MSc Dissertation

An examination of the register and discourse of two BSL texts and the subsequent rendering of those texts into spoken English by BSL/English interpreters

MSc Dissertation Submitted May 2001 Christopher Stone 9773396

a

Contents

Abstract

i

1.0 Introduction

1

1.1 My Research

1

1.2 The Rationale

2

2.0 Literature Review

5

2.1 Register and Genre

5

2.2 Sign Language Register

8

2.3 Discourse

10 2.3.1 Sign Language Discourse 2.3.1.1 Sign Language Discourse Structure

2.4 Interpreting Register and Discourse 3.0 Method

11 11 14 20

3.1 BSL language data source and BSL stimulus text

20

3.1.1 Informants

20

3.1.2 Type of Analysis

21

3.2 Interpreted materials

22

3.2.1 The interpreters

22

3.2.2 Type of Analysis

23

4.0 The BSL text analysis

26

4.1 BSL Text Clip 1 register analysis

26

4.1.1 Episodes (according to Morgan and Roy)

27

4.1.2 Style of Utterance (according to Joos)

28

4.1.3 Phonological Differences (according to Zimmer)

29

4.1.4 Lexical and Morphological Differences

32

b

4.1.5 Syntax and Discourse organisation 4.2 BSL Text Clip 2 register analysis

33 35

4.2.1 Episodes (according to Morgan and Roy)

35

4.2.2 Style of Utterance (according to Joos)

36

4.2.3 Phonological Differences (according to Zimmer)

37

4.2.4 Lexical and Morphological differences

39

4.2.5 Syntax and Discourse organisation

41

4.3 Comparison of Clip 1 and Clip 2

42

4.3.1 Ingram

42

4.3.2 Newmark

45

4.4 Feedback from the Deaf Informants 5.0 The Interpreted Text Analysis

48 50

5.1 The register analysis of the Interpreted Texts

50

5.1.1 Style of Utterance (according to Joos)

51

5.1.2 Lexical Choice (according to Shaw and Shlesinger)

52

5.1.3 Pausing

53

5.1.4 Speech Rate

54

5.1.5 Syntax and Discourse Organisation

56

5.1.6 Overall Rating of Features

57

5.2 Individual interpreter differences

58

5.2.1 Overall Ratings of features for Clip 1

59

5.2.2 Overall Ratings of features for Clip 2

60

5.3 Discourse Types for tL of interpreters

63

5.3.1 Ingram

63

5.3.2 Individual interpreter differences

65

5.3.3 Newmark

67

5.4 Feedback from Interpreters

69

6.0 Conclusion

72 6.1 BSL Register

72

6.2 Discourse type of the BSL texts

73

6.3 Register match of the interpreters

73

c

6.4 Discourse type of the interpreters

73

6.5 Implications

74

6.6 Future Research

74

References

76

Appendix A

Ingram’s table

79

Appendix B

Newmark’s table

82

Appendix C

Responses from the Deaf Informants

85

Appendix D

Preparation for the Interpreters

88

Appendix E

Individual interpreter scores for Ingram

92

Appendix F

Individual interpreter scores for Newmark

96

Appendix G

Responses from the Interpreters

98

Appendix H

Transcription of Clip one, minute 0’00” to 5’00”

104

Appendix I

Transcription of Clip two, minute 0’00” to 5’00”

117

Appendix J

Transcription of interpreters Clip 1, minute 3’00” to 5’00”

130

Appendix K

Transcription of interpreters Clip 2, minute 3’00” to 5’00”

137

d

Abstract This MSc thesis examines the register and discourse structure of two BSL clips of a Deaf Woman using criteria suggested by a variety of authors. It shows that the two clips are of different registers and of different discourse types and describes the differences. This thesis then goes on to examine the register and discourse structure of the rendering of the two BSL texts into spoken English undertaken by five interpreters. It shows that the interpreters create different registers and discourse types for the two clips. The conclusions of this research are that combining the analysis of a text’s register; discourse type; style and text function creates a powerful diagnostic tool for determining a holistic image of a text. The diagnostic tool enables the determination of the register of BSL texts when compared one against another. The tool also enables the determination of the level of formality of a BSL text on its own. The diagnostic tool allows for the register of a BSL to English interpretation to be determined. It also enables the level of formality of the source language utterance to be compared with the target language utterance. Furthermore it enables the comparison of the register and level of formality of interpretations of a variety of interpreters. Finally it has been shown that interpreters are not able to create a register difference as great in the target language as that created by the Deaf woman in the source language. And that interpreters are more able to create an informal/oral structured discourse than a formal/literate discourse.

i

1.0 Introduction

This research concerns the register and style of production of British Sign Language (BSL) by native sign language users and how these registers and styles can be categorised. It also concerns how BSL/English interpreters represent these registers and styles of the BSL texts via their interpretations into spoken English. The research intends to examine how BSL register/style can be determined, how the register/style of the English spoken by the interpreters can be determined and how the differences between the register/style of the BSL and English texts can indicate where problems occur in the interpreting process.

1.1 My Research The aims of the research are firstly, to apply a variety of language register theories to two BSL texts and find out if they are useful in determining the register of the BSL texts. Secondly, to apply these theories to some interpreters’ spoken English interpretations and find out if these theories are useful in categorising the register of the English interpretations. Thirdly, to examine how well interpreters are able to match the register of a BSL source language (sL) text when producing a spoken English target language (tL) text. A group of five interpreters will be used who have all completed their training at the University of Bristol one, three and five years ago. The research will also look for indications of whether interpreters are able to match the register and discourse type of the sL. Initially two BSL sL texts will be analysed for its features pertinent to register. The features will be analysed using Joos (1961), Roy (1989), Zimmer (1989), Ingram (2000) and Newmark (1988). Two native Deaf BSL users will also be asked to verify the register of the text. Comments from the native Deaf BSL users will also be asked for. 1

The five interpreters’ interpretations of sL clip one will be analysed and then separately for sL two. The five interpreters’ interpretations will not be analysed for content accuracy other than features of their utterances, which relate to register. Again this will follow Joos (1961), Ingram (2000) and Newmark (1988) descriptions of register, but the features examined by Roy (1989) and Zimmer (1989) in BSL will be examined using Shaw (1987) for a spoken English tL. The average scores are noted for the interpreters for clips 1 and 2 and then a relative comparison is made as to whether the interpretation for clip 1 is of a higher or lower register than clip 2. Finally, the individual differences of the interpreters are noted so that the discourse type of each interpreter can be categorised according to Ingram and Newmark. This gives some indication of the interpreters’ differing idiolects and how each interpreter achieves different registers. From this research I hope to be able to identify where in the interpreting process problems occur in conveying the register or style of the sL into the tL and what features need to be observed and produced by the interpreters to enable a good reflection of both the sL register and discourse type in the tL. The features identified could be incorporated into future interpreter training in order to improve BSL/English interpreters’ awareness of linguistic differences in the registers and discourses of their two working languages

1.2 The Rationale BSL/English interpreter training courses have been in existence in the United Kingdom for some years. The original courses were those run by the RNID and lasted one week and latterly two weeks in length. After these courses were deemed to be inadequate the University of Bristol and then the University of Durham developed post-graduate level courses so that interpreters had the level of training required to undertake the complex process of interpreting and working between two grammatically distinct languages.

2

These courses were developed and initially catered for interpreters who had been working and wanted to upgrade their qualifications and their skills. After this first wave of interpreters had received training the University of Bristol focused on developing a full time course to train candidates from a basic level of BSL to being competent interpreters able to work in a variety of fields. These interpreters went on to gain full professional status by practicing as interpreters and thereby increasing their job competence through experience. The course at the University of Bristol tended to use university lecture material as training materials for their interpreter students. This is something that is still done when beginning to train in the simultaneous interpreting mode as this is seen to develop the interpreters’ coping strategies and enables the interpreters to break away from the form of the sL and into the form of the tL. Whilst this is good as a first step it may mean that the interpreters are less able to match the style of the sL when producing the tL matching many features but missing the register and affect. In recent years Deaf people have been able to progress to a greater extent through the further and higher education system and attain higher-level jobs and positions in society. The interpreter-training course at Bristol gave the basic skill requirements to its interpreter graduates to cope with the formal settings that the Deaf people found themselves in. As the Deaf people gained higher positions in organisations and companies this created the need for interpreting provision in all manners of situations. Social networking and other forms of social interpreting are becoming of equal and in some cases greater importance than interpreting within formal situations. It is in these situations that much of the political allegiances are made and effective interpreting is required so that Deaf people are given equal access to these political processes. In this sense the political processes are not only those throughout trade organisations, Unions and political parties, but also in organisations, social networks and even parents evenings. Recently there were difficulties with introduction of a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) level 5 in interpreting for both spoken and sign language interpreters. One of the reasons given was that language competence in both languages was not sufficient for interpreters to work at functions such as cocktail 3

parties and high society functions (Ruth Roberts personal communication). But clearly it can be seen that this language competence is not only needed in high society but also everyday life. I am interested on the impact on a situation if an interpreter mismatches the register of the Deaf person when interpreting into spoken English. Similarly, how effectively is a Deaf person integrated into a work environment without good access to social networks? Are interpreters able to provide a good interpretation including different registers for different social and professional settings?

4

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Register and Genre Register is a linguistic outcome of a particular social situation; in different social situations people alter the way they use language. There are many different theories that look at the idea of register and genre. Halliday as early as 1978 discusses three parameters that we need to consider: 1. What is actually taking place? 2. Who is taking part? 3. What part is the language playing? These three components have become known as field (the social interaction), tenor (the participants’ relationship and level of formality) and mode (the medium of interaction, i.e. speech vs. writing vs. signing). Other authors have written about elements of these parameters. Joos (1961) discusses the idea of five distinct styles of language: intimate, casual, consultative, formal and frozen. For each style level he suggests two dominant features. He also discusses the role of the audience or listener, how they are included in dialogue and what interaction is expected on the part of the listener. So for example Joos states that the two defining features of consultative style are: (1) The speaker supplies background information – he does not assume that he will be understood without it […] (2) The addressee participates continuously (page 23). He also quotes Fries’ comments about oral reactions not interfering with the overall continuous flow of utterances from the speaker but showing attentive listening (page 20). Joos goes on to say that formal style is similar to consultative style but is prepared and so its additional elements are detachment on the part of the audience who wait for

5

permission or acknowledgement from the speaker before they participate. The second feature he identifies is cohesion, which is an outcome of the preparation. Although there are some fields where one would not expect to find an interpreter the styles give us a guide to the level of formality and define some elements of tenor. It is worth saying that Joos by no means gives a definitive list of features of each style but discusses where each style might manifest. The linguistic features that are found within an intimate register interaction would presumably not manifest if an interpreter were brought into that environment. These features are extraction and jargon such that an intimate group, which Joos suggests is nearly always a couple, use the minimal amount of information possible for the other to understand. This code is therefore not slang but jargon and contractions of speech are not grammatically discernible thus extraction rather than ellipsis is displayed. The point of any such utterance is simply to remind (hardly ‘inform’) the addressee of some feeling […] inside the speaker’s skin (page 30). E.g. ‘Cold’ as opposed to ‘Coffee’s cold’; the former is extraction and the latter is ellipsis. ‘Cold’ is intimate because it extends to the addressee that they share this intimate code, whereas ‘Coffee’s cold’ gives the addressee enough information to be able to understand the utterance whilst treating them as an insider. So intimate style differs from casual style; in casual style ellipsis and slang serve to include members of a group or a stranger by including him in the group. Ellipsis as discussed by Joos is a linguistic feature of omission; Joos says that the weak words of English can be omitted, so that ‘It would have been a good thing […]’ (consultative) is contracted to, ‘Been a good thing if […]’ (casual). Interestingly he also considers the case of phonological ellipsis such as ‘C’n I help you’ (casual) as opposed to ‘Can I help you’ (consultative) (page 25). Phonological ellipsis is not mentioned in other literature and the definition seems to be that ellipsis is, ‘the omission of parts of a sentence where the meaning is understood, as in a telegram’ Finch (1998). Joos’ ideas are useful when looking at the role of the audience/interlocutor giving parameters for both the field and tenor. The different styles give us an insight into the expected role of the audience/interlocutor, which again gives us a greater overview of 6

the tenor. This arms us with the beginnings of some deductive tools to enable one to characterise the register of a text. Halliday (1978) suggests that, “given that we know the situation, the social context of language use, we can predict a great deal about the language that will occur, with reasonable probability of being right” (page 32). From this premise he goes on to suggest that, “the notion of register is thus a form of prediction”. This seems to be relevant to the ability of interpreters to match the register of the speaker. It is possible that if an interpreter is familiar with the language used within a certain setting then the interpreter will use this predictive ability to ensure that language output matches their expectation and could lead to a lack of flexibility in the interpretation of the source text, or a considerable reduction in the processing needed by either the interpreter or the recipient of the tL. Eggins and Martin (1997) move on from the idea that register is only a form of prediction by stating that, “a useful R> [register and genre theory] is one that will allow for both textual prediction and contextual deduction”. They reiterate the idea that, “the concept of register is a theoretical explanation of the common sense observation that we use language differently in different situations” (page 234). However the overriding factor seems to be that the critical elements are seen to be firstly contextual, and secondly linguistic, (Leckie-Tarry 1993) (page 30). If deduction is possible then I propose that we can identify features post hoc that enable us to characterise the register of any given text at any given time, if we know the environmental parameters within which the text was given. Again this poses the question of whether interpreters change their register when interpreting into spoken English because of the situation within which they [the interpreters] find themselves. If this is the case then environment factors should be examined.

7

2.2 Sign Language Register Whilst Joos examines styles in English, there is evidence of different registers within BSL, Sutton-Spence and Woll state, “As with all languages, BSL changes according to whether a signer is addressing one person, a small group, or a large gathering […] it also differs depending on whether a situation is informal and relaxed and the group present know each other well, or whether a situation is formal and the conversational partners are strangers” (page 31). They state that more casual BSL contains the following features: ! The signing space is larger ! There is less finger spelling ! There are more non-manual features ! There is less English influence ! There is more idiomatic signs ! Greater use of creative metaphor ! Two-handed signs are reduced to one hand signs ! The location in front of the body is used in place of a specific location ! More sign/gestures are used This would suggest that formal BSL would have the opposite of these features, which gives some scale for comparison of two texts. This enables one to use some of the tools that have been developed for English text analysis to be extended to BSL text analysis too especially in conjunction with Ingram (see below). These other tools are useful as there is nothing else in the published domain on specific register features of BSL. Zimmer (1989) expands upon the observations made by Roy (1989) looking at phonological differences, lexical and morphological differences and syntax and discourse organisation. The phonological differences concur with the points made by Sutton-Spence and Woll (1999), but further points are made. As well as those mentioned above, informal ASL also has:

8

!

Shifts to indicate reported speech [constructed dialogue] by head movement and subtle body shifts rather than shifting of the entire torso in formal lectures

!

Hand switching occurs less frequently and with pronoun and determiners

!

Assimilation occurs in lectures it was not observed

!

Perseveration occurs more often and for longer durations than in lectures

!

Anticipation occurs regularly whilst not being present in lectures

On a lexical and morphological perspective Zimmer notes that in lectures: !

Colloquial lexicon is used in constructed dialogue and not in the main body of the lecture

!

Conjunctions are used

!

Lexicon can have exaggerated movement to intensify

Whilst in informal discourse !

Colloquial lexicon is used throughout the discourse

!

Segmentation is by syntactical topicalisation

!

Non-manuals are used as intensifiers

Finally Zimmer discusses syntax and discourse organisation: In lectures !

Rhetorical questions are used

!

NOW segments discourse

!

Index emphasis occurs

In informal discourse !

Topic marking segments discourse

Zimmer makes some further comments concerning lecture discourses and three features are discussed in greater depth: the body of a lecture, constructed dialogue and metaphor/poetic. This merely reinforces that the main body of a lecture focuses on making points and delivering factual information. When using constructed dialogue various features can be anticipated including the use of colloquial lexicon, a shortened final hold, and neutral space being used instead of body anchored sign delivery, a smaller signing space and sparse use of assimilation and perseveration. With

9

metaphoric and poetic language larger signing is used, a long final hold is executed and creative morphology is present. Interestingly, Zimmer also comments on interpreting saying, “an interpretation can be quite accurate at the level of content but still be inadequate if expressed in an inappropriate register”. Interpreters and translators are also concerned with reflecting the many facets of a text or piece of discourse. Newmark (1988) discusses many different scales by which a text or discourse can be judged. He has ranges for text styles, stylistic scales of formality and difficulty, a scale for emotional tone and a scale for the expectation of who will be the reader. These will be discussed below.

2.3 Discourse So far register has been discussed according to styles and deductibility, but discourse is also a feature of register. When it comes to the grammatical features associated with specific discourse types Ingram has devised a comprehensive table for discourse types, which should enable a discourse type to be determined. Ingram (2000) draws upon Callow (1974) who describes six different discourse types: 1. Narrative - recounts a series of events orders more or less chronologically 2. Procedural - give(s) instructions as to the accomplishing of a task or achieving of an object 3. Hortatory - which we might also call persuasive discourse, attempts to influence conduct 4. Explanatory - seeks to provide information required in particular circumstances 5. Argumentative - attempts to prove something to the hearer 6. Conversational - is a conversation between two or more people Ingram's table (appendix A) creates a way to perform an analysis on the texts, making the components explicit which is more useful than Joos, who is limited to audience/interlocutor interaction/participation (tenor) and focuses mainly upon ellipsis, slang and jargon. Callow was predominantly using this diagnostic tool for the translation of Bible texts. It would appear that Ingram has modified this for use as a

10

teaching aid when training ASL/English interpreters. This tool identifies twenty-nine different features for six different discourse types and includes Joos’ styles, thereby extending the diagnostic tools we have for analysing and identifying text features so that we can categorise discourse types in BSL. Ingram’s table lists the twenty-nine features and denotes which features are found in the different discourse types, e.g. logical ordering will be found in argumentative and hortatory discourses, chronological ordering is found in narrative and procedural discourse, non-linear random ordering will be found in explanatory and conversational discourse and flashbacks will be found in narrative and conversational discourses. 2.3.1 Sign Language Discourse Some linguists have examined the features one might expect to see in sign language narrative and lecture discourses. Some of these have focused on BSL and some on other sign languages including American Sign Language (ASL) and Swedish Sign language (SSL). Ahlgren and Bergman (1989), in describing Swedish Sign Language, note that, “in most spontaneous narrations […] the sequence of events are interfoliated (sic) by descriptive statements, comments and other disruptions, so that the speaker moves in and out of the narrative mood” (page 257). Within the same article comments are made about verb modification being “[…] narrated from the perspective of the agent explains why directionally modifiable verbs typically move from the signer outwards […]” and that narrative verbs, “seem to have a higher degree of iconicity, cannot be negated, nor accompanied by Swedish mouth patterns” (page 260). 2.3.1.1 Sign Language Discourse Structure Wilson (1996) uses Labov (1972) and Gee (1986) to analyse an ASL narrative. Wilson quotes Labov as stating that narrative can be described as a, “[…] sequence of at least 2 clauses that are temporally ordered” (page 153). Labov suggests that there are five criteria to be found in a story: 11

Abstract: a sentence at the beginning that summarises the story Orientation: clauses near the beginning that provided a setting Complicating action: the events of the narrative; what happened Evaluation: the point of the story Coda: that narrative is brought back to present time Gee had previous analysed narratives from oral cultures and this framework was used to see if ASL narrative also followed line, stanza and verse structure. Subsequently Bahan and Supalla (1995) were quoted saying, “a change in eye gaze as well as the presence of a pause, a blink or a head nod, are phenomena that most often occur at the end of a line in ASL”. Formal discourses are discussed by Roy (1989) where she states that, “lectures tend to be monologues […] good lecturers are aware of the audience’s needs to both follow the flow of the talk and enjoy the experience of listening […] they [lectures] also require the use of linguistic devices […] that are not part of the content of the lecture […] these words or phrases are cohesive, structural devises that contribute to a listener’s ability to distinguish between major and minor points, old versus new information and turns or shifts in the flow of topics” (page 232). Roy continues with comments of the structure saying that, “[…] [it] must be structured so as to develop the topic of the talk through subtopics and guide the listener through the relevance of each topic as it is discussed” (page 233). This leads to the idea of an episodic structure similar to that proposed by Morgan (1996), cited in Sutton-Spence and Woll, for the structure of sign language narratives (page 270). The structure is such that there is: !

An obligatory focal (introductory) episode

!

Optional focal episodes

!

An obligatory developmental episode

!

Optional developmental episodes

!

