Cover not available

Article published In: Signed Language Interpreting and Translation
Edited by Laurie Swabey and Brenda Nicodemus
[Translation and Interpreting Studies 13:1] 2018
► pp. 49–70

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

“What’s the sign for nitty gritty?”

Managing metalinguistic references in ASL-English dialogue interpreting

 | Gallaudet University
 | Gallaudet University
 | Gallaudet University
Published online: 2 March 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00004.pet
Abstract
Humans have the unique capability of using language to talk about language (Jakobson, Roman. 1957. Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb. Harvard University, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, Russian Language Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). For example, one can say, “The Italian word for dog is cane.” These metalinguistic references can create a dilemma for interpreters because the critical linguistic term (i.e., cane) must be maintained in the target language to create meaning. Spoken language interpreters can render the original form since both working languages are expressed in the same modality (speech-speech). However, signed language interpreters who work between languages having distinct modalities (speech-sign), thus, must interpret forms between different phonological structures. We videorecorded ten experienced American Sign Language-English interpreters as they interpreted a mock training session containing metalinguistic references. Results showed interpreters employed numerous strategies to manage and coordinate the target language output.
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Types of metalinguistic references
  • Methods
    • Participants
    • Scenario
    • Procedures
    • Analysis
  • Results
    • Interpreter strategies for managing metalinguistic reference
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (32)
References
Anderson, Laurie. 2012. “Code-switching and Coordination in Interpreter-mediated Interaction.” In Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting, ed. by Claudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli, 115–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Authier-Revuz, Jaqueline. 1995. Ces Mots qui ne vont pas de soi. Boucles Réfléxives et non Coïncidences du Dire. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman, and Ernie Lepore. 2007. Language turned on itself. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metalinguistic Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Brabanter, Philippe. 2003. Making Sense of Mention, Quotation, and Autonymy. A Semantic and Pragmatic Survey of Metalinguistic Discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Paris, France, Université Paris IV.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Del Vecchio, Silvia, Marcello Cardarelli, Fabiana De Simone, and Giulia Petitta. 2015. “Interacting with Participants Outside of Interpretation.” In Signed Language Interpretation and Translation Research: Selected Papers from the First International Symposium, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus and Keith Cagle, 24–48. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grbić, Nadja and Sonja Pöllabauer. 2006. “Community interpreting: signed or spoken? Types, modes, and methods.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 51: 247–261.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, and Morris Halle. 1956. Fundamentals of Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1957. Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb. Harvard University, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, Russian Language Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry and Barbara Shaffer. 2008. “Intersubjectivity in Interpreted Interactions.” In The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity, ed. by Jordan Zlatev, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha, and Esa Itkonen, 333–355. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “The Interpreter’s Stance in Intersubjective Discourse.” In Sign Language Research Uses and Practices: Crossing Views on Theoretical and Applied Sign Language Linguistics, ed. by Laurence Meurant, Aurélie Sinte, Mieke Van Herreweghe, and Myriam Vermeerbergen, 63–84. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelly, Jean Elaine. 2004. ASL-to-English Interpretation. Say it like they mean it. Alexandria, VA: RID Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Llewellyn-Jones, Peter and Robert G. Lee. 2013. “Getting to the Core of Role: Defining Interpreters’ Role Space.” International Journal of Interpreter Education 5 (2): 54–72.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Redefining the Role of the Community Interpreter: The Concept of Role-space. Lincoln, UK: SLI Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lucy, John (ed). 1993. Reflexive Language. Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marks, Annie. 2015. “Investigating Footing Shifts in Video Relay Service Interpreted Interaction.” In Signed Language Interpretation and Translation Research: Selected Papers from the First International Symposium, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus and Keith Cagle, 71–96. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, Ian and Wen Ren. 2012 “Power in face-to-face interpreting events.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 7 (2): 234–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metzger, Melanie. 1999. Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Napier, Jemina. 2004. “Interpreting omissions: A new perspective.” Interpreting 6 (2): 117–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, Jeffrey, Wanette Reynolds, and Rebecca Minor. 2012. “‘You want What on your Pizza!?’ Videophone and Video-relay Service as Potential Influences on the Lexical Standardization of American Sign Language.” Sign Language Studies 12 (3): 371–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petitta, Giulia. 2015. “Metalinguistic References in Cross-modal Translations: Sign Language Interpreting and its Issues.” In Language across Languages: New Perspectives on Translation, ed. by Emanuele Miola and Paolo Ramat, 59–79. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petitta, Giulia, Mark Halley, and Brenda Nicodemus. 2016. “Managing Metalinguistic References in Signed-spoken Interpreted Discourse.” Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata, 16 (2): 53–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo. 2007. “The Problem of (Un)translatability.” R.I.L.A., Rivista Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 39 (1–2): 21–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roy, Cynthia. 1989. A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Interpreter’s Role in the Turn Exchanges of an Interpreted Event. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Washington, DC, Georgetown University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Santiago, Roberto and Lisa Barrick. 2007. “Handling and Incorporation of Idioms in Interpretation.” In Translation, Sociolinguistic, and Consumer Issues in Interpreting, ed. by Melanie Metzger and Earl Fleetwood, 3–44. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Straniero Sergio, Francesco. 2012. “‘You are not too Funny.’ Challenging the Role of the Interpreter in Italian Talk Shows.” In Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting, ed. by Claudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli, 71–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valli, Clayton, Ceil Lucas, Kristin Mulrooney, and Miako Villanueva. 2011. Linguistics of American Sign Language. 5th Edition. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Viaggio, Sergio. 1996. “The pitfalls of metalingual use in simultaneous interpreting.” The Translator 2 (2): 179–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman and Barbara Shaffer. 2005. “Towards a Cognitive Model of Interpreting.” In Topics in Signed Language Interpreting, ed. by Terry Janzen, 27–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Witter-Merithew, Anna, Leilani Johnson, and Brenda Nicodemus. 2010. “Relational Autonomy and Decision Latitude of ASL-English Interpreters: Implications for Interpreter Education.” In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainer, ed. by Len Roberson and Sherry Shaw, 49–66. San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Bø, Vibeke
2025. Constructed dialogue in signed-to-spoken interpreting: renditions as a reconfiguration of utterance semiotics. Semiotica DOI logo
Petitta, Giulia, Valerie Dively, Mark Halley, Marc Holmes & Brenda Nicodemus
2018. “My Name is A-on-the-cheek”: Managing Names and Name Signs in American Sign Language-English Team Interpretation. Names 66:4 ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue