Translation, representation and the Deaf 'voice' - SAGE Journals

2012

0010.1177/1468794111433087Stone and WestQualitative Research

Translation, representation and the Deaf ‘voice’ Christopher Stone University College London, UK

Q R Qualitative Research 12(6) 645–665 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1468794111433087 qrj.sagepub.com

Donna West

University of Bristol, UK

Abstract In this article, we introduce a complex world of working with qualitative data in multiple languages, modalities and media. We share some of the theoretical considerations that influenced our decisions about when to translate, what and how. We also report some of the multiple possibilities available to the researcher when analysing data in a visual language – in this case, British Sign Language – sharing considerations in choosing one method over another in differing circumstances. Through these discussions we draw attention to how translation issues are both similar and different from working solely with spoken language audio recordings. We then offer suggestions on the reporting and dissemination of results when more than one language is involved and when translation is at the heart of the research. While grounded in empirical Deaf Studies research, the methodological, cultural and theoretical issues raised here concerning translation, representation and ‘voice’ are applicable across social science disciplines, and particularly where minority communities and unwritten languages are at the heart of research activities.

Keywords multilingual research, multi-media, sign language, translation, voice

Introduction This article reflects on Christopher’s experience of undertaking a PhD that included qualitative interviews with Deaf informants who are native users of British Sign Language (BSL), and on a subsequent mini-study by Christopher and Donna that explored the many ways of ‘dealing with’ (for want of a better phrase) data in BSL, by interviewing Deaf sign-language-using researchers about their methodological approaches to annotating, transcribing and analysing qualitative and linguistic sign language data. This approach,

Corresponding author: Christopher Stone, DCAL Centre, 49 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PD, UK. Email: [email protected]

646

Qualitative Research 12(6)

from within Deaf Studies, draws attention to issues of representation and voice when reporting on unwritten/oral or minority languages more generally within the academy. Both studies involved acknowledging our status as hearing researchers with English as a first language and with a high level of fluency in BSL. Christopher works both as a researcher and professionally as an accredited BSL/English interpreter, and Donna is a researcher with a background in Deaf Education and with professional level qualifications in BSL. We will give a brief introduction to both qualitative studies, followed by the different strategies we developed to translate and work with our data. We will explore the decisions translation forces us to take when representing data, necessarily ‘reducing’ the information we are working from and abstracting away from the data. We will also introduce the idea of using different translation strategies for different purposes within Deaf Studies research. This article is divided into several sections and potentially breaks away from the academic norm by describing our journey chronologically. First, Christopher gives a brief overview of his research, including the studies performed, and the strategies used for collecting and analysing data. Following this, Donna outlines the mini-study that she and Christopher carried out (in light of the first study) with three Deaf researchers; the background to the work, the methods and the strategies employed. This is followed by a more detailed description of the processes Deaf researchers employ when working between and across BSL and English, and some examples of what these researchers produce. Finally we examine some of the key issues raised with regard to translation, analysis, representation and reporting of data using text versus video medium.

Overview of context for both studies Both research studies were undertaken at the Centre for Deaf Studies, at the University of Bristol. This is a research Centre with over 30 years history and a communication policy that advocates the use of BSL in all face-to-face communication. Often non-signing members of staff are placed in offices with signing members of staff (most offices house both Deaf and hearing staff) to give the non-signing members of staff an immersive experience of language learning. English is used for written communication, but sign language is used to communicate both informal information (see Van Gils et al., 2010) and important information that is then communicated in written English via email. This communication strategy creates a ‘Deaf space’ (see Gulliver, 2009) within which research occurs and both highlights and reflects the importance of BSL and face-to-face communication within the British Deaf community.

Bilingualism and contact zones All of those involved in both the studies here are at least bilingual with BSL and English as usable languages. Samia Mehrez has shown in Translation and the Postcolonial Experience: The Francophone North African Text (Mehrez, 1992) that much of her text’s intended meaning, especially its subversive elements, are understood by the bilingual reader who automatically translates in the act of reading the French (Gentzler, 2001). We explore how we might ensure, or at least be mindful, that the translations we use do not omit richer cultural meanings than those generally encoded in English.

Stone and West

647

Researcher identities As already stated, the authors are hearing, with English as their first language. At the time of both studies, they were employed as members of staff at the Centre for Deaf Studies. Working and operating in what can be described as a ‘contact zone’ (see e.g. Pratt, 1991), daily academic life was infused with a complex, critical and at times challenging range of linguistic, cultural, political and social interactions. Suffice to say, despite our status as (trusted) bilinguals, as native English speakers, it was and is important to acknowledge that a large percentage of our thought processes take place in English. As outsiders/insiders (bilingual, non-Deaf) our gaze is necessarily hearing, albeit one with a clearer ‘Deaf’ view; looking on and in with an informed gaze. ‘Trust’ is a tricky concept, hard to quantify, and one which rests largely on our acknowledgement that, for many years, decades even, Deaf people have been viewed and treated as ‘subjects’ of largely hearing-led research (Kyle and Woll, 1985; Temple and Young, 2004; Young and Ackerman, 2001). Power imbalance, lack of consultation and an absence of community participation in research ‘on’ Deaf people has led to an inherent mistrust of non-Deaf researchers who ‘come here, get what they need, then leave’. Hearing researchers in Deaf Studies should, therefore, be guided by a reflexive, culturally-sensitive imperative to work alongside Deaf people, colleagues, participants on a footing that attempts to be more equal. Having worked in the ‘field’ for almost 30 years between them, the authors have built up solid, mutually respectful – though by no means taken for granted – relationships with Deaf colleagues. Our research agenda and research questions were, and are, co-created, in that space is provided for Deaf, BSL-user informant/co-researchers (ICRs) to construct, negotiate, approve and authenticate our work. More specifically the process involves the open dialogue of ‘equals’ within a Deaf space (necessarily in BSL) enabling the forming, re-forming, refining and validation of research practices within that space. The research studies described in this article collaborate with Deaf informants whose first language is BSL. Like us, they are bilingual and like us they conduct research in BSL, but use written English as a tool (whether for notes, translations, written report, etc.). Acknowledging this, and deciding to explore BSL and English within specific research contexts, led us to reflect on Christopher’s own findings, and to investigate further the ways that BSL and English are negotiated. BSL is a visual, unwritten language (Sutton-Spence and Woll, 1999 among others). The relatively recent advent of efficient, user-friendly technologies now means that BSL ‘data’ can be recorded digitally (a useful comparison being an audio-recording of a spoken interview). However, it is, to the best of our knowledge, unheard of to conduct qualitative research without recourse to written English, even in emerging digital journals such as the Deaf Studies Digital Journal (dsdj.gallaudet.edu/), which includes written English for summaries and web access. The question remains, therefore, whether it is possible to conduct and create an academic piece of work solely in BSL. While a detailed examination of these issues is perhaps beyond the scope of this article, it is worth outlining the most salient considerations here: •• despite the raised profile of sign languages within academia, as can be evidenced by events such as the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR) triennial

