Opetussuunnitelmat

Objective

This module builds on the modules “Similarity and diversity in European sign languages”
(module 1.2) and "Introducing International Sign" (module 2.1); by offering a comparative
perspective, it lays the foundations for dealing with International Sign (IS) and English
texts in translation and interpreting settings. The module exploits the existing knowledge
and skills of students and their actual experience as practitioners and professionals with
the aim of providing students with knowledge and skills in translation between IS and
English.
Additionally, this module introduces students to a range of theories relevant to signed
language translation, in order to build on “Interpreting and Translation Studies” (module
2.2). Discussion of translation theories related to spoken and signed language
translation will be incorporated into activities focusing on the application of these theories
to the practice of translation between English and IS. The premise is to explore the
process of translation and interpreting from a functional linguistic perspective. The unit
facilitates the identification of linguistic and cultural problems in sign language
translation, and examines various perspectives of these problems. Students will be
expected to work individually and with peers to produce, analyse and evaluate
translations between English and IS.
The module aims to provide students with:
– an enhanced awareness of contrasts in structure between IS and national signed
and spoken languages
– an enhanced awareness of the linguistic potential and limitations of IS
– the ability to communicate in IS beyond a basic level, employing appropriate
general, structural and communicative features
– the ability to articulate and put into practice strategies in translation for exploiting and
responding to the linguistic potentials and limitations of IS
– the ability to undertake basic English-IS and IS-English translation
– the ability to reflect in an informed way upon their own and others’ translation
processes and products where IS is involved)

Content

The module covers topics such as the following:
– Reinforcing and extending IS skills
– Reviewing descriptive notions of equivalence and non-equivalence in
communication between signed and spoken language
– Tools and processes for identifying communicative contrasts between languages
and texts (contrastive analysis)
– Contrasting national signed and spoken languages
– Re-examining IS as a contrasting form of communication: does it present unique
challenges for interpreters/translators?
– Identifying the linguistic potential and limitations of IS
– Strategies for analysing and re-casting meaning to respond to the characteristics of
IS
– Employing familiar strategies to deal with IS-English and English-IS translation
– Developing extended strategies (i.e. in recognition of any unique challenges) to
address IS translation
– Using familiar tools and techniques for reviewing and critiquing existing IS
translations
– Applying these tools to one’s own and peers’ IS translations.

Materials

a. Required readings
Baker, Mona. 2011. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge.
(Chapters 2-7)
Conlon, Caroline and Napier, Jemina. 2004. “Developing Auslan educational resources:
A process of effective translation of children's books.” Deaf Worlds 20 (2): 141-161.
Cragg, Stephen. 2002. “Peeling back the skins of an onion”. Deaf Worlds 18 (2): 56-61.
House, Juliane. 2001. “How do we know when a translation is good?” In Exploring
Translation & Multilingual Text Production: Beyond Content, Erich Steiner and Colin Yallop (eds), 127-160. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Leneham, Marcel. 2007. “Exploring ‘power’ and ‘ethnocentrism’ in sign language
translation.” Babel: the journal of the Australian Federation of Modern Language
Teachers Associations (AFMLTA) 41 (3): 4-12.
McKee, Rachel and Napier, Jemina. 2002. “Interpreting into International Sign Pidgin: An
analysis.” Journal of Sign Language and Linguistics 5 (1): 27-54.
Nida, Eugene. 1964/2000. “Principles of correspondence”. In The Translation Studies
Reader, Lawrence Venuti (ed.), 126-140. London: Routledge.
Rogers, Katherine D., Young, Alys, Lovell, Karina, Campbell, Malcolm, Scott, Paul R.
and Kendal, Sarah. 2013. “The challenges of translating the clinical outcomes in
routine evaluation–outcome measure (CORE-OM) into British Sign Language”.
Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education 18 (1): 110-122.
Shih, Claire Y. 2006. “Revision from translators' point of view: An interview study”. In
Target 18 (2): 295-312.
Stone, Christopher. 2007. “Deaf translators/interpreters’ rendering processes”. The Sign
Language Translator & Interpreter 1 (1): 53-72.
Wurm, Svenja. (2014). “Deconstructing translation and interpreting prototypes: A case of
written-to-signed-language translation.” Translation Studies. 7 (3): 249-266.
b. Other recommended readings
al-Qinai, Jamal B. 2002. “Convergence and Divergence in Translating vs Interpreting
Competence.” Babel 48 (4): 305-329.
Banna, Karin. 2004. “Auslan interpreting: What can we learn from translation theory?”
Deaf Worlds 20 (2): 100-119.
Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London:
Longman.
Bell, Roger T. 1991. “Translating: Modelling the process”. In Translation and Translating:
Theory and Practice, Roger T. Bell (ed.), 35-78. London: Longman.
Brauer, Barbara A. 1993. “Adequacy of a translation of the MMPI into American Sign
Language for use with deaf individuals: Linguistic equivalency issues.” Rehabilitation
Psychology 38 (4): 247-260.
Gresswell, Emily. 2001. “How applicable to BSL are contemporary approaches to
translation?” Deaf Worlds 17 (2): 50-62.
Harris, John. 2002. “Innovations in translating for the Deaf.” The Bible Translator 53 (2):
233-238.
Hawkins, Eric. 1984. Awareness of Language: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
James, Carl. 1980/1990. Contrastive Analysis. 9th edition. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1990. Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrastive
Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Leneham, Marcel. 2005. “The sign language interpreter as translator: challenging
traditional definitions of translation and interpreting.” Deaf Worlds 21 (1): 79-101.
Malmkjaer, Kirsten. 2005. Linguistics and the Language of Translation. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Montoya, Louise A., Egnatovitch, Reginald, Eckhardt, Elizabeth, Goldstein, Marjorie,
Goldstein, Richard A. and Steinberg, Annie G. 2004. “Translation challenges and
strategies: The ASL translation of a computerbased psychiatric diagnostic interview”.
Sign Language Studies 4 (4): 314-344.
Newmark, Peter. 1988. „[Chapter 3:] The process of translation”. In A Textbook of
Translation. London: Prentice-Hall
Oleksy, Wieslaw (ed.). 1989. Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Padden, Carol. 2004. “Translating Veditz.” Sign Language Studies 4 (3): 244-260.
Reiss, Katharina. (1981). “Type, kind and individuality of text: Decision-making in
translation.” Poetics Toady 2 (4): 121-131.
Ruuskanen, Deborah. D. K. 1996. “The effect of pragmatic factors on the definition of
equivalence in translation.” Language Sciences 18( 3-4): 883-895.
Turner, Graham H. and Pollitt, Kyra. 2002. “Community interpreting meets literary
translation: English-BSL interpreting in the theatre.” The Translator 8 (1): 25-48.
Vermeer, Hans J. 1989/2000. ”Skopos and commission in translational action.” In The
Translation Studies Reader, Lawrence Venuti (ed.), 221-232. London: Routledge.

