Contextualization in ASLEnglish Interpretation: A
Question of Grammar or
Discourse Strategy
Terry Janzen, University of Manitoba
Barbara Shaffer, University of New
Mexico
Thanks to:
 Our interpreters
 Hubert Demers
 Deloris Piper
 And Garth at the Genius Bar
Conversation is highly contextualized, filled
with subtle cues at all levels marking the
relation of utterances to contexts of prior
discourse, to situational and cultural
contexts, to contexts of social relations
between speech event participants, and
even to the mutual cognitive context within
which the dialogic interaction is embedded.
John Du Bois (2003: 52)
Introduction:
 We’re interested in
how interpreters determine meaning
how they approach meaning
the choices interpreters make for their target
text
 the resources they use



Introduction
 Interpreters need:



fluency in the languages with which they work
linguistic and meta-linguistic knowledge
an understanding of the principles of
interpretation/translation
Principles
 Meaning is co-constructed
 Discourse is co-constructed
 interpreted text is discourse
 Interpreters are full discourse participants
Principles
 Discourse participants’ beliefs about
others’ knowledge stores shapes their
discourse choices
 Interpreters’ theory about meaning
determines their whole process
Principles
 “Expansions” are formulaic
 “Expansions” are not ASL grammar;




“Compressions” are not English grammar
Contextualization is a pan-language discourse
process.
Interlocutors’ discourse is always contextualized
Interpreters’ discourse is always contextualized
Contextualization is an intersubjective activity
The co-construction of
meaning
 Meaning is not something objective found
in the words and constructions of
language, to be discovered and conveyed,
but is co-constructed between discourse
participants in an immediate social context
(Wilcox and Shaffer 2005).
The co-construction of
meaning
 Discourse participants never have direct
access to each others’ meaning
 We construct meaning based on our construal
of the evidence– words and constructions we
see or hear plus Secondary Information (Gile
1995).
The co-construction of
meaning
 In fact, this process is interactive
 In dynamic discourse, participants coconstruct meaning
 If meaning is “shared” it is only because of
the cooperative intent of co-participants
The intersubjective nature of
discourse
 Interlocutors make constant assessments
of each others’ knowledge stores, tailoring
their discourse according to their beliefs
about the other.
 Intersubjectivity is dynamic and
interactive.
Interpreters cannot escape!
 Interpreters cannot convey someone else’s
meaning
 They must first co-construct meaning with the
source speaker
 They must co-construct meaning along with
the receiver in a specific situation for some
specific purpose
A Mix of information types
 In discourse, different types of information are coded in
language structure such as:
something already known to discourse participants,
something new,
or most likely, a combination of the two.
A certain amount of known information is needed because
it grounds new information for us, and the new information
is generally the point of the discourse.
 A balance of these types of information is necessary so
that the discourse is neither overly redundant nor
disconnected (Givón 1984).




Shared information
• How is shared information coded in ASL?
 in syntax
 in discourse
 How is shared information coded in
English?
 In syntax
 In discourse
Shared information
 Shared information can have a linguistic
source, i.e., a previous mention in the
immediate discourse
 or a source that is extralinguistic, that is,
from shared experience (immediate or
past)
Interpretation and shared
information
 Shared information, then, may be presumed to
have either linguistic or extralinguistic
(pragmatic) sources.
 The interpreter makes decisions about what is
accessible or shared and codes information
according to this construal.
 This coding necessarily profiles certain things
 Mismatches occur when the interpreter makes
incorrect assumptions regarding what is
accessible.
A Gricean sidebar:
 Grice 1975:
 Maxim of Relation/Relevance
 Central to the flow of conversations
 Governs topic maintenance and shift
 Important for conversational
inferencing/implicature
A Gricean Sidebar
 Maxim of Manner
 “Be clear” and “be orderly” are motivating
principles for when discourse requires more to
be said
 i.e., being concise is not always being clear
 And, when enough has been said, stop.
 Maxim of Quantity
 Make your contribution as informative as is
required (for the current purposes of the
exchange) (Grice 1975: 45)
Gumperz 1982
 “Communicative competence can be
defined in interactional terms as ‘the
knowledge of linguistic and related
communicative conventions that speakers
must have to create and sustain
conversational cooperation,’ and thus
involves both grammar and
contextualization” (Gumperz 1982: 209).