648


conference, there is still an expectation, or demand, that academic work will appear in ‘print.’ This is entrenched in the traditional processes of academic publication, systems of peer-review, and Higher Education evaluation structures such as the UK’s Research Excellence Framework; •• in terms of research dissemination, although a BSL ‘paper’ has important cultural capital for the UK Deaf community, and a widening-participation audience, it is hard to justify within the current academic framework; •• while written English may be considered the ‘lingua franca’ for much text-based academic output, BSL cannot compete at an equivalent level. Within Deaf Studies, American Sign Language (ASL) is more widely used and/or understood around the Deaf academic world (which has implications for peer review) and suggests that ASL, not BSL, should be the preferred publication language for a global readership; •• there are emerging literary practices involving readily-available and easy to use video-editing programmes such as iMovie™. Sign language ‘texts’ cannot, however, be edited in the same way as print. Although digital media permits easy navigation of sign language texts, the ‘reading’ of these takes longer and is not as ‘friendly’ as a written passage. There are added complications: for example, how does one quote from a sign language paper?

Questions of ‘voice’ We are both aware of the ways in which our early research training somewhat uncritically led us to ‘translation and analysis’ of BSL data using written English. The questions we began to formulate, initially through informal conversations, in light of Christopher’s study and later through detailed, linguistic and epistemological scrutiny, centred on the ways in which Deaf, native-BSL-using researchers make use of English: what conventions are employed, what grammar and syntax emerge, what is English used for? Furthermore, what might this reveal about notions of ‘voice’ within the data and as it is reported. It was not clear which implicit or explicit strategies are employed by researchers to maintain the voice of the ‘other’ or otherness in general (see Venuti, 1998). The term ‘voice’ requires explication, particularly when one is talking about translation and representation, and even more so when one is talking about an historically marginalized community, with an unwritten language heritage (see Hole, 2007). While much of this article concerns itself with the translation act, within Deaf Studies (and by extension, other ‘minority’ disciplines) this is inexorably tied to cultural issues of representation and ‘voice’. Translation concerns itself with fidelity or the faithfulness of a rendering. Frequently this can be understood as a ‘neutral’ rendering of a text in a ‘source’ language into its equivalent in a ‘target’ language. The discursive presence or ‘voice’ (Hermans, 1996: 5) of the translator is, however, often present and: The resulting incongruities that open up in the text are due to the fact that, while we generally accept that translated texts are reoriented towards a different type of reader in a different linguistic and cultural environment, we expect the agent, and hence the voice, that effected this reorientation to remain so discreet as to vanish altogether. (Hermans, 1996: 5)

Stone and West

649

If we are concerned also with ‘voice’ in more ethnographic terms, where we pay attention not only to the authoring decisions we make as ‘trusted’ bilinguals, but also to the ways in which we collaborate with those we represent, it is worth drawing attention to the ways in which, to borrow from Rothman (1996: 52), we drew the connecting lines between the voices we represent and the ears/eyes that hear/read them. In both studies described here, there is a clear desire to explicate, understand and describe how Deaf translators/ interpreters (T/Is) and ICRs make their own sense of translating/interpreting as a practice and a process. We are immediately, therefore, actively immersing ourselves in data collection, analysis and representation of BSL data, which is itself about data collection, analysis and representation. There is an ever-present, tangible, common goal in these conversations and interviews. The fact that views on translation and representation are not only gathered, but incorporated into our own translation, representation and socially-constructed production of that work (Temple, 2002) goes some way to keep the collaboration going, even if it is the two of us (Christopher and Donna) who ultimately carry out the writing act. Along the way, we have sought and gained the approval of our ICRs for the ways in which we have conducted our research, and published it. We have, all of us, acknowledged that there are multiple, complex and shifting ways of representing the voices of others. At some stage, authorial decisions are made. It is how those decisions are reached that makes the difference between an inappropriate, perhaps damaging representation of voice, and one which is reflexive, respectful and validated.

Context for Christopher’s research This research explored the ever emerging evidence of bilingual Deaf people professionalizing their traditional role as language brokers. It examined the community experience and knowledge of Deaf people supporting other Deaf people with English communication. It also investigated the journey of Deaf professional translators and interpreters following in this tradition by becoming paid professionals, engaged in training, development and service provision. For Christopher’s research he ensured best access to this tradition by engaging with Deaf people born to Deaf parents, raised in homes where BSL was the principal language of face-to-face communication and who regularly attended and were involved in Deaf community events and structures at local, regional, national and even international levels. As bilingual Deaf people, as well as being native BSL-users they were also fluent readers and writers of English.

