Theses by Emmy Kauling
This study explores the perceptions of deaf professionals, hearing professionals and interpreters... more This study explores the perceptions of deaf professionals, hearing professionals and interpreters regarding the use of professional discourse, which revealed participants’ understanding of distributions of responsibilities, through five focus group discussions.
It became evident that professional discourses (in English and BSL) are deemed crucial for deaf professionals, but that they are difficult to access for deaf professionals and interpreters. All participants focussed on the exclusive relationship between deaf professionals and interpreters, diminishing responsibilities and strategies of hearing professionals. However, instances in which everyone contributed to the interpreted event and took responsibility were deemed most effective. Discourses that display this principle are labelled ‘team-talk’, while the opposite, ‘tool-talk’, reflects perceptions of the interpreted event as being mechanical and the interpreter as non-participant of the interpreted event.
By applying the taxonomy of responsibilities as proposed by Vincent (2011) as an analysis tool, the understanding of interpreted events can become more nuanced and holistic, as this study showed that everyone involved in interpreted events take part in the distribution of responsibilities. If all participants in interpreted events acknowledge their own and each other’s actions, efforts and strategies, a more equal situation develops, in which team-talk is the prevailing discourse and in which responsibilities are shared.
The copyright in this thesis is owned by the author. Any quotation from the thesis or use of any of the information contained in it must acknowledge this thesis as the source of the quotation or information.
Nowadays, more and more Deaf people participate in higher education (e.g Marschark, Sapere, Conve... more Nowadays, more and more Deaf people participate in higher education (e.g Marschark, Sapere, Convertino, & Seewagen, 2005). The interpreter of tomorrow will therefore be expected to provide effective interpretations in higher education settings. Scholars agree that the more content knowledge an interpreter has the more effective translations will be (e.g. Gile, 2009; Nicodemus, Swabey, & Taylor, 2014; Seleskovitch, 1978/2001). In addition, scholars are convinced that, by using their linguistic and/or cultural knowledge, interpreters omit information in order to make their translation more effective (e.g. Gile, 2009, 2011; Napier, 2001, 2004). The present paper investigates how content knowledge, in the form of preparation and background knowledge, influences the omissions made by sign language interpreters during a university lecture.
The present study replicated Napier’s work (2001, 2004) on omissions in higher education interpreting, with the addition of a preparation-condition. Fourteen professional interpreters, with different types of background, interpreted a criminology university lecture. Afterwards they completed a review task in which they were asked to comment on why they had decided to omit information.
With regard to interpreters’ omissions, it was found that Napier’s omission taxonomy (20014, 2004) was well applicable to categorizing omissions. Moreover, the general tendencies were similar as well: interpreters made conscious strategic omissions in order to enhance a translation. In addition, a new category is proposed: conscious attentional omissions, occurring when the attention of the interpreter shifts from the source text to something different. With regard to content knowledge, the findings show that prepared interpreters made fewer omissions in general, but of omission made, more were strategic. Interpreters with a legal or strong language background made least omissions.
Drawing on these findings, interpreters should be aware of the kind of erroneous omissions they may make and, more importantly, how they can adopt strategic omissions as a coping strategy. Moreover, interpreters must be aware that their background knowledge and preparation are crucial to delivering an effective translation in university lectures.
Conference Presentations by Emmy Kauling
In this recently started PhD study, the focus will be on the translation of language that is spec... more In this recently started PhD study, the focus will be on the translation of language that is specific to a certain discourse community. A discourse community can be defined as a group of people that share certain goals or purposes, and use language to communicate about them (Swales, 1987). When students enrol in a university programme, they are educated to become professionals in their field: they have to gain technical knowledge as well as the more subtle, indirect characteristics of their profession (Trudgill, 2002), such as the way people in their field talk to each other: the professional discourse.
When deaf students enrol in such a programme, they often bring an interpreter to facilitate communication. However, most often the interpreter is not an expert in the field (e.g. Harrington, 2000; Woodcock, Rohan, & Campbell, 2007), which means he/she might not be aware of, or fluent in, the professional discourse used. This might have repercussions for all participants involved: first of all, the deaf student, but also the interpreter, the lecturer and the peers of the deaf student. The challenge might be that the participants (hearing and deaf) are not represented in their appropriate discourse by interpreters and as such are not portrayed well within their (future) ‘discourse community’ (as proposed by Feyne (2014) with regard to professional identity, and in literature on designated interpreters, e.g. Hauser, Finch, and Hauser (2008)). The proposed poster will map out some very preliminary ideas about how people experience professional discourse that is being interpreted.