An obligatory closing episode

12

Roy goes on to state, “Structured […] through the content of its propositions […] also through its textual features that reflect transition boundaries between episodes and link the episodes together […] the speaker makes available to listeners features that show the continuity and relationship between subtopics and episodes” (page 235). This definition appears to describe more completely episodic structure than that Morgan hints at. The serial episodes are linked together by single or phrasal lexical elements. The discourse markers that Roy identifies for ASL are: head nods, OK, ANYWAY, NOW and NOW-THAT. Whilst ASL is a different sign language and there may not be direct equivalents of the ASL discourse markers Roy elucidates the idea of episodic links. Roy continues by discussing the idea of reported speech and quotes Tannen (1986) who introduces the term 'constructed dialogue'. This term incorporates the idea that ‘reported speech’ is not reported verbatim but is constructed by the speaker. The idea of constructed dialogue is an important one as this is used both in narrative and lecture discourse. Roy states the difference being that in narrative discourse there is an exchange of dialogue between speakers, the content of the utterances is longer with more repetition than that in lectures, and there is simply more dialogue (page 246). Roy also notes differences in ASL lecture content and English lecture content, “[…] the use of this style [analogic], or any other, is the result of a particular interaction, a particular context, and particular audience, in conjunction with cultural predispositions, [Johnstone (1986)] that is, users of ASL might choose to use this strategy within particular interactions, whereas speakers of English, for example, might choose to use the same strategy in a different context” (page 248). Morgan, in Sutton-Spence Woll (page 271), suggests that narratives are chronologically ordered and that the structure is that of an introduction followed by one or more episodes and then a conclusion, does not take up the theme above. He states the eye contact would be with the conversational partner during the introduction, moves away during the telling of the episodes and returns to the conversational partner when an aside is made.

13

Morgan also gives a comprehensive list of features used for the identification of characters which is an important feature of narrative, these fall into 2 categories, manual markers (numbers 1 to 4) and non-manual markers or ‘role shift’ (5 to 10): 1. Full noun phrase 2. Index points 3. Verb inflections 4. Proforms 5. Body shifts 6. Shoulder shifts 7. Head orientations 8. Eye gaze 9. Facial components 10. Character style Many of the features mentioned mirror those of Ahlgren and Bergman in their discussion of SSL, which seems to suggest there are parallels. There is also similar research that has been undertaken on ASL, which correlates with the findings above. This implies that a BSL text can be analysed and following the research findings above can be categorised into different discourse types. If we are then able to do this for an interpreted text, we can examine whether an interpreted text has similar characteristics to its sL counterpart.

2.4 Interpreting Register and Discourse If we return to spoken language register and discourse, it is useful to look at interpreting and translation literature. Newmark (1988) – see Appendix B - discusses language function: expressive, informative, vocative, aesthetic, phatic, and metalinguistic (page 39). He tries to separate these functions suggesting that each text that one looks at has only one overriding language function. Whilst this may be true of a written text, he does suggest that texts may possess more than one function, and for spoken/signed discourse it is more useful to examine whether each layer is present in the text and create a more complete description of the text. 14

For each function Newmark suggests different scales, e.g. for the expressive function he suggests that the text could be a serious piece of imaginative literature, or an authoritative statement or autobiography (page 39). He suggests text styles of narrative, descriptive, discussion and dialogue (page 13), stylistic scales for formality of officialese, official, formal, neutral, informal, colloquial, slang and taboo (page 14) and for difficulty of simple, popular, neutral, educated, technical and opaquely technical (page 14). Newmark also suggests ratings for emotional tone of intense, warm, factual and understatement (page 14), and a rating for the expected audience or reader types of expert, educated layman or uninformed (page 15). Newmark also examines text structure as a means of determining genre. Most of these scales provide useful diagnostics of the texts to be analysed. Moreover the stance taken by Newmark is one of translator, which is directly relevant to this study. He brings together the theory of many translators and theoreticians into a workable multifaceted diagnostic tool. He focuses on the written word, which limits the usefulness of the tool when considering sign language interpretation. By considering other approaches to the determination of styles and register these can inform the use of Newmark’s categories and aid in categorisation. Other researchers have focussed on interpreting rather than the written word and also draw upon a variety of authors. One of these, Shaw (1987), has undertaken work to look at the register of interpretation when interpreters work from ASL to spoken English. Shaw takes a relativistic stance, comparing two outputs of two interpreters and examining whether each individual interpreter has changed register. This focuses on speaking rate, pausing, syntax, intonation and lexical choice. Shaw compares two interpreters’ interpretations to look at the comparative registers of two target texts. She asks native users to grade the source text registers according to the scale used by Joos. Shaw then uses the elements above to compare the registers. Shaw suggests that the speaking rate is an indication of register and so this parameter can be used to see if the interpreters are able to differentiate in their output for two texts of two different registers.

15

For lexical choice, not only are contractions of words (e.g. s’posed, wasn’t) considered but also the use of and, phonetic assimilations and repairs and repetitions; formal words and phrases are also examined. These all fall into convenient categories so that if we examine ellipsis (exophoric vs. endophoric references see below), formal and informal lexicon this will enable the texts to be categorised according to Joos. For syntax and discourse type, the use of and, repairs and repetitions, false starts and wrong grammar can be analysed. These parameters concur with those discussed by Shlesinger (1989) - see below - under the title “disfluencies and evidence of flow monitoring” (page 21). Here Shlesinger suggests that the lower the occurrence of disfluencies such as false starts, repairs and repetitions the more literate a text is on the oral-literate text continuum. The oral-literate continuum is a useful way of considering register and Joos five styles fall neatly into this. The idea that intimate is a form that will only be found in spoken mode and frozen text will only be found in written mode is expanded upon so that we consider frozen texts that are read out and intimate texts that are transcribed. This is useful when considering sign language, which does not have a widespread written form. And finally the speech rates can be noted as well so that a global description of each target English text can be created. This seems to bridge the gap between the characteristics of discourse types and register above with parameters that are useful in looking at a spoken language interpretation. Shaw uses these parameters to identify that the interpreters in her study are using different registers without trying to categorise the registers that are used by the interpreters. Ingram adapts Callow’s categories into a text analysis tool, which can be used to predict the discourse type of a text. He describes how he used this tool with his students in an interpreter-training programme. He passed around speech titles and asked the students to predict what discourse types would be used by the speakers. It seems however that the most important aspect of this was that certain grammatical features were associated with each discourse type (Appendix A). This being the case it would seem, following Eggins and Martin above, that this tool could be used as a deductive tool as well.

16

Shaw also uses Joos’ styles so the tools above should enable both the determination of the use of distinct registers and what those registers are. There is consistency throughout Shaw and Ingram with regards to Joos’ five styles. Shlesinger has undertaken research into Hebrew/English interpreting and has noted that there is an effect on the position along the oral-literate continuum. Shlesinger discusses five basic parameters: degree of planning, shared knowledge, lexis, degree of involvement and the role of non-verbal features (page 14). Many of these factors are similar to those discussed by Shaw in her research. Shlesinger cites Chafe (1977 page 108 and 1982 pages 37-38), stating, “oral-type texts […] are marked by fragmentation. Idea units are emitted in spurts.” This is similar to Shaw’s treatment of interpreters’ texts, where the numbers of pauses are used to indicate the register. Shaw also looks at lexical choice, but the degree of planning and the shared knowledge are parameters that are pertinent to Joos description of styles. Shlesinger quotes Nystrand 1982:1, “the more familiar the audience (addressee) is to the speaker the more the text is said to be oral” (page 82). But Shlesinger goes onto suggest that, “remarks are addressed to a well-defined audience with the implicit understanding that they share a body of knowledge based on experience […] and that this can mean that there is a reduction of coherence through incorrect decontextualisation by the interpreter” (page 152). The degree of involvement is also analysed by Shlesinger and a comprehensive description of endophoric and exophoric references is used. An endophoric reference is used to “refer to the relationship of cohesion which help to define the structure of the text: it is contrasted with exophoric relationships, which do not play a part in cohesion, and where the interpretation requires reference to the extralinguistic situation” Crystal (page 136). This seems to suggest similar ideas to those suggested by Joos when he discusses ellipsis. The contractions that he discusses seem to refer to exophoric references and thus ‘jargon’ is created. This suggests that by way of noting the occurrence of ellipsis we need to examine the occurrence of both endophoric and exophoric referencing; the greater the occurrence of exophoric referencing the greater the assumed relationship between the speaker and the audience and hence the lower the style. 17

Shlesinger finds that in the case of literate texts, “regardless of language [Hebrew or English] the degree of planning […] shifts towards greater orality; i.e., interpretation per se results in syntactic simplification” (page 164). Similarly, all of the literate texts regardless of target language exhibit an increase in the incidence of disfluencies. The opposite is found for oral texts, i.e. that the oral texts become more literate, although the findings are less consistent for oral-type English texts. It would seem that for English oral-type texts two of the parameters (density and disfluency) indicate greater orality (pages 170 - 173). Here disfluency is as described above, and includes repetitions, ungrammatical pauses, hesitations and false starts, the presence of these “is among the indications that the text is being conceived (almost) as it is being produced (whether in writing or speech)” (page 21). For density Shlesinger draws upon Chafe stating that it “reflects the ‘deliberate, editable process’. Among the lexical and syntactic devices which contribute to density (in English texts) are: nominalizations, participles, preposed and postposed modifiers, attributive adjectives, conjoined phrases, series (of three or more modifiers in a single idea unit), sequence of prepositional phrases, complement clauses, relative clauses and subordinating conjunctions” (page 16). Of all of these devices only phrases conjoined by the use of and are examined. Ultimately the literature thus far should enable the BSL texts to be analysed for linguistic features of register difference and the components identified should enable the determination of the register and discourse type of the BSL texts. This exercise can then be carried out on the English tL texts firstly to ascertain if the texts are different registers and then to determine the register and discourse type of the tL texts. Finally it can be noted whether the difference in register in the sL texts along the five point scale suggested by Joos is the same for the tL texts of the interpreters or whether the difference is either greater or smaller in the output of the interpreters or not. By using a variety of analytical techniques for ascertaining the register of BSL texts and the register of the English spoken language texts of the interpreters it should be possible to judge whether the interpretations reflect the register of the BSL source texts. It is interesting that because of the lack of experience of the interpreters in this 18

study, and the fact that some of the interpreters are still students, Gile (1991) notes it is not possible to extrapolate these results to the practices of professional interpreters. Gile states that often student interpreters are used within research and yet may never work as profession translators/interpreters (page 160). This would tend to suggest that this study below identifies the problems that student interpreters experience before they reach the status of professional interpreter and could aid interpreter trainers.

19

3.0 Method

In order to investigate the characteristics of register for a native BSL user and the subsequent characteristics of the registers of interpreters’ tL output it was necessary to firstly have a language data source. Secondly, I needed to ask two Deaf people to be informants with respect to the language data. Thirdly, it was necessary to analyse the data using the diagnostic tools outlined above. Fourthly, I needed to ask interpreters to interpret the BSL language data, thus providing English tL data and finally to analyse this data using the diagnostics tools described above. The section below details the method used.

3.1 BSL Language data source and BSL stimulus text A Deaf native British Sign Language (BSL) user in her mid-forties provided both of the BSL texts used for the research. The Deaf woman is a native user of BSL who grew up in a Deaf family. Both her parents were Deaf BSL users. She attended a Deaf school, is bilingual and states that her first and preferred language is BSL. The signer signed two BSL texts to video. In the first text she told a hearing friend about her recent visit to Belfast and the British Deaf Association (BDA) congress. The unseen conversational partner asked some questions. The second text was the presentation of some unpublished research data. This was presented with some crib notes as an aid. The field and tenor are discussed in section 4.0 below. 3.1.1 Informants Two native BSL users watched the two texts and were asked some questions about both of the texts (appendix C). The questions were designed to elicit responses from the native BSL users and their predictions about possible settings for the texts, the registers of the texts and pertinent features from the texts that enabled them to make these judgements. The aim was that judgements of native users of the language would reinforce the identity of the register of the texts identified from the linguistic 20

features of the text. Asking native users provides an intuitive element to register prediction/deduction that is implied by the literature. The first native BSL user was a man in his mid-twenties from a Deaf family with Deaf parents. He attended a school for the Deaf and is a bilingual with BSL as his first and preferred language. The woman who produced the text is a relative of his. The second native BSL user was a woman in her mid-forties from a Deaf family with Deaf parents. She attended a school for the Deaf, is bilingual and states that her first and preferred language is BSL. The woman who produced the text is a friend of hers. The first informant has completed undergraduate-level linguistic training and the second informant postgraduate-level linguistic training. 3.1.2 Type of Analysis The texts were initially transcribed looking at lexicon, facial grammar, head position and action (nodding, shaking, etc.), mouth patterns, eye gaze, and use of dominant and non-dominant hands so that differences between each text could be noted. As the distance of the camera from the subject remained constant the size of the signing space was measured by noting the furthest points in the left and right horizontal plane and the highest and lowest points in the vertical plane on the television monitor when reviewing the footage. The number of signs articulated on average per second was also measured dividing the number of signs, n, articulated in a specified time (in seconds), τ; the average being n/τ. After this the findings were analysed using a variety of different frameworks to gain a multi-layered description of each BSL text. Joos’ posit was used noting the tenor (the participants’ relationship and level of formality) by observing the occurrence of endophoric and exophoric references, and the interaction expected by the speaker from the audience. Evidence of narrative structure and lecture structure was examined using an episodic analysis in accordance with Morgan and Roy. Zimmer and Roy’s categories of

21

lexical, morphological and phonological differences between informal and formal registers were also used. Finally, all the features above were used to code the two texts with respect to discourse types as specified by Ingram and the components outlined in Ingram’s discourse table (see appendix A). The texts were then graded against the stylistic scales, emotional tone setting/reader and language functions of Newmark (see Appendix B). The combination of all these analyses produced a comprehensive description of each BSL text.

3.2 Interpreted Materials Five interpreters interpreted both texts into spoken English. All the interpreters were given some preparation materials (appendix D) before attempting the interpretation. It was stressed to the interpreters that content accuracy was not a factor that was to be analysed. Other than that, the interpreters did not know that the register of their output was going to be evaluated. It may have been that the results would have been significantly different if the interpreters had been aware of this. However, one might expect that they would have included an attempt to match register as far as possible as a part of their process of interpretation. After completing the interpretation of both texts the interpreters were also asked to judge how well they had matched the register of the source language text. 3.2.1 The interpreters To reduce the number of variables introduced by training, all the interpreters were women who had attended the University of Bristol and had the same interpreting trainer. Two interpreters were selected from the group trained between 1997-1999 (referred to as 99/01 and 99/02), one interpreter was selected from the group trained between 1995-1997 (referred to as 97/01), and two interpreters were selected from the group trained between1993-1995 (referred to as 95/01 and 95/02). All of the interpreters have worked full time as interpreters since training.

22

The interpreters were asked questions after completing both interpretations (appendix E) to see what their judgement of the register of each text was. This can be compared with the comments from the native BSL users to see firstly if the interpreters judged the register of the texts correctly and secondly to see if the interpreters were able to accurately judge their performance. It may be that if the interpreters cannot accurately judge the register of the sL this is the reason they do not match the register when interpreting. If they can accurately judge the register of the sL and yet do not match the register then this could highlight the problem as one belonging to the interpreting process, or possibly a problem with register variation in the tL. 3.2.2 Type of Analysis Two minutes of the interpretations were transcribed and analysed, from minute three to minute five. The English interpretations were then analysed looking at factors identified by Shaw and Shlesinger: •

the use of the word and,

•

contractions of words and phonetic assimilations,

•

repairs and repetitions,

•

informal lexicon,

•

formal lexicon,

•

average words per minute,

•

total number of pauses greater than 0.4 seconds (Shaw)

•

total pause time

•

average pause time.

Initially, the analysis intended to find if the interpreters matched register by the structure and features of their output text using four of the five the parameters of Shaw (speaking rate, pausing, syntax and lexical choice). These parameters concur with Shlesinger’s disfluencies and parallel the parameters analysed and identified in the BSL texts. Finally the texts were categorised using Ingram (Appendix A) and Newmark (Appendix B). Following Ingram each text, both the BSL and the English was

23

examined according to his twenty-nine listed grammatical features. The presence of each feature was noted and then compared to the linguistic and discourse features noted by Ingram for each discourse type. This was then expressed as a percentage for ease of comparison. For Newmark each text was judged on its text style (narrative, descriptive, discussion and dialogue); formality (officialese, official, formal, neutral, informal, colloquial, slang and taboo); for difficulty (simple, popular, neutral, educated, technical and opaquely technical); for emotional tone (intense, warm, factual and understatement), and a rating for the expected audience (expert, educated layman or uninformed). Finally the texts were judged on their language function (expressive, informative, vocative, aesthetic, phatic, and metalinguistic). After generating a holistic description of the BSL source language texts and the English target language texts comparisons were made. The relative weightings of each discourse types mooted by Ingram are considered and the different layers of text styles are also considered with respect to Joos and Newmark. A scoring system was derived from the linguistics elements and is used in the final comparison of the texts’ register for each individual interpreter and the interpreters as a group. The tool is similar to that created by Shlesinger and Shaw: Shlesinger uses five different parameters to judge how the interpreters have interpreted specific features of the sL, moving the tL further up or down the oral-literate continuum in comparison to the sL. Shaw uses a scoring system that is adapted in this study to observe all of the occurrences of the factors identified above. The scores of the first fours factors (the use of the word and, contractions, repairs and repetitions, informal lexicon) are added together to create the number of occurrences of informal elements. The score of the fifth factor (formal lexicon) is subtracted from the sum of the scores of first four factors as the fifth factor notes formal (-) and not informal (+) elements. This sum assumes a linear relationship between all of these factors.

24

The last four factors (average words per minute, total number of pauses greater than 0.4 seconds (Shaw), total pause time, average pause time) are then used to modify the results of the score. The higher the words per minute score the lower the register (Shaw). A higher total number of pauses greater than 0.4 seconds in length (found to be significant by Shaw) indicates a higher register according to Shaw, which concurs with the idea of language planning discussed by Shlesinger. Although citing Chafe, Shlesinger also characterised oral-type texts as fragmented. This suggests that a shorter average pause time would suggest a lower register. Informal language is less planned with more fragmentation so the total pause time is less although there may be more pauses reducing the average pause time.

25

4.0 The BSL Text Analyses

This section identifies the linguistic features and situational specific features of the BSL materials. The process of identification enables the two clips to be categorised according to register and discourse type. This categorisation of both texts enables the interpreters’ tL output to be compared with the BSL data and judgements can be made as to whether the texts are the same, whether the sL and tL texts differ and where they differ.

4.1 BSL Text Clip 1 register analysis Before we attempt to apply theories of register and identify the features from Joos, Roy, Ingram or Zimmer it is important to look at the field (the social interaction) and the tenor (the participants’ relationship and level of formality). The Deaf woman is sitting down and is being videotaped. The process of videotaping may raise the formality of the discourse. The Deaf woman is used to being filmed so the level of formality of the text may not be effected to the same extent as a novice. Similarly, the Deaf woman is conversing with a hearing man who is a friend of hers. The fact that the conversational partner is a friend changes the formality. The topic of the discourse is the BDA congress that occurred in Belfast in August 2000. The topic by its very nature is one that will be discussed by Deaf people and hearing people who have some knowledge of the Deaf community; this could imply knowledge of Deaf culture as well. The Deaf woman knows that her hearing friend has attended previous BDA congresses and so there is shared knowledge about previous events. This may alter the way in which information is given. The conversation/presentation is unplanned.

26

4.1.1 Episodes (according to Morgan and Roy) There are eleven episodes in five minutes eight seconds of text as shown in table 4.1 below. Here the divisions are made when a new subtopic of the overall topic is introduced (Roy). The questions from the conversational partner allow for developmental episodes in the speaker’s text (Morgan). Table 4.1 The episodes in Clip 1 Episode (in order)

Starts with

Introduction of topic

RIGHT

Finishes with MISS

Anecdote of Scotland

head fwd

SAME

Arrival

head fwd

ARRIVE

b-hand “not sure”

shake back ARRIVE

HAPPY

Structure

MISS

Conversational Partner comment Structure again

THREELH & RH

WORKSHOP++

Alternative Fayre

ONE

head back IXL

Displays and Stalls

fwd IXL→IXR

HEAD-RESTING-ONFIST

Constructed dialogue

SAME

5-sweep-down

Conversational Partner comment Why congress?

ARRIVE

PARTY …

Conversational Partner comment Lord Mayor’s reception

… WOW

PUTR…

Conversational Partner comment Noel Traynor

RIGHT

BEAUTY

This episodic breakdown is useful so that we can apply the diagnostic tools to Clip 1. Firstly we can see that there is no consistent way that the episodes begin and end. Roy suggests that in an ASL lecture there is quite formulaic discourse marking and we do not see this being present in Clip 1. There is some level of commonality in that comments from the conversational partner and the use of the head both occur four times as discourse markers. The head and eyebrows can be used to mark topic in both BSL and ASL and so it comes as no surprise that this feature may be used to segment episodes.