The research process Critical ethnography has been used successfully as a framework by other scholars in Deaf Studies (Goncalves, 2009; Ladd, 2003; West, 2002; Young, 1995) for researching and exploring cultural views, and is the approach Christopher chose to use for his research. He collected data through two discrete studies with Deaf BSL informants, exploring the notion of a Deaf translation norm. First, Christopher completed semi-structured interviews with five Deaf interpreters who interpret/translate television news. Second, he recorded the broadcast work of both Deaf (four) and hearing (four) T/Is and then used think-aloudprotocols (TAPs) (Tirkkonen-Condit, 1989; Tirkkonen-Condit and Jääskeläinen, 2000) to explore with them their strategies for interpretation/translation. The comments and themes

650


that arose in the first study informed the analysis in the second, thereby, triangulating results. Additionally, findings from the second study informed the second phase of interviews within the first study, not only to seek validation from the Deaf interpreter informants, but also to facilitate a greater depth of disclosure from the informants. In an attempt to ensure the research was undertaken in a culturally sensitive way, semistructured interviews of Deaf informants were used to generate grounded theories (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). The interviews were conducted in BSL with the first phase interviews recorded using a VHS camera. Crucially here, Christopher translated the videos into English and the comments and thoughts of the informants raised in the interviews were categorized. These were presented to the Deaf informants in the second phase interviews. These second phase interviews were also undertaken in BSL to ensure the themes from the first phase interviews were culturally-centred and appropriate (Spindler and Spindler, 1992). Themes and categories were presented in BSL for the Deaf informants to comment on and clarify. These interviews were recorded using a DV camera rather than a VHS camera so the interviews could readily be imported into iMovie™ and then examined in BSL. This allowed further analysis of the themes, but by coding BSL directly rather than coding an English translation (albeit one that Christopher had performed) in an attempt to stay close to the data (and this has subsequently been repeated in a study on Deaf bilinguals, see Adam et al., 2011). For the first study, Christopher covered topics designed to elicit the Deaf T/Is’ understanding of similarities and differences between Deaf and hearing T/Is. These topics were identified by reflecting upon issues Deaf T/Is had shared with him during his career. These reflections can be considered to be retrospectively ethnographic (Bernard et al., 1984). The second study used both a linguistic analysis of the BSL produced by the Deaf and hearing T/Is and a translational analysis comparing the similarities and differences between the English source language (SL) and the BSL target language (TL). The specific topics covered were informed by the comments and themes that emerged from the first phase interviews with Deaf T/Is informants.

Context for Christopher and Donna’s study We were both invited to create a presentation for the ESRC Research Methodologies in Deaf Studies (REMEDES) seminar series, held at Manchester and Central Lancashire Universities (2003–4), and concerned with critical examination of Deaf Studies research methodologies. Based on our individual and shared explorations of language, translation, interpretation and voice within Deaf Studies, we were drawn to the idea of creating a small, in-house study that explored this aspect of our work, and which included experienced bilingual Deaf researchers who were native BSL-users with fluency in written English, as both co-researchers and informants. In doing so, we wished to talk about and make explicit the linguistic, epistemological, methodological and ontological issues as we encountered and negotiated them, thereby deliberately discussing and explicating the translation act (Temple and Young, 2004) – between the two of us, and with other, experienced Deaf researchers.

Aims of the research The aims of this study were, therefore, threefold:

Stone and West

651

•• to interview Deaf researchers on their approaches to analysing, annotating, translating and disseminating BSL data; •• to explore our own strategies for analysing, annotating, translating and disseminating BSL data by working with the above; •• to offer our initial explorations, discoveries and strategies, together with those of our Deaf researcher-informants to participants at REMEDES in order to share this work and incorporate audience feedback, experience and suggestions into a wider line of inquiry.

The research process The first meeting (Christopher and Donna) focused on our own experiences of translation of BSL data and the purposes of translation (for publication in written English, for ease of manipulation in analysis software packages). This led us to critique the almost casual assumption that BSL data automatically be translated to written English for the purposes of qualitative analysis and dissemination (see Temple and Young, 2004). Key questions. Based on our own experiences and emerging issues, we drew up a list of questions: •• •• •• •• •• ••

What might a monolingual (i.e. BSL) research study look like? What would it entail? How would it impact on our research practices, as bilingual researchers? How would it affect our informants? Can (should?) English be removed altogether, and what are the implications here? Is a study solely in BSL possible and viable?

Language presence and function. As we discussed these questions, we developed a better understanding of the presence of two languages, in whatever forms, in the research process. As already stated, we both have English as our first language, and our Deaf informants/ co-researchers (ICRs) use English in their research practices. It became necessary to explicate, both between the two of us, and with our Deaf ICRs, the various uses of BSL and English, as contact languages, as cultural products, and as research tools. This became the chief focus of the study. We wished to break open, and scrutinize the functions, the limitations, the restrictions and the possibilities of BSL and English when interviewing, analysis, reporting and publishing Deaf Studies research. Deaf ICR research questions. Based on the already-available, coded and explicated findings from Christopher’s PhD studies, which had been disseminated in BSL and English to colleagues at the Centre for Deaf Studies, we identified a set of issues to explore further, between us and with our ICRs. These included: •• •• •• ••

To what extent is code-switching/code-mixing used? And why? How much is this acknowledged or merely accepted? What is translation for? At what stages does it occur and in what forms?

652 •• •• •• ••

Qualitative Research 12(6) Who is translation for? If it is for researchers, how is it used? If it is for an audience, how is it used? What are we trying to preserve, and how do we do that?