Evaluation scale

0-5

Further information

Assessment methods
Students will be required to complete two major assessment tasks (total 80%) and a
series of minor tasks (total 20%).
(1) Individual translation (English-IS) and critique (30%; reassessment: resubmission)
(2) Team translation (IS-English) and critique (50%; reassessment: resubmission)
(3) Online postings (x 4) (20%; reassessment: resubmission)
1) Individual translation: English-IS (30%)
At the block seminar students will be provided with an English source text and a
corresponding ‘translation brief’ which should inform their translation. Students will be
required to complete an individual IS translation of the English text, and will be given the
opportunity to begin a draft of the translation during the block seminar. All students must
then work on a polished translation once they return home.
Drawing on translation theories, students must then write a critique of their individual
English-IS translation, discussing the challenges of the translation process and how they
dealt with them, but ultimately they are to evaluate the effectiveness of the translation.
Students should discuss specific examples from the translation, which draw on issues
raised in the module readings. The selection of examples for discussion should enable
students to develop a cohesive argument, rather than a list of challenges. Word limit:
Min. 500, max.1,000 words.
Assessment criteria
1. Clarity of message
2. Faithfulness of TT message
3. Adheres to TL norms appropriate to context
4. Satisfies requirements of translation brief
5. Translation critique
2) Team translation: IS-English (50%)
At the block seminar students will be allocated to a ‘translation team’ and provided with
an IS source text and a corresponding ‘translation brief’ which should inform their
translation. Students will be required to complete an English translation of the IS text,
and will be given the opportunity to begin a draft of the translation during the block
seminar. All students must then work on a polished translation as a team once they
return home.
Drawing on the translation theories, students must then write an individual critique of
their team IS-English translation, discussing the challenges of the team translation
process and how they were dealt with, and ultimately to evaluate the effectiveness of the translation. Students should discuss specific examples from the translation, which draw
on issues raised in the module readings. The selection of examples for discussion
should enable students to develop a cohesive argument, rather than a list of challenges.
Word limit: Min. 500, max. 1,000 words.
Assessment criteria
1. Clarity of message
2. Faithfulness of TT message
3. Adheres to TL norms appropriate to context
4. Satisfies requirements of translation brief
5. Translation critique
6. Team work
3) On-line postings (20%)
Throughout the semester each student is required to submit 4 x online postings. In the
appropriate week you will be provided with reflection questions, which will guide your
comments. Each posting should be a maximum of 250 words.
Assessment criteria
For each posting, the possible maximum score is 10 marks, allocated as follows:
1. Demonstrated understanding of theories and application to practice
2. Evidence of reflection & critical analysis
3. Discussion is clearly articulated
Assessment tasks 1–3 relate to the stated learning outcomes. On-line postings
(assessment 3), in particular, afford opportunities to demonstrate critical awareness of
current issues in the practice of translating between spoken/written and signed
languages in international settings.