Advances in Teaching Sign Language Interpreters

Interpreted Discourse: Learning and Recognizing What Interpreters Do in Interaction

M E L A N I E M E T Z G E R Interpreted Discourse: Learning and Recognizing What Interpreters Do in Interaction Interpreters’ work is discourse. Although varying approaches to the study and pedagogy of interpretation exist, one cannot deny that the basic work that interpreters engage in on a daily basis is the comprehension and manipulation of discourse. In addition to the need for interpreters to study and gain control over such cognitive tools as information processing, memory, and decision making, interpreters must be able to recognize those aspects of discourse that pertain to its pragmatic function. Equally important, interpreters must be cognizant that their very presence changes the structure and flow of interaction (Roy 1989a, 2000a; Wadensjö 1992, 1998; Metzger 1995a, 1999; Angelleli 2001, 2003). A growing body of research suggests that interpreters do far more than work as conduits between primary participants. Roy (1989a, 2000a) and Sanheim (2003) find that interpreters actually exhibit some control in interpreted interactions, through the management of turn-taking. Wadensjö (1992, 1998) finds that spoken language interpreters can be seen to engage in two basic acts when interpreting interaction: relaying and coordinating. Metzger (1995a, 1999) finds that interpreters generate their own turns while interpreting interaction and that these turns provide evidence of both of these functions: relaying and coordination, or interactional management. Angelleli (2001, 2003) finds that interpreters are far 100 more visible participants in medical interactions than was once thought to be the case, engaging in a variety of self-generated turns at talk. Research provides evidence of what occurs in practice in the field; it also provides a catalyst for adjusting interpreter education so that students are better prepared to work after graduation. Toward this end, Metzger (2000) describes the importance of teaching interpreting students about the features of interactive discourse and the role that interpreters have been found to play when interpreting interaction (Metzger 2000). In that study, Metzger proposes that students should be able to do the following: 1. Recognize and identify features of interactive discourse 2. Understand interpreters’ strategies for coping 3. Apply strategies for coping (Metzger, 85) This chapter builds on this earlier work and focuses on teaching specific strategies in greater depth. Toward this end, this chapter will review the features of interactive discourse described in Metzger (2000), focus on one feature, source attribution, as a sample , and then propose a general approach for assisting students in the recognition and identification of each specific interactive discourse feature so that students can better employ them in their interpretations. Features of Interpreted Interaction By studying an interpreted English-American Sign Language (ASL) doctor-patient encounter (Metzger 1995a, 1999), an interpreted professor-student meeting (Roy 2000a), and several medical and social service interviews (Wadensjö 1998), numerous features of interpreted interaction have been identified, labeled, and described that can be used in teaching interpreters. These features include introductions , attention-getting strategies such as summonses, turntaking and overlap, responses to questions directed to the interpreter , requests for clarification, relaying of pronominal reference, and source attribution. In this section, these strategies will be reviewed from a descriptive, empirical perspective. The remainder of Interpreted Discourse 101 this chapter will apply a prescriptive and pedagogical perspective to one strategy and suggest ways to apply this approach to the others. Features of Interactional Management Introductions When people gather for almost any type of interaction, introductions are the way that the interaction gets started. This is true in casual and information gatherings. The interaction may begin with a question about whether all the people present know one another. Similarly, in more formal or structured interactions, such as interviews or meetings, the interaction begins with some sort of introduction . This might be a brief opening to get the event started, or it might be a detailed and thorough introduction in which all participants have the opportunity to say their name and offer other identifying information about themselves, such as professional credentials and business or academic affiliation. The information included in introductions may well be culturally motivated. Further, when the interaction is interpreted, the interpreter may be introduced , and information regarding the unique qualities of interpreted interaction may be shared. The introduction of the interpreter can be handled in any one of a variety of ways. For example, the interpreter can make the introduction or be introduced by one of the primary participants. However, because in an...