Interpreting Strategies when Gestures Occur in the ASL Source Abdiel Dávila-Cruz Methods Results Background Conclusion Interpreters are not only responsible for understanding the message and communication process in its entirety but also how the messages are constructed (Humphrey & Alcorn, 1994, p. 1). This research is an investigation of ASL to spoken English interpreting strategies when gestures occur in the ASL source. This research finding can lead to shed light on different strategies an interpreter could take when interpreting gestures in the ASL source to spoken English. Figure 1.0 . Conclusively, being aware of gestures presented in the ASL source in order to make decisions about the English interpretation is critical for accuracy of the message. The gestures analyzed in the 3 clips showed a variety of usage, some acting as discourse markers and most either adding or emphasizing the intended message of the presenter. Although the interpreters in the study possibly used a variety of strategies to accurately and faithfully interpret the message, the times where information was omitted the interpretation, was inaccurate. Throughout this research some of the strategies possibly used by the interpreters were preparing well in advance, working with a team, and/or doing conscious strategic omissions. Overall, there were a few strategies shown throughout this research that came to a successful rendition of the intended message. Three videos of Deaf presenters from the series of TEDxIslay were chosen. Each video is presented in American Sign Language with a minimum of one interpreter actively interpreting into spoken English. Firstly, for each video gestures used by the presenter throughout a 5-minute clip of the original presentation were identified. Figure 1.0 demonstrates the initial results. Then it was proceeded to identify the actions and interpretations performed by the interpreters for the gestures identified earlier shown in figure 1.1. Figure 1.1 Literature Review Discussion In the first clip, at 05:18 the researcher witnessed a conscious unintentional omission. The presenter first uses a “two-thumbs up” gesture to depict the visiting Americans actions in the developing country, as the interpreter struggles with the concept presented preceding the gesture, she then is unable to provide an appropriate English lexical equivalent for the gesture. This in turn leads to an inaccurate interpretation for the second gesture at 05:32 and skews the overall intended message. In the second clip, at 6:05 the presenter uses the gesture “open hands ‘stop’ head shake-no’” as a discourse marker/transition. The interpreter applies a conscious strategic omission when encountering the gesture in the source. She pauses, providing herself time to recuperate from what seems to be a misinterpretation, effectively dropping the gesture though adding an appropriate transition to the next topic For the final clip, the second gestured observed in the clip was at 06:49 where the interpreter uses a strong verb to render the meaning of the signer’s gesture. For the sole purpose of this research gestures will be defined as manual utterances used by ASL presenters that would also be recognized and understood by hearing individuals. In sign language one use of gesturing can be identified as discourse markers. Metzger and Bahan define discourse markers as signs to help connect sequences of utterances (2001, p. 131). . In Napier’s research the action of omission is to be classified as either deliberate or accidental. Based on original research conducted by Barik (1975) and Wandensjo (1998), Napier formulated Omission Taxonomy References Hoiting, N., & Slobin, D. I. (2007). From gestures to signs in the acquisition of sign language. In S. D. Duncan, J. Cassell, & E. T. Levy (Eds.), Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language: Essays in honor of David McNeill (pp. 51-65). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Humphrey, J. & Alcorn, B. (1994). So you want to be an interpreter?: An introduction to Sign Language Interpreting. (4th ed.) Seattle; Washington: H & H Publishing Company Janzen, T. (2005). Topics in signed language interpreting theory and practice (Vol. 63). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Metzger, M. & Bahan, B. (2001, 2011). Discourse analysis. In Valli, C., Lucas, C., Mulrooney, K., & Villanueva, M. (2011). Linguistics of American Sign Language: An Introduction (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Reprinted as a supplemental reading with permission of Cambridge University Press, from Ceil Lucas, editor, The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages (2001): pp.112-144. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Moser-Mercer, B., Kunzli, A., & Korac, M. (1998). Prolonged turns in interpreting: Effects on quality, physiological stress (Pilot Study). Interpreting, 3(1), 47-64. Napier, J. (2003) A sociolinguistic analysis of the occurrence and types of omissions produced by Australian Sign language-English interpreters. In M. Metzger, S. Collins, V. Dively, & R. Shaw (Eds.), From topic boundaries to omission: New research on interpretation (Vol. 1, pp. 99-153). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. TEDxIslay - Alim Chandani - Reaching Out to the Global Deaf Community. (2010, July 3). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keHK-bMEZts TEDxIslay - Linsay Darnall, Jr. - Spiritual Revival in Deaf America. (2010, July 3). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhYZPPJsTDQ TEDxIslay - Michelle McAuliffe - 5/15/10. (2010, July 4). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRMIGymDVTI http://www.merriam-webster.com/ (