Foreword

With the rising need for the hearing-impaired people to gain equal access to information and services, sign language interpreting has become an important social factor in the contemporary world. The publication of Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting: Theoretical Aspects and Pragmatic Issues contributed by Dr. Riccardo Moratto is an opportunity to examine its value for potential users. This monograph discusses an array of subjects in this research field which allows readers to have a comprehensive view of the research themes, theoretical approaches and methodologies as well as specialized sign language interpreting practices. Departing from its regional qualities, this monograph is complementary to the larger research picture of sign language interpreting in the mainland and provides insights for scholars worldwide into the sign language community. This monograph is highly informative and illuminating. Its comprehensive overview, insightful direction and authentic references make it a highly recommended resource book for a variety of readership such as sign language interpreting students, practitioners, sign interpreting researchers, and teachers. Dr. Lihua Jiang Hunan Normal University

Preface

Taiwan Sign Language, henceforth abbreviated as TSL, is the language used amongst deaf communities in Taiwan. The origins of TSL developed from Japanese Sign Language (JSL) during Japanese rule, which is the reason why TSL is considered part of the JSL family and has no direct relations with Chinese Sign Language (CSL), although there are numerous loan words from CSL. As far as interpreting from and into TSL is concerned, there are numerous issues and inadequacies to be tackled in terms of the professional identity and the services provided. Research on this issue is crucial because it aims at raising the self-awareness of TSL interpreters and the quality of the interpretation itself. The results of this research monograph have implications for sign language interpreting in regard to research, pedagogy and practice, insofar as they raise the awareness of one’s own professional figure. This seems to be a crucial deontological factor in any discussion related to interpreting rights. The present monograph was originally motivated by discussions with fellow TSL interpreters, by insights into some governmental documents regulating the profession of sign language interpreters in Taiwan, and by my interest as a conference interpreter to explore other fields of the same profession. According to the professional TSL interpreters interviewed in the process of writing the present book, their professional status seems to be treated differently

xvi | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

from fellow spoken language interpreters. First of all, our research shows that most TSL interpreters are not paid by working day but rather by the hour, and their retribution is considerably lower compared to spoken language interpreters. This is mainly due to budget issues but also to a deep-rooted attitude toward sign language interpreting in the Asian market, which has never been thoroughly explored in any Western publication. The present monograph attempts at investigating general issues concerning the profession of sign language interpreters and focuses on some challenging areas. Furthermore, it provides a scientifically based academic framework to recognize the equal professional status of sign language interpreters and spoken language interpreters, not only in theoria but also de facto. The hypothesis underlying one of the chapters, namely Chapter 6, is that if TSL is indeed a natural language and if the neurobiological efforts required to carry out the interpreting task, both spoken and signed, are the same, then there is no reason for the two modally different categories of interpreters to be treated unequally. The present research monograph also presents a complete literature review of the most representative neurobiological studies aimed at proving that sign languages are indeed natural languages. Moreover, Chapter 5 is dedicated to an experiment aimed at proving the intrinsic difficulty of sign language interpreting and the fact that the efforts underlying sign interpreting tasks are by no means inferior to spoken language interpreting tasks. The book is divided into seven chapters. Each chapter is subdivided into different sections and some sections are further divided into subsections. The data gathered for this research, both in terms of literature review as well as in terms of experiments and interviews, will contribute to enhancing interpreters’ knowledge about their own profession and their professional figure. This study is also the first monograph on interpreting issues related to TSL. There have been theses and publications on TSL, per se, but not on TSL interpreting. This is also one of the main contributions of the present research monograph. It is also hoped that this study will spur the government and other ad hoc institutional bodies to recognize the fact that sign language interpreters ought to enjoy the same rights as spoken language interpreters, such as the co-presence on stage (or in the booth) of two colleagues shifting every 20–30 minutes, which is the ideal situation in all interpreting contexts, yet not always the case for sign language interpreters. As Sandra Hale (2007, p. 162) rightfully points out: “It is the responsibility of all those involved: the interpreters themselves, the service providers and the service recipients to put pressure on policy-makers to instigate the necessary changes. […] Research can do much to describe and highlight the

Preface | xvii issues, demonostrate the needs for training, provide useful information for the improvement of interpreters’ performance; but it needs to be read and considered seriously by the interested parties in order to have any effect.” The results of this study have implications for sign language interpreting in regard to research, pedagogy, and practice insofar as they raise the awareness of one’s own professional figure. This is indeed a crucial deontological factor in any discussion pertaining to interpreting. The present monograph discusses an array of subjects in this research field which allows readers to have a comprehensive view of the research themes, theoretical approaches, and methodologies as well as specialized sign language interpreting practices. Departing from its regional qualities, this monograph is complementary to the larger research picture of sign language interpreting in Asia, and provides insights for scholars worldwide into the Taiwanese sign language community. Riccardo Moratto Taipei, 2020

Reference Hale, S. (2007). Community interpreting. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Acknowledgments

I wrote the first draft of this monograph while I was conducting research for my doctoral dissertation. My biggest debt is therefore to my colleagues, my mentors, and especially to my Deaf (capital letter intended) friends in Taiwan. My perception of fundamental sign language problems has been sharpened by my interaction with native signers, whose passion and enthusiasm for sign language accompany me to this day. I would like to express my most profound feelings of gratitude to Professor Jung-hsing Chang, who has always been very supportive and helpful every step of the way. My sincere appreciation goes out to all those who have contributed to the realization of this monograph and to all those professors who have given me invaluable advice. A special thanks goes to James H-Y. Tai, Shiaohui Chan, and Tze-wei Chen. I am infinitely indebted to all my Taiwanese Deaf friends who have, directly or indirectly, turned out to be an invaluable source of information. I thank all of you, from the bottom of my heart, for your generous assistance, for your sense of humor, for your intelligence, and for your direction. This would have been truly impossible without your help. I am also sincerely indebted to my fellow colleagues, professional Taiwan Sign Language (TSL) interpreters. Given my background as a spoken language

xx | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

interpreter, I couldn’t have gone without their insights in the fruitful conversations that we have shared over the past years. Thanks to each and every one of you. I am extremely grateful to Doctor Shiaohui Chan, associate professor of neurolinguistics, for her unconditional support throughout my career and for her time in reviewing some of the chapters, and her willingness to aid me in my exhaustive review of neurobiological studies. I would like to thank all the international scholars who have contributed to enhancing the content of some the chapters herein included and to the anonymous peer-reviewers who have provided invaluable advice on how to improve certain parts of the book. Also, I would like to thank Professor Tai for his inspiring and enlightening advice. Needless to say, I alone am responsible for any inaccuracies and shortcomings which remain. Once again, I would like to sincerely acknowledge the help provided by the many interpreters and educators, both in Taiwan and overseas, whose enthusiastic contribution made me gain further insight in sign language interpreting and in some of the issues discussed herein. I owe a great debt of gratitude to the entire community of researchers who have contributed to this field. A special note of gratitude is owed to George Suma and Li Na from Peter Lang International Academic Publishers. Thank you for your guidance, assistance, and sincere support. Finally, I am deeply grateful and indebted to my family and friends, who have been a milestone in my academic journey. Without their encouragement, love, and support, this book would have never seen the light of day.

Abbreviations

AIIC AoA ASL ATH BSL CNAD CSL e/o EFSLI EIPA EU fNIRS FSL GSL HG HKSL ISL ISL

Association Internationale des Interprètes de Conférence (­International Association of Conference Interpreters) age of acquisition American Sign Language Activation Threshold Hypothesis British Sign Language Chinese National Association of the Deaf (聽障人協會) Chinese Sign Language error and omission European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment European Union functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy French Sign Language Grammatical Sign Language Heschl’s gyrus Hong Kong Sign Language International Sign Language Italian Sign Language (usually abbreviated as LIS)

xxii | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

JSL KSL LIS MCC MCE MCL MRI MSL NAD NSL NSL NTSL PET PSE PT RID RIT SL SL SMG SOL ST STG TL TASLI

Japanese Sign Language Korean Sign Language Lingua dei segni Italiana Manually Coded Chinese Manually Coded English Manually Coded Language magnetic resonance imaging Manual Sign Language National Association of the Deaf Natural Sign Language Nicaraguan Sign Language Natural Taiwan Sign Language positron emission tomography Pidgin Sign English planum temporale Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf Rochester Institute of Technology sign language, sign languages source language supramarginal gyrus signed oral language source text superior temporal gyrus target language Taiwan Association of Sign Language Interpreters (台灣手語翻譯協會) Taiwan Sign Language Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting Assessment and Evaluation target text telecommunications devices for the Deaf United Nations World Association of Sign Language Interpreters

TSL TSLI TSLIAE TT TTD UN WASLI

1

Introduction

Deafness isn’t the opposite of hearing. It’s a silence full of sound.

Mark Medoff

1.1.  Introduction Taiwan Sign Language (TSL), henceforth abbreviated as TSL, is the language used amongst Deaf1 communities in Taiwan. The origins of TSL developed from Japanese Sign Language (JSL) during Japanese rule, which is why TSL is considered part of the JSL family and has no direct relations with Chinese Sign Language (CSL), although there are numerous loan words from CSL. TSL has some mutual intelligibility with both JSL and Korean Sign Language (KSL); it has about a 60% lexical similarity with JSL (Fischer & Gong, 2010).2 As far as interpreting from and into TSL is concerned, there are numerous issues and inadequacies to be tackled in terms of the professional identity and the services provided. Research on this issue is crucial because it aims at raising the self-awareness of TSL interpreters and the quality of the interpretation itself. The Taiwanese Association of Sign Language Interpreters (TASLI) aims “to promote the development of sign language interpreting professionalism in Taiwan,

2 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

to establish sign language interpreting service standards, to improve the sign language interpreting system, to train high-quality sign language interpreters and to support sign language interpreting academic research in order to enhance the quality and quantity of sign language interpreting and to progress the rights and welfare of the deaf.”3 The Labor Affairs Bureau of Taichung City is one of the main governmental institutions which regulate the services, requirements, and retribution of Taiwan sign language interpreters. As will become clear in the course of the book, remuneration is one of the main problems affecting sign language interpreters. In the founding conference of TASLI (held in 2017), the founders of the association emphasized that in order to provide the long-term support for sign language interpreters, the establishment of the professional organization is critically needed to secure the basic rights and interests of sign language interpreters, such as, insurance, working hours, remuneration, and other benefits (the emphasis is mine). For the benefit of the reader, here is the table which regulates the aforementioned services, translated into English.4 After reading this table, I decided to interview5 several sign language interpreters to inquire on the reality of the market. Surprisingly, I discovered a different situation compared to spoken language interpreters. According to one of my sources, sign language interpreters, unlike spoken language interpreters, are paid by the hour and not per working day. According to my interviewee, every sign language interpreter approximately receives an amount which does not exceed NT$1600 per hour (roughly 53 U.S. dollars) which is in line with the data presented in Table 1. At times, according to the importance of the event, sign language interpreters are not paid by the hour, albeit rarely. For instance, my source said that once she received NT$5000 for a whole session (two hours) because the event was considered “of the utmost importance”; otherwise, under normal circumstances, the retribution is usually hourly. According to other respondents, however, most of the time the retribution does not exceed NT$1000 per hour (around 33 U.S. dollars). However, low retribution is not even the main issue that sign language interpreters face. Numerous TSL interpreters cannot find interpretation jobs easily, even if they have the professional license, and this is due to governmental budget restrictions. I was quite surprised when I found out about this, considering that according to the official website of the World Association of Sign Language Interpreters (WASLI), the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) has decided, by an overwhelming majority at the AIIC general assembly held in Buenos Aires in 2012, to open its doors to sign language conference interpreters,

Introduction | 3 Table 1 Services, requirements, and retribution of sign language interpreters. Source: adapted and translated from the website of the Labor Affairs Bureau of Taichung City Government. https://www.labor.taichung.gov.tw/media/ 181631/5151336102.pdf (retrieved on 2019/12/29) Category

TSL interpreting

Services provided Qualification

Subsidy standards

General conferences or classes:

First type: those who meet one of the following qualifications can provide supporting documents or official certificates:

  1 Conferences or symposia 2 Job training 3 Interviews involving technical operations or complex tests 4 Others

  1 Sign language interpreting certificate or license for sign language interpreters. 2 200 hours of professional training approved or subsidized by the government and must have fulfilled 200 hours of translation experience as a sign language interpreter. 3 Must have fulfilled 400 hours of translation experience as a sign language interpreter. Second type: those who meet one of the following qualifications can provide supporting documents or official certificates:

For those who compile with the first type, the hourly subsidy is NT$1000,a for the second type the hourly subsidy is NT$500. In the case of individual applications for sign language interpreting services, the highest monthly subsidy for each individual is 10 hours, and it cannot exceed 120 hours per year. For any special needs or requirements, subsidy increases can be considered.

Continued 

4 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Table 1  Continued Category

Services provided Qualification

Subsidy standards

    5 Simple 1 Must have completed interviews 200 hours of 6 Communication professional training and counseling approved, subsidized on the or commissioned by workplace the government and must have fulfilled 100 hours of translation experience as a sign language interpreter. 2 Must have completed 200 hours as a sign language interpreter. Vocational training Those who meet the   first and second type 1 Public or private qualifications: vocational training institutions or units entrusted by the government to handle vocational training classes for hearing-impaired or speech-impaired students or general integrated vocational training classes shall arrange a sign language interpreter for each class, whose retribution shall not exceed NT$1500 for half a day and NT$3000 for a full day.

Introduction | 5 Table 1  Continued Category

Services provided Qualification

Subsidy standards   2 Units that have been entrusted by the government to handle vocational training, and have already included the sign language translation service fee for vocational training classes in the entrusted plan, shall use the subsidy items according to the plan, and shall not apply for subsidies for the plan repeatedly.

a

New Taiwan Dollar. One NTD corresponds approximately to 0.03 U.S. dollars.

as a result of the close cooperation and fruitful discussions between AIIC, WASLI, and the European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters (EFSLI). AIIC represents more than 3,000 conference interpreters worldwide. On the other hand, WASLI and EFSLI promote the professional interests of sign language interpreters. The three associations share professional concerns such as ethics, advocacy, working environment, recognition, training, and professional development. The main goal is to put sign languages on an equal footing with spoken languages, including working hours, working condition, and retribution, which allegedly is not respected in most cases, according to some TSL interpreters. Simultaneous interpreting, irrespective of the modality, is a very complex skill that requires intensive and appropriate training and practice. Successful interpreters rely on numerous skills in their everyday work. The development of these skills is not intuitive or automatic, nor is it modality dependent. Simultaneous interpreting must be developed through a careful sequence of learning activities, starting off from a perfect inter- and intralingual command of both working ­languages.

6 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Isolating specific skills and learning them one at a time is the best approach to acquiring complex new skills. Gaining control over components of the interpretation process can assist in developing simultaneous interpreting skills because appropriate practice helps to “routinize” and “automatize” these complex skills. Automatisms are known as “reazioni verbali automatiche a stimoli testuali” (automatic verbal reactions to textual stimuli) (Russo, 1986, p. 109, my translation). Automatisms may be developed by virtue of language transfer skills (Wills, 1982). In other words, “the interpreter must introject equivalences between expressions or lexical collocations and particular syntactic structures of [source language] SL and [text language] TL, to allocate more resources to those [parts of speech] POS which are conceptually complex or hard to anticipate.” (Russo, M. 1986, p. 109, my translation). For further analysis on anticipation strategies and automatisms, see Lederer (1981) and Gile (1995), amongst others. Automatisms are, therefore, of crucial importance for handling common phenomena or ideas in daily life. The skills that make up the simultaneous interpreting processes are generally not used in isolation and must be synthesized correctly in order to render an interpretation. These observations are independent of the modality, and they apply both to spoken language and signed language interpreting, because the neurobiological mechanisms and efforts underlying these processes are modality independent (cf. Chapter 5). Sign language interpreters should be treated on a par with their fellow spoken language interpreters, all the more considering the fact that sign languages are a part of AIIC official languages. The aforementioned observations, along with other fruitful discussions with professional interpreters, will be further investigated in the course of this book, along with other problems and inadequacies related to sign language interpreting, with the aim to raise the self-awareness of professional sign language interpreters and the quality of the interpretation itself. The underlying hypothesis, rationale, organization, and anticipated contribution of the monograph will be emphasized in the following sections.

1.2 Research Hypothesis In the present research monograph, it is hypothesized that the efforts underlying bimodal interpreting, that is to say, spoken to sign and sign to spoken language interpreting, are not inferior to unimodal interpreting, that is, spoken to spoken (also known as verbal to verbal) language interpreting. Each chapter in this book addresses different aspects of TSL and TSL interpreting. Broadly, it

Introduction | 7 is hypothesized that the same neurobiological mechanisms are activated during spoken to spoken and during spoken to sign language interpreting. Therefore, Taiwan Sign Language interpreters (TSLIs) should be treated on a par with spoken language interpreters, in terms of working conditions and retribution. It will be possible to apply this information in governmental guidelines and regulations stipulating the deontological code of ethics and the general code of conduct of TSLIs as well as sign language interpreters elsewhere in the world.

1.3 Background and Rationale for the Book The International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC—Association internationale des interprètes de conférence) has a very rigid code of ethics and a set of professional standards that interpreters should abide by. AIIC liaises with a number of international organizations, for example, the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN), and negotiates the working conditions for all of their interpreters, including non-members. The goals of the AIIC are to secure acceptable working conditions for interpreters, to ensure professional interpretation, and to raise public awareness of the interpreting profession, including sign language interpreting which is increasingly used in many fields. Frishberg (1986) reports that sign language interpreters are called upon to interpret in commercial settings, whether for employers and employees or for interlocutors who are on a more equal footing. Given these premises, it seems opportune to raise the public awareness about the importance of interpreters, irrespective of the modality. Some people might take the importance of interpreters as cultural mediators for granted, but in numerous fields, including sign language interpreting, the actual reality is not so optimistic. Many people strive to receive subsidies by the government. Moreover, another aspect which emerges from this study is the fact that TSL interpreters are treated in different ways in different cities. This is an issue which deserves to be mentioned and further explored. As a matter of fact, different cities in Taiwan allegedly have distinct budget restrictions or even dissimilar retribution policies; the amount of money that interpreters receive also depends on how close Deaf people are with signers. Oftentimes, signers engage in maintaining their personal relationship with Deaf people on good terms, in the hope of receiving more interpreting tasks assigned in the future. Some signers might even decide to do their job for free. It seems opportune to handle the issues related to sign interpreting the way they are herein presented because different points of view are required, namely the

8 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Deaf people’s and the interpreters’ point of view. From the perspective of the Deaf community, I will analyze issues directly linked with TSL, such as the diachronic variety or the diatopic differences of TSL. From the perspective of the interpreters, training is a crucial aspect. Hence, to-be sign language interpreters ought to become increasingly specialized, that is why the issue of quality and performance evaluation seems to be of the utmost importance, and will be further investigated in the present book (cf. Chapter 6); this, in turn, will also raise the self-awareness of interpreters both from a professional and from a behavioral-empirical standpoint, as demonstrated in Chapter 5. This book thus aims to lay the groundwork for a scientifically based academic discussion not only on the importance of sign language interpreters but also on their professional status which ought to be on a par with spoken language interpreters, both in terms of working conditions and retribution. An in-depth analysis of the different types of interpreting modalities shows that, regardless of the adjective preceding the word “interpreter,” practitioners of this profession perform the same service, conduct the same cognitive task, and should thus meet the same standards of competence. The issue of interpreting fees in the world of sign language has always been a vague and obscure issue. Even in the Code of Professional Conduct of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), which was established in 1964, under the tenet according to which interpreters are to maintain ethical business practices, we read that interpreters ought to charge “fair and reasonable fees” for the performance of interpreting services and arrange for payment in a professional and judicious manner, without further explicating the issue and without operationalizing the definition of “fair and reasonable fees.” Back in 2012, the AIIC decided to open its doors to sign languages. This has finally set some clear-cut professional standards for interpreters to abide by. In Taiwan, however, this does not seem to be the case, according to the interpreters and Deaf people I interviewed since, as I will delineate in the course of this book, working conditions, such as the mandatory presence of a co-worker, or the fact that interpreters should be paid by working days or half-days, or even the interpreting professional fees per se, are far from abiding by AIIC international standards.

1.4 General Method The samples of interpreters and Deaf people used is in line with the principle according to which in qualitative research smaller but focused samples are more

Introduction | 9 often needed than large samples (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). At the same time, quantitative methods were used to seek empirical support for my research hypotheses. A number of research methodologies were used, such as data collection, interviews, surveys, and experiments. As far as the subjects are concerned, I invited a total of 10 participants to take part in the study: Taiwanese-born Deaf people and professional sign language interpreters, native speakers of Mandarin Chinese, and professional spoken language interpreters as the control group, five for each category. The participants were duly paid for their willingness to contribute in the research. The materials used in the replication of Gile’s experiment in the fifth chapter are different than the ones used in the original experiment because I adapted them to the target language and culture. As for the tasks in the experiment, they will be outlined in detail in Section 1.6, “Outline of the Chapters.”

1.5 The Anticipated Contribution of the Book The present monograph is the first of its kind, insofar as it addresses interpreting issues related to TSL. In the past, there have been numerous theses and quite a few books on TSL, focusing on singular aspects such as TSL morphology, lexemes, semantics, syntax, etc. However, to my best knowledge, no one has ever focused on issues concerning TSL interpreting, which is however pressing considering the increasing need of the market. In other words, this is the first book on Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting (TSLI) for a Western audience.

1.6 Outline of the Chapters The book is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter is a general introduction to the research questions, the hypotheses, and the expected results. It is divided into six different sections, namely introduction, research hypothesis, background and rationale for the book, the general method applied in the study, the anticipated contribution, and the outline of the chapters. The body of the book is conceptually divided into two main parts. The first part is made up of Chapters 1 and 2 which focus on TSL, while Chapters 3 through 7 focus on TSL interpreting. The second chapter is an introduction to TSL which has to be duly mentioned before proceeding to exploring issues related to TSL interpreting. It can be perceived as a diachronic analysis of TSL, and one

10 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

of its sections is subtitled a historical journey toward dignity, because it emphasizes the efforts the Deaf community, along with linguists and international scholars, have made to recognize the linguistic dignity of sign languages around the world. This chapter covers a historical excursus of TSL, exploring TSL diatopic and diachronic variation, and focusing on the discussion on how interpreters deal with the lexical items with different signings when they are interpreting. It is important for the interpreters to have a linguistic background. For example, it is essential to be aware of the different geographic variations (known as diatopic variation in sociolinguistics), so that interpreters can understand different forms of signing as well as adapt their own signing according to the interlocutor’s geographic and social background. The remainder of the chapter is dedicated to issues such as the question of language “evolution” (from hands to mouth), cued speech, manually coded language, lip reading, oralism, and grammar sign language vs. sign language, which are important and relevant to the present discussion from the Deaf community’s standpoint. These issues will be further emphasized in the chapter dedicated to TSL interpreting evaluation by underlining the fact that sometimes the text used during the exams is signed Chinese and not natural sign language. As will be demonstrated, this further complicates the TSL interpreting evaluation process. The second conceptual part of the book is more directly linked with interpreting issues. In the third chapter, the history of TSL interpreting is introduced. A corpus of TSL interpreters has been surveyed to ensure whether the precarious and unprofessional conditions allegedly dictated by the situational working environment match the reality. The rest of the research is fully aimed at proving that bimodal interpreters should share the same professional dignity and self-awareness as spoken language interpreters. The first section of the third chapter is an analysis of TSL interpreting history. The third section is titled “professional volunteers.” This title is obviously a pun. It reflects the almost volunteering nature of TSL professional sign language interpreters nowadays, considering the straitened conditions in which they work, and it is also a window of reflection on many other sectors, where professionals regrettably really work as volunteers. The final part of the third chapter underlines the importance given to professional evaluation after many years of sign language interpreting history, not only in Taiwan but also abroad (Williams, 2004) and will be further emphasized in the chapter dedicated to the issue of TSL interpreting assessment and evaluation. Chapter 4 further explores some challenging areas of TSL interpreting, namely figurative speech and metaphors, which must be taken into consideration in the evaluation process. This chapter aims at proving that the efforts underlying sign

Introduction | 11 language interpreting are at the basis of the necessity of turn-shifting during a sign language interpreted event. Chapter 5 reviews the neurobiological studies proving that TSL is indeed a natural language and not a human construct. Furthermore, this chapter reunites two experiments, namely the qualitative and the quantitative pilot study; the latter proves the complex nature of the TSL interpreting process. This will have to be taken into consideration in the evaluation process. The second part of Chapter 5 focuses on the tightrope hypothesis experiment along with the review of two neurobiological studies concerning the bilingual brain in bimodals. The results of these studies can also be applied to sign language interpreters because they are perceived as bimodal bilinguals. Daniel Gile’s effort model tightrope hypothesis experiment will be reduplicated and will be applied to TSL interpreting. The idea that most of the time, interpreters, irrespective of the modality, work near saturation level is the so-called tightrope hypothesis, which this experiment aims to prove for sign language interpreters. The tightrope hypothesis is crucial in explaining the high frequency of errors and omissions (e/o’s) that can be observed in interpreting even when no particular technical or other difficulties can be identified in the source speech (Gile, 1989). The precise aim of this investigation is to establish, in a sample of professionals interpreting a speech, whether there are indeed e/o’s affecting segments that present no evident intrinsic difficulty. If there are, it is likely that they can be explained in terms of processing capacity deficits such as predicted by the effort model. If all subjects in the sample fail to reproduce adequately the same ideas or pieces of information, this would suggest the existence of an intrinsic “interpreting difficulty” of the relevant segments (too specialized, poorly pronounced, delivered too rapidly, too difficult to render in the target language, etc.) Another indication could come from an exercise in which each subject is asked to interpret the same speech twice in a row. Having become familiar with the source speech during their first interpretation, subjects can be expected to correct in their second version many e/o’s committed in their first version. If, notwithstanding this general improvement of their performance, one can still find new e/o’s in the second version, whereas the same speech segments were interpreted correctly the first time, this would be an even stronger indication that processing capacity deficits are involved. The method used is the same as the one used by Gile, namely target speeches were videotaped, transcribed, and transcriptions scanned for e/o’s. This method is not without pitfalls, because of high inter-rater variability in the perception of what is and what is not an error or omission; therefore, to avoid these pitfalls, only instances of what appeared to me as conspicuous e/o’s are included in the analysis, and at least two further opinions

12 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

from other sign language interpreters were requested to confirm that the e/o’s I identified were also considered e/o’s by them. This is done in order to preserve the validity of the study by reducing the probability of false positives (mistaking text manipulations considered acceptable by the subjects for e/o’s). The analysis then will proceed by determining: (a) how many subjects in the sample made an e/o for each affected speech segment, and (b) what e/o’s were corrected in the second version of the target speech. Therefore, without resorting to fMRI or other neurolinguistic techniques, the high detection threshold for e/o definition used here in order to reduce to the largest possible extent the number of false positives means that other phenomena that could have been used to measure cognitive load were not exploited. In particular, no attempt will be made to look at borderline cases and at the deterioration of linguistic output quality. The original idea was supposed to strengthen the case for the tightrope hypothesis and thus give some support to the effort model as a conceptual tool to explain spoken language interpreters’ as well as TSL interpreters’ limitations based on cognitive constraints, and in Gile’s words may give some credibility to the idea that the usefulness of a concept or model in scientific exploration is not necessarily a function of its degree of sophistication. However, the findings of this study are very interesting because they do not necessarily prove that the efforts of bimodal interpreting are superior to unimodal interpreting, but they do prove the intrinsic difficulty of sign language interpreting. The due explanations will be provided in the relevant chapter. Chapter 6 focuses on the issues of assessment and evaluation parameters in Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting (TSLI), with an emphasis on the naturality issue. I shall propose how TSL interpreting should be assessed and evaluated, based on interpreting challenges, the experiments conducted herein, and other conclusive considerations. The seventh chapter is a conclusion, and it is divided into the following parts: a review of the chapters, some final recommendations, further research suggestions, some concluding remarks, and an emphasis on the limitations of the book.

Notes 1. Throughout the whole book, the word Deaf is capitalized whenever it refers to a specific, self-defined cultural group, with a common history and language. 2. For detailed descriptive information on TSL, the reader can refer to the relevant literature (Ann et al., 2000, 2007, 2011; Brentari, 2010; Chan & Wang, 2009; Chang,

Introduction | 13 2009; Chang et al., 2005; Chang & Ke, 2009; Chen & Tai,2009; Chiu et al., 2005; Duncan, 2005; Huteson, 2003; Jean, 2005; Lee et al., 2001; Myers et al., 2005; Myers & Tsay, 2004, 2006; Myers & Tai, 2005; Sasaki, 2007; Shih & Ting, 1999; Smith, 1989, 2005; Su & Tai, 2006, 2007, 2009; Tai, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008; Tai & Tsay, 2009, 2010; Tsai & Myers, 2009; Tsay, 2007, 2010; Zhang, 2007). 3. http://taslifamily.org/?page_id=1043 (retrieved on August 17, 2020) 4. The English translation is mine. The bold is also mine. 5. All the interviews were conducted prior to the foundation of TASLI. The results of my interviews were somehow confirmed by the president’s speech during the founding conference of TASLI.

References Brentari, D. (2010). Sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chan, M., & Wang, X. (2009). Modality Effects Revisited: Iconicity in Chinese Sign Language. In J. Tai & J. Tsay (Eds.), Taiwan Sign Language and beyond. Taiwan Institute of Humanities. National Chung Cheng University. Chang, J.-h. (2009). The relation of typological differences between Taiwan Sign Language and Chinese to language teaching of deaf students. Educational Resources and Research, 90, 53–76. Chang, J.-h., & Ke, X.-l. (2009). The influence of Chinese on the formation of place names in Taiwan Sign Language. In J. Tai & J. Tsay (Eds.), Taiwan Sign Language and beyond. Taiwan Institute of Humanities. National Chung Cheng University. Chang, J.-h., Su, S.-f., & Tai, J. (2005). Classifier predicates reanalyzed, with special reference to Taiwan Sign Language. Taiwan Sign Language. Special Issue of Language and Linguistics, 6(2), 247–278. Chen, Y.-j., & Tai, J. (2009). Lexical variation and change in Taiwan Sign Language. In J. Tai & J. Tsay (Eds.), Taiwan Sign Language and beyond (pp. 131–148). Taiwan Institute of Humanities. National Chung Cheng University. Chiu, Y.-h., Hsieh, J.-c., Kuo, W.-j., Hung, D., & Tzeng, O. (2005). Vision and manipulation-based signs in Taiwan Sign Language. Taiwan Sign Language. Special Issue of Language and Linguistics, 6(2), 381–380. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Duncan, S. (2005). Gesture in signing: A case study from Taiwan Sign Language. In J. Myers, & J. Tai (Eds.), Taiwan Sign Language. Special Issue of Language and Linguistics, 6(2), 279–318. Fischer, S., & Gong, Q. (2010). Variation in East Asian sign language structures. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge Language Surveys, pp. 499–518). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frishberg, N. (1986). Interpreting: An introduction. Silver Spring, MD: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.

14 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Gile, D. (1989). La communication linguistique en réunion multilingue. Les difficulties de la transmission informationnelle en interprétation simultanée (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université Paris III. Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Huteson, G. (2003). Report on social, educational, and sociolinguistic issues that impact the deaf and hard of hearing population of Taiwan. SIL International. Jean, A. (2005). A functional explanation of Taiwan Sign Language handshape frequency. In M. James & J. Tai (Eds.), Taiwan Sign Language. Special Issue of Language and Linguistics, 6(2), 217–246. Jean, A., & Long, P. (2000). Optimality and opposed handshapes in Taiwan Sign Language. Language Sciences, 1(2), 173–194. Jean, A., Myers, J., & Tsay, J. (2007). Lexical and articulatory influences on the perception and production of words in Taiwan Sign Language. In Lexical and articulatory influences on the perception and production of words in Taiwan Sign Language. Tainan, Taiwan: National Cheng Kung University. Jean, A., Myers, J., Tsay, J., & Owego, S. (2011). Lexical and articulatory influences on phonological processing in Taiwan Sign Language. In R. Channon & H. Van Der Hulst (Eds.), Formational units in sign language. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Ishara Press. Lederer, M. (1981). La traduction simultanée. Paris: Minard-Lettres Modernes. Lee, H.-h., Tsay, J., & Myers, J. (2001). Handshape articulation in Taiwan Sign Language and signed Chinese. Paper presented at the Conference on Sign Linguistics, Deaf Education and Deaf Culture in Asia, Chinese University of Hong Kong. Medoff, M. (1982). Children of a lesser God. Amber Lane Press. Myers, J., & Tai, J. (Eds.). (2005). Taiwan Sign Language. Special Issue of Language and Linguistics. Myers, J., & Tsay, J. (2004). The morphology and phonology of Taiwan Sign Language. Paper presented at the Linguistics Society of Taiwan 2004 Tutorial Workshop. Taipei: Taiwan Normal University. Myers, J., & Tsay, J. (2006). The relative efficiency of Taiwan Sign Language and (Signed) Chinese. Paper presented at the First International Conference of Comparative Study of East Asian Sign Languages. September 16–17, 2006. Taiwan: Chung Cheng University. Myers. J., Lee, H.-h., & Tsay, J. (2005). Phonological production in Taiwan Sign Language. In J. Myers & J. Tai (Eds.), Taiwan Sign Language. Special Issue of Language and Linguistics, 6(2), 319–359. Russo, M. (1986). Effetti delle dissimmetrie morfosintattiche nell’interpretazione simultanea dallo spagnolo all’italiano (M.A. thesis). Università di Trieste. Sasaki, D. (2007). Comparing the lexicons of Japanese Sign Language and Taiwan Sign Language: A preliminary study focusing on the difference in the handshape parameter. In D. Quinto-Pozos (Ed.), Sign language in contact: Sociolinguistics in deaf communities. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Shih, W.-h., & Ting, L.-f. (Eds.). (1999). ShouNeng Sheng Ch’iao (Vol. I, 13th ed.). Taipei: National Association of the Deaf in the Republic of China.

Introduction | 15 Smith, W. (1989). The morphological characteristics of verbs in Taiwan Sign Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Dissertation. Smith, W. (2005). Taiwan Sign Language research: An historical overview. In J. Myers & J. Tai (Eds.), Taiwan Sign Language. Special Issue of Language and Linguistics, 6(2), 187–215. Su, S.-f., & Tai, J. (2006). Word order in Taiwan Sign Language. Proceedings of the First International Conference of Comparative Study of East Asian Sign Languages, pp. 153–163. Su, S.-f., & Tai, J. (2007). Encoding motion events in Taiwan Sign Language and Mandarin Chinese: Some typological implications. Paper presented at the Second International Conference of the French Association for Cognitive Linguistics, University of Lille, France, May 10–12, 2007. Su, S.-f., & Tai, J. (2009). Lexical comparison of signs from Taiwan, Chinese, Japanese, and American Sign Language: Taking iconicity into account. In J. Tai & J. Tsay (Eds.), Taiwan Sign Language and beyond. Taiwan Institute of Humanities. National Chung Cheng University. Tai, J. (2005). Modality effects: Iconicity in Taiwan Sign Language. POLA FOREVER: Festschrift in Honor of Professor William S-Y. Wang on his 70TH Birthday. Edited by Dah-an Ho and Ovid J. L. Tzeng. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, pp. 19–36. Tai, J. (2006, May 25–28). On modality effects and relative uniformity of sign languages. In PreConference Proceedings of 14th Annual Conference of the International Association of Chinese Linguistics and 10th International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics (pp. 222– 240). Taipei: Academia Sinica. Tai, J. (2007). Modality effects and syntactic structures of sign language. International Symposium on Language, Culture and Cognition, March 9–10, 2007. Tai, J. (2008). The nature of Chinese grammar: Perspectives from sign language. In Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (pp. 21–40). Columbus: Ohio State University. Tai, J., & Tsay, J. (Eds.). (2009). Taiwan Sign Language and beyond. Taiwan Institute of Humanities. National Chung Cheng University. Tai, J., & Tsay, J. (2010). Taiwan Sign Language corpus: Digital dictionary and database. In 2010 TELDAP International Conference (pp. 41–47). Taipei: Academia Sinica. Tsai, J., & Myers, J. (2009). The morphology and phonology of Taiwan Sign Language. In J. Tai & J. Tsay (Eds.), Taiwan Sign Language and beyond. Taiwan Institute of Humanities. National Chung Cheng University. Tsay, J. (2007). The syllable in Taiwan Sign Language. Paper presented at International Symposium on Language, Culture, and Cognition (ISLCC), March 9–10, 2007. Taipei: National Taiwan University. Tsay, J. (2010, January 28–30). Sonority and syllable structure in Taiwan Sign Language. Paper presented at the Conference on Sign Linguistics and Deaf Education in Asia 2010, Chinese University of Hong Kong. Williams, M. (2004). Translation quality assessment: An argumentation-centered approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Wills, W. (1982). The science of translation. Problems and methods. Tuebingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Zhang, N.N. (2007). Universal 20 and Taiwan Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics, 10(1), 55–81.

2

Taiwan Sign Language

The symbolic view of things is a consequence of long absorption in images. Is sign language the real language of Paradise? Hugo Ball

2.1 Introduction Language is at the basis of human communication. Languages may be defined as natural outputs of socially constructed codes. According to Roy Harris, who was Emeritus Professor of General Linguistics in the University of Oxford and Honorary Fellow of St Edmund Hall before he passed away in 2015, linguistics has taught us that language is no longer regarded as peripheral to our grasp of the world we live in, but as central to it. Words are not mere vocal labels or communicational adjuncts superimposed upon an already given order of things. They are collective products of social interaction, essential instruments through which human beings constitute and articulate their world (Harris, 1988). This typical twentieth-century view of language has profoundly influenced developments throughout the whole range of human sciences. It is particularly marked in linguistics, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology.

18 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Irrespective of their modality, languages develop naturally within a community of users. Therefore, the notion of language, which in the past strictly referred only to spoken languages, has been extended also to sign languages. As a matter of fact, sign languages emerge spontaneously amongst their users, also known as signers. Hence, it is incorrect to perceive sign languages as verbal languages spelled out in gestures, or to talk about the hearing pioneers in the education of the Deaf, like Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, as the “inventors” of sign languages. Like all other natural languages, sign languages follow their own paths of development. This is also proven by the fact that British Sign Language (BSL) and American Sign Language (ASL) are mutually unintelligible for historical reasons, and that ASL is much closer to French Sign Language (FSL or LSF in French) or that its syntax resembles more closely modern oral Japanese than spoken English. Taiwan Sign Language (henceforth abbreviated as TSL) is very similar to JSL, because its origins developed from JSL during Japanese rule in Taiwan. According to Fischer and Gong (2010), TSL has some mutual intelligibility with both JSL and Korean Sign Language (KSL), and it has a 60% lexical similarity with JSL. The reason underlying the lexical similarity with KSL is that Korea was also occupied by Japan from 1910 to 1945. This serves to say that the development of sign languages is separate from that of spoken languages. Some countries and regions, like South Africa for example, with up to eleven official languages, only have one official sign language with a couple of diatopic variants. Natural languages constantly change. Their phonetic, morphological, semantic, syntactic, and other linguistic features may vary over time. In the present chapter, the attention will be focused on the diachronic development of TSL. According to Smith (2005), TSL is used by approximately 30,000 signers on the island of Taiwan and although its lexicon and syntax closely resemble JSL and KSL, over the past few decades it has been influenced by Chinese Sign Language (CSL) and by Hong Kong Sign Langue (HKSL) because of the so-called language contact phenomenon. Language contact occurs when two or more languages or varieties interact. This linguistic phenomenon can occur at language borders, between adstratum languages,1 or as the result of migration, with an intrusive language acting as either a superstratum or a substratum.2

2.2 A Diachronic Analysis of TSL: A Historical Excursus The earliest information regarding TSL dates back to 1895–1945, during the Japanese rule period, when the first schools for the Deaf were founded. Prior to that time, there must have been a local variety of TSL that indigenous Deaf people

Taiwan Sign Language | 19 used; regrettably, not much is known of the pre-Japanese occupation period. The only remnants of this earlier variety can be found in some city names, like in the signs for TAINAN and KAOHSIUNG.3 The sign TAINAN appears as a combination of the signs TAIWAN and PLACE. As Smith (2005, p. 2) explains “originally, the name Taiwan referred only to the environs of the present-day city of Tainan, which literally means ‘Tai(wan)-south’. The name of the city was changed to Tainan in the 1800s, before the start of the Japanese occupation, so the sign may be a holdover from the signs of pre-occupation Taiwan.” Another example is the name of the city Kaohsiung which is a blend of the signs for DOG and HARBOR, because the city was then known by the name of Dakau (which in Chinese literally means: strike or hit the dog). The aboriginal people used to call the city with the name of Takau. Later, the Japanese maintained the pronunciation but changed the characters; in other words, by way of lexical borrowing based on the sound in Japanese it became TAKA O, which was then transcribed by the Japanese with the Chinese characters 高雄, which in Mandarin Chinese are read as Kaohsiung, or Gāoxióng in pinyin.4 During the Japanese rule, one school for the Deaf was founded in Taipei and the other in Tainan and there were not many exchanges between the two. This caused the development of two different topical varieties of TSL, which will be emphasized in the next section. For historical and political reasons, after World War II, the two schools began to communicate more frequently because they both came under the jurisdiction of the provincial government of Taiwan (Smith, 2005). However, during the Japanese rule, teachers were mainly Japanese people invited from Japan to teach in Taiwan. Most of the teachers at the Taipei school came from Tokyo and the ones in the Tainan area were from Osaka. Consequently, they brought along the diatopic differences intrinsically present within JSL. Later, in 1945, when Taiwan was turned over to the Republic of China, instruction in Mandarin began and the phenomenon of language contact began to sow its seeds. However, although most of the Japanese teachers were sent back home, some of the Taiwanese teachers remained in the two schools, along with the signs they had learned to use during the Japanese rule period. This is important because the new generation of teachers, Mandarin native speakers, were instructed in JSL. Wensheng Lin was a Deaf man educated in Tokyo; he became the new principal of the school for the Deaf in Taipei and “he passed on Taipei’s Tokyo signs to a new flock of Chinese teachers” (Smith, 2005, p. 3). The same thing happened in Tainan, where Tiantian Chen started training teachers in the Osaka signs that his school had been using thus far. In the late forties, people started to migrate from Mainland China to Taiwan to take refuge from the Communist Party. Amongst these refugees, there were several

20 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Deaf people who were former teachers in the schools for the Deaf of Nanjing and Shanghai. Some of them were even hired to teach at the Taipei school for the Deaf. A notable example is Zhenyin Wang, who was a Deaf man from Nantong, in the Chinese province of Jiangsu, and who started working at the Taipei school for the Deaf in 1948, bringing along signs from CSL. However, as Smith (2005) duly points out, other CSL signs may have been introduced into TSL through another channel, namely by graduates of the Private Chiying Elementary School for the Deaf and Mute in Kaohsiung, which originally used a dialect of CSL. The principal of this school was from Nantong and he used a dialect of CSL. Therefore, when he established his school in Taiwan in 1950, he also brought along his own idiolect. Over the course of the years, signers have coined new signs for scientific or academic purposes, to meet the instruction’s demands. It is also possible that some signers couldn’t sign very well due to a variety of reasons: maybe because they were not raised with sign language or because they did not receive a good education. As a linguist and interpreting scholar, I have always been fascinated to analyze the strategies interpreters adopt in these situations. Usually, no matter how good the performance and the interpretation skills are, an interpreter is supposed to always adjust his or her signing to the interlocutor. In other words, interpreters provide a service and their ultimate goal is to convey the message. Hence, it seems important that interpreters communicate with their Deaf interlocutor(s) before any interpretation task to understand what kind of signing the Deaf person is used to and also his or her linguistic level. Indeed, it would be pointless to sign either too fast or in too complicated a fashion if the Deaf person did not understand. In this case, the purpose of the service would fail. Another influential figure worth mentioning is Bingmei Fang, who was a graduate of the Nanjing School for the Blind and Mute. At first, she was sent to work in the Tainan school but later transferred to Taipei. This means that she brought her own CSL idiolect to Tainan, but also contributed to the signs exchange between the two main diatopic varieties of TSL in Taiwan (namely the northern and the southern). This aspect will be further analyzed in the next section, along with the issue of diachronic variation.

