Cover not available
Part of
Non-professional Interpreting and Translation: State of the art and future of an emerging field of research
Edited by Rachele Antonini, Letizia Cirillo, Linda Rossato and Ira Torresi
[Benjamins Translation Library 129] 2017
► pp. 213–229

Chapter 11
Beyond the professional scope?

Sign language translation as a new challenge in the field

Traditionally, research on interlingual occurrences of sign language has focused on sign language interpreting. However, social practice has changed, not least as a result of the development in communication technologies and the increasing accessibility of audiovisual media. In this context, sign language translation, i.e. the production of recorded signed texts based on written source texts, has witnessed a steady increase, particularly in translations of websites, tests, literature, etc. This paper begins with a short description of the development of sign language translation, leading to a presentation of some typological questions related to sign language translation with a focus on some of the problems that arise when activities span the supposed boundary between translation and interpreting. The second part of the paper is a presentation of a case study demonstrating the textual and social challenges faced by a team of untrained and inexperienced sign language translators in the course of their first translation assignment. The project in question was the translation of the Austrian Jewish Museum’s website into Austrian Sign Language.
Keywords: sign language translation, website translation, self-perception
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Sign language translation
    • 2.1Development
    • 2.2Research and typology
  • 3.Challenges
    • 3.1Case study and method
    • 3.2Textual challenges: What should the text look like?
    • 3.3Social challenges: Who should the translator be?
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.129.11grb
References (57)
References
Baker-Shenk, Charlotte. 1986. “Characteristics of Oppressed and Oppressor Peoples: Their Effect on the Interpreting Context”. Interpreting: The Art of Cross Cultural Mediation. Proceedings of the 9th National Convention of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, July 4–8, 1985 ed. by Marina L. McIntire, 43–53. Silver Spring: RID.Google Scholar
Banna, Karin. 2004. “Auslan Interpreting: What Can we Learn from Translation Theory?”. Deaf Worlds 20:2. 100–119.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Questions de sociologie. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna ed. 2012. Sight Translation, Sight Interpreting Meeting at the Cross Modes: Sign Language Interpreters as Translators. Vietri sul Mare, Italy, 16th – 18th September 2011. European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters.Google Scholar
Cokely, Dennis. 2005. “Shifting Positionality: A Critical Examination of the Turning Point in the Relationship of Interpreters and the Deaf Community”. Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education. Directions for Research and Practice ed. by Marc Marschark, Rico Peterson & Elizabeth Winston, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conlon, Caroline & Jemina Napier. 2004. “Developing Auslan Educational Resources: A Process of Effective Translation of Children’s Books”. Deaf Worlds 20:2. 141–163.Google Scholar
Cornes, Andy, Meg Rohan, Jemina Napier & Joseph Rey. 2006. “Reading The Signs: Impact of Signed vs. Written Questionnaires on the Prevalence of Psychopathology Among Deaf Adolescents”. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 40:8. 665–673.Google Scholar
De Groot, Annette M. B. 2011. Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals. New York/East Sussex: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
European Commission. n.d. Europe’s Information Society: Thematic Portal. [URL] (last viewed December 17, 2012).
European Union. 2003. “Council Resolution on 6 February 2003 ‘eAccessibility’ – Improving the Access of People with Disabilities to the Knowledge Based Society”. Official Journal of the European Union, English Edition 46: C 39 (18 February 2003). 5–7. [URL] (last viewed December 17, 2012).
