From Topic Boundaries to Omission: New Research on Interpretation

A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Occurrence and Types of Omissions Produced by Australian Sign Language-English Interpreters

Omissions Produced by Auslan-English Interpreters : 99 A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Occurrence and Types of Omissions Produced by Australian Sign Language-English Interpreters Jemina Napier This chapter presents the findings of a study that explored the linguistic coping strategies of Australian Sign Language (Auslan)-English interpreters (Napier, 2001). The intention of the study was to introduce, for the first time, a sociolinguistic analysis of interpreters working between Auslan and English. Although many academic studies have been completed that focus on signed language interpreting from a sociolinguistic point of view (e.g., Cokely, 1985; Davis, 1990; Metzger, 1995; Roy, 1989), all of them concentrate on the practices of interpreters working between American Sign Language (ASL) and English. Reference to these studies no doubt provides a wider scope of knowledge, and assumptions can be made about the validity of research in relation to Auslan interpreting. Nonetheless, an in-depth sociolinguistic study of Auslan interpreters and their approach to interpreting was much needed to examine this group’s practices in an Australian context. Signed language interpreting has often been referred to as an “emerging profession” (Fenton, 1993; Ozolins & Bridge, 2000; Scott Gibson, 1992), which explains the dearth of research in the area. This study, therefore , contributes to expanding the little knowledge that is available not only about signed language interpreting in general but also about AuslanEnglish interpreters and their linguistic coping strategies in particular. Coping strategies can be defined as those methods or techniques adopted by interpreters to ensure that they are best equipped to cope with the variety of different factors that may affect their interpreting. 100 : J E M I N A N A P I E R Interpreters respond to demands from various sources that arise from linguistic factors associated with the languages being used and from nonlinguistic factors such as environmental, interpersonal, and intrapersonal demands (Dean & Pollard, 2001). Coping strategies generally can be considered as those strategies that are used by interpreters to deal with the demands associated with nonlinguistic factors, for example, teamwork and preparation techniques. Notwithstanding, linguistic coping strategies are those strategies that specifically deal with linguistic factors influencing an interpretation. Examples of linguistic coping strategies used by interpreters would include the use of linguistic transference (Davis, 1990), communication management (Roy, 1989), application of linguistic and cultural knowledge (Metzger,1995), translation style (Napier, 1998a), and the use of additions within an interpretation (Siple, 1995). The study described here specifically focused on (a) the types of omissions that Auslan-English interpreters made as linguistic coping strategies while interpreting for a university lecture and (b) the extent to which sociolinguistic factors affected the number and types of omissions made. One of the linguistic demands placed on interpreters when interpreting in a university lecture is the lexical density of the text. University lectures are often presented using a structure of language that is more characteristic of written rather than spoken language (Halliday, 1978), meaning that more use of lexical (content) words than functional (grammatical) words is customary. The segment of the university lecture used in the study was, therefore, lexically dense. One of the unique aspects of the study was that it analyzed the metalinguistic awareness of interpreters by assessing how conscious the interpreters were of what omissions they made and why they made them. Thus, rather than simply identifying erroneous or strategic omissions, the study defined five specific categories of omissions that are based on whether interpreters were conscious of the omissions and whether they made omissions intentionally. Although the process of identifying levels of metalinguistic awareness could be argued as psycholinguistic, the key point of interest in the study was the sociolinguistic factors that influenced interpreters’ decision making in producing omissions. By identifying interpreters’ levels of metalinguistic awareness about any omissions made, one could discern the extent to which sociolinguistic factors such as educational background , familiarity with the discourse environment, language register, Omissions Produced by Auslan-English Interpreters : 101 lexical density of text, and familiarity with terminology affected the number and types of omissions made by the interpreters. The findings related to sociolinguistic factors affecting occurrence and types of omissions during an interpretation of a university lecture could possibly apply to discussion of the sociolinguistic dynamics of other contexts, which may have a different effect on the occurrence and types of omissions made by interpreters. The study is particularly useful in that it presents a new omission taxonomy that can be used by interpreter educators...