2.3 Diatopic and Diachronic Variation In sociolinguistics, variation is the term used to refer to the appearance of lexical units in different forms and is a phenomenon that exists in all languages, both spoken and signed. There are four different types of variation:

Taiwan Sign Language | 21 • diatopic variation is defined as the variation according to place or geographical location: for example, the Taipei school vs. the Tainan school; • diachronic variation is defined as the variation through time, also called historical variation. In other words, it is related to how a language changes in time; • diastratic variation is defined as the variation according to social class or to the social group to which a speaker feels they belong to. In diglossic situations,5 diastratic variation often appears in the transition from the formal or higher level, to the socially more informal levels, like in the case of creoles; • diaphasic or “stylistic” variation, also known as individual variation (idiolect). Such a taxonomy seems more difficult to characterize clearly especially for those creoles that lack sharp description. It would be necessary to conduct surveys in such cases to confirm that geographical or sociological factors are not contributing to one or other of these choices; in sociolinguistics this is known as variation analysis. Obviously, this internal variation in a language or dialect, sometimes called intralinguistic variation, should not be confused with interlinguistic variation. In the present section, I am going to examine the diatopic and diachronic variation within TSL. TSL can be divided into two main varieties, one centered on the Tainan school, which we can call the southern variety, and one centered on the Taipei school, which we can call the northern variety. As previously mentioned, the first school for the Deaf in Taiwan was established in 1915, in the southern city of Tainan, and the second school in Taipei, two years later, in 1917 (Smith, 2005). In the years of the Japanese rule, namely 1895–1945, there was not much communication between the two schools, and this increased the crystallization of the two varieties. Later, after World War II, the two schools both came under the jurisdiction of the provincial government of Taiwan. In this period, the two varieties began to experience the first contacts. Actually, there is also a third variety which can be distinguished within TSL, namely the one centered on the Taichung school, in the central region of Taiwan. However, the sign language used in this school was essentially the same as the one used in the Tainan school (Fischer & Gong, 2010). The diachronic variation, also known as historical variation, gives us an indication of how TSL has changed over time. To try to answer the question of how

22 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

TSL idiosyncratic (individual) use has been changing over time, I conducted a behavioral study-experiment. Six Deaf people were recruited and divided into two different groups according to their age range. The elderly group comprised people whose ages range from 70 to 80 years. The younger group of people presented an age range going up to 35 years. Such a classification ensured two completely different generations of signers. In recruiting these signers, I tried to be very careful in eliminating any independent variable which might have influenced the results, thus I attempted to control the variables related to diatopic, diastratic, and diaphasic variation, by selecting people coming from the same socio-geographical background and with the same level of education. I asked the participants, who were all duly paid for their availability, to start signing to each other, as if I were not there. After about 30 minutes, which is a reasonable amount of time to eliminate all differences due to the signers’ idiolects, I conducted retrospective interviews aimed at inquiring on the perceived differences in sign language use. The results show that most differences were at the semantic level and in terms of word choice. Although the gist of communication was not ruined, jeopardized or compromised, it was interesting to see how the elderly had more problems understanding some of the signs used by the younger generation, probably due to a lack of exposure. The elderly generation has been living in a “linguistic shell” compared to the younger generation, which has directly or indirectly come into contact with a plethora of new signs. It was interesting to see that, in line with spoken languages, intergenerational variation regards not so much syntax, which takes longer periods of time to change, but lexemes, which are influenced by TV, the new media, and by a form of hybridization. The most interesting aspect which emerged was the fact that the younger generation is used to chatting with foreign Deaf people online, using Skype or via a webcam. Foreign Deaf people can’t obviously use TSL and Taiwanese Deaf people are not necessarily able to use the sign language used in the country of their friends. Therefore, young signers usually resort to the so-called International Sign Language (ISL) to communicate with their international friends. Some ISL signs have already permeated Taiwanese young Deaf people’s slang, while they are still perceived as foreign signs by the elderly. After analyzing some of the differences due to the generation gap, I attempted to investigate how sign language interpreters cope with lexical variety. Different people may sign the same lexeme differently according to numerous factors, namely their age, their education, as well as their social class or geographical origins. However, a sign language interpreter, just like spoken language interpreters, is a professional and trained figure who knows (ought to know) most of the varieties of the same sign. It is inevitable, though, that on the spot some signs may

Taiwan Sign Language | 23 be forgotten or it could happen that an interpreter has never encountered a given sign (a specific variant) before. For this reason, I interviewed three interpreters to inquire on the different strategies used on the field to cope with lexical variety. In other words, how do professional interpreters deal with lexical items characterized by different signs when they are interpreting? The interviews with professional interpreters can be summed up as follows. Question: As sign language interpreters, it is inevitable to encounter people who use unfamiliar signs. This may be due to geographical reasons (northern variety vs. southern variety), generational gap (younger people vs. the elderly), etc. Generally speaking, how do you handle these lexical differences?6 Answer(s): Things are much easier if the interpreter actually knows what a given sign means. If that is not the case, the interpreter should always accommodate the Deaf interlocutor: s/he should always use the sign the Deaf interlocutor is more inclined to recognize or more accustomed to using. However, if the Deaf person uses a sign the interpreter has never seen before, the most ideal strategy would be to interact directly with the interlocutor and ask him or her to repeat the sign or inquire on what it means. After making sure there’s no lexical discrepancy, the interpreter should keep on using the sign the Deaf person is accustomed to using. If it is a context where it is basically impossible to interact with the Deaf signer, such as an international conference where the Deaf participant is signing on stage, then things might get a little more complicated. It can be summed up by saying that if the Deaf interlocutor does not understand, the interpreter should use the sign/s the Deaf participant is accustomed to. If it is the interpreter who doesn’t understand, the best thing is to ask directly. If it is not possible to ask the meaning, it should be inferred by the context. Usually, when Deaf people sign to an audience of Deaf participants, they tend to sign really fast, so it is inevitable for the interpreter to miss out on something. Most of the times, the signer would take a look at the interpreter and see if s/he needs to slow down or not. If it is a lecture, it is mandatory for the interpreter to require the script of the lecture before the beginning; if the script is not available, the interpreter should at least communicate for a while with the Deaf signer to get used to his or her way of signing. Otherwise, it is a very risky situation. Most sign interpreters would never dare translate at a conference, or any other venue, where they have to interpret a signer they have never seen or met before, because sign to spoken language interpreting is a very arduous task, and there are numerous diatopic differences within TSL. In other words, it is very normal to encounter lexical varieties interpreters do not know how to sign or translate. The important thing is to understand the gist, the core of the message. If that goes lost, the best thing is not to translate. Interpreters can always ask Deaf signers to sign more slowly,

24 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

to repeat or honestly say that they do not understand. This means that usually there is more interaction among the participants in sign language interpreted events than in spoken language interpreted conferences. What Deaf people are mostly scared of is to find interpreters who translate according to their own mind because they do not have the courage to say that they missed out on something or that they did not understand a certain part of the speech. There is not a single interpreter who would have the courage to say that s/he perfectly understands each and every sign the Deaf participant uses on stage for all the factors listed thus far. Interpreters should practice their interpreting skills, but also their “guts.” In this respect, the strategies used by sign language interpreters do not differ from spoken language interpreting. Most importantly, interpreters should not think that no matter what they sign, no one is ever going to find out about their intentional or unintentional mistakes, because this kind of behavior is not permitted by the deontological code of interpreters. From this brief summary of the respondents’ replies, one can identify some general translational strategies that professional sign language interpreters typically resort to (at least in TSL) when they have never encountered a specific variant before. These techniques do not substantially differ from the strategies spoken language interpreters resort to. The only major discrepancy seems to be the more frequent interaction amongst the participants in sign language interpreted events compared to venues where spoken language interpreting is required. Indeed, according to a respondent the most ideal strategy would be to interact directly with the interlocutor and ask him or her to repeat the sign or inquire on its semantic or pragmatic meaning. Another difficulty typical of sign language interpreting pertains to the difference between grammar sign language, also known as signed Chinese in the case of TSL, and natural sign language (cf. 2.9 and 6.4.3). Sign language interpreters also seem to be aware of the deontological code of interpreters. Indeed, the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) in the USA stipulates that all sign language interpreters should abide by seven tenets. Sign language interpreters in many advanced countries and regions are required to organize under professional sign language interpreters associations. For example, the RID in the USA, the Japanese Association of Sign Language Interpreters (JASLI) in Japan and the Association of Sign Language Interpreters (ASLI) in England. The quality of local sign language interpreters has greatly improved thanks to the activities of these local associations. (For a detailed discussion on sign language interpreting code of ethics, which all interpreters should abide by, readers can refer to 3.1). Which variety do Taiwanese signers use? And which variety are professional sign language interpreters supposed to use in their renditions? These questions will be addressed in the following sections. However, the efforts by linguists and

Taiwan Sign Language | 25 neurobiologists to give sign(ed) languages their well-deserved status and dignity of natural languages is to be mentioned, prior to turning our attention to the difference between grammar sign language and natural sign language, as well as which variety is typically used by native signers and, most importantly, which variety should strategically be chosen by professional interpreters. Natural sign language or manual sign language? These concepts will be further explored in 6.4.3 where the issue of “­naturality” will be analyzed more in detail.

2.4 A Historical Journey Toward Dignity Sign languages are natural languages, as proven by numerous neurobiological studies. Nowadays, this statement almost sounds like a bromide. In a way, it is a reality so familiar that it seems almost humdrum. However, in the history of the development of sign language studies around the world, it has taken a lot of efforts by linguists and neurobiologists to give sign(ed) languages their well-deserved status and dignity of natural languages; in some countries and regions, this is still not the case. Although the international scientific community has amply proven that sign languages are on a par with spoken languages, in terms of linguistic accuracy, degree of completeness, and dignity, TSL interpreters in Taiwan allegedly do not share the same status as their fellow spoken language interpreters, as illustrated in the first chapter. The main problem is that one must consider who pays interpreters of spoken languages and who pays sign language interpreters. In the first case, usually it is some big private enterprise calling a conference to discuss certain issues, whereas sign language interpreters are paid directly by the Deaf person who needs the service by way of applying for a financing plan with the government, which, in turn, has budget restrictions. In some countries and regions, sign languages have obtained some form of legal recognition, while in other parts of the world they have no recognized status at all. Batterbury (2012) has argued that sign languages ought to be recognized and supported not merely as an accommodation for the disabled, but as the communication medium of Deaf communities. Sign languages, as natural languages, have always existed, as long as they were needed in a given community of Deaf users anywhere on the planet. Sign languages are not languages constructed around a table by a group of linguists to enhance Deaf people’s lives. One of the earliest written records of a sign language occurred in the fifth century BC, in Plato’s Cratylus, in which Socrates says: “If we hadn’t a voice or a tongue, and wanted to express things to one another, wouldn’t

26 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

we try to make signs by moving our hands, head, and the rest of our body, just as dumb people do at present?” (Bauman, 2008). The first attempts to educate Deaf people on the basis of spoken language pedagogical methods date back to 1620 when Juan Pablo Bonet published Reducción de las letras y arte para enseñar a hablar a los mudos (Reduction of Letters and Art for Teaching Mute People to Speak) in Madrid. It is considered the first modern treatise of Phonetics and Logopedia, setting out a method of oral education for the Deaf by means of the use of manual signs in the form of a manual alphabet to improve the communication of Deaf people. In the eighteenth century, the notorious Charles-Michel de l’Épée published his manual alphabet, which is still the same in France and North America. A manual alphabet is an alphabet especially designed for the Deaf in which the letters are represented by finger positions. In 1755 he founded the first school for Deaf children in Paris. Later, one of his most famous graduates, Laurent Clerc, went to the United States with Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet to found the American School for the Deaf in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1817 (Canlas, 2006). Gallaudet’s son, Edward Miner Gallaudet, founded a school for the Deaf in 1857 in Washington, D.C., which in 1864 became the National Deaf-Mute College. Now called Gallaudet University, it is still the only liberal arts university for Deaf people in the world. The historical journey toward a self-proclaimed linguistic dignity has been long and tortuous. In the next section, I will examine the issue more in detail.

2.4.1 Language “Evolution”: From Hands to Mouth Linguists and scientists have focused on the issue of the origin of language for centuries, without coming to any consensus on its ultimate origin or age. According to some scientists, the emergence of new sign languages in modern times— Nicaraguan Sign Language (NSL), for instance—might potentially offer insights into the developmental stages and creative processes necessarily involved (Kegl et al., 1998). There are hypotheses and theories regarding the origin of language. Here, I will focus on the so-called gestural theory of language origin. The gestural theory states that human language developed from gestures, in other words from the hands, that were used for simple communication. According to Premack and Premack (1983), two types of evidence support this theory:

(a) Gestural language and vocal language depend on similar neural systems. The regions on the cortex that are responsible for mouth and hand movements border each other.

Taiwan Sign Language | 27

(b) Nonhuman primates can use gestures or symbols for at least primitive communication, and some of their gestures resemble those of humans, such as the “begging posture,” with the hands stretched out, which humans share with chimpanzees.

A notorious example is the gorilla Koko who, according to her longtime personal trainer Francine “Penny” Patterson, was able to understand more than 1,000 signs based on ASL and understand approximately 2,000 words of spoken English (Wise, 2003). Research has found strong support for the idea that verbal languages and sign languages depend on similar neural structures. Patients who used sign language and who suffered from a left hemisphere lesion showed the same disorders with their sign language as vocal patients did with their spoken language (Kimura, 1993). Other neurobiology researchers found that the same left hemisphere brain regions were active during sign language as during the use of vocal or written language (Newman et al., 2002). The problem is that some people have used these theories to talk about a form of “evolution,” demoting sign(ed) languages to an inferior grade compared to spoken or verbal languages. According to the gestural theory of language origin, at some point in the past there was a shift to vocalization. Some of the explanations provided by the gestural theory are as follows:





(a) Our ancestors started to use more and more tools, meaning that their hands were occupied and could no longer be used for gesturing (Corballis, 2002). (b) Manual gesturing requires that speakers and listeners be visible to one another. In many situations, they might need to communicate, even without visual contact—for example after nightfall or when foliage obstructs visibility. (c) A composite hypothesis holds that early language took the form of part gestural and part vocal mimesis (imitative song-and-dance), combining modalities because all signals (like those of apes and monkeys) still needed to be costly in order to be intrinsically convincing. In that event, each multi-media display would have needed not just to disambiguate an intended meaning but also to inspire confidence in the signal’s reliability. According to Knight (2008a), the suggestion is that only once community-wide contractual understandings had come into force could trust in communicative intentions be automatically assumed, at last allowing Homo sapiens to shift to an ultra-efficient, high-speed—digital as opposed

28 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

to analog—default format. Since vocal distinctive features (sound contrasts) are ideal for this purpose, it was only at this point—when intrinsically persuasive body language was no longer required to convey each message—that the decisive shift from manual gesture to our current primary reliance on digitally encoded spoken language occurred (Knight, 1998, 2000, 2008b). Humans still use hand and facial gestures when they speak, especially when people with no language in common meet (Kolb & Whishaw, 2003). It is opportune to note that all sign languages are equal in complexity, sophistication, and expressive power, to spoken languages—the cognitive functions are similar and the parts of the brain used are also similar. The main difference is that the “phonemes” are produced on the outside of the body, articulated with hands, body, and facial expression, rather than inside the body and articulated with tongue, teeth, lips, and breathing. The gestural theory of language origin has evidence in neurobiology thanks to the findings of mirror neurons, which are activated during the execution of actions whether to execute the actions exactly, to imitate the actions, or just to observe the actions, but are never activated for mere observational purposes. Hence, mirror neurons represent a mechanism capable of coupling the execution and observation of actions. At the same time, mirror neurons are activated selectively only to transitive movements, like the interaction with an object, such as grasping, holding, manipulation, and releasing (Gallese et al., 1996; Rizzolatti & Arbib, 1998). Kohler et al. (2002) also demonstrated that mirror neurons can represent the same action according to different modalities. This implies that mirror neurons can represent the intended purpose and the meaning of an action, irrespective of whether an animal has directly executed an action or has simply seen or heard it (Chiu, 2006). Mirror neurons in monkeys and the homologue Broca’s area in humans provide a neurobiological linkage for the hypothesis that communication based on manual gestures preceded speech in language evolution (Rizzolatti & Arbib, 1998). Mirror-neuron systems in humans can respond to pantomimes (Buccino et al., 2001; Grezes et al., 2003) and to intransitive actions (Fadiga et al., 1995; Maeda et al., 2002). From transitive and intransitive actions to pantomimes, the signals become increasingly abstract.7 The concept of evolution, however, should not lead us to misbelieve that there is a progression of quality from sign languages to spoken languages. As previously mentioned, sign languages are equal in complexity, sophistication, and expressive power to any spoken language—the cognitive functions are alike and

Taiwan Sign Language | 29 the parts of the brain used are similar. This fact should not be taken for granted; for many centuries, people have tried, and in some places are still trying, to indoctrinate the Deaf community, according to the cultural values of the verbal speakers residing within that given community, thus not respecting the linguistic rights of local sign language users. Some people have gone so far as to create a phonemic-based system of communication which makes traditionally spoken languages accessible by using a small number of handshapes (representing consonants) in different locations near the mouth (representing vowels), as a supplement to lip reading. This is known as the Cued Speech System and will be further explained in the next section.

2.5 Cued Speech Scholars and people in favor of cued speech argue that the cued speech system is merely a system to enhance the reading comprehension and reading ability of Deaf children. Basically, it is a method of making spoken sounds visible. The hypothesis underlying this system is that if all phonemes looked different on the lips of the speaker—in other words if lip reading was easier than it actually is—language acquisition would be unaltered for the Deaf. They would learn it through the visual channel instead of the auditive one. The problem is that numerous sounds cannot be distinguished only by lip reading, for example like /b/ and /p/ or /d/ and /t/. Therefore, in 1966 Dr. R. Orin Cornett at Gallaudet College, Washington D.C. invented this system, called cued speech. Cued speech is neither a sign language nor a manually coded language. It is simply a manual modality of communication for representing English, or any other spoken language for that matter, at the phonological level. Although originally designed for the English language, it was adapted to the French language a year later, and in time it has also been adapted to tonal languages like Chinese and Thai, where the tone is indicated by an inclination and movement of the hand. Tammasaeng (1986) investigated the effect of cued speech on the tonal perception of the Thai language for Deaf children in Thailand. Her study shows that cued speech can clarify the tonal characteristics of such a language. Basically, to cue a word, one should do the following:

(a) Divide words into sequence of Consonant-Vowel (CV) pairs. (b) For each CV pair, place the consonant handshape at the vowel placement while mouthing the corresponding consonant-vowel phoneme pair.

30 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

It seems opportune at this point to distinguish between cued system and sign languages. The latter have their own syntactic, phonetic, and lexical patterns which cued speech does not try to substitute. All in all, it seems that phonological awareness can improve reading ability. Research has consistently shown a link between lack of phonological awareness and reading disorders (Jenkins & Bowen, 1994) and discussed the research basis for teaching cued speech as an aid to phonological awareness and literacy. To sum up, cued speech is a phonemic-based system of communication which makes traditionally spoken languages accessible by using a small number of handshapes (representing consonants) in different locations near the mouth (representing vowels), as a supplement to lip reading, and is fundamentally different from manually coded languages which, instead, attempt to substitute natural sign languages. This issue will be further explored in the next section.

2.6 Manually Coded Languages (MCLs) Manually Coded Languages (MCLs) can also be referred to as Signed Oral Languages (SOLs). They are an attempt to transpose the syntax and morphological structures of spoken languages into a gestural-visual form. MCLs are perceived by many people as a surrogate form of sign languages. In other words, they are regarded as the desirable alternative to a seemingly ungrammatical and asyntactic natural sign language. Sign languages actually have their spatial structures, with their own specific syntactic structure. Unlike them, MCLs have not evolved naturally, they are the “invention” or creation of hearing speakers and this is reflected in their grammar, which closely follows that of spoken languages in their written form. In the past, MCLs were detrimentally used in the education of the Deaf and also by some early sign language interpreters who believed in the purported superiority of spoken languages. Back then, sign languages had not yet acquired their own dignity as natural languages. Sometimes, MCLs are also referred to as Grammatical Sign Languages (GSLs), as is the case in Taiwan, where it is known as wénfǎ shǒuyǔ (文法手語), although the proper term of such a variant would be Signed Chinese (Myers & Tai, 2005). MCLs have been opposed by many people, namely by the so-called oralists and by those who fought to see sign languages rights recognized. Oralists comprise people who believe that the education of Deaf students should be carried

Taiwan Sign Language | 31 out through oral language with the help of lip reading techniques, speech, and mimicking the mouth shapes, as in cued speech. The oralists have been very active since Épée’s time. The second category encompasses those scholars, researchers, interpreters, who have been fighting for sign languages to enjoy a similar status as that of spoken languages and to share the same linguistic dignity. As a matter of fact, instructors often use MCLs incompletely and inconsistently in classrooms, and as a result, Deaf students will suffer from an incorrect use of written English, or Chinese for that matter, as well as a consequent incapacity to sign in their own native sign language properly (Kluwin, 1981; Marmor & Pettito, 1979). Following are some examples of incorrect Chinese, at point not even understandable, found in the writing of a native Taiwanese signer educated with the use of wénfǎ shǒuyǔ. We can say that this is the case because the structure is not natural, either in Chinese or in Natural Taiwan Sign Language. * 8超 級 愈 來 愈 好 玩 一 次 ， 藍 天 感 覺 好 舒 適 ， 超 級 非 常 游 泳 池 的 瘋 狂 。 今 天 冰 淇 淋 盤 非 常 好 香 好 吃 很 棒 ， 為什麼看的時候很年輕，當然要去地方景風更好美， 認識介紹對我這 麼好，幽默的聊天交流，蓋亂還不錯的感覺，請辛苦帶我真的感 謝其他，要離開回台灣，只有韓國留的回憶，希望自己非常快樂! 我也不要看愛中，快看很昏倒。

One point should be very clear. MCLs are not auxiliary sign languages, that is, complete representations of a spoken language; they are merely used to represent the written form of the language. Going back in time, the first person to develop a gestural-visual system to represent the graphic form of a written language was the French Abbé de l’Épée in the eighteenth century. It goes without saying that the Deaf community back then had its own natural sign language, which in linguistics is known as Old French Sign Language; however, for de l’Épée, it was a primitive, not fully fledged system of communication. He wanted to teach them the noble concepts of religion and philosophy, and he thought the best way to achieve such a magnanimous goal would be to convey those concepts, pertaining to the written language, through a gestural-visual channel, and hopefully they would all “understand”. He called these signs signes méthodiques, translated as methodical signs. MCLs paved the way for the proliferation of other signed oral languages. The degrading thing is that interpreters started to use these unnatural forms of sign language in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and continued to do so even

32 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

for a considerable part of the twentieth century, to communicate with the Deaf community (Woodward & Allen, 1988). In conclusion, MCLs, also known as SOLs, attempt at representing, word-forword, the written form of any given spoken language, thus they need to develop, and create, an enormous number of new signs, especially for all those grammatical signifiers that would be rendered with different grammatical categorizations in natural sign languages. Most of the times, the core lexicon is taken from already existing signs, and then ad hoc grammatical signs are added for words and word endings that don’t exist in natural sign languages. Lacking the naturality of sign languages, MCLs require special ability in finger spelling and lip reading, which is also a complement of the newly created lexicon, and which will be further explored in the next section.

2.7 Lip Reading Lip reading, also known as speech reading, is an acquired skill which enables Deaf people, with hearing aids, to enhance their understanding of what is being said by reading the lips, making out the phonemes uttered according to the position of the lips, face, and tongue of the interlocutor. In everyday communication, lip reading is a very common, and often subconscious, phenomenon. Whenever our language communication seems obstructed by any outside factor, lip reading can somehow enhance it. This phenomenon is analyzed by McGurk and MacDonald (1976) in their groundbreaking article “Hearing lips and seeing voices.” The two scholars discovered the so-called McGurk effect by accident when McGurk and his research assistant, MacDonald, asked a technician to dub a video with a different phoneme from the one spoken while conducting a study on how infants perceive language at different developmental stages. When the video was played back, both researchers heard a third phoneme rather than the one spoken or mouthed in the video. Basically, the McGurk effect is a perceptual phenomenon that demonstrates an interaction between hearing and vision in speech perception. The illusion occurs when the auditory component of one sound is paired with the visual component of another sound, leading to the perception of a third sound (Nath & Beauchamp, 2011). Regrettably, though, lip reading is not a panacea, or the answer to all problems, because most languages do not pronounce all phonemes of a word. Moreover, some languages, like Chinese, are very rich in homophones (each of two or more words having the same pronunciation but different meanings, origins, or

Taiwan Sign Language | 33 graphic form). According to some Deaf people that I interviewed, whose native language is TSL, lip reading is not a very efficient information retrieval mechanism, because in Chinese (as well as in Taiwanese Hokkien) it is extremely difficult to retrieve each syllable uttered in a sentence just by looking at the interlocutor’s lips. Furthermore, Chinese is a tonal language, which means that every word varies in its meaning according to the tone used. Without any hearing aid, lip reading is practically impossible, because the Chinese tones cannot be conveyed visually, plus many similar-looking consonants, like all the alveolar ones, cannot be clearly distinguished. Other difficulties include the fact that not everyone positions the lips equally when speaking, not to mention the factor of speech velocity. According to my interviewees, most people are not inclined to repeat what they have already said; therefore, Deaf people end up losing information and this may lead to misinterpretations of the message. An example in the English language is given by Henry Kisor (1991), who titled his book What’s That Pig Outdoors?: A Memoir of Deafness in reference to mishearing the question “What’s that big loud noise?” He used this example in the book to discuss the shortcomings of lip reading. Lip reading may be more efficient if combined with cued speech; one of the arguments in favor of the use of cued speech is that it helps develop lip reading skills that may be useful even when cues are absent, that is, when communicating with non-Deaf, non-hard of hearing people. Lip reading has been largely used in the oralist school, that is, in the education of Deaf students through oral language, which is a phenomenon known as oralism, and which has been the major cause of the slow recognition of natural sign languages within Deaf communities around the world and the reason underlying the slow “evolution” journey of natural sign languages toward linguistic dignity. Indeed, the education of the Deaf has always consisted of two main approaches: manualism and oralism. The first one is the education of Deaf students using their native sign language and oralism is the education of Deaf students using oral language. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, these two philosophies have been on opposing sides of a heated debate that continues to this day, although many modern Deaf educational facilities attempt to integrate both approaches. In general, oralism has traditionally been perceived, erroneously, as the factor which could have helped Deaf people move along the “evolution ladder”, from their hands up to their mouth, as it were. Given the wide applications of this pedagogic method, and the negative consequences it has had on the mental and

34 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

linguistic healthy development of many Deaf people, it seems opportune to further analyze this pedagogical approach in the next section.

2.8 Oralism Oralism is the education of Deaf students through oral language by using lip reading, cued speech, and mimicking the mouth shapes and breathing patterns of speech, instead of using sign language. In the course of history, many people have opposed the oralist tradition because it was perceived as the dark ages for Deaf education (Winefield, 1987). Leaders of the manualist movement, including Edward M. Gallaudet, argued against the teaching of oralism because it restricted the ability of Deaf students to communicate in their native language, namely sign language. Apart from the personal beliefs of scholars and people supporting the manualist or oralist tradition, one should notice that the method of communication used can affect the social and educational aspects of a Deaf individual’s life (Schirmer, 2000). It is a choice which will inevitably influence the Deaf person’s existence; hence, it has to be taken seriously. The oralist method bans any residual form of sign language or finger spelling; it is all based on facial expressions, body language, residual (remaining) hearing, speech reading, and speech to communicate, which means that it will take a considerably long time (if ever) for the Deaf person to master all these techniques. The oralist school seems to be associated with the Aristotelian philosophy according to which “Deaf individuals could not reason because they could not talk.” It would seem as if the ability to talk would elevate Deaf people up the “evolution ladder”. Oralism became widely used in the mid-1500s when a Spanish monk, Ponce de Leon, began to educate Deaf students through oral communication for religious purposes. Supporters of oralism believe it is the only way for Deaf people to be fully integrated within the society and the education system they live in. In other words, oralists choose to select a communication option that will allow Deaf individuals to excel in education and conform to the societal norm(s). According to some researchers, like Schwartz (1996) and Stone (1997), the oral communication method provides benefits both in education and assimilation and, because of their fundamental values, oralists declare it is thus the most beneficial and most suitable communication method for Deaf individuals.

Taiwan Sign Language | 35 On the other hand, those who support sign language believe that the feeling of belonging to a culture is very important from a socio-emotional point of view. They also claim that it is a way to exercise human rights, insofar as sign language is perceived as the native language of the Deaf community; thus, they have the right to use their own natural native language. I personally believe that in medio stat virtus, that is, Deaf people have the sacred right to use their own native language. This goes without saying. However, I believe it is also important for Deaf signers to grow accustomed to techniques such as lip reading, to feel more integrated within the society, because, regrettably, not always will they encounter people who can (or are willing to) sign or will be able to benefit from the service of an interpreter. The most crucial issue is that Deaf people should enjoy the right to freely use their own native language. A similar dichotomic debate goes on within sign language itself, namely between grammar sign language vs. natural sign language, which is the last step toward the full acceptance and recognition of natural sign languages and their linguistic dignity. The next section sets out to explore the main differences between grammar sign language, also known as signed Chinese in the case of TSL, and natural sign language.

2.9 Signed Chinese vs. Natural Sign Language In a recent international handbook published by Pfau et al. (2011), the authors present an interesting historical perspective on sign language linguistics. Over the past 50 years, research has proven that sign languages are independent natural languages with well-formed and complex grammatical systems, no less compact and developed than those of spoken languages. Simply put, natural languages exist in two distinct modalities, the visual-manual modality of sign languages and the auditory-oral modality of spoken languages. From a diachronic standpoint, the history of research in signed language linguistics can be divided into three different periods. In the first, researchers focused on the underlying identity between spoken and signed languages. Determined and undeterred to prove the linguistic status of sign languages against what most people believed to be only rough and underdeveloped pantomime and gestures, early sign linguists de-emphasized the role of iconicity in sign languages. The sign language most investigated in this period was ASL. As a consequence, there was little typological research.

36 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

The second phase began in the 1980s. Linguists and researchers started investigating the issue of modality along with similarities and differences between sign(ed) and spoken languages. Their aim was mainly to analyze the influence of modality on linguistic structure, in modality-specific properties of signed and spoken languages, and in modality-independent linguistic universals as well as psycho- and neurolinguistic processes and representations. Starting from the observation that sign languages seem to be typologically more homogeneous than spoken languages, many grammatical properties of sign languages were related to specific properties of the visual-manual modality. However, in the first two phases, that is, the early and modern period, research mainly focused on the comparison of sign(ed) and spoken languages, while cross-linguistic studies on sign languages were quite rare. Once non-Western sign languages began to be studied, it became clear that sign languages show more variation than originally predicted. This third phase, which started in the late 1990s and is known as the postmodern period, approached sign language typology more seriously. Today, we can observe an increasing interest in comparative and experimental studies on sign languages at all linguistic levels, and of less studied (Western and non-Western) sign languages. TSL, just like any other sign language, can be divided into manual sign language (MSL), a.k.a manually coded language (signed Chinese), and natural sign language (NSL). While MSL can be defined quite accurately, with several renowned major approaches, it seems more problematic to define with the same accuracy the properties of NSLs. MSLs are representations of spoken languages in a gestural-visual form. In other words, they can be defined as a “sign language” version of spoken l­ anguages (cf. 2.6). These languages are not natural, insofar as they were “­invented” or created by hearing people and strictly follow the grammar of the written form of spoken languages. They have not evolved naturally in Deaf communities. In the past, MSLs were mainly used in Deaf education, thus causing a major trauma in the development of Deaf children’s native language, and by past generations’ sign language interpreters. It goes beyond the purpose of the present research monograph to provide a historical excursus of the genesis and development of MCLs as well as delving into the controversial issues between the French oralist school, back in Épée’s time, and their controversies with the manually coded language system. Readers can refer to 2.6 for a more detailed description. ­Suffice it to say that the emerging recognition of sign languages in recent times has curbed the growth of MCLs, and, in many places, interpreting and educational services now favor the use of the NSLs of the Deaf community. As far as

Taiwan Sign Language | 37 TSL is concerned, the situation is slightly different for historical and geographic reasons. Languages, both signed and oral, are alive, thus they change in time. As previously mentioned, TSL is closer to JSL than to CSL for historical reasons. When Taiwan was occupied by the Japanese, they brought along their language, both spoken and signed. In Taiwan Mandarin Chinese, especially in the elderly generations, these traits are still present. The same happened with signed languages. However, later on, in 1973 according to a local sign language interpreter that I interviewed, the national government attempted to unify all the different types of signed languages on the island of Taiwan. Back then, the two most renowned schools were in Taipei and Tainan. Officials and linguists decided to preserve the characteristics from both schools and to fuse them together with MCL traits. In other words, the two systems, NSL vs. MSL, started melting after 1973, so that nowadays it seems difficult (if not impossible) to separate one from the other in a linguistically purist way. According to another informant, this fusion is irretrievable to the extent that some first-generation interpreters are “too” natural, that is, they use a sign language that young Deaf generations are no longer familiar with, as proven by our intergenerational experiment, previously reported.

2.10 Concluding Remarks The crucial aspect during any interpretation task is that the message comes across to the Deaf interlocutor/evaluator flawlessly, irrespective of whether during an exam a candidate uses only natural signs or a mixture of natural and manual. This is also the way interpreters cope with lexical variations. If one had to find some factors which altogether could define the main properties of NSLs as opposed to MSLs, I would say that the following traits could be taken into consideration: word order, linear structure vs. simultaneous structure, and prominence of facial expressions. The list is not meant to be exhaustive. The aforementioned factors can be defined as the conditio sine qua non for the “naturality of sign.” (cf. 6.4.3) In linguistic typology, word order defines the sentence structure. If a language is S-V-O, it means that the subject comes first, the verb second, and the object third. Languages may be classified according to the dominant sequence of these elements. Though important in classifying, word order does not seem to be the most crucial factor in the definition of NSLs, and more specifically in defining

38 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

natural TSL, insofar as TSL seems to be more flexible and elastic according to which element of the sentence is emphasized by the signer and also because where there is agreement, word order does not seem as rigid. On the other hand, the linear vs. simultaneous structure seems to be much more defining. NSLs, including TSL, make ample use of the space around the body and surrounding the hands, especially for locative verbs and comparison structures. For instance, if one signs the sentence “the cat eats the mouse” word by word (sign by sign), it appears to be an obvious manual representation of the concept to be conveyed, because in NSL both elements (subject and object) would be signed in different collocations in the space surrounding the signer, and the verb would proceed from the agent toward the patient in a “3D pattern.” This seems to be quite natural, because from a cognitive point of view, grammar may be defined as the attempt to describe the interaction of the participants; therefore, it seems rational to first describe who the participants are, so that the verb is located in the last place. The third factor is facial expressions, which convey the grammatical parts of speech. All these elements, which are to be found in every NSL, will be resumed in the fifth chapter, namely the one dedicated to assessing and evaluating TSL interpreting. The issues presented in this section will be further emphasized in the TSL interpreting evaluation chapter by underlining the fact that sometimes the text used during the certification exams is Signed Chinese and not NSL.Therefore, this seems to complicate the TSL interpreting evaluation process even more. The present chapter was an introduction to TSL. Theoretical and pragmatic issues related to TSL interpreting will be introduced and explored in the next chapter.

Notes 1. An adstratum or adstrate (plural: adstrata or adstrates) refers to a language which is equal in prestige to another. 2. When one language succeeds another, the former is termed the superstratum and the latter the substratum. 3. Signs are always capitalized. 4. The official system to transcribe Chinese characters into Latin script in the People’s Republic of China. 5. In sociolinguistics, the term diglossia refers to a situation in which two dialects or usually closely related languages are used by a single language community. In addition to the community’s everyday or vernacular language variety (labeled “L” or “low” variety), a second, highly codified variety (labeled “H” or “high”) is used in certain

Taiwan Sign Language | 39 situations such as literature, formal education, or other specific settings, but not used for ordinary conversation. In other words, diglossia is a relatively stable linguistic situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the language (which may include standard or regional standards), there is a divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, either of an earlier period or in another speech community, which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by any section of the community for ordinary conversation (Ferguson, 1959). 6. It goes without saying that if the interpreter knows the variant used by the signer, then no problem will arise. My goal was to find out what strategies interpreters actually use when they have never encountered a specific variant before. 7. For further information regarding the origins of human communication, readers can refer to Tomasello (2008). 8. An asterisk indicates an ungrammatical sentence.

References Ball, H. (1927). Flight out of time: A dada diary (German ed.). Basic Books. Batterbury, S.C.E. (2012). Language justice for sign language peoples: The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Language Policy, 11(3), 253–272. Bauman, D. (2008). Open your eyes: Deaf studies talking. University of Minnesota Press. Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., Fink, G.R., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Action observation activates premotor and parietal area in a somatotopic manner: An fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 400–404. Canlas, L. (2006). Laurent Clerc: Apostle to the deaf people of the New World. The Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University. Chiu, Y.-H. (2006). The role of iconicity in sign language processing: Evidence from Taiwan Sign Language (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). National Yang-Ming University. Corballis, M.C. (2002). Did language evolve from manual gestures? In A. Wray (Ed.), The transition to language (pp. 161–179). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Pavesi, G., & Rizzolatti, G. (1995). Motor facilitation during action observation: A magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 73, 2608–2611. Ferguson, C. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325–340. Fischer, S., & Gong, Q. (2010). Variation in East Asian sign language structures. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge Language Surveys, pp. 499–518). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119(2), 593–609. Grezes, J., Armony, J.L., Rowe, J., & Passingham, R.E. (2003). Activations related to “mirror” and “canonical” neurons in the human brain: An fMRI study. Neuroimage, 18, 928–937.

40 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Harris, R. (1988). Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein. How to Play Games with Words. London and New York: Routledge. Jenkins, R., & Bowen, L. (1994). Facilitating development of preliterate children’s phonological abilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 14(2), 26–39. Kegl, J., Senghas, A., & Coppola, M. (1998). Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. In M. DeGraff (Ed.), Language creation and change: Creolization, diachrony and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kimura, D. (1993). Neuromotor mechanisms in human communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kisor, H. (1991). What’s that pig outdoors?: A Memoir of deafness. Large Print. Kluwin, T. (1981). The grammaticality of manual representation of English in classroom settings. American Annals of the Deaf, 126, 417–421. Knight, C. (1998). Ritual/speech coevolution; a solution to the problem of deception. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy & C. Knight (eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language: social and cognitive bases (pp. pp. 68–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knight, C. (2000). Play as precursor of phonology and syntax. In C. Knight, M. Studdert-Kennedy & J. R. Hurford (eds.), The evolutionary emergence of language: social function and the origin of linguistic form (pp. 99–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knight, C. (2008a). Language co-evolved with the rule of law. Mind and Society, 7(1), 109–128. Knight, C. (2008b). “Honest fakes” and language origins. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15(10–11), 236–48 Kohler, E., Keysers, C., Umilta, M.A., Fogassi, L., Gallese, C., & Rizzolatti, G. (2002). Hearing sounds, understanding actions: Action representation in mirror neurons. Science, 297, 846–848. Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I.Q. (2003). Fundamentals of human neuropsychology (5th ed.). Worth Publishers. Maeda, F., Kleiner-Fisman, G., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2002). Motor facilitation while observing hand actions: Specificity of the effect and role of observer’s orientation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 87, 1329–1335. Marmor, G., & Pettito, L. (1979). Simultaneous communication in the classroom: How well is English grammar represented? Sign Language Studies, 23, 99–136. McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices, Nature, 264(5588), 746–748. Myers, J., & Tai, J. (Eds.). (2005). Taiwan Sign Language and beyond. Special issue of language and linguistics. Taiwan Institute for the Humanities National Chung Cheng University. Nath, A.R., & Beauchamp, M.S. (2011). A neural basis for interindividual differences in the McGurk effect, a multisensory speech illusion. NeuroImage, 59(1), 781–787. Newman, A.J., Bavelier, D., & Corina, D. (2002). A critical period for right hemisphere recruitment in American Sign Language processing. Nature Neuroscience, 5(1), 76–80. Pfau, R., Steinback, M., & Woll, B. (2011). Sign language: An international handbook. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Premack, D., & Premack, A.J. (1983). The mind of an ape. W.W. Norton.