27

We need to decide if this clip is a narrative or conversational discourse. One of the features suggested by Morgan for narratives in BSL is the chronological ordering of the episodes. The ordering in Clip 1 is such that within each uninterrupted section of the discourse the episodes are chronologically ordered but the comments interjected by conversational partner alter the overall order of the information so that it is not chronological. This could suggest that the discourse itself whilst containing some narrative discourse elements is not a narrative per se. It could be said that Morgan’s definition is too narrow. Ong (1982) makes an important point that oral narratives are not necessarily chronological. The analysis below following Ingram’s categories sheds some light on this and suggests that the discourse could be better categorised as a conversational discourse. 4.1.2 Style of Utterance (according to Joos) The style of the clip also needs to be assessed; Joos discusses the interaction of the speaker and suggests that in consultative style the conversational partner interjects every six seconds with affirmations and phatic utterances. Examining Clip 1 we can see that the conversational partner has eye contact with the speaker the majority of the time. The eye gaze tends to be broken when grammatically necessary, i.e. eyeindexing is a normal feature of BSL and there are times when a sign will be indexed by eye gaze instead of or as well as a manual index. Similarly it is a feature of simultaneity that sometimes loci are referenced by eye gaze whilst a comment is being made about the referent. The eye gaze engages the conversational partner; comments are made by the conversational partner and answered by the speaker. Unfortunately, back-channels in BSL would typically be a head nod from the conversational partner and these are not recorded in my data. Back-channel production is discussed by Nowell (1989) and described as a brief manual production that is not an effort to seize the speaking turn. These fulfil the same function as phatics in spoken language, which Newman (1988) states is used for maintaining friendly contact with the addressee rather than for imparting foreign information. In casual interaction Joos suggests that there is no reliance on the conversational partner participation. In the main it does seem that in, this instance, the speaker does 28

not rely on interaction although back-channel responses would determine whether the conversational partner is actively listening or not. Similarly, Joos suggests that background information is included in consultative interactions and there seems to be heavy reliance on treating the conversational partner as an insider. This being the case then the implication is that the interaction is in the casual register. Some slang is used in the utterance although not extensively. The lexical item of KNOW-YOU (‘y’know’) is used. This is an assimilated form of KNOW YOU where the sign YOU is articulated in the signing space near the head rather than neutral space. Some of the lexical items are inflected with the use of a protruding tongue mouth pattern; anecdotally the Deaf informants when asked said that this has the effect of lowering the register and modulating the lexical items into slang. Some ellipsis is present in the finger spelling, e.g. –f-m- for Francis Maginn and –n-tfor Noel Traynor. In both cases the spoken component mouth pattern is used, as there is an assumption on the part of the speaker that the conversational partner will know both parties. This concurs with comments made by Sutton-Spence and Woll in saying that there is less English and less finger spelling in informal BSL, but the spoken component is from English so this implies a raising of register according to SuttonSpence and Woll. 4.1.3 Phonological Differences (according to Zimmer) Many of the features (assimilation, anticipation, perseveration, hand switching and shifts to constructed dialogue) that Zimmer has recorded as being present in an informal talk are not observed in the BSL clip 1. Neither assimilation nor anticipation occurs to any degree although one incidence of anticipation can be observed (see table 4.2) and KNOW-YOU is discussed above. Similarly perseveration is not observed.

29

Table 4.2 An example of anticipation Mouth pattern Eyes

what

Where:

workshop

want

different x 3

R cp

R cp ---------------------------------

Facial expression

cp is conversational

Head Manual

Dominant

WORKSHOP WANT WHAT DIFFERENT++ WANT WHAT

Non-dom

assimilation

Comments Translation

R is right partner rh is rhetorical question

rh

… workshops a different format was wanted…

Here the sign WANT would normally be articulated with one hand but the Deaf subject anticipates using two hands for the sign WHAT and this influences the production of the sign WANT. There is very limited hand switching and this occurs predominantly to establish loci in the right hand signing space with the right (non-dominant) hand, see table 4.3. Table 4.3 An example of right hand locus use Mouth pattern Eyes

all

other room

cp ------------------ LAS cp LAS

As above and also:

mm cp---------------

Facial expression Head Manual

Dominant Non-dom

Comments Translation

LAS is looking at the sign

back fwd ALL HAPPY NICE IXL

nod ROOM KNOW-YOU

IXL→IXR

Fwd is forward L is left

now in right hand signing space everyone enjoyed it. In the other room you know

Here the non-dominant hand is used to change the topic of the conversation and this is achieved by establishing an alternative locus. This locus is in right hand signing space and then is used to refer to this new room where the display stalls are. So this acts to establish not only a new locus but also a new episode in the narrative. Role shift (or constructed dialogue) uses all of the features mentioned by Morgan. Quite often an initial index point is used in this clip and then other more subtle

30

features convey the constructed dialogue or action such as, eye gaze, verb inflection, etc. The features of the ‘role shifts’ are quite controlled and do not use extended signing space or large body shifts. This mirrors what Zimmer reports and the constructed dialogue occurs throughout the clip implying an informal discourse. The total time of constructed dialogue is one minute seven seconds (1’07”) from nine minutes fifty five seconds (9’55”) of text; this totals 11% of the total text. Roy merely states that there is more incidence of constructed dialogue in narratives than in lectures, 11% is more than that noted for clip 2 (0.01 – 0.05%); this is discussed in greater depth below. Table 4.4 An example of constructed dialogue

Mouth pattern Eyes

before

small

one

deaf

old

man

R cp-------------------------------------------------------------------- Rup

important downL

Facial expression Head Manual

Dominant

IXR BEFORE SMALL-YOUNG IXR ONE >DEAF OLD MAN IX-(up) IMPORTANT

Non dominant

Comments Translation

anticipation

cd

body shift

… when he was young a deaf man said ‘he is important…’

Before this example several manual markers were used; a full noun phrase is used, the sign name NOEL-TRAYNOR, and an index point to indicate who was speaking (IXR). We then see constructed dialogue within constructed dialogue, i.e. Noel Traynor talks about an old Deaf man who told him about the importance of Francis Maginn. There is an index point again establishing the old Deaf man is talking (IXR) and then a body shift and an eye gaze shift when the narrator constructs the dialogue of the old Deaf man. The IX-(up) is the constructed action of the old Deaf man pointing to a picture of Francis Maginn. The constructed dialogue continues including verb inflection, e.g. when the old Deaf man is explaining to ‘any youth when they first start being involved with the Deaf community’, the verb EXPLAIN is inflected to incorporate the subject, the old Deaf man, and the object, non-specific youths shown by iEXPLAINr. The verb moves towards the object, which is placed in the lower right and signing space therefore incorporating the subject and the object of the verb in constructed dialogues. This concurs with Ahlgren and Bergman’s

31

description of spontaneous narrations as the verb is modified from the perspective of the agent. Compared to Clip2, Clip 1 has a 16% smaller length in the horizontal plane (left to right) and an 11% smaller length in the vertical plane (top to bottom). The overall area is 28% smaller in Clip 1 than Clip 2. The measurements were taken by marking the signs articulated at the furthest points in the signing space for both Clip 1 and Clip 2. The distance was measured in centimetres and then the difference expressed as a percentage. Sutton-Spence and Woll state that casual BSL has a larger signing space. It is worth noting that the speaker sat down for clip 1 and stood for clip 2;this may effect the size of the signing space and it would appear that this variable is not controlled within this study. Zimmer states that within a lecture metaphoric and poetic language have a larger signing space; it maybe that the use of this language in clip 2 increases the signing space. 4.1.4 Lexical and Morphological differences As mentioned above, there are some lexical items used which could be considered colloquial such as, KNOW-YOU, WOW and PISSED. Some signs become colloquial by the associated non-manual feature (nmf), e.g. STUPID with protruding tongue (‘thicko’) and BAD with a "bit" oral component. The use of some nmfs can be seen in the clip 1, which is not found in Clip2, with oral component mouth patterns such as; ‘l’ (tongue poked out and then brought back into the mouth), vee, pf, ee, br. Something that we also see is the repetition of a spoken mouth pattern, e.g. belfastbelfast-belfast, which contracts to belf-befl-belf. There is also greater use of gesture/signs throughout the discourse. Table 4.5, below, shows examples of sign/gestures found in Clip 1. The manual components are described, as are the accompanying mouth patterns, eye gaze direction, facial expressions and head movement. If no significant feature was observed then nothing was recorded in the table. A translation of the gesture is also provided and the number of times that the gesture occurred in Clip 1.

32

Table 4.5 Examples of gestures in the narrative Mouth pattern

mm

tongue protruding

no

what’s matter with me

B-shaking

B-hand down

B-shaking

B-hand down

down

Eyes Facial expression

wrinkled nose

Head

shake

tilted

Dominant

B-hand

5-wiggling

Non-dom

B-hand

5-wiggling

Translation

“not sure”

“erm”

“bored”

“no”

“don’t know”

Occurrence

2

5

2

3

1

Manual

head on fist

Other examples can also be seen throughout the text. 4.1.5 Syntax and Discourse organisation By looking at the episodes (see table 4.1) it can be seen that topic marking segments the discourse rather than any single lexical element segmenting the discourse. This would suggest that clip 1 does not fall into a lecture discourse according to Roy. The episodes are the divisions made when a new subtopic is introduced, as described above, and these are marked by head nods. Whilst it has been reported that informal texts are faster than formal texts no description of the measurement process is given. Here the number of different manual lexical items articulated in both the first minute and the fifth minute were counted. Two-handed signs were scored as a single articulation, as were assimilated signs. The number of signs articulated in the first minute was then divided by sixty to give the average number of the manual articulations per second for the first minute. There is a pause at the beginning of the fifth minute and so the number of sign articulated in 52 seconds was counted and then divided by 52 to give the average number of the manual articulations per second for the fifth minute. It seems that whilst Clip 1 has a constant speed of 1.67-8 signs per second, Clip 2 speeds up between the first and fifth minute (see table 4.6.). The average of the two minutes measured yield 1.68 signs per second for Clip1 one and 1.63 signs per second for Clip2 (see below). Whilst both texts have a similar average signing speed it may

33

be the information carried by other articulators, i.e. eyes, eye brows, mouth, head, shoulders, etc. that increase the information per second for informal text. Table 4.6 Indications of signs per Seconds

Time period in Clip 1

Number of signs produced

Signs per Second

0’00” – 1’00”

101

1.68

5’08” – 6’00”

87

1.67

1’52”

188

1.68

34

4.2 BSL Text Clip 2 register analysis We now go onto examine the BSL text clip 2 and apply the same analysis as seen above. Initially we need to describe the field and tenor of clip 2. The signer was standing when giving this presentation. The signer was asked to give a presentation about some research that is unpublished. The topic in this situation suggests a degree of formality and again this was performed in front of a video camera and to the hearing male colleague. The room was quite small and this may change the features of the language produced. The topic is research into bilingual education and the development of Deaf children. 4.2.1 Episodes (according to Morgan and Roy) There were twelve episodes in 5 minutes and eighteen seconds (see table 4.7). As above the episodes occur when a new subtopic is introduced (Roy): Table 4.7 The episodes in clip 2 Episodes (in order)

Starts with

Finishes with

Topic

GOOD

BILINGUAL ED

Glance at written notes When & time period

NOW IXC

BR→BL

Glance at written notes What was researched

IXC BILINGUAL ED IXC

5-HOLD

Glance at written notes Why research

IXC WHY RESEARCH IXC

NOW

Glance at written notes Time structure

IXL 5-HOLD

IXC 5-HOLD

Glance at written notes Education structure

IXC BACKGROUND

TWO

Derby & Leeds

IX1 DERBY

5-HOLD

Glance at written notes Children

IXC TOGETHER

RANGE

Glance at written notes What was researched

GOOD IXC

NOW

What to film?

BEEN

5-HOLD

Reading

FIRST

IX1

35

Glance at written notes Maths

IX2

IX2

The discourse markers of the lecture seem to be on a par with the features observed by Roy for ASL. The features are different, in the ASL lecture the use of NOW and NOW-THAT are observed. Here it is the predominant use of an index that is observed. Interestingly this is markedly different from that observed in clip 1. The discourse markers are far more apparent, manually articulated and there is little if any reliance on non-manual topic markers throughout the text to indicate new episodes. The structure of clip 2 is to impart information and this may be why there is such formulaic discourse marking throughout the text. To some extent this phenomenon is the same as that observed by Roy. The indexing could be re-introducing a topic already established in a locus so that further comments can be made. This would be similar to the use of NOW observed in the ASL lecture. Whilst this would be segmentation of the text by topic marking it is still pertinent that this is via manually articulated discourse markers and that the same marker, IX, is used eight out of twelve times (67%). Practically it is also interesting to note that many of the episodes are separated by the speaker glancing away from the audience and looking at her notes. It may be that the indexing re-establishes contact with the audience and re-focuses the audience’s attention on the subject matter. That being the case then there is an expectation on the part of the signer that the meaning of the referent loci will be held in the memory of the audience and therefore their concentration is required. 4.2.2 Style of Utterance (according to Joos) Joos states that the most important function of speech at a formal level is to impart information. He suggests that there is no social importance to this speech by which he means there is no interactive element to a formal text. If we look at clip 2 we can see that whilst head nods are present to ensure that information is understood by the audience, and also used to subdivide episodes, the audience is not invited at any time to make a response to the information given. This is unlike in clip 1 where questions

36

are asked by the interlocutor. So the speaker is expecting the audience to understand but not interact. This is reinforced by the speaker looking at her notes, which discourages the audience from contributing and also means that the order and the information of clip 2 is clear. So clip 2 seems to fulfil the requirements of a formal text. 4.2.3 Phonological Differences (according to Zimmer) From clip 2 we can see that as observed by Zimmer neither assimilation nor anticipation occurs to any significant extent although this did not occur much in clip 1 either. It may be that both texts are too formal for this to occur. We do see much greater evidence of hand switching. When this hand switching occurs we also see evidence of simultaneity, the hand switching occurs and then comments are made about the subject held by the dominant hand as seen in table 4.2.2: Table 4.8 An Example of hand switching in clip 2 Mouth pattern Eyes

three

means

Looks at sign

Right

have to______ what

want

audience_________

Facial expression Head Manual

Dom

THREE-OF-US___________________

Non-dom Translation

WANT

MEANS MUST THINK WHAT … which meant that the three of us needed to think about what we wanted to achieve…

Here the dominant hand holds THREE-OF-US whilst the non-dominant hand articulates MEANS MUST THINK WHAT and then the dominant hand takes over the lead in the utterance. What is interesting is that both the sign MEANS and MUST are normally signed with two hands. This hand switching appears to create a subordinate clause, which is a personal aside and may be considered more syntactically complex thus shifting it along the oral-literate continuum towards literate. A further example can be seen in table 4.9:

37

Table 4.9 An Example of hand switching in clip 2 Mouth pattern

leeds

derby

both why_______

through

both

first

audience________________ look at sign audience_____________________

Eyes Facial expression Head Manual

Dom

LEEDS XXX DERBY BOTH_____________

THROUGH BOTH FIRST

WHY IX1 IX2

Nondom Translation

… leeds and derby, these two were chosen because both of them are the first …

As soon as the comments are made the held manual component is removed so that perseveration does not occur. As above ‘role shift’ uses many of the features mentioned by Morgan. Quite often an initial index point is used and then other features convey the constructed dialogue or action such as, eye gaze, verb inflection, etc. The features of the ‘role shifts’ are quite controlled although large body shifts are made. The ‘role shifts' are made principally concerning interaction between adults and children so the body shift would be more marked any way. The total time of constructed dialogue is six seconds (0’06”) from nine minutes fifty five seconds (9’55”) of text (0.01%) and thirty eight seconds (0’38”) in twelve minutes thirty-six seconds (12’36”), which is the total length of the text (and total 0.05%). Compared to Clip1, Clip 2 has a 20% greater length in the horizontal plane (left to right) and a 17% greater length in the vertical plane (top to bottom). The overall area is 39% greater in clip 2 than clip 1. The measurements were taken by marking the most extremely placed signs for both clip 1 and clip 2 and measuring the distance in centimetres and then expressing that difference as a percentage. The speaker is standing so this may influence the size of the signing space as SuttonSpence and Woll state that casual BSL has a larger signing space and yet other indications suggests this is a lecture discourse with a degree of formality (Zimmer). Interestingly, the speaker was given the choice of sitting for the presentation but chose to stand. This maybe a physical environmental factor that it is important in the delivery of formal BSL. In meetings it can be observed that Deaf people will often 38

stand to make their points when a formal response is required. It could be that this is a predictive/deductive element of register in BSL. 4.2.4 Lexical and Morphological differences Clip 2 appears not to contain any colloquialisms even in the constructed dialogue. When we consider that the constructed dialogue occurs in the main between adults and children then this comes as no surprise. The mouth patterns tend to follow spoken components, i.e. English mouth patterns are used more frequently in clip 2 than clip 1. Sixty-three spoken components are used in the first minute of clip 2, compared to fifty-one spoken components in clip 1. Six oral components are used in the first minute of clip 2 (all ‘mm’) compared to nine in clip 1 (seven different components). Another feature that we see is spoken components extending over several signs rather than contracting and repeating the spoken component. An example of this can be seen above, leeds derby both why_____, and below in table 4.10: Table 4.10 An Example extended spoken components in clip 2

Mouth pattern

leeds____

have

three area____________________________

Eyes Facial expression Head Manual

Dom Non-dom

Translation

LEEDS IXC HAVE THREE

PRO-C-(GROUP)++

PRO-C-(GROUP)________________ … there are three of these in Leeds…

It may be that the mouth pattern fulfils the criteria for being both a spoken and an oral component at a terminal space. This is not something that is observed in clip 1. The signing space is larger in the lecture than in the informal conversation and the lack of nmf may explain why "exaggerated signing" is used. (This term is used by Roy to refer to sign that has a slower movement, or produced larger than expected due 39

to lack of nmf). There are two instances when the speaker places something manually when a facial intensifier would have sufficed communicatively. Similarly, when the speaker is discussing the information give to the children for their writing exercises, the adult is unspecified such that the speaker signs a detransitised verb several times (see table 4.11 below). This seems to fulfil the passive function, (Saeed and Leeson 1999), and also maintain the neutrality of the information. Had the speaker used constructed dialogue this passive function would be lost and the information would be personalised. So this verb form seems to satisfy these formal lecture rules observed by Zimmer. Table 4.11 An example of a functional passive in clip 2

Mouth

self

write

or------ been

help

help

give

what is it

pattern Eyes

las audience__________________________ las aud_____ las audience_____

Head

head fwd____________

Manual

nod

Dom

IXL SELF IXL WRITE -o-r- BEEN TLHELPLC IXTL TLHELPLC IXTL TLGIVELC________

Non-

b-hand___________________

WHAT

dom Translation

… did they write themselves or were they given help and if so what help were they given…

Here the lower left hand signing space is pointed to by the index finger and the space is used to represent the children. In the previous few seconds the signer has been talking about the marking system that was devised to judge the children’s use of written English. The signer then uses the sign HELP as a directional verb without setting up the subject of the verb. The top left signing space is used and the verb moves from here to the left centre locus representing the children. Here it could be said that the space uses its metaphoric sense of something or someone that is either older, or taller, or of greater status helping the children. We know that there are adults in the classroom so this allusion is successful without specifying whom the agent is. This allusion is then repeated with the second use of the verb HELP and then the verb GIVE. Lexically we can see the use of some conjunctions that could be equated with English conjunctions, e.g. BUT and PLUS for ‘but’ and ‘and’. Similarly some conjunctions

40

appear as spoken components rather than appearing as a manual articulation, e.g. ‘then’. We also see the use of MEANS conjoining ideas and concepts (Roy). 4.2.5 Syntax and Discourse organisation By looking at the episodes above we can see that the discourse is segmented formulaically predominantly by the manual articulation of an index and pragmatically by the speaker glancing at her notes. There is also the extensive use of rhetorical questions to establish topics throughout the text. Something that was noted for ASL was the use of index emphasis whereby the non-dominant hand points to the dominant hand to reinforce a point within the lecture. In BSL we tend to see hand switching, with comments made by the non-dominant hand to reinforce the topic being discussed or to emphasise points. Table 4.12 Indications of signs per Seconds

Time period in clip 2

Number of signs produced

Signs per Second

0’00” – 1’00”

90

1.50

5’00” – 6’00”

105

1.75

2’00”

195

1.63

Whilst it has been reported that informal texts are faster than formal texts this could not be seen when an average was taken (calculated as described above in section 4.1.5) of signs per minute for clip 1 and clip 2 for the first and the fifth minute. It seems that whilst clip 1 has a constant speed of 1.67-8, clip 2 speeds up between the first and fifth minute (see above table 4.12). The average of the two minutes measured yield 1.68 signs per second for clip 1 and 1.63 signs per second for clip 2. The signing delivery could be slower because the conversational partner/audience is hearing so this feature of register maybe distorted.

41

4.3 Comparison of Clip 1 and Clip 2 4.3.1 Ingram Both clips were analysed using Ingram’s table of Grammatical Features (appendix A) associated with specific discourse types; the results are shown in table 4.13 below: Table 4.13 The categorisation of Clip 1 and Clip2 using Ingram’s parameters and table Features

Clip 1 - BDA

Clip 2 – Research presentation

Ordering The lecture overall has a logical development

Logical Chronological

Within episodes

Nonlinear, random Flashbacks

Overall the ordering is flashback

Rate & pausing Fast, pauses for effect Slower, pauses between components

Pauses for audience comprehension and for the speaker to glance at their notes

Slower pauses for comprehension & response

Some pauses are to wait for a response

Variable, pauses for effect or turn-taking

Pauses are variable

Pauses for audience comprehension and for the speaker to glance at their notes

Tense Present or future Past

Present aspect is used to describe many of the events Only the past aspect is used

Some past time markers are present

Use of Space Set up scenes & characters

Separate space for the alternative fayre, stalls, AGM,

Set up objects or categories

and people, etc.

