Wink’s “Winkshops” (workshop) are presented nationwide. He has presented at numerous state, regional, national, and local conferences/agencies even online. Wink can be booked for the following Winkshops and can work with your organization to develop material and presentations that best suit your local community. Wink's workshops are designed for ASL Professionals and can be adapted for hearing and Deaf students.
(NEW) Beyond ‘Show, Don’t Tell’: Advanced Depiction Strategies for Interpreters
In the realm of communication, three primary modes are typically distinguished: description, or what is conventionally termed “telling”; indication, akin to “pointing”; and depiction, often equated with “showing” (Clark 2016). We use all three in daily interactions. However, sign language interpreters and interpreting students frequently receive feedback to "show, not tell," or to incorporate more “showing” into their renditions. This advice stems from a perception of how a Deaf person might convey the message, with more depictive features. This guidance invites a critical question: What exactly does depiction show? When asked, common responses such as "the meaning" or "the concept" remain imprecise and insufficient for operationalizing such feedback in professional practice. To meaningfully engage with this directive, we must move beyond intuitive notions of "meaning" and develop a nuanced understanding of conceptualization, as well as a framework for discussing it in actionable terms.
This workshop proposes that the conventional paradigm of “show, don’t tell” is increasingly inadequate for contemporary interpreting practice. Instead, I draw on Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 2008) to offer a more robust framework for interpreting depiction. This framework begins by recognizing that all three methods of communication are outputs of the mind, which operates through conceptualization. This dynamic process consists of two interconnected parts: content and construal.
In order to determine what to "show" in a given interpretation, we must first analyze the conceptual base underlying the content. Furthermore, we must examine the attentional mechanisms that direct focus within the conceptualization, called construal. Both content and construal shape the conceptualization and can be adjusted within any given depiction, allowing us to emphasize various supporting knowledge, different parts of the base, or an alternate construal.
The workshop will specifically focus on the depiction type known as Constructed Action, which has traditionally been defined as a signer’s depiction of a referent’s actions (Metzger 1995; Cormier et al. 2015). However, I will advance a more granular analysis based on my dissertation research at the Department of Linguistics, Gallaudet University, offering a revised definition grounded in the conceptual structure of Constructed Action. This refined approach distinguishes Constructed Action from other forms of depiction by foregrounding the distinct conceptual content being conveyed.
Moreover, I will introduce findings that Constructed Action can impose three distinct construals on different sets of content: the body, the action, and the broader scene structure. Each of these construals may vary in terms of scope, specificity, imagination, and prominence, building on Tannen’s (1986) assertion that such constructs are not witnessed reports of events but are instead constructed representations. This theoretical perspective provides further granularity in understanding how these depictions function within interpreted discourse.
By cultivating a more precise awareness of the conceptual content and construals involved in bodily depictions, interpreters will be better equipped to determine how to effectively render, “show”, such conceptualizations in their work. This refined framework offers practitioners a more sophisticated set of tools for analyzing, discussing, and implementing the depiction strategies that are frequently demanded within the profession.*Presented in ASL*
(NEW) Analyzing Meaning: A Cognitive Approach to Interpretation
Interpreters often aim to achieve equivalence between source and target languages, yet this task is far more complex than merely finding corresponding words or phrases. True equivalence requires a deeper understanding of how meaning is constructed (Wilcox & Shaffer, 2005; Rojo, 2013). Drawing on insights from Cognitive Linguistics, this workshop examines how meaning emerges not from words themselves, but from dynamic conceptual processes in the mind. This perspective shifts the focus from linguistic form to the mental representations and cognitive mechanisms that underlie language use. While this abstract offers a broad overview, the workshop will provide detailed definitions, examples, and practical applications of these concepts for interpreters.
At the heart of meaning construction is the process of conceptualization, where speakers and interpreters activate and organize mental representations based on their experiences, knowledge, and cultural background (Langacker, 2008). We will explore how conceptualization is influenced by domains of knowledge—mental categories that organize our experiences—and how these domains are interconnected in networks that shape our understanding of the world. These domains are not isolated but exist in hierarchical structures, where broader concepts encompass more specific ones, adding layers of meaning to linguistic expressions (ibid). For interpreters, understanding how these conceptual domains interact is crucial for accurately conveying meaning across languages and cultures.
A key component of this process is construal—the way in which speakers choose to frame or present a particular concept (Verhagen, 2007). Construal influences how meaning is shaped, as it determines what aspects of a concept are highlighted, backgrounded, or left implicit. This flexibility allows language users to present the same basic content in different ways, depending on context, perspective, and communicative goals. In interpreting, recognizing the construal in the source message and how it differs from or aligns