Three experienced Deaf researchers were asked, in short, semi-structured interviews, how they worked with BSL data, and how they transcribed/annotated for the purposes of analysis and dissemination. These interviews (carried out by both of us) were conducted in BSL, and were videotaped, with the aim of maintaining the source language, and working in and with it as closely as possible. Analysis across and between languages. Together, we (Christopher and Donna) then watched the interview tapes, and addressed the theme of translation and representation. We picked out clips, which were edited (using iMovie™), named (in English) and stored as ‘projects’. During this process, we spoke and signed to each other (code-switching and code-mixing) almost without thinking about it, thereby implicitly acknowledging our dual roles as both researchers and translators (Temple and Young, 2004). We were working in and between both English (written and spoken) and BSL. The clips were re-named, re-ordered, categorized and re-categorized throughout this stage of the process. In doing so, we were analysing in BSL (watching, discussing, grouping) and making use of English (speaking, making notes, naming clips).

Analysis of Christopher’s research To analyse the first phase interviews, Christopher translated the BSL data into English (with one hour of BSL taking 10 hours to translate) and then extracted themes from the English: he worked with the text data rather than the video. The videos were always on hand and he checked the original data when he was unsure of his translations or could not reconstruct the BSL from the translation. The aim or skopos (Vermeer, 1989) of the translation was to represent the interviews within the cultural norms of the SL (BSL) rather than in the TL (English). One of the ways in which the researcher can verify the translations is to read the English translations and see if one is able to sign BSL from the English translation that closely reconstructs the original utterances (a back translation) (Edwards, 1998). This reconstruction relies to some extent on the researcher/interviewer being able to remember much of the content of the interviews, as one might expect someone to be able to do if they come from an oral (‘unwritten’) culture (Ong, 1982). The English translations were typed into .rtf files and then imported into the qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA (similar to NUD*IST), which was subsequently used to code the interviews. Some level of analysis was undertaken during the translation of the videos during the first phase, when trying to achieve a consistent representation of the content of the interviews in English framed within a Deaf community context. This analysis, however, differs from the grounded theories developed through coding the video into themes and there is a risk the translation occludes potential categories by normalizing culturally rich data. Open coding was used so that the properties or dimensions of the categories could be explored (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 69). Open coding is where the nouns and verbs of a

Stone and West

653

conceptual world are used as specific instances of more general categories. In this study, the news companies would be examples of the category of institutions. The descriptions of these categories (generally adjectives and adverbs) are taken to be the properties of these categories. So, for example, the news companies (noun) were described as ‘hearing’ (adjective). There is a risk that the task becomes an analysis of the translation rather than the original interview. When the categories were decided the accuracy of these abstractions were verified by reviewing the videos again and by respondent validation (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995) in the second phase interviews. This distance from the original data was something Christopher wanted to attempt to resolve in the second phase interviews. The interviews were analysed as Christopher watched the BSL footage on computer, identifying, changing and developing categories by adding chapter markers and copying footage throughout this process. The chapter markers were titled with the themes that he identified before burning them onto DVDs. By coding the BSL rather than the English translation he attempted to stay closer to the meanings and cultural framing of the original language (Spradley, 1979; Temple and Young, 2004). The coding began straight away via video editing in iMovie™ without the added stage of translation. The data were managed via the thumbnail panel in iMovie™. This not only enables the editing of the interviews into thematic clips, but also enables multiple ‘copies’ of parts of the videos to be included in many different themes and categories in the same way that text documents in MAXQDA can be assigned to a variety of different categories via annotation. Similarly, descriptions of the categories can be recorded via webcam and used as memos or notes to ensure consistency of coding.

Key issues: Christopher’s research When translating interviews we move away from a rich source of data and towards a limited representation of that data (Green et al., 1997). The nuances present in the original are not all represented as we translate. We apply a theory to the translation itself; we decide what we view as important and in so doing we reflect certain analytical assumptions or prejudices. This equally applies to research in general; we try to apply a hypothesis or theory, even if it is unformed, in a way that makes sense of the data (Gilbert, 2001). It is, however, important to be consistent and to acknowledge the limits of the abstraction of the translation that we are working with and the risk of the translation failing to explicitly acknowledge the abstractions we are making. In English, for example, there is a written system that has certain conventions forming its grapholect. In spoken English people often say ‘er’, ‘erm’, or ‘aaahh’. They might say ‘dunno’, or, ‘y’know’, all of which might have conventional written forms. Punctuation marks might be used to show additional information such as a question mark to denote rising intonation, or an exclamation mark to denote emphatic intonation. It might be that the language is tonal, in which case there might be additional annotations or diacritical markers to the text to denote the different meanings of words (Rapley, 2001). So, when writing down spoken interviews we apply a hypothesis, or theory to make sense of the raw data, and transcribe an abstraction of it. BSL is an unwritten language in the visual modality. Using a written form to represent a visual language poses no more problems than using a written form to represent a

654


sound-based language (Jouison, 1989). In fact, some might say there is less of a problem as drawings and pictograms can be used that are also visual, such as the Sutton signwriting system. However, this signwriting system is also a conventionalized system. When it has been introduced to sign language using communities, for example, Nicaraguan Sign Language, has also started to develop a grapholect. Glosses could be used as was done when using SignStream™, or a linguistic notation system that represents components of the language (handshape, movement, location, orientation of palm, etc.) such as in Stokoe notation (Stokoe et al., 1976) or HamNoSys (Prillwitz et al., 1989). All of these notation systems have their strengths and weaknesses and are used for different purposes (Miller, 1994) and while representing an abstraction of the form of the language they also require knowledge of the notation system. Problematically there are no standard conventions at the moment in Deaf Studies research and different fields of enquiry (linguistics, psychology, social research) use different approaches. With interview-based data, signed languages are often translated without any explicit description of the theoretical underpinning of the translation. It is seen as a tool but approaches are often not reported unlike other areas of methodology and this makes it unclear how far removed from the data the translation is. Taking these issues on board, Christopher and Donna were wanting to explore how both English and BSL can be used consistently to ensure what they hoped would be a culturally-appropriate analysis of BSL video data.