Contextualization
 Utterances must always be contextualized to
some extent.
 “Roughly speaking, a contextualization cue is
any feature of linguistic form that contributes to
the signaling of contextual presuppositions.
Such cues may have a number of such linguistic
realizations depending on the historically given
linguistic repertoire of the participants” (Gumperz
1982: 131).
Contextualization
 To make discourse coherent, interlocutors
contextualize
 Interpreters’ discourse texts are no
exception
 But:
Lawrence 1995:
“In analyzing ASL discourse, it seems there
are specific applications of language use
and language phrasing in ASL that do not
occur in spoken English. These unique
applications are what I call EXPANSION.
…I chose this term because it is
descriptive of what happens in native ASL
signing” (Lawrence 1995: 207, italics
ours).
Lawrence’s 7 Expansion
techniques
 Contrasting
 Faceting
 Reiteration
 utilizing 3D space
 explaining by examples
 couching or nesting
 describe-then do
Contrasting:

Two contrasting ideas are juxtaposed, for example a
positive and negative statement, to emphasize what is
being asserted (what something is vs. what it is not).
Lawrence gives as one example:
(1) Lenin’s tomb is austere.
nod topic
neg
fs LENIN GRAVE PLAIN. FANCY // NOT
Faceting:
 One idea is expressed using a series of descriptive
signs. This is referred to as “descriptive elaboration” in
Mindess (1999: 65) whereby several synonyms (see also
Humphrey and Alcorn (2001)) are needed to clearly
explicate a concept. Humphrey and Alcorn (2001: 9.14)
give the example in (2):
(2) I’m very happy.
ME HAPPY, SMILE-ON-FACE, SATISFIED
Reiteration:
 A sign or phrase is repeated. This may be an
immediate repetition, or a sign or phrase in
sentence-initial position is repeated at the end of
the sentence.
Utilizing 3-D space:
 Three-dimensional space is seen as critical in
the description of events in ASL because signing
takes place within this space.
Explain by examples:
When a term or concept requires elaboration, an
ASL signer will use examples to explain the idea
further (instead of “defining” the term (Mindess
1999: 65)). Lawrence (1995: 211) suggests that
‘baby clothes’ in ASL would be signed as:
(3)
topic
nod
BABY CLOTHES // UNDERPANTS, SOCKS, PANTS // …
Describe then do:
 The action is first described, then “acted out” by
shifting to a first-person perspective. When this
occurs the information is repeated, but from a
different perspective, often referred to as a role
shift (Smith 1996, Humphrey and Alcorn 2001).
‘Couching’ or ‘nesting’
“ ‘Couching’ or ‘nesting’ is when background or
contextual information is added to a concept to
make it clear.
Humphrey and Alcorn (2001):
“…an English presentation or exchange of
information tends to deal with the specific
issue at hand, avoiding a great deal of
elaboration or detail. Thus unless the
speaker is engaged in story-telling, acting,
or some special form of discourse, it is
likely s/he will not provide the rich variety
of detailed and descriptive information
required by ASL.” (Humphrey and Alcorn
2001: 9.10; italics ours).
Couching/nesting
(Humphrey and Alcorn, 2001)
 To interpret the concept of “allergy”:
 MEDICINE-TAKE OR CREAM RUB-ON-SKIN
OR FOOD EAT-FINISH-ITCH ALL OVER OR
STOMACH UPSET OR HARD BREATHEA-L-L-E-R-G-Y
Compressions
 Finton and Smith (2004) extend this idea
by specifying “compressions” that are then
required when interpreting from ASL to
English “to maintain linguistic
appropriateness in English” (2004: 125).
 Apparent confusion between language
structure and interpretation strategy.
 couching or nesting are said to be
adjustments that are necessary “by virtue of
the differences between the two languages”
(Lawrence 1995: 212).
Effects on interpretation
 Interpreters are learning, based on the
principles of “ASL expansion” set out in
Lawrence (1995), that the grammar of
ASL requires backgrounding explicitness
Effects on Interpretation
 The claim is that the meaning of certain
terms used by English speaking discourse
participants is not retrievable by the ASL
signing participant unless the
backgrounding information is filled in.