This paper explores the burgeoning paradigm of Deaf-Hearing interpreting teams and trust in this ... more This paper explores the burgeoning paradigm of Deaf-Hearing interpreting teams and trust in this type of working relationship. Distinct analysis is made in terms of personal working trust, institutional trust and goodwill trust between Deaf and Hearing interpreters, and the current evolution of Deaf interpreting as a separate profession is explored via the lens of trust. Recommendations are made to facilitate effectiveness of Deaf-Hearing interpreting teams by fostering trust, including providing students and practitioners with greater experience working in this type of interpreting dyad via formalised training and establishing recognised career pathways into the interpreting profession for both groups.
Note of correction to citation: The in-text reference in this article for Forestal (2014) should be listed in the end-references as follows:
Forestal, E. M. (2014). Deaf interpreters: Dynamics of their interpreting processes, In M. Metzger, C. Stone, & R. Adams (Eds.), Deaf interpreters at work: International perspectives. (p. 29-50). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Papers by Emmy Kauling
Omission production in an interpreted university lecture: A replication study
Uploads
Theses by Emmy Kauling
It became evident that professional discourses (in English and BSL) are deemed crucial for deaf professionals, but that they are difficult to access for deaf professionals and interpreters. All participants focussed on the exclusive relationship between deaf professionals and interpreters, diminishing responsibilities and strategies of hearing professionals. However, instances in which everyone contributed to the interpreted event and took responsibility were deemed most effective. Discourses that display this principle are labelled ‘team-talk’, while the opposite, ‘tool-talk’, reflects perceptions of the interpreted event as being mechanical and the interpreter as non-participant of the interpreted event.
By applying the taxonomy of responsibilities as proposed by Vincent (2011) as an analysis tool, the understanding of interpreted events can become more nuanced and holistic, as this study showed that everyone involved in interpreted events take part in the distribution of responsibilities. If all participants in interpreted events acknowledge their own and each other’s actions, efforts and strategies, a more equal situation develops, in which team-talk is the prevailing discourse and in which responsibilities are shared.
The copyright in this thesis is owned by the author. Any quotation from the thesis or use of any of the information contained in it must acknowledge this thesis as the source of the quotation or information.
The present study replicated Napier’s work (2001, 2004) on omissions in higher education interpreting, with the addition of a preparation-condition. Fourteen professional interpreters, with different types of background, interpreted a criminology university lecture. Afterwards they completed a review task in which they were asked to comment on why they had decided to omit information.
With regard to interpreters’ omissions, it was found that Napier’s omission taxonomy (20014, 2004) was well applicable to categorizing omissions. Moreover, the general tendencies were similar as well: interpreters made conscious strategic omissions in order to enhance a translation. In addition, a new category is proposed: conscious attentional omissions, occurring when the attention of the interpreter shifts from the source text to something different. With regard to content knowledge, the findings show that prepared interpreters made fewer omissions in general, but of omission made, more were strategic. Interpreters with a legal or strong language background made least omissions.
Drawing on these findings, interpreters should be aware of the kind of erroneous omissions they may make and, more importantly, how they can adopt strategic omissions as a coping strategy. Moreover, interpreters must be aware that their background knowledge and preparation are crucial to delivering an effective translation in university lectures.
Conference Presentations by Emmy Kauling
When deaf students enrol in such a programme, they often bring an interpreter to facilitate communication. However, most often the interpreter is not an expert in the field (e.g. Harrington, 2000; Woodcock, Rohan, & Campbell, 2007), which means he/she might not be aware of, or fluent in, the professional discourse used. This might have repercussions for all participants involved: first of all, the deaf student, but also the interpreter, the lecturer and the peers of the deaf student. The challenge might be that the participants (hearing and deaf) are not represented in their appropriate discourse by interpreters and as such are not portrayed well within their (future) ‘discourse community’ (as proposed by Feyne (2014) with regard to professional identity, and in literature on designated interpreters, e.g. Hauser, Finch, and Hauser (2008)). The proposed poster will map out some very preliminary ideas about how people experience professional discourse that is being interpreted.
Note of correction to citation: The in-text reference in this article for Forestal (2014) should be listed in the end-references as follows:
Forestal, E. M. (2014). Deaf interpreters: Dynamics of their interpreting processes, In M. Metzger, C. Stone, & R. Adams (Eds.), Deaf interpreters at work: International perspectives. (p. 29-50). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Papers by Emmy Kauling