Capstone Research Project, Spring 2022 Jeremy Harris Elevator Speech A primary interest of mine, consistently so, regards the nature of human languages and how they relate to the minds that use those languages. This interest has been compounded since my exposure to the reality of signed languages, and how they operate. Given that these signed languages are, in fact, languages, I wish to explore the most pertinent differences between them and their spoken counterparts. I will direct my comparison towards the two-dimensionality of spoken language with the three-dimensionality of signed language. If spoken languages are photographs of the mind, then signed languages must be videos, replete with much more obvious insights. The challenges that interpreters are faced with as a result of this contrast are manifold. These may include (but are not limited to) interpreting prepositions into the systems of classifiers that permeate most, if not all, signed languages. These sorts of predicate structures typically will match very well with the scene or activity that is meant to be described, in a very real way. This also relates to the fascinating concept of iconicity versus arbitrariness in human languages, or whether or not the language’s symbols look like their referents. The insights that I will explore in this project come from within a more-recent paradigm within the science of language, or linguistics. This has been called the Cognitive Linguistics Enterprise. It is my belief that this paradigm shift can and will benefit both current and future interpreters who work between the signed and spoken modalities. Rough (Very Rough) Outline 1) Introduction a) State the topic, purpose and scope of the paper 2) Difficulty for Non-native ASL Interpreters a) Spoken Language vs. Signed Language [brief] i) How are they the same? ii) How are they different? b) Linear Words vs. Three-dimensional Signs i) Examples: (1) Prepositions / Classifiers (2) TBD 3) Linguistics and Translation/Interpreting (T/I) a) History i) Contention between the fields b) TBD 4) Cognitive Linguistics and T/I a) History: A New Paradigm b) TBD 5) Benefits for Interpreters a) Considerations of Cognitive Linguistics i) Conceptual Metaphor Theory ii) Iconicity / Depiction iii) “Encyclopedic View of Meaning” b) TBD 6) Conclusion a) Restate the topic, purpose and scope of the paper b) Bring it all together c) Optimism towards the future of the interpreting field Preliminary Bibliography Baker-Shenk, Charlotte, and Dennis Cokely. American Sign Language: A Teacher’s Resource Text on Grammar and Culture. Washington, D.C. Clerc Books, 2002. Hanić, Jasmina, et al. “Translating Emotion-Related Metaphors: A Cognitive Approach.” ExELL, vol. 4, no. 2, Dec. 2016, pp. 87–101, https://doi.org/10.1515/exell-2017-0008. Healy, Christina. “Construal of Content.” Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association, vol. 13, no. 1, Mar. 2018, pp. 27–48, https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00003.hea. Hwang, So-One, et al. “Of the Body and the Hands: Patterned Iconicity for Semantic Categories.” Language and Cognition, vol. 9, no. 4, Nov. 2016, pp. 573–602, https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.28. Janzen, Terry. “Interpretation and Language Use.” Topics in Signed Language Interpreting, John Benjamins Publishing Co., 2005, pp. 69–105. Johnson, Mark. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago University Of Chicago Press, 2009. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, Ill. University Of Chicago Press, 1980. Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, The Univ. Of Chicago Press, 1987. Larson, Mildred L. Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence. Univ. Press of America, 1998. Montello, Daniel R., et al. “Enhancement of Spatial Processing in Sign-Language Users.” Space in Mind: Concepts for Spatial Learning and Education, Mit Press, 2014, pp. 159–172. Rojo, Ana, et al. Cognitive Linguistics and Translation Advances in Some Theoretical Models and Applications. Berlin De Gruyter Mouton, 2016. Taub, Sarah F. Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press, 2010. Wilcox, Sherman, and Barbara Shaffer. “Towards a Cognitive Model of Interpreting.” Topics in Signed Language Interpreting, John Benjamins Publishing Co., 2005, pp. 27–50. Wilcox, Sherman. “Cognitive Iconicity: Conceptual Spaces, Meaning, and Gesture in Signed Language.” Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 15, no. 2, Jan. 2004, https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.005.