Taiwan Sign Language | 41 Rizzolatti, G., & Arbib, M.A. (1998). Language within our grasp. Trends in Neuroscience, 21, 188–194. Schirmer, B.R. (2000). Language and literacy development in children who are deaf (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Schwartz, S. (1996). Choices in deafness: A parent’s guide to communication options (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House. Smith, W. (2005). Taiwan Sign Language research: An historical overview. In J. Myers & J. Tai (Eds.), Taiwan Sign Language. Special Issue of Language and Linguistics, 6(2), 187–215. Stone, P. (1997). The art of teaching: Children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Council for Exceptional Children. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. Tammasaeng, M. (1986). The effects of cued speech upon tonal perception of the Thai language by hearing impaired children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University. Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press. Winefield, R. (1987). Never the Twain shall meet. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Wise, S.M. (2003). Drawing the line: Science and the case for animal rights. New York: Basic Books. Woodwar, J., & Allen, T. (1988). Classroom use of artificial sign systems by teachers. Sign Language Studies, 61, 405–418.

3

TSL Interpreting

Signs are to eyes what words are to ears.

Ken Glickman (Deaf Proverbs Book Writer)

In the previous chapter, I introduced some features of Taiwan Sign Language (TSL), including an analysis of the diachronic and diatopic variation of TSL. This was a necessary premise before exploring some theoretical aspects and pragmatic issues related to TSL interpreting. The present chapter focuses on TSL interpreting. First, information on TSL interpreting and its history in Taiwan will be provided for the benefit of the reader.

3.1 TSL Interpreting History The main task of sign language interpreters is to help Deaf people communicate with hearing people and vice versa. Sign language interpreters intercept telephone calls and other methods of communication, translating (interpreting) spoken language into sign language or into a written speech. However, sign language interpreting is a relatively new phenomenon, as sign languages have gone through a process of standardization over the last two

44 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

centuries and all different types of technology for Deaf communication have evolved gradually, yet exponentially. In Italy and France, for example, standardized sign language developed as early as the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In America, a standardized sign language emerged when French signer Laurent Clerc brought Old French Sign Language to the United States in the 1800s (cf. 2.4). This language evolved from French Sign Language (FSL) to become a different, independent, new sign language, which today is known as American Sign Language (ASL) (Gallaudet, 1888, 2012). These processes of sign language standardization paved the road for future interpreters. In Taiwan, a similar process of standardization began in 1895–1945, during Japanese rule, when the first schools for the Deaf were founded. Prior to that date, there must have been a local variety of TSL that indigenous Deaf people used; however, regrettably, not much is known of the pre-Japanese occupation period. Some of the first sign language interpreters were operators at telecommunications relay services, because they were the ones who prompted the required technologies. They intercepted phone calls and read the messages that the Deaf typed to their hearing friends on text telephones (TTY) or telecommunications devices for the Deaf (TTD). These rudimentary forms of equipment were telephones for the Deaf, invented in the 1960s, that included keyboards, allowing Deaf individuals to type messages and send them over telephone wires. Early interpreters in the late 1900s helped hearing people, who did not own TTYs or TTDs, by interpreting these typed messages into spoken language, and vice versa. With the advent of the second millennium, in 2002, the first national video relay service for the Deaf was launched. This service allowed Deaf individuals to sign to an interpreter using a web camera, a huge improvement on previous TTYs and TTDs as video relay allowed Deaf people to use ASL to communicate. The interpreter then translated ASL into English for the hearing person on the other end of the line. Interpreters fluent in Spanish were also able to translate from ASL into Spanish, which is known as cross-interpreting, that is to say interpreting from a foreign language into another foreign language. An important aspect of sign language interpreting has always been the work environment. Hence, over the last few decades researchers have been studying the work environment of sign language interpreters to improve it. In 2008, a study by the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) revealed that sign language interpreting causes more physical stress than assembly line work, such as carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis. When interpreters become mentally stressed, there is a higher risk of injury as wrist movements increase in acceleration and velocity by 15%–19% (Qin et al., 2008).

TSL Interpreting | 45 The aforementioned reasons contribute to the main argument proposed in the present book, that is to say the efforts (both physical and psychological) of sign language interpreters are by no means inferior to spoken language interpreters, and this should be recognized by the competent authorities regulating sign language interpreters’ work conditions. As interpreters are needed to keep a connection with the Deaf community, RIT professor and researcher Matthew Marshall encouraged research to enhance the ergonomics of sign language interpreting to keep interpreters working without injury (Qin et al., 2008). Nowadays, sign language interpreters are often freelancers working part-time. In the United States, interpreters may gain certification from the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) and the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID). As video relay services become increasingly popular, the demand for ASL interpreters is to increase even more, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In Taiwan, sign language interpreters may gain certification from ad hoc institutions which are supervised by the Chinese National Association of the Deaf (CNAD). According to a professional interpreter that I interviewed, in Taiwan there is no professional school or training institute, let alone any department affiliated with a university, where TSL interpreting is officially taught; the only courses offered are presently set up and organized by the Taipei City Bureau of Labor Affairs. According to the same source, the first TSL Interpreting Certificate Exam was organized by the Social Affairs Bureau in the Department of Social Welfare of the Taipei City Government. At present, these certifications are organized by the same body which regulates TSL courses offered in Taiwan, that is, the aforementioned Bureau of Labor Affairs. Over the past 10 years, apart from offering some courses in TSL, linguists and sign language interpreters have been working very hard to compile TSL interpreting training materials. The ultimate goal is to train to-be interpreters in learning as many signs as possible; however, initially, training materials were mainly a collection of signs compiled for the reader to learn, memorize, and remember. The Bureau of Labor Affairs, which is the entity regulating and compiling these materials, mainly wanted to help the Deaf in their career by providing an opportunity to have interpreters available. Therefore, together with the help of specialists, linguists, and sign language interpreters, the first volume was compiled in 2001. This first training book was entitled the Taipei City Sign Language Interpreting Training Material—First Volume (or in Chinese 臺北市手語翻譯培訓教材Táiběi shì shǒuyǔ fānyì péixùn jiàocái). The Council hoped that in time the communication stress that overwhelmed the Deaf community and the obstacles they faced could be relieved thanks to the training of professional figures: TSL interpreters.

46 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

These training materials evolved, becoming increasingly complete and accurate. Thanks to years of teaching and experience, more books were compiled including signs etymology, the history of the development of TSL, issues regarding the culture of the Deaf community, and their language, detailed explanations of TSL grammar, important points in translation, and some parallels (both cultural and linguistic) between spoken languages and signed languages. At the same time, in order to increase the efficiency and expediency of sign language hands position and movement learning, the Bureau compiled the first revised edition of the training material in 1996. Thanks to digital technology, the book was accompanied by modern digital instruments, like CD-ROMs and other forms of equipment to enhance the learning process. Translations of brief speeches or longer paragraphs were also included as a way to illustrate grammar more easily. The first courses in interpreting were provided at the beginning of the 1990s. “A concentrated effort was undertaken by a number of different groups to provide training to those individuals who desired to become sign language interpreters, for which there was and still is a pressing need” (Smith, 2005, p. 14). In 1994, the CNAD compiled the first book of student reflections at the end of one semester of interpreting training. The opening words of the book, titled Rescue our Mother Language—Natural Sign Language were written by Yushan Ku, the then president of the association. Ku wanted Taiwan Natural Sign Language, that is, the language naturally spoken by the Deaf community in Taiwan, to be recognized as an official minority language, just like all the other aboriginal languages that are considered minority languages in Taiwan and which enjoy their own status and linguistic dignity. Smith’s (2005) main critic toward the publications edited by the government thus far was the fact that they were compiled by hearers, that is to say by non-native users of TSL. Later on, in 1997 and 1999, four more books were published by Yuping Chao (Chao 1997a, b, c; 1999); they were the result of the joint efforts of a team guided by a Deaf individual, Chao himself. The book was divided into four volumes. Chao has also worked for the government, with hearing people in the Ministry of Education to aid in the development of signs for instructional purposes and has also served as president of the CNAD. These four volumes are interesting because they show an evolution of the teaching methods in sign language pedagogy. The first three are basically an accumulation of signs presented in line drawings and accompanied by Chinese and English translations, description of the signs, cultural and grammatical information, sign language equivalents of Chinese idioms, and so forth (Smith, 2005). The fourth one is a little more peculiar because the signs are presented with actual photographs of the signers. Furthermore, the same

TSL Interpreting | 47 volume is also enriched by some paragraphs on the history of sign language in general, the history of TSL, TSL compound signs, TSL sentence structure, name signs and Deaf culture. Chao also compiled other books in 1999 and attempted at compiling the first sign language book for children by presenting basic signs accompanied by cartoon drawings suggestive of the meaning of each sign. Starting in those years, official courses in TSL interpreting or, generally speaking, TSL interpreting training programs, were sponsored by the Taipei City Government’s Bureau of Labor Affairs. The people who organized these courses, along with external coordinators like Wayne Smith did in 1998 (Smith, 2005), developed a series of lessons that were later published in two volumes by the Bureau of Labor Affairs of the Taipei City Government under the title Sign Language Translation Training (in Chinese 手語翻譯培訓教材 Shǒuyǔ fānyì péixùn jiàocái) in 2001 and 2002. The CD-ROMs that came along not only presented the signs and conversations but also numerous interpreting exercises, namely practice in signto-voice and voice-to-sign interpreting. Over the last decade, the courses, which are still offered by the Bureau of Labor Affairs, have been multiplying given the increased need for professional interpreters both in the private market and in the sector of volunteers, as will be mentioned later in the present chapter. On a final note, training schools are also a crucial aspect in raising to-be interpreters’ awareness on the sign language interpreting code of ethics, which all interpreters should abide by. The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) in the USA stipulates that all sign language interpreters should abide by the following seven tenets:

(a) Interpreters adhere to standards of confidential communication. (b) Interpreters possess the professional skills and knowledge required for the specific interpreting situation. (c) Interpreters conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to the specific interpreting situation. (d) Interpreters demonstrate respect for consumers. (e) Interpreters demonstrate respect for colleagues, interns, and students of the profession. (f ) Interpreters maintain ethical business practices. (g) Interpreters engage in professional development.

Given the relatively recent development of TSL interpreting training and teaching in Taiwan, most courses only offer a linguistic preparation without

48 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

properly exploring matters related to ethical issues and best practices. In Taiwan, the newly founded Taiwanese Association of Sign Language Interpreters (TASLI) emphasizes that Taiwan needs to develop a high standard of professional ethics for sign language interpreters to meet the expectation of the deaf community and general population. The establishment of professional and ethical standards will build the professional image of honesty, impartiality, and confidentiality for sign language interpreters. In summary, we can see that the history of TSL interpreting teaching is quite recent in Taiwan, as the first books were compiled mainly over the last decade, along with the first courses offered to the public. In earlier times, people used to learn TSL with their siblings or relatives, if they happened to live in a Deaf environment, or with friends, and would later increase their knowledge of sign language and their skills on the field, that is, while working. It seems opportune to notice that in spite of the admirable efforts by the Bureau of Labor Affairs, and more recently by the TASLI, to popularize TSL and TSL interpreting courses and offer classes on a broad scale, there has not been a professional recognition which could go beyond the certification and root its essence in human consciousness as well as within institutions’ regulations. Indeed, according to some interviews and surveys conducted for the present book, most of the professional interpreters agree on the fact that their pay does not seem to be “up to the job” or, I would like to add, on a par with their colleagues interpreting between two spoken languages. I will focus on these and other related aspects in the next section.

3.2 Status Quo of TSL Interpreters A corpus of TSL interpreters was surveyed to ensure whether the apparent precarious and unprofessional conditions actually reflect the reality. Bimodal interpreters should share the same professional dignity and self-awareness as verbal interpreters. In spite of the fact that TSL is a natural language and that the neurobiological efforts required to carry out the interpreting task, both verbal and signed, are equal, the realistic picture seems to be quite different. I decided to interview several sign language interpreters to inquire on the reality of the market and on their status quo. Surprisingly, I discovered a different situation compared to spoken language interpreters. According to one of my sources, sign language interpreters, unlike spoken language interpreters, are paid by the hour and not per working day. According to my interviewee, sign language

TSL Interpreting | 49 interpreters approximately receive an amount which does not exceed NT$1600 per hour (approximately 53 U.S. dollars), which is in line with the data presented in Table 1. At times, according to the importance of the event, sign language interpreters are not paid by the hour, albeit rarely. For instance, my source said that once she received NT$5000 for a whole session (two hours) because the event was considered of the utmost importance; otherwise, under normal circumstances, the retribution is usually hourly. According to other respondents, most of the time the retribution does not exceed NT$1000 per hour (around 33 U.S. dollars). One can infer that TSL interpreters are not paid properly and their remuneration differs from city to city according to the local regulations and local budget restrictions. According to the official website of the World Association of Sign Language Interpreters (WASLI), the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) decided, by an overwhelming majority at the AIIC general assembly held in Buenos Aires in 2012, to open its doors to sign language conference interpreters, as a result of the close cooperation and fruitful discussions between AIIC and WASLI as well as the European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters (EFSLI). AIIC represents more than 3,000 conference interpreters worldwide. On the other hand, WASLI and EFSLI promote the professional interests of sign language interpreters. The three associations share professional concerns such as ethics, advocacy, working conditions, recognition, training, and professional development. The main goal is to put sign languages on an equal footing with spoken languages within the world of conference interpreting, including working hours, working environment, and retribution, which purportedly is not respected for TSL interpreting. In conclusion, the status quo of TSL interpreters can be summed up in two words: professional volunteers. The word “volunteers” emphasizes the almost gratuitous nature of their work, because their retribution does not seem to be enough compared to their fellow spoken language interpreters. At times, though, as it is emphasized in the next section, professional sign language interpreters really work for free. In such cases, the definition of “professional volunteers” is intended literally.

3.3 Professional Volunteers Ju-Chun Wei, Chairman of the Preparatory Committee for the Taiwanese Association of Sign Language Interpreters (TASLI) in a speech delivered on March 18, 2017 said

50 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

“In the early time, Taiwan Sign Language was regarded as a volunteer or a teacher. It means that you should have a love of Taiwan Sign Language interpreting without asking for money. Later, it gradually have the hourly charges. We are sometimes asked for a donation and said “Money Grubber”. In fact, we love Taiwan Sign Language with the heartfelt heart also the expectation in serving Deaf people. This is why we continue to strive for the excellence in Taiwan Sign Language and professional interpretation skills.”1 (The English translation is not mine.)

The English translation of this speech can be retrieved on TASLI’s official website. The English translation is not grammatically correct. However, being the official translation, I decided not to edit or improve it, because this is how it is presented on the website. What is important is the message conveyed: that is to say, the volunteering nature of the first professional sign language interpreters in Taiwan some thirty years ago. According to the TASLI, as of 2017, there were 375 trained and certified TSL interpreters. However, no organization or association (prior to TASLI) stood up for sign language interpreters by providing mutual support and cooperative trainings aimed at enhancing the professional knowledge and the development of the sign language interpretation in an environment and with a far-reaching vision. Regrettably, not much has changed over the last few decades. According to one of my sources, in some Taiwanese cities, like Chiayi and Taidung, there are only a few financed (licensed) interpreters; all the others allegedly orbit around these people. In other words, there should be a radical change at the level of the system. There are also other people who interpret without having a license, for a plethora of reasons: for instance, they grew up in a Deaf family and, knowing how to sign, they might feel entitled to interpret. It will be even harder for those with a license to find a job as legitimate interpreters under these circumstances. Nowadays, sign language interpreters acting as volunteers are extremely common, way too common. They are to be found in many different instances. Even within the CNAD there are volunteering teams. The problem does not lie within these teams; on the contrary they do a commendable and praiseworthy job. The problem lies within the lack of adequate financial subsidies on the part of the government or other ad hoc institutions. The Deaf cannot necessarily afford an interpreter and most of the times the financial support they receive is not enough. Another important issue is the fact that there is no subsidy the Deaf can apply for when it comes to personal and private matters, therefore in these situations the Deaf have no other choice but to resort to volunteers, thus indirectly demoting and decreasing the professional status and dignity of the whole category. At times,

TSL Interpreting | 51 being a “volunteer” is also necessary to maintain the work relationship, considering the fact that oftentimes Deaf people like to “recruit” the same interpreter with which a certain form of trust and confidence has been built or will be established. The public financing varies from city to city. In Chiayi for example, according to my sources, the local governmental institution allegedly officially pays only one licensed interpreter, who has a team of people who collaborate with him. In Taipei city, the situation is slightly different because it is a major metropolis; therefore, it requires a greater number of interpreters. Most private matters are to be handled directly between the Deaf person, who becomes the client, and the interpreter. Private matters include domestic controversies, acquiring things, handling bureaucratic procedures at the bank, funerals, weddings, and so on. Generally speaking, most associations have teams of volunteering sign language interpreters who provide their service for those people who are not entitled to apply for an interpreter through governmental financial aids. These people go to the aforementioned associations and inquire on the possibility of benefiting from this service, or at times the Deaf simply resort to personal friends who happen to be professional interpreters or simply hearing people who can sign. This could have negative repercussions because just like a person with two hands is not necessarily a pianist, a hearing person who can sign is not necessarily able to interpret, to unveil all the cultural, semantic and pragmatic nuances found in the original signed speech or the subtle meanings which ought to be rendered in the target spoken speech.

3.4 Conclusion Sign language interpreters are professional figures who cannot improvise their job. Interpreters, irrespective of the modality, can carry out their task only after a long period of training where they learn all the necessary skills and techniques required in their profession. Another important aspect of this process is to raise the awareness of to-be interpreters about the issue of quality in interpreting. Translating, or interpreting for that matter, means providing a service for a client, or in general for a person who needs it. This service, according to the code of ethics, ought to be as accurate and complete as possible, which is also a way of showing respect to the client. Interpreters should indeed possess the professional skills and knowledge required for the specific interpreting situation. According to one of the guiding principles of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), interpreters are expected to stay abreast of evolving language use

52 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

and trends in the profession of interpreting as well as in the Deaf community culture. Interpreters accept assignments using discretion with regard to skill, communication mode, setting and consumer needs, and they also possess knowledge of Deaf culture and deafness-related resources. Consumer needs and consumer expectations are two important aspects of the issue of quality and interpreting evaluation, because they are the targets and the beneficiaries of the service; therefore, their judgment is of the utmost importance. In order to guarantee the quality of their performance, interpreters should always assess consumer needs and the interpreting situation prior to and during the assignment and adjust as required. Moreover, they should render the message faithfully by conveying the content and the spirit of what is being communicated, translating the message both at a semantic and pragmatic level, by using a type of language most readily understood by their clients, and correcting errors discreetly and expeditiously. In case of difficulties, they should request support (e.g., certified Deaf interpreters, team members, language facilitators) when needed to fully convey the message or to address exceptional communication challenges (e.g., cognitive disabilities, foreign sign language, emerging language ability, or lack of formal instruction or language). In order to provide a neutral service, interpreters should refrain from providing counsel, advice, or personal opinions. In other words, they should judiciously provide information or referral regarding available interpreting or community resources without infringing upon consumers’ rights. The issue of quality and evaluation in interpreting is crucial and it deserves to be further explored; hence, it will be treated separately in the sixth chapter, where our attention will focus on investigating assessment and evaluation parameters for TSL interpreting, with a special emphasis on the naturality issue.

Notes 1. http://taslifamily.org/?page_id=1043 (retrieved on August 16, 2020)

References Chao, Y. (Ed.). (1997a). Shouyu Da Shi [Sign language master] (Vol. 1). Taipei: Xiandai Jingdian Wenhua. Chao, Y. (Ed.). (1997b). Shouyu Da Shi [Sign language master] (Vol. 2). Taipei: Xiandai Jingdian Wenhua.

TSL Interpreting | 53 Chao, Y. (Ed.). (1997c). Shouyu Da Shi [Sign language master] (Vol. 3). Taipei: Xiandai Jingdian Wenhua. Chao, Y. (Ed.). (1999). Shouyu Da Shi [Sign language master] (Vol. 4). Taipei: Xiandai Jingdian Wenhua. Gallaudet, E.M. (2012). Life of Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, founder of deaf-mute instruction in America (1st ed. 1888). Forgotten Books. Qin, J., Marshall, M., Mozrall, J., & Marschark, M. (2008). Effects of pace and stress on upper extremity kinematic responses in sign language interpreters. Ergonomics, 51(3). Smith, W. (2005). Taiwan Sign Language research: An historical overview. In J. Myers & J. Tai (Eds.), Taiwan Sign Language. Special Issue of Language and Linguistics, 6(2), 187–215.

4

Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting

All that is transitory is but a metaphor.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

4.1 Introduction The present research monograph focuses on several aspects pertaining to sign language, and more specifically TSL, interpreting, such as the issue of training and quality, the neurolinguistics studies which have proven that sign languages are natural languages, and the fact that sign language interpreting is not “easier” than verbal interpreting. Moreover, an experiment previously conducted by Gile (1989) was modified and adapted, and the findings of the study, which will be illustrated in the next chapter, seem to strengthen the tightrope hypothesis, according to which many errors and omissions (e/o’s) are not due to the intrinsic difficulty of the corresponding source-speech segments, but to the interpreters working close to processing capacity saturation which in Gile’s (1989, p. 153) words “makes them vulnerable to even small variations in the available processing capacity for each

56 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

interpreting component.” Another interesting aspect which emerged from the aforementioned study is the higher difficulty in rendering certain expressions in sign language because of the intrinsic explanatory need. These expressions comprise figurative speech and metaphors, one of the challenging areas in TSL interpreting, insofar as they are the hardest aspect to convey in the Deaf target language and culture. Metaphors are probably the most extensively used rhetorical device in everyday language, both at a conscious and subconscious level. The analysis of metaphors sheds light on many characteristics of a given culture, because rhetorical figures shape the way we perceive the world and, in turn, are molded by the world around us. Every language has a different set of metaphorical expressions and speakers may be more or less aware of them. However, notwithstanding the peculiar specificities within each given language and culture, some researchers have proposed the universality of metaphors as a mental process. According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980, p. 3) “metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system is fundamentally metaphorical in nature. […] Our concepts structure what we perceive, how we get around in the world, and how we relate to other people. Our conceptual system thus plays a central role in defining our everyday realities,” by way of using metaphors amongst other rhetorical devices. Sign(ed) languages, given their full and unanimously recognized status of natural languages, also make ample use of metaphors. There have been numerous studies on the use of metaphors in ASL. However, to my best knowledge, no book has been published on the same topic in TSL, although some researches on TSL iconicity have been published, as will be mentioned later. The present chapter1 aims at filling a gap in the literature, namely the analysis of metaphors in TSL, by providing real examples to support the analysis conducted herein. The issue of metaphors is relevant from a postmodern point of view because metaphors in sign languages are inextricably associated with the issue of iconicity which has been at the center of postmodern linguistics especially in the debate of spoken languages versus signed languages. The present chapter is divided into two sections: the first part provides a brief, non-exhaustive, introduction to the importance of “metaphors” as a rhetorical device from the Greek culture onwards. In the second part, the attention will focus on sign languages, their postmodern iconic nature, and in particular on TSL, and real examples of metaphors and figurative speech from TSL will be provided for the benefit of the reader.

Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting | 57

4.2 The Importance of Metaphors and Figurative Speech Metaphors play a key role in the way language shapes our everyday conceptual structures and their relationship with iconicity has been further emphasized in postmodern linguistics, which focuses on issues such as the relation between meaning and intention. The centrality of metaphors has also been highlighted by research in psycholinguistics and cognitive linguistics, according to which the relationship between language and the structure of our conceptual system can be explained by metaphorical relationships (Gibbs, 1994, 1996; Johnson, 1987; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Lakoff, 1987; to name just a few). One popular postmodern language trope is metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Lakoff, 1987) and as we can read in Lakoff and Johnson (1980, p. 3) “metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature; [that is to say] human thought processes are largely metaphorical. […] Our concepts structure what we perceive, how we get around in the world, and how we relate to other people. Our conceptual system thus plays a central role in defining our everyday realities.” MacCormac (1995, p. 2) remarks that “metaphors can operate as cognitive processes that offer new insights.” Metaphors can be defined in many different ways according to the perspective we decide to adopt. Generally speaking, they can be defined as a figure of speech which uses an image, a story or a tangible object to represent intangible things or abstract concepts. Metaphors may also be defined as the hypernym of other figures of speech that achieve their effects via association, comparison or resemblance, such as antithesis, hyperbole, metonymy, and simile. Lakoff and Johnson (1980), on the other hand, define conceptual metaphors as a postmodern principle of organization for the way in which we understand abstract concepts in terms of concrete concepts. In other words, a conceptual metaphor can be seen as “a mental mapping between two experiential domains; the target domain (the more abstract and less well understood concept) is structured […] by the source domain” (O’Brien, 1999, p. 160). More recent research has confirmed the importance of metaphors in our thought processes and of figurative language, in general, which is perceived as a reflection of creativity into the language and thought of the user (Marschark, 2005). Basically, as suggested by Wilcox (2000), we use metaphors to make sense of what

58 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

goes on around us. Signed languages, given their full and unanimously recognized status of natural languages, make ample use of metaphors, just like spoken languages. However, as duly mentioned by O’Brien (1999), all psycholinguistic research on conceptual metaphors has focused exclusively on spoken language. Some papers have investigated the role of conceptual metaphors in proverb understanding (Colston, 1995; Gibbs & Beitel, 1995; Gibbs, Colston, & Johnson, 1996), others the interpretation of euphemism and dysphemism (Pfaff, Gibbs, & Johnson, 1997), the processing of caused motion verbs (O’Brien, 1993), and people’s interpretation of poetry (Gibbs, 1996). However, no similar study has been conducted on sign languages in a systematic way. The purpose of this chapter is to fill a gap in the sign language literature insofar as, to my best knowledge, only some papers on the issue of iconicity in TSL have been published (Tai, 1993, 2005a, b), but no academic paper, let alone research monograph, has been written on the issue of metaphorical use in TSL. The present research was also motivated by the theoretical assumption according to which “metaphors and sign language structure are indissoluble: we can hardly find a level in the language where imagery does not play a part” (Woll, 1985, p. 603). This chapter is arbitrarily divided into two sections. First, our attention will focus on the historical development of the notion of metaphors from ancient times, by giving a brief diachronic literature review, and in the second section the focus will shift to sign languages, mainly TSL, by pointing out, for instance, that according to the context different strategies are used when interpreting metaphors into TSL. Some of the strategies include transfer mechanisms, clarification, localization, cultural adaptation, omission, and replacement (when a simile substitutes a metaphor or vice versa). See 4.6 for a detailed explanation. Before exploring the issue of iconicity and metaphors in TSL, let us shed some light on the crucial role that metaphors played in the narrative events for ancient people, such as Greeks and Sumerians, which underlines once again the universal character of metaphors, both in diatopic and diachronic terms, as a conceptual rhetorical device, even though its importance as a language trope has been mainly emphasized in postmodern language studies.

4.3 Diachronic Literature Review Metaphors have played a crucial role in mental conceptual processes since the Sumerian people.

Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting | 59 Beloved friend, swift stallion, wild deer, / leopard ranging in the wilderness— / Enkidu, my friend, swift stallion, wild deer, / leopard ranging in the wilderness— / together we crossed the mountains, together / we slaughtered the Bull of Heaven, we killed/Humbaba, who guarded the Cedar Forest— / O Enkidu, what is this sleep that has seized you,/that has darkened your face and stopped your breath?— Epic of Gilgamesh

As we can see from this narrative quotation (Mitchell, 2004), the friend is compared to a stallion, a wild deer, and a leopard to indicate that the speaker sees traits typical of these animals in his friend. The death of Enkidu is in turn described as a sleep, as something that seizes, as something that darkens one’s face, and as something that stops one’s breath. These are all metaphorical and metonymical expressions to describe something intangible, like death is. The Greeks also highly emphasized the importance of metaphors. In Cratylus, one of Plato’s dialogues, there is the distinction between primary names and secondary names, where the superiority of the metaphor is stated: Socrates: but if the primary names are to be ways of expressing things clearly, is there any better way of getting them to be such than by making each of them as much like the thing it is to express as possible? Or do you prefer the way proposed by Hermogenes and many others, who claim that names are conventional signs that express things to those who already knew the things before they established the conventions? Do you think that the correctness of names is conventional, so that it makes no difference whether we accept the present convention or adopt the opposite one, calling big what we now call small, and small what we now call big? Which of these two ways of getting names to express things do you prefer? Cratylus: a name that expresses a thing by being like it is in every way superior, Socrates, to one that is given by chance … Socrates: […] And even if usage is completely different from convention, still you must say that expressing something isn’t a matter of likeness but of usage, since usage, it seems, enables both like and unlike names to express things. Since we agree on these points, Cratylus, for I take your silence as a sign of agreement, both convention and usage must contribute something to expressing what we mean when we speak … I myself prefer the view that names should be as much like things as possible, but I fear that defending this view is like hauling a ship up a sticky ramp, as Hermogenes suggested, and that we have to make use of this worthless thing, convention, in the correctness of names. Plato, Cratylus, 433–35, trans. by John H. Cooper (Cooper and Hutchinson, 1997, pp. 149–51)

60 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

In ancient Greece, even before Plato, metaphors can be traced back to Aristotle who, in his Poetics (ca. 335 BC), defined “metaphor” as “the application of a strange term either transferred from the genus and applied to the species or from the species and applied to the genus, or from one species to another or else by analogy,”2 or as translated by Roberts and Bywater (1984) as “the application of an alien name by transference either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy, that is, proportion,” or again according to Halliwell’s (1987) translation “the application of a word that belongs to another thing: either from genus to species, species to genus, species to species, or by analogy.” Irrespective of whose translation we choose to adopt, the key aspect of a metaphor is a specific transference of a word from one context into another. In his Poetics the four different Aristotelian metaphors are exemplified as follows: Table 2 Four different Aristotelian metaphors Type

Example

(i) From genus to species (ii) From species to genus (iii) From species to species

There lies my ship

(iv) From analogy

Explanation

Lying at anchor is a species of the genus “lying” Verily 10,000 noble deeds Ten thousand is a species of hath Odysseus wrought the genus “large number” (a) With blade of bronze (c) “To draw away” is used drew away the life for “to cleave” (b) Cleft the water (d) “To cleave” is used for with the vessel of “to draw away.” Both, unyielding bronze to draw away and to cleave, are species of “taking away” (a) To call the cup “the (e) The cup is to Dionysus shield of Dionysus” as the shield to Ares (b) To call the shield “the (f ) The shield is to Ares as cup of Ares” the cup to Dionysus

With regard to the above four Aristotelian metaphors, the last one (transference by analogy) is the most eminent one; hence, all important theories on metaphor present a reference to this characterization. Later on, with the rise of Christianity, metaphors were increasingly used as a rhetorical tool for the exegesis of the Sacred Scriptures. Saint Augustine excelled in this and thus became very influential in the development of Western ­Christianity.

Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting | 61 In recent decades, and especially in postmodern studies, metaphor, that is, the description of one thing as something else, has become of interest also to analytic and continental philosophy. However, for reasons of space and scope, this chapter will not focus on philosophical issues and on the importance of authors such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Bachelard, Paul Ricœur, Derrida, and their philosophical discussion about metaphors. The main emphasis in the second part of this study will be on the role of metaphors in sign languages in general, with a stress on their iconicity and, in particular, on the role of metaphors in TSL by providing real examples aimed at supporting our analysis. An important aspect which will be emphasized, for instance, is that different strategies are used when interpreting metaphors into TSL, according to the context. Some of the strategies include transfer mechanisms, clarification, localization, cultural adaptation, omission, and replacement (when a simile substitutes a metaphor or vice versa). As a preliminary introduction, general features of sign languages, and in particular TSL, will be summed up, as many readers may be unfamiliar with sign languages. It seems opportune to emphasize the main points of sign language research so that this chapter could actually be read independently of the rest of the book, as a very quick introduction. As previously mentioned, a sign language is a language which transmits information via sign patterns, simultaneously combining hand shapes, orientation and movement of the hands, arms or body, and facial expressions to fluidly convey a speaker’s thoughts. The very first linguist who studied signed languages by giving them their called-for status of natural languages was William Stokoe, according to whom wherever communities of Deaf people exist, sign languages naturally develop and their complex spatial grammars are markedly different from the grammars of spoken languages (Stokoe, 1960, 1976). Stokoe’s work was groundbreaking because “almost everyone, hearing and Deaf alike, at first regarded Stokoe’s notions as absurd or heretical and his books when they came out as worthless or nonsensical [as is] often the way with the work of genius” (Sacks, 1989, p. 63). Nowadays, most scholars accept the fact that “Sign3 is natural to all who learn it (as a primary language) and has an intrinsic beauty and excellence sometimes superior to speech” (Sacks, 1989, p. 29). It is “seen as fully comparable to speech (in terms of its phonology, its temporal aspects, its streams and sequences), but with a unique, additional power of a spatial and cinematic sort—at once a most complex and yet transparent expression and transformation of thought” (Sacks, 1989, p. 72). It has been proved that Sign is a language even at the neurolinguistic level by Bellugi and her team (Bellugi, 1980, 1991a, 1991b, 1992, 2001; Bellugi

62 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

& Studdert-Kennedy, 1908; Bellugi & Hickok, 1995; Bellugi et al., 1997, 2010; Bellugi & Klima, 1993, 1997). As a matter of fact, “the left hemisphere in signers ‘takes over’ a realm of visual-spatial perception, modifies it, sharpens it, in an unprecedented way, giving it a new, highly analytical and abstract character, making a visual language and visual conception possible” (Sacks, 1989, p. 76). This can be perceived as a proof of the plasticity of the human brain. Over the last couple of decades, postmodern scholars have increasingly focused their attention on signed languages, by analyzing their structure, their syntax, their semantics, and also some of the strategies or difficulties underlying interpreting skills, as well as the differences between spoken and signed language interpreting. As pointed out by linguists, signs have their own phonology, which is called cheirology. The phonemes of sign languages, that is, the smallest segmental units to form meaning, are the location of hands in space, the configuration of hands, a.k.a. handshape, the orientation and the movement of hands. Therefore, minimal pairs differ for one of these three aspects. Some scholars have also devoted their attention to issues related to interpreting from and into signed languages. In Italy, for instance, there have been numerous studies researching different aspects of interpretation from and into Italian Sign Language, which in Italian is called Lingua italiana dei segni (LIS) (Amorini, Cortazzi, & Eletto, 2000; Bove & Volterra, 1984; Stocchero, 1991, 1995; Cameracanna & Franchi, 1997a, 1997b; Carli, Folchi, & Zanchetti, 2000; Cokely, 2003; Del Vecchio & Franchi, 1997; Franchi, 1992, 1993; Gran & Bidoli, 2000; Sala, 2005; Woll & Porcari Li Destri, 1998). In Taiwan much less has been done. Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting (TSLI) certainly deserves more attention. On the other hand, in ASL or LIS, which have been more thoroughly explored than TSL, interpreting scholars have focused mainly on interpreting in the educational sector (Cokely, 2005; Davis, 2005; Forestal, 2005; Lee, 2005; Marschark et al. 2005a, 2005b; Monikowski & Peterson, 2005; Napier, 2005; Quinto-Pozos, 2005; Turner, 2005; Winston, 2005). This chapter aims at filling a gap in the literature by exploring the issue of iconicity in sign languages and then, more specifically, the use of metaphors in TSL. Before moving on to the postmodern issue of iconicity and metaphors in sign language, it seems opportune to shed some light on TSL by summing up some of the most important aspects analyzed thus far, for the reader’s sake. In the traditional approach, TSL is usually taught as a second language starting with songs, which does not seem to be the most effective or quickest way of learning it. One local interpreter that I interviewed told me that when she began to study TSL, she

Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting | 63 attended an eight-week course hoping to learn to communicate with Deaf people. Regrettably, she realized that it was not as easy as she had thought at first. At present, there are courses for those who want to become interpreters even though the problem is that not many young people attend these courses. As a matter of fact, it’s mostly elderly people, resulting in a slow learning process. There are also many alternative learning resources, such as the TV show Tīng tīng kàn (聽聽看, whose English title is Listening Eye), which presents different topics every episode both in Mandarin Chinese and in TSL. The show has even won the Golden Bell Award for Best Host in 2012. There are also other Youtube channels, such as 手語好好玩 Have fun in Taiwanese Sign Language and Sign Tube 手語天地. According to my interviewee, in the first weeks of class, instructors emphasize the importance of Deaf culture and place importance on the issue of iconicity in sign languages. The aspect of iconicity will be further explored in the next section.

4.4 Iconicity in Sign Languages In the not-so-distant past, people believed that sign languages were just a form of mimicry, unaware of the complexity of their grammatical structures. Nowadays, the international community has widely recognized the grammaticality of sign languages. In the seventies, linguists systematically examined the structure and rules of signed languages (Friedman, 1977; Siple, 1978). However, one should not diminish the role of visual imagery which does indeed play a major part in sign languages, more than in spoken or written languages. Many signs appear to bear an iconic relationship with their referents (Woll, 1985). Signs can be divided into arbitrary and iconic. “Arbitrary signs [are] those signs that appear to bear no relationship to their meaning” (O’Brien, 1999, p. 162). For example, in TSL, the sign for RED4 is to extend the index finger, touch the lower lip and then move it toward the chest. This sign is arbitrary because it is not related to the red color in any way. On the other hand, iconic signs directly depict what they represent or are metonymically related to what they represent: an example is the sign for airplane in TSL, and in many other sign languages, which depict an aircraft taking off. Iconic devices were studied by Mandel (1977) and more recently by Taub (2001). Sutton-spence and Woll (1999) adopted Mandel’s framework and divided iconic signs into four categories, namely substitutive depiction, virtual depiction, presentable action, and presentable objects. In the substitutive depiction category, hand-shapes and hand-forearm configurations

64 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

are used to depict schematic images of the referent. An example in TSL of this iconic device is the sign for SCISSORS, where the index and the middle finger are extended, thus resembling a physical pair of scissors, and is used as the iconic base of the signified (Su & Tai, 2006). The virtual depiction representation is to trace the shape of the referent in the signing space. Another example from Su and Tai (2006) is the sign for LIGHTNING which is represented by tracing a zigzag shape with index fingers of both hands. Another iconic device is called the presentable action where the signer imitates actions performed by humans or animals. An example could be the sign for BASEBALL or for the verbs RUN and/or FLY. The last iconic device is called presentable object: the signer points directly to the location of the referent, for example the sign for NOSE. Iconicity should be further subdivided into transparent, that is, a given sign can be understood by a person with no knowledge of that sign language, and translucent, that is, the iconic link can be identified only when the meaning is known (Woll, 1985); although it must be said that in some signs the sense of iconicity is destroyed or lost because the original visual imagery link has ceased to exist. It is true, however, that images play a major role in all modalities of languages because of the importance of metaphors. According to Woll (1985, p. 603) “metaphor and sign language structure are indissoluble: we can hardly find a level in the language where imagery does not play a part.” Images are indeed important; however, they can be direct or metonymic, that is to say a direct image represents the whole of a referent, whereas a metonymic one represents either a part of a referent or something associated with it. For instance, in most sign languages the sign BIRD is represented by the thumb and the index finger which stands for the opening and the closing of a bird’s beak. Apart from the vast repertoire of visual imagery that sign languages resort to, just like all natural languages, they also use metaphors in the more classical sense. Our discussion will focus on this more traditional metaphoric use in the next section, with a special emphasis on TSL.

4.5 Metaphors in Sign Languages If metaphors are an essential component of spoken languages (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), their centrality in sign languages seems even greater. Indeed, sign languages have a double mapping, that is, the incorporation of both iconicity and metaphorical extension at the same time. Most of the research on metaphors has been conducted on ASL. One of the pioneering researches on the presence of metaphors and iconicity in sign languages was conducted by Boyes Braem (1981).

Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting | 65 Minor researches have also been carried out in other sign languages, for example in Italian Sign Language (LIS), thanks to the efforts of scholars like Russo (1997). However, the bulk of publications remains on ASL. For the researches on the use of metaphors in ASL, readers can refer to the abundant relevant literature on the production and comprehension of metaphors by ASL users (Akamatsu & Armour, 1987; Everhart & Marschark, 1988; Inman & Lian, 1991; Iran-Nejad & Ortony, 1981; Ittyerah & Mitra, 1988; Kramer & Buck, 1976; Marshark, Everhart, & Dempsey, 1991; Marschark & West, 1985; Marschark, West, Nall, & Everhart, 1986; Rittenhouse, Kenyon, & Healy, 1994; Rittenhouse & Stearns, 1990; the list is exhaustive). In most cases, when analyzing metaphors in sign languages, scholars prefer to focus on the so-called conceptual metaphors, which are usually written in capital letters. For instance, “the sign for past is reflective of the conceptual metaphor ‘PAST IS BEHIND’ ” (O’Brien, 1999, p. 162). Usually, metaphorically motivated signs are more easily distinguishable from arbitrary and iconic signs by people who do not know a given sign language, as proven by some empirical researches, like O’Brien (1999). For example, the sign for PAST is a gesture indicating a space behind a person and according to the aforementioned studies, it seems to be consistent with the metaphorical conceptualization people have about this specific concept, because as Lakoff and other scholars duly remark, “the basis for metaphorical conceptualization is experience common to all humans regardless of the particular language used in their community” (O’Brien, 1999, p. 171). As far as the comprehension and production of metaphors by Deaf people is concerned, usually speaking school-age children and adolescents, probably due to their literacy-related challenges and because of their relatively limited world knowledge, demonstrate poorer performance than hearing peers on tests of metaphor comprehension evaluated via print materials; on the other hand, they seem to produce figurative constructions just as often as their hearing peers (Marschark, 2005). As for TSL, the existing studies focus exclusively on the issue of iconicity and on the arbitrariness of signs. Hence, the next section is going to provide some real examples from TSL in support of our analysis as well as to shed further light on the issue.

4.6 Examples from TSL The previous sections focused on the concepts of iconicity and metaphor. Now, it seems opportune to provide real examples aimed at clarifying our discussion.