Space is used for Leeds and Derby, age categories

Set up ideas

42

Numbering

None

Sequential

Lists are used for the separation of information

Rank-ordered

Some lists are in order of importance

Voice & Mood Lots of passive voice

Detransitised verbs are used which fulfil the passive function

Commands Action verbs

A Lot of descriptions of things that happened

Stative verbs

Some action verbs are used to describe how the research was undertaken To some extent

Point of View Objective (facts) Subjective (opinions)

Facts are given about the research and to justify actions Interpretation of events and people’s comments are given

Some opinions of the data are found

Register Formal

The two Deaf native BSL users both identified the text as formal

Consultative Casual

The two Deaf natives agree that it is casual

Level Abstract Concrete

Some theoretical concepts are discussed A description of actual events

Some facts are given

Personification

The scene is set up from the speakers view point

The information is rarely personified

Role taking & body shifting

Occurs for a total time of 1’07”

Occurs to a limited extent 0’06”

Proper Nouns

The names of people and places

Names and places are mentioned

Descriptive adjectives/adverbs

Of the scene and objects

Descriptions of the research project are given to a limited extent

Incomplete sentences

When waiting for responses form the conversational partner

None

Classifiers

None

Used to place groups and schools

Rhetorical questions

Used sparsely

Abundant

Technical terminology

None

Some jargon is used

Quotations

Of what people have said via role shift

None

Other Characteristics

43

Ingram expects certain types of discourse to have certain features from the features listed above. For narrative discourse he predicts fourteen features, of which clip 1 shares twelve (86%). For procedural discourse he predicts eleven features of which clip 1 shares four (36%). For explanatory discourse Ingram predicts twelve features of which clip 1 shares three (25%). For argumentative discourse he predicts six features of which clip 1 shares two (33%). For hortatory discourse nine features of which clip 1 shares two (22%). And finally for conversational discourse Ingram predicts seven features of which clip 1 shares six (86%). So from the above features it is clear that the discourse falls somewhere between a narrative and conversational discourse. And that this would also be confirmed by the analysis made above looking at the phonological, lexical and morphological differences, which have informed the identification of the features in table 4.13. For narrative discourse he predicts fourteen features of which clip 2 shares six (43%). For procedural discourse he predicts eleven features of which clip 2 shares eight (73%). For explanatory discourse Ingram predicts twelve features of which clip 2 shares eleven (92%). For argumentative discourse he predicts six features of which clip 2 shares five (83%). For hortatory discourse nine features of which clip 2 shares seven (79%). And finally for conversational discourse Ingram predicts seven features of which clip 2 shares one (14%). From this it can be seen that clip 2 is predominantly an explanatory discourse sharing many features to that of an argumentative discourse. This seems to be confirmed by the phonological, lexical and morphological differences and again the features informed the discourse categorisation in table 4.13. When one looks at the topic it also fit in with the description of an explanatory discourse, ‘providing detailed descriptions of a person, situation or activity’ and an argumentative discourse that, ‘tends to exhibit frequent contrast between two opposing themes’. Clip 2 not only provides a detailed description of the research undertaken into bilingual education but also compares the differences between Leeds and Derby. This confirms that Ingram’s characteristics of discourse types and subsequent discourse categorisation is successful.

44

4.3.2 Newmark We are now able to turn to Newmark and use the various scales (see Appendix B) that he suggests to give us some indication of the parameters within which the translation needs to be made. Whilst Newmark suggests that each text fulfils a specific function it is more useful to examine the text according to each function thereby obtaining a complete description of the text. Newmark does state that texts can have more than one function even though there is one predominant function for a text. This has been expanded for this study. Also all of the points made above are used to determine the parameters. It is relatively easy to categorise the texts’ text styles as Newmark describes these in accordance with Nida including a description of the type of grammatical items one would expect to find in each of the four text styles. For officialese Newmark gives examples of seven different types. It is difficult to adjust the scales to BSL because there has been little information published about register. It is important that Newmark uses Joos in his creation of formality scales and I have assumed that the information that has been given and to whom it has been given imply that the texts are informal and formal. The other stylistic scales were judged by the use of multi-articulator information and lexicon; the more formal the lexicon the more technical and emotionally ‘cool’; the more informal the lexicon the less technical and emotionally ‘intense’ the texts. Similarly the use of facial emotional intensifiers also increases the emotional warmth of the text. The text was judged to become more difficult if there was a greater incidence of fingerspelling and if homonyms were delineated with spoken component mouth patterns, e.g. research versus analysis. Finally the functions of the text were judged by noting the use of the features discussed by Newmark (page 39 – 44). For the first functions, expressive and informative, scales are given by Newmark which are used; for the other functions of the text comments are made to describe which elements of that function were used by the BSL user. 45

As can be seen from table 4.14 below, the features of the texts are such that we can quite clearly distinguish the two texts. From Newmark’s perspective this should be included in the translation and the next section will examine the interpretations of the interpreters, analyse the features of the interpreted texts and try to ascertain whether the interpreted texts mirror the features of the BSL sL texts. Finally the next section will examine if there are any trends relating accuracy of translation and experience.

46

Table 4.14 The categorisation of Clip 1 and Clip 2 using Newark’s parameters Clip 1

Features

Clip 2

Text style Narrative/dialogue – whilst there is an emphasis on verbs colloquialism and phatics are

Description/discussion – not only are there linking verbs and adjectives but abstract nouns and

present

logical connections

Informal – the text is relaxed and there is only occasional colloquialisms and

Formal – not only is the speaker standing but information is depersonalised

Formality

slang

Difficulty Popular – the text has good use of BSL grammar and is quite descriptive

Educated – some jargon is used but the language would be understood by a layman

Intense – the use of nmfs intensifies the text considerably

Factual – nmf intensifiers are not present

Educated/knowledgable layman – the audience is expected to have knowledge

Educated layman – the audience is expected to know something about research

Emotional tone Setting

of the topic

Function Expressive

Autobiographical – it is a personal account

Authoritative statement – the speaker is delivering information to an audience

Informative

Informal warm style – the account aims to pass on information

Formal – the speaker is non-emotive in the main and non-idiolect

Vocative

Symmetrical relationship between speaker and audience

Only that the audience is expected to learn from the lecture

Aesthetic

Some descriptive verbs especially in role shift

None

Phatic

Some phatics are used in the text

None

Metalinguistic

None present

The text describes BSL using BSL when describing the finger spelling of the children

47

Clearly Newmark enables us to bring together all the information from the analyses above and gives a clear description of both the clips. It enables us to see where the clips are different. Ingram, Roy and Zimmer cover the first two categories of text style and formality more rigorously, but the latter categories give further information that is useful from a diagnostic perspective. It is interesting that the texts only converge in the category of setting (educated layman), although the knowledge that the conversational partner/audience is expected to have differs. 4.4 Feed back from the Deaf Informants The Deaf native signers were asked where they thought each text would be produced, what registers the texts were and asked what features defined the text as the register they had selected. Both Deaf informants felt that clip 1 would occur in a Deaf club although the female Deaf informant said that it would depend to whom the Deaf woman was talking. It may be that the Deaf club was chosen because of the topic. As the Deaf woman is recounting her experience at a BDA congress then it may be that rather than the Deaf club the underlying implication is someone who is culturally aware. The Deaf informants were asked to mark a cross on a linear scale with one being intimate and five being causal: 1

2

Intimate

Casual

3 Consultative

4 Formal

5 Frozen

The male Deaf informant felt that clip 1 was clearly of a causal register whilst the female informant felt that it was one third along the continuum between casual and consultative registers. The male Deaf informant marked the text at 2.0 and the female informant at 2.4. The Deaf informants justified their decisions by saying that the Deaf woman was sitting down, the information was structured like a story and some of the signs were informal, e.g. PISSED, NODDING-HEAD and RISKY.

48

Both Deaf informants felt that clip 2 would occur in a lecture or seminar. The male informant felt that clip 2 was formal register and marked his cross at 4.0 whilst the female informant felt the register was between formal and frozen and marked her cross at 4.3. So although both informants felt that the registers were slightly different they still both had a difference of approximately 2.0 on the linear scale. The Deaf informants justified their decisions by stating that the Deaf woman was standing up and static; there was less role shift; more effort was put into getting the information and facts across; accurate delivery of signs; full finger spelling was used; the content was less emotional and there were less regional and idiosyncratic signs used. What is interesting is that the Deaf informants both place the registers around two register levels apart. Whilst we cannot say that there is a simple linear relationship with register there is still the idea of register distance that is expressed. Similar reasons are given for the justification of the register choice, which again seems to suggest that both informants are approaching the decision from similar perspectives. The information given by the Deaf informants seems to reinforce the observations made by the researcher and suggest that the points picked out by the researcher are seen as pertinent in ascertaining the register from a native language using perspective.

49

5.0 The Interpreted Text Analysis As I have argued above it is important to establish a context within which the interpretation occurred, i.e. its field and tenor. The Deaf woman who produced both BSL texts is known to all of the interpreters as a Deaf professional working within the same geographical area as the interpreters. Some of the interpreters have interpreted for the Deaf woman; all have seen her presenting formal lectures and chatting informally. The preparation that was given to the interpreters (Appendix D) introduces the topic and gives minimal information about the structure of both texts. It was felt that in doing this there was less chance of influencing the English production of the interpreters, although the topic and structure could be used to predict the register of the individual texts. All of the interpreters performed the task in laboratory conditions, that is to say watching the video of the two texts and simultaneously interpreting into spoken English. Their simultaneous interpretation was recorded onto an audiocassette and the interpreters were alone in the room when they were performing the task.

5.1 The register analysis of the Interpreted Texts The interpreted texts for clips 1 and 2 will be compared so that the differences between the two texts can be noted. By doing this we are able to see the differences between the interpretations of the two texts. This comparison will be made by using a mean of the overall scores of the features of the texts of the interpreters recorded for each clip between minutes three (3’00”) to five (5’00”). Whilst it is worth noting that the interpreters did not score uniformly for each feature that is analysed in the main this appears to be because of idiolect differences in achieving different registers; these will be noted in section 5.2 below.

50

5.1.1 Style of Utterance (according to Joos) If we use Joos to analyse the interpretations of the text, all of the interpreters used elliptic references (both exophoric and endophoric, e.g. them, their, this, which could be either endophoric or exophoric references depending on whether the references refer to something already established within the text or something external to the text – see Appendices H and I) and to some extent informal or slang lexical items (e.g. yeah, ya know, kind of – again see Appendices H and I) when interpreting. The interpreters all use both types of referencing in clip 1; all of the interpreters only use endophoric referencing in clip 2. Here exophoric referencing denotes an implicit closeness between the audience, the speaker and the topic (Shlesinger) and thus a lowering of register. Joos describes formal style as one where the speaker wishes to impart information clearly. That being the case the level of exophoric referencing would be expected to be greatly reduced from casual or consultative styles. Similarly, the instance of informal language should occur to a lesser extent, with a desire on the part of the speaker to ensuring clear crisp pronunciation and, for a formal lecture, an expected appearance of ‘erudite’ lexicon. The use of endophoric and exophoric references in clips 1 and 2 show the interpreters are creating different styles for each text. The results are shown in table 5.1 below. Table 5.1 Referencing and informal lexicon used by the interpreters 3’00” – 5’00” Average scores of clip 1

Average scores of clip 2

Exophoric (+)

5

0

Endophoric (-)

19

20

Informal lexicon

14

5

Total

0

-15

In table 5.1 we can see how the text is scored for each text. The lower the number the more formal the text is considered to be; the higher the number the more informal the text is considered to be. As discussed above when using the scoring system it is assumed that there is an equal relationship or value to each informal and formal

51

usage, although this could be an oversimplification it gives an indication of a relative register score. This enables some comparison of the difference between an interpreter’s clip 1 and clip 2 texts; this also enables the comparison of different interpreters against one another (see below). The exophoric references refer to information outside the text. By referring to something outside the text there is an assumption on the part of the signer or speaker that the audience will understand and that there is some closeness between the audience and the speaker. There may be only limited use of exophoric references in clip 1 but this is greater than its use in clip 2. This suggests that the interpreters do not create closeness between the speaker and the audience by the use of exophoric references and with respect to this the texts the interpreters are nearer the literate/formal end of the oral-literate/ informal-formal spectrum. The informality of the text is created, in the main, by the interpreters’ use of informal lexicon; these scores seem to be quite different. There is an overall score difference of -15 between clip 1 and 2 with the overall composition of the texts being different; this indicates a different register is produced. 5.1.2 Lexical Choice (according to Shaw and Shlesinger) Shaw suggests several categories of words the use of which indicates higher and lower registers. Shaw suggests that the use of the word ‘and’ occurs more often in lower registers than higher registers. Shaw also suggests that contractions such as I’d, or wasn’t, are used to a greater extent in lower registers. This concurs with Joos who suggests that in more formal registers there is greater effort made to ensure clear diction and pronunciation. The table below (table 5.2) shows the incidences of not only contractions and the word and, but also the incidence of informal words and phrases such as ya know, and formal words commemorate. The figures in parentheses indicate the contractions of and becoming an, nd, or n:

52

Table 5.2 Categories of lexical choice for the interpreters 3’00” – 5’00” Average scores of clip 1

Average scores of clip 2

And

10

9

Contractions

7 (+6)

6 (+4)

Informal (+)

14

5

Formal (-)

2

5

Total (without and contractions)

29

25

Total (with and contractions)

35

29

Here again the higher the score the more informal and we would expect to see a lower incidence of the first three features and a higher incidence of the fourth for a formal register. In all cases the total scores are lower in clip 2 than these scored for clip 1 (formal lexicon scoring –2 for clip 1 and –5 for clip2). The interpreters score almost identical scores in their use of and, for clip 2 compared with clip 1. The interpreters score lower for their use of informal lexicon in clip 2 although it is interesting that informal lexicon occurs at all. There is a higher incidence of formal lexicon for all interpreters; there is a lower total incidence of contractions (including the contractions of and) in clip 2 than clip 1. Here again we see that the interpreters are making an adjustment in their tL utterances; there is a style adjustment between clips 1 and 2. If we look at the use of and, and contractions then the adjustment is minimal. Greater lexical variety is seen in the use of informal and formal lexicon. It may be that the interpreters find it easier to vary this than create texts, which is more syntactically complex. The results of syntax and discourse organisation (section 5.1.5) should elucidate this point further. 5.1.3 Pausing Shaw also discusses the use of pauses in a text; if there are many pauses used then this suggests the register is more formal denoting a clear intention to inform as suggested by Joos. So it would appear that formal texts have longer pauses to allow the audience to digest new information. Shlesinger says that in oral texts idea units are emitted in spurts. This being the case it would suggest that many pauses are also needed for informal texts, but the pauses are shorter because the conversational

53

partner is an insider and needs less time to digest information that is given as the information is not in the main new information to the conversational partner. The table below (table 5.3) indicates the total number of pauses greater than 0.4 seconds, which was found to be significant by Shaw. It also shows the total pause time and the average pause time for the two minutes transcribed: Table 5.3 The Pausing the interpreters 3’00” – 5’00” Average scores of clip 1

Average scores of clip 2

18

15

Total pause time (secs)

54.2

49.6

Avg pause time (secs)

3.0

3.3

Total no. of pauses > 0.4 (secs)

Whilst the number of pauses and the average length of pauses may indicate if the interpreters were having problems processing the text from sL to tL, it is not my intention to examine this. I am interested in the overall register of the tL as perceived by an audience that does not know the sL and is relying on the interpreters’ tL. Clearly there are more pauses in clip1 than clip 2. The total pause time is less in clip 2 than clip 1 whilst the average pause time in clip 2 is longer than in clip 1. This seems to concur with the Shlesinger’s ideas on pause structure in texts. Again we see evidence for a different style being produced between clip 1 and clip 2. 5.1.4 Speech Rate Not only is the pause rate important, ensuring that the conversational partner/audience can feel like an insider, or be given time to digest new information, but the rate of speech is also important. The faster one speaks the less able the audience is able to absorb new information; greater use of ellipsis and informal or slang words would also allow a greater number of words per minute to be produced. The table below (table 5.4) shows the total number of words in the two minutes, and then provides two different averages in words per minute (wpm), one including the pause time and one excluding the pause time. This enables us to see the rate of speech when the interpreters were actually interpreting rather than falsely lowering

54

the average wpm by including their pause time. It is worth bearing in mind that in Shaw the average for an upper consultative style the wpm speed was found to be 170.7, the table below (table 5.4) shows the wpm scores of the interpreters in this study: Table 5.4 The speech rate of the interpreters 3’00” – 5’00” Average scores of clip 1

Average scores of clip 2

Total number of words

227

241

Avg Wpm (including pauses)

113

121

Avg Wpm (without pauses)

216

212

We would expect someone speaking informally to speak faster than someone who is giving a formal presentation, but the interpreters produce more words, and a higher average wpm score when pause time is included in the calculation (this is the method used by Shaw in her study). In Shaw, the average wpm speed is 170.7, which she categorises as an upper consultative style. In clip 1 the interpreters average 113 wpm and in clip 2 the interpreters121 wpm. Firstly, it is interesting to note that the interpreters score less in both clips 1 and 2 than the Shaw interpreters; this maybe due to differences in American English spoken wpm speeds relative to British English spoken wpm speeds. But if the BSL text is rated as a formal text then it is understandable that the speed would be lower than an upper consultative text. What is also interesting is that the wpm speed for clip 1 is slower than the wpm speed for clip 2, when the pauses are included (as in Shaw). This creates the situation where the audience has to take on board information at a faster rate in Clip 2 and so it would appear that the style of clip 1 is more formal vis-à-vis speech rate than clip 2 although clip 2 is not necessarily too slow. If we now exclude the pauses then we can find out how fast the interpreters are talking when they are speaking, the average wpm speeds increase and clip 2 becomes marginally slower than clip 1. This seems to be in line with Shaw’s suggestions on speech rate, but both the speeds are of the same order of magnitude and both are well above 170.7 wpm. This seems to suggest that in light of the results so far, although the interpreters are able to produce 2 distinct styles, their speech rate is detrimental to

55

creating a lower and a higher register or style. The speech rate reduces the difference of the texts so that they are closer together on the oral-literate continuum, making the oral text more literate and the literate text more oral (as suggested by Shlesinger). 5.1.5 Syntax and Discourse Organisation Shaw has suggested that the use of and is indicative of a lower register not only as a lexical choice but also in its function as a discourse organiser. Similarly, in a more casual register we would expect to see more repairs and repetitions, e.g. yes yes, or ev lots (the latter where the interpreter started saying everybody and then ‘repaired’ this by saying lots). In a casual conversation not only are there repetitions and repairs but also false starts where a person starts a sentence stops and then starts a different sentence. Finally we would also expect to see greater instances of incorrect grammar in a casual text because people are less mindful of the need to produce clear and distinct sentences and grammar; it may also be because people feel more at ease and therefore do not expect to be corrected. All of these points above concur with the points raised by Shlesinger under “Disfluencies” with the exception of the use of and which comes under “Density”. The table below (table 5.5) shows the instances of the disfluencies mentioned above: Table 5.5 The disfluencies of the interpreters 3’00” – 5’00” Average scores of clip 1

Average scores of clip 2

And

10

9

Repairs & repetitions

4

2

False starts

9

4

“Wrong” grammar

3

2

Total number of features

26

17

As with the tables above the higher the score the more informal the text. What can be seen is that the scores for clip 2 are lower for all features than clip 1. The variation of features is greatest for false starts, with clip 2 having far fewer than clip1 which is consistent with creating a more formal style for clip 2. The total score is considerably different between clips 1 and 2. Although the use of and does not vary greatly between the texts, the interpreters seem able to reduce their disfluencies and create 56

more correct (if not more complex) syntactic and grammatical relationships in clip 2 than clip1. 5.1.6 Overall Rating of features At this point it is useful to look at all the features together so that we are better able to judge the register of the tL text of the interpreters in its totality. The table below (table 5.6) contains all the features mentioned above: Table 5.6 All parameters of the interpreters 3’00” – 5’00” Average scores of clip 1

Average scores of clip 2

And

10

9

Contractions

7 (+6)

6 (+4)

Repairs & repetitions

4

2

Informal (+)

14

5

Formal (-)

2

5

False starts

9

4

Wrong grammar

3

2

Exophoric (+)

5

0

Endophoric (-)

19

20

Total number of features

37

7

Total no. of pauses > 0.4 (secs)

18

15

Total pause time (secs)

54.2

49.6

Avg pause time (secs)

3.0

3.3

Avg Wpm (without pauses)

216

212

The higher the total number of features would seem to imply the higher level of informal/oral tL production. This needs to be tempered by the features of pause time and words per minute. Generally the number of pauses can be in the same order of magnitude, but the total pause time should be greater for clip 2 than clip 1 and the average pause time should also be greater for clip 2. Finally the average wpm speed is higher in clip 1 than clip 2 as suggested by the literature. All of the features rate higher in clip 1 than clip 2; the cumulative effect of this is that the overall score of the features is 37 for clip 1 and 7 for clip 2. This clearly shows that the interpreters create two different styles and that clip 1 is more informal than

57

clip 2. A greater corpus would need to be analysed to judge how these scores can be interpreted on Joos’ scale of styles, or where this would place the texts on the oralliterate continuum. It would have been interesting to ask native English speakers to judge the tL texts in the same way that native BSL users gave intuitive judgements on the BSL style of clip 1 and 2. Not only do the number of features show that clip 1 is more informal and clip 2 more formal in style, but the number of pauses and the average pause time also support this. It is interesting to note that the total pause time is greater on average for clip 1 than clip 2, it maybe that this is a style that the interpreters are not used to interpreting and so when creating a different style vary this erroneously. It may also be that the interpreters experience comprehension problems, as this is not as clear as a formal presentation. The final factor of the average wpm excluding pause time also shows that the interpreters are speaking quite fast. The scores for both clip 1 and clip 2 are of the same order of magnitude, and it would appear that in the main the interpreters vary their tL texts in the ways suggested above but are not able to delineate style by altering their speech rates.