Working in and with two languages: Christopher and Donna’s study Having created initial categories of clips, we reflected on how we usually work with BSL data. We selected one clip and played with ways of transcribing and annotating it. This clip was selected as it presented several challenges. It spoke specifically to the topic of a Deaf representation of BSL data. It was pragmatically ‘heavy’ in that it required knowledge of the Deaf community and the research process for a full understanding of its meaning. The translation of the BSL itself required more than a superficial rendering into written English. It also lent itself, we felt, to more graphic, less textual representations, due to its content, specific use of grammatical space and constructed dialogue (Tannen, 1989). We tried a number of known strategies: exact translation into grammatically and syntactically ‘correct’ English (1), a standard linguistic gloss (2), and two briefer representations using English words, but following more closely the BSL word order, and making use of extra description in brackets (3 and 4). In doing so, we talked to each other about the usefulness of each (i.e. for ourselves as researchers during the process, and for the potential audience) – thus linking back to the central theme of purpose: why are we translating, how, and for whom?

Which translation approach? This is a huge topic but it is important to remember that, as in writing, translation is a way of representing a selection of the information found within or expressed through an original

Stone and West

655

language ‘text’, be that signed, spoken or written. Similarly, within the power dynamic, and in the interests of reflexivity, the style of translation should be openly declared as part of one’s methodology. So should the identity of the translator (Temple and Young, 2004); hence, our reasons for stating our positions at the beginning of this article. One translation approach is grounded in the linguistic tradition. While there was a time when a formalist linguistic approach was taken towards translation (Catford, 1965) this is not so much the case now (Hatim, 2001; Munday, 2001). A formalist approach is the idea that for each unit that is present in the original text there needs to be an equivalent unit in the translation; this could be at a word level, a sentence level, or at a larger discourse level. Now there is greater reliance upon context and the area of pragmatics. The area of linguistics that is known as pragmatics has a wide remit. Christopher’s work has drawn upon relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson, 1986, 1995) for the theoretical foundation of pragmatics. According to this theory, when we try to understand language in context we need to draw upon not only the encoding and decoding of language but also on what the listener (or watcher in the context of sign languages) can infer from what has been said. This use of inference depends on several factors, including the context in which an utterance has occurred and the different types of situational information that the interlocutor has available. The irony here of course is that to represent the Deaf ICRs’ views, opinions and insights for an English language journal, and with a varying understanding or appreciation of BSL, we have chosen/been forced to translate a selection of the data into English, which either can be seen as going against the spirit of our endeavours, or as reinforcing the points we have tried to present here, bringing relevance to the fore. As (trusted) bilinguals the situational information we can bring to bear for these translations is greater, say, than a monolingual, and arguably more than a partial bilingual, but not as great as those of our Deaf ICRs. Deaf ICR strategies1

Figure 1.

656


In my experience, it’s about trying to write down what they say, not to translate it into English. But that’s not always as straightforward as it sounds. For example, in my work with Deaf children, they may sign something (shows the sign) and I think, well how on earth do I translate that? So that’s what I mean, when it’s really BSL, that can be difficult. So I tend to write down quotes of what they say, rather than translating it into a long piece of English text. Yes it’s English I’m writing, but it follows the BSL order. Because once you translate it, the meaning is gone. And even if you’ve got a really skilled hearing person who fully understands the BSL, it still loses something in the translation I usually gloss the BSL. Because if you translate, that tends to be weaker, I find, there’s something missing.

These concerns can be broached in translation (Gutt, 1991, 1998) such that we make the translation maximally relevant to the audience, taking the least cognitive effort to retrieve the meaning of an utterance. The audience needs to be considered in order to do this, be they researcher, academic audience, lay audience or informant. If a translation is to be maximally relevant then one needs to consider the contextual assumptions that the speaker (or signer) of the utterance includes. These can be gleaned from the immediate environment or information, expectation, or general cultural assumptions (Blakemore, 1992; Sperber and Wilson, 1995). It is important to bear in mind that a mainstream audience (lay or academic) is, generally speaking, ignorant of rich cultural meanings. One must be mindful of potential faux amis or ‘false friends’ (Munday, 2001: 30, 46, 56; Nilsson, 2005), where languages use similar words with different meanings that are easy to conflate; for example, deaf and DEAF, where one is conceived by a mainstream audience from a deficit perspective while the other is conceived as a minority community identity perspective (Lane, 2005: 296). There are a variety of ways that we can report findings.

Which reporting approach? The selected clip is from our interview with Linda Day, who is talking about the difficulties of confidentiality and, therefore, the need to either re-present BSL data in English (where English is effectively the ‘only way’, or to re-sign the utterance herself, thereby retaining the source language and keeping it visible). We present here four textual approaches to the translation of the clip. What was of most interest was the variety of ways in which we represented a short BSL ‘text’ below. Translation 1 renders the text following the linguistic tradition ensuring that the English is syntactically appropriate but making no effort to explicate or elucidate richer meanings present in the BSL. Translation 2 creates a linguistic gloss of the BSL using English words to represent specific single meanings (from the range of meanings each BSL sign could have) and also noting other co-articulated linguistic features such as negation (shake-head) and adjectival markers (mouthings). Translation 3 renders the text using a pragmatic approach with richer meanings given in parentheses. Translation 4 renders the text more as a bilingual researcher’s annotation, maintaining ‘otherness’ by retaining BSL sign order,

