Interpreted discourse: Learning and recognizing what interpreters do in interaction

Advances in Teaching Sign Language Interpreters

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 100-122

  Metzger, Melanie ^a  

^a GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861710068     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (37)

1. Angelleli, C. 2001. Deconstructing the invisible interpreter: A critical study of the interpersonal role of the interpreter in a cross-cultural/ linguistic communicative event. Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
2. Angelleli, C. 2003. The visible co-participant: Interpreter's role in doctor/patient encounters. In From topic boundaries to omission: New research in interpretation, ed. M. Metzger, S. Collins, V. Dively, and R. Shaw. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
3. Baer, A. M. 1991. Tactility in the Deaf community. Paper presented at the Gallaudet University Department of Sign Communication Lecture Series. Washington, D.C.
4. Baker, C. 1977. Regulators and turn-taking in American Sign Language. In On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language, ed. L. Friedman, 215-36. New York: Academic Press.
5. Chen, C. 1993. Attention getting strategies used by a Deaf adult with Deaf children. In Gallaudet University communication forum, vol. 2, ed. E. Winston, 11-19. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University School of Communication Student Forum.
6. Cokely, D. 1992. Interpretation: A sociolinguistic model. Sign Language Dissertation Series. Burtonsville, Md.: Linstok Press.
7. Cokely, D. 2003. Curriculum revision in the twenty-first century: Northeastern's experience. Project TIEM Online Roundtable Discussion. (Also see chapter 1 in this volume.).
8. Colonomos, B. 1995. How do we construct meaning (the message)? Unpublished ms. Greenbelt, Md.: The Bilingual Mediation Center.
9. Ferrara, K., and B. Bell. 1995. Sociolinguistic variation and discourse function of constructed dialogue introducers: The case of be + like. American Speech 70:265-90.
10. Fitz Patrick, T. 1993. Attention getting strategies used by a Deaf adult with deaf children. In Gallaudet University communication forum, vol. 2, ed. E. Winston, 37-50. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University School of Communication Student Forum.
11. Fleetwood, E., and M. Metzger. 1990. Cued Speech transliteration: Theory and application. Silver Spring, Md.: Calliope Press.
12. Gile, D. 1995. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13. Gish, S. 1987. I understood all the words, but I missed the point: A goalto- detail/detail-to-goal strategy for text analysis. In New dimensions in interpreter education: Curriculum and instruction, ed. M. McIntire. N.p.: Conference of Interpreter Trainers.
14. Liddell, S. K., and M. Metzger. 1998. Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30 (6): 657-97.
15. Mather, S. 1990. Home and classroom communication. In Educational and developmental aspects of deafness, ed. D. Moores and K. Meadow-Orleans, 232-54. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
16. Mather, S. 1994. Adult-Deaf toddler discourse. In Post-Milan-ASL and English literacy: Issues, trends, and research, ed. B. D. Snider, 283-97. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University College for Continuing Education.
17. Metzger, M. 1995a. The paradox of neutrality: A comparison of interpreters' goals with the realities of interactive discourse. Ph.D. diss., Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
18. Metzger, M. 1995b. Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, ed. C. Lucas, 255-71. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
19. Metzger, M. 1999. Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
20. Metzger, M. 2000. Interactive role-plays as a teaching strategy. In Innovative practices for teaching sign language interpreters, ed. C. Roy. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
21. Metzger, M., E. Fleetwood, and S. Collins. 2004. Discourse genre and linguistic mode: Interpreter influences in visual and tactile interpreted interaction. Sign Language Studies 4 (2):118-37.
22. Roy, C. 1989a. A sociolinguistic analysis of the interpreter's role in the turn exchanges of an interpreted event. Ph.D. diss., Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
23. Roy, C. 1989b. Features of discourse in an American Sign Language lecture. In The sociolinguistics of the Deaf community, ed. C. Lucas, 231-51. San Diego: Academic Press.
24. Roy, C 2000a. Interpreting as a discourse process. New York: Oxford University Press.
25. Roy, C, ed. 2000b. Innovative practices for teaching sign language interpreters. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
26. Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking in conversation. Language 50:696-735.
27. Sanheim, L. 2003. Turn exchange in an interpreted medical encounter. In From topic boundaries to omission: New research in interpretation, ed. M. Metzger, S. Collins, V. Dively, and R. Shaw. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
28. Schegloff, E. 1972. Sequencing in conversational openings. In Directions in sociolinguistics, ed. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, 346-80. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
29. Schegloff, E., and H. Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7: 289-327.
30. Seleskovitch, D. 1998. Interpreting for international conferences. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: RID.
31. Simmel, G. 1950. Quantitative aspects of the group. In The sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
32. Tannen, D. 1984. Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
33. Valli, C., and C. Lucas. 2000. Linguistics of American Sign Language: An introduction. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
34. Wadensjö, C. 1992. Interpreting as interaction: On dialogue interpreting in immigration hearings and medical encounters. Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences. Stockholm, Sweden: Linköping University.
35. Wadensjö, C. 1998. Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.
36. Winston, E. A. 1991. Spatial referencing and cohesion in an American Sign Language text. Sign Language Studies 73:397-410.
37. Winston, E. A. 1992. Space and involvement in an American Sign Language lecture. In Expanding horizons: Proceedings of the 12th national Convention of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, ed. J. Plant-Moeller, 93-105. Silver Spring, Md.: RID Publications.