66 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

I will provide some examples as an attempt to understand how metaphors are used in texts and how they are interpreted, to observe some of the difficulties that TSL interpreters may face and discuss possible solutions for interpreting the Chinese metaphors into TSL. For the collection of examples and the related analysis, I proceeded in the following way. First, I interviewed 20 Mandarin Chinese native speakers, with the same level of education, and asked them to provide 20 often-used and representative sentences containing similes and metaphors. After that, I collected all the data, and chose the 18 sentences that most interviewees had picked. The list is neither exhaustive nor the only one of its kind which could be compiled; it is merely the fruit of the subjective choices of my interviewees. Later, I met with a professional interpreter who asked to remain anonymous and together we analyzed the similes and metaphors in the aforementioned sentences, to see how they would be rendered in TSL. I will report the sentences in Mandarin Chinese with a translation in English and the gloss for the interpreted version into TSL.5 After the transcription of all the 18 examples, I will proceed to a translational analysis and finally draw a conclusion. (1.) C: 他動也不動，彷如石像6 He doesn’t move. He’s like a stone statue. TSL: 他/木訥/不動/ /像/石頭/樣子// HE/ STIFF/NO MOVE/ /LIKE/ROCK/SIMILAR//7 (2.) C: 太陽就像一個大火球，會發熱，會發亮。 The sun is like a big fireball, it heats and lights up. TSL: 太陽/火球/一模一樣//熱/亮/會++// SUN/FIREBALL/IDENTICAL//HOT/LIGHT/CAN++// (3.) C: 我就如一朵向日葵，向著太陽。 Just like a sunflower, I move toward the sun. TSL: 我/向日葵/相似//太陽/面對// I/SUNFLOWER/SIMILAR TO//SUN /FACING//

Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting | 67 (4.) C: 我是一隻小鳥，跳來跳去吱吱叫。 I am a little bird, (always) hopping and squeaking. TSL: 小鳥/我/是++//跳++//張嘴// BIRDIE/I/BE++//JUMP++//OPEN-MOUTH// (5.) C: 天上張著灰色的幔。 The skies are covered with a gray mantle. TSL: 灰色/幔/那/天空/飄// MANTLE/GRAY/THERE/SKY/FLOATING// (6.) C: 不能讓這些充滿暴力和色情的漫畫毒害我們的幼苗。 These violent and pornographic cartoons must not be allowed to poison our seedlings (children). TSL: 漫畫書/裡面/畫畫/暴力/黃色//孩子/看/吸收/禁止// COMICS/INSIDE/DRAWING/VIOLENCE/PORNOGRAPHY// CHILDREN/SEE/ABSORB/PROHIBIT// (7.) C: 父愛如山，母愛如海。 A father’s love is like a mountain, a mother’s love is like the sea. TSL: 父親/愛/山/相似//母親/愛/海/相似// FATHER/LOVE/MOUNTAIN/SIMILAR//MOTHER/LOVE/SEA/ SIMILAR// (8.) C: 星星像一雙明亮的眼睛在夜空中照耀。 The stars shine in the night sky like a pair of bright eyes. TSL: 星星/眼睛/好像//夜空/一閃一閃＋＋// STARS/EYES/AS IF//NIGHT SKY/TWINKLE TWINKLE＋＋//

68 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

(9.) C: 小姑娘的心靈像棉花一樣純潔。 The little girl’s mind is as pure as cotton. TSL: 小姑娘/心/裡面//棉花/白/乾淨/一樣// GIRL/HEART/INSIDE//COTTON/WHITE/CLEAN/THE SAME// (10.) C: 加油。 Keep going! Hang tough! (It literally means “add oil”). TSL: 一手握拳朝身體動// HAND HOLDING A FIST MOVING TOWARD THE BODY// (11.) C: 春天是一個優美的舞蹈， 讓世界充滿微笑。 Spring is a beautiful dance that fills the world with smiles. TSL: 春天/換/跳舞/優美//微笑+++ SPRING/EXCHANGE/DANCE/BEAUTIFUL//SMILE+++ (12.) C: 春天是一隻快樂的小鳥，讓世界充滿活力。 Spring is a happy little bird that fills the world with life. TSL: 春天/換//小鳥/快樂//世界/活力/一整個// SPRING/EXCHANGE//BIRD/HAPPY//WORLD/DYNAMIC/ENTIRE// (13.) C: 書籍是屹立在世界的汪洋大海中的燈塔。 Books are the lighthouse that stands in the vast ocean of the world. TSL: 書/一本本+++/如/大海/一片/燈塔/一座// BOOK/VOLUMES+++/LIKE/OCEAN/CLASS./LIGHTHOUSE/CLASS.// (14.) C: 愛護書籍吧，它是知識的泉源。 Take good care (love) of books, they are a fountain of knowledge.

Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting | 69 TSL: 書/保護/要//知識/來源// BOOK/PROTECT/MUST//KNOWLEDGE/SOURCE// (15.) C: 書是智慧的鑰匙。 Books are the key to wisdom. TSL: 書/幫忙/智慧/打開// BOOK/HELP/WISDOM/OPEN// (16.) C: 春天到了，大地變成了一片綠毯。 Spring has arrived and the earth has turned into a green carpet. TSL: 春天/來了//大地/綠色/地毯// SPRING/ARRIVED//EARTH/GREEN/CARPET// (17.) C: 老師是辛勤的園丁，教導著我們。 Teachers are hard-working gardeners, teaching and guiding us. TSL: 老師/工作/辛苦/園丁/一般//教+++// TEACHER/WORK/HARD/GARDENER/LIKE//TEACH+++// (18.) C: 心像玻璃一樣碎了。 The heart has broken into pieces, like glass. TSL: 心/碎/散/玻璃/好像// HEART/BREAK/SCATTER/GLASS/SEEMS//

The above 18 examples were translated into TSL, or more precisely into Natural Taiwan Sign Language (NTSL). As the reader can infer from the glosses, the word order and the syntax are different from Mandarin Chinese. The aforementioned Chinese sentences were translated according to the syntactic rules of NTSL as opposed to manually coded Chinese. Indeed, TSL, just like any other sign language, can be divided into manual sign language (MSL), a.k.a. manually coded

70 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

language (MCL), and natural sign language (NSL) (cf. 2.9 and 6.4.3). While MSLs can be defined quite accurately, with several renowned major approaches, it seems more problematic to define with the same accuracy the properties of NSLs. MSLs are representations of spoken languages in a gestural-visual form. In other words, they can be defined as a “signed language” version of spoken languages. These languages are not natural, insofar as they were “invented”, or rather created, by hearing people and strictly follow the grammar of the written form of verbal languages. They have not evolved naturally amidst Deaf communities. In the past, MSLs were predominantly used in Deaf education (cf. Chapter 2) and by sign language interpreters, thus causing a major trauma in the development of Deaf children’s native language. However, in the aforementioned examples, the word order is strictly natural. As far as figurative speech, similes and metaphors are concerned, we can identify some interesting phenomena. First, in most sentences the metaphors are either the same or at least kept the same in TSL, though under a different form. This underlines the importance of figurative speech, in a language which is highly iconic. In sentences (1)–(3), the rhetorical device is the simile, namely “like a stone statue,” “like a fireball” and “like a sunflower,” and as we can see from the glosses it is kept in identical form in TSL. In sentence (4), the metaphor “little bird,” representing something small and cute, is kept, though the ending of the sentence is slightly changed. In English, it reads as “I am a little bird, (always) hopping and squeaking”; the onomatopoeic verb “squeak” does not mean much to the Deaf, that is why when rendering the sentence into TSL it has to be adapted to the target culture, thus it becomes “BIRDIE/I /BE++//JUMP++//OPEN-MOUTH//.” The symbols /, //, and ++ are used when glossing sign languages and they respectively represent a brief pause, the end of a meaningful unit, and a prolonged sign used for, usually, motion verbs which entail a repetitive action (like jump). In sentence (5), “the skies are covered with a gray mantle”, the metaphor is kept, though strategically the interpreter added a “FLOATING” in the end to make the interlocutor aware about the metaphorical nature of the noun mantle in this occurrence. In sentence (6), the metaphor “seedlings for children” is not kept, and it goes lost without being replaced by any other metaphor. Moving on to the other examples, the metaphor is kept in sentence (7), just like the similes in (8) and (9). The Chinese expression Jiāyóu (加油, keep going! Hang tough! though literally it means “add oil”) gets lost because it would be meaningless if rendered literally in TSL. Sentence (11) is an interesting example of cultural adaptation. “Spring is a beautiful dance, full of smiles” if translated into natural TSL it becomes “SPRING/EXCHANGE/DANCE/BEAUTIFUL//SMILE+++.”

Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting | 71 The EXCHANGE sign is actually a synonymous for “like, to be similar to,” that is to say it signals a simile; yet, it is not as direct as the sign for the latter. The same thing happens in sentence (12). In sentence (13), the interpreter uses a transfer mechanism, that is, a metaphor becomes a simile in TSL. “Books are the lighthouse that stands in the vast ocean of the world” becomes “BOOK/VOLUMES+++/LIKE/OCEAN/CLASS/LIGHTHOUSE/CLASS//.” Sentence (14) maintains the metaphor, whereas sentence (15) is an example of clarification. The metaphorical use of “key” in “books are the key to wisdom” is explained as “BOOK/HELP/WISDOM/OPEN//.” In sentence (16), the metaphor “green carpet” is kept and it is localized, that is, it is signed as if covering a whole carpet situated on the ground. In the last two examples, the respective metaphor and simile are both kept, even if it is hard for Deaf people to understand the alignment between heart and glass. In natural TSL, they would simply and iconically sign a breaking heart. In other instances, the metaphor would have to be explained. For example, the metaphorical story according to which two lovers are supposed to jump together into the river of love is very clear to all Chinese speakers; however, it could happen that one person is already deep in the water (deeply in love) whereas the other has not jumped at all; when translated (literally) into sign language, most Deaf people, unless they have an oral or spoken language cultural background, would not be able to properly understand why the other person should “jump into the river.” Strategies are therefore necessary to make up for these intercultural and interlinguistic differences. In all the aforementioned examples, it is interesting to notice that according to the context different strategies are used when interpreting metaphors into TSL. Some of the strategies that we have identified include transfer mechanisms, clarification, localization, cultural adaptation, omission, and replacement (when a simile substitutes a metaphor or vice versa). As for the strategies used when interpreting from TSL into Mandarin Chinese, the most widely used one is what I will call “curb-ization,” that is, to curb an expression and not say it too bluntly. Deaf signers are used to a very direct kind of speech, which might sound extremely offensive for Chinese speakers if translated directly. For example, if a person is overweight, they would sign “super fat, like a pig” or, at any rate, overemphasize iconic aspects in their speech. Therefore, the most important strategy is to curb expressions that might sound as too overt, at the cost of not being faithful to the original. The best thing would be to “educate”, or at least inform, the Deaf interlocutors and ask them if their message can be curbed, thus adapted to the target culture, or if they want the message to be conveyed as emphatically. Interpreters are usually able to judge by themselves depending on the formality of the context.

72 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Finally, I would also like to mention the issue of chéngyŭ (成語, idioms) interpreting into TSL. Chéngyŭ literally means set phrase. It is a type of traditional Chinese idiomatic expression, mainly consisting of four characters. Chéngyŭ were widely used in Classical Chinese and are still common in vernacular Chinese writing and spoken Chinese today. In Mandarin Chinese the most widely used chéngyŭ are about 5,000. However, if an exhaustive list of Chinese idiomatic expressions were to be drafted, the total amount would go up to more than 30,000. According to the scholar Hu (1992, p. 53) “a chéngyŭ, as a type of set phrase, which is similar to guànyòngyŭ8 in nature, is often used as a complete meaning unit and has a more solid foundation of structure and usage than guànyòngyŭ.” Chéngyŭ usually derive from ancient Chinese literature and from Chinese philosophers such as Confucius, Mencius or Laozi. The most striking feature about these idiomatic expressions is that their global semantic value generally surpasses the sum of the componential meanings carried by the single four characters, because chéngyŭ are intrinsically and inextricably linked with the myth, legend, historical fact or literary episode from which they derive. Moreover, chéngyŭ do not follow the usual grammatical structure and syntax of the modern Chinese spoken language, being highly compact and concise. As a consequence, chéngyŭ in isolation are often unintelligible even to Chinese native speakers, and when students in China learn these idiomatic expressions in school as part of their classical curriculum, they also need to study the context from which the related chéngyŭ derives. Otherwise, they are not able to grasp the true meaning of the expression. Chéngyŭ can somehow be associated with idiomatic expressions, especially metaphors and, more particularly dead metaphors, at times with proverbs and clichés in Western languages. The major difference is that “the use of clichés in Western languages is seen to reflect one’s lack of creativity” (Cui, 1997, p. 56), whereas the use of chéngyŭ in Chinese has always reflected elevated status amongst Chinese-speaking populations. According to Chen (2001, p. 236), “chéngyŭ are products of Chinese culture which reflect the particular aesthetic view of Chinese-speaking populations and embody their colorful imagination.” However, especially in Taiwan, this has been re-evaluated over the past decade. In one relatively recent example, the Ministry of Education in Taiwan proclaimed on January 25, 2007 that “chéngyŭ dull one’s mind” and that “teaching chéngyŭ is the failure of educational policies” (Yang, 2008, p. 89), although this is not widely accepted. The most problematic aspect, especially for Chinese non-native speakers, remains the fact that chéngyŭ often reflect the morale behind the story rather than the story itself. However, not all Chinese idioms are metaphorical. Some may not derive from a specific story with a morale. These types of idioms may be succinct

Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting | 73 in their original meanings and be written in a way that would be intelligible only to a scholar of formal written ancient Chinese. Chéngyŭ are known to be more easily grasped by native speakers than by learners of Chinese, since they have cultural references and are not taken as four individual characters but simply as one meaning unit; therefore, native-speaking receivers of chéngyŭ do not require deep linguistic analysis to decode the semantic and pragmatic meaning of these set expressions, since what is needed is some embedded cultural association. For a detailed discussion, readers can refer to Moratto (2010). As for TSL interpreting, there are three interpretation strategies when it comes to chéngyŭ: namely literal translation, neutral adaptation, and trans-adaptation. In the first case, chéngyŭ are translated literally, that is, character by character (word-by-word). Usually, this strategy works for the most common chéngyŭ. If interpreters perceive a strange reaction, or lack thereof, it most probably means that the Deaf interlocutor does not know the chéngyŭ being used. In this case interpreters should also play the role of educators and cultural mediators and move on to simply explain the meaning of the chéngyŭ for the benefit of the other party. This is what happens when interpreters resort to the strategy that I like to call “trans-adaptation.” On the other hand, neutral adaptation simply aims at translating the meaning of the chéngyŭ without bothering to first translate character by character. This strategy has its pros and cons. It is certainly time-efficient, simple, and straightforward; however, in this way Deaf people will never increase their input of chéngyŭ and will hardly ever learn new ones, which is the case for hearing people even simply by passive input. Deaf people have an impressively powerful memory, which means that after seeing a chéngyŭ signed even just once, they will most probably remember it for years to come. To conclude, Deaf people mainly rely on the interpreter’s paraphrase of the chéngyŭ in order to understand the core gist of the conversation; however, it seems opportune for interpreters to also introduce chéngyŭ in their signed speech, along with the paraphrase, so as to enhance Deaf people’s linguistic and cultural knowledge. In other words, in the case of signed languages, interpreters should also play the role of educators and serve as a bridge linking two different cultures, namely the hearing and the Deaf culture.

4.7  Conclusion At present, there is a lack of research on the comprehension and production of metaphors in sign language and, in particular, in TSL, as well as on the contrastive

74 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

analysis concerning the use of figurative language by Deaf individuals who use spoken language or by hearing individuals who use sign language. Research is also warranted on the development of metaphors in children acquiring sign language as a first language. After a first experimental and empirical phase of analysis in TSL metaphorical use, it would also be interesting to investigate the acquisition and recall of metaphorical versus non-metaphorical TSL signs by native signers and non-native signers. Also, TSL signs could be used to investigate the explanatory power of the structural similarity alternative versus the conceptual metaphor analysis. Thus, empirical research is warranted to shed light on other rhetorical aspects of TSL, including collecting empirical data on the use of metaphors by signers, both native and non-native. This is an unexplored field and could pave the way for a better understanding of the cognitive mechanisms underlying sign languages, more specifically TSL, and for a more thorough analysis of the same cognitive mechanisms in other modalities of languages, in a comparative way. Moreover, as will be further explored in the sixth chapter, challenging areas for interpreters, such as figurative speech and metaphors, have to be taken into consideration in the evaluation process.

Notes 1. Parts of the present chapter are based on Moratto (2013). Taiwan Sign Language (TSL) Interpreting and Its Challenging Areas. FORUM, 11(1), 99–134. Reprinted with kind permission from John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia. [www.benjamins.com]. 2. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 23, translated by W.H. Fyfe. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1932, 1457b. 3. Sign, capital letter, is intended as a language with a different mode of expression. 4. The gloss of signs is always written in capital letters. 5. C stands for Chinese and TSL for Taiwan Sign Language. The glosses for the signed language interpreted version are always capitalized. 6. Deaf people understand these interpretations, because when I was analyzing them with an interpreter, two Deaf people also took part in the discussion and they confirmed their understanding of the aforementioned metaphors. 7. The symbols /, //, and ++ are used when glossing sign languages and they respectively represent a brief pause, the end of a meaningful unit, and a prolonged sign used for, usually, motion verbs which entail a repetitive action (like jump).

Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting | 75 8. Guànyòngyŭ (慣用語) are commonly used idiomatic expressions. Chinese set expressions are subcategorized differently depending on the scholars’ school of thought (Cui, 1997; Zheng, 2005). The most common categories of Chinese set idioms (shóuyŭ, in Chinese 熟語) are chéngyŭ (成語), xiēhòuyŭ (歇後語, two-part allegorical sayings), guànyòngyŭ, yànyŭ (諺語, proverbs) and súyŭ (俗語, colloquialisms).

References Akamatsu, C.T., & Armour, V.A. (1987). Developing written literacy in Deaf children through analyzing Sign language. American Annals of the Deaf, 132, 46–51. Amorini, G., Cortazzi, M.C., & Eletto, G.M. (2000). Idiomatismi e metafore nell’interpretazione in e dalla LIS. In C. Bagnara, G. Chiappini, M.P. Conte, & M. Ott (Eds.), Viaggio nella città invisibile (pp. 181–194). Pisa: Edizioni del Cerro. Bellugi, U. (1980). Clues from the Similarities between Signed and Spoken Languages. In U. Bellugi & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Signed and spoken language: Biological constraints on linguistic form. Deerfield Beach, FL: Weinheim. Bellugi, U., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1980). Signed and spoken language: Biological constraints on linguistic form. Deerfield Beach, FL: Weinheim. Bellugi, U., & Hickok, G. (1995). Clues to the neurobiology of language. In Broadwell (Ed.), Neuroscience, memory, and language: Decade of the brain (Vol. 1, pp. 89–107). Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Bellugi, U., Hickok, G., & Klima, E. (1997). Sign language aphasia: A window on the neural basis of language. Scientific American. Bellugi, U., & Klima, E. (1997). Language, spatial cognition and the brain. In M. Ito, Y. Miyashita, & E. Rolls (Eds.), Cognition, computation and consciousness (pp. 177–189). Cambridge, England: Oxford University Press. Bellugi, U. (1991a). The link between hand and brain: Implications from a visual language. In D. Martin (Ed.), Advances in cognition, education and deafness (pp. 11–35). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Bellugi, U. (1991b). Language and cognition: What the hands reveal about the brain, Society for Neuroscience, 17(2), 581. Bellugi, U. (1992). Language, spatial cognition and brain organization. In The neuronal basis of cognitive function (pp. 207–222). New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers. Bellugi, U., & Klima, E.S. (1993). Language, spatial cognition, and neuronal plasticity. European Journal of Neurosciences, 106. Bellugi, U. (2001). Sign language. In N. Smelser & P. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 21, pp. 14066–14071). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Bellugi, U., Klima, E., & Hickok, G. (2010). Brain organization: Clues from deaf signers with left or right hemisphere lesions. In L. Clara (Ed.), Gesture and word. Lisbon, Portugal: Editorial Caminho.

76 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Bove, M.G., & Volterra, V. (Eds.). (1984). La Lingua Italiana dei Segni: Insegnamento ed Interpretariato. Roma: Regione Lazio. Boyes Braem, P. (1981). Features of the handshape in ASL (Doctoral dissertation). Berkeley: Department of Linguistics, University of California. Camercacanna, E., & Franchi, M.L. (1997a). Considerazioni sull’interpretariato al termine di un corso per interpreti di LIS. In M.C. Caselli & S. Corazza (Eds.), Studi, esperienze e ricerche sulla lingua dei Segni in Italia. Proceedings of the First National Conference on Lingua dei Segni, Trieste, October 13–15, 1995, pp. 281–285. Camercacanna, E., & Franchi, M.L. (1997b). Difficoltà di traduzione in contesti diversi. In M.C. Caselli & S. Corazza (Eds.), Studi, esperienze e ricerche sulla lingua dei Segni in Italia. Proceedings of the First National Conference on Lingua dei Segni, Trieste, October 13–15, 1995, pp. 228–232. Carli, F., Folchi, A., & Zanchetti, R. (2000). Processi di Interpretazione dei Proverbi. In C. Bagnara, G. Chiappini, M.P. Conte, & M. Ott (Eds.), Viaggio nella città invisibile (pp. 67–71). Pisa: Edizioni del Cerro. Chen, J. (2001). Zhongguo Wenhua Xioucixue [Chinese Rhetoric Culture]. Nanjing: Jiangsu Guji Chubanshe. Cokely, D. (2003). Interpretazione: un modello sociolinguistico. Roma: Edizioni Kappa. Cokely, D. (2005). Shifting positionality: A critical examination of the turning point in the relationship of interpreters and the deaf community. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, & E. Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education. Directions for research and practice. Oxford University Press. Colston, H.L. (1995). Actions speak louder than words: Understanding figurative proverbs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Santa Cruz: University of California. Cooper, J.M., & Hutchinson, D.S. (1997). Plato complete works. Indianapolis: Hackett. Cui, X.-L. (1997). Hanyu shouyu yu zhongguo renwen shijie [Chinese Set Phrases and the World of Chinese Culture]. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University. Davis, J. (2005). Code choices and consequences: Implications for educational interpreting. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, & E. Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education. Directions for research and practice. Oxford University Press. Del Vecchio, S., & Franchi, M.L. (1997). Strategie di traduzione durante l’esposizione di materiale visivo. In M.C. Caselli, & S. Corazza (Eds.), Studi, esperienze e ricerche sulla lingua dei Segni in Italia. Proceedings of the First National Conference on Lingua dei Segni, Trieste, October 13–15, 1995, pp. 276–280. Everhart, V.S., & Marschark, M. (1988). Linguistic flexibility in signed and written language productions of the deaf children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 46, 174–193. Forestal, E. (2005). The emerging professionals: Deaf interpreters and their views and experiences on training. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, & E. Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education. Directions for research and practice. Oxford University Press. Franchi, M.L. (1992). Il ruolo dell’interpretariato nella scuola e nella società. In Proceedings of the International Conference Aspetti Sociali della Sordità. Roma: University La Sapienza Franchi, M.L. (1993). Il ruolo dell’interpretariato nella scuola e nella società. Voci Silenzi Pensieri, 6(11), 9–12.

Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting | 77 Friedman, L. (Ed.). (1977). On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language. New York, NY: Academic Press. Fyfe, W.H. (1932). Aristotle in 23 volumes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gibbs, R.W. (1994). The poetics of mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gibbs, R.W. (1996). Metaphor as a constraint on text understanding. In B.K. Britton & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 215–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gibbs, R.W., & Beitel, D. (1995). What proverb understanding reveals about how people think. Psychological Bullettin, 118, 133–154. Gibbs, R.W. (1996). Metaphor as a constraint on text understanding. In B.K. Britton & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 215–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gibbs, R.W., Colston, H.L., & Johnson, M.D. (1996). Proverbs and the metaphorical mind. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11, 207–216. Gile, D. (1989). La communication linguistique en réunion multilingue Les difficulties de la transmission informationnelle en interprétation simultanée (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université Paris III. Gran, L., & Bidoli, C.K. (2000). L’interpretazione nelle lingue dei segni: aspetti teorici e pratici della formazione. Trieste, Italy: Edizioni Università degli Studi di Trieste. Halliwell, S. (1987). The poetics of Aristotle: Translation and commentary (1st ed.). University of North Carolina Press. Hu, Y.-S. (1992). Xiandai Hanyu [Modern Chinese]. Taipei: Xin Wenfeng Publishing House. Inman, P.R., & Lian, M.J. (1991). Conservation and metaphor performance among children with hearing impairments. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 25, 28–41. Iran-Nejad, A., & Ortony, A. (1981). The comprehension of metaphorical uses of English by deaf children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 551–556. Ittyerah, M., & Mitra, D. (1988). Synesthetic perception in the sensorily deprived. Psychological Studiers, 33, 110–115. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kramer, A., & Buck, L.A. (1976). Poetic creativity in deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 121, 31–36. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lee, R. (2005). The research gap: Getting linguistic information into the right hands: Implications for the deaf education and interpreting. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, & E. Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education. Directions for research and practice. Oxford University Press. MaCCormac, E.R. (1995). A cognitive theory of metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mandel, M. (1977). Iconic devices in American Sign Language. In L.A. Friedman (Ed.), On the other hand (pp. 57–107). London: Academic Press.

78 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Marschark, M. (2005). Metaphors in sign language and sign language users: A window into relations of language and thought. In H.L. Colston & L.N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 309–334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Marschark, M., Everhart, V.S., & Dempsey, P.R. (1991). Nonliteral content in language productions of deaf, hearing, and native-signing hearing mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 37, 305–323. Marschark, M., Peterson, R., & Winston, E. (2005a). Sign language interpreting and interpreter education. Directions for research and practice. Oxford University Press. Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Convertino, C., & Seewagen, R. (2005b). Educational interpreting: Access and outcomes. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, & E. Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education. Directions for research and practice. Oxford University Press. Marschark, M., & West, S.A. (1985). Creative language abilities of deaf children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 73–78. Marschark, M., West, S.A., Nall, L., & Everhart, V.S. (1986). Development of creative language devices in sign and oral production. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 534–550. Mitchell, S. (2004). Gilgamesh: A new English version. New York: Free Press. Monikowski, C., & Peterson, R. (2005). Service learning in interpreting education: Living and learning. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, & E. Winston (Eds.), Sign Language interpreting and interpreter education. Directions for research and practice. Oxford University Press. Moratto, R. (2010). Chinese to Italian interpreting of Chengyu. Intralinea, 12. Moratto, R. (2013). Taiwan Sign Language (TSL) interpreting and its challenging areas. FORUM, 11(1), 99–134. Napier, J. (2005). Linguistic features and strategies of interpreting: From research to education to practice. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, & E. Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education. Directions for research and practice. Oxford University Press. O’Brien, J. (1993). Metaphorical knowledge in understanding caused motion expressions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Santa Cruz: University of California. O’Brien, J. (1999). Metaphoricity in the signs of American Sign Language. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 14(3), 159–177. Pfaff, K.L., Gibbs, R.W., & Johnson, M.D. (1997). Metaphors in using and understanding euphemism and dysphemism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 59–83. Quinto-Pozos, D. (2005). Factors that influence the acquisition of ASL for interpreting students. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, & E. Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education. Directions for research and practice. Oxford University Press. Rittenhouse, R.K., Kenyon, P.L., & Healy, S. (1994). Auditory specialization in deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 139, 80–85. Rittenhouse, R.K., & Stearns, K. (1990). Figurative language and reading comprehension in American deaf and hard-of-hearing children: Textual interactions. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 25, 360–374. Roberts, R., & Bywater, I. (Trans.). (1984). Rhetoric. New York: Modern Library. Russo, T. (1997). Iconicità e metafora nella LIS in Filosofia del Linguaggio. Teoria e Storia (pp. 136– 141). Unical. Sacks, O. (1989). Seeing voices. A journey into the world of the deaf. New York: Vintage Books.

Challenging Areas in TSL Interpreting | 79 Sala, R. (2005). L’interprete di lingua dei segni: orecchio per i sordi e voce per gli udenti (Unpublished master thesis). Padova. Siple, P. (Ed.). (1978). Understanding language through sign language research. New York: Academic Press. Stocchero, I. (1991). Il servizio di interpretariato per i sordi. Problemi e prospettive. Scuola e Città, 42(7), 324–329. Stocchero, I. (1995). L’interprete come intermediario tra sordi e udenti. Sociologia della comunicazione, 20, 61–66. Stokoe, W. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers (No. 8). Buffalo: Department of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo. Stokoe, W. (1976). Dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Linstok Press. Sutton-Spence, R., & Woll, B. (1999). The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Su, S.-f., & Tai, J. (2006). Word order in Taiwan Sign Language. Proceedings of the first international conference of comparative study of East Asian sign languages, pp. 153–163. Tai, J.H.Y. (1993). Iconicity: Motivations in Chinese grammar. In E. Mushira & I. Gregory (Eds.), Principles and prediction: The analysis of natural language (pp. 153–174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tai, J.H.Y. (2005a). Modality effects: Iconicity in Taiwan Sign Language. In POLA FOREVER: Festschrift in Honor of Professor William S-Y. Wang on his 70TH Birthday. Edited by Dah-an Ho and Ovid J. L. Tzeng (pp. 19–36). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. Tai, J.H.Y. (2005b, June 9–11). Space use and iconicity in Taiwan Sign Language [Invited Speech]. In The 13th annual meeting of the International Association of Chinese Linguistics. Leiden, Netherlands: Leiden University. Taub, S. (2001). Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor from ASL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turner, G. (2005). Toward real interpreting. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, & E. Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education. Directions for research and practice. Oxford University Press. Wilcox, P.P. (2000). Metaphors in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Winston, E. (2005). Designing a curriculum for American Sign Language/English interpreting educators. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, & E. Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education. Directions for research and practice. Oxford University Press. Woll, B. (1985). The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought (Parotte, W., & Dirven, R., Ed.). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Woll, B., & Porcari Li Destri, G. (1998). Higher education interpreting. In A. Weisel (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th international congress on education of the deaf—1995. Tel Aviv: Ramot Publications. Yang, Y.-A. (2008). Cong tingzhong fanying tantao hanyu chengyu dui kouyi pinzhi zhi yingxiang [An analysis of the influence of chengyu on the quality of interpreting based on the reaction of the audience]. (Unpublished master thesis). Fu-jen Catholic University, GITIS.

5

Empirical Research

As long as we have deaf people on earth, we will have signs. And as long as we have our films, we can preserve signs in their old purity. It is my hope that we will all love and guard our beautiful sign language as the noblest gift God has given to deaf people. George Veditz, Preservation of the Sign Language (1913)

5.1  Introduction I originally wrote this chapter with the intention to prove that the neurological efforts required for spoken language interpreting and those necessary for sign to verbal or verbal to sign language interpreting are equal. What motivated me in this research was a dialogue with sign language interpreting colleagues, who told me that a sign language interpreter could only get a financial subsidy of NT$16001 per hour. Moreover, as I was told by a few of my sources, most of the time sign language interpreters do not even enjoy the benefit of having another interpreter to shift turns with every 20–30 minutes, as is (or should be) the case for verbal or spoken language interpreters. My assumption for this was that policy-makers do not necessarily consider sign language interpreting as “effortful” as verbal language interpreting. When we

82 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

talk about efforts, we are thinking in terms of Daniel Gile’s effort model (henceforth EM). However, this may not be the only reason. Budget restrictions may also play a crucial role, insofar as the government is required to allocate their funds for other specific purposes as well. After having elucidated the initial motivation for this chapter, I will now proceed to a detailed analysis of the relevant literature to present the theoretical basis which can be set as a framework of my research experiment. As far as the issue of the efforts underlying the two modally different types of interpreting is concerned, I came across different and at times contradictory results. According to some studies, it seems that the effort is inferior in sign language interpreting whereas according to other scholars the results seem to prove exactly the opposite. When unimodal (speech-speech) bilinguals manipulate their two spoken languages that share the same auditory inputs and oral outputs, they must inhibit these two competing alternatives in sensory and motor systems. Bimodal (signspeech) bilinguals, in contrast, can use these two languages at the same time because of their different receptors and articulators, […] thus they expend less effort in inhibition. (Emmorey et al., 2004; the bold is mine).

As it can be inferred from Emmorey et al. (2004), it would seem that the effort is inferior in bimodal interpreting, that is, sign to verbal or verbal to sign language interpreting. In a later study, Kovelman et al. (2009) used a functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) brain-imaging technique which tolerates the body motion; sign-speech bilinguals were studied while performing overt picture-naming tasks within monolingual (only ASL or English in one block) and bilingual (either simultaneous or alternation) contexts. The simultaneous condition required subjects to name pictures in ASL and in English at the same time, whereas the alternation condition required them to name pictures either in ASL or in English within one block. The results showed that the left posterior temporal regions, including posterior superior temporal gyrus (STG) and supramarginal gyrus (SMG), were more activated in bilingual conditions, whereas the left frontal/anterior inferior and superior temporal areas were activated intensely in monolingual contexts. Consequently, in Kovelman et al. (2009), more activation seems to prove more efforts. The greater recruitment of left posterior temporal regions in bilingual contexts is likely due to the semantic and phonological processing required by signed languages (Corina et al., 1999; Emmorey et al., 2002; Emmorey et al., 2003; Kassubek et al., 2004; Petitto et al., 2000). The greater recruitment of left posterior temporal regions in bilingual contexts is also due to the increased need to

Empirical Research | 83 integrate lexical and semantic information (Abutalebi et al., 2007, 2011; Chee et al., 2003). Therefore, given the contradictory results found in numerous articles, the present chapter sets out to review some of the most significant studies showing that the neurological foundation is similar for both verbal and signed languages. Also, a substantial body of linguistic literature has shown that sign language is a “real” language in terms of phonology, morphology, and grammatical or syntactic structures. It does not seem opportune to treat bimodal interpreters any differently from unimodal interpreters. After reviewing the relevant literature concerning sign language as a neurobiologically natural language, I will proceed to reduplicating Daniel Gile’s EM tightrope hypothesis experiment and apply it to TSL. The present chapter reunites two experiments, namely the qualitative and the quantitative pilot study, proving the complicated nature of TSL interpreting. This chapter will conclude by emphasizing the importance of training and professional quality which will be further explored in the next chapter, focused on numerous issues related to TSL interpreting evaluation and assessment.

5.2 Sign Languages are Natural Languages: Neurolinguistics Evidence Traditionally, neurobiological studies have been applied primarily to verbal languages. This trend has encouraged some researchers to inquire on whether these mechanisms are only valid for spoken languages or, as should be the case for universal neurobiological mechanisms, for all languages, including signed languages; in other words, whether such mechanisms are independent of the modality. Until a few decades ago, researchers did not view sign languages as natural languages, the way linguists intended them to be. Therefore, extending neurobiological studies to sign languages proved that signed languages are indeed natural languages, the only difference being their transmission channel; on the other hand, it served the purpose of asserting the universal nature of the neurolinguistic mechanisms scientists and researchers had come to discover. The two research purposes only differ in terms of their perspective. In other words, for all those scholars who did not believe sign languages to be at the same level of spoken languages in terms of linguistic dignity, neurobiological studies pioneered by Ursula Bellugi, definitely, or desirably so,2 proved them wrong; for all those linguists and scholars who had no doubt that sign languages are indeed natural languages, it

84 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

was a way to measure the extendibility of the neurobiological bases which had been discovered for spoken languages. Bellugi has studied the neurological bases of sign languages extensively, and her work has led to the discovery that the left hemisphere of the human brain becomes specialized for language, whether spoken or signed: a striking demonstration of neuronal plasticity (Bellugi & Studdert-Kennedy, 1980; Klima & Bellugi, 1988; Poizner & Klima, 1987). According to MacSweeney et al. (2008), lesion and neuroimaging studies indicate that the neural systems supporting signed and spoken languages are very similar: both involve a predominantly left-lateralized perisylvian network. In other words, some underlying neurobiological mechanisms are modality independent. Sign language research has shown that language processing engages left perisylvian regions, regardless of language modality. This has been demonstrated from the level of phonology (MacSweeney et al., 2008b; Petitto et al., 2000) to discourse (Braun et al. 2001; MacSweeney et al., 2008). Another important discovery is that sign languages and gestures do not share identical neural networks (MacSweeny et al., 2008). However, in this neurolinguistic perspective, gesture is not perceived as something rudimental and primitive, but rather as something important for the development of sign language because the “linguisticization of gesture” (also termed grammaticization) seems to be at the genesis of most signs in sign languages (Janzen & Shaffer, 2002). Verbal and signed languages are conveyed through different modalities. Spoken languages use the audio-oral articulatory channel, whereas signed languages resort to the spatial-visual one. The articulators in sign language, for example, like the hands, the upper torso and so on, are visible whereas the vocal articulators are not. As far as the perception is concerned, sign languages need a high spatial resolution and a low temporal resolution, whereas it is exactly the opposite for spoken languages. These differences are also reflected in everyday linguistic behaviors, which noticeably vary between the two modalities. For instance, it is common for Deaf speakers to be signing happily and simultaneously, because the conversation of two parties will not affect a third party, who in turn will be focused on his or her interlocutor. On the contrary, this would be perceived as a very loud and noisy behavior in verbal languages because of the different articulators. Likewise, it is possible to sign to a person who is at the opposite side of a room, while it would be considered rude and inappropriate to shout at someone who is far from us. At the same time, though, whispering is deontologically impossible3 in signed languages, because of their articulatory nature, insofar as the objects of perception are visual events and not acoustic events. In other words, no matter how intentionally

Empirical Research | 85 “whispered,” signing can always be seen at a conspicuous distance. These differences have brought about in Deaf people a grammaticization of spatial elements. The use of space characterizes all sign languages and serves important grammatical functions. Space can be used in a topographic manner to map the position and orientation of objects or people in real-world space or in a non-topographic, grammatical manner in sign languages. An example could be the sentence “Mary phoned John”: in all sign languages the agent and the patient are assigned imaginary spots in the visual-spatial field in front of the signer. Scholars and linguists have tried to extend neurobiological experiments to identify whether, beyond these preliminary and rudimentary differences, the neural bases of the two modally different languages actually share some similarities, which might reflect the neural underpinnings of core language functions. Lesion studies are an important branch of neurolinguistics aimed at mapping brain areas related to language. These studies have been traditionally conducted on hearers, the result being that left hemisphere damage would affect language ability. This led to the discovery that the left hemisphere is more directly linked with language functions. Other neurolinguists conducted the same lesion studies on native signers and found that left hemisphere damage leads to severely impaired language processing (aphasia) even in signers, whereas right hemisphere damage, which would be involved if signing were a mere gestural activity, does not lead to the same impairments (Atkinson et al., 2005; Corina, 1998; Hickok et al., 1996, 1998; Marshall et al., 2004, Poizner et al., 1987). In other words, neuroimaging studies indicate a crucial role for the left hemisphere in signed language processing as well as in verbal languages. More specifically, both covert and overt sign production rely on the left inferior frontal gyrus (Braun et al., 2001; Corina et al., 2003; Emmorey et al., 2003; MacSweeney, 2008; McGuire et al., 1997; Petitto et al., 2000; San Jose-Robertson et al., 2004), which is exactly what happens for verbal languages as well (Emmorey et al. 2007; Kassubek et al., 2004; MacSweeney, 2008). Some researchers (Capek et al., 2008; Corina et al., 2007; MacSweeney, 2002, 2002b, 2004, 2006; Meyer et al., 2007; Neville et al., 1998; Newman et al., 2002; Sakai, 2005; Waters et al., 2007) have shown that in addition to the left inferior frontal gyrus, comprehension of sign language in native signers also activates the left superior temporal gyrus and sulcus. Neuroimaging studies also prove that signed languages are natural languages and not a pantomime or a gestural way to express primitive ideas. Gesture is not perceived as something rudimental and primitive, but rather as something which is at the basis of the further development of sign languages, insofar as the

86 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

linguisticization of gesture seems to be at the genesis of most signs in sign languages (Janzen & Shaffer, 2002). According to Hickok (1996), there is no direct neurobiological link between aphasia and apraxia. Apraxia is a neurological disorder that affects a person’s ability to perform everyday movements. In other words, some patients are unable to understand pantomimes and gestures like yawning, stretching, or brushing one’s teeth, while their comprehension of the sign for “brushing one’s teeth” is untamed, as iconic as it may be. This is confirmed by Corina et al. (2007), whose research group found greater activation in left perisylvian regions for ASL signs than for the observation of grooming gestures (e.g., scratching) and transitive gestures (e.g., eating an apple). Furthermore, we can see a plastic hemispheric reorganization in Deaf signers, insofar as the processing of emotional facial expressions, typically right hemisphere dominant in hearing non-signers, can be processed bilaterally or predominantly in the left hemisphere in Deaf signers. This is likely to reflect reorganization because of the wide range of functions the face, along with its expressions, can serve in signed languages (MacSweeney et al., 2008; McCullough et al., 2005). Another factor which demonstrates the fact that signed languages are natural languages is related to language learning. Mayberry’s studies (Mayberry et al., 2002; Mayberry & Lock, 2003; Mayberry, 2007) and a preliminary neuroimaging study conducted by MacSweeny et al. (2008b) indicate that exposure to a language early in life, be it signed or spoken, is required to establish the neural infrastructure to support not only the specific language being learned but also any other language which may be learned later in life. This clearly states the equal linguistic nature of verbal and signed languages. As Sacks (1989, p. 88) duly points out, “if Deaf children are not exposed, early, to good language or communication [speech or signed], there may be a delay (even an arrest) of cerebral maturation, with a continuing predominance of right hemisphere processes and a lag in hemispheric ‘shift’.” At the same time, findings from studies contrasting signed language and spoken language processing in hearing people with Deaf signing parents support the conclusions from between group studies, that signed languages and spoken languages engage very similar neural systems (Braun et al., 2001; Emmorey et al., 2005; Söderfeldt et al., 1997). As previously mentioned, a key figure in the neurolinguistics analysis of sign language is Bellugi. Her most important finding was the discovery that the left hemisphere of the brain is indispensable for sign languages, as much so as it is for spoken languages. The results of her research also showed that signers use some of the same neural pathways required in the processing of grammatical speech (Bellugi, 1980).