657

Stone and West

attempting to stay closer to the original BSL utterance, while drawing upon features from translation styles 1 and 2. ‘Sensitivities in the area’ 1. ‘Due to the sensitivities in the area, some of the raw data cannot be viewed. When giving examples one must accurately re-present what was signed.’ 2. Nmf Manual mouthpatterns

shake-head------------------SOME –r-a-w-d-a-t-a- NOT-ALLOWED SEELeft NOW(-pause)

Nmf Manual mouthpatterns

BECOME ME EXAMPLE SIGN+ boom boom

Nmf Manual mouthpatterns

a-hand(both)lean back HAVE SENSITIVE++ AREA

3. ‘Some raw data can’t be seen (by people outside of the research team . . . ?) so . . . you become (role-shift into the person being quoted) and give the examples (to whoever) impartially (without being involved) it’s a sensitive area (about how you quote BSL and remain anonymous).’ 4. ‘Some raw data not allowed see, me become example give give, have sensitive area.’ We then asked one of the Deaf ICRs to transcribe this clip in the way she normally would. Some raw data

allow

see

(f/s) (f/s) (neg) change

me

become

have

example

neg

(like where hand shape)

put-over

(sign to audience) sensitive (repeat)

well

area

‘that it’ (back off)

658


Figure 2. ‘I make drawings too’

Glossing. Almost all mainstream academic publications are published in a written language; researchers rely on, and hold in high esteem, the written word for communication and dissemination. If the aim, however, is to bring the reader close to your Deaf informants’ terms of references then a gloss can be effective. For example, from Christopher’s work: CAN’T CHANGE LIKE IF WAVE YOU-KNOW DEAF CLUB CLOSED

The use of glosses, however, does require careful and thoughtful consideration, as our ICRs note: I also make notes in brackets to myself to help remind me of particular signs a person has used. So if for example they use an old sign, I’ll put a prompt in brackets to help me remember what sign they used. I don’t use a gloss, but I do make notes in brackets to remind me of things, like extra meanings, or who said it, it helps me to remember . . . and sometimes I make drawings too, so if it’s too difficult to write the words, I do a drawing instead. I usually gloss the BSL. Because if you translate, that tends to be weaker, I find, there’s something missing. And yes, you do have to translate eventually if you want to publish, but it’s nice to have a gloss too, so when you read it back you can remember the original BSL.

That is to say, glosses can be used as process, and as dissemination. But as shown here, a gloss is a particular and partial representation; oft-limited for researchers (who may add drawings and other comments) and alien or incomprehensible to many readers without

Stone and West

659

Figure 3. ‘It was really powerful’

the aid of footnotes. Glosses can, however, as the last quote illustrates, provide a bridge between the BSL and the final, published translation. ‘Deaf English’. ‘Deaf English’ can be described as the English written and understood by Deaf BSL users that displays non-standard grammar and lexical choice, but incorporates a Deaf cultural perspective with the English. For example: We can’t change it like if attention you know deaf club’s been closed

As with glossing, one needs to be mindful of how a reader or audience might receive information presented thus. Clearly, one cannot anticipate readership, nor control their understanding or appreciation of such use of English. Our Deaf ICRs point out: Yes it’s English I’m writing, but it follows the BSL order. Because once you translate it, the meaning is gone. And even if you’ve got a really skilled hearing person who fully understands the BSL, it still loses something in the translation. I remember one piece of research where the BSL was reported in English, but not as a translation, more following the order and the meaning of the BSL. And some people thought it was really powerful, but the objection was that to hearing people who didn’t understand, they would just think it was poor English! So it depends on your aim, whether it’s a real translation or not, and it depends on who you’re trying to reach, and the purpose of your research. If it’s for a book, then it has to be a translation, but if you’re trying to communicate what Deaf people are actually saying . . .

660


Multiple representations. It becomes clear, then, that in order to negotiate the complex paths of methodology, culture and scholarship, straightforward, ‘objective’ translation is not necessarily, or always the single most appropriate strategy. As our Deaf ICRs point out, multiple, graphic and textual representations are often at the heart of the process, if not the end product or research artefact. Multiple representations, therefore provide the means potentially to a broader understanding of cultural, linguistic, methodological issues at the heart of Deaf Studies research, and can be incorporated into text-based academic publications: Gloss: CAN’T CHANGE LIKE IF WAVE YOU-KNOW DEAF CLUB CLOSED Deaf English: We can’t change it like if attention you know deaf club’s been closed Translation 1: We can’t change the information e.g. let me tell you the Deaf club’s been closed Translation 2: The Deaf T/Is are not able to change the information and style of the news by saying ‘oh did you know that the social club for Deaf people has been closed’ rather than following the script. Commentary: Here the informant was discussing the context of working in-vision within the broadcast news. Their point being that although Deaf in-vision workers had some power to re-edit information to be relevant to a Deaf audience they could not subvert the news space by changing the news stories and give a parallel broadcast relevant only to the Deaf community.