Gansinger, Luzia. 2008. “Herausforderungen bei der multimedialen Übersetzung von schriftsprachlichen Tests in die Gebärdensprache. Eine Untersuchung anhand der Übersetzung der Führerscheinprüfungsfragen in die ÖGS”. MA dissertation, University of Graz.Google Scholar
. 2009a. “Multimediale Übersetzungen von schriftlichen Tests in Gebärdensprache. Teil I: Grundlagen und Vorgehensweise”. Das Zeichen 23:81. 116–126.Google Scholar
. 2009b. “Multimediale Übersetzungen von schriftlichen Tests in Gebärdensprache. Teil II: Herausforderungen und Lösungsansätze”. Das Zeichen 23:82. 316–326.Google Scholar
Grbić, Nadja. 2009. “Sign Language Interpreter Training in Austria: An Integrated Approach“. International Perspectives on Sign Language Interpreter Education ed. by Jemina Napier, 3–14. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. “'Boundary Work' as a Concept for Studying Professionalization Processes in the Interpreting Field”. TIS Translation and Interpreting Studies 5:1. 109–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grbić, Nadja & Sonja Pöllabauer. 2006. “Community Interpreting: Signed or Spoken? Types, Modes, and Methods”. Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series 5. 247–261.Google Scholar
Grbić, Nadja & Michaela Wolf. 2012. “Common Ground in Translation and Interpreting (Studies)”. Handbook of Translation Studies ed. by Yves Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer, Volume 3, 193–202. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gresswell, Emilie. 2001. “How Applicable to BSL are Contemporary Approaches to Translation?”. Deaf Worlds 17:2. 50–62.Google Scholar
Griesel, Yvonne. 2007. Die Inszenierung als Translat. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Theaterübertitelung. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Translationshybride zwischen Theorie und Praxis”. Translation zwischen Text und Welt – Translationswissenschaft als historische Disziplin zwischen Moderne und Zukunft ed. by Hartwig Kalverkämper & Larisa Schippel, 139–153. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Hajek, Susanne. 2011. “DAS KLEINE ICH BIN ICH. Eine Analyse der Übersetzung des Bilderbuches in die Österreichische Gebärdensprache”. MA dissertation, University of Graz.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil & Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Ingram, Robert. 2000. “Foreword: Why Discourse Matters”. Innovative Practices for Teaching Sign Language Interpreters ed. by Cynthia Roy, ix–xvi. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Kade, Otto. 1968. Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Übersetzung. Leipzig: VEB.Google Scholar
. 1980. Die Sprachmittlung als gesellschaftliche Erscheinung und Gegenstand wissenschaftlicher Untersuchung. Leipzig: VEB.Google Scholar
Kemppainen, Erkki. 2011. “The Emergence of eAccessibility Policy and Legislation in Europe”. Everyday Technology for Independence and Care. AAATE 2011 ed. by Gert Jan Gelderblom, Mathijs Soede, Leon Adriaens & Klaus Miesenberger, 320–326. Amsterdam: IOS.Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga. 1998. “Explicitations”. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies ed. by Mona Baker, 80–84. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ladd, Paddy. 2003. Understanding Deaf Culture. In Search of Deafhood. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto & Sydney: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lane, Harlan. 1986. “On Language, Power, and the Deaf”. Interpreting: The Art of Cross Cultural Mediation. Proceedings of the 9th National Convention of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, July 4–8, 1985 ed. by Marina L. McIntire, 1–12. Silver Spring: RID.Google Scholar
. 1992. The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf Community. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Leitner, Barbara. 2008. “Menschen mit Beeinträchtigungen. Ergebnisse der Mikrozensus-Zusatzfragen im 4. Quartal 2007”. Statistische Nachrichten 12. 1132–1141.Google Scholar
Leneham, Marcel. 2005. “The Sign Language Interpreter as Translator: Challenging Traditional Definitions of Translation and Interpreting”. Deaf Worlds 21:1. 79–102.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Exploring Power and Ethnocentrism in Sign Language Translation”. Babel: Journal of the AFMLTA 41:3. 4–12.Google Scholar
Logo. n.d. Website Logo. [URL] (last viewed May 1, 2014).