 And that this need is based on the
grammatical code for ASL rather than on
discourse dynamics of the participants.
Expansions are formulaic
 Interpreters are being taught that
“expansions” are formulaic for ASL
(Lawrence 1995)
 Shared information, however, is coconstructed by discourse participants
Problem #1
 The interpreter may not be privy to
interlocutors’ world of shared knowledge
and experience
 The interpreter decides that the interpretation
recipient will not know the item as shared, and
fills in the assumed missing pieces.
Effects
 The content/coding of the target text is based on
assumptions that information is not shared,
rather than on the assumption that at least some
of this information is known.
 If the interpreter provides backgrounding because
she believes ASL “requires” such “expansion”, she
makes something explicit that may not be
pragmatically necessary.
 The interpreter is making a different choice than the
source speaker.
 The source speaker is making choices based upon
her own beliefs about sharedness.
Effects
 More coding has a pragmatic effect:
Importance or emphasis
 Which changes the original intent
 Even the reiteration of an interlocutor’s
discourse in a subsequent utterance
changes the intended outcome.
 Even the reiteration of a spatial relationship
(Winston 1995).
Quigley and Youngs (1965)
 cataract:
 THIN WHITE INSIDE EYE, COVER PART
USE TO SEE, SLOWLY GET WORSE,
CAN’T SEE, MUST REMOVE
Quigley and Youngs (1965)
 dope:
 INJECTION, BECOME HABIT, CAN’T
STOP, DAMAGE BODY, MIND
BECOMES CRAZY
 Doctor: “you have early signs of a
cataract…”
 Not all uses of the word dope entail
addiction, damage, and insanity
 “Couching” or “nesting” is when background or
contextual information is added to a concept to make
it clear. A particular adjustment occurs by virtue of
the differences between the two languages. English
is considered a “low-context” language. This means
that with only a limited amount of information,
speakers of English understand one another. There
is a lot of implied information and only a minimal
amount of context is required for understanding. In
contrast, ASL is considered a “high context”
language. This means that information is not easily
implied and in fact, must be explicit. If an idea is
presented in English which is “low context” in nature
and it must be presented in ASL which is “high
context” in nature, the “couching” or “nesting” of
background information must be added to make the
idea equally clear in ASL (Lawrence 1995:212).
 A high-context (HC) communication or message
is one in which most of the information is either
in the physical context or internalized in the
person, while very little is in the coded, explicit,
transmitted part of the message. A low-context
(LC) communication is just the opposite; i.e., the
mass of information is vested in the explicit
code. Twins who have grown up together can
and do communicate more economically (HC)
than two lawyers in a court room during trial (LC)
(Hall 1977:91).
High or low context?
 Yet, all examples of couching and nesting
add context. All examples discuss why
context must be added when interpreting
into ASL (said to be a high context
language).
An expansion text example
Lawyer:
Good morning Mr. MacDougal. Before we commence, I need to explain
a few matters concerning the attorney-client privilege.
Interpreter:
GOOD MORNING MR. M-A-C-D-O-U-G-A-L. MEETING START
COMMENCE // gesture: ‘eee’ mouth // FIRST PRO.1 NEED EXPLAIN
LIST (1 – 5 on non-dominant hand) [KNOW.THAT LAWYER (body
shift left) WITH C-L-I-E-N-T (body shift right) SIT (both hands)]-top
HAVE RULES FOR CLOSE.MOUTH (both hands) SECRET / CAN
KEEP CLOSE.MOUTH
An expansion text example
Lawyer:
Because you’ve been accompanied to this meeting by an interpreter
who is signing for you, the attorney-client privilege protects anything
that you disclose to me today from discovery in any subsequent
proceedings.
Interpreter:
[NOW SHOW.UP INTERPRETER (right side, eye-gaze right)
PRO.3 (right)]-top
[INTERPRET++ FOR YOU INTERPRET]-top gesture: three of us
[BUT KNOW.THAT]-top PRO.3 (on left) [LAW SAY PRO.3 (nondominant hand to dominant B hand “paper”)]-top // LAWYER
GATHER.INFORMATION PERMIT CLOSE.MOUTH NOT MUST TELL
TELL.TO (upward and left) IN COURT FROM.TIME.TO.TIME
Stratiy 2005:
 Disregard for what the interpretation
recipient might in fact know shows a lack of
respect for that person (Stratiy 2005).