Each line represents different ways of providing relevant information to different (unknown yet anticipated) audiences that will most likely be understood differently by those audiences. By showing all of them together one is able to offer the reader an insight into the different approaches and representational perspectives on the same information. To some extent this is more successful than including footnotes for explanation as it attempts to gives equal prominence to each representation, as well as revealing something of the translation/representation processes. Keeping the source language visible. The inherent tensions in working in and across languages, cultures and modalities bring us back to the question of representation: of whom, for whom and for what purpose. BSL information can only be communicated or disseminated live, or via digital media, which raises a whole set of issues, limitations and possibilities. Deaf researchers can utilise sophisticated digital technology to support their linguistic and analytical thought processes as they work in their first language. The enhanced process of ‘delaying’ the inevitable translation somehow keeps the BSL more present, or less marginalized in the work. Working in and through BSL will, therefore, filter through dissemination practices, remaining more vibrant and influential, even when

Stone and West

661

written publication is required. Naturally, as our ICRs remind us, BSL raw data reveals the identities of participants and, therefore, requires careful handling, but this does not necessarily mean this kind of work cannot be done. Perhaps it simply requires more creative and imaginative methodologies: The problem with using the raw BSL data is that the person is instantly identified. So that’s difficult. But I certainly work with clips myself and move them around as I’m analysing. And I can then use that information to write in English. If I’m presenting in BSL, I’ll have my notes in English, but as well as that, I’ll have extra notes to remind me how a person signed, so I can incorporate that into my presentation. Of course the written English has value, but it’s lovely to go back to the original signing and to see that. And you can translate into English for dissemination, but it always seems a bit flat, devoid of meaning, compared to the signing, that’s the real deal!

By choosing to use terms such as ‘signing’ and ‘BSL’ within these translations/English representations of the original data, we blend the voices of our ICRs with our own. It may be that these blended voices are ‘heard’ better by the intended audience than by trying to strengthen the ICRs voice with multiple representations. Perhaps multiple representations would allow for different audiences to ‘hear’ the different voices with greater clarity.

Conclusion This article has attempted to explore a process of exploration, within Deaf Studies, between, in and across languages and modalities, and Deaf/hearing research practice, with translation, representation, cultural meaning and voice at its heart. To guide us, we turned to experienced Deaf researchers, and followed their examples in coming to terms with what we do, and why we do it. Deaf researchers, however, are not a homogenous group, with one approach. Even with high levels of English and BSL, they bring individual purpose and practice to the process. They use transcripts as a memory prompt for reconstructing the source language. They use English words, but in a different way to native English language users. They constantly reflect on the inherent tensions between language, dissemination, culture and academia. Deaf and hearing bilinguals use both languages but in different ways, and reflection on those differences can only help us to be more reflexively transparent, not only in our methods, but in our writing and presentation. There is clearly now a critical decision to be made regarding the use of text/video formats. With the increasing use of PowerPoint, Keynote, multimedia and web-based software to disseminate and communicate research, digital video footage can now easily be included in presentations and publications. BSL quotes from protected individuals can be mirrored to DV camera and then imported, with subtitles if necessary, into a presentation, or edited digital ‘BSL paper’. Alternatively, English translations, glosses or annotations can be accompanied by a live or filmed BSL version of the original data. By producing

662


the language of the interview and the language of the mainstream, one at least facilitates the notion of a contact zone. Producing information in BSL (or any sign language) enables the sign language community to engage with the research by strengthening the voices of those interviewed. As critical ethnographers, one of the things we strive for is a community that is informed and empowered by the research we are privileged to undertake.2 As academics (Deaf and hearing) we are all required to publish our work in peer-reviewed journals. There are, however, still very few places where articles can be wholly published in a sign language (dsdj.gallaudet.edu/ being a notable exception). Circulating BSL versions of research work to one’s informants and the wider community enables some members of the community to then read English articles. While it is translators who concern themselves largely with how source languages can be represented or re-presented in a target language, what we have tried to do here is flag up some of the methodological, linguistic and cultural issues surrounding the often non-critical, unacknowledged, invisible even, representation of BSL data in English publications. While it is important within Deaf Studies that quality research continues to be carried out and disseminated effectively, the many and various processes of representation and re-presentation require scrutiny, transparency and engagement across language and culture. By asking Deaf researchers for their insights into bilingual and bicultural research practice, we gain greater appreciation of the sensitive, complex and fragile nature of this kind of research agenda. Multiple representations highlighting the multiple voices present within the research process may offer a more nuanced or enriched understanding, allowing different facets of a message to be received by different audiences. Ultimately, we recognize the importance of understanding that an original data (source language) is different from a translated utterance. Although some level of equivalence can be achieved, we cannot translate the source language in a way that is fully comprehendible to an audience who have not had contact with it. By situating ourselves at the intersection of language, culture, academy, community, Deaf, hearing, text and sign, we can acknowledge and embrace a contact zone that allows the first steps on a road of shared exploration and discovery to begin. Funding This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number RES-62028-0002]; the Economic and Social Research Council of Great Britain [Grant RES-620-28-6001, Deafness, Cognition and Language Research Centre]; the Economic and Social Research Council [studentship PTA-031-2005-00011, Donna West]; the Leverhulme Trust [grant number F/00182/ AE awarded to Dr Paddy Ladd]; Bristol University [studentship ISFIN.HF2631, Christopher Stone].

Acknowledgements With grateful thanks to Lorna Allsop, Linda Day and Sandra Smith. Also to Professors Alys Young and Sue Foster for their comments on earlier versions of this work.

Notes 1. The Deaf community is a collective and it is important to know who is contributing to knowledge creation. By including the figures below this identification is possible for community members. We have chosen to give ICR quotes without identifying specifically who said what to provide

Stone and West

663

some protection against negative views potentially expressed by members of the community in relation to the quotes. 2. At a conference presentation Christopher (Stone, 2005) sparked interest from Deaf interpreters, and although he presented in spoken English at the conference, he was able to hand out and post the BSL version (DVD) of his paper to interested parties. It is also available as downloadable files on his homepage, https://public.me.com/drcastone in the PhD_ Presentation folder.