Empirical Research | 87 The fact that sign languages are mainly processed in the left hemisphere was also proved by Neville (1978, 1988, 1989). She demonstrated that sign languages are processed more efficiently and accurately if presented in the right visual field. Any information presented in the right visual field is processed in the left cerebral hemisphere because information from each side of the visual field is always processed in the opposite hemisphere of the brain. Moreover, aphasic signers are not impaired in non-linguistic visual-spatial abilities or, again, signers with right hemisphere strokes may have spatial disorganization, but retain perfect signing ability despite their several visual-spatial deficits (Sacks, 1989). In short, signers show exactly the same cerebral lateralization as speakers, irrespective of the modality through which their language is conveyed and in spite of the fact that their articulators are visuo-spatial in nature. Therefore, according to neurolinguistic studies, sign language is a natural language, visual rather than auditory and spatially rather than sequentially organized; and as Sacks (1989, p. 76) duly points out, “as a language, it is processed by the left hemisphere of the brain which is biologically specialized for just this function.” This is also a proof of the plasticity of the human brain: it is as if the left hemisphere in signers modified the visual-spatial characteristics into a whole new analytical concept, making it a language of its own, with its own syntactic rules and developing the potentials intrinsically present in the neurobiological mechanisms of the human brain. As far as plasticity is concerned, there is also another interesting study worth mentioning, namely Penhune et al. (2003), which focuses on congenitally Deaf individuals. This research group’s study provides a unique opportunity to understand the organization and potential for reorganization of the human auditory cortex. Penhune et al. (2003) use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to examine the structural organization of two auditory cortical regions, Heschl’s gyrus (HG) and the planum temporale (PT), both in Deaf and hearing subjects. The results show preservation of cortical volume in HG and PT of Deaf subjects deprived of auditory input since birth. Measurements of grey and white matter, as well as the location and extent of these regions in the Deaf, showed complete overlap both with matched controls and with previous samples of hearing subjects. The results of the manual volume measures were supported by findings from voxel-based morphometry analyses that showed increased grey-matter density in the left motor hand area of the Deaf, but no differences between the groups in any auditory cortical region. This increased cortical density in motor cortex may be related to more active use of the dominant hand in signed languages. Most importantly, expected interhemispheric asymmetries in HG and PT, deemed to be related to

88 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

auditory language processing, were preserved in these Deaf subjects. These findings suggest a strong genetic component in the development and maintenance of auditory cortical asymmetries that does not depend on auditory language experience. Preservation of cortical volume in the Deaf suggests plasticity in the input and output of auditory cortex that could include language-specific or more general-purpose information from other sensory modalities. Poizner et al. (1987) present an interesting anecdote concerning the grammatical re-localization of the topographic space. The patient analyzed, Brenda I., had a huge right hemisphere lesion and as a consequence she neglected the left side of space. When she described the room by signing she left the left side of the topographic space completely void; however, in her right topographic space she signed correctly, including spatial loci and objects in the left side of the right topographic side. In other words, her topographic space, controlled and processed by the right hemisphere, was not functioning properly because of her lesion; however, her syntactic-linguistic space functioned flawlessly. What we have come to see thus far is that, linguistically speaking, sign languages are as rich and complex as any other verbal language, despite the (still too) common misconception that they are not “real” or natural languages. Linguists have studied many different sign languages and found that they exhibit the fundamental properties that exist in all spoken languages (Klima & Bellugi, 1979; Sandler & Lillo-Martin, 2006). In other words, sign languages are not a form of pantomime; they are conventional, often arbitrary (as is the case for spoken languages and, generally speaking, for all natural languages) and do not necessarily have a visual relationship to their referent, much as most spoken languages are not onomatopoeic. Due to the channel of transmission, iconicity seems to be more systematic and widespread in sign languages than it is in verbal languages; however, according to linguists this difference is not categorical (Johnston, 1989). The visual-spatial modality allows the human preference for close connections between form and meaning, which is the cause of a slightly higher percentage of iconicity, present but suppressed in verbal languages, to be more full-fledged and more fully expressed in sign languages (Taub, 2001). However, one should be careful with linguistic definitions and categorizations, because this does not mean that sign languages are a visual rendition or a spatial representation of a spoken or verbal language. On the contrary, they have complex grammars and syntactic rules of their own, and can be used to discuss any topic, from the simple and concrete to the lofty and abstract, from politics and economics, to religion and philosophy. Just like any other natural language, sign languages have a hierarchical organization. They organize elementary,

Empirical Research | 89 meaningless units (phonemes, which in the past were called cheremes in the case of sign languages) into meaningful semantic units. These meaningless units are represented as (combinations of ) features, although often also crude distinctions are made in terms of handshape (or handform), orientation, location (or place of articulation), movement, and non-manual expression. A linguistic feature which is found in numerous sign languages is the occurrence of classifiers, a high degree of inflection, and topic-comment syntax. The existence of classifiers is a trait that sign languages share with most East Asian languages.4 Classifiers are not used in English (for instance, the word people is a countable noun, and if one wants to say three people no extra word is required), but are common in East Asian languages (where the equivalent of three people is often three classifier people). More than spoken languages, sign languages can convey meaning by simultaneous means, for example, by the use of space, two manual articulators, and the signer’s face and body. Though there is still much discussion on the topic of iconicity in sign languages, classifiers are generally perceived to be highly iconic, as these complex constructions function as predicates that may express any or all of the following: motion, position, stative-descriptive, or handling information (Emmorey, 2002). Iconicity has played an important role in the debate concerning the history of sign languages. In the past scholars thought that “real languages” must consist of an arbitrary relationship between form and meaning, therefore the less iconic forms a language presented, the higher dignity it was considered to have from a linguistic point of view. At the same time, if a sign language consisted of signs that had an iconic form-meaning relationship, it could not be considered a “real” or natural language. Consequently, iconicity as a whole was largely neglected in sign language research by the pioneers of sign language linguistics. According to Taub (2001), from a cognitive linguistics standpoint, iconicity is not merely defined as a relationship between linguistic form and a concrete, real-world referent; it is more properly defined as a set of selected correspondences between the form and meaning of a sign. Therefore, as confirmed by Wilcox (2004), iconicity is grounded in a language user’s mental representation (which is technically called “construal” in cognitive grammar). It is defined as a fully grammatical and central aspect of a sign language rather than a peripherical phenomenon. In this perspective, signs have more flexibility because they can be either fully iconic or partly iconic (Wilcox, 2000). This serves to say that irrespective of what the pioneers of sign linguistics believed, iconicity does not make a language less natural; it is just a way for the language to express itself or to convey its meaning(s), and the visual modality certainly helps to make things more iconic.

90 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

5.3 A Review of Neurolinguistics Research in Simultaneous Interpreting (SI) The first part of this section is dedicated to a review of neurolinguistics research in simultaneous interpreting (SI),5 whereas the second part focuses on two experiments/behavioral studies applied to TSL interpreting. The first part, dedicated to neurolinguistics and interpreting studies, aims at shedding light on some of the major empirical research conducted in recent years in simultaneous interpreting from a neurolinguistics point of view. Some of the issues include the development of expertise in SI, translation directionality, neuronal adaptation, and the cognitive complexity of SI. The second part focuses on the tightrope hypothesis experiment along with the review of two neurobiological studies concerning the bilingual brain in bimodals. The results of these studies can be applied to sign language interpreters because they are perceived as bimodal bilinguals. In this chapter, I will reduplicate, after a previous adjustment in terms of the design, Daniel Gile’s EM tightrope hypothesis experiment (Gile, 1995). This experiment is centered on the socalled competition hypothesis which can be represented in the following way: the total processing capacity consumption (TotC) associated with interpreting at any time represented as a “sum” (not in the pure arithmetic sense) of consumption for L(anguage), consumption for M(emory), and consumption for P(roduct), with further consumption for “coordination” (C) between the efforts, that is, the management of capacity allocation between the efforts:

(a) TotC = C(L) + C(M) + C(P) + C(C) and C(i) ≥ 0 i = L, M, P

(b) TotC ≥ C(i) i = L, M, P

(c) TotC ≥ C(i) + C(j) i, j = L, M, P and i different from j [Where equation (a) represents the total processing capacity consumption-inequality; (b) means that each of the three efforts requires some processing capacity.]

The idea that, most of the time, interpreters work near saturation level is the socalled tightrope hypothesis, which this experiment aims to prove for sign language interpreters, compared to spoken language interpreters, analyzed in the control group. This tightrope hypothesis is crucial in explaining the high frequency of errors and omissions (e/o’s) that can be observed in interpreting even when no

Empirical Research | 91 particular technical lexeme or other semantic, syntactic or pragmatic difficulties can be identified in the source speech (Gile, 1989, 1995). The precise aim of this investigation is to establish, in a sample of professionals interpreting a speech, whether there are e/o’s affecting segments that present no evident intrinsic difficulty. If that is the case, it is likely that they can be explained in terms of processing capacity deficits such as predicted by the EM. The underlying rationale of this study is the following: one indication of the existence of such e/o’s would be the variability in the segments affected in the sample (at the level of words or propositions). If all subjects in the sample fail to reproduce adequately the same ideas or pieces of information, this would suggest the existence of an intrinsic interpreting difficulty of the relevant segments (too specialized, poorly pronounced, delivered too rapidly, too difficult to render in the target language, etc.) Another indication could come from an exercise in which each subject is asked to interpret the same speech twice in a row. Having become familiar with the source speech during their first interpretation, subjects can be expected to correct in their second version many e/o’s made in their first version. If it were possible to find new e/o’s in the second version notwithstanding this general improvement of interpreting performance from the first to the second target-language version, whereas the same speech segments were interpreted correctly the first time, this would be an even stronger indication that processing capacity deficits are involved. The method used was the same as the one used by Gile, namely target speeches were videotaped, transcribed, and transcriptions scanned for e/o’s. As Gile duly points out, this method is not without pitfalls, because of high inter-rater variability in the perception of what is and what is not an e/o. Therefore, to avoid these pitfalls, only instances of what appeared to me as blatant e/o’s will be included in the analysis, and at least two further opinions from other interpreters have been requested to confirm that the e/o’s identified were also considered e/o’s by them. This is done to preserve the validity of the study by reducing the probability of false positives (mistaking text manipulations considered acceptable by the subjects for e/o’s). Unlike Gile’s experiment, in the present reduplication a control group has also been taken into consideration to analyze the relationship between sign interpreters and spoken language interpreters in terms of efforts. Thereafter I proceeded to determining: (a) how many subjects in the sample made an e/o for each affected speech segment and (b) what e/o’s were corrected in the second version of the target speech. Therefore, without resorting to fMRI, the high detection threshold for e/o’s definition used here in order to reduce to the largest possible extent the number of false positives entails that other phenomena that could have been used to measure

92 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

cognitive load were not exploited. In particular, no attempt was made to look at borderline cases, at the deterioration of linguistic (signed) output quality, or at changes in the prosody or the quality of the interpreter’s signing. Therefore, the findings of this study will strengthen the case for the tightrope hypothesis and thus give further support to the EM as a conceptual tool to explain spoken language interpreters’ as well as TSL interpreters’ limitations based on cognitive constraints, and in Gile’s words may give some credibility to the idea that the usefulness of a concept or model in scientific exploration is not necessarily a function of its degree of sophistication. However, in the first part of this section, I will first focus on neurolinguistics research in SI, conducted irrespective of the modality. This means that the results of the studies can and should be applied to verbal and signed languages alike. To begin with, I will give a brief definition of SI emphasizing the underlying reasons of its cognitive complexity. After that I will move on to an overview of what general issues can be encountered when dealing with SI from a cognitive point of view and will provide the reader with a quick excursus of neurolinguistics research on translation and interpreting in the bilingual brain. The first part will conclude with the analysis of a study conducted by Rinne et al. (2000): the translating brain. In the second part of the review, I will introduce two ERP studies on language processing in SI. The review will end with a brief discussion on language switching issues, on neuronal adaptation, and on the development of expertise in SI, along with the possibility of searching for neural correlates. This section is related to the rest of the book because the same neurobiological mechanisms are required for the interpreting task, whether it is verbal language, signed language or even bimodal. Therefore, it seems opportune to give a general overview of the studies that have been conducted thus far in terms of neurolinguistics research applied to interpreting studies, which can then be extended to sign language interpreting; the same rationale applied to reviewing neurolinguistic studies, in the initial part of the book, aimed at proving that sign languages are natural languages, the only difference being the channel of transmission. SI is one of the different types of interpreting modes, along with consecutive, whispered, relay, and liaison interpreting. It can happen in two different modalities, namely spoken (also known as oral or verbal) and signed. In the oral modality, interpreters sit in a booth where they listen to a source language and simultaneously interpret the speech into a target language. Ideally, they should have a clear view of the meeting room and the speaker and their booth (fixed or mobile) should meet ISO standards of acoustic isolation, dimensions, air quality and accessibility as well as appropriate equipment. In the signed modality,

Empirical Research | 93 interpreters face the (Deaf ) audience and sign whatever the speaker is talking about and s/he should ideally be located in a position which is clearly visible to everybody. SI is a complex cognitive task, with a high cognitive load, thus it may also represent an interesting field of research for neurolinguists (Fabbro & Gran, 1997). In order to provide experimental support for the hypothesis that SI is a complex cognitive task, Darò and Fabbro (1994) conducted a study with 24 student interpreters who were asked to perform a digit-span task under four different conditions: listening, shadowing, articulatory suppression, and SI. A digit-span task is a task that is often used for measuring working-memory’s storage capacity. Participants are read a series of digits (e.g., 8, 3, 4) and must immediately repeat the numbers back. If they do this successfully, they are given a slightly longer list (e.g., 9, 2, 4, 0), and so forth. The length of the longest list a person can remember is that person’s digit-span. The results showed that participants’ performance turned out to be poorer after SI. This was interpreted as suggesting that SI was, indeed, the most complex task from a cognitive point of view. However, experimental studies in SI have some basic issues which have to be tackled in order to design experiments. A critical issue, for example, is the fact that professional interpreters do not abound, let alone sign language professional interpreters, which means that it is not always possible to obtain an adequate sample for any given study, as it was the case for the present monograph. This may result in studies which are prone to a lack of statistical power. Other methodological problems concern the lack of ecological validity of the experimental setting and the stimulus material. As far as the technological equipment is concerned, traditional scholars believed it was impossible for interpreters to speak inside fMRI machines because the movement of the muscles would have affected the results and the objectivity of the data. This is also one the main reasons why, as of now, no major neurolinguistic study has been conducted on simultaneous interpreting in the signed modality. However, with the latest technological developments, it seems possible to speak at a moderate tone and by reducing the volume of the linguistic output. In this way, it becomes possible for interpreters and interpreting scholars to analyze more in detail the cognitive processing leading to the final linguistic output. For a further discussion on methodological issues, which is out of the scope of this chapter, readers can refer to Frauenfelder and Schriefers (1997) and Gile (2000). SI is a type of spoken or signed translational activity and as such it is directional, that is, it proceeds from one language (source) into another (target), irrespective of the modality. According to Jakobson (1971), translation skills are related to posterior language areas (temporo-parietal regions), as proven by the fact

94 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

that a lesion in these areas impairs the ability to translate from one language into the other. Gastaldi (1951) reported that some polyglot aphasics lost the ability to translate in both directions. This seems to be in line with the hypothesis postulated by Paradis according to which there are two different translation components, one for L1 to L2 and another for L2 to L1 (Paradis, 1985, 1993). These two different components are under constant control in SI because the language used has to be activated while the other is inhibited. This is also in line with the Activation Threshold Hypothesis (ATH), which was initially proposed by Paradis (1985, 1993) to account for differential recovery in polyglot aphasia and the theory has also been applied to the study of language attrition (Köpke, 2002). It specifies the relation between the frequency of use of a linguistic item and its activation and availability to the language user. Accordingly, it is assumed that linguistic items have thresholds that change on the basis of frequency and recency of use. As a general rule of thumb, low activation thresholds yield faster and are easier to access than higher thresholds. Activation and inhibition mechanisms appear to account for the control of multiple languages in the brain (Green, 1986; Paradis, 1993) as well as for changing dominance patterns. ATH assumes that items (or languages) that are more frequently activated require less stimulation to be reactivated than items (or languages) that are less frequently activated (Paradis, 1985, 1993). In other words, when a particular linguistic item has a high activation threshold, more activating impulses are required to reactivate it (Paradis, 1997; Gürel, 2004). In the literature, many neurolinguistics reports further establish the validity of the translation directional components. For instance, Aglioti and Fabbro (1993) reported the case of a patient who, due to a vascular lesion to the basal ganglia (a subcortical structure of the frontal-lobe system of the left hemisphere) was no longer able to translate passively.6 However, in interpreting studies, there is little experimental evidence in support of any directional effect. In one of the few neurolinguistics studies available, Rinne et al. (2000) compared interpreting from and into the native language. The results showed a more extensive activation during active translation, that is, into L2, possibly reflecting differences in difficulty between the two translation directions. In the same study, Rinne et al. (2000) also contrasted SI and shadowing, by using positron emission tomography (PET). Brain activation patterns of eight right-handed healthy professional Finnish-English interpreters (32–56 years, 4 women and 4 men), were measured with PET while simultaneously interpreting auditorily presented texts (in both directions), shadowing (in both languages), or resting in silence. According to the results, passive translation recruited a region anterior to Broca’s area as well as the left supplementary motor area. The brain

Empirical Research | 95 areas that were selectively activated during SI (after the subtraction of the areas activated during shadowing) were those that are typically associated with lexical retrieval, working memory, and semantic processing. Active interpretation, on the other hand, yielded more extensive activation increases in and around the above-mentioned left frontal regions. Left inferior temporal activity was also observed: it is the basal temporal language area which is related to word-finding and semantic processing. To conclude, this study shows that in SI cerebral activation patterns vary according to the direction of interpretation, and it is more extensive in language-dominant hemisphere when the interpreters translate into their L2. Changes in cortical activation as a function of translation directionality were limited to the language-dominant hemisphere, probably due to increased cognitive difficulty in active interpretation. Similarly, in another study using PET (Price et al., 1999), the results showed that during SI interpreters exhibit brain activation patterns modulated by the direction of the translation. In other words, there seems to be more extensive activation in the left dorsolateral frontal cortex during L1 to L2 than during passive translation. To my best knowledge, there have only been two electrophysiological studies which have investigated SI; however, none of them applied auditorily presented material as stimuli or compared SI with matched controls to identify whether there was training-related neuronal adaptation. The first study was conducted by Proverbio et al. (2004) who explored native Italian SI and monolingual control subjects during a semantic congruency processing task. In this study code-switching was perceived as SI-specific and analyzed by way of event-related potential (ERP). The interpreters were presented with four conditions in a block design, that is, Italian unmixed, English unmixed, English mixed (English final words), and Italian mixed (Italian final words). Each block included semantically congruent and incongruent trials. The SI N400 responses were significantly larger to L2 than to L1, due to the differences between mixed and unmixed conditions. There also seemed to be a different functional organization of semantic integration, due to the later age of acquisition of L2. Later, in Proverbio et al. (2008), the research team also investigated the temporal dynamic of the brain responses of SI while they processed a visually presented letter-detection-task (i.e., word vs. non-word discrimination). According to the results, there seemed to be a faster and more efficient access to lexicon for L1 regardless of L2 proficiency. Interpreters are by definition polyglots, or at least bilinguals, and at times bimodal bilinguals as in the case of sign-to-verbal and verbal-to-sign interpreting.

96 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Bilinguals are able to transfer and/or translate from one language to another in different moments of their speech or switch between the two even within the same sentence. Simultaneous interpreters have to deal with language switching challenges and strategies on a daily basis. The age of acquisition and level of proficiency are two factors affecting bilinguals’ neuronal networks in language processing tasks. Many interpreting instructors argue whether SI training could play a role in neuronal adaptation for interpreters or not. Elmer et al. (2010) examined the impact of professional and long-term language training on auditory word processing and tried to disentangle its effect from that of proficiency and age of acquisition. The participants had to judge whether auditorily presented disyllabic noun pairs both within and across German and English were semantically congruent or not. According to the results, SI could not benefit from a German prime word when English was their target language. From a behavioral point of view, both groups showed significantly longer RT during English-English condition. However, controls committed significantly more errors than SI in judging semantic relatedness of EE noun pairs. Furthermore, it seems that long-term L2 to L1 SI training makes active translation more troublesome, which is consistent with previous studies, like Rinne et al. (2000) and Proverbio et al. (2004) and which could show training-related functional reorganization, although further research is warranted. This might reflect training-related altered sensitivity to lexical-semantic processing, or it could also be interpreted as SI probably co-activating more lexical-semantic neighborhoods in interpreters’ mental lexicon. We can claim that, irrespective of the modality, SI is a complex cognitive task made up of several sub-components and sub-skills, such as language comprehension, production, output monitoring, and transfer mechanisms from source to target language, plus a general coordination of these different processes. It is quite understandable, then, that SI requires a long and intensive period of training leading to a difference between novice (effortful) and expert or professional (automatic) interpreters. However, it is assumed that changes might occur in brain activities or functional structures during the period in which there is the acquisition of interpreting skills. Future research could further explore this aspect with longitudinal studies focusing on the development of expertise in interpreting which, in turn, could shed further light on the brain plasticity of both verbal and signed interpreters. All these studies help us understand that what goes on in the brain of sign language interpreters is as complex as what happens in the minds of spoken language interpreters.

Empirical Research | 97 The next section will focus on Emmorey and McCullough (2009), a study analyzing the bimodal bilingual brain: people who speak a verbal language and a signed language, which is exactly the case for sign language interpreters. The reason why I decided to review this study is because it is strictly related to sign language interpreters, insofar as they are also bimodal bilinguals, since they work with two modally different languages. Emmorey and McCullough (2009) discuss the effects of bimodal bilingualism on both behavior and brain organization and report an fMRI study that investigated the perception of facial expression, a domain where experience with sign language is likely to affect functional neural organization. The authors claim that sign language experience has long-term effects on mental imagery and motion processing. Although auditory deprivation leads to an enhanced ability to detect and attend to motion in the visual periphery, acquisition of a sign language leads to atypical lateralization of motion processing within the brain. Motion processing is associated with area MT/MST within the dorsal visual pathway, and processing within this region tends to be bilateral, or slightly right-lateralized. However, several studies have found that both hearing and deaf signers exhibit a left hemisphere asymmetry for motion processing (Bavelier et al. 2001; Bosworth & Dobkins, 2002; Neville & Lawson, 1987). According to Emmorey and McCullough (2009), the evidence indicates that the functional neural organization for both linguistic and non-linguistic processing can be affected by knowledge and use of a signed language. Moreover, the bimodal bilingual brain appears to be uniquely organized such that neural organization sometimes patterns with that of Deaf signers and sometimes with that of monolingual speakers, and this occurs also in sign language interpreters. Emmorey and McCullough (2009) also conducted an experiment on face recognition and its neural correlates which will not be reviewed in this chapter because it goes beyond the scope of our discussion. On a general note, we can say that bimodal bilingualism can uniquely affect brain organization for language and non-linguistic cognitive processes. The findings of the two authors along with those of MacSweeney et al. (2002) suggest that bimodal bilinguals (hearing signers) recruit more posterior regions within the left superior temporal cortex than Deaf signers when comprehending sign language. This different neural organization is hypothesized to arise from preferential processing of auditory speech within more anterior STS regions and possibly from the need to segregate auditory speech processing from sign language processing within this region. In other words, the neural substrate that supports sign language comprehension for bimodal bilinguals is not identical to that of Deaf signers and

98 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

neither to that of hearing speakers. This can be considered as a further proof of the plasticity and reorganizational abilities of the human brain.

5.4 Qualitative and Quantitative Studies 5.4.1 Qualitative Pilot Study: Quality Assessment As will be illustrated in the following chapter, numerous factors are involved in determining the quality and the success, or lack thereof, of sign language interpreting. Before summarizing all the different factors analyzed thus far, in a somewhat simplified evaluation grid, I decided to analyze together with a bilingual participant (fluent in both Mandarin and TSL), who prefers to remain anonymous, an interpreted speech into TSL, to address the issue of quality from the perspective of the user (Deaf7 evaluator). The interpreted speech is a question and answer (Q&A) session taken from an election debate back in 2012. Together with my deaf participant, we analyzed the simultaneous interpretation into TSL which was provided live during the debate. First, I would like to underline the reason for choosing this type of speech and not, for example, TV news which also provide a TSL interpretation service. The reason is simple, yet fundamental for any further discussion on the topic. There are different types of simultaneous interpretations, both in spoken and in signed languages. One important dichotomy is interpreting with or without script. Usually, what happens with TV news interpreting is that the sign language interpreter has either previously read or prepared the news s/he is going to interpret or do it with a script, just like the anchor. This does not happen during a live debate session where everything happens on the spot, live, with no previous ad hoc preparation. In this case, it seems more interesting to analyze the strategies that interpreters use to cope with possible difficulties that might arise during the interpretation task. The analysis was divided into three parts. First, an overall analysis of the interpretation was carried out. Secondly, a native signer was recruited to help me with a more detailed analysis of the TSL part, and finally a hearing sign language interpreter was also recruited, who provided some overall comments. Both participants were duly paid for their participation in this analysis. However, they both prefer to remain anonymous. The most interesting aspect emerging from this study is that the direct target users of TSL interpreting, that is to say the Deaf community, is not always

Empirical Research | 99 able to benefit from the translation, for various reasons that will be discussed later. On the other hand, hearing TSL interpreters seem to have a more thorough understanding of the message, because they are aided by the aural input, but also because of a broader background knowledge and different logic mechanisms. The question which remains to be explored is how to transform or improve the interpreting service in a way that those who need it the most, that is, the Deaf community, may truly benefit from it. First, the transcription of the spoken part will be reported (no subtitles were available for it, therefore I had to listen to it and transcribe it myself ) along with the (not always correct) gloss of the TSL interpreted version, as understood by the Deaf participant. Then, all the corrections analyzed with the help of a hearing interpreter will be discussed. Thereafter, some final comments will conclude the analysis. Following is the transcription: (1.) 爲了讓今天的這個，提醒各位貴賓，為了讓今天這整個的 流程更順暢， 等一下 I would like to remind everyone, in order to let today’s debate flow smoothly TSL: 配合/今天/說(講)//今天/講座/會/講/順利/等待// COOPERATE/TODAY/SPEAK/TODAY/LECTURE/CAN/SMOOTH/ WAIT//8 (2.) 每個參選人發言之後大家就不要鼓掌了，那麼讓我們的流程很順利 地進行 Let’s not applaud after each candidate has spoken so that we can proceed smoothly. TSL: 每個/參選人/講/完後/來/自己/拍手/不//時間/可以/即時// EVERY/CANDIDATE/SPEAK/AFTER/SELF/APPLAUD/NO/TIME/ CAN/SIMULTANEOUS// (3.) 謝謝大家 Thank you. TSL: 謝謝/順利// THANK YOU/SMOOTH// (4.) 不好意思 Excuse me. TSL: 我想/ I/THINK//

100 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

(5.) 李先生， 剛開始的時候，我們讓大家鼓掌， 沒有問題齁，但是之 後因爲媒體 Mr. Lee, at the very beginning applauding is not a problem, but afterwards, to enable the media TSL: 李/先生//剛才（當初）/拍手/沒問題//是++/接下來/記者員 LEE/MISTER/JUST/APPLAUD/NO PROBLEM/YES++/ FOLLOWING/JOURNALISTS// (6.) 發言的時候，我們爭取一下時間 to ask their questions without being interrupted TSL: 訪問/把握時間// ASK/CONTROL TIME// (7.) 好，現在開始進入辯論的第二階段，我們現在開始由媒體提問。這 個階段總共有十個問題 Okay, we now proceed to the second stage of the debate, we will start with questions from the media. There are a total of 10 questions for this stage. TSL: 今天/第二段/期間/開始/擔任/記者員/十/問題// TODAY/SECOND PHASE/TIME/BEGIN/JOURNALIST/TEN/ QUESTIONS// (8.) 請五位媒體代表輪流提問。參選人依照事前抽籤的結果依序回答 The five representatives of the media may take turns in asking questions. The candidates will answer following the order previously given to them. TSL: 五個/代表/排序/提問/參選人//剛才/抽/完/一定/要/跟/回答/排序 FIVE/REPRESENTATIVE/ORDER/ASK/CANDIDATE/JUST/DRAW/ FINISH/MUST/ANSWER/ORDER// (9.) 每位媒體代表發問的時間是四十秒，每位參選人回答的時間是一分 三十秒。 Each media representative will have 40 seconds to ask a question and each candidate will have one minute and 30 seconds to answer. TSL: 一個/代表/回答/四十分/參選人/回答/一小時半// O N E / R E P R E S E N TAT I V E / A N S W E R / F O RT Y / C A N D I D AT E / ANSWER/ONE HOUR HALF// (10.) 馬先生，您一再宣揚在外交上的成就， 但在參與政府間國際組織 方面， Mr. Ma, you have repeatedly trumpeted your diplomatic achievements, but your participation in intergovernmental and international organizations... TSL: 馬/先生/自己/宣傳/外交/自己/很好/再/政府/參加/國際組織//

Empirical Research | 101 MA/SIR/SELF/DECLARE/DIPLOMACY/SELF/GOOD/AGAIN/ GOVERNMENT/PARTICIPATE/INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZA­ TIONS// (11.) 除了世界衛生大會以外，到目前為止還沒有重大的突破，這是否意 味了活路外交… Apart from the World Health Assembly, there has been no major breakthrough so far, does this mean that viable diplomacy... TSL:  世界/衛生/大會//到/現在/外面/是/新/拼命/沒有（零）是否/自 己/有// WORLD/HEALTH/ASSEMBLY/TO/NOW/OUTSIDE/BE/NEW/ HAZARD/ZERO/ SELF/HAVE// (12.) 有局限性，特別要仰賴中國大陸的善意？ 對此是否有新的思考及 作法？ has its limits and is particularly dependent on the goodwill of mainland China? Do you have any new ideas and practices in this regard? TSL: (下巴?9）/ 挫折/是/否/靠/大陸/幫助/對++/有/問題/新/創意/計劃/ XXX/DIFFICULTY/BE/NOT/RELY/MAINLAND CHINA/HELP/ CORRECT++/HAVE/PROBLEM/NEW/ORIGINAL/PLAN/ (13.) 蔡女士，民進黨執政八年中在外交領域上面，大家印象最深刻，最 深刻的可能是 Ms. Tsai, in the eight years that the DPP has been at the government, everybody’s most profound impression TSL:  第二位/蔡/女士/民進黨/出席/八年//了解/外面/外交/印象/很/ 深刻// SECOND/TSAI/MS/DPP/GOVERN/EIGHT YEARS//UNDERSTAND/ OUTSIDE/DIPLOMACY/IMPRESSION/VERY/PROFO UND (14.) 烽火外交甚至不惜與美國翻臉，妳要如何建立國際社會對民進黨處 理國際事務、外交事務上的信心 The beacon diplomacy even went so far as to break with the United States. How will you build the confidence of the international community in the DPP's handling of international and foreign affairs? TSL:  發生/在/美國//恨/自己/可以/國際/社會/對/我國際/問題/相信/ 增加 HAPPEN/IN.AMERICA/HATE/SELF/CAN/INTERNATIONAL/ SOCIETY/TOWARDS/INTERNATIONAL/PROBLEM/BELIEVE/ INCREASE//

102 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

(15.) 最後請問宋先生，藍綠在外交政治上經常是對立的，也阻礙了台灣 推展對外關係 Finally, I would like to ask Mr. Sung, the political confrontation between the Blue and the Green Party in foreign affairs has hindered Taiwan's external relations.... TSL: 第三位/宋/問/綠/普通/外面/一群/恨/陷害/挫折/可以/自己/想一致// THIRD/SUNG/ASK/GREEN/COMMON/OUTSIDE/A GROUP/HATE/ FRAME/DIFFICULTY/CAN/SELF/THINK/CONSISTENT// (16.) 你又如何建立一個以共識為基礎，超越黨派的外交政策？謝謝 And how do you build a foreign policy based on consensus that transcends partisanship? Thank you. TSL: 作基礎/黨/取消/可以嗎// FOUNDATIONS/PARTY/CANCEL/CAN?//

Once again, I would like to emphasize that the gloss for the interpreted version is not always correct; however, I decided to report it exactly as the Deaf signer perceived it, to analyze the issue of quality from the Deaf users’ end. It is always interesting and useful to know how Deaf people evaluate the quality of the interpretation. The main difficulty the Deaf participant experienced while watching the video was the fact that the interpreter signed “too fast”. It was hard for my interviewee to follow the interpreter at times, even if the participant is a native signer. I also inquired on the participant’s opinion, as a native signer, of the TSL used by the interpreter in the video in terms of naturality, lexicon, and grammar. The Deaf participant, then, reiterated that even as a Deaf person, he was thinking to himself that the interpreter signed too fast. However, he also admitted that there was not much the interpreter could do about it because professional interpreters are constrained by time limits. In sign language, native signers often omit many syntactic parts to get ahead of time, but in a similar setting the interpreter cannot omit anything, s/he has to be faithful to the original, thus s/he ends up signing too fast even for native signers. Furthermore, facial expressions are a fundamental grammatical component in any sign language, and also in TSL; however, the interpreter did not have any visual expression. I also inquired about this aspect and the Deaf participant interestingly remarked that in TSL, visual and facial expressions can be found, but “not necessarily”. Some people might have them, and others might not. According to my Deaf interviewee, it is an intra-cultural difference. Then, I proceeded to interviewing a hearing sign language interpreter, according to whom the word order used by the interpreter in the video is not strictly the same a native signer would use: that is most probably due to the fact that any

Empirical Research | 103 interpreter is unavoidably influenced by the aural input of the speech when doing simultaneous interpreting. Moreover, according to my informant, most Deaf people, at least in Taiwan, do not have the command of TSL required to master a conversation or a monologue on more abstract topics. More abstruse topics are often omitted, as a linguistic strategy. As for the TSL interpreted transcript, as perceived by the Dead participant, the first mistake noticed by the professional sign language interpreter is when the speaker said bù hǎoyìsi (不好意思, excuse me), and the gloss for the TSL interpreted version is wǒ xiǎng (我想, I THINK10), because in the video the interpreter actually scratches his head, which he wouldn’t do if he wanted to sign the verb TO THINK. So, it is more like a way of expressing the EXCUSE ME equivalent. Also, when the speaker says gāng kāishǐ de shíhòu (剛開始的時候, at the beginning), the Deaf participant glossed it as dāngchū (當初, INITIALLY), which could be accepted. However, when the Deaf participant wrote jīntiān (今天, TODAY), it is actually wrong, because in the video the interpreter signs NOW and not TODAY. In TSL “today” is a compound noun, made up of NOW plus DAY. Finally, when they are speaking about how much time they have to reply, the Deaf participant wrote one hour and a half, whereas it is actually one minute. The only difference between these two signs is that HOUR is signed with a complete circle around an imaginary watch on your wrist whereas a MINUTE is only just one small horizontal line. What can be inferred from these general observations is that for native signers the image on the screen is either too small or the interpreter signs too fast. Even the professional sign language interpreter could not understand most of the signs after turning off the volume. Therefore, it is not unusual for a Deaf person to misunderstand minute for hour, because they have no aural connection to the speech. One might argue that by logic it is fairly easy to assume that in a televised debate you do not have one hour to reply, but you might be surprised to find that Deaf people’s logic is often different from hearing speakers’. There is also one last mistake: 發生在美國 (HAPPEN IN AMERICA)/恨(HATE)/自己(SELF) is not what the interpreter actually signs. He signs 討論(DISCUSS)/美國(AMERICA)/敵對(ENEMY). The interpreter proceeded by telling me that in the past few years, he has interviewed many native signers, and some of them have told him that they do not actually understand TV news sign language interpreting very well because some of the interpreters do not use natural sign’s grammar. They tend to use the same syntax or grammatical structures as those in the spoken language they are interpreting from. A major critique to this interpreted version is that sign language follows a communicative straightforward principle, direct, concise, and simple. Moreover,

104 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

throughout the whole speech, the interpreter has no expression whatsoever on his face. According to my informant, most of the times interpreters of political debates are not allowed to show expressions on their face because their clients, in this specific case the TV station, do not wish them to do that. In some cases, they even have written rules about it because they think that the interpreter has to resemble the host or the anchor, in the case of TV news, as much as possible. However, facial expressions oftentimes convey syntactic markers in sign languages; hence, they are essential components for the fluidity and clarity of the message to be conveyed. From this brief analysis, we can see the importance of some evaluation parameters which appear both in the comments of the Deaf participant and in the more detailed analysis of the hearing interpreter. Chapter 6 will present an indepth discussion of assessment and evaluation issues in TSL.

5.4.2 Quantitative Pilot Study The quantitative study herein presented was originally intended as a reduplication of Gile’s tightrope hypothesis, crucial in explaining the high frequency of e/o’s that can be observed in interpreting even when no particular technical or other semantic, syntactic or pragmatic difficulties can be identified in the source speech (Gile, 1989). 5.4.2.1  Participants Ten interpreters participated in the experiment: five sign language interpreters and five spoken language interpreters, whose age ranged from 25 to 50. All of the participants were licensed interpreters with at least three years of experience. The samples of interpreters and Deaf people used was in line with the principle according to which in qualitative research smaller but focused samples are more often needed than large samples (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). 5.4.2.2.  Materials The participants had to interpret a short excerpt from a question and answer session, taken from a conference on telecommunications. The speech fragment was chosen by myself and its feasibility confirmed by a professional interpreter, according to whom the speech did not contain any technical lexeme and was highly feasible because it dealt with daily used objects (like cellphones and electronic reading equipment). In other words, it is a passage of general nature and requires no previous knowledge of the subject. It does not contain any technical term. The

Empirical Research | 105 only expected difficulty is how to transfer some fairly new concepts like “portable music” or “electronic reading” for which there is no given sign in TSL. 5.4.2.3 Tasks The interpreters were asked to listen to the first question and answer, but to interpret only the answer. In this way, they had enough time to get familiar with the topic and get ready for the interpretation task. The five sign language interpreters were videotaped with a digital camera (in one case the interpreter was taped with an iPhone because the cam recorder was not available). The participants had to interpret twice consecutively, after which the video was uploaded on my computer and the interpreted version transcribed together with the interpreters themselves. The same operation was repeated with the spoken language interpreters as well. In this sample of 10 professionals interpreting the same source speech in the simultaneous mode (in two different modalities), e/o’s were found to affect different source-speech segments, just like in the study conducted by Gile (1989). In the second repeat performance, there were some new e/o’s previously absent in the first version. The excerpt used in this experiment and the transcription of all interpreted versions can be found in the appendix. The interpreted version, both signed and verbal, was transcribed and scanned for e/o’s. As Gile (1989) himself duly points out, this method is not without pitfalls, because of high inter-rater variability in the perception of what is and what is not an e/o. Therefore, only blatant errors or omissions were included in the analysis and two further opinions from other certified interpreters were requested to confirm that the e/o’s identified were considered e/o’s by them as well. 5.4.2.4  Results List of e/o’s: (1) 電子閲讀 (diànzǐ yuèdú, electronic reading)

Subject A: “iPad reading.” Type of e/o: error.



Subject B: “reading.” Type of e/o: omission.



Subject C: “e-book.” Type of e/o: error.



Subject E: “reading.” Type of e/o: omission. Corrected in the second version.

106 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

(2) 手機支付 (shǒujī zhīfù, mobile payment)

Subject A: “mobile.” Type of e/o: omission.



Subject B: “mobile.” Type of e/o: omission.



Subject E: “mobile.” Type of e/o: omission. Subject H: type of e/o: omission. Corrected in the second version. Subject I: “online payment.” Type of e/o: error. Corrected in the second version

(3) 固定資產 (gùdìng zīchǎn, fixed assets)

Subject B: “investment.” Type of e/o: omission.



Subject E: “stock.” Type of e/o: omission. Corrected in the second version



Subject I: type of e/o: omission. Corrected in the second version.

(4) 移動音樂 (yídòng yīnyuè, portable music)

Subject A: type of e/o: omission.



Subject B: “music.” Type of e/o: omission.



Subject C: “music.” Type of e/o: omission.



Subject D: “music.” Type of e/o: omission.



Subject E: type of e/o: omission.



Subject G: “music.” Type of e/o: omission. Corrected in the second version.

(5) 企業的一種行爲 (qìyè de yīzhǒng xíngwéi, business-like behavior) Subject B: “Consumers’ behaviors.” Type of e/o: error. Corrected in the ­second version.

Empirical Research | 107 New e/o’s in the second version The following is a list of e/o’s found in the second version of the target speech (both signed and oral) whereas the relevant speech segments were interpreted correctly in the first version. (6) 電子閲讀 (diànzǐ yuèdú, electronic reading)

Subject I: omission. Corrected in the first version.

(7) 手機支付 (shǒujī zhīfù, mobile payment)

Subject L: omission. Corrected in the first version.

(8) 固定資產 (gùdìng zīchǎn, fixed assets)

Subject L: omission. Corrected in the first version.

(9) 移動音樂 (yídòng yīnyuè, portable music)

Subject L: omission. Corrected in the first version.

(10) 消費者的使用 (xiāofèizhe de shǐyòng, consumers’ uses)

Subject I: “consumers’ needs.” Type of e/o: error.

(11) 企業的一種行爲 (qìyè de yīzhǒng xíngwéi, business-like behavior)

Subject I: “risky attitude.” Type of e/o: error.



Subject H: “it is a business.” Type of e/o: error.