Maas, Utz. 2004. “Geschriebene Sprache / Written Language”. Sociolinguistics / Soziolinguistik. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society / Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft ed. by Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Trudgill, vol. 4, 633–646. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Literat und orat. Grundbegriffe der Analyse geschriebener und gesprochener Sprache”. Grazer Linguistische Studien 73. 21–150.Google Scholar
Marschark, Marc, Harry G. Lang & John A. Albertini. 2002. Educating Deaf Students: From Research to Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Metzger, Melanie & Ben Bahan. 2001. “Discourse Analysis”. The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages ed. by Ceil Lucas, 112–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montoya, Louise A., Reginald Egnatovitch, Elizabeth Eckhardt, Marjorie Goldstein, Richard A. Goldstein & Annie G. Steinberg. 2004. “Translation Challenges and Strategies: The ASL Translation of a Computer-Based, Psychiatric Diagnostic Interview”. Sign Language Studies 4:4. 314–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Hagan, Minako & David Ashworth. 2002. Translation-Mediated Communication in a Digital World. Facing the Challenges of Globalization and Localization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Österreichisches Jüdisches Museum Eisenstadt. 2005–2014. “Impressum”. [URL] (last viewed May 1, 2014).
Pils, Manfred, Martina Ganglberger & Johann Höller. 2009. “Barrierefreiheit von Behörden. Websites – Anspruch und Realität”. Mensch und Computer 2009: Grenzenlos frei? ed. by Hartmut Wandke, Saskia Kain & Doreen Struve, 3–12. München: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
Salevsky, Heidemarie. 2009. “Über die Sprache hinaus. In memoriam Otto Kade”. Heidemarie Salevsky: Aspekte der Translation. Ausgewählte Beiträge zur Translation und Translationswissenschaft ed. by Ina Müller, 251–266. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford & Wien: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Servicecenter ÖGS barrierefrei. 2013. “Barrierefreies Web – HyperSign”. [URL] (last viewed May 1, 2014).
Stone, Christopher. 2007. “Deaf Translators/Interpreters Rendering Processes: The Translation of Oral Languages”. Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 1:1. 53–72.Google Scholar
Stone, Christopher & Bencie Woll. 2008. “Dumb O Jemmy and Others: Deaf People, Interpreters and the London Courts in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries”. Sign Language Studies 8:3. 226–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tate, Granville, Judith Collins & Peter Tymms. 2003. “Assessments Using BSL: Issues of Translation for Performance Indicators in Primary Schools”. Deaf Worlds 19:1. 6–35.Google Scholar
Taub, Sarah. 2001. Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trezek, Beverly J., Ye Wang & Peter V. Paul. 2011. “Processes and Components of Reading”. The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education ed. by Marc Marschark & Patricia Elizabeth Spencer, Volume 1, 99–115. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, Graham H. & Kyra Pollitt. 2002. “Community Interpreting Meets Literary Translation: English BSL Interpreting in the Theatre”. The Translator 8:1. 25–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
United Nations, Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2008–2012. Enable: Development and Human Rights for All. [URL] (last viewed December 17, 2012).
van der Hulst, Harry & Rachel Channon. 2010. “Notation Systems”. Sign Languages ed. by Dianne Brentari, 151–172. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1996. “Translation, Heterogeneity, Linguistics”. TTR 9:1. 91–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiener, Anna M. J. 2010. “Der Unterschied zwischen Dolmetschen und Übersetzen in der Gebärdensprache. Besonderheiten beim Übertragen schriftlicher Texte in die Österreichische Gebärdensprache – Eine Fallstudie”. MA dissertation, University of Graz.Google Scholar
2011. “Besonderheiten und Herausforderungen des Gebärdensprachübersetzens, dargestellt am Beispiel der Österreichischen Gebärdensprache”. Das Zeichen 25:89. 558–563.Google Scholar
Wurm, Svenja. 2010. “Translation across Modalities: The Practice of Translating Written Text into Recorded Signed Language. An Ethnographic Case Study”. Doctoral Dissertation, Heriot-Watt University, Department of Languages and Intercultural Studies. [URL] last viewed May 1, 2014).
. 2014. “Deconstructing Translation and Interpreting Prototypes: A Case of Written-to-Signed-Language Translation”. Translation Studies 7:3. 249–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar