Discussion and Findings “A Comparison of Transitions used in ASL Interpreting & Transliterating: Are transitions triggered by explicit or implicit cues from the speaker?” Introduction By: Tiffany Taylor Limitations The goal of this research is to analyze how interpreters incorporate transitions into their work and if the target language mode, whether it be interpreting or transliterating, has an effect on how the transitions are used. The researcher will mainly focus on whether or not the interpreter will be relying on explicit or implicit cues from the speaker and if the interpreter will choose signs that are closely tied to the lexical form of the transition the speaker used in English. Analysis Results The 3 interpreting and 3 transliterating were all existing samples. Therefore, there was no way to discuss the interpreter’s decision making, background, education, certification, or experience. The source language speakers and the interpreters also varied in setting, content, and intent. This research did not focus on, or note, less straightforward strategies an interpreter may have used to note a transition. The transitions used by the interpreters were analyzed and assigned to one of the three following categories. If the speaker had an explicit cue, meaning that the speaker used a transition lexically, and the interpreter chose a sign that was a close lexical match to the English word or phrase used by the speaker was noted as “explicit with lexical match”. Speaker: “For example…” Interpreter: (eyebrows up) FOR EXAMPLE… If the speaker had an explicit cue but the interpreter chose a sign that was not a close lexical match this is noted as “explicit without lexical match”. Speaker: “Again the words can be misleading…” Interpreter: UNDERSTAND… The last category occurred when the speaker did not have an explicit cue, and instead relied on an implicit cue such as a slide change to note a transition. If the interpreter added an explicit lexical item in the target language this was noted as “implicit cues”. Speaker: revisiting that but… (looks back at powerpoint), umm interactive collaborative tools… Interpreter: CONSIDER W-H-Y. NEXT (vertical) I-N-T-E-R-A-C-T-I-V-E… Interpreting Samples: 37 total transitions 11% Explicit Cues (with lexical match) 22% Inexplicit Cues Explicit Cues (without lexical match) Terminology Defined 67% Recommendations Transliterating is typically referred to as Conceptually Accurate Signed English (CASE). Transliterators follow English sentence structure, include mouthed English, incorporate ASL features (use of space & non-manual markers), and recognize that meaning is more critical than sound or spelling (Kelly, 2001). Discourse markers are used for cohesion by organizing levels of detail, noting new information versus old information, and providing logical and fluid shifts in topics (Napier, 2002). If interpreters can become aware of the speaker’s use of transitions, as well as their function and frequency, it might be possible to enhance the interpretation. The interpreter should know how transitions function in ASL and English to provide equivalency and improve the prosody of the product. Transliteration Samples: 32 total transitions 6% Explicit Cues (with lexical match) 3% Conclusion Implicit Cues Results show that while working into both interpreting and transliterating the interpreter incorporated the speaker’s explicit transitions. The use of implicit cues did occur more frequently in the interpreting samples. This may be due to the speakers use of transitions as well as the interpreters experience. None of the samples had errors in use of transitions but some samples had less total transitions. This may be due to interpreter experience or background or the nature of the sample setting and speaker. Methodology Explicit Cues (without lexical match) The researcher selected video samples 7-15 minutes in length and at least 5 minutes into the interpretation. While analyzing the segment the researcher noted which transitions were used and whether the transitions were triggered by the the speaker’s explicit cues or implicit cues. Finally, the researcher compared the data from the interpreting samples with the data noted from the transliteration samples. 91% Discussion and Findings The most frequently used types of transitions were to add (16), show sequence (12), and to compare (11). Other, less frequent purposed could have included to emphasize, to give an example, to repeat, to show time, and to summarize. Some transitions served more than one function. If the speaker does not have a lot of transitional lexicon then the interpreter may be more inclined to add transitions triggered by implicit cues. In most samples the interpreters and transliterators relied solely on the explicit cues. Sample (I3) impacted the results of the data because 7 of the 16 transitions that the interpreter included in the target message were triggered by implicit cues from the speaker. This could be due to the speaker having minimal explicit cues, instead the speaker chose to rely on the slide presentation to note topic changes. References Kelly, J. (2001). Trans lit eration : Show M e the Eng lish . Alexandria, VA: RID Press. Napier, J. (2002). S ign language in terpreting : L ingu is tic cop ing strateg ies (pp.26, 51-52). Coleford, England: D. McLean.