5.2 Individual interpreter differences As mentioned above the interpreters did not score uniformly, and it is useful to make a direct comparison of each interpreter’s text with the sL texts. The section below lists the individual features for all the interpreters for clips 1 and 2. This enables the register of each interpreter to be examined.

58

5.2.1 Overall Rating of features for Clip 1 At this point it is useful to look at all the features together so that we are better able to judge the register of the tL text of each interpreter before we move onto applying Ingram and Newmark to the interpretations (in section 5.3) so that this can be compared with the sL. The table below (table 5.7) contains all the features for the individual interpreter for clip 1: Table 5.7 All parameters of the interpreters 3’00” – 5’00” of clip 1 95/01/01

95/02/01

97/01/01

99/01/01

99/02/01

And

12

10

11

13

6

Contractions

7 (+5)

5 (+ 4)

7 (+6)

9 (+10)

5 (+6)

Repairs & repetitions

1

1

1

4

9

Informal (+)

3

22

20

10

15

Formal (-)

0

5

3

0

0

False starts

8

6

7

12

11

Wrong grammar

2

3

3

6

3

Exophoric (+)

2

6

4

8

4

Endophoric (-)

13

20

21

22

21

Total number of features

27

32

35

50

38

Total no. of pauses > 0.4 (secs)

29

16

16

21

10

Total pause time (secs)

70.6

20.7

45.2

53.5

80.8

Avg pause time (secs)

2.4

1.3

2.8

2.5

8.1

225.9

151.6

238.2

211.1

252.5

Avg Wpm (without pauses)

The higher the total number of features would seem to imply the greater level of informal/oral tL production. This does need to be tempered by the features of pauses time and words per minute. Firstly, as stated above we would want a large number of pauses; secondly, a medium total pause time, thirdly a short average pause time and fourthly, a high average wpm speed. Interpreter 95/01 has many pauses, and a long total pause time, whilst having a short average pause time and has a high wpm score but she has a low overall score for the total number of features that she exhibited. This would place her register somewhere in the lower consultative/upper casual section of the continuum.

59

Interpreter 95/02 has few pauses, a very low total pause time and average pause time. She also has a low wpm average, but interpreter 95/02 has a higher overall score compared with interpreter 95/01. This would also place her well within the lower consultative/upper casual register. Interpreter 97/01 also has few pauses, but she has a moderate total pause time, a medium length average pause time and a high wpm average. She has a good overall score and this would place her in the upper casual register. Interpreter 99/01 has a relatively large number of pauses, quite a long total pause time but a medium length average pause time and a high wpm score. Her overall score is the highest of all the interpreters and combining these places her at the lower end of the casual continuum and perhaps lowering her register to intimate. Finally, interpreter 99/02 has very few pauses, a long total pause time and a long average pause time, but she has a high wpm score. Her overall score is good but combining these scores together is difficult. It is obvious that interpreter 99/02 struggled with clip 1. When she has an interpreted output she seems to produce a casual register but the overall length of pauses has an adverse effect on the register of her outputs. 5.2.2 Overall Rating of features for Clip 2 The table below (table 5.8) contains all the features for the individual interpreters for clip 2:

60

Table 5.8 All parameters of the interpreters 3’00” – 5’00” of clip 2 95/01/02

95/02/02

97/01/02

99/01/02

99/02/02

And

14

6

10

9

5

Contractions

4 (+6)

0 (+3)

12 (+6)

11 (+2)

3 (+4)

Repairs & repetitions

1

4

0

3

4

Informal (+)

3

10

6

2

4

Formal (-)

4

9

4

5

1

False starts

4

2

3

6

4

Wrong grammar

1

1

3

3

2

Exophoric (+)

0

0

0

0

0

Endophoric (-)

22

14

19

19

24

Total number of Features

7

3

17

12

1

Average Wpm (without pauses)

249.9

162.5

214.3

199.8

233.5

19

10

15

19

13

Total pause time (secs)

65.5

27.3

48.6

39.8

66.8

Average pause time (secs)

3.4

2.7

3.2

2.1

5.1

Total no. of pauses > 0.4 (secs)

It is important to realise that this tool is being used as a negative indicator such that the fewer features the interpreter displays the higher the register level is said to be. Once again the scores have to be modified by considering the last four criteria. In this instance we expect a low score in average wpm, a medium total number of pauses, medium total pause time and a long average pause time. Interpreter 95/01 scores low in the total number of features (and this is 20 points lower than her score for clip 1). Her score for average wpm is very high (higher than clip 1), she has a medium number for total number of pauses, the average pause time is also long, but her total pause time is long. The results seem to place the interpreter in the upper consultative register. Interpreter 95/02 scores low for her total number of features (and this is 29 points lower than her score for clip 1). For the other criteria she has a low wpm score, few pauses, but only a short total pause time and a moderate pause time. It seems that interpreter 95/02 achieves a formal style. Interpreter 97/01 scores quite well on total features although she does have the highest score (this score is 18 points lower than her clip 1 score). For the other features on 61

the first point she has a relatively high wpm score; but has a moderate number of pauses, a moderate total pause time and a fairly long average pause time, which suggest that the interpreter achieves middle to upper consultative register. Interpreter 99/01 scores second highest for total number of features (and this is 38 points lower than her clip 1 score; this is the largest increment of all the interpreters). For the remaining criteria the interpreter produces a fairly low average wpm score, a medium number of pauses, but a short total pause time and a short average pause time. Ultimately, the third and fourth criteria lower the register slightly and this would suggest at interpreter 99/01 produces a tL text of middle to upper consultative register. Finally, interpreter 99/02 has the lowest score for total number of features (and this is 37 points lower than her tL for clip 1). She has a high average wpm score and few pauses, but a long total pause time and very long average pause time. This would seem to raise her register and again although she struggles with this text as well in this instance her coping strategies manifest a higher register. This would place interpreter 99/02 in the formal register. This clearly shows that all the interpreters change their language use between clips 1 and 2 aiming to produce different registers, although they had not been prompted to do so. Each interpreter creates a text using their own idiolects and so the changes that each interpreter makes to their text output differ considerably. Although no patterns can be seen it is clear that whilst the change in register is less than the change exhibited by the Deaf BSL user (this reduction is also observed by Shlesinger for spoken language interpreters) it is worth bearing in mind that the presence of an audience might elicit a greater shift along the oral-literate continuum by the interpreter.

62

5.3 Discourse Types for tL of interpreters It is now interesting to look at the overall composition of the discourse produced by the interpreters. By using Ingram and Newmark, as we did with the sL for both clips 1 and 2, we can compare the discourse structure of tL of the interpreters for clips 1 and 2 and see how the text composition differs. We are also able to compare the discourse structure of the tL of the interpreters with the sL of the BSL user. 5.3.1 Ingram The table below (table 5.9) now shows mean percentages of discourse types of the tL texts according to Ingram for all the interpreters (see Appendix E). The scores of the interpreters were totalled and then divided by 5 (the number of interpreters in the study). These are expressed in raw scores and percentages; the BSL user’s percentages are included for ease of reference although the number of features for a sign language text are greater as they include use of space: Table 5.9 The mean comparative percentage of discourse type for Clip 1 and Clip2

Discourse Type

Clip 1

Clip 2

(number of

Raw

%

BSL User

Raw

%

BSL User

features)

score

(Rank)

% (Rank)

score

(Rank)

% (Rank)

Narrative

(12)

8

67 (1)

86 (1)

4

33 (4)

43 (5)

Procedural

(10)

4

40 (3)

36 (3)

6

60 (1)

73 (4)

Explanatory

(10)

3

30 (4)

25 (5)

4

40 (2)

92 (1)

Argumentative (5)

1

20 (5)

33 (4)

2

40 (2)

83 (2)

Hortatory

(9)

1

11 (6)

22 (6)

2

22 (5)

79 (3)

Conversational (7)

4

57 (2)

86 (1)

1

14 (6)

14 (6)

From the table above we are able to compare the difference between clip 1 and clip 2; it allows us to examine how the interpreters differed from the sL text. The percentages also enable us to compare each discourse type against the other. 63

It is interesting if we examine the ranking in order of each type of discourse when comparing tL for clips 1 and 2. We do this by taking the highest percentage and giving this the rank order of 1 and then the next highest percentage and giving this the rank order number 2, etc. In doing this we can see that there is a noticeable shift between clips 1 and 2. In clip 1 the discourse types rank as: narrative, then conversational, then procedural, then explanatory, then argumentative, and finally hortatory. For clip 2 the ranking is: procedural, then explanatory and argumentative joint second, then narrative fourth, hortatory fifth and conversational sixth. Clearly the interpreters create different types of discourse in clips 1 and 2. If we then compare the composition of the interpreters’ texts with that of the Deaf person we are able to see that for clip 1 the interpreters are able to create a text that is similar to the sL. The Deaf user ranks narrative and conversational as joint first, whilst the interpreters rank narrative as first and conversational as second. The Deaf person ranks procedural third as do the interpreters. The Deaf person ranks argumentative as fourth and explanatory as fifth whilst the interpreters reverse this ranking with explanatory as fourth and argumentative as fifth. Finally Both the Deaf person and the interpreters rank hortatory as sixth. With only minor ranking order changes the interpreters create a text that is very similar to that produced by the Deaf woman in the sL. Any differences in ranking are only one rank away from that of the Deaf woman; as above the interpreters seem able to produce the informality of clip1 well and the text composition in comparison with the sL also reflects this. If we look at the text composition of the interpreters’ tL for clip 2 in comparison with the Deaf woman’s sL then there is a greater difference than for clip 1. Whilst the Deaf woman has explanatory ranked first, the interpreters rank procedural first (this is ranked fourth by the Deaf woman an so there is a disparity of 3 in the ranking order). Then the Deaf woman ranks argumentative as second whilst the interpreters rank explanatory and argumentative as joint second. So argumentative is well ranked whilst explanatory is

64

only one rank point different. The Deaf women ranks hortatory as third whilst the interpreters rank this fifth this is two rank points different from the sL. The Deaf woman ranks procedural fourth whilst the interpreters rank narrative as fourth. The Deaf woman ranks narrative as fifth (the interpreters rank this 1 ranking differently) whilst the interpreters rank hortatory as fifth (this is 2 rank points different from the sL). Finally both the Deaf woman and the interpreters rank conversational as sixth. For this second clip the total number of rank points difference between the interpreters and the Deaf woman are 7 compared with 3 for clip 1. Clearly the interpreters find it easier to rank the discourse types appropriately for clip 1; clip 2 is more problematic and the discourse ranking is less effective. The overall rank shifting for the Deaf woman between clips 1 and 2 is 19 ranking points. The overall rank shifting for the interpreters between clips 1 and 2 is 15. So the interpreters change the ranking of the discourse types less than the Deaf woman and as noted above are less able to match the Deaf woman. This concurs with the results above suggesting that the interpreters find it easier to match the informal text than the formal text. And there are fewer shifts along the style (oralliterate) continuum as observed by Shlesinger. 5.3.2 Individual interpreter differences As above the interpreters did not create texts that were uniform; different interpreters ranked different discourse types differently. It is interesting to note the individual performances of the interpreters and how they differ from the sL of the Deaf woman. Below each interpreter is discussed in turn (for individual results see Appendix E) Interpreter 95/01 produces a mixture between a narrative (58 %) and procedural (50%) discourse for clip 1 and a procedural argumentative discourse for clip 2. Interpreter 95/02 produces a narrative (83%) and conversational (71%) discourse for clip 1 and a procedural text for clip 2. Interpreter 97/01 also produces a combination of narrative (75%) and conversational (86%) discourse similar to interpreter 95/02. These two

65

interpreters best match the Deaf speaker who produces a combination of narrative (86%) and conversational (86%) discourse. Interpreter 99/01 also produces a discourse that is predominantly narrative (67%) and conversational (57%) discourse, but to a lesser extent than the interpreters above. Finally, interpreter 99/02 produces a similar text to interpreter 95/01, by rendering a text that is narrative (58%) and procedural (50%). For clip 2, interpreter 95/01 produced a tL text that was procedural (60%) and argumentative (60%). She maintains a procedural element but introduces an argumentative element. Interestingly, the Deaf speaker produced a text that was explanatory (92%) and argumentative (83%), so the shift made by the interpreter into an argumentative discourse is a good one. The third highest discourse type scored by Interpreter 95/01 is explanatory (50%), so that element is introduced. Interpreter 95/02 produces a text that is procedural (50%). This is a shift away from the discourse type she produces for clip 1 but does not incorporate the discourse types produced by the Deaf speaker. The interpreter is able to remove both the narrative and conversational discourse types form her tL text. Interpreter 97/01 follows the same trend as interpreter 95/02, but her tL clip 2 has a higher proportion of procedural discourse (70%). Interpreter 97/01 also has higher levels of explanatory and argumentative discourses than interpreter 95/02 (40% vs. 30% and 40% vs. 20% respectively). Interpreter 99/01 also shifts away from narrative and conversational to produce a text that is procedural (70%) and argumentative (60%); her tL clip 2 also has a higher level of explanatory discourse criteria than interpreter 95/02 and interpreter 97/01 (50%). Interpreter 99/02 shifts to a procedural discourse type (50%), her level of conversational discourse reduces (43% to 14%) and her level of explanatory discourse increases (30% to 40%). It may be that if interpreter 99/02 had struggled less with the text that different phenomena would have been observe, but there is a shift in the components. Her

66

procedural style is constant and this may indicate that her basic interpreting discourse type is procedural and this may be on a par with interpreter 95/01. Again this demonstrates that the interpreters attempt to change the discourse structure between clips 1and 2. Without being prompted the interpreters have shifted the text although unlike with the register scores the interpreters seem less able to create appropriate discourse structure. There is no overall pattern that emerges from the interpreters in this study. 5.3.3 Newmark The table below (table 5.10) shows the greatest occurrence of style used by the interpreters in their tL for clips 1 and 2 (see Appendix F). Table 5.10 The greater number of style occurrences for clips 1 and 2 Features

Clip 1 Interpreters

Clip 2

Deaf Woman

Interpreters

Deaf Woman

Text style

Narrative

Narrative/dialogue

Discussion

Description/discussion

Formality

Informal

Informal

Neutral

Formal

Difficulty

Popular

Popular

Educated

Educated

Emotional tone

Warm

Intense

Factual

Factual

Setting

Educated layman

Educated layman

Educated layman

Educated Layman

Expressive

Autobiographical

Autobiographical

Authoritative

Authoritative

Informative

Informal/familiar

Informal warm

Neutral

Formal

Vocative

None

Symmetrical

None

Learning

Aesthetic

None

Some

None

None

Phatic

Some

Some

None

None

Metalinguistic

None

None

None

Describes BSL

Function

Overall many of the features are the same for the interpreters and the Deaf woman. The interpreters have all distinguished between the text style for clips 1 and 2 as narrative and discussion texts. This is on a par with the Deaf speaker although she has a less definitive

67

text style for both clips 1 and 2; clip 1 is categorised as narrative/dialogue and this dialogue aspect is missed by all of the interpreters. Similarly, in the sL clip 2 was determined as description/discussion and the descriptive aspect of the text style is missing. For the levels of formality of the interpreters shift between clips 1 and 2 creating an informal for clip 1 and shifting to a neutral style for clip2. The Deaf woman shifts to a formal style so the shift here greater than that produced by the interpreters. The difficulty is well judged by the interpreters, but the emotional tone of clip 1 is missed. Again a difference is created but the difference is less than the sL. The setting is well judged by the interpreters. Some functions of the clips are accurately created whilst others are missing again this implies that the texts of the tL are less different than the sL. The expressive function is well matched, but the informative function is different; for clip 1 the text is informal familiar whilst for the Deaf woman it is informal and warm. Similarly for the tL clip 2 is neutral whilst the sL is formal; this concurs with results above showing that the interpreters create different styles for clips 1 and 2 but the styles are not as different as the sL. The vocative function appears to be missing all together and in this respect the interpreters do not create a different text. The sL clips however have radically different vocative functions; one is that there is symmetry between the speaker and the audience and the other is of a learning environment. This disparity may have been different if there had been an audience present when the interpreters were interpreting. The interpreters match the phatic function whilst the metalinguistic function is missing. Newmark states that this feature is the ability of a language to describe itself; the English tL describes BSL rather than itself, i.e. English. In general the interpreters fare well under Newmark’s scales but there are some features that the interpreters either miss or where to style variation is reduced. This concurs with the findings from 5.1 and 5.3 where although it is clear that the interpreters create two distinct texts for clips 1 and 2 the distinction between the texts is less than that found in the sL.

68

5.4 Feedback from Interpreters At this point it is interesting to consider the feedback from the interpreters. The main reason for obtaining the feedback was to examine whether the interpreters were able to judge the register of the clips and also the find out whether they were able to accurately judged their own performance. Similar questions were asked of the interpreters as had been asked to the Deaf informants (Appendix G); the interpreters were asked to judge the setting of the text and the register on a scale of one to five (as above): 1 Intimate

2 Casual

3

4

Consultative

5

Formal

Frozen

The Deaf informants placed their marks between 2.0 and 2.4 for clip 1 and between 4.0 and 4.3 for clip 2 giving a mean difference between clips 1 and 2 of 2.0. The interpreters were also asked to judge whether they had matched the register of the clip and which clip they preferred interpreting. The table below (table 5.11) shows the registers of each interpreter for clips 1 and 2 according to the discussions in sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 respectively: Table 5.11 The registers of clips 1 and 2 of the interpreters

Register of tL for Clip 1 Register of tL for Clip 2 Register difference

95/01

95/02

97/01

99/01

99/02

Mean

2.8 – 3.0

2.8 – 3.0

2.8

1.8 – 2.0

2.0

2.5

3.8

4.0

3.5 – 3.8

3.5 – 3.8

3.8 – 4.0

3.6

0.8 – 1.0

1.0 – 1.2

0.7 – 1.0

1.5 – 2.0

1.8 – 2.0

0.9

69

According to the mean scores the register difference in the tL is halved with respect to the sL and without taking discourse structure or organisation into account the interpreters are marginally closer to the formal register than the informal, but 0.1 does not seem significant with such a small sample. The table below (table 5.12) compares the interpreters’ judgement for the sL of clips 1 and 2 and their judgement of their own comparison, and finally their actual performance rated against their own judgements. The mean scores indicate how the interpreters did collectively for each clip: Table 5.12 The register scores for the interpreters for clips 1 and 2 versus their judgements

Interpreter

Mean

Clip

01

02

Judging tL

2.5

3.5

Performance

2.5

3.6

Difference

0

0.1

Performance

2.5

3.6

Judging sL

2.5

3.8

Difference

0

0.2

Judging sL

2.5

3.8

sL Text

2.0

4.0

Difference

0.5

0.2

The mean scores show that the interpreters are able to judge their own performance well, for clip 1 there is no difference between the mean judgement of their tL and the mean register score of their interpreting performance. For clip 2 the difference between the interpreters’ judgement of their performance and their performance is 0.1 and with such a small sample this is not significant. So again we can say that the interpreters are able to judge their actual performance well.