Table 3 summarizes the quantitative aspects of the analysis. It is interesting to see the different types of e/o’s that are made according to the interpreting modality. However, as the interpreters confirmed themselves the e/o’s were not due to an intrinsic difficulty within the text, but to the difficulty of rendering easy expressions in a different modality within time constrictions; this strengthens the tightrope hypothesis as will be further explained in the next section. Moreover, no major difference was found in terms of the efforts directly related to the modality of interpreting. In other words, it does not seem that spoken language interpreters

108 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Table 3 Quantitative analysis/Errors and omissions in the first and second renditions Subject source-speech segment A 電子閲讀 手機支付 固定資產 移動音樂 企業的一種行爲 消 費 者 的 使 用 (2nd version only) Total e/o’s in 1stand 2nd rendition Number of “new” e/o’s (second rendition only)

1–1 1–1 0–0 1–1 0–0 0–0

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

L

e/o’s in 1st rendition

1–1 1–1 1–1 1–1 1–0 0–0

1–1 0–0 0–0 1–1 0–0 0–0

0–0 0–0 0–0 1–1 0–0 0–0

1–0 1–1 1–0 1–1 0–0 0–0

0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0

0–0 0–0 0–0 1–0 0–0 0–0

0–0 1–0 0–0 0–0 0–1 0–0

0–1 1–0 1–0 0–0 0–1 0–1

0–0 0–1 0–1 0–1 0–0 0–0

4 5 3 6 1 0

3–3 5–4 2–2 1–1 4–2 0–0 1–0 1–1 2–3 0–3 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

3

3

(0: correct; 1: error or omission. The participants F, G, H, I, L are spoken language interpreters and the others are sign language interpreters)

make more efforts while interpreting or vice versa, the concomitant efforts act differently on different interpreters but, as a matter of fact, as the results of this study prove, sign language interpreters make even more efforts in rendering certain expressions in a different target language and culture, as shown by the greater amount of errors. This is not due to their being less professional (all participants are certified interpreters). It is simply due to time restrictions and other concomitant factors as illustrated by the tightrope hypothesis and further clarified in the next section. 5.4.2.5  Discussion The aim of the present chapter was to establish in a sample of certified interpreters translating a speech the presence of e/o’s affecting segments that bear no intrinsic difficulty. If such errors or omissions exist, they can be explained in terms of processing capacity deficits such as predicted by Gile’s EM. The tightrope hypothesis is crucial in explaining the high frequency of e/o’s that can be observed in interpreting even when no particular technical or other difficulties can be identified in the source speech (Gile, 1989). The findings of the present study strengthen the tightrope hypothesis, according to which many e/o’s are due not to the intrinsic difficulty of the corresponding source-speech segments, but to the interpreters

Empirical Research | 109 working close to processing capacity saturation which in Gile’s (1989, p. 153) words “makes them vulnerable to even small variations in the available processing capacity for each interpreting component.” Another interesting aspect that emerged from this study is the higher difficulty to render certain expressions in sign language in the simultaneous mode because of the intrinsic explanatory need. For example, according to one of my sources the expression diànzǐ yuèdú (電子閲讀, electronic reading) which has an immediate translation equivalent in English, namely “electronic reading”, has to be rendered in sign language by way of a periphrasis: 指揮型/手機/刷來/刷去/的樣子/+見/閲讀的動作 Zhǐhuīxíng/shǒujī/shuālái/shuāqù/de yàngzi/+jiàn/yuèdú de dòngzuò SMARTPHONE/CELL/BRUSH back and forth/+++SEE/READ.

With the time restrictions caused by the simultaneous mode, it appears that simple or everyday concepts are not that immediate in signed language, which is why certain expressions like “electronic reading” or “portable music” present a higher error rate in the signed version. Moreover, other difficulties that emerged from my discussion with the participants were certain lexemes like “consume” which are translated with different signs in different contexts. Sometimes it is BUY, at other times it is USE +++. In addition, the concept of “portable music” is hard to convey because music is an abstract idea, so in order to make sure that Deaf people understand what the speaker is talking about, the signer should add the sign for DOWNLOAD to make it a concrete object. Another interesting example is “mobile payment.” According to a professional interpreter I interviewed, if the concept of “mobile payment” is signed CELL+PAY, some older Deaf people might interpret it as “purchasing a cellphone.” Once again, the concept should be explained in signed language with the following periphrasis: 手機/輸入/傳達/銀行/代替/付錢// Shǒujī/shūrù/chuándá/yínháng/dàitì/fùqián CELL/INSERT/TRANSMIT/BANK/SUBSTITUTE/PAY.

As can be seen from Table 3, most of the new errors in the second version were made by the spoken language interpreters. This was an interesting phenomenon

110 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

which deserved to be further explored and I did so by conducting retrospective interviews. The spoken language interpreters were asked the reason why they had made more errors in the second version. All the participants who made more mistakes in the second version said this happened because after hearing the speech once, they thought they were ready to “embellish” or enhance it with better expressions. This process took time away from the normal flow of interpreting. In other words, they confirmed themselves that this was not due to an intrinsic difficulty of the text, to biased materials, or a greater effort compared to signing interpreters.

5.5 Concluding Remarks In spite of what has been said thus far, I must point out that actually some differences do exist between the networks supporting signed and spoken languages. Some reflect differences in the early stages of sensory processing (MacSweeney et al. 2002; Sakai, 2005), while others are likely to reflect higher-level linguistic differences due to the modality of communication. A part of this chapter was dedicated to a review of the literature and the purpose of this review was to focus on the great overlap in the neural organization for the neurobiological processing of signed and spoken languages. Numerous neurobiological studies have proven that sign languages are natural languages and not a human construct. The initial part of this chapter aimed at providing the reader with a short excursus on some of the main studies concerning neurolinguistics research in SI. The PET study I briefly reviewed identified brain correlates of SI, namely the fact that the left dorsolateral frontal cortex is implicated in lexical search, verbal working memory, and in semantic analysis tasks. On the other hand, the ERP studies investigated the time course of semantic processing, the mechanisms of switching control in interpreters, and training-induced plasticity in language processing. In future studies, some research questions which deserve to be further explored are:

(a) Why is scientific research important in the field of sign language SI and sign language SI pedagogy? (b) What are the main challenges, in terms of equipment, that scholars face in neurolinguistics research when it comes to sign language SI and more specifically to sign language SI production analysis?

Empirical Research | 111

(c) How could researchers overcome these technical difficulties? (d) Finally, what might be the differences between novice and expert interpreters in terms of their brain functions and cognitive structures? (e) And how to apply these results to sign language interpreting?

Future research is warranted to develop longitudinal studies which might possibly focus on the development of expertise in sign language interpreting, thus shedding further light on the brain plasticity of interpreters. In the experimental part, I conducted a behavioral study to prove the tightrope hypothesis. If all participants in the sample failed to reproduce adequately the same ideas or pieces of information, this would suggest the existence of an intrinsic “interpreting difficulty” of the relevant segments (too specialized, poorly pronounced, delivered too rapidly, too difficult to render in the target language, etc.) Another indication could come from an exercise in which each participant is asked to interpret the same speech twice in a row. Having become familiar with the source speech during their first interpretation, participants can be expected to correct in their second version many e/o’s made in their first rendition. If new e/o’s were found in the second version, while the same speech segments were interpreted correctly the first time, this would have been an even stronger indication that processing capacity deficits were involved. The findings of this study have strengthened the case for the tightrope hypothesis and thus provide further support to the EM as a conceptual tool to explain spoken language interpreters’ as well as sign language interpreters’ limitations based on cognitive constraints, and in Gile’s words may give some credibility to the idea that the usefulness of a concept or model in scientific exploration is not necessarily a function of its degree of sophistication. The results show that hearing interpreters seem to make more errors in the new version than signed interpreters. I decided to further examine this phenomenon by interviewing the hearing interpreters who agreed on the fact that the new errors were due to an attempt to improve the second rendition, to their being more demanding, and it had nothing to do with the intrinsic difficulty of the text. In this chapter, I also reviewed a study conducted by Emmorey and McCullough (2009) focusing on the bimodal bilingual brain. Bimodal bilinguals are hearing individuals who know and are fluent in both a signed and a spoken language. The fMRI results from this study reveal separate effects of sign and spoken language experience on activation patterns within the superior temporal sulcus. In addition, the strong left-lateralized activation for facial expression recognition previously observed for Deaf signers was not observed for hearing signers. Therefore, the authors conclude that both sign language experience and Deafness can

112 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

affect the neural organization for recognizing facial expressions, and argue that bimodal bilinguals provide a unique window into the neurocognitive changes that occur with the acquisition of two modally different languages. Finally, the results of the experiment on interpreters’ e/o’s show that the hardships and difficulties faced by interpreters are mainly due to cultural and pragmatic elements pertaining to the modality of their task; thus, the best thing for interpreters to do is twofold: have a linguistic background to be able to create new words in new fields according to the word-formation rules that Deaf people are accustomed to, and always request the speaker(s) to provide the content of their speech before the event for a professional service. Thus far, the previous chapters focused on some aspects of TSL interpreting, such as TSL interpreting history and challenging areas in TSL interpreting. The next chapter will focus on the issues of assessment and evaluation in TSL interpreting. I will set out to propose how TSL interpreting should be assessed and evaluated, based on interpreting challenges, the experiments conducted herein and other considerations. All the different characteristics analyzed thus far will have to be taken into consideration in the evaluation process. This should be reflected in the profession’s best practices: the rules and regulations which govern the interpreting profession and guide its policies.

Notes 1. Verbal language interpreters usually earn around NT$25.000 (more or less) per working day (usually made up of two to three hours in the morning, with numerous intervals, and the same in the afternoon session) and there are always (at least) two colleagues in the interpreting booth. 2. Unfortunately, there are people nowadays who are still convinced of the inferiority of signed languages, in terms of linguistic completeness, compared to spoken languages. 3. Although signers can actually sign with smaller movements which might be similar to whispering in spoken languages. 4. In signed languages classifiers occur with verbs, while in Asian languages they occur with nouns (Chang, Su, & Tai, 2005). 5. An earlier draft of the first part of this section first appeared in Moratto (2019). 6. For further examples, see Fabbro and Paradis (1995). 7. The informant is fluent in Chinese thanks to hearing aids. However, his native language is TSL. 8. The symbols /, //, and ++ are used when glossing sign languages and they respectively represent a brief pause, the end of a meaningful unit, and a prolonged sign used for, usually, motion verbs which entail a repetitive action.

Empirical Research | 113 9. The Deaf signer does not recognize this sign. 10. All glosses are capitalized.

References Abutalebi, J., Brambati, S.M., Annoni, J.M., Moro, A., Cappa, S.F., & Perani, D. (2007). The neural cost of the auditory perception of language switches: An event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study in bilinguals. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(50), 13762–13769. Abutalebi, J., Della Rosa, P.A., Green, D.W., Hernandez, M., Scifo, P., Keim, R., Cappa, S.F., & Costa, A. (2011). Bilingualism tunes the anterior cingulate cortex for conflict monitoring. Cerebral Cortex, 22(9), 2076–2086. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr287. Aglioti, S., & Fabbro, F. (1993). Paradoxical selective recovery in a bilingual following subcortical lesions. Neuroreport, 4, 1359–1362. Atkinson, J., Marshall, J., Woll, B., & Thacker, A. (2005). Testing comprehension abilities in users of British Sign Language following CVA. Brain and Language, 94, 233–248. Bavelier, D., Brozinsky, C., Tomann, A., Mitchell, T., Neville, H., & Liu, G. (2001). Impact of early deafness and early exposure to sign language on the cerebral organization for motion processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 21(22), 8931–8942. Bellugi, U. (1980). Clues from the similarities between signed and spoken languages. In U. Bellugi & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Signed and spoken language: Biological constraints on linguistic form. Weinheim and Deerfield Beach, FL: Verlag Chemie. Bellugi, U., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1980). Signed and spoken language: Biological constraints on linguistic form. Deerfield Beach, FL: Weinheim. Bosworth, R.G., Dobkins, K.R. (2002). Visual field asymmetries for motion processing in deaf and hearing signers. Brain and Cognition, 49(1), 170–181. Braun, A.R., Guillemin, A., Hosey, L., & Varga, M. (2001). The neural organization of discourse: An H2 15O-PET study of narrative production in English and American Sign Language. Brain, 124, 2028–2044. Chang, J.-h., Su, S.-f., & Tai, J. (2005). Classifier predicates reanalyzed, with special reference to Taiwan Sign Language. In J. Myers & J. Tai (Eds.), Taiwan Sign Language. Special Issue of Language and Linguistics, 6(2), 247–278. Chee, M.W.L., Soon, C.S., & Lee, H.L. (2003). Common and segregated neuronal networks for different languages revealed using functional magnetic resonance adaptation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(1), 85–97. Capek, C.M., Waters, D., Woll, B., MacSweeney, M., Brammer, M.J., McGuire, P.K., David, A.S., & Campbell R. (2008). Hand and mouth: Cortical correlates of lexical processing in British Sign Language and speechreading English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1220–1234. Corina, D.P. (1998). Aphasia in users of signed languages. In P. Coppens et al. (Eds.), Aphasia in atypical populations (pp. 261–309). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Corina, D.P., McBurney, S.L., Dodrill, C., Hinshaw, K., Brinkley, J., & Ojemann, G. (1999). Functional roles of Broca’s area and SMG: Evidence from cortical stimulation mapping in a deaf signer. Neuroimage, 10(5), 570–81.

114 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Corina, D.P., San Jose-Robertson, L., Guillemin, A., High, J., & Braun, A.R. (2003). Language lateralization in a bimanual language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 718–730. Corina, D., Chiu, Y.-S., Knapp, H., Greenwald, R., San Jose-Robertson, L., & Braun, A. (2007). Neural correlates of human action observation in hearing and deaf subjects. Brain Research, 1152, 111–129. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Darò, V., & Fabbro, F. (1994). Verbal memory during simultaneous interpretation: Effects of phonological interference. Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 365–381. Elmer, S., Meyer, M., & Jancke, L. (2010). Simultaneous interpreters as a model for neural adaptation in the domain of language processing. Brain Research, 1317, 147–156. Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, cognition and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Emmorey, K., Damasio, H., McCullough, S., Grabowski, T., Ponto, L.L., Hichwa, R.D., & Bellugi, U. (2002). Neural systems underlying spatial language in American Sign Language. Neuroimage, 17(2), 812–824. Emmorey, K., Allen, J.S., Bruss, J., Schenker, N., & Damasio, H. (2003). A morphometric analysis of auditory brain regions in congenitally deaf adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 17, 10049–10054. Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H.B., & Thompson, R.L. (2004). Bimodal bilingualism: Code-blending between English and American Sign Language. In J. Cohen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the forth international symposium on bilingualism. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Emmorey, K., Grabowski, T., McCullough, S., Ponto, L.L., Hichwa, R.D., & Damasio, H. (2005). The neural correlates of spatial language in English and American Sign Language: A PET study with hearing bilinguals. Neuroimage, 24, 832–840. Emmorey, K., Mehta, S., & Grabowski. (2007). The neural correlates of sign versus word production. Neuroimage, 36, 202–208. Emmorey, K., & McCullough, S. (2009). The bimodal bilingual brain: Effects of sign language experience. Brain Language, 109(2–3), 124–132. Fabbro, F., & Paradis, M. (1995). Differential impairments in four multilingual patients with subcortical lesions. In M. Paradis (Ed.), Aspects of bilingual aphasia (pp. 139–176). Oxford: Perganion Press. Fabbro, F., & Gran, L. (1997). Neurolinguistic research in simultaneous interpretation. In Y. Gambier et al. (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research. Proceedings of the international conference on interpreting: What do we know and how?. John Benjamins. Frauenfelder, U.H. & Schriefers, H. (1997). A psycholinguistic perspective on simultaneous interpretation. Interpreting, 1(2), 55–89. Gastaldi, G. (1951). Osservazioni su un afasico bilingue. Sistema Nervoso, 2, 175–180. Gile, D. (1989). La communication linguistique en réunion multilingue. Les difficulties de la transmission informationnelle en interprétation simultanée (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université Paris III. Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Empirical Research | 115 Gile, D. (2000). Issues in interdisciplinary research into conference interpreting. In B.E. Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language processing and simultaneous interpreting: Interdisciplinary perspectives. New York and Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Green, D.W. (1986). Control, activation, and resource: A framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 27, 210–223. Gürel, A. (2004). Selectivity in L2-induced L1 attrition: A psycholinguistic account. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 53–87. Hickok, G., Bellugi, U., & Klima, E.S. (1996). The neurobiology of sign language and its implications for the neural basis of language. Nature, 381, 699–702. Hickok, G., Bellugi, U., & Klima, E.S. (1998). The neural organization of language: Evidence from sign language aphasia. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 129–136. Jakobson, R. (1971). Selected writings. Vol. 2: Word and language (Rudy, S., Ed.). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Janzen, T., & Shaffer, B. (2002). Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. In R. Meier et al. (Eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken language (pp. 199–223). Cambridge University Press. Johnston, T.A. (1989). Auslan: The sign language of the Australian deaf community (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). University of Sydney. Kassubek, J., Hickok, G., & Erhard, P. (2004). Involvement of classical anterior and posterior language areas in sign language production, as investigated by 4 T functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroscience Letters, 364(3), 168–172. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Köpke, B. (2002). Activation thresholds and non-pathological first language attrition. In F. Fabbro (Ed.), Advances in the neurolinguistics of bilingualism (pp. 119–142). Udine: Forum. Klima, E.S., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kilma, E. & Bellugi, U. (1988). The signs of language. (Paperback ed.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kovelman, I., Shalinsky, M.H., White, K.S., Schmitt, S.N., Berens, M.S., Paymer, N., & Petitto, L.A. (2009). Dual Language use in sign-speech bimodal bilinguals: fNIRS brain-imaging evidence. Brain and Language, 109, 112–123. MacSweeney, M., Woll, B., Campbell, R., McGuire, P.K., David, A.S., Williams, S.C.R., Suckling, J., Calvert, G.A., & Brammer, M.J. (2002). Neural systems underlying British Sign Language and audio-visual English processing in native users. Brain, 125, 1583–1593. MacSweeney, M., Woll, B., Campbell, R., Calvert, G.A., McGuire, P.K., David, A.S., Simmons, A., & Brammer, M.J. (2002b). Neural correlates of British Sign Language comprehension: Spatial processing demands of topographic language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1064–1075. MacSweeney, M., Campbell, R., Woll, B., Giampietro, V., David, A.S., McGuire, P.K., Calvert, G.A., & Brammer, M.J. (2004). Dissociating linguistic and nonlinguistic gestural communication in the brain. Neuroimage, 22, 1605–1618. MacSweeney, M., Campbell, R., Woll, B., Brammer, M.J., Giampietro, V., David, A.S., Calvert, G.A., & McGuire, P.K. (2006). Lexical and sentential processing in British Sign Language. Human Brain Mapping, 27, 63–76.

116 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

MaCSweeney, M., Cheryl, M.C., Campbell, R., & Woll, B. (2008). The signing brain: The neurobiology of sign language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12(11), 432–440. MaCSweeney, M., Waters, D., Brammer, M.J., Woll, B., & Goswami, U. (2008b). Phonological processing in deaf signers and the impact of age of first language acquisition. Neuroimage, 40, 1369–1379. Marshall, J., Atkinson, J., Smulovitch, E., Thacker, A., & Woll, B. (2004). Aphasia in a user of British Sign Language: Dissociation between sign and gesture. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 537–554. Mayberry, R.I., Lock, E., & Kazmi, H. (2002). Linguistic ability and early language exposure. Nature, 417, 38. Mayberry, R.I., & Lock, E. (2003). Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesis. Brain Language, 87, 369–383. Mayberry, R.I. (2007). When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 537–549. McCullough, S., Emmorey, K., & Sereno, M. (2005). Neural organization for recognition of grammatical and emotional facial expressions in deaf ASL signers and hearing nonsigners. Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 193–203. McGuire, P.K., Robertson, D., Thacker, A., David, A.S., Kitson, N., Frackowiak, R.S., & Frith, C.D. (1997). Neural correlates of thinking in sign language. Neuroreport, 8, 695–698. Meyer, M., Toepel, U., Keller, J., Nussbaumer, D., Zysset, S., & Friederici, A.D. (2007). Neuroplasticity of sign language: Implications from structural and functional brain imaging. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 25, 335–351. Moratto, R. (2019). A preliminary review of neurolinguistics research in simultaneous interpreting (SI). Studies in Linguistics and Literature, 3(4). Neville, H.J., & Bellugi, U. (1978). Patterns of cerebral specialization in congenitally deaf adults: A preliminary report. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research. New York: Academic Press. Neville, H.J., & Lawson, D. (1987). Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task: An event-related potential and behavioral study. II. Congenitally deaf adults. Brain Research, 405(2), 268–283. Neville, H.J. (1988). Cerebral organization for spatial attention. In J. Stiles-Davis, M. Kritchevsky, U. Bellugi, & N.J. Hillsdal (Eds.), Spatial cognition: Brain bases and development. Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Neville, H.J. (1989). Neurobiology of cognitive and language processing: Effects of early experience. In K. Gibson & A.C. Petersen, & N.Y. Hawthorne (Eds.), Brain maturation and behavioral development. Aldine Gruyter Press. Neville, H.J., Bavelier, D., Corina, D., Rauschecker, J., Karni, A., Lalwani, A., Braun, A., Clark, V., Jezzard, P., & Turner, R. (1998). Cerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: Biological constraints and effects of experience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 95, 922–929.

Empirical Research | 117 Newman, A.J., Bavelier, D., Corina, D., Jezzard, P., & Neville, H.J. (2002). A critical period for right hemisphere recruitment in American Sign Language processing. Nature Neuroscience, 5(1), 76–80. Paradis, M. (1985). On the representation of two languages in one brain. Language Sciences, 7, 1–39. Paradis, M. (1993). Linguistic, psycholinguistic, and neurolinguistic aspects of “interference” in bilingual speakers: The activation threshold hypothesis. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 9, 133–145. Paradis, M. (1997). The cognitive neuropsychology of bilingualism. In M.B. de Groot & J.F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 331–354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Penhune, V.B., Cismaru, R., Dorsaint-Pierre, R., Petitto, L.A., & Zatorre, R.J. (2003). The morphometry of auditory cortex in the congenitally deaf measured using MRI. Neuroimage, 20(2), 1215–1225. Petitto, L.A., Zatorre, R.J., Gauna, K., Nikelski, E.J., Dostie, D., & Evans, A.C. (2000). Speechlike cerebral activity in profoundly deaf people processing signed languages: Implications for the neural basis of human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 97(25), 13961–13966. Price, C.J., Green, D.W., Von Studnitz, R. (1999). A functional imaging study of translation and language switching. Brain, 122, 2221–2235. Proverbio, A.M., Leoni, G., & Zani, A. (2004). Language switching mechanisms in simultaneous interpreters: An ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 42(12), 1636–1656. Proverbio, A.M., Adorni, R., & Zani, A. (2008). Inferring native language from early bio-electrical activity. Biological Psychology, 80(1), 52–63. Poizner, H., Klima, E.S., & Bellugi, U. (1987). What the hands reveal about the brain. MIT Press. Rinne, J.O., Tommola, J., Laine, M., Krause, B.J., Schmidt, D., Kaasinen, V., Teras, M., Sipila, H., & Sunnari, M. (2000). The translating brain: Cerebral activation patterns during simultaneous interpreting. Neuroscience Letters, 294(2), 85–88. Sacks, O. (1989). Seeing voices. A journey into the world of the deaf. New York: Vintage Books. Sakai, K.L., Tatsuno, Y., Suzuki, K., Kimura, H., & Ichida, Y. (2005). Sign and speech: Amodal commonality in left hemisphere dominance for comprehension of sentences. Brain, 128, 1407–1417. Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. San José-Robertson, L., Corina, D.P., Ackerman, D., Guillemin, A., Braun, A.R. (2004). Neural systems for sign language production: Mechanisms supporting lexical selection, phonological encoding, and articulation. Human Brain Mapping, 23(3), 156–167. Söderfeldt, B., Ingvar, M., Rönnberg, J., Eriksson, L., Serrander, M., & Stone-Elander, S. (1997). Signed and spoken language perception studied by positron emission tomography. Neurology, 49, 82–87. Taub, S. (2001). Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor from ASL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

118 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Waters, D., Campbell, R., Capek, C.M., Woll, B., David, A.S., McGuire, P.K., Brammer, M.J., & MacSweeney, M. (2007). Fingerspelling, signed language, text and picture processing in deaf native signers: The role of the midfusiform gyrus. NeuroImage, 25, 1287–1302. Wilcox, P.P. (2000). Metaphors in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Wilcox, S. (2004). Conceptual spaces and embodied actions: Cognitive iconicity and signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 119–147.

6

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting

Kindness is the language which the Deaf can hear and the Blind can see.

Mark Twain

6.1 Introduction As demonstrated in the previous chapter, the naturality of a language cannot be defined on the basis of its modality. Sign languages are not a mere visual rendition or a spatial representation of a spoken language; just like all other natural languages, they have complex grammars and syntactic rules of their own, and can be used to discuss any topic. Linguists have studied numerous sign languages and found that they exhibit the fundamental properties that exist in all spoken languages (Klima & Bellugi, 1979; Sandler & Lillo-Martin, 2006). Signed and spoken languages share similar linguistic rules. The visual-spatial mode enables signed languages to make use of spatial locations, the motion of the hands, and the configuration of the hands (handshapes) to encode linguistic information, demonstrating the language’s phonology (Stokoe, 1960). The mouth articulator in spoken languages and hands in signed languages both activate Broca’s area, thus there does not seem to be any obvious difference between

120 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

the two modally different languages in this cortical area. As a matter of fact, the neurological processing of sign languages differs from the processing of actions/ gestures, and this proves that sign languages are not a sheer combination of physical gestures and pantomime. As one can read in Corina et al. (1992) and Marshall et al. (2004), Deaf aphasics with left hemisphere lesions have difficulty comprehending and producing signed languages but not pantomime. In another fMRI study carried out by MacSweeney et al. (2004), participants are shown British Sign Language (a natural sign language) and a conventionalized gestural system which shares similar manual movements but does not form a linguistic system. In signers, the signed language shows a left hemisphere lateralized pattern, activating the left posterior perisylvian cortex and the left posterior superior temporal gyrus. The dissociation of sign languages and gestures suggests that sign languages share some of the properties of natural languages. Although modality does affect language processing in some respects, the language system of sign languages displays many of the same characteristics of verbal languages. Given the current lack of appropriate or commonly shared assessment and evaluation tools for Taiwan Sign Language interpreting (TSLI), this chapter explores the possibility of establishing common parameters which can be used in three different situations, namely the classroom where students are learning TSLI, real situational contexts as a tool to evaluate professional interpreting, and also in a pedagogical setting (because sign language interpreting is mainly used as an educational support system for Deaf children in schools and universities). This chapter sets out to explore the theoretical possibility of establishing a model delineating the tools to evaluate TSL adult interpreters in real situational contexts, to assess the proficiency of TSLI students’ performances, and to assess the proficiency of educational interpreters. Sign language interpreting in educational settings, also known as educational interpreting, has become one of the most significant types of intra-social interpreting in the United States and other Western countries (Pöchhacker, 2016). The ultimate goal is to develop tools suitable for TSL based on several parameters, including the American Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) and Taiwan’s current assessment parameters, with the invaluable help of numerous Deaf and hearing signers and sign language interpreters, without whom this study could not have been completed. The first part of this chapter will focus on theoretical issues such as the distinction between assessment and evaluation in the literature. Thereafter, I will provide some background information on the issue of quality in interpreting and finally I will focus on the illustration and analysis of a tentative new evaluation

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 121 sheet to assess TSLI. Before illustrating such tools, the next section will focus on the importance of assessment and evaluation criteria in interpreting programs and will also clarify the difference between similar terms such as assessment and evaluation.

6.2 Assessment and Evaluation The need for adequate and commonly shared parameters for assessment and evaluation in sign language interpreting is as pressing, if not more so, as for spoken languages. In the West, only a few monographs have been written on the issue of translation and interpreting assessment, namely Reiss (1979), House (2001), and Williams (2004). Other papers have been written on different approaches to translation evaluation: corpus-based (Bowker, 2001), functional approach (Colina, 2009; Moratto, 2011), teaching-oriented (Li, 2006), and plan-based (Zhong, 2005). However, to my best knowledge, not much has been written on TSLI assessment and evaluation, which is the aim of the present chapter. It seems opportune to give an accurate definition of the difference between assessment and evaluation. Assessment, testing, measurement, and evaluation are all somewhat different concepts. Assessment is traditionally defined as “appraising or estimating the level or magnitude of some attribute of a person” (Mousavi, 2009, p. 36, as cited in Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010, p. 3). In other words, it is a constant judgment that the teacher or instructor makes of the student or trainee’s every feedback during the ongoing process of learning. Testing, on the other hand, is a way to judge a person’s competence, and not the person as such, during a given moment in time, thus it entails measuring the student’s performance. Measurement is the process of quantifying the observed performance of classroom learners (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010); evaluation refers to the overall language or interpreting program. Therefore, in our approach both assessment (as a way to monitor TSLI trainees’ progressive development) and evaluation (to monitor the results obtained at the end of the course) are necessarily taken into consideration in the elaboration of our TSLI Assessment and Evaluation (TSLIAE) tools. This chapter sets out to explore the theoretical possibility of establishing pragmatic tools to evaluate TSL adult interpreters in real situational contexts, to assess the proficiency of TSLI students’ performances, and to assess the proficiency of educational interpreters. The ultimate goal is to develop tools suitable for TSL based on the EIPA and on Taiwan’s current assessment parameters. I attempt to

122 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

develop a holistic set of parameters to be applied in any context for the assessment of TSLI. Prior to focusing on the tentative exploration of applying such an approach to task performance assessment and evaluation, it seems appropriate to say a few words about the issue of interpreting quality as reviewed in the literature.

6.3 The Issue of Interpreting Quality Interpreting quality may be assessed from different points of view. In the literature we read that it should usually begin with “customer needs and end with customer perception” (Kotler & Armstrong, 1994, p. 568). Reflecting on interpreting quality may enable professionals to carry out a satisfactory service and at the same time enable researchers to develop increasingly efficient training methods. According to Dejean le Féal (1990, p. 155) “what our listeners receive through their earphones should produce the same effect on them as the original speech does on the speaker’s audience. It should have the same cognitive content and be presented with equal clarity and precision with [the] same type of language.” In interpreting studies, there have been numerous empirical studies (Bühler, 1986; Collados Ais, 1998; Gile, 1990; Dörte, 2000; Kopczynsky, 1994; Kurz, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1996; Mack & Cattaruzza, 1995; Marrone, 1993; Meak, 1990; Moser, 1995; Moser-Mercer, 1996; Ng, 1992; Vuorikoski, 1993, 1998; to name just a few) differing in terms of method, scope, and language combinations; however, few of them (Ng, 1992) have focused on interpreting performance quality required in training future interpreters and none (to my best knowledge) on sign language interpreting performance assessment. In other words, most of these studies focus on either a user-oriented or a colleague-oriented definition of quality assessment, overlooking a cross-cultural delicate issue, that is, the importance of setting different quality assessment parameters for different language combinations and for mixed classes with students having diversified linguistic and cultural backgrounds, and for languages which are expressed in different modalities, like signed languages. Seleskovitch (1986) points out that interpretation should always be judged from the perspective of the listener and never as an end in itself. Hence, any discussion about interpretation quality inside the classroom ought to deal with the perspective of the teacher/trainer-listener who is well aware of the problems to be found in cross-culturally mixed classes, in which some of the participants find themselves interpreting from a foreign language into a foreign language or do not even share the others’ working languages. The teacher-evaluator should take

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 123 these aspects into consideration when assessing, for instance, the performance of non-native students or non-native signers. Within the Skopostheorie theoretical framework (cf. Moratto, 2011), the trainer should simply make sure that the message is understandable, adequate to the skopos. Voice quality should be an element of focus without being the main assessment parameter especially in verbal to sign language interpreting where voice is a null parameter. Some empirical studies have proven that pleasant voices are perceived as an important or very important factor (Chiaro & Nocella, 2004); however, trainees should not be discouraged if they happen to have a not particularly pleasant voice because interpretation efficiency is also based on other factors. Fluency is an important element which trainers should work on along with sense consistency, logical cohesion, completeness, and text accuracy. Terminology is important especially in the more advanced stages of training. Grammar is also relevant, but it is something trainees should work on in a language course or separately. Interpreting trainers are not to waste valuable exercise time explaining grammar rules which ought to be taken for granted at the language level required for starting an interpreting career. In translator and interpreter training, deviations from target language (TL) norms are very often not errors but caused by insufficient proficiency in the TL. These mistakes should be marked separately because they require special language training. In other words, trainees must follow other linguistic and language-related enhancing courses, which are implemented in the curriculum to fill a possible linguistic gap. The cross-cultural grading policy along with the evaluation of interpreting quality have inexorably changed with the increase of Deaf students enrolling in interpretation curricula whose special needs have intensified the intra- and intercultural reflections and research interests of trainers and trainees alike in the field of signed languages. Traditionally (Bühler, 1986; Kurz, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1996), interpreters’ quality-criteria assessment parameters may be summed up in the following: accent, voice, fluency, logical cohesion, sense consistency, completeness, grammar, and terminology. Different users’ expectations emphasize different parameters. Empirical studies provide us with users’ expectation profiles, “information which will prove beneficial to both the exercise and the teaching of the profession” (Kurz, 2001, p. 407). Unlike other researchers who define quality as “user satisfaction” (Kurz, 2001, p. 407), I define quality as “text accuracy,” in an attempt to find a commonly acceptable and viable evaluation grid to be used by trainers in cross-cultural learning environments. In a cross-cultural perspective, the most important parameters

124 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

remain text accuracy and sense consistency which are also the main evaluation parameters (along with function and skopos of the interpretation as instructed in the “brief ”) used in the entrance and final exams for the assessment of students’ performances, especially those whose native language or culture of origin gives them a feeling of cultural-linguistic alienation compared to their fellow students or colleagues. The same applies to Deaf students who feel alienated, if not inferior at times, compared to hearing students. In the next section, I will elaborate a new evaluation sheet which takes all these different factors into consideration. Within the framework of the Skopostheorie, a source text (ST) may allow any translation purpose, depending on the translation brief. Hence, it is essential for trainee interpreters to be very clear on what the brief is prior to carrying out their interpretation. However, the acceptability of translation purposes is limited by the translator’s and interpreter’s responsibility with regard to his or her partners in the co-operational activity of translation (of both written and oral text). This is in line with the principle of loyalty as illustrated by Nord (1989), where loyalty is perceived as an interpersonal category. “Loyalty” is a key concept in Nord’s theory. It basically means that “the target-text purpose should be compatible with the original author’s intentions […], however it can be difficult to elicit the sender’s intentions in cases where we don’t have enough information about the original situation” (Nord, 1997, pp. 125–126). In other words, “loyalty refers to the interpersonal relationship between the translator, the sourcetext sender, the target-text addressees and the initiator. Loyalty [also] limits the range of justifiable target-text functions for one particular source text and raises the need for a negotiation of the translation [or interpretation] assignment between translators [or interpreters] and their clients” (Nord, 1997, p. 126). The loyalty principle takes account of the legitimate interests of the three parties involved: initiators (who want a particular type of translation), target readers (who expect a particular relationship between original and target texts) and original authors (who have a right to demand respect for their individual intentions and expect a particular kind of relationship between their text and its translation). If there is any conflict between the interests of the three partners of the translator, it is the translator [interpreter] who has to mediate and, where necessary, seek the understanding of all sides. (Nord, 1997, p. 128)

Borrowing Nord’s words, “loyalty” may also be defined as “the responsibility translators [interpreters] have toward their partners in translational interaction. Loyalty commits the translator bilaterally to the source and target sides, taking account of the difference between culture-specific concepts of translation prevailing

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 125 in the two cultures involved” (Nord, 1997, p. 140). Moreover, the translation purpose is defined by the translation brief which, implicitly or explicitly, describes the situation for which the target text (TT) is required. Needless to say, this situation may be real or fictitious as in a classroom setting. However, notwithstanding its fictitious nature, trainers ought to specify what the skopos of the interpretation of trainees is so as to give them a clear-cut idea on what the function or hierarchy of functions expected or intended to be achieved by the TT should be. These are the basic principles of functional translational activity, where every task should have a briefing, which should, in turn, become the only benchmark for the task performance assessment of the trainee interpreters in the classroom setting. An important aspect which deserves to be mentioned before the analysis of a new evaluation sheet specific to sign language interpreting assessment is that, in the approach adopted herein, the brief should be considered as a standard for the performance assessment of trainee interpreters. However, this does not mean that “text accuracy” and “sense consistency” are no longer valid parameters to be applied in the assessment procedure. The only difference with traditional approaches is that the aforementioned two parameters should have the brief as their benchmark and not the text, per se, as an independent unit. In other words, the (verbal) text produced by the students should be accurate and consistent with the übersetzungsauftrag (translation job or interpreting task, brief ) given by the instructor prior to a given task. Therefore, we can state that “text accuracy” and “sense consistency” are still the most important parameters in the light of the übersetzungsauftrag in a functional approach. Interpreting quality assessment and evaluation are essential even within Deaf communities. According to a professional sign language interpreter that I interviewed, each time sign language interpreting services are provided, most sign language interpreting organizations distribute a questionnaire amongst Deaf people in order to survey users’ satisfaction.

6.4 Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting Assessment and Evaluation (TSLIAE) Before moving on to the illustration of a Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting Assessment and Evaluation (TSLIAE) tentative grid, it seems appropriate to briefly sum up the main characteristics of TSL, for the benefit of the reader. TSL is the language used amongst Deaf communities in Taiwan. As previously mentioned, the origins of TSL developed from Japanese Sign Language (JSL)

126 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

during Japanese rule, that is why TSL is considered part of the JSL family and has no linguistic relations with Chinese Sign Language (CSL). TSL has some mutual intelligibility with both JSL and Korean Sign Language (KSL); it has about a 60% lexical similarity with JSL (Fischer & Gong, 2010). Nowadays, TSLIAE still largely relies on intuitive judgments on the part of instructors. Therefore, it seems opportune to try and systematize the assessment systems within TSL interpreting training, because “[interpreting] trainers […] are faced with the task not only of enabling their trainees to acquire both the generic and the specific competences required for professional [interpreting], but also of providing their graduates with the adequate tools to ensure that they are capable of maintaining and upgrading their competences throughout their professional working lives” (Way, 2008, p. 89). The tools that I propose for the assessment and evaluation of TSLI in different contexts, namely TSL adult interpreters in real situational contexts, TSLI students’ performances and educational interpreters, are based on the EIPA and on Taiwan’s current assessment parameters. Therefore, before presenting my own evaluation grid, the aforementioned EIPA will be briefly illustrated.

6.4.1. EIPA The Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) is a tool, established in 1999, designed to evaluate the voice-to-sign and sign-to-voice interpreting skills of interpreters who work in elementary and secondary school classroom settings. The EIPA evaluates the ability to expressively interpret classroom content and discourse and the ability to receptively interpret student or teen sign language. EIPA is used to evaluate interpreters who work with students and teenagers who use predominantly American Sign Language (ASL), Manually Coded English (MCE), and Pidgin Sign English (PSE). However, as will be shown, EIPA can be extended to other sign languages as well. MCE differs from ASL insofar as it is a variety of visual communication methods expressed through the hands. As a method it basically attempts to represent the English language. However, unlike Deaf sign languages which have evolved naturally within Deaf communities all around the world, the different forms of MCE were artificially created, and generally follow the grammar of English and not the natural grammar, with its own syntax, of signed languages. It is called manually coded because it tends to be a linear and purely manual communication system; it should not be confused with a language. Education is still the most common setting where MCE is used (readers can refer to Chapters 1 to 3 for a detailed analysis). This method is not only used with Deaf students, but also with children affected by other kinds of

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 127 speech pathologies or language difficulties. On the other hand, PSE is a mixture of the two: ASL and MCE. In EIPA rating system, the evaluation focuses on several domains, namely:

(a) grammatical skills: use of prosody (or intonation), grammar, and space; (b) sign-to-voice interpreting skills: ability to understand and convey child/ teen sign language; (c) vocabulary: ability to use a wide range of vocabulary, accurate use of finger spelling and numbers; (d) overall abilities: ability to represent a sense of the entire message, use appropriate discourse structures, and represent who is speaking.