 It limits their participation in the discourse
exchange.
 Stratiy suggests making the assumption that an
item is shared
 If the message recipient gives discourse,
prosodic, or behavioural cues that the item is
not in fact understood, contextualization is
included.
 The nature of the relationship between the
discourse participants is changed.
 Their relationship is mediated by our
decisions.
Wadensjö (1998)
 Wadensjö notes similar behaviours in
Russian/Swedish interpreters in medical
settings.
 There can be a “tendency to
underestimate the patient’s ability to
understand (which is sometimes
considered patronizing)” (1998:225).
Pan-linguistic strategies
 Most strategies Lawrence refers to as
“expansion” are really pan-language
discourse strategies
 enacted by speakers and signers precisely
because of discourse dynamics and
negotiation (co-construction) of meaning
 A common example is the negotiation of
topic (Janzen 1998, 1999).
Gile (1995)
 Gile suggests that interpreted discourse, because it too
is co-constructed, will contain what he and others refer to
as contextualizations.
 Supplied based on situational factors rather than on
assuming that the language requires something to be
phrased in a certain way.
 Coherent discourse and appropriate interpretation
necessitates that the interpreter have numerous language
and overall discourse strategies within easy reach;
 any single strategy may work well in one circumstance, but
fail in another.
Conclusions
 Shared experience of discourse participants
may be outside the interpreter’s experience
 Interpreters must understand the cognitive
underpinnings of shared information and the
linguistic structures that code it
 Contextualization parameters in interpretation
depend more on interaction dynamics than on
formulaic expressions in ASL
Conclusions
 The interpreters’ contextualization constitutes




strategizing
They are contributions the interpreter makes to
the resulting text
The interpreter needs numerous strategies
When used, contextualizations must be
conscious decisions, understood to be in
addition to the original text (Leeson 2005)
The “expansion” belongs to the interpreter not to
the text
References
Du Bois, John W. 2003. Discourse and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (Ed.), The New
Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language
Structure, Volume 2. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. 47-87
Finton, Lynn, and Richard T. Smith. 2004. The natives are restless: Using compression
strategies to deliver linguistically appropriate ASL to English interpretation. In Elisa M.
Maroney (Ed.), CIT: Still Shining After 25 Years, Proceedings of the 15th National
Convention, Conference of Interpreter Trainers. USA: CIT
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. 1995. Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In Morton Ann Gernsbacher
and T. Givón (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Benjamins. 59-115.
Grice, H. Paul. 2975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (Eds.),
Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 41-58.
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Janzen, Terry. 1998. Topicality in ASL: Information ordering, constituent structure, and
the function of topic marking. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, N.M.
References
Janzen, Terry. 1999. The grammaticization of topics in American Sign Language. Studies
in Language, 23:2. 271-306.
Janzen Terry, and Shaffer, Barbara (to appear) Intersubjectivity in Interpreted
Interactions. In Jordan Zlatev, Timothy Racine, Chris Sinha and Esa Iktonen (Eds.)
The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Lawrence, Shelley. 1995. Interpreter discourse: English to ASL expansion. In Elizabeth
A. Winston (ed.), Mapping our course: A collaborative venture, Proceedings of the
Tenth National Convention, Conference of Interpreter Trainers. October 26-29, 1994.
USA: Conference of Interpreter Trainers.
Leeson, Lorraine. 2005. Making the effort in simultaneous interpreting: Some
considerations for signed language interpreters. In Terry Janzen (Ed.), Topics in
Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins. 51-68.
Stratiy, Angela. 2005. Best practices in interpreting: A Deaf community perspective. In
Terry Janzen (Ed.), Topics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 231-250.
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London and New York: Longman.
Wilcox, Sherman, and Barbara Shaffer. 2005. Towards a cognitive model of interpreting.
In Terry Janzen (Ed.), Topics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 27-50.
For a copy of this
presentation:
 Please visit:
 www.umanitoba.ca/linguistics/janzen/index.html
 www.unm.edu/~bshaffer/index.html