70

Similarly, if we compare the register that the interpreters judged the sL to be and their performance we find the same result for clip 1. That is that the interpreters produce a text that is the same as they judged clip 1 to be. For clip 2 however, the interpreters produce a text that is a lower register than they judged clip 2 to be, this time the difference is 0.2 greater than for the judging of their tL and performance but still the difference is small. Finally if we look at the difference between the interpreters’ judgement of the register of clips 1 and 2 and the register of clips 1 and 2 according to chapter 4 we find that the interpreters are half a register scale point away from clip 1. They judge clip1 to be 2.5 whilst it after analysis is has been judged to be 2.0. For clip 2 the difference is 0.2; the interpreters judge the text to be 3.8 when after analysis it has been judged to be 4.0. Generally it appears that the interpreters are able to judge their own performance well but are not so good at judging the sL text. This would explain why the interpreters have contracted or reduced the register difference between clips 1 and 2. It could also explain why the interpreters had problems with discourse structure for clip 2, as they perceive the clip to be of a slightly lower register than it is. It does not explain how the interpreters are able to match the discourse structure of clip 1 well and yet they judge the text to be of greater formality. For the individual interpreters there does not seem to be any overall pattern that emerges. Clearly the interpreters judge the sL registers of clips 1 and 2 to be different and to varying levels of accuracy although the mean score does not reflect the variation found amongst the interpreters. Similarly the interpreters have varying levels of accuracy when judging their own tL registers. This seems to highlight that the main problem the interpreters have with achieving an accurate reflection of register is in both judging the register of the sL and their own tL.

71

6.0 Conclusion I have demonstrated here that the analytical tools and pertinent characteristics of register suggested by Joos, Roy, Zimmer, Ingram and Newmark when combined together, enable us to create a holistic image of a BSL sL text. Similarly, the combined use of Joos, Shaw, Ingram and Newmark enable us to create a holistic image of a spoken English tL text from BSL. We are not only able score and rate texts according to a number of features, which in turn enable us to categorise the texts, but we are also able to draw comparisons not only of tL texts as compared with a sL text, but also tL texts against other tL texts produced from the same sL text. These diagnostic tools enable the researcher to compare and contrast texts, to try and ascertain whether there are any trends that can be drawn from the ensuing results. Principally the researcher has tried to ascertain whether the interpreters are able to match register, discourse type, a variety of stylistic scales and text function corresponding to the sL text.

6.1 BSL Register It has been shown in sections 4.1 and 4.2 that BSL has different features in lower and higher registers. The analytical tools suggested by Joos, Roy, and Zimmer were useful in examining the data and enabled us to not only characterise the register of the texts but also gain insight into register in BSL in this particular case study. It would be useful to see if these tools can be used in a wider context and examine BSL texts of deaf people in a variety of situations so that a comprehensive description of register can be gained.

72

6.2 Discourse type of the BSL texts Section 4.3 has shown that the tools created by Ingram and Newmark are useful when examining the discourse structures of BSL. It has been shown that for different registers there are different discourse structures in BSL in this case study. As above it would be useful to examine a larger corpus of BSL and gain greater insight into the variation in discourse structures.

6.3 Register match of the interpreters When the total numbers of features were examined in sections 5.1.6 it is clear that when the mean score of the interpreters is examined the interpreters have achieved two different registers. The register difference is less than that achieved by the Deaf woman and it has been shown from the interpreter’s feedback that the problem seems to be that the interpreters are not able to accurately judge the register of the sL. It would have been useful to question the interpreters about the domains the interpreters work in and see if this had any effect on the tL output. It may also have been useful to test the interpreters’ English skills so that their individual tL outputs could have been judged against their fluency in the tL. It may also have been interesting to give the interpreters another BSL sL and see if they performed equally well.

6.4 Discourse type of the interpreters It can be seen from section 5.3 that the interpreters were able to produce different discourse types for clips 1 and 2. The interpreters' discourse structure matched the discourse structure of clip 1 well, whilst the discourse structure of clip 2 differed in several ways. The differences for clip 2 reduced the register of the overall text and it would appear that the interpreters are less able to produce more literate structured texts.

73

As above it would have been useful to examine how well the interpreters were able to produce oral and literate texts in their own language and then see if there was any significant difference when interpreting. Again as the register of the texts was not accurately judged it may be that this is the limiting factor.

6.5 Implications It would appear that even with university training interpreters in the main are still not able to raise their register, discourse type, style and text function so that it is appropriate for a formal setting or lower it adequately for an informal setting. And that the findings found in Shlesinger for Hebrew/English interpreters is also found for BSL/English interpreters too. All the interpreters seem able to produce texts of a consultative level, but this still has implications for formal presentations and academic presentations for Deaf professional working within universities. Similarly there could be adverse consequences in informal settings with the Deaf person being perceived as too formal. 6.6 Future Research Many of the points for further studies have been made above, but I will draw them together here. Firstly it would be good to undertake a comprehensive study on register and discourse structure in BSL. It would be interesting to a study on a larger number of interpreters and with a greater range in years of experience. The number of participants in the study does not produce significant results.

74

An interesting study would be to look at the entry levels of English for students on interpreting courses, this could include the students’ knowledge of English register, discourse type, style and text functions. It would also be good to look at the students’ ability to produce sL spoken English texts within different registers, environment and settings. Finally, the students’ ability to interpret sL texts into different tL registers could be examined and weaknesses highlighted for additional training specifically focussing on the students’ ability to recognise different registers. Another interesting study would be to examine how the physical environment affects interpreters. All of the interpreters within this study undertook their interpretations within language laboratory conditions. Without the presence of an audience then it may have been difficult for the interpreters to achieve higher levels of formality in their tL text for clip 2 and lower levels in their tL text for clip 1. This could have implications for the translation of videos and so the presence of many people may induce the interpreters into producing more accurate register production.

75

References Ahlgren and Bergman, B., (1989) Preliminaries on narrative discourse in Swedish Sign Language. in Current trends in European sign language research (eds) Prillwitz and Vollhaber, Hamburg: Signum Press Crystal, D., (1997) A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 4th edition Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd Deuchar, M., (1977) Sign language diglossia in a British deaf community. in 1984 British Sign Language, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Eggins, S., and Martin, J. R., (1997) Genres and registers of discourse. in Discourse as structure and process, (ed) Van Dijk, T. A., London: Sage Publications Finch, G. (1998) How to study linguistics. London: Macmillan Press Gile, D., (1991) Methodological aspects of interpretation (and translation) research. In Target 3:2 153 – 174, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Halliday, M. A. K., (1978) Language as social semiotic. Bath: Pitman Press Ingram, R., (2000) Why discourse matters. in Innovative practices for teaching sign language interpreters (ed) Roy, C. B., Washington D. C.: Gallaudet University Press Joos, M., (1961) The five clocks. New York: Harcourt Leckie-Tarry, H., (1995) The specification of a text: register genre and language teaching. In Register analysis theory and practrice, (ed) Ghadessy, M., London: Pinter Newmark, P., (1988) A textbook of translation. United Kingdom: Prentice Hall Nowell, E., (1989) Conversational features and gender in ASL. in The sociolinguistics of the deaf community, (ed) Lucas, C., Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press Ong W (1982) Orality and Literacy - technologising the word. London: Routledge. Roy, C.B. (1989) Features of discourse in an American Sign Language lecture. in The sociolinguistics of the deaf community, (ed) Lucas, C., Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press

76

Saeed, J., and Leeson, L., (1999) Detransitivsation in Irish Sign Language. Paper presented at the European science foundation intersign meeting on morphosyntax, Siena Shaw, R., (1987) Determining register in sign-to-English interpreting. in Sign language interpreters and interpreting, (ed) Cokely, D., USA: Linstok Press Shlesinger, M., (1989) Simultaneous interpretation as a factor in effecting shifts in the position of texts on the oral-literate continuum. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Tel Aviv Sutton-Spence, R., and Woll, B., (1999) The linguistics of British Sign Language an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Wilson, J. M., (1996) The tobacco story: narrative structure in an American Sign Language story. in Multicultural aspects of sociolinguistics in deaf communities, (ed) Lucas C., Washington D.C.: Gallaudet university Press Zimmer, J., (1989) Towards a description of register variation in American Sign Language. in The sociolinguistics of the deaf community ed Lucas, C., Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press

77

Appendix A

78

Ingram’s table of Grammatical Features associated with specific discourse types:

Features

Narrative

Procedural

X

X

Explanatory

Argumentative

Hortatory

Conversational

Ordering Logical Chronological

X

Nonlinear, random Flashbacks

X

X

X

X

X

Rate & pausing Fast, pauses for effect

X

Slower, pauses between components

X

X

Slower pauses for comprehension & response

X

X

X

X

Variable, pauses for effect or turn-taking

X

Tense Present or future Past

X X

Use of Space Set up scenes & characters Set up objects or categories

X X

X

Set up ideas

X

X

Numbering Sequential

X

Rank-ordered

X

79

Features

Narrative

Procedural

Explanatory

Argumentative

Hortatory

Conversational

Voice & Mood Lots of passive voice

X

Commands Action verbs

X X

X

Stative verbs

X

X

Point of View Objective (facts) Subjective (opinions)

X

X

X

X

X

Register Formal

X

Consultative Casual

X X

X

Level Abstract Concrete

X X

X

X

X

Other Characteristics Personification

X

Role taking & body shifting

X

Proper Nouns

X

X

Descriptive adjectives/adverbs

X

Incomplete sentences Classifiers

X X

X

Rhetorical questions

X

Technical terminology

X

Quotations

X

X

X X

81

Appendix B

83

Newmark’s stylistic scales tabulated from Newmark (1988) pages 13 – 15 and 39 - 44: Scale

Type Narrative

Text style

Which is static, with emphasis on linking verbs, adjectives, adjectival nouns

Discussion

A treatment of ideas, with emphasis on abstract nouns (concepts), verbs of though, mental activity (‘consider’, ‘argue’, etc.), logical argument and connectives

Officialese

With emphasis on colloquialisms and phaticisms The consumption of any nutriments whatsoever is categorically prohibited in this establishment

Official

The consumption of nutriments is prohibited

Formal

You are requested not to consume food in this establishment

Neutral

Eating is not allowed here

Informal

Please don’t eat here

Colloquial

Difficulty

A dynamic sequence of events, where the emphasis is on verbs or for English, ‘dummy’ or ‘empty’ verbs plus verb-nouns or phrasal verbs (‘He burst in’)

Description Dialogue

Formality

Description/ Examples

You can’t feed your face here

Slang

Lay off the nosh

Taboo

Lay off the fucking nosh

Simple

The floor of the sea is covered with rows of big mountains and deep pits

Popular

The floor of the oceans is covered with great mountains chains and deep trenches

Neutral

(Using basic vocabulary only) A graveyard of animal and plant remains lies buried in the earths’ crust

Educated

The latest step in vertebrate evolution was the tool-making man

Technical

Critical path analysis is an operational research technique used in management

Opaquely

(Comprehensible only to an expert) Neuramininc acid in the from of its alkali-stable methoxy derivative was first isolated by Klenk from gangliosides

technical

(Letter to Nature, November 1955, quoted in Quirk, 1984)

Intense

(Profuse use of intensifiers) Absolutely wonderful, ideally dark bass, enormously successful, superbly controlled

Emotional

Warm

Gentle, soft, heart-warming melodies

tone

Factual

(Cool) Significant, exceptionally well judged, personable, presentable, considerable

Understatement

(Cold) Not undignified

84

Expert

Setting

Function

Educated layman

Published in a journal, or textbook, familiar with the topic Published in a periodical, motivated to read the topic

Uninformed

Published in a newspaper, lower standard of linguistic education

Expressive

The core is the mind of the speaker with three different text types: Serious imaginative literature, authoritative statements, autobiography,

Informative

The core is the external situation and is often a standard format four text types: formal, neutral, informal, familiar

Vocative

The core is the readership/addressee; two factors are important the writer-reader relationship and immediately comprehensible text to the readership

Aesthetic

The language is designed to please the senses; descriptive verbs of movement and action – metaphor links the expressive and aesthetic function

Phatic Metalinguistic

This is used for maintaining friendly contact with the addressee – standards phrases are used, ‘You know’, ‘Lovely to see you’, etc This is a language’s ability to explain, name and criticise its own features

85

Appendix C

86

Appendix D

89

Clip One The signer is a Deaf woman, in her mid-forties, talking about attending the BDA congress in Belfast. She will describe the format of the programme. She will describe the different stalls at the BDA ad the most popular events. There are some questions asked by an unseen person prompting the woman for a more in depth response. She will also explain some of the historic importance of the congress and tell a few anecdotes. She will describe why she did not want to miss this year's BDA congress. She will describe a little but about the atmosphere of Belfast itself.

90

Clip Two The same Deaf woman in her mid-forties giving a presentation about some unpublished research works into Bilingual education. The research was carried out over a two-year period. She will explain who was involved in the project: Susan Gregory, herself and Alison Wells. She will describe the research methodology, some background information and the reasons for choosing the schools that were involved in the research project. She will include information about the children that were included in the research, how the filming was undertaken and what results the analysis yielded.

91

Instructions for Interpreters Thank you for agreeing to do this. I am looking at various different features of voice-over, but I am not interested in the information accuracy. Please just relax (!) and do your best. I have provided two pieces of preparation, one for each clip. There are also some questions for you to answer but do not read the question until you have performed both voice-overs. The video has two clips on it; please do the voice-over onto the audiotape provided. 1. Please read the information for clip one and then perform a voice-over (BSL to English) interpretation of the first clip on the video. 2. Please read the information for clip two and then perform a voice-over (BSL to English) interpretation of the first clip on the video. 3. Now read and answer the questions. 4. Thank you very much for taking part in my research. You will not be identified at any point throughout my dissertation. If you are interested in the results please feel free to contact me. The dissertation is due to be handed in 15th December 2000 so any time after that would be great.

92

Appendix E

93

Comparison of tL for Clip 1 and Clip 2 Ingram Ingram’s table of Grammatical Features associated with specific discourse types for individual interpreters is shown below: The categorisation of Clip 1 and Clip 2 using Ingram’s parameters and table Features

95/01 01

95/02 02

97/01

01

02

01

99/01 02

01

99/02 02

01

02

Ordering X

Logical Chronological

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

Nonlinear, random Flashbacks

X

Rate & pausing Fast, pauses for effect Slower, pauses between components

X X

Slower pauses for comprehension & response Variable, pauses for effect or turn-taking

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

Tense Present or future Past

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

N

O

T/

A

P

P

L

I

E

D

Use of Space Set up scenes & characters Set up objects or categories Set up ideas

94

Feature

Numbering Sequential Rank-ordered Voice & Mood

95/01

95/02

97/01

99/01

99/02

01

02

01

02

01

02

01

02

01

02

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Lots of passive voice Commands Action verbs Stative verbs Point of View Objective (facts) Subjective (opinions)

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

Register Formal Consultative

X X

X

Casual Level Abstract Concrete Other Characteristics Personification

X

X

X

Role taking Proper Nouns

X

X

X

X

Incomplete sentences

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X X

Descriptive adjectives/adverbs Rhetorical questions

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X X

X

95

X

X

X

Technical terminology Quotations

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

The comparative percentage of discourse type for Clip 1 and Clip2

Discourse

95/01

95/02

97/01

99/01

99/02

Type (number

01

02

01

02

01

02

01

02

01

02

of features)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Narrative

7

4

10

4

9

4

8

5

7

4

(12)

(58)

(33)

(83)

(33)

(75)

(33)

(67)

(42)

(58)

(33)

Procedural

5

6

4

5

3

7

4

7

5

5

(10)

(50)

(60)

(40)

(50)

(30)

(70)

(40)

(70)

(50)

(50)

Explanatory

3

5

3

3

3

4

3

5

3

4

(10)

(30)

(50)

(30)

(30)

(30)

(40)

(30)

(50)

(30)

(40)

Argumentative

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

1

(5)

(20)

(60)

(20)

(20)

(20)

(40)

(20)

(60)

(20)

(20)

Hortatory

1

3

1

2

1

2

1

3

1

1

(9)

(13)

(38)

(13)

(25)

(13)

(25)

(13)

(38)

(13)

(13)

Conversational

3

1

5

1

6

1

4

1

3

1

(7)

(43)

(14)

(71)

(14)

(86)

(14)

(57)

(14)

(43)

(14)

96

Appendix F

97

The categorisation of Clip 1 and Clip2 using Newmark’s parameters Feature

95/01

95/02

97/01

99/01

99/02

01

02

01

02

01

02

01

02

01

02

Text style

Narrative

Discussion

Narrative

Discussion

Narrative

Discussion

Narrative

Discussion

Narrative

Discussion

Formality

Informal

Neutral

Informal

Formal

Colloquial

Neutral

Informal

Neutral

Informal

Neutral

Difficulty

Simple

Neutral

Popular

Educated

Popular

Educated

Popular

Educated

Simple

Neutral

Emotional tone

Factual

Factual

Warm

Factual

Intense

Factual

Warm

Factual

Warm

Factual

Setting

Educated layman

Educated layman

Educated layman

Educated layman

Educated layman

Educated layman

Educated layman

Educated layman

Educated layman

Educated layman

Expressive

Autobiographical

Authoritative

Autobiographical

Authoritative

Autobiographical

Authoritative

Autobiographical

Authoritative

Autobiographical

Authoritative

Informative

Neutral/informal

Neutral

Informal warm

Formal

Familiar

Neutral

Familiar

Neutral

Informal warm

Neutral

Vocative

None

None

None

None

Symmetric

None

Symmetric

None

None

None

Aesthetic

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

Phatic

Some

None

Some

None

Some

None

Some

None

Some

None

Metalinguistic

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

Function

98

Appendix H

105

Transcript of BSL-Text One

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

right Cp

belfast C

really

cp----------------------

C

cp---------------------------------------

Protruding tongue RIGHT IX FLY-TO BELFAST

IX

IXC(THERE) REALLY NOT-SURE

(2H) Topic

go

holiday

abroad

cp----------------------------------------------------- up cp-----------------

ME-(B-hand) GO-THERE REALLY HOLIDAY ABROAD SUN NICE LIE-DOWN (2H)

(2H) Right hand signing space

or

belfast

ee

belfast x 2

cp--------------- down

down

C----------OR

BELFAST

(2H)

(2H)

must

C

. go

why

cp-----------------------

C--------------THINK

BELFAST++

MUST GO-C

WHY

rh 110 year anniversary

plus

home--------------------

cp------------------------------------------------------------- C cp------

L

C

L

nod IXC PARTY 110 -y-

-a-a-

IXC --b-d-a-

PLUS HIS B-handR HOME B-handR

-------------- francis maginn

plus

francis maginn bda

cp------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C

nod 3RD-OWN -f-m-m- 3rd -OWN PLUS FUNERAL IXC -f-m- SET-UP -b-d-a- IXC IXi 3rd -OWN

106

(2H)

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

mm

‘ll’ tongue out

miss

same

Scotland

up L & back cp-----------------------------------wrinkled nose shake

eyebrows down

shake

B-hand

forward STRONG DON’T-WANT MISS SAME BEFORE SCOTLAND

B-hand

(2H)

(2H)

gest-not sure no

/Episode Two

island R

cp

L

been

bda

all

cp--------------------------------------------------------------------------

IXtop R AROUND-(B) ISLAND IXtop R BEEN -b-d-a- LOTS-PEOPLE-GO ALL (2H - to top R)

remember up & back

well

‘ll’ tongue out

miss

cp------------------------------------ up

arrive cp----------------------------------nose wrinkle

back

shake

forward

REMEMBER WELL DON’T-WANT ME-(B) MISS

ARRIVE

/Episode Three

little bit

sh

cp------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LITTLE NOT-SURE THROUGH INFORMATION

RECEIVED NOT-YET IXI

(2H)

(2H)

Assim?

oh enjoy C

political

pf

cp-----------------------------------------------------------------------

vee

why

balance

C

shake & back NOT-SURE IXI B ARRIVE HAPPY NICE WHAT BALANCE POLITICS LECTURE B-hand

(2H)

gest – not sure /Episode Four

107

L

L

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

morning

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

before

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

‘ll’

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

speaker

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

workshop

afternoon

workshop

cp------------------------------- R

want

cp

what

R cp-----------------------------------------------

shake MORNING AFTERNOON WORKSHOP WANT WHAT DIFFERENT++ (2H)

WANT WHAT bodyshift right

now

new

assim?

why

rh

cp comment

before

cp------------------------------------------------ downc

week

cp-------- up

formal x 3 cp----------------

shake-------------------- nod BEFORE NOTHING NOW NEW WHY B-wiggling BEFORE WEEK FORMAL++ rh

formal x 2

erm

through

now morning

like

cp----------------------------------------------------------------------------- L

cp-------------

mouth pulled L LECTURE FORMAL+ THROUGHOUT IX NOW MORNING LIKE START KEY 1 minute

talk

three

cp-----------------------------

then a

Nod

b

c

workshop

morning

cp----------------------------------------------nod

forward

LECTURE TALK THREE IXa IXb IXc AFTER WORKSHOP++

more forward MORNING

--------------------------------IXc

ee

more----------------

what is it

small/por

cp---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------neutral

nod

WORKSHOP++ 3RD-OWN MORE DETAIL++ WHAT SMALL-WORKSHOP++ (2H) rh

108

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

finish

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

enjoy

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

three

choice

LAS

cp----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

afternoon

different

workshop

cp-------------------------------------------------------------- C--------------------------------------wrinkled nose nod

tilt back

nod

FINISH AFTERNOON DIFFERENT WORKSHOP Ixi IX-THERE ONE IX-THERE (2H)