In the EIPA system, evaluators use a Likert Scale to assess specific skills. Scores for each skill range from 0 (no skills demonstrated) to 5 (advanced native-like skills). The scores from all three evaluators are averaged for each skill area, each domain, as well as the overall test score. An individual’s EIPA score is the summary total score. For example, an interpreter could report his/her score as EIPA Secondary PSE 4.2, which represents the grade level, the language modality, and the total summary EIPA score. On the basis of this system, we can elaborate a preliminary evaluation sheet for TSL interpreting assessment, based on the EIPA rating form. TSLI assessment can be divided into different levels, namely beginner, advanced beginner, intermediate, advanced intermediate, and advanced or professional level. The professional, or proficient level, is accredited to the student when s/he demonstrates broad and fluent use of TSL vocabulary, with a wide range of strategies for communicating new words and concepts, including figurative or iconic language creatively coined by signers and which does not have an immediate equivalent in the target spoken language. This is strictly related to the issue of metaphorical expressions in TSL (cf. Chapter 4). On the other hand, sign production errors are minimal at this level and never interfere with comprehension. Prosody is correct for grammatical, non-manual markers, and affective purposes. Complex grammatical constructions are typically not a problem. Comprehension of sign messages is very good, communicating all details of the original message. Signers at this level are proficient in all the different contexts that are the object of our analysis. From a pedagogical standpoint, an individual at this level is capable of clearly and accurately conveying the majority of interactions within the classroom. From a professional, authentic situational context, the aforementioned criteria should be at the basis of the evaluation of Chinese-TSL signers and, at the

128 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Table 4 EIPA rating forma I. Interpreter Product—Voice-to-Sign Prosodic Information: A. Stress/emphasis for important words or phrases B. Affect/emotions (interpreter appropriately uses face and body) C. Register D. Sentence boundaries (not run-on sentences) Non-manual information: E. Sentence types/clausal boundaries indicated F. Production and use of non-manual adverbial/adj. markers Use of signing space: G. Use of verb directionality/pronominal system H. Comparison/contrast, sequence and cause/effect I. Location/relationship using ASL classifier system Interpreter performance: J. Follows grammar of ASL or PSE (if appropriate) K. Use of English morphological markers (if appropriate). L. Clearly mouths speaker’s English (if appropriate) II. Interpreter Product-Sign-to-Voice (i.e., fluency/pacing, clarity of speech, volume of speech) Can read and convey signer’s: A. Signs B. Finger spellingb and numbers C. Register D. Non-manual behaviors and ASL morphology Vocal/Intonational features: E. Speech production (rate, rhythm, fluency, volume) F. Sentence/clausal boundaries indicated (not run-on speech) G. Sentence types H. Emphasize important words, phrases, affect/emotions Word choice: I. Correct English word selection Interpreter performance: J. Adds no extraneous words/sounds to message III. Vocabulary Signs: A. Amount of sign vocabulary B. Signs made correctly C. Fluency (rhythm and rate) D. Vocabulary consistent with the sign language or system

012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345

012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 129 Table 4  Continued I. Interpreter Product—Voice-to-Sign E. Key vocabulary represented Finger spelling F. Production of finger spelling G. Spelled correctly H. Appropriate use of finger spelling I. Production of numbers IV. Overall Factors Message processing: A. Appropriate eye contact/movement B. Developed a sense of the whole message V-S C. Developed a sense of the whole message S-V D. Demonstrated process lag time appropriately V-S E. Demonstrated process lag time appropriately S-V Message clarity: F. Follow principles of discourse mapping Environment: G. Indicates who is speaking

012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345 012345

The rating form can be found at http://www.classroominterpreting.org/eipa/performance/ EIPARatingForm.pdf (retrieved on January 25, 2020). a

Depiction of Chinese characters in TSL.

b

level of students’ performance assessment, teachers and/or interpreting trainers could base their evaluation upon these criteria. Professional sign interpreters, irrespective of whether they work in educational contexts or in conferences, should be assessed only on the basis of the parameters pertaining to the advanced or proficient level, which can also be used to evaluate trainees’ sign language interpreting final exam, as a conditio sine qua non to be able to obtain their interpreting license. Students who have reached the advanced intermediate level should be able to use a broad TSL/Chinese vocabulary, even if the definition of broad remains to be operationalized, with sign production that is generally correct or that does not interfere with the message. They should also have good strategies for conveying information when a specific sign is not well established in their vocabulary. Syntactic constructions, both verbal and signed, are generally clear and consistent; however, unlike professional interpreters, complex information may still pose some problems. Prosody is good, with appropriate facial expressions most of the time. Students at this level may still experience difficulties with the use of facial

130 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

expressions in complex sentences, that is, syntactically difficult signed structures, and adverbial non-manual markers. Fluency may deteriorate when rate or complexity of communication increases. When signing, students are able to use space consistently most of the time, although complex constructions or extended use of discourse cohesion markers may still pose problems for them. Passive understanding of the vast majority of signed messages, not signed at full speed, is good, but translation may lack some complexity and lose nuances intrinsically present in the original message. A student at this level does not have any problem in passive understanding, though s/he might experience some difficulties in active production and especially in conveying complex topics or in handling rapid turn-taking. Moving down the scale, students having reached a TSLI intermediate level have a fairly good knowledge of basic TSL vocabulary, but lack signs for more technical, complex, or academic topics. Hearing trainees are able to sign in a fairly fluent manner using some consistent prosody, but pacing is still slow with infrequent pauses for vocabulary or complex structures. Sign production may show some errors but, generally, will not interfere with communication. Grammatical production may still be incorrect, especially for complex structures, but is in general intact for everyday language. Hearing students are able to normally understand signed messages but may need repetition sometimes. Voiced translation often lacks depth and some of the subtleties of the original message. In other words, candidates at this level are not able to grasp the semantic and pragmatic nuances intrinsic in some signed messages. An individual at this level should be able to communicate very basic classroom content, but may incorrectly interpret complex information resulting in a message that is not always clear and accurate. Beginners are further subdivided into advanced beginners and pure beginners. They differ in the amount of vocabulary at their disposal, insofar as advanced beginners have a basic amount of vocabulary whereas mere beginners possess a very limited repertoire. In mere beginners, production is most of the times incomprehensible and TSL syntax is almost nonexistent and very close to Mandarin Chinese structure, that is, the active production of students at this level resembles Manually Coded Chinese (MCC) or Pidgin Signed English (PSE). Sign production lacks prosody and use of space for the vast majority of the interpreted messages. An individual at this level is not recommended for interpreting; advanced beginners often hesitate when signing, as if searching for the right word. They make numerous grammatical errors, although basic signed sentences appear intact. More complex syntactical structures seem to create numerous problems. An individual at this level is able to read and interpret single lexemes and simple

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 131 sentences; however, complete or complex sentences often require repetitions and repairs. Although advanced beginners are able to use signed prosody and space to a certain extent, its use seems to be inconsistent and often incorrect. The aforementioned levels have been structured according to the American EIPA. However, it seems opportune to contextualize this evaluation method and see if it meets the needs of the specific situational context in Taiwan. Following, I will provide the reader with some non-exhaustive1 information on the TSL interpreting exam in Taiwan. The technical name of the exam for TSL interpreters is called Level C technician for sign language interpretation and the certificate is issued by the Central Region Office, Council of Labor Affairs.2 Its validity is limitless, which means that irrespective of how often the examinee is going to work as a sign language interpreter, once the certificate is issued or obtained, it is valid for the rest of the examinee’s life. The first accreditation exam took place in 1974. The candidate must be a citizen of Taiwan, over 15 years old or with a junior high school diploma. The exam is divided into three parts. The first part, named “sign language interpreter professional knowledge,” consists of testing the candidate’s knowledge of Deaf culture, the deontological norms and regulations that TSL interpreters should abide by, related laws, and knowledge of current affairs. This is a fundamental component in sign language interpreting. Regrettably, as can be seen in Table 4, Deaf culture knowledge is not one of the assessment parameters, at least not in the EIPA evaluation grid. The second part of the exam is called sign language interpreting for general public services and it consists of sign-to-verbal and verbal-tosign language interpreting. In the last part of the exam, the candidate shall prove his or her ability to interpret bi-directionally. Exams are organized once a year in the wintertime. From the characteristics of the exam, we can infer that theoretical and practical knowledge of Deaf culture is a fundamental part which a good interpreter cannot neglect and which should, therefore, be included in the assessment parameters of professional exams.

6.4.2 TSLIAE In this section, I will briefly analyze Taiwan’s current assessment tables and parameters, before formulating my own assessment grid. I would like to extend my feelings of gratitude to local TSL interpreters for providing me with Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting Assessment and Evaluation (TSLIAE) grids (only in Chinese), laborious and meticulous (though not necessarily effective), used, according to my sources, by most evaluators in Taiwan.

132 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Table 5 Spoken to sign language interpretation evaluation sheet (First part of the exam) Name of the Exam y/m/d/h candidate date Exam number Session Exam part Spoken to sign language interpretation Evaluation grid (1) If any of the following applies, the candidate will automatically fail (Tick the □) □ 1. Absent □ 3. The exam is taken on behalf of a third party □ 2. Not completed   □ 4. The candidate does not meet the examination requirements (2) If none of the above is applicable, the evaluation shall be as follows: Evaluation Percentage Reference standard Highest Actual Notes components evaluation Evaluation 1. Sign language 25 Fluency: 25 interpretation Excellent (21 to 25) skills Good (16 to 20) Acceptable (11 ~ 15) Sufficient (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5) 2. Content 25 Accuracy: Excellent 25 expression (21 to 25) accuracy Good (16 to 20) Acceptable (11 ~ 15) Sufficient (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5) 3. Morphology 25 Minus 0.5 for every 25 and application SL vocabulary of sign language omission vocabulary 4. Facial 20 Excellent (16 to 20) 20 expressions, Good (11 ~ 15 deportment, minutes) dress Acceptable (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5)

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 133 Table 5  Continued 5. Sign-spoken cued speecha

5

Time control： 5 Excellent (21 to 25) Good (16 to 20) Acceptable (11 ~ 15) Sufficient (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5) Total 100 100 Note: the evaluation is out of 100, 60 is the pass threshold Exam result 1. □ Pass 2. □ Fail Signature of (do not sign before the end of the test) the evaluation committee

Final mark:

Cued speech is a system of communication used with and among deaf or hard of hearing people. It is a phonemic-based system which makes traditionally spoken languages accessible by using a small number of handshapes (representing consonants or characters in TSL) in different locations near the mouth (representing vowels), as a supplement to lip reading. It is now used with people with a variety of language, speech, communication and learning needs (cf. 2.5). a

In the aforementioned seven tables, the reader can see some differences compared to the EIPA model. The most striking one is probably the importance attributed to facial expressions and proxemic features, such as deportment, and even dress code. Proxemics can be defined as the interrelated observations and theories of man’s use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture (Hall, 1966). Indeed, facial expressions are an indispensable linguistic element to be found in every sign language because they convey some fundamental grammar traits of that given language. For example, a “yes/no” question requires raising the eyebrows and widening the eyes while leaning the head forward. On the other hand, a “wh-word” question, that is, “What? Where?” requires lowering the eyebrows and leaning the head forward. Eye gazes, eye shifts, clenched teeth, and head tilts are examples of gestures and facial expressions used to convey ideas of distance and direction. Comparisons between people, places and things are often expressed in head and body shift gestures, thus conveying grammatical traits. Facial expressions are admittedly a fundamental component of Natural Sign Language (NSL), which differs from Manual Sign Language (MSL); this distinction will be further elaborated in the next section.

134 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Table 6 Sign to spoken language interpretation evaluation sheet (Second part of the exam) Name of the Exam date y/m/d/h candidate Exam number Session Exam part Sign to verbal language interpretation Evaluation grid (1) If any of the following applies, the candidate will automatically fail（Tick the □） □ 1. Absent □ 3. The exam is taken on behalf of a third party □ 2. Not completed □ 4. The candidate does not meet the examination requirements (2) If none of the above is applicable, the evaluation shall be as follows: Evaluation Percentage Reference standard Highest Actual Notes components evaluation evaluation 1. Verbal 25 Fluency: 25 language Excellent (21 to 25) interpretation Good (16 to 20) skills Acceptable (11 ~ 15) Sufficient (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5) 2. Content 25 Accuracy: 25 expression Excellent (21 to 25) accuracy Good (16 to 20) Acceptable (11 ~ 15) Sufficient (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5) 3. Morphology 25 Minus 0.5 for every 25 and application vocabulary omission of spoken language vocabulary

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 135 Table 6  Continued 4. Tone

20

Tone 20 (cadence): Excellent (16 to 20) Good (11 ~ 15 minutes) Acceptable (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5) 5. Spoken-sign 5 Time control： 5 cued speech Excellent (21 to 25) Good (16 to 20) Acceptable (11 ~ 15) Sufficient (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5) Total 100 100 Note: the evaluation is out of 100, 60 is the pass threshold Exam result 1. □ Pass 2. □ Fail Signature of (do not sign before the end of the test) the evaluation committee

Final mark:

6.4.3. The Issue of “Naturality”: Natural Sign Language (NSL) vs. Manual Sign Language (MSL) In this section I will address the issue about “the nature of naturality” in TSL, or more precisely in Natural Taiwan Sign Language (NTSL). What can be defined as NTSL? What is the difference between NSL and MSL? Which one should be examined and tested in professional certifications? In an international handbook published by Pfau et al. (2011) there is an interesting historical perspective on sign language linguistics. Research in the past 50 years has proven the fact that sign languages are independent natural languages with well-formed and complex grammatical systems, no less compact and developed than those of spoken languages. Simply put, natural languages exist in two distinct modalities: the visual-manual modality of sign languages and the auditory-oral modality of spoken languages.

136 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Table 7 Spoken sign language bidirectional interpretation evaluation sheet (Hearing evaluator only) (Third part of the exam) Name of the Exam date y/m/d/h candidate Exam number Session Exam part Spoken sign language bidirectional interpretation Evaluation grid (1) If any of the following applies, the candidate will automatically fail (Tick the □) □ 1. Absent □ 3. The exam is taken on behalf of a third party □ 2. Not completed □ 4. The candidate does not meet the examination requirements (2) If none of the above is applicable, the evaluation shall be as follows: Evaluation Percentage Reference standard Highest Actual Notes components evaluation evaluation 1. Spoken 20 Fluency: 20 language Excellent (21 to 25) interpretation Good (16 to 20) skills Acceptable (11 ~ 15) Sufficient (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5) 2. Tone 20 Accuracy: 20 Excellent (21 to 25) Good (16 to 20) Acceptable (11 ~ 15) Sufficient (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5) 3. Sign 20 Minus 0.5 for every 20 language spoken language interpretation vocabulary skills Omission 4. Facial 20 Tone (cadence): 20 expression, Excellent (16 to 20) deportment Good (11 ~ 15 minutes) Acceptable (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5)

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 137 Table 7  Continued 5. Morphology 20 and applied use of vocabulary

Time control: Excellent (21 to 25) Good (16 to 20) Acceptable (11 ~ 15) Sufficient (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5)

20

Total 100 100 Note: the evaluation is out of 100, 60 is the pass threshold Exam result 1. □ Pass 2. □ Fail Signature of (do not sign before the end of the test) the evaluation committee

Final mark:

From a diachronic point of view, the history of sign linguistics research can be divided into three periods. In the first, researchers focused on the underlying identity between spoken and signed languages. Determined and undeterred to prove the linguistic status of sign languages against what most people believed to be only rough and underdeveloped pantomime and gestures, early sign linguists (over) de-emphasized the role of iconicity in sign languages. The sign language most investigated in this period was ASL. As a consequence, there was little typological research. The second phase started in the 1980s. Linguists and researchers started investigating the issue of modality along with similarities and differences between sign(ed) and spoken languages. Their aim was mainly to analyze the influence of modality on linguistic structure, in modality-specific properties of sign(ed) and spoken languages, and in modality independent linguistic universals as well as psycho- and neurolinguistic processes and representations. Starting from the observation that sign languages seem to be typologically more homogeneous than spoken languages, many grammatical properties of sign languages were related to specific properties of the visual-manual modality. However, in the first two phases, that is, the early and modern periods, research mainly focused on the comparison of sign languages with spoken languages, while cross-linguistic studies on sign languages were quite rare. When non-Western sign languages began to be studied, it became clear that sign languages show more variation than originally predicted. This third phase, which started in the late 1990s, is known as the postmodern period and, in this phase, linguists approached sign language typology more seriously.

138 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Table 8 Spoken to sign language bidirectional interpretation evaluation sheet (Deaf evaluator only) (Third part of the exam) Name of the Exam date y/m/d/h candidate Exam number Session Exam part Spoken to sign language interpretation Evaluation grid (1) If any of the following applies, the candidate will automatically fail（Tick the □） □ 1. Absent □ 3. The exam is taken on behalf of a third party □ 2. Not completed □ 4. The candidate does not meet the examination requirements (2) If none of the above is applicable, the evaluation shall be as follows: Evaluation Percentage Reference standard Highest Actual Notes components evaluation evaluation 1. Sign 25 Fluency: 25 language Excellent (21 to 25) interpretation Good (16 to 20) skills Acceptable (11 ~ 15) Sufficient (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5) 2. Content 25 Accuracy: expression Excellent (21 to 25) accuracy Good (16 to 20) Acceptable (11 ~ 15) Sufficient (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5) 3. Morphology 25 Minus 0.5 for 25 and applied every sign language use of sign vocabulary omission language vocabulary 4. Facial 20 Facial expression, 20 expression, deportment: deportment Excellent (16 to 20) Good (11 ~ 15 minutes) Acceptable (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5)

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 139 Table 8  Continued 5. Sign-spoken 5 cued speech

Time control: 5 Excellent (21 to 25) Good (16 to 20) Acceptable (11 ~ 15) Sufficient (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5) Total 100 100 Note: the evaluation is out of 100, 60 is the pass threshold Exam result 1. □ Pass 2. □ Fail Signature of (do not sign before the end of the test) evaluation committee

Final mark:

Table 9 Sign language interpreter certification on technical subjects evaluation sheet (Hearing evaluator only) Sector

Types of skill

Subjects First part: no rating Second part: sign to spoken language interpretation Total out of 100

Grading standard

Spoken language interpretation Skills Content expression Accuracy Morphology and applied use of spoken language vocabulary Tone Spoken-sign cued speech Third part: spoken Spoken language interpretation to sign language Skills bidirectional Tone interpretation Sign language interpretation Total out of 100 Skills Facial expression, deportment Morphology and applied use of vocabulary

Score ratio (%) 25 25 25 20 5 20 20 20 20 20

140 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Table 10 Sign language interpreter certification on technical subjects evaluation sheet (Deaf evaluator only) Sector

Types of skill

Subjects First part: spoken to sign language interpretation Total out of 100

Second part: no rating Third part: spoken to sign language bidirectional interpretation Total out of 100

Grading standard

Score ratio (%)

Sign language interpretation skills Content expression accuracy Morphology and applied use of sign language vocabulary Facial expression, deportment, dress Sign-Spoken cued speech

25

Sign language interpretation skills Content expression accuracy Morphology and applied use of sign language vocabulary Facial expression, deportment Sign-Spoken cued speech

25

25 25 20 5

25 25 20 5

Today, we can observe an increasing interest in comparative and experimental studies on sign languages at all linguistic levels and on less studied (Western and non-Western) sign languages. TSL, just like any other sign language, can be divided into MSL, a.k.a manually coded language, and NSL. While MSL can be defined quite accurately, with several renowned major approaches, it seems more problematic to define with the same accuracy the properties of NSL. MSLs are representations of spoken languages in a gestural-visual form. In other words, they can be defined as a “signed” version of spoken languages. These languages are not natural, insofar as they were “invented”, or rather created, by hearing people and strictly follow the grammar of the written form of spoken languages. They have not evolved naturally amidst Deaf communities. In the past, MSLs have been mainly used in Deaf education and by sign language interpreters, thus causing a major trauma in the development of Deaf

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 141 Table 11 Sign language interpreter certification on technical subjects (Final general evaluation sheet) Name of candidate Exam number Overall results Absent

Pass

First part

Spoken language to sign language Interpretation Sign language to spoken language Interpretation Spoken-sign language bidirectional interpretation

Second part Third part

Components

Exam date

y/m/d/h

Supervisor’s signature

(do not sign before the end of the test) Absent

Fail

Evaluator’s Points Result for each part Notes signature Pass Fail Absent

children’s native language. It goes beyond the purpose of this book to provide a historical excursus of the genesis and development of manually coded languages as well as delving into the controversial issues between the French oralist school, back in de l’Épée’s time, and their controversies with the manually coded language system. Suffice it to say that the emerging recognition of sign languages in recent times has curbed the growth of manually coded languages, and in many places, interpreting and educational services now favor the use of NSLs. As for TSL, the situation is slightly different for historical and geographic reasons. Languages, both signed and spoken, are alive; thus, they change in time. As previously mentioned, TSL is closer to JSL than to CSL for historical reasons. When Taiwan was occupied by the Japanese, they brought along their languages, both spoken and signed. In Taiwan Mandarin Chinese, especially in the elderly generations, these traits are still present. The same happened

142 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

with signed languages. However, in 1973, the government wanted to unify all the different types of signed languages present on the island of Taiwan. Back then, the two most renowned schools were in Taipei and Tainan. Officials and linguists decided to preserve the characteristics from both schools and to fuse them together with manually coded language traits. In other words, the two systems, NSL vs. MSL, started melting after 1973, so that nowadays it seems problematic if not impossible to separate one from the other. This fusion is irretrievable to the extent that some first-generation interpreters are “too” natural, that is, use a sign language that young Deaf generations are no longer familiar with. Numerous sign language interpreters agree with the idea that the important thing is for the message to come across to the Deaf interlocutor/evaluator flawlessly, irrespective of whether during an exam a candidate uses only natural signs or a mixture of NSL and MSL. If one had to find some factors which could altogether define the main properties of NSL, as opposed to MSL, I would say that the following parameters could be taken into consideration: word order, linear structure vs. simultaneous structure, and prominence of facial expressions. The list is by no means exhaustive. These factors can be defined as the conditio sine qua non for the “naturality of sign.” In linguistic typology, word order defines the sentence structure. If a language is S-V-O, it means that the subject comes first, the verb second, and the object third. Languages may be classified according to the dominant sequence of these elements. Though important in classifying, word order does not seem to be the most crucial factor in the definition of natural TSL, or generally speaking of NSLs, insofar as it becomes more flexible and elastic according to which element of the sentence is emphasized by the signer. Furthermore, word order does not seem to be as rigid where there is agreement. On the other hand, the linear vs. simultaneous structure seems to be much more defining. NSLs, including TSL, make ample use of the space around the body and surrounding the hands, especially for locative verbs and comparison structures. For instance, if one signs the sentence “the cat eats the mouse” word by word (sign by sign), it would be an obvious manual representation of the concept to be conveyed because in NSL both elements (subject and object) would be signed

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 143 in different collocations in the space surrounding the signer, and the verb would proceed from the agent toward the patient in a “3D pattern.” This seems to be quite natural because, from a cognitive standpoint, grammar may be defined as an attempt to describe the interaction of the participants; therefore, it seems rational to begin by describing who the participants are, so that the verb happens to be in the last place. The third factor is facial expressions, which convey the grammatical parts of speech. All these elements, which are found in every natural sign language, should also be present in the evaluation grid used for assessing TSLI. In the next section, an attempt will be made to summarize all the different factors analyzed thus far.

6.5 Tentative New TSLIAE (nTSLIAE) Evaluation Sheet Facial expressions are a fundamental grammatical component of sign languages. Therefore, facial expressions should be present in any TSLIAE grid. Another important factor is the candidate’s knowledge of Deaf culture, which is not explicitly included in any of the aforementioned tables. Cultural knowledge is a fundamental asset for translation and interpreting. Moreover, deontological parameters are equally important. For instance, students and candidates should be aware of the fact that, in Taiwan, sign language interpreters allegedly do not enjoy the same rights and equal status as spoken language interpreters. Given these premises, it seems opportune to come up with an equally effective evaluation grid (but less complex than the ones previously illustrated) because, as one of the interpreters in the evaluation committee admitted, evaluators do not always follow the grids available, which are rather complex and somewhat desultory; they rather evaluate candidates according to the communicative principle, that is, if candidates are interpreting into sign language then it is essential for the Deaf evaluator to understand what they are signing, or vice versa, if candidates are interpreting into a spoken language, it is essential for the hearing evaluator to understand what they are talking about. Finally, the interpreter in the evaluation committee proceeds to compiling the evaluation grid. Therefore, it is imperative to have a more concise evaluation sheet to enable both Deaf and hearing evaluators to assess the candidate as objectively as possible.

144 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Table 12 New TSLIAE (nTSLIAE) evaluation sheet Name of the Exam date y/m/d/h candidate Exam number Session Exam part Spoken language to sign language interpretation General evaluation grid (1) Before the interpreting exam, candidates should answer a series of questions aimed at testing their knowledge of Deaf culture, their awareness of work conditions, and their deontological approach to ethics. (Tick the □) □ Pass □ Fail (2) Is the communicative principle satisfied? Is the message conveyed without any major problem and/or comprehension obstacle to both the Deaf and hearing evaluators? If the aforementioned is not met, the candidate will automatically fail (Tick the □) □ Pass □ Fail (2) If the two above are passed, the evaluation shall be as follows: Evaluation Percentage Reference standard Highest Actual Notes components evaluation evaluation 1. Interpreter 25 Fluency: 25 performancea Excellent (21 to 25) Good (16 to 20) Acceptable (11 ~ 15) Sufficient (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5) 2. Clarity and 25 Accuracy: 25 completeness of Excellent (21 to 25) the message Good (16 to 20) Acceptable (11 ~ 15) Sufficient (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5) 3. Key 20 Minus 0.5 for every 20 vocabulary vocabulary omission represented (oral or signed) 4. Prosodic 15 Excellent (14–15) 15 and proxemics Good (11 ~ 13 a awareness minutes) Acceptable (6 to 10) Insufficient (1 to 5)

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 145 Table 12  Continued 5. Production 15 Excellent (14–15) 15 of numbers Good (11 ~ 13 and Chinese minutes) characters Acceptable (6 to 10) spelling Insufficient (1 to 5) Total 100 100 Note: the evaluation is out of 100, 60 is the pass threshold Exam result 1. □ Pass 2. □ Fail Signature of (do not sign before the end of the test) the evaluation committee

Final mark:

Including spoken and signed language interpretation skills, whether the grammar used by the candidate is Natural Taiwan Sign Language (NTSL) or Manual Signed Chinese (MSC), use of Mandarin Chinese syntactic markers, correct word selection, no omission and/or addition, amount of sign vocabulary. a

Including facial expressions (conveying both grammar and emotions), deportment, use of space around the body, appropriate eye contact/movement, and dress. b

This evaluation grid presents several benefits compared to the other aforementioned tables. First, it gives evaluators the opportunity to carry out an overall, yet specific, evaluation of the candidate with no need to have sub-tables for all three different parts of the exam. Another aspect that readers might notice at first glance is the threshold for taking the exam. Candidates must meet the requirements in (1) prior to taking the exam, and in (2) before being evaluated by the experts committee. This is an attempt aimed at delineating the tools to evaluate TSL adult interpreters in real situational contexts, assess the proficiency of TSL interpreting students’ performances, and assess the proficiency of educational interpreters by developing a suitable grid for TSLI. This nTSLIAE evaluation sheet puts more emphasis on the importance of aspects such as the knowledge of Deaf people’s culture, which is a necessary prerequisite for any interpreter to do a decent job, or candidates’ awareness of their own future working conditions, according to local rules and regulations. The different evaluation components are also made simpler, for the benefit of the evaluating committee, and some additional features, like the “production of numbers and Chinese characters spelling” item, are added, for reasons of completeness. Finally,

146 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

the significance of prosodic and proxemic elements, such as facial expressions (conveying both grammar and emotions), deportment, use of space around the body and surrounding the hands, appropriate eye contact/movement and dress code, is highly emphasized for all the various reasons illustrated throughout the book.

6.6 Conclusion and Limitations This preliminary attempt at establishing common parameters for TSLIAE to assess trainee interpreters’ performance, to evaluate educational interpreting and to measure the quality in real situational contexts is, by definition, preliminary and tentative, thus introductory in its nature without pretense to exhaustivity. Moreover, many concepts could be further developed both in terms of literature exploration and practical application. This may be considered as a pilot study, an approximate direction toward the selection of appropriate tools to be used in the evaluation and assessment of TSLI by drawing on the relevant literature, the existing frameworks, such as the American EIPA, and Taiwan’s current assessment parameters. Further issues such as specifics of cross-culturally mixed classes, how to deal with certain strategies of TSLI, how to conduct an evaluation or, even further, how to evaluate the way specific linguistic structures like proverbs or idiomatic expressions are rendered in sign languages will be discussed elsewhere. This chapter was a mere attempt to present a fresh perspective on sign language interpreting assessment and evaluation techniques. The point of departure for this chapter was the pedagogical and professional need to find commonly shareable parameters for the assessment and evaluation of TSL interpreters’ performances, irrespective of their degree of professionalism, both in the classroom setting and in real, authentic situational contexts. The debate on TSLI, in general, has been very modest and related papers few and far between. Hence, the need to find a pedagogical standard to be adopted as an evaluation parameter. According to the TSLIAE evaluation grid, performances can be divided into five different levels, namely beginner, advanced beginner, intermediate, advanced intermediate, and advanced (which corresponds to the professional level). In the TSLIAE evaluation grid, just like in the EIPA system, evaluators use a Likert Scale to assess specific skills, as illustrated in the third section. Scores for each skill range from 0 (no skills demonstrated) to 5 (advanced native-like skills). The scores from all different evaluators are averaged for each skill area, each domain, as well as the overall test score. An individual’s final score is the summary (total) score.

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 147 Errors should also be carefully subdivided because according to Nord’s classification of errors, pragmatic errors may put the global functionality of the communicative interaction at a high risk. Cultural errors do not obstruct communication per se, but they make it more difficult and may shed a negative light on the speaker’s social image. Finally, linguistic errors or mistakes may turn into pragmatic ones if they lead to misunderstandings, thus entailing more or less important consequences on the overall reception and understanding of the message. My new postulated TSLIAE (nTSLIAE) evaluation grid places more emphasis on the importance of aspects such as the knowledge of Deaf people’s culture, as well as candidates’ awareness of their own future working conditions, according to local rules and regulations. Last, but certainly not least, evaluators should also consider the fact that there may be confounding factors in the process of evaluation: sometimes the signed text used during the exams is not natural signed language but signed Chinese, thus candidates should be thoroughly prepared to be able to tackle (and interpret) any kind of signed language used during the exam session. The different evaluation components I proposed are also made simpler, for the benefit of the evaluating committee, and some additional features, like the “production of numbers and Chinese characters spelling” item, are added, for reasons of completeness. Finally, the significance of prosodic and proxemic elements, such as facial expressions (conveying both grammar and emotions), deportment, use of space around the body and surrounding the hands, appropriate eye contact/movement and dress code, is duly emphasized. Future research is warranted to put this tentative exploration to the test and carry out experiments in a classroom setting to establish the validity and effectiveness, or lack thereof, of this assessment method in TSLI training programs. Reflecting on alternative training models and evaluation criteria will help instructors become more aware of what they are doing in terms of task assessment and will also provide them with further ideas to facilitate the evaluation process and the design of the examination.

Notes 1. For an exhaustive presentation of the interpreting exams, the reader can refer to http://ir.chna.edu.tw/bitstream/310902800/9160/2/177003%E8%A1%93%E 7%A7%91.pdf (only in Chinese). 2. http://www.labor.gov.tw/

148 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

References Bowker, L. (2001). Towards a methodology for a corpus-based approach to translation evaluation. Meta, 46(2), 345–364. Brown, D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters, Multilingua, 5(4), 231–235. Chiaro, D., & Nocella, G. (2004). Interpreters’ perception of linguistic and non-linguistic factors affecting quality: A survey through the World Wide Web. Meta 49(2), 279–293. Colina, S. (2009). Further evidence for a functional approach to translation quality evaluation. Target, 21(2), 235–264. Collados Ais, A. (1998). La evaluacion de la calidad en interpretacion simultanea. La importancia de la comunicacion no verbal. Granada: Editorial Comares. Corina, D.P., Poizner, H., Bellugi, U., Feinberg, T., Dowd, D., & O’Grady-Batch, L. (1992). Dissociation between linguistic and nonlinguistic gestural systems: A case for compositionality. Brain and Language, 43(3), 414–447. Dejean Le Féal, K. (1990). Some thoughts on the evaluation of simultaneous interpretation. In D. Mowen & M. Bowen (Eds.), Interpreting, yesterday, today and tomorrow (pp. 154–160). Binghampton, NY: SUNY. Dörte, A. (2000). Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notizen. Empirische Untersuchung Mentaler Prozesse Bei Anfaengern in der Dolmetscherausbildung und Professionellen Dolmetschern (Unpublished thesis). Vienna: University of Vienna. Fischer, S., & Gong, Q. (2010). Variation in East Asian sign language structures. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge Language Surveys, pp. 499–518). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gile, D. (1990). L’evaluation de la qualité de l’interpretation par les délégués: une étude de cas. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 3, 66–71. Hall, E. (1966). The hidden dimension. Anchor Books. House, J. (2001). Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description versus social evaluation, Meta, 46(2), 243–257. Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (1994). Principles of marketing (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kopczynsky, A. (1994). Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. In M. SnellHornby, F. Pöchhaker, & K. Kaindi (Eds.), Translation studies: An interdiscipline (pp. 189– 198). Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Kurz, I. (1989). Conference interpreting: User expectations. In D.L. Hammond (Ed.), Coming of age: Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the American Translators Association (pp. 143– 148). Medford, NJ: Learned Information. Kurz, I. (1993). Conference interpretation: Expectation of different user groups. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 5, 13–21.

Assessment and Evaluation in TSL Interpreting | 149 Kurz, I. (1994). What do different user groups expect from a conference interpreter? The Jerome Quarterly, 9(2), 3–7. Kurz, I. (1996). Simultandolmetschen als Gegenstand der interdisziplinären Forschung. Vienna: WUV-Universtitaetsverlag. Kurz, I. (2001). Conference interpreting: quality in the ear of he users. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 46(2), 394–409. Li, D. (2006). Making translation testing more teaching oriented: A case study of translation testing in China. Meta, 46(2), 311–325. MacSweeney, M., Campbell, R., Woll, B., Giampietro, V., David, A.S., McGuire, P.K., Calvert, G.A., & Brammer, M.J. (2004). Dissociating linguistic and nonlinguistic gestural communication in the brain. Neuroimage, 22, 1605–1618. Mack, G., & Cattaruzza, L. (1995). User surveys in simultaneous interpretation: A means of learning about quality and/or raising some reasonable doubts. In J. Tommola (Ed.), Topics in interpreting research (pp. 51–68). Turku: University of Turku. Marrone, S. (1993). Quality: A shared objective. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 5, 35–41. Marshall, J., Atkinson, J., Smulovitch, E., Thacker, A., & Woll, B. (2004). Aphasia in a user of British Sign Language: Dissociation between sign and gesture. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 537–554. Meak, L. (1990). Interpretation simultanée et congrès medical: Attentes et commentaires. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 3, 8–13. Moratto, R. (2011). Theory and reflection: A tentative exploration into the application of Nord’s concept of adequacy in trainee interpreter’s (TI) performance assessment. Studies of Translation and Interpretation, 14, 93–112. Moser, P. (1995). Simultanes Konferenzdolmetschen. Anforderungen und Erwartungen der Benutzer. Endberichtim Auftrag Von AIIC. Vienna: SRZ Stadt- und Regionalforschung GmbH. Moser-Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in interpreting: Some methodological issues. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 7, 43–55. Ng, B.C. (1992). End users’ subjective reaction to the performance of student interpreters. The Interpreters’ Newsletter Special Issue I, 35–41. Nord, C. (1989). Loyalität statt Treu. Lebende Sprachen, 34(3), 100–105. Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Shanghai Foreign Language University Press. Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B. (Eds.). (2011). Sign language: An international handbook. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pöchhacker, F. (2016). Introducing interpreting studies (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge. Reiss, K. (1979). Translation criticisms: The potentials and limitations. Manchester: St. Jerome (Translated in 2000). Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Seleskovitch, D. (1986). Who should assess an interpreter’s performance? Multilingua, 5(4), 236. Stokoe, W. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. Studies in Linguistics: Occasional Papers, 8. Buffalo: Dept. of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.

150 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Vuorikoski, A.-R. (1993). Simultaneous interpretation: User experience and expectation. In C. Picken (Ed.), Translation—the vital link. Proceedings of the 13th World Congress of FIT (Vol. 1, pp. 317–327). London: Institute of Translation and Interpreting. Vuorikoski, A.-R. (1998). User responses to simultaneous interpreting. In L. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny, & J. Pearson (Eds.), Unity in diversity? Current trends in translation studies (pp. 184– 187). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Way, C. (2008). Systematic assessment of translator competence: In search of Achilles’ heel. In J. Kearns (Ed.), Translator and interpreter training: Issues, methods and debates (pp. 88–103). New York: Continuum. Williams, M. (2004). Translation quality assessment: An argumentation-centered approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Zhong, Y. (2005). Plan-based translation assessment: An alternative to the standard-based cut-thefeet-to-fit-the-shoes style of assessment. Meta, 50(4).

7

Conclusion

Only dumb hearing people think that deaf people are dumb. Audiologist-Speech Therapist Devangi Dalal, Mumbai, Maharashtra

7.1 A Review of the Chapters This book aims at filling a gap in the literature: it is the first academic contribution dealing with theoretical aspects and pragmatic issues related to Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting (TSLI). Before beginning this journey, my main motivation was to prove that the neurobiological efforts required to conduct the interpreting task are irrespective of the modality, by means of a behavioral study which was illustrated in Chapter 5 and which is an adaptation of the original research design conceived by Gile (1989), namely the tightrope experiment. However, while I was investigating TSLI, I decided to extend my discussion to other issues related to TSLI, such as the issue of training and performance quality, as well as to some challenging areas which increase the neurobiological efforts, such as figurative speech and metaphors. Chapters 1 and 2 focused on TSL history, while the rest of the book focused on TSLI. Many readers might not have previous background knowledge on sign languages, therefore I deemed it necessary to introduce TSL and its history before

152 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

exploring TSLI. Chapter 2 focused on the historical development of TSL and on its diatopic variation. These topics are covered not only as an introduction to TSL but also because they directly influence the interpreting performance, insofar as sign language interpreters should adopt specific strategies to deal with these segments of speech and ought to be flexible in dealing with different varieties of TSL. I also explored some theories of language evolution and emphasized that in the nineteenth century some linguists believed there was an evolution from “the hands to the mouth,” thus demoting signed languages to an inferior status. Given this purported, and mistaken, inferior status, (a few) linguists have been trying to artificially create linguistic systems which might enable Deaf people to grasp the written grammatical language. These systems include cued speech, manually coded language, lip reading, oralism, and grammar sign language. I proceeded to describing these systems because TSL interpreters should be aware of them to tackle any difficulty that might generate from an erroneous use of these mechanisms by the Deaf community, as illustrated in the second chapter. Chapter 3 introduced the history of TSLI. A corpus of TSL interpreters was surveyed to ensure whether the apparently precarious and unprofessional conditions reflect the reality. Bimodal interpreters ought to share the same professional dignity and self-awareness as spoken language interpreters. The first section of the third chapter presented an analysis of TSL interpreting history. The third section is titled “professional volunteers.” This title is obviously a pun. It reflects the almost volunteering nature of TSL professional sign language interpreters nowadays, considering the straitened conditions in which they work. This title is also a window of reflection on many other sectors, where professionals are really volunteers. Therefore, the third chapter shifted the attention directly to TSLI and related issues, by focusing on TSL interpreting history and on the status quo of TSL interpreters in Taiwan. The final part of the third chapter underlined the importance that is given to professional evaluation after many years of sign language interpreting history. This aspect was further emphasized in the chapter dedicated to the issue of TSL interpreting assessment and evaluation. Chapter 4 further explored some challenging areas in TSL interpreting, such as figurative speech and metaphors, which must be taken into consideration in the evaluation process. This chapter aimed at proving that the efforts underlying sign language interpreting are at the basis of the necessity of turn-shifting while interpreting at a sign language event. In Chapter 5, I conducted an exhaustive review of the neurolinguistics studies proving that sign languages are natural languages and should be treated as such; signers show exactly the same cerebral lateralization as spoken language

Conclusion | 153 speakers: research shows that the lateralization of brain function is irrespective of the modality through which language is conveyed and it occurs even when the articulators are visual-spatial in nature. As Sacks (1989, p. 76) points out “[sign language] is processed by the left hemisphere of the brain which is biologically specialized for just this function.” This is also a proof of the plasticity of the human brain: it is as if the left hemisphere in signers modifies the visual-spatial characteristics into a whole new analytical concept, making it a language of its own, with its own rules and developing the potentials intrinsically present in the neurobiological mechanisms of the human brain. Apart from reviewing the neurolinguistics-related literature, in Chapter 5 I also conducted a study by way of reduplicating an experiment originally designed by Gile (1989). The findings of the study illustrated in Chapter 5 strengthen the tightrope hypothesis, according to which many errors and omissions (e/o’s) are not due to the intrinsic difficulty of the corresponding source-speech segments, but to the interpreters working close to processing capacity saturation which in Gile’s (1989, p. 153) words “makes them vulnerable to even small variations in the available processing capacity for each interpreting component.” Moreover, another interesting aspect which emerged from the aforementioned study is the higher difficulty to render certain expressions in sign language in the simultaneous mode because of the intrinsic explanatory need. These expressions are part of the challenging areas of the interpreting task: figurative speech and metaphors, analyzed in Chapter 4, are probably the hardest aspects to convey in a target language and culture (Deaf ). Furthermore, as can be seen in Table 3, most of the new errors in the second version were made by spoken language interpreters. This was an interesting phenomenon which deserved to be further explored and I did so by interviewing spoken language interpreters and ask them the reason why they had made more errors in the second version. All the participants who made more mistakes in the second version told me that the reason why this happened was because, after hearing the speech once, they thought they were ready to “embellish” or enhance it with better expressions. This process took time away from the normal flow of interpreting. In other words, they confirmed themselves that this was not due to an intrinsic difficulty of the text, to biased materials, or to a greater effort compared to their fellow signing interpreters.

7.2 Concluding Remarks and Future Research The present research monograph hopes to have shed light on the fact that signed languages are natural languages from a neurobiological point of view and that this

154 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

is the reason why TSLI is by no means inferior to, thus should not be treated any differently from, spoken language interpreting. Future research is warranted to further explore several aspects. From the point of view of quality issues, future research could put my tentative exploration to the test and conduct experiments in a TSLI training classroom setting to establish the validity and effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the assessment method elaborated herein. Reflecting on alternative training models and evaluation criteria will help trainers become more aware of what they are doing in terms of task assessment and will also provide them with further ideas to facilitate not only the evaluation process but also the design of the examinations and the way students should be classified according to their performances. In future studies, some of the possible research questions that scholars might want to focus their attention on are:





(f ) Why is scientific research important in the field of sign language SI and SI pedagogy? (g) What are the main challenges, in terms of equipment, that scholars face in neurolinguistics research when it comes to sign language SI and to sign language SI production analysis? (h) How could researchers overcome these technical difficulties? (i) Finally, what might be the differences between novice interpreters and expert interpreters in terms of their brain functions and cognitive structures? (j) How can these researches be expended to sign interpreting?

Future research is warranted to develop longitudinal studies which might possibly focus on the development of expertise in interpreting, thus shedding further light on the brain plasticity of interpreters. Finally, from the point of view of figurative speech and metaphors, it would be interesting to investigate the acquisition and recall of metaphorical versus non-metaphorical TSL signs by native signers and non-native signers. Moreover, TSL signs could be used to investigate the explanatory power of the structural similarity alternative versus the conceptual metaphor analysis. Thus, empirical research is warranted to shed light on other rhetorical aspects of TSL, including empirical data on the use of metaphors by signers, both native and non-native. It is quite an unexplored field and could potentially pave the way for a better understanding of the cognitive mechanisms underlying sign languages, more specifically TSL, where research leaves to be desired, and for a more thorough analysis of the same cognitive mechanisms in other language modalities in a comparative

Conclusion | 155 way. Indeed, studying speech-sign bimodal bilinguals can elucidate the language code-switching mechanisms and the cognitive inhibition mechanisms. The question of how a bilingual subject monitors two languages within a brain has been investigated by neuropsychological studies. Neuroimaging studies have found that the interference between two languages, irrespective of the modality, is associated with specific regions of the brain, particularly the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the anterior cingulated cortex, and the superior temporal gyrus (STG) (Abutalebi et al., 2011). The experience of sign language might influence our cognitive processing and shape our brains (Chiu, 2006) and, in this respect, sign language interpreters are a window providing a very good research opportunity. More professional interpreters will be needed in the future in specialized sectors, like the medical or the legislative one. One of the main challenges ahead of us is to come up with the lexicon that does not yet exist in sign languages; therefore, it is necessary for interpreters to have a strong linguistic background to be able to come up with new lexemes according to language-specific semantic and pragmatic word-formation rules.