References Adam R, Carty B and Stone C (2011) Ghostwriting: deaf translators within the Deaf community. Babel 57(4): 375–393. Bernard HR, Killworth P, Kronenefeld D, et al. (1984) The problem of informant accuracy: the validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 495–517. Blakemore D (1992) Understanding Utterances (1st edn). Oxford: Blackwell. Catford JC (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press. Edwards R (1998) A critical examination of the use of interpreters in the qualitative research process. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 24: 197–208. Gentzler E (2001) Contemporary Translation Theories (2nd ed.) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gilbert N (2001) Research, theory and method. In: Gilbert N (ed.) Researching Social Life. London: Sage, 14–27. Goncalves J (2009) The linguistic and cultural challenge within Deaf schools in the South of Brazil: Deaf and hearing working together and the birth of cultural pedagogies. Unpublished PhD, University of Bristol, Bristol. Green J, Franquiz M and Dixon C (1997) The myth of the objective transcript: transcribing as situated act. TESOL Quarterly 31(1): 172–176. Gulliver MG (2009) DEAF space, a history: the production of DEAF spaces emergent, autonomous, located and disabled in 18th and 19th century France. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bristol, Bristol. Gutt E-A (1991) Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford & Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Gutt E-A (1998) Pragmatic aspects of translation: some relevance-theory observations. In: Hickey L (ed.) The Pragmatics of Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 41–53. Hammersley M and Atkinson P (1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Hatim B (2001) Teaching and Researching Translation. Harlow: Longman. Hermans T (1996) Translation’s other. Inaugural lecture presented at UCL March 1996. Available at: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/archive/00000198/ Hole R (2007) Working between languages and cultures: issues of representation, voice, and authority intensified. Qualitative Inquiry 13(5): 696–710. Jouison P (1989) Analysis and linear transcription of sign language discourse. Paper presented at the 3rd European Congress on Sign Language Research, 26–29 July, Hamburg. Kyle JG and Woll B (1985) Sign Language: The Study of Deaf People and their Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ladd P (2003) In Search of Deafhood. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lane H (2005) Ethnicity, ethics and the Deaf-world. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10(3): 291–310.

664


Mehrez S (1992) Translation and the postcolonial experience: The francophone north African text. In L. Venuti (Ed.), Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London: Routledge, 120–138. Miller C (1994) A note on notation. Signpost 7(3): 191–202. Munday J (2001) Introducing Translation Studies. London: Routledge. Nilsson A-L (2005) False friends and their influence on sign language interpreting. In: Roy Cynthia B (ed.) Advance in Teaching Sign Language Interpreters. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 170–186. Ong W (1982) Orality and Literacy – Technologising the Word. London: Routledge. Pratt ML (1991) Arts of the contact zone. Profession 91: 33–40. Prillwitz S, Leven R, Zienert H, et al. (1989) HamNoSys Version 2.0 Hamburg Notation System for Sign Language an Introductory Guide. Hamburg: Signum. Rapley TJ (2001) The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: some considerations on analysing interviews. Qualitative Research 1(3): 303–323. Rothman BK (1996) Bearing witness: representing women’s experiences of prenatal diagnosis. In: Wilkinson S and Kitzinger C (eds) Representing the Other: A Feminism & Psychology Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 50–52. Sperber D and Wilson D (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Sperber D and Wilson D (1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell. Spindler G and Spindler L (1992) Cultural process and ethnography: an anthropological perspective. In: LeCompte MD (ed.) The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. London: Academic Press, 53–92. Spradley JP (1979) The Ethnographic Interview. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Stokoe WC, Casterline DC and Croneberg CG (1976) A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Stone C (2005) Towards a Deaf translation norm. Inaugural PhD lecture, ASLI conference, 14–15 May 2005, London. Strauss A and Corbin J (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory and Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage. Sutton-Spence R and Woll B (1999) The Linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tannen D (1989) Talking Voices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Temple B (2002) Crossed wires: Interpreters, translators, and bilingual workers in cross-language research. Qualitative Health Research 12(6): 844–854. Temple B and Young A (2004) Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative Research 4(2): 161–178. Tirkkonen-Condit S (1989) Theory and methodology in translation research. In: TirkkonenCondit S and Condit S (eds) Empirical Studies in Translation and Linguistics. Joensuu, Finland: University of Joensuu, Faculty of Arts, 3–18. Van Gils G, Van den Bogaerde B and De Lange R (2010) The use of modern information and communication systems and technology and experienced stress at work in mixed Deaf-hearing teams. Sign Language Studies 10(2): 231–257. Venuti L (1998) The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. London: Routledge. Vermeer HJ (1989) Skopos and commission in translational action (Chesterman A, trans.). In: Venuti L (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge, 221–232. West D (2002) ‘Here forever’: The importance of ethnographic research in the search for an understanding of Deaf children’s identity development. Unpublished Masters dissertation, University of Bristol, Bristol.

Stone and West

665

Young A (1995) Family adjustment to a deaf child in a bilingual, bicultural framework. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bristol, Bristol. Young AM and Ackerman J (2001) Reflections on validity and epistemology in a study of working relations between Deaf and hearing professionals. Qualitative Health Research 11(2): 179–189.

Biographical notes Christopher Stone is currently a post-doctoral researcher based at the ESRC funded DCAL Center, CPBS, UCL. He is undertaking a longitudinal study examining predictors for sign language learning and sign language interpreter aptitude. He has also explored Deaf people working as translators and interpreters within the Deaf community and at the institutional interface. He gained his PhD, entitled ‘Towards a Deaf translation norm’, from the Centre for Deaf Studies, University of Bristol in 2006. He also works as a freelance sign language interpreter. Donna West currently works as a Post-Doctoral Fellow with Dr Sutton-Spence on an AHRC-funded project exploring metaphor within creative sign language. She gained her PhD, entitled ‘DeafHearing family life’, from the Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol in 2009. Prior to that she worked as a Teacher of Deaf Children and then a lecturer and researcher at the Centre for Deaf Studies at the University of Bristol.