(2H)

no

morning

cp--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------shake

nod----------

HAPPY THREE THREE CHOICE+ MORNING MOVE-CHOICE-ASIDE MORNING THREE--------------------------------------------------------------------------cp /Episode five

------------------------

key

speaker

then

nod-------------------------

break then br

nod

nod

THREE CHOICE+ THREE KEY LECTURE g-hand-(top-C) BREAK SCATTER ------------------------

g-hand-(top-C)

still

political like

cp------------------------- LAS

(2H)

talk about television talk about

cp--------- C

cp---------- C

WORKSHOP++ STILL FOLLOW POLITICS LIKE TALK

Health

(2H)

then afternoon

-t-v-

different

cp

C

MANY TALK OR HEALTH

workshop

trip

cp---------------------------------------------------------nod

shake

MENTAL HEALTH DIFFERENT+ IX AFTERNOON DIFFERENT WORKSHOP TRIP

109

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Or workshop

one

oh----------aromatherapy

like

needle

cp-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------forward OR WORKSHOP++ ONE IXi HAPPY SMELL+ DIFFERENT++ LIKE THIN-OBJECT (2H) /Episode six

no

never

before

needle

but needle

want

cp-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shake

fwd

TWIST-THIN-OBJ NEVER BEFORE TWIST-THIN-OBJ THIN-OBJ WANT B-(palm down)

needle

chinese

cp------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C tongue protruding WALK THIN-OBJ TERRIBLE STUPID CHINA KNOW TWIST-THIN-OBJ IXi

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

want

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

then

bit

no

ff

quest x 3

cp----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------eb ↑ fwd nod

back shake

fwd

WANT BAD MEET SLOW RESEARCH QUESTION++ ALL-ON-LIST FINISH-(å) (2H)

plus

link

other

one

something

cp--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------eb↓ AFTER TWIST-THIN-OBJ-DOWN PLUS LINK OTHER IX CREAM-ON-FACE SOME (2H)

110

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

you need

needle

know

LAS side nod BUT

nod IXr

hand switch

rh

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

have

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

talk about food talk about health should what

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

all -------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

link x 3

NEED TWIST-THIN-OBJ IXj KNOW WHAT INFORMATION LINK++

IXj cd

what is it information

cp------------------------------------------------------------

plus

some

cp--------------

R

emergency

mm-------------------------

cp------------------------------------------------------------------------------eb ↑

↓

shake HAVE PLUS SOME TAP-ATTENTION IXr EMERGENCY RECRUIT LECTURE (2H)

cp------------------- L

true -------oo---------------

that day

cp--------------------------------------------------------------- LAS cp--

fwd TALK FOOD OR HEALTH SHOULD WHAT REALLY INTERESTING IXc DAY rh

other room

mm

display

stall

bda

cp---------------------- LAS cp---- LAS cp--------------------------------------------------------

ALL HAPPY NICE IXL

ROOM KNOW-YOU DISPLAY IXR STALL IXR -b-d-a-

IXL-IXR

(2H)

(2H)

/Episode seven

or

fdp

different

there mm------ mm protruding

cp--------------------------------------------------------------------- LAS cp------------------------

STALL OR -f-d-p- STALL OR DIFFERENT++ IX+++ IXR IXi WALK++ DESERTED (2H)

IXR

111

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

nobody

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

stall

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

oo-------------------

workshop

all

one

cp------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTHING IN THERE IXR

INTERESTING IXL WORKSHOP+ IXR ALL ONE

nobody pay nothing free

cp----------------------------- LAS

deaf

think

free

cp------------------------------------------------------------

tongue protruding head tilt STALL HEAD-ON-FIST PAYR NOTHING FREE DEAF IXR THINK FREE GO (2H)

(2H) gesture - bored

but

boring

same

same

cp---------------------------- LAS

one

cp--------------------------------------------- R-------------tongue sticking out

IXR BUT BORING SAME THEY HEAD-ON-FIST SAME ONE PERSON KNOW-YOU /Episode eight

manchester man

well known

what's matter with me

R----------- L----- cp--------------------------------------- R

cp---------

L------------

5-wiggling -m-c- MAN PERSON WELL-KNOWN PERSON

B-down B-shaking

Erm

B-down

gest-no gest-don’t know

paper L------------- cp--------------------------------------------------------------------------

can down cp-

B-up PERSON IXR IXi WALK++ NEWSPAPER-HELD-UP TAP CAN IXi B-down B-up

cd -------

112

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

news down

really

stall

should

cp-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------mm tight

DISCUSS NEWS IXj NEWSPAPER-DOWN REALLY STALL SHOULD jEXPLAINi cd-----------------------------------------------------

boring up

nobody

oh good

cp-------------------------------------------------

arrive

cp

downR ----------

IXR BORING NOTHING DESERTED 5-sweep-down … (2H)

arrive

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

through should bda

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

every three years

all

arrive

different

time

ARRIVE IXi

… GOOD …

gest-never-mind

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

me

start

chatting /Episode nine

tuesday finish sunday

five

downR --- cp-------------------------------------- upL ---------------------------------- cp--

ARRIVE ALL ARRIVE DIFFERENT TIME START –t-t- FINISH-å SUNDAY FIVE (2H)

know

congress

conference conference congress

LAS cp-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------nod

nod

IXc SHOULD –b-d-a- KNOW-YOU SEMINAR SEMINAR SEMINAR SEMINAR

special

millenium that's why one hundred

cp------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ upL cp--------Shake THREE-YEARS-TIME IXc SPECIAL EXTRA THOUGH 2000 WHY ONE-HUNDRED rh

113

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

ten

years mm

francis maginn

cp------------------

why

launch lord mayor

R

cp----------------------------------

cp-----------------------------

me

TEN –y- PARTY … WOW –f-m- IXc BEAUTY WHY ANNOUNCE MAYOR IXc Ixi (2H)

(2H)

/Episode ten

information

rh

miss thought said all

ticket

want

cp-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GO NOTHING B-up INFORMATION MISS THINK TELL ALL TICKET WANT GO B-up gest-oh

must

buy

there

realise

cp-------------------------------------------------

LAS

should

cp---------------------------------

nod back fwd-----------------------------------------------MUST BUY THERER IXi GOOD FLY-TO HOLD-PAPER IX-DOWN REALISE MUST GOOD

before

arrive

(2H) -------------------------

through lord mayor miss but launch

bronze

cp---------------------------------------------------------- LAS cp------------------------------------fwd -------------------------------POST BEFORE FLY-TO MEANS MAYOR MISS IXR LAUNCH SCULPT –b-r-o-n-z-e(2H)

beautiful

'fra mag'

stay

belfast

cp--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCULPTURE –f-m- hands-on-hips- SCULTPURE STAY IXR 5-wiggle IXR BELFAST (2H)

(2H)

Four minutes

(2H)

gest-sculpture pose

114

5-wiggle

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

give

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

how

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Sharon ridgeway

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

yes right agm

before

like

mm

'fra mag'

who what is it

Cp-------------------------------------------------------- up cp------R cp-----R nod

shake

KEEP PUTR … RIGHT –a-g-m- BEFORE MEANS iEXPLAINj –f-m- IXR WHO WHAT (2H) --------/Episode eleven

deaf

rh

know him one man

rh

know

cp-----------------------------R cp------------------------------------------------------------------

HOW ALL DEAF WE-ALL KNOW IXR MAN RECRUIT-------------- KNOW-YOU IXR

ONE MAN IXL ------------point emphasis

husband

noel traynor

cp---------------------------------------------- downL-

cp----------------------------------------

wrinkled nose SHARON-RIDGEWAY HUSBAND IXj 5-wiggle –n-o-a-l-t-t- … NOEL-TRAYNOR (2H)o sign name

to cp

cp input sign name

noel traynor cp------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R cp R

5-down KNOW-YOU –n-t- IXR IXR CLOTHES BRIMMED-HAT iEXPLAINSj IXR gest-forget it

before

small

one

deaf

old

man

important

cp-------------------------------------------------------------------- Rup

downL

BEFORE SMALL-YOUNG IXR ONE >DEAF OLD MAN IX-(up) IMPORTANT anticipation

115

cd

body shift

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

'fra mag' picture cp ------------- R

nod

nod

gesture shrug

old

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

community

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

who

L---------------------------------------

IX-(up) WHO IX-(up) –f-m- PICTURE IXR nodding NODDING-HEAD 5-down WHO

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

ll

cp---------------------

man

must try----------------------

gest - forget it

any young start

deaf

cp----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OLD MAN STOP MUST TRY TAP-ATTENTION ANY –y-y-START INVOLVE DEAF (2H)

important

cp---------------- down -L

up - L

important

cp--------------------------------- up - L cp----------

COMMUNITY iEXPLAINr IX-(up) IMPORTANT IMPORTANT ALL nodding gesture

realise

um

important

cp---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOT-BOTHERED NODDING-HEAD NOW REALISE REALLY IMPORTANT WOW (2H)

history

deaf

man

thank you

cp---------------------------------------

LHERITAGER

LAS

man

oo

cp----------------------------------------------

DEAF MAN NOW AWARD THANKYOU IXj MAN FINGERSPELL Five minutes

116

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head nods Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

strong cp----------------------

STRONG BEAUTY

L = left signing space R = right signing space C = central signing space cp = conversational partner cd = construed dialogue rh = rhetorical question eb ↑ = eye brows up eb ↓ = eye brows down LAS = looking at the sign (2H) = sign articulated by the right hand as well as the left hand ------ = show duration of a sign

117

Appendix I

118

Transcript for Clip two Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

mm---------------- talk about what bilingual education mm aud---------------------------------------------------------------------- pad aud--

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

really when aud------- back

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

why january to aud----------- LAS

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

education what is it been research two year who aud--------------------------------------------------------------------- pad---------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

mm money funding open university L----- C------- aud---------------------------------------------------------------- pad

GOOD HERE Ixi TALK WHAT BILINGUAL EDUCATION NOW Ixc (2H) (2H) (2H) Rh / Episode two

mm 19-92 to 19-93 one year mm two year aud---------------------------- pad aud----------------------------

REALLY WHEN BEFORE 1992 IXR- IXL 1993 ONE -y- B-shake TWO -yIXR rh slow movement gesture -no

december really two year mm bilingual aud-----------------------------------------------------------------

Nod WHY -j-a-n- IXR-IXL -d-e-cMEANS TWO -y- BR - BL IXC BILINGUAL IXR IXR BR rh long /Episode three

EDUCATION IXC WHAT BEEN RESEARCH TWO -y- IXC IXC WHO rh

rh

RESPONSIBLE MONEY MONEY LDEPOSITC OPEN UNIVERSITY IXC IXC B-------------------------

119

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

bilingual education dr susan gregory LAS------------------------------- aud-------------------------------------------------Nod IXC BILINGUAL EDCATION IXC CONTROL WHO -d-r-s-u-s-a-n-g-r-e-g-o-r-y- IXL

rh

LAS

LAS

myself and aud----------- LAS

alison wells aud----------------------- pad

LIST-1 LIST1-2 Ixi MYSELF LIST-1-2-3 -a-l-i-s-o-n-w-e-l-l-s- IXC IXC IX-1 IX-2 IX-3

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

three mm have each different role aud------------- LAS aud----------------------------------------------------------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

really bilingual education aud------ LAS aud LAS

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

role alison wells what English aud--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THREE-OF-US CONCENTRATE HAVE SELF+ DIFFERENT RESPONSILBILITY

SELF

three different LAS blink aud--------------------------------

REALLY BILINGUAL EDUCATION IXC 5-HOLD ONE TWO THREE DIFFERENT

RESPONSIBILITY IXL -a-l-i-s-o-n-w-e-l-l-s- RESPONSIBILITY WHAT ENGLISH Ixi

rh

120

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

what sign language bsl aud----------------------------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

what is it aud-------------eb↑ LAS

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

leeds and/second derby start---------------- but LAS aud-------------------------------------------- R

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

----------------------- what try really try find out why aud-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAS

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

good eb↑ aud-------------------- LAS

pad

why research really LAS aud------------ LAS pad aud--

WHAT SIGN LANGUAGE -b-s-l-5-HOLD IXC WHY RESEARCH IXC REALLY

IXi rh

one minute

/Episode four rh

bilingual education really start who aud------------------------------------------------------

WHAT FINALLY OCCURS+ BILINGUAL EDUCATION REALLY START WHO

um mm----aud-----------------

LEEDS IXC IXR DERBY IXL START ON-GOING BUT REALLY WHAT

TWO

(2H)

(2H) rh

LOOK-0VER-WALL WHAT TRY FIND REALLY TRY UNCOVER-FIND WHY IXL

(2H)------------------------

will develop------------------right aud------------------------------- LAS L

RESEARCH EXCELLENT CHILDREN WILL DEVELOP EXCELLENT IXL RIGHT

(2H)

(2H)

121

B------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

bilingual education when start aud----------------------------------------------- pad-------- aud-------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

three LAS

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

have already plan like-------- filming aud------------------------------------ LAS aud----------- LAS

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

interview no filming information aud----------------------------------- LAS aud--------------------------- LAS aud--

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

interview then again filming like twelve months aud--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILINGUAL EDUCATION IXL WHAT NOW IXL HOLD WHEN START

rh

/Episode five

means have to------- what want two year-------- really want R------------------------ aud--------------------- LAS aud--------------

US-THREE-----------------------

WANT TWO -y- TERM REALLY WANT

MEANS MUST THINK WHAT

HAVE ALREADY IXL PLAN LIKE TERM VIDEOFILM+ MOVE-TERM

INTERVIEW 5-wave VIDEOFILM COLLECT INFORMATION TERM ANALYSIS

nod TERM INTERVIEW MOVE-TERM AGAIN VIDEOFILM LIKE TWELVE-m-

122

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

film again aud----------------------- LAS

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

analyse mm twelve month um children LAS aud----------------- L aud-------------------------------- R

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

improve background aud-------------------------------------------- pad aud--- LAS aud----

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

information ----------- research aud----------------------- LAS

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

through both first bilingual education other school--------------aud------------------------ R aud----------------------- eb↑ aud---------------------

VIDEOFILM O-squashed

twelve month film then aud---------------------------------------------

TWELVE -m- VIDEOFILM TERM>TERM

AGAIN SHORT

ANALYSIS TOGETHER TWELVE –m- REALLY CHILDREN FINALLY (2H)

nod IMPROVE IXC BILINGUAL EDUCATION IXC B IXC BACKGROUND B

/Episode six

where leeds derby both why------aud-------------------------------------- LAS aud

INFORMATION WHAT RESEARCH WHERE LEEDS XXX DERBY BOTH--------WHY IX1 IX2

rh

rh

THROUGH BOTH FIRST BILINGUAL EDUCATION OTHER SCHOOL IXL1 IXL2

123

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

have sh start----------- but research both why been aud---------------------- LAS aud----------------- L aud-----------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

br derby mm what deaf school aud---------- eb↑ aud------------------------------------------------------- eb↑ LAS

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

leeds little different------- deaf---------- called resource base means aud------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R aud-----

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

deaf resource base leeds----- have three area----------------------- like aud----- LAS aud-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

---- start nursey------------------- one school Aud------------------- LAS aud-----------------------

HAVE Å-shake START IX+++ BUT ANALYSIS BOTH THROUGH BEEN (2H)

IXL

nod UPTO-NOW BOTH-TWO DERBY REALLY WHAT DEAF SCHOOL IXL TWO

slow

IX-1 /Episode seven

IX-2 rh

nod LEEDS IXCDIFFERENT IXC DEAF GROUP NAME COLLECT BASE NOW MEANS

DEAF COLLECT BASE LEEDS IXC HAVE THREE

pro-GROUP++ LIKE

Pro-GROUPR ----------------

then five to eleven LAS aud-------------------

IXC START NURSEY GROW-UPTO ONE SCHOOL pro-----------------------------B----------------

124

AFTER AGE-5 TO AGE-11

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

three ----------------- eleven to sixteen back one um means aud------------------ C aud-------------------------------------- C aud---

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

research children year three mean five six to ten LAS aud--------------------- C-------------------------------- aud C----- aud------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

nod -

pro++ AGE-11 IXR-L AGE-16 GROUP ONE GROUP MEANS Ixi

THREE pro----

rock

nod nod

RESEARCH CHILDREN -y- THREE MEAN ABOUT AGE-5 AGE-6 IXR-L TEN IXL (2H)

LAS

IXR

mean what is it from five to eleven means have to aud-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RANGE MEAN WHAT FROM AGE-5-------------- IXC THREE pro++ MEANS MUST (2H)

TO AGE-11

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

travel three school resource base aud-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

mean unit with hearing school------------------------ derby leeds aud--- LAS aud----------------------------------------------------------------------

TRAVEL-BETWEEN-SCHOOLS THREE SCHOOL (2H)

IX+ COLLECT BASE IXC

MEAN GROUP WITH HEARING SCHOOL AROUND-GROUP DERBY LEEDS (2H)--------------------------------------------------------------

125

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

different research compare school no research look aud--------------- LAS aud--------------------------------------------------------- LAS

DIFFERENT IXL RESEARCH IXC BALANCE SCHOOL 5-shake RESEARCH LOOK-

(2H)

IXC

child development twelve month can’t compare aud-------- LAS aud--------------------------- R aud-------------------

DOWN CHILD IXC DEVELOP TWELVE -m- CANNOT Ixi ANNOUNCE BALANCE (2H)

(2H)

neutral space

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

school why sensitve area all together children how many aud-------- R aud-------------------- pad aud LAS-------------- aud------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

twenty five twenty five children select no really aud------------------------------------------------------------- LAS-------- aud LAS

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

uh number through want year three group year three C aud---------------------------------------------------------------- LAS aud----------

SCHOOL WHY SENSITIVE AREA 5 IXC TOGETHER CHILDREN HOW-MANY

(2H)

5

(2H)

rh

rh

TWENTY-FIVE TWENTY-FIVE CHILDREN TOGETHER IXC CHOICE 5 REALLY

(2H) gest no

OCCUR NUMBERIXC THROUGH WANT -y- THREE THAT'S-IT GROUP -y-THREE

126

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

year three leeds seem more derby less feel balance want balance aud--------- LAS aud-------------------------------------------------------------- LAS

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

year four why twelve months next will year four derby year four aud-eb↑ LAS aud up aud----- up aud---------------------- L-------------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

perfect match but perfect match but know deaf school---------aud------------------ LAS aud--------------------------------------- L aud----------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

------ classroom have five children six one seven or one five LAS-------------------------- aud---------------------- LAS aud-- LAS aud

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

means have to aud------------- LAS

-y- THREE LEEDS IXR SEE MOREL IXR DERBYL LESSL BALANCE WANT IXL IXR ------------------------

(2H)-------

body tilt

(2H)

(2H) -----------------------

body tilt

-y- FOUR--------------------------------------------------------

DERBY -y- FOUR

WHY TWELVE -m- AFTER WILL-y- FOUR SAME

rh

nod PERFECT MATCH BUT PERFECT MATCH BUT KNOW DEAF SCHOOL LIKE (2H)

(2H)

(2H)

(2H)

(2H)

tilt left

nod WHAT GROUPR IXC HAVE FIVE CHILDREN AGE-6 ONE AGE-7 ONE AGE-5

(2H)-------------------------------------------------------------------------rh

research all can’t film classroom aud------------------------------------------ LAS

MEANS MUST VIDEOFILM RESEARCH ALL CANNOT VIDEOFILM CLASS ---------

(2H)

127

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

film move move me not allow film----------------------aud----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

means permission parents----------- simply straight forward not accident oh aud---- LAS-------- L aud------------------------------ LAS aud-----------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

film ---------- all same mean have children----------- year two year three aud--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

year four year five---------------------- have age aud------------------- LAS aud-------------------- pad

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

information who involve--------------------now film what-------aud---------------------- LAS aud--------------------- R aud----------------------- LAS

shake VIDEOFILM---------------------------------------------------------------- BETTER ALL IXC MOVE-OUT-WAY IXi ALLOW VIDEOFILM

MEANS PERMISSION –m-f- TOGETHER SIMPLY DIRECT B –a-c-c- VIDEOFILM

B

BAD

VIDEOFILM B ALL SAME MEANS HAVE CHILDREN WHAT –y- TWO –y- THREE

B

(2H) Body low L ↑

this background aud----------------------

-y- FOUR –y- FIVE LARGE-GROUP RANGE GOOD IXC BACKGROUND (2H)------------------------- (2H) IXC ↑↑ ↑↑↑ R /Episode nine

INFORMATION WHO MIX MOVE-TO-ONE-SIDEL NOW VIDEOFILM WHAT IXi ----------------------------

(2H)

(2H)

(2H) IXi

rh

128

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

research what--------- been------------ try--------------------------------------Aud------------------------------------------------- up-R aud--------------------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

want what is it first twelve month----- been film what is it up-R aud-------------------------------------------------LAS aud------------------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

second twelve month some off feel too much LAS aud---------------------------------------------- C aud C aud---------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

information or some not valid impossible judge so first twelve aud--------------- C aud---------- C aud----------------------------------------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

months been film what is it read mm------------ all school aud----------------------------------- pad aud------ up aud-----------------------