7.3 Limitations of the Book It seems opportune to point out one of the limitations of this study before concluding. The behavioral study carried out in Chapter 5, which proved the tightrope hypothesis, was conducted with a sample of 10 professional interpreters, of which five were sign language interpreters and five spoken language interpreters. The reason I did this was to have a control group (spoken language interpreters) and compare the efforts of the two groups. However, the sample of sign language interpreters is quite small. The reason for this lies in most interpreters’ reticence to accept interviews or participate in experiments. Although all participants were duly paid for their contribution, it was still very laborious to find people willing to take part in the study. This trend is not exclusive to sign languages, the same thing happens with research on spoken language interpreting. Numerous interpreters do not understand that their contribution is essential for research, and that results remain anonymous. Although this was clearly stated to all those who were contacted and invited to take part in the study, most of them were still afraid to “lose their face” in case of a poor performance, without understanding that the object of our research was not aimed at evaluating how good their translational skills are, but to analyze and investigate the underlying neurobiological mechanisms and cognitive processes.

156 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

With the rising need for the Deaf to gain equal access to information and services, sign language interpreting has become an important social factor in the contemporary world. I truly hope that the present research monograph will spur the government and other ad hoc institutional organizations to recognize the fact that sign language interpreters ought to enjoy the same rights as spoken language interpreters, including commensurate professional remuneration and adequate working conditions, such as the co-presence on stage of two colleagues shifting every 20–30 minutes, which is the ideal situation in all interpreting contexts. As Sandra Hale (2007, p. 162) rightfully points out: It is the responsibility of all those involved: the interpreters themselves, the service providers and the service recipients to put pressure on policy-makers to instigate the necessary changes. […] Research can do much to describe and highlight the issues, demonstrate the needs for training, provide useful information for the improvement of interpreters’ performance; but it needs to be read and considered seriously by the interested parties in order to have any effect.

The results presented in this book have implications for sign language interpreting in regard to research, pedagogy, and practice insofar as they raise the awareness of one’s own professional figure. This is indeed a crucial deontological factor in any discussion pertaining to interpreting. The present monograph discussed an array of subjects in this research field allowing readers to have a comprehensive view of the research themes, theoretical approaches, and methodologies as well as specialized sign language interpreting practices. Departing from its regional qualities, this monograph is complementary to the larger research picture of sign language interpreting in Asia and provides insights for scholars worldwide into the Taiwanese sign language community.

References Abutalebi, J., Della Rosa, P.A., Green, D.W., Hernandez, M., Scifo, P., Keim, R., Cappa, S.F., & Costa, A. (2011). Bilingualism tunes the anterior cingulate cortex for conflict monitoring. Cerebral Cortex, 22(9), 2076–2086. Chiu, Y.-H. (2006). The role of iconicity in sign language processing: Evidence from Taiwan Sign Language (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). National Yang-Ming University. Gile, D. (1989). La communication linguistique en réunion multilingue Les difficulties de la transmission informationnelle en interprétation simultanée (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université Paris III. Hale, S. (2007). Community interpreting. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Sacks, O. (1989). Seeing voices. A journey into the world of the deaf. New York: Vintage Books.

Dictionaries of Taiwan Sign Language Used

Chinese YMCA Hong Kong, Taipei YMCA, Kuala Lumpur YMCA, Osaka YMCA (Eds.). (1989). Speaking with signs (Fourth Version). Osaka: Osaka YMCA. [A dictionary of Hong Kong Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language, Japanese Sign Language and Malaysian Sign Language, with a page of fingerspelling of Korean Sign Language.] Chinese YMCA Hong Kong, Taipei YMCA, The Society for the Deaf in Selangor and the Federal Territory, Osaka YMCA (Eds.). (1984). Speaking with signs (Third Version). Osaka: Osaka, YMCA. [A dictionary of Hong Kong Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language, Japanese Sign Language and Malaysian Sign Language, with a page of fingerspelling of Korean Sign Language.] Chinese YMCA Hong Kong, Taipei YMCA, The Society for the Deaf in Selangor and the Federal Territory, Osaka YMCA (Eds.). (1980). Speaking with signs (Second Version). Osaka: Osaka YMCA. [A dictionary of Hong Kong Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language, Japanese Sign Language and Malaysian Sign Language, with a page of fingerspelling of Korean Sign Language.] Chinese YMCA Hong Kong, Taipei YMCA, The Society for the Deaf in Selangor and the Federal Territory, Osaka, YMCA (Eds.). (1979). Speaking with signs (Book One) Hong Kong: Chinese YMCA. [A dictionary of Hong Kong Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language, Japanese Sign Language and Malaysian Sign Language, with a page of fingerspelling of Korean Sign Language.] Li, J. (1978). Shouyu Huace [Sign Language Dictionary]. Taipei: Ministry of Education, Department of Social Education.

158 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Ministry of Education, Special Education Work Group (2000). Changyong Cihui Shouyu Huace [Sign Language Dictionary of Commonly Used Vocabulary], Vol. 1. Taipei: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, Special Education Work Group. (2000). Changyong Cihui Shouyu Huace [Sign Language Dictionary of Commonly Used Vocabulary], Vol. 2. Taipei: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1987). Shouyu Huace [Sign Language Dictionary of Commonly Used Vocabulary], Vol. 2. Taipei: Ministry of Education. Yang, C.H., & Lu, N.C. (1984). Piaochun shouyu shout’se [Standard Sign Language Handbook]. Taipei: Lung ya fu li hsieh hui.

Appendix

In this appendix, the reader can find the transcript of the source speech which was played to the participants in Chapter 6. After the transcription of the source speech, I will also provide the reader with the transcripts of the two interpreted versions of all subjects. The speech was transcribed by the following link: http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V5tg4SvGksandfeature=relmfu Participants were instructed to listen to the question and interpret only the answer.

Source speech: 商周兩岸電信論壇領袖頂峰會-王建宙、呂學錦、焦威文、王文靜對談 Question: 最後兩個問題，是我代表企業界，來作的提問。這個問題是英華達的副 經理張雪玲她所問的。她問了王董事長， 她問說如何刺激中國消費者在 3G 平臺上消費，我們談了這麽多，到底要怎麽去刺激中國的消費者在 3G 平臺上消費？ 中國移動做法是什麽？

160 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Answer: 其實剛才已經談到了這方面的事情， 就是最終的還是要看消費，因爲投 資的是一種固定資產的投資，是一種消耗吧。那麽這個都是一個企業 的一種行爲。但是作爲電信行業，它本身是一個服務行業。它最終 要靠消費者的使用，才是我們能夠可以說投資的。所以其實我 們最關心的也是怎麽來啓動消費。那麽我想這個消費本身已 經存在著巨大的需求了，那麽籍助於 3G 呢 我覺得除了 前面所說的速 率更高速度更快等等以外， 最重要的是籍助於 3G 能夠 創造出更多的 新的消費。再創造出幾個像移動音樂一樣新的消費。 那麽前面所說的物聯網，手機支付，電子閲讀，我覺得在 2G 時代也 能做，但是在 3G 時代會做得更好；所以我覺得創造一些新的消 費的 項目，這是最重要的。

Subject A: First version: 真的（其實）/剛剛/談/完了/有// REALLY/JUST/TALK/FINISHED/HAVE// 真的/看/買人// REALLY/LOOK/BUYER// 投資/是/固定// INVEST/BE/FIXED// 這個/是/公司/做// THIS/BE/COMPANY/DO// 服務/做/靠/買人/用 （花錢）++// SERVICE/DO/RELY/BUYER/USE(SPEND)// 公司/回/賺錢/可以// COMPANY/BACK/EARN/MONEY/CAN 關心/什麽// CARE/WHAT// 鼓勵/買++// SPUR/BUY// 買/要/一樣// BUY/MUST/THE SAME// 3G/我覺得/剛剛/談/完了/有// 3G/THINK/JUST/TALK/FINISHED/HAVE// 速度/快/除此以外// SPEED/FAST/OTHER//

Appendix | 161 重要/什麽// IMPORTANT/WHAT// 靠/3G/鼓勵/買++// RELY/3G/SPUR/BUY// 剛剛/說/網/手機/買++/IPAD/閲讀// JUST/SPEAK/NET/CELL/BUY/IPAD/READ// 2G/說/一樣/可以// 2G/SAY/SAME/CAN// 但/3G/做/越// BUT/3G/DO/EXCEED// 鼓勵/新/買/可以// SPUR/NEW/BUY/CAN// Second version: 真的（其實）/剛剛/談/完了/有// REALLY/JUST/TALK/FINISH/HAVE// 做/真的/看/買人// DO/REALLY/LOOK/BUYER// 投資/是/固定// INVEST/BE/FIXED// 公司/做/最近/服務/事情/靠/買人/用/買人// COMPANY/DO/RECENT/SERVICE/THINGS/RELY/BUYER/USE/BUYER// 公司/賺錢/可以// COMPANY/EARN/CAN// 重/關心/什麽// HEAVY/CARE/WHAT// 鼓勵/買// SPUR/BUY// 我/覺得/買// I/THINK/BUY// 3G/速度/快// 3G/SPEED/FAST// 除此以外/重要/什麽// OTHER/IMPORTANT/WHAT// 靠/3G/幫忙/買// RELAY/3G/HELP/BUY// 像/情形/剛剛/說//

162 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

LIKE/SITUATION/JUST/SAY// 網/ IPAD/讀// NET/IPAD/READ// 我/覺得/2G/做/一樣// I/THINK/2G/DO/SAME// 3G/一樣/可以// 3G/SAME/CAN// 勝過// WIN//XXX

Subject B: First version: 剛/全部/都/講/完了// JUST/COMPLETE/ALL/TALK/FINISHED// 最終/看/情形// EVENTUALLY/LOOK/SITUATION// 其實/投資/目的/什麽// ACTUALLY/INVEST/PURPOSE/WHAT// 是/消費/各式各樣/行爲 BE/CONSUME/DIFFERENT TYPES/BEHAVIOR// 像/電信// LIKE/TELECOMMUNICATION// 什麽/靠// WHAT/RELY// 你們/用/幫/我們/投資/回收// YOU/USE/HELP/WE/INVEST/RETRIEVE// 其實/我們/重視/什麽// ACTUALLY/WE/RESPECT/WHAT// 關心/開始+建制/啓動// CARE/START+ORGANIZE/INITIATE// 我/想/消費/沒有/發生/事// I/THINK/CONSUME/NOT HAVE/HAPPEN/THINGS// 每個人/要// EVERYBODY/MUST// 3C/速度/快// 3C/SPEED/FAST// 還有/可以/借有/什麽//

Appendix | 163 FURTHEMORE/CAN/BORROW+USE/WHAT// 開始/促進/消費// START/BOOST/CONSUME// 像/音樂/可以/開始// LIKE/MUSIC/CAN/START// 還有/手機/閲讀/等等// FURTHERMORE/CELL/READ/ETC// 我/覺得/之後/可以/做/（進步）// I/THINK/AFTER/CAN/DO/(PROGRESS)// 我/想/開始/發明/新// I/THINK/START/INVENT/NEW// Second version: 其實/我/剛剛/說/完/這些事// ACTUALLY/I/JUST/SAY/FINISHED/THESE THINGS// 最終/要/看/什麽// EVENTUALLY/MUST/LOOK/WHAT// 你們/是/以後/能夠/投資/目的/是/什麽// YOU/BE/AFTER/CAN/INVEST/PURPOSE/BE/WHAT// 是/靠/每個人/用// BE/RELY/EVERYBODY/USE// 像/商業/行爲/電信/最終/要/靠/每一個人/用// LIKE/BUSINESS/BEHAVIOR/TELECOMMUNICATION/EVENTUALLY/ MUST /RELY/EVERYBODY/USE// 幫/我們/全部/投資/回收// HELP/WE/COMPLETE/INVEST/RETRIEVE// 我們/關心/什麽// WE/CARE/WHAT// 就是/開始+建置// BE/START+ORGANIZE// 我/想/使用/每個人/需求// I/THINK/USE/EVERYBODY/NEED// 除/3C/之外// EXCEPT/3C/ELSE// 速度/可以/加快// SPEED/CAN/QUICKEN// 我們/開始/發明/新的//

164 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

WE/START/INVENT/NEW// 還有/音樂/手機/閲讀/等等// FURTHERMORE/MUSIC.CELL/READ/ETC// 我/覺得/3C/要/開始// I/THINK/3C/MUST/BEGIN// 想/發明/新的/使用/重要// THINK/INVENT/NEW/USE/IMPORTANT//

Subject C: First version: 剛/討論/完了// JUST/DISCUSS/FINISHED// 投資/目的/是/什麽// INVEST/PURPOSE/BE/WHAT// 像/固定/資產/本來/就是/一種/消費型// LIKE/FIXED/CAPITAL/ORIGINALLY/BE/A TYPE/CONSUME MODE// 公司/本來/有/這種/習性// COMPANY/ORIGINALLY/HAVE/THIS TYPE/USE// 電信/公司/本來/是/服務業// TELECOMMUNICATIONS/COMPANY/ORIGINALLY/BE/SERVICE SECTOR// 如何/幫忙/消費者/刺激/他們/來/使用// HOW/HELP/CONSUMER/BOOST/THEY/COME/USE// 我/比較/關心/是/如何/刺激/吸引/他們/來/消費// I/RATHER/CARE/BE/HOW/BOOST/LURE/THEM/COME/CONSUME// 那些/消費/需求//多存在// THOSE/CONSUME/NEED/EXIST// 剛/提到/速度/快/速率/高/之外// JUST/MENTION/SPEED/FAST.EFFICIENCY/HIGH/APART// 最終/目的/要/利用/3G/創造/新/消費// EVENTUALLY/PURPOSE/MUST/USE/3G/INNOVATE/NEW/CONSUME// 我們/提到/音樂/物聯網/電子書/手機/付錢/等等// WE/MENTION/MUSIC/NETWORK/ELECTRONIC BOOKS/CELL/PAY/ ETC 而/2G/時代/做/可以// AND/2G/ERA/DO/CAN//

Appendix | 165 3G/一樣/可以// 3G/SAME/CAN// 像/這些/都/是/新的/消費/都/很/重要// LIKE/THESE/ALL/BE/NEW/CONSUME/ALL/VERY/IMPORTANT// Second version: 剛/討論/完了// JUST/DISCUSS/FINISHED// 最終/目的/是/要/讓/消費者/願意/來/使用// EVENTUALLY/PURPOSE/BE/MUST/MAKE/CONSUMERS/WILL/ COME/USE// 這些/都/是/公司/習慣// THESE/ALL/BE/COMPANY/HABIT// 本來/電信/公司/也/是/服務業// ORIGINALLY/TELECOMMUNICATIONS/ALSO/BE/SERVICE SECTOR// 要/消費者/有/使用/投資/可以/獲利// MUST/CONSUMER/HAVE/USE/INVEST/CAN/WIN// 所以/要/刺激/消費者/使用// SO/MUST/STIMULATE/CONSUMERS/USE// 這些/需求/都/存在// THESE/NEEDS/ALL/EXIST// 像/我們/剛/提到/速率/高/速度/快// LIKE/WE/JUST/MENTION/EFFICIENCY/HIGH/SPEED/FAST// 這些/需求/2G/可以/做得到// THESE/NEEDS/2G/CAN/DO// 可以/刺激到/更多/信心/消費// CAN/BOOST/MORE/CONFIDENCE/CONSUME// 比如説/物聯網//手機/服務費//電子書/等等// FOR EXAMPLE/INTERNET/CELL/SERVICES SECTOR/ELECTRONIC BOOKS/ETC// 以前/2G/可以/做// BEFORE/2G/CAN/DO// 現在/升級到/3G/也/可以/做// NOW/INCREASE/3G/ALSO/CAN/DO// 所以/要/創造/新的/消費/最/重要的// THEREFORE/MUST/CREATE/NEW/CONSUME/IMPORTANT//

166 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Subject D: First version: 真的/剛剛/討論過// REALLY/JUST/DISCUSS// 這/事情// THIS/THING// 再/看/消費// AGAIN/LOOK/CONSUME// 股票/他們/是/固定/是// STOCK/THEY/BE/FIXED/BE// 消費/針對/這個// CONSUME/RESPECT TO/THIS// 企業/公司/是/針對/這個/用// ENTERPRISE/COMPANY/BE/RESPECT TO/THIS/MONTH// 但/電信/服務/靠/什麽// BUT/TELECOMMUNICATIONS/SERVICES/RELY/WHAT// 消費/族區// CONSUME/GROUP// 他們/是/用/這個// THEY/BE/USE/THIS// 賺錢/會// EARN/CAN// 真的/關心/什麽// REALLY/CARE/WHAT// 希望/消費者/他們// HOPE/CONSUMERS/THEY// 想/購買/要/有// WANT/BUY/MUST/HAVE// 3G/靠/這個// 3G/RELY/THIS// 剛/說過/速度/快// JUST/SAY/SPEED/FAST// 品質/提升// QUALITY/INCREASE// 再/靠/什麽// AGAIN/RELY/WHAT// 3G/刺激/其它/鏈接//

Appendix | 167 3G/BOOST/OTHER/LINK// 就像/音樂/物聯網/第三/手機/付錢/電子閲讀// LIKE/MUSIC/INTERNET/THIRD/CELL/PAY/ELECTRONIC READING/ 之前/2G/做過/可以// BEFORE/2G/DO/CAN// 但是/3G/程度/更好// BUT/3G/LEVEL/BETTER// Second version: 剛剛/討論/過/這事// JUST/DISCUSS/PAST/THIS// 最後/看/什麽// EVENTUALLY/LOOK/WHAT// 消費/族區/他們// CONSUME/GROUP/THEY// 爲什麽/股票/固定// WHY/STOCK MARKET/FIXED// 花費// SPEND// 公司/企業/它們/大部分//（都是用股票） COMPANY/ENTERPRISE/THEY/MOST PART// 但/電信/服務/是/靠/什麽// BUT/TELECOMMUNICATIONS/BE/RELY/WHAT// 消費/族區/他們// CONSUME/GROUP/THEY// 但/花費/要// BUT/SPEND/MUST// 賺錢/會// EARN/CAN// 真的/關心/什麽// REALLY/CARE/WHAT// 希望/消費/族區// HOPE/CONSUME/GROUP// 他們/刺激/購買/要// THEY/STIMULATE/BUY/MUST// 像/消費/要/用/3G/依靠/這個// LIKE/CONSUME/MUST/USE/3G/RELY/THIS// 之前/說過/速度/快/品質/提升//

168 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

BEFORE/SAY/SPEED/FAST/QUALITY/INCREASE// 再/靠/什麽// AGAIN/RELY/WHAT// 重要/希望/這/3G// IMPORTANT/HOPE/THIS/3G// 消費/靠/他們/刺激// CONSUME/RELY/THEY/STIMULATE// 就像/音樂/物聯網/手機/付錢/電子閲讀// LIKE/MUSIC/INTERNET/CELL/PAY/ELECTRONIC READING// 之前/2G/做過// BEFORE/2G/DO// 但是/3G/做/更好// BUT/3G/DO/BETTER// 這/重要// THIS/IMPORTANT//

Subject E: First version: 剛/全部/講/完了// JUST/COMPLETE/TALK/FINISHED// 最後/看/情形// EVENTUALLY/LOOK/SITUATION// 其實/股票/目的/什麽// ACTUALLY/STICK MARKET/PURPOSE/WHAT// 是/消費/行爲 BE/CONSUME/BEHAVIOR// 像/電信//什麽/靠// LIKE/TELECOMMUNICATION/WHAT/RELY// 你們/幫/我們/股票/回收// YOU/HELP/WE/VOTE/RETRIEVE// 但/我們/重視/什麽// BUT/WE/VALUE/WHAT// 關心/開制// CARE/INITIATE// 我/想/消費（花錢）/沒有/發生/事 I/THINK/CONSUME/NOT HAVE/HAPPEN/THINGS// 每個人/要//

Appendix | 169 EVERYBODY/MUST// 3C/速度/快 3C//SPEED/FAST// 還有/可以/通過/什麽// FURTHERMORE/CAN/PASS/WHAT// 開始/促進/花費// START/PROMOTE/SPEND MONEY// 像/音樂/開始/可以// LIKE/MUSIC/START/CAN// 還有/手機/閲讀/等等// FURTHERMORE/CELL/READING/ETC// 我/覺得/之後/可以/做/（進步）// I/THINK/AFTER/CAN/DO/PROGRESS// 我/想/開始/發明/新/可以// I/THINK/START/INVENT/NEW/CAN// Second version: 其實/剛剛/談/完了/有// ACTUALLY/JUST/TALK/FINISHED/HAVE// 真的/看/買/人// REALLY/LOOK/BUYER// 股票/是/固定// STOCK MARKET/BE/FIXED// 公司/做/最近/服務/事情/靠/買人// COMPANY/DO/RECENTLY/SERVICE/THINGS/RELY/BUYER// 公司/賺錢/可以// COMPANY/EARN/CAN// 關心/什麽// CARE/WHAT// 鼓勵/買// ENCOURAGE/BUY// 我/覺得/買// I/THINK/BUY// 3G/速度/快// 3G//SPEED/FAST// 除此以外/重要/什麽// OTHER/IMPORTANT/WHAT// 靠/3G/幫忙/花費//

170 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

RELY/3G/HELP/SPEND// 像/情形/剛剛/說// LIKE/SITUATION/JUST/SAY// 網/電子閲讀// NET/ELECTRONIC READING// 我/覺得/2G/做/可以// I/THINK/2G/DO/CAN// 3G/一樣/可以/更好// 3G/SAME/CAN/BETTER// 這/重要// THIS/IMPORTANT//

Oral interpreted versions Subject F First version: Actually, we just talked about this thing, eventually we still have to look at consumers, because investing is a type of fixed assets, some kind of consumption. This is a business-like behavior, but in the sector of telecommunications, in itself it is part of the service industry. It has to rely on consumer’s use, this is the only way for us to be able to talk about investing. So, what we most care about is also how to spur consumption. In consumption itself there is a huge demand and by means of the 3G, apart from what we have already talked about like being faster and more efficient, the most important thing is to create new types of consumptions, like portable music, or mobile payment, electronic reading. These services could be implemented in the 2G era and in the 3G they can be even better. So, I think creating new services is the most important thing. Second version: Actually, we just talked about it, eventually we will have to focus on consumers, because investing is a type of fixed assets, some kind of consumption. It’s a business-like behavior, but in the sector of telecommunications, it can be considered as part of the service industry. It has to rely on consumption, this is the only way for us to be able to talk about investing. So, what we most care about is how to spur consumption. In consumption itself there is a huge demand and thanks to the 3G, apart from what we have already talked about like being faster and more

Appendix | 171 efficient, the most important thing is to create new types of consumptions, like portable music, or mobile payment, electronic reading, and so on These services could be implemented in the 2G era and in the 3G era they can be done even better. So, I think creating new services is the most important thing.

Subject G First version: Actually, we just talked about this, at the end we will have to look at consumers, because investing is a type of fixed, a type of consumption. It is an entrepreneurial behavior, but in the sector of telecommunications, it is also a part of the service industry. It has to rely on consumers, this is the only possible way to talk about investing. So, we think it is important to encourage consumption. In consumption itself there is a huge demand and by means of the 3G, apart from what we have already talked about like being faster and more efficient, the most important thing is to create new types of consumptions, like music, or mobile payment, electronic reading. These services could be implemented in the 2G era and in the 3G they can be carried out even better. So, I think creating new services is crucial. Second version: Actually, we just mentioned this, at the end of the day we still have to look at consumers, because investing is a type of fixed assets, some kind of consumption. This is an entrepreneurial attitude, but in the sector of telecommunications, in itself it is part of the service industry. It has to rely on consumption, the only way to be able to talk about investing. So, what we most care about is also how to encourage consumption. In consumption itself there is a huge demand and by means of the 3G, other than what we have already talked about like rapidity and efficiency and more efficient, the most important thing is to create new types of consumptions, like portable music, or mobile payment. These services could be implemented in the 2G era and in the 3G they can be even better. So, I think creating new services is the most crucial aspect. Subject H First version: As we just mentioned, eventually we will still have to look at consumers, because investing is a type of fixed assets, some kind of consumption. It is a business-oriented behavior, but in telecommunications, it becomes part of the service

172 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

industry. It has to rely on consumption, the only way to talk about investing. So, what we most care about is also how to incentivize consumption. In consumption itself there is a huge demand and by means of the 3G, apart from what we have already mentioned like being faster and more efficient, the most important thing is to create new types of services, like portable music, and electronic reading. These services could be implemented in the 2G era and in the 3G they can be even more efficient. So, I think creating new services is the most important thing. Second version: As we just talked about this, at the end we still have to look at consumers, because investing is a type of fixed assets, some kind of consumption. It is a business, but in the sector of telecommunications, it is also part of the service industry. It has to rely on consumption, this is the only way for us to be able to talk about investing. So, what we most care about is also how to boost consumption. In consumption there is a huge demand and thanks to the 3G, apart from what we have mentioned already like being faster and more efficient, the most important thing is to create new types of consumptions, like portable music, mobile payment, and electronic reading. These services could be implemented in the 2G era and in the 3G they can be improved. So, I think creating new services is the most important aspect.

Subject I First version: Actually, we just talked about this thing, eventually we still have to look at consumers, because investing is some kind of consumption. This is a business behavior, but in the sector of telecommunications, it is part of the service industry. It has to rely on consumers’ uses, this is the only way for us to be able to talk about investing. So, what we most care about is how to boost consumption. In consumption there is a huge demand and by means of the 3G, apart from what we have already talked about like the advantages of being faster and more efficient, the most important thing is to create new types of consumptions, like portable music, or online payment, electronic reading. These services could be implemented in the 2G era and in the 3G they can be even better. So, I think creating new services is the most important thing. Second version: As we just mentioned, eventually we still have to consider consumers, because investing is a type of fixed assets, some kind of consumption. It is a risky attitude,

Appendix | 173 but in the sector of telecommunications, it is part of the service industry. It has to rely on consumers’ needs, this is the only way for us to be able to talk about investing. So, what we most care about is also how to boost consumption, where there is a huge demand and by means of the 3G, apart from what we have already talked about like being faster and more efficient, the most important thing is to create new types of consumptions, like portable music, or mobile payment. These services could be implemented in the 2G era and in the 3G they can be even better. So, I think creating new services is very important.

Subject L First version: Actually, we just talked about this thing, at the end we still have to look at consumers, because investing is a fixed asset, some kind of consumption. This is a business-like behavior, but in the sector of telecommunications, in itself it is part of the service industry. It has to rely on consumers’ uses, this is the only way for us to be able to talk about investing. So, we emphasize the importance of boosting consumption. Consumption itself has a huge demand and by means of the 3G, apart from what we have already talked about like being faster and more efficient, the most important thing is to create new types of consumptions, like portable music, or mobile payment, electronic reading. These services were implemented in the 2G era and in the 3G era they can be improved. So, I think creating new services is very important. Second version: Actually, we just talked about this thing, at the end we still have to look at consumers, because investing is some kind of consumption. This is a business-oriented behavior, but in the sector of telecommunications, in itself it is part of the service industry. It has to rely on consumption, this is the only way for us to be able to talk about investing. So, we emphasize the importance of boosting consumption. Consumption itself has a huge demand and by means of the 3G, apart from what we have already talked about like being faster and more efficient, the most important thing is to create new types of consumptions, like music and electronic reading. These services were implemented in the 2G era and in the 3G era they can be improved even more. So, I think creating new services is extremely important.

Index

accent 123 activation 82, 86, 94, 95, 111 activation threshold xxi, 94, 115 Activation Threshold Hypothesis (ATH) xxi, 94 active production 130 adstrate 38 adstratum languages 18 age of acquisition (AoA) xxi, 95, 96 AIIC (Association Internationale des Interprètes de Conférence International Association of Conference Interpreters) xxi, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 49 alternation 82 American Sign Language (ASL) xxi, 18, 44, 126 anterior cingulated cortex 155 anthropology 17 anticipation strategies 6 antithesis 57 aphasia 85, 86, 94

apraxia 86 arbitrariness 65 arbitrary 63, 65, 88, 89 articulators 82, 84, 87, 89, 153 articulatory suppression 93 assessment viii, ix, xxi, xxii, 10, 12, 52, 83, 98, 104, 112, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 131, 146, 147, 152, 154 asymmetry 97 ATH xxi, 94 auditory-oral modality 35, 135 automatisms 6   basal ganglia 94 bilingual brain 11, 90, 92, 97, 111 bilinguals 11, 82, 90, 95, 96, 97, 111, 112, 155 bimodal 6, 10, 11, 12, 48, 82, 83, 90, 92, 95, 97, 111, 112, 152, 155 bimodal bilingualism 97

176 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

bimodal bilinguals 11, 90, 95, 97, 111, 112, 155 bimodal interpreting 6, 12, 83 body language 28, 34 Bonet, Juan Pablo 26 borrowing 19 brief (übersetzungsauftrag) 124, 125 British Sign Language (BSL) xxi, 18, 120 BSL xxi, 18, 120 budget issues/restrictions xvi, 2, 7, 25, 49, 82   carpal tunnel syndrome 44 caused motion verbs 58 cerebral lateralization 87, 152 cheirology 62 cheremes 89 Chinese National Association of the Deaf (CNAD) xxi, 45, 46, 50 Chinese Sign Language (CSL) xv, xxi, 1, 18, 20, 37, 126, 141 clarification 58, 61, 71 classifiers 89, 112 clenched teeth 133 Clerc, Laurent 26, 44 code of conduct 7 code of ethics 7, 24, 47, 51 code-switching 95, 155 cognitive complexity 90, 92 communicative principle 103, 143, 144 comparison structures 38, 142 competition hypothesis 90 completeness 25, 112, 123, 144, 145, 147 compound signs 47 conceptual metaphor 57, 58, 65, 74, 154 conference interpreter xv, xxi, 2, 5, 7, 49 conference interpreting 49 consecutive interpreting 92 construal 89

control group 9, 90, 91, 155 cortex 26, 87, 88, 95, 97, 110, 120, 155 Cratylus 25, 59 creoles 21 cross-interpreting 44 cued speech viii, 10, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 133, 135, 139, 140, 152 cultural adaptation 58, 61, 70, 71 cultural errors 147 cultural mediators 7, 73 customer needs 122 customer perception 122   de l’Épée, Charles-Michel 26, 31, 141 de Leon, Ponce 34 deaf communities xv, 25, 33, 36, 70, 125, 126, 140 deaf community 8, 10, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 45, 46, 48, 52, 98, 99, 152 Deaf culture 47, 52, 63, 73, 131, 143, 144 Deafness 1, 33, 52, 111 deontological code 7, 24 deportment 132, 133, 136, 138, 139, 140, 145, 146, 147 diachronic vii, 5, 8, 9, 10, 18, 20, 21, 35, 43, 58, 137 diachronic analysis vii, 9, 18 diachronic development 18 diachronic variety 8 dialect 20, 21, 38, 39 diaphasic variation 22 diastratic variation 21 diatopic differences 8, 19, 23 digit span 93 diglossia 38, 39 diglossic situations 21 double mapping 64 dress code 133, 146, 147 dysphemism 58

Index | 177 Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) ix, xi, xxi, 120, 121, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 133, 146 educational interpreters 120, 121, 126, 145 educational interpreting 120, 146 educational sector 62 effort model 11, 12, 82 effortful 81, 96 efforts xvi, 6, 10, 12, 24, 25, 45, 46, 48, 65, 81, 82, 90, 91, 107, 108, 151, 152, 155 equal access 156 errors and omissions 11, 55, 90, 108, 153 ethics 5, 7, 24, 47, 48, 49, 51, 144 etymology 46 euphemism 58 European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters (EFSLI) xxi, 5, 49 European Union xxi, 7 event-related potential (ERP) 95 expertise 90, 92, 96, 111, 154 expressive power 28 eye gazes 133 eye shifts 133   facial gestures 28 false positives 12, 91 Fang, Bingmei 20 figurative constructions 65 figurative speech viii, 10, 56, 57, 70, 74, 151, 152, 153, 155 finger spelling 32, 34, 127, 128, 129 fluency 123, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 144 fMRI 12, 91, 93, 97, 111, 120 French Sign Language (FSL or LSF) 18, 44

functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) xxi, 82 Gallaudet 18, 26, 29, 34, 44 Gallaudet University 26 Gallaudet, Edward Miner 26, 34 Gallaudet, Thomas Hopkins 18, 26 gestural theory 26, 27, 28 gestural-visual system 31 gestures 18, 26, 27, 28, 35, 84, 86, 120, 133, 137 gorilla, Koko 27 grammar 10, 24, 25, 30, 35, 36, 38, 46, 61, 70, 88, 89, 102, 103, 119, 123, 126, 127, 128, 133, 140, 143, 145, 146, 147, 152 grammar sign language 10, 24, 25, 35, 152 grammatical sign languages (GSL) xxi, 30 grammatical signifiers 32 grammaticization 84, 85   handform 89 handshape 29, 30, 62, 89, 119, 133 head tilts 133 hearing-impaired 4 Heschl’s gyrus (HG) xxi, 87 historical variation 21 human communication 17, 39 human sciences 17 hybridization 22 hyperbole 57 hypernym 57   iconicity viii, 35, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 88, 89, 137 idiolect 21, 21, 22 indigenous 18, 44 inflection 89 inter-generational variation 22

178 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

interlinguistic variation 21 internal variation 21 International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) xxi, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 49 International Sign Language (ISL) xxi, 22 interpretation process 6 interpreting challenges 12, 112 interpreting fees 8 interpreting quality ix, 122, 123, 125 inter-rater variability 11, 91, 105 intralinguistic variation 21 intransitive actions 28 ISO standards 92   Japanese rule xv, 1, 18, 19, 21, 44, 126 Japanese Sign Language (JSL) xv, xxii, 1, 125   Kaohsiung 19, 20 Korean Sign Language (KSL) xxii, 1, 18, 126 Ku, Yushan 46   language “evolution” viii, 10, 26, 28, 152 language borders 18 language origin 26, 27, 28 language switching 92, 96 language transfer skills 6 language trope 57, 58 lateralization 87, 97, 152, 153 left hemisphere 27, 62, 84, 85, 86, 87, 94, 97, 120, 153 left posterior temporal regions 83 left-lateralized 84, 111 lesion 27, 84, 85, 88, 94, 120 lexemes 9, 22, 109, 130, 155 lexical borrowing 19 lexical collocations 6 lexical retrieval 95 lexical units 20

liaison interpreting 92 linear structure 37, 142 Lin, Wensheng 19 linguistic dignity 10, 26, 31, 33, 35, 46, 83 linguistic errors 147 linguisticization 84, 86 lip reading viii, 10, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 133, 153 literal translation 73 loan words xv, 2 localization 58, 61, 71, 88 location 21, 29, 30, 62, 64, 87, 89, 119, 128, 133 locative verbs 38, 142 logical cohesion 123 logopedia 26 loyalty 124   magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) xxii, 87 Mandarin Chinese 9, 19, 37, 63, 66, 69, 71, 72, 130, 141, 145 manual representation 38, 142 manualism 33, 34 manually coded language (MCL) viii, xxii, 10, 29, 30, 36, 140, 141, 142, 152 manually coded English (MCE) xxii, 126 McGurk effect 32 measurement 87, 121, 122 metaphor comprehension 65 methodical signs 31 metonymy 57 migration 18 mimicry 63 mirror neurons 28 modality 5, 6, 7, 11, 18, 29, 35, 36, 51, 83, 84, 87, 88, 89, 92, 93, 96. 107, 110, 112, 119, 120, 127, 135, 137, 151, 153, 155

Index | 179 modality dependent 5 modality independent 6, 84, 137 morphology 9, 83, 128, 132, 134, 137, 128, 129, 140 motion processing 97   name signs 47 National Association of the Deaf (NAD) xxi, 45 native signers xix, 25, 74, 85, 102, 103, 123, 154 natural language viii, xvi, 11, 18, 25, 30, 35, 48, 55, 56, 58, 61, 64, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 110, 119, 120, 135, 152, 153 natural sign language (NSL) viii, xi, xxii, 10, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 46, 70, 120, 133, 135, 143 Natural Taiwan Sign Language (NTSL) xxii, 31, 69, 135, 145 naturality ix, 12, 25, 32, 37, 52, 102, 119, 135, 142 naturality issue 12, 52 naturality of sign 32, 37, 142 neural correlates 92, 97 neural networks 84 neurobiological efforts xvi, 48, 151 neurobiological mechanisms 6, 7, 83, 84, 87, 92, 153, 155 neuroimaging 84, 85, 86, 155 neuronal adaptation 90, 92, 95, 96 neuronal plasticity 84 neutral adaptation 73 Nicaraguan Sign Language (NSL) xxii, 26 non-native signers 74, 123, 154 northern variety 21, 23   Old French Sign Language 31, 44 oralism viii, 10, 33, 34, 152 oralists 30, 31, 34 orientation 61, 62, 85, 89

pantomime 28, 35, 85, 86, 88, 120, 137 parts of speech 6, 38, 143 passive understanding 130 Patterson, Francine “Penny” 27 performance evaluation 8 performance quality 122, 151 perisylvian 84, 86, 120 philosophy 17, 31, 34, 61, 88 physical stress 44 Pidgin Sign English (PSE) xxii, 126, 127, 128, 130 pinyin 19 planum temporale (PT) xxii, 87 positron emission tomography (PET) xxii, 94, 95 pragmatic errors 147 presentable action 63, 64 presentable objects 63 primary language 61 professional development 5, 47, 49 professional interests 5, 49 professional standards 7, 8 professional volunteers viii, 10, 49, 152 prosody 92, 127, 129, 130, 131 proverb 43, 58, 72, 75, 146 proxemic features 133 proxemics 133, 144 psychology 17 public awareness 7   reading ability 29, 30 reading comprehension 29 referent 63, 64, 65, 88, 89 Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) xxii, 8, 24, 45, 47, 51 relay interpreting 92 repairs 131 repetitions 131 replacement 58, 61, 71 retribution xvi, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 49 rhetorical device 56, 58, 70

180 | Taiwan

Sign Language Interpreting

Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) xxii, 44   saturation 11, 55, 90, 109, 153 saturation level 11, 90 schematic images 64 semantic processing 95, 96, 110 semantics 9, 62 sense consistency 123, 124, 125 sensory processing 110 shadowing 93, 94, 95 signed Chinese viii, 10, 24, 30, 35, 36, 38, 145, 147 signed oral languages 30, 31 signes méthodiques 31 simile 57, 58, 61, 66, 70, 71 simultaneous interpreting viii, 5, 6, 90, 93, 103 simultaneous structure 37, 38, 142 Skopostheorie 123, 124 social class 21, 22 social interaction 17 sociology 17 sound contrasts 28 source language xxii, 6, 92 South Africa 18 southern variety 21, 23 spatial representation 88, 119 speech reading 32, 34 Stokoe, William 61, 119 straitened conditions 10, 152 streams and sequences 61 stylistic variation 21 subsidies 5, 7, 50 substitutive depiction 63 substratum 18, 38 Sumerian 58 superior temporal gyrus (STG) xxii, 82, 85, 120, 155 superstratum 18, 38 supramarginal gyrus (SMG) xxii, 82

syntax 9, 18, 22, 30, 62, 69, 72, 89, 103, 126, 130   Taichung school 21 Tainan school 20, 21 Taipei school 19, 20, 21 target language xxii, 9, 11, 56, 91, 92, 96, 108, 111, 123, 153 telecommunications devices for the Deaf (TTD) xxii, 44 temporal aspects 61 temporo-parietal regions 93 tendinitis 44 terminology 123 testing 121, 131, 144 text accuracy 123, 124, 125 text telephones (TTY) 44 tightrope hypothesis 11, 12, 55, 83, 90, 92, 104, 107, 108, 111, 153, 155 topical varieties 19 topographic space 88 training xvii, 3, 4, 5, 8, 19, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 55, 83, 95, 96, 110, 122, 123, 126, 147, 151, 154, 156 trans-adaptation 73 transfer mechanisms 58, 61, 71, 96 transitive actions 28 translation directionality 90, 95 translation purpose 124, 125 translucent 64 transparent 61, 64 turn-shifting 11, 152 turn-taking 130 typological research 35, 137   übersetzungsauftrag 125 unimodal 6, 12, 82, 83 unimodal interpreting 6, 12 United Nations (UN) xxii, 7

Index | 181 user satisfaction 123 variation vii, 10, 20, 21, 22, 36, 37, 43, 55, 109, 137, 152, 153 variation analysis 21 video relay service 44, 45 virtual depiction 63, 64 visual imagery 63, 64 visual rendition 88, 119 visual-manual modality 35, 36, 135, 137 vocal distinctive features 28 vocal mimesis 27 vocalization 27

voice 25, 32, 47, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129 volunteers viii, 10, 47, 49, 50, 152   Wang, Zhenyin 20 whispered interpreting 92 word order 37, 38, 69, 70, 102, 142 working conditions 7, 8, 49, 145, 147, 156 working hours 2, 5, 49 working memory 95, 110 World Association of Sign Language Interpreters (WASLI) xxii, 2, 5, 49

This book is the first monograph on interpreting issues related to Taiwan Sign Language (TSL). TSL is the language used amongst deaf communities in Taiwan. As far as interpreting from and into TSL is concerned, there are numerous issues and inadequacies to be tackled in terms of the professional identity and the services provided. Research on this issue is crucial because it aims at raising the self-awareness of TSL interpreters and the quality of the interpretation itself. The results of this research monograph have implications for sign language interpreting in regard to research, pedagogy and practice, insofar as they raise the awareness of one’s own professional figure. This seems to be a crucial deontological factor in any discussion related to interpreting rights.

Dr. Riccardo Moratto 莫冉, nom de plume 韋佳德 (韦佳德 in simplified Chinese characters), courtesy name 遠復 (远复 in simplified Chinese characters), is a scholar of Translation and Interpreting Studies. He is an expert member (专家会员) of the Translators Association of China (TAC, 中国翻译协会). He is the author of Introduzione alla sinografia, Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting: Theoretical Aspects and Pragmatic Issues, two books in Chinese, and the chief editor of several other academic volumes. He has published in various professional magazines, conference proceedings, edited books, and international leading indexed journals, such as AHCI-listed (Arts and Humanities Citation Index-listed) journals. He has also been a manuscript reviewer for many prestigious, international journals. Dr. Moratto has published widely in the fields of translation and interpreting studies, Taiwan sign language, Chinese studies, Chinese language, and Chinese literature. In 2013, he obtained his Ph.D. from National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU). Over the years, he has taught at several universities including Hunan Normal University, Fujen Catholic University, Taipei National University of the Arts, Shih Chien University, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, and National Taipei University of Business. He is a professional interpreter and a literary translator. His most recent work focuses on Chinese modern and contemporary literature, interpreting history in China, translation and cultural identities, public service interpreting, media interpreting, and the interdisciplinary nature of interpreting studies.

www.peterlang.com