Translating Between International Sign and English (5cr)

Evaluation scale

0-5

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)

Accomplishment methods

The module is delivered in blended mode over 4 Phases (A, B, C and D), with weekly
readings, online discussion, and 35 hours of face-to-face contact that will take place
during the block seminar in Phase B.
Students will be provided with required readings, which will be used in conjunction with
learning activities throughout the semester. The block seminar will focus on providing
examples and further explanation of theories, as well as providing practical translation
practice.
– In Phase A (40 h), students will do preparatory reading and will also work on
translations (English–IS and IS–English), of texts selected by module tutors, to be
brought to the block seminar for presentation and discussion.
– In the Block Seminar (Phase B, 35 h), IS skills are reinforced and extended (5 h).
Ideas about equivalence and difference in language are developed and applied to
students’ languages, including IS (5 h). Characteristics of IS and issues arising when
working from and into IS in translation are explored (10 h) and strategies for IS translation developed (10 h). IS translations will then be reviewed and critiqued (5 h).
– Phase C (60 h) will involve the collaborative development of team translations from
IS into English, and also individual translations from English into IS. The process will
involve preparation, translation, production, and self and peer analysis and critique
of the translations.
– Finally, Phase D (15 h), will focus on a group evaluation of the translation processes,
and reflections on what has been learned throughout the module. Conclusions focus
on lessons the students intend to carry forward from this module into their
forthcoming IS (conference) interpreting tasks in module 4.1.

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.