RESEARCH WHAT NOW BEEN DEBATE TRY IDEA THROW-INTO-MIDDLE (2H)

rh

(2H)

(2H)

(2H)

/Episode ten

WANT WHAT FIRST TWELVE –m- TERM BEEN RVIDEOFILML WHAT IXC (2H)

(2H)

rh

IXC

rh

shake SECOND TWELVE –m- SOME DROP-FROM-RH FEEL TOO-MUCH ---------------------------------------------

shake INFORMATION –o-r- SOME B WORTH IMPOSSIBLE ASSESS B FIRST TWELVE (2H)

B

Five minutes/Episode eleven

TERM BEEN VIDEOFILM WHAT (2H)

IX1 READ THINK GOOD ALL SCHOOL LIST-1

129

(2H)

(2H)

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

have read we try think all have same mean can film aud--------------------- up---------- aud up------- aud--------------------------

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

mean can aud--- up

Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments Mouth Eyes Facial Expression Head action Dominant Non-Dominant Comments

HAVE READ IXi TRY THINK ALL HAVE LEQUALR MEAN CAN LVIDEOFILMR

read aud------------------- pad

we me aud----------- L

nod

school aud------

nod

MEAN CAN RASSESSL READ IX1

IX2

LIST-1

IX2 IXi iGIVE-TOj SCHOOL

LIST-2-----

(2H)-

/Episode twelve

L

want choose maths or science we film how-------aud------------------------------------------------- LAS aud--------------

WHICH YOUR CHOICE NUMBER OR SCIENCEL IXi VIDEOFILM HOW IXL IXL

Body tilt R body tilt L

what maths or science sign language English Aud------------------------------------ pad aud------------------ pad aud-----------

WHAT MATHS OR SCIENCE IX2 B-3 SIGN-LANGUAGE IX-3 ENGLISH (2H)

LIST-2

LIST-3

/Episode thirteen

L = left signing space R = right signing space C = central signing space cp = conversational partner cd = construed dialogue rh = rhetorical question eb ↑ = eye brows up eb ↓ = eye brows down LAS = looking at the sign (2H) = sign articulated by the right hand as well as the left hand ------ = show duration of a sign

130

LIST-3

Appendix J

131

95/01/01

95/02/01

97/01/01

99/01/01

99/02/01

and

12

10

11

13

6

contractions

7 (+5)

5 (+ 4)

7 (+6)

9 (+10)

5 (+6)

repairs & repetitions

1

7

1

4

9

Informal (+)

3

22

20

10

15

Formal (-)

0

5

3

0

0

False starts

8

6

7

12

11

Wrong grammar

2

3

3

6

3

Exophoric (+)

2

6

4

8

4

Endophoric (-)

13

20

21

22

21

Score (clip 1)

22 (+5)

28 (+4)

29 (+6)

40 (+10)

32 (+6)

95/01/01

95/02/01

97/01/01

99/01/01

99/02/01

Total no. words

186

251

297

234

165

Avg Wpm (including pauses)

93

125.5

148.5

117

82.5

Avg Wpm (without pauses)

225.9

151.6

238.2

211.1

252.5

29

16

16

21

10

Total pause time (secs)

70.6

20.7

45.2

53.5

80.8

Avg pause time (secs)

2.4

1.3

2.8

2.5

8.1

Total no. of pauses > 0.4 (secs)

132

Interpreter 95/01/01 3’00”

any way he was sitting there reading a paper…3.9 an I was asking him to explain about the stall… …0.7 but he was bored because there was nobody there… …0.8 but it was good…3.4 an I arrived…/ …1.2 everybody arrived at different times…0.8 it started on … Tuesday and finished on Sunday…4.8 an you know the bda…/ … 1.7 conference and then there’s a congress every three years…1.2 but this was the millennium…1.8 it was the hundred n tenth anniversary…/ …0.9 of the bda…3.3 it was fantastic…7.8 an I thought that everybody who wanted a ticket must actually buy it there … but I’d missed the information…1.2 we were s’posed to send off the tickets for the lord mayors speech…1.0/… before hand…4.7 and there’s a beautiful…/ …0.9 bronze plaque…which was…/ …1.0 left there in belfast then…5.2 yes yes that’s right…1.8 the agm was before hand….2.4 / explaining who francis maginn was…1.7 and why he’s so famous in the deaf community…4.1 and noel traynor…0.7 was there…/ … 1.5 he was all dressed up and he was telling the story of francis maginn…7.0 / about a young boy being told about this picture of the famous francis maginn…1.9 but the young boy wasn’t very interested…1.2 / and about how important it was for the community to realise… 2.0

5’00”

3’00” – 5’00” = 186 words

Total time number of pauses over 0.4 secs

= 29

Average wpm = 93 (pauses included)

Total time of pauses

= 70.6

Average wpm = 225.9(pauses excluded)

Average pause time

= 2.4

False start ( / ) = 8 And = 12

Contractions = 7 (+4)

Wrong grammar ( / ) = 2 R&R=1

Informal = 3

133

formal = 0

Exophoric = 5

Endophoric = 11

Interpreter 95/02/01 3’00”

erm they were at the stall with their newspaper n erm I went up to them n I said oh could I have some information please n they said oh sorry what you want some information ya know they were a bit taken a back they’d had so so little custom…0.9 erm…I arrived…/ … 0.9 n we all arrived at different times…0.8 / started Tuesday finished Sunday I think…3.1 yes I think that was something something like that…1.3 I mean the bda conferences are usually erm every four years but this was a special sort of one off because it was obviously celebrating the millen millennium…1.4 yeah I mean it was…/ …1.5 it was wonderful…2.2 er the opening had the er lord mayor…there was some information that was missing we didn’t quite know erm about all the arrangements…0.6 we didn’t realise that you had to buy tickets in advance for example…0.7 so erm the lord mayor’s opening erm / I actually missed…/ …2.1 and also there was a…/ …0.8 a bust … a statue … that’s erm going be kept in belfast to commemorate the event…1.2 yes that’s right…0.8 erm the agm…/ … 2.6 er / it / explained about er francis magin and this bust was in in commemoration of him er / explained a little bit about his history erm noel erm traynor yes dressed up as francis magin and went through his his different life histories and took us through erm different stories about his life…1.1 and also gave us some descriptions about the importance of this figure and I think often

5’00”

3’00” – 5’00” = 251 words

Total time number of pauses over 0.4 secs

= 16

Average wpm = 125.5 (pauses included)

Total time of pauses

= 20.7

Average wpm = 151.6 (pauses excluded)

Average pause time

= 1.3

False start ( / ) = 6 And = 10

Contractions = 5 (+3)

Wrong grammar ( / ) = 3 R&R=7

Informal = 22

134

formal = 5

Exophoric = 14

Endophoric = 12

Interpreter 97/01/01 3’00”

you know …/ … 1.1 can you tell me the news and he said oh ya know I’m just reading the paper because there’s nobody / I’m just standing on the stall and I’m really bored stiff…5.4 we all arrived at quite different times…0.7 I think it started on was it yeah it was the Tuesday and finished on the Sunday I think…3.9 Because / of course you know ther’s there’s the congress every free years…/ … 0.9 but again this was the millennium so it was a special occasion…/ …1.4 an it was the hundred year anniversary as well the celebrations for that so … it was a big combination an it was really awesome…3.5 but also erm ... / … 1.0 I missed some erm information about the lord mayor’s …/ 0.6 address…0.9 I thought that you had to get tickets but erm I thought you could buy them there but then I realised when I got there that I needed to buy them before hand so I missed the lord mayor’s address…4.2 an there was a vase that was donated that will stay there in belfast as a kind of memento…5.2 yes that’s right…2.7 the agm did take place before / they were talking again about the founder of the bda er how deaf people came to know about him n …1.0 an you know erm…/ … 11.5 I mean people were saying…/…1.2 there was a picture of the founder of the bda n people were saying this is an important man there was two young boys saying oh you know what ever but we were trying to sort of encourage young people and trying to sort of raise their awareness about the deaf community and the importance of some members of the deaf community we realise that some young people were really kind of not taking any notice or taking much interest

5’00”

3’00” – 5’00” = 297 words

Total time number of pauses over 0.4 secs

= 16

Average wpm = 148.5 (pauses included)

Total time of pauses

= 45.2

Average wpm = 238.2 (pauses excluded)

Average pause time

= 2.8

False start ( / ) = 7 And = 11

Contractions = 7 (+6)

Wrong grammar ( / ) = 3 R&R=1

Informal = 20

135

formal = 3

Exophoric = 4

Endophoric = 21

Intepreter 99/01/01 3’00”

but there was a man ... an he was holding something up ... an I said can you explain the news to me …/ …3.0 an he explained some / to me but it was boring nobody had come to his stall… 3.1 okay so…right you’re asking me okay I arrived …/ … 0.9 an some of us arrived at a different time it started on Tuesday I think and finished on Sunday…4.0 an it should be er congress ya know different conferences thr every three years…/ …1.9 but because it’s the millennium…/ … 0.8 an a hundred years it was a special celebration… 0.9 an it was brilliant it was really amazing… 2.3 I missed the name… 5.4 an I thought that’s / said something about buying the tickets… 3.4 er and that you could buy them on the door when I arrived I realised that you had to pay …/ … 0.7 before hand… 3.8 er I missed the finger spelling there but we sst it’s about where we’re staying / in Belfast… 0.7 where we stayed… 4.7 okay so / question’s being asked…and the answer is yes so the agm was before this event an it / explained fm I don’t know who this person is the interpreter doesn’t know…but er talking about…/ /…0.7 one man…you know … / …0.8 somebody’s… / …1.4 husband…5.8 / he when he was small…6.3 an old man told him something important about somebody famous n he completed/ ignored it…1.4 but as he grow / older he… / …1.5 realised the importance of it oh he didn’t

5’00”

3’00” – 5’00” = 234 words

Total time number of pauses over 0.4 secs

= 21

Average wpm = 117 (pauses included)

Total time of pauses

= 53.5

Average wpm = 211.1 (pauses excluded)

Average pause time

= 2.5

False start ( / ) = 12 And = 13

Contractions = 9 (+12)

Wrong grammar ( / ) = 5 R&R=4

Informal = 10

136

formal = 0

Exophoric = 9

Endophoric = 21

Interpreter 99/02/01 3’00”

/ya know is that a news story you’re reading or… …0.8 /an she just said that she was really bored or… … 8.5 /ev lots of people arrived at different times / I think it started… …0.7 er it started on Tuesday an it finished on Sunday…31.1 /there was erm… … 15.6 sorry I’ve missed that…16.9 //just saying about how everyone knew about the conference / there was erm a a deaf man… …3.1 who who who was there an er he he was he was talking about er the conference n he was saying about how when he was small that erm it / it was very erm … … 1.0 erm ya know when he was younger he // family was just talking to him n he didn’t understand … …0.6 / erm an they were saying… … 2.5

/ ya have to become a ya know he said when he became involved in the deaf community it was very very important f’r’im cos as a child he was / he didn’t really understand all the information that was told to him so … erm

5’00”

3’00” – 5’00” = 165 words

Total time number of pauses over 0.4 secs

= 10

Average wpm = 82.5 (pauses included)

Total time of pauses

= 80.8

Average wpm = 252.5 (pauses excluded)

Average pause time

= 8.1

False start ( / ) = 11 And = 6

Contractions = 5 (+6)

Wrong grammar ( / ) = 3 R&R=9

Informal = 15

137

formal = 0

Exophoric = 4

Endophoric = 21

Appendix K

138

95/01/02

95/02/02

97/01/02

99/01/02

99/02/02

and

14

6

10

9

5

contractions

4 (+6)

0 (+3)

12 (+6)

11 (+2)

3 (+4)

repairs & repetitions

1

4

0

3

4

informal (+)

3

10

6

2

4

formal (-)

4

9

4

5

1

False starts

4

2

3

6

4

Wrong grammar

1

1

3

3

2

Exophoric (+)

0

0

0

0

0

Endophoric (-)

22

14

19

19

24

Score (clip 2)

1 (+6)

0 (+3)

11 (+6)

10 (+2)

-3 (+4)

95/01/02

95/02/02

97/01/02

99/01/02

99/02/02

227

251

255

267

207

Avg Wpm (including pauses)

113.5

125.5

127.5

133.5

103.5

Avg Wpm (without pauses)

249.9

162.5

214.3

199.8

233.5

19

10

15

19

13

Total pause time (secs)

65.5

27.3

48.6

39.8

66.8

Avg pause time (secs)

3.4

2.7

3.2

2.1

5.1

Total no. words

Total no. of pauses > 0.4 (secs)

139

Interpreter 95/01/02 3’00”

looked at year three which is about five to six…/ …1.5 upto ten…6.6 so we looked at about five…/ …1.4 year olds to ten years old and we had to travel to three different places for that…5.3 we didn’t compare the schools…0.6 we looked at the children’s development over the twelve month period… because we couldn’t compare the schools it’s too sensitive an area… 3.2 and there were twenty five children all together…6.0 we wanted the year three group… 5.2 an there were more…/ … 3.8 in…/ … 1.1 exeter that in lee derby so we included year four in derby to match the numbers… 6.7 but you know in a deaf school in a class room there are five children aged six and one aged seven…3.2 or one aged five… 2.9 an we had to do them all because we couldn’t just film an ask the younger ones or the older ones to move aside… 1.5 an we had to ask the parents permission an everything… 0.7 that was quite simple and straight forward… 5.8 an then we used year two year three year four and year five and that was the age range that we covered… 4.4 so what exactly did we film and what exactly did we want to research… 1.3 we brainstormed in / the sort of things that we wanted to cover over the twelve months… 4.3 and then in the second twelve months some of those items were

5’00”

3’00” – 5’00” = 227 words

Total time number of pauses over 0.4 secs

= 19

Average wpm = 113.5 (pauses included)

Total time of pauses

= 65.5

Average wpm = 249.9 (pauses excluded)

Average pause time

= 3.4

False start ( / ) = 4 And = 14

Contractions = 4 (+6)

Wrong grammar ( / ) = 1 R&R=1

Informal = 3

140

formal = 4

Exophoric = 0

Endophoric = 22

Interpreter 95/02/02 3’00”

… 4.5 we focused primarily on the sort of five to six up to ten year old age group… 3.5 we had to travel around between three schools because obviously within the resource bases or units erm obviously we were covering different localities… 1.1 when / derby obviously we were in one erm venue in terms of the schools for the deaf… 2.2 now it was a sensitive area obviously making these comparisons… 0.8 but erm that was part of the research there were twenty five children in total… 2.9 in terms of the actual age group year three…/ … 1.7 within leeds there were more year three children and within derby less year three so in derby we incorporated some year four children within the research as well in order to make up the numbers… 6.0 you know often what might occur is within er maybe / those er resource bases there might be a quite a wide range of age erm ages of children within the group so it was quite difficult to exclude some of the children who might have been of a slightly different age group n of course we did ask parental permission before carrying out the research and in the end we actually had a sample of actually year two three four five and six… 3.0 in terms of what we were actually filming n what the research was focussing on…/ 1.6 as a research group we obviously brainstormed many ideas about what it would continue er contain an as I said previously we would compare erm twelve months on

5’00”

3’00” – 5’00” = 251 words

Total time number of pauses over 0.4 secs

= 10

Average wpm = 125.5 (pauses included)

Total time of pauses

= 27.3

Average wpm = 162.5 (pauses excluded)

Average pause time

= 2.7

False start ( / ) = 2 And = 6

Contractions = 0 (+3)

Wrong grammar ( / ) = 1 R&R=4

Informal = 10

141

formal = 9

Exophoric = 0

Endophoric = 14

Interpreter 97/01/02 3’00”

from five to six to about ten years old… 5.0 so we really wanted to cover the three units that covered those middle erm years so the resource base units… 3.1 so / derby and exeter the situations were quite different we weren’t really comparing the education there… 1.9 we weren’t comparing the two schools that’s a very sensitive area we were aware of that so that wasn’t part of the research… 1.0 there were all together erm twenty five children involved in the research… 2.6 we hadn’t selected these children individually we just took a group from year three… 2.8 in exeter there was/ …/ … 2.4 more children in year three than there was / in leeds… 5.4 I’m sorry but in year four…/ … 1.3 derby had the same amount of children and I’m sorry the research was actually taking place in leeds n derby not exeter n derby that’s an interpreter error… 4.3 and sometimes there weren’t the numbers of children in each age group / didn’t match up so we had to kind of shuffle the groups around a little bit n so some older children were in some groups n some younger in others… 6.7 so we had children from year two three four n five so covering that age range… 6.7 so that’s a bit of brief background information… 7.1 now I’m going to talk about the filming process we kind of brainstormed n put together all kinds of ideas… 0.8 and we would … do some filming over the first twelve month period … 1.3 but over the second twelve months we decided some things needed to be dropped

5’00”

3’00” – 5’00” = 255 words

Total time number of pauses over 0.4 secs

= 15

Average wpm = 127.5 (pauses included)

Total time of pauses

= 48.6

Average wpm = 214.3 (pauses excluded)

Average pause time

= 3.2

False start ( / ) = 3 And = 10

Contractions = 12 (+6)

Wrong grammar ( / ) = 3 R&R=0

Informal = 6

142

formal = 4

Exophoric = 0

Endophoric = 19

Interpreter 99/01/02 3’00”

… 0.7 three till five and there were five or six to about ten in there… 6.2 sorry the interpreter’s missing some information but / really talking about the resource bases be having different units and having to travel between the three… 0.7 so derby’s different from this…/ … 0.8 from leeds sorry not Exeter interpreter error… 1.7 so it’s difficult for me to compare the school / because it’s a very sensitive area…/ 0.6 and with the time limits as well but also there were twenty five children in the programme all together… 1.0 and they weren’t selected… 2.4 we needed just year three groups… 2.3 in leeds…/ … 2.3 there weren’t so many children in derby there were more so it was hard to get a balance… 1.9 so we actually mixed the years we had year four in derby mixed with a different year in leeds and then we had the perfect match… 4.5 but in the classroom there were five children of six for example n one of seven n this often happens in deaf deaf classrooms there’s a range of age / so you have to research them all you can’t film the classroom and say to the kids who aren’t the right age move out the way you must film the whole natural environment… 6.6 so it / means that there is a mixture of ages within…/ … 1.7 the whole project that’s been filmed…/ … 0.6 within the group we see… 0.7 okay so that’s the background… 1.3 now in terms of filming what were we looking for in terms of our research we were trying to think /… 0.6 initially we brain brainstormed in the first twelve months we filmed /… 3.2 some subjects and in the second filming

5’00”

3’00” – 5’00” = 267 words

Total time number of pauses over 0.4 secs

= 19

Average wpm = 133.5 (pauses included)

Total time of pauses

= 39.8

Average wpm = 199.8 (pauses excluded)

Average pause time

= 2.1

False start ( / ) = 6 And = 9

Contractions = 11 (+2)

Wrong grammar ( / ) = 3 R&R=3

Informal = 2

143

formal = 5

Exophoric = 0

Endophoric = 19

Interpreter 99/02/02 3’00”

we wanted to research sort of … the five …/ … 0.9 five year olds to eleven … 5.7 but we were using three different schools n we were quite happy to travel …/ … 1.1 to three different schools … 6.7 so at leeds we were looking at we we couldn’t really film the younger the younger children at school because it was quite a sensitive issue … 3.3 so all together we had into / twenty five children … 11.1 so in leeds er in year three there were more children an in derby in year three there were less children so there wasn’t really an equal balance … 4.0 but in derby the year four was a perfect match for the year three in leeds … 18.7 we found it better to film … erm everybody together the teacher and the children not rather than individually it was much easier to do it that way … 2.1 so within our filming we had children from year two year three year four year five so it was quite a range of ages … 8.5 so when we were filming them … 0.8 we weren’t sure what to ask them so we had this sort of discussion an we said for the first session we wanted to … / …2.7 we wanted to film everybody in the first year an then / the second year we might…/ … 1.2

5’00”

3’00” – 5’00” = 207 words

Total time number of pauses over 0.4 secs

= 13

Average wpm = 103.5 (pauses included)

Total time of pauses

= 66.8

Average wpm = 233.5 (pauses excluded)

Average pause time

= 5.1

False start ( / ) = And = 5

Contractions = 3 (+4)

Wrong grammar ( / ) = R & R =4

Informal = 4

144

formal = 1

Exophoric = 0

Endophoric = 24

Relative number of informal register items

Registers Scores for the Interpreters for Clip 1 and Clip 2

60 50 40 95/01 95/02

30

97/01

20

99/01 99/02

10 0 Clip 1 (excl and)

Clip 1 (incl and)

Clip 2 (excl and)

Clip 2 (incl and)

-10 Clip including and excluding 'and' contractions

95/01 95/02 97/01 99/01 99/02 Register score difference between clip 1 and clip2 (excl and) Register score difference between clip 1 and clip2 (incl and)

21

28

18

30

35

20

29

18

38

37

Score (clip 2)

1 (+6)

0 (+3)

11 (+6)

10 (+2)

-3 (+4)

Score (clip 1)

22 (+5)

28 (+4)

29 (+6)

40 (+10)

32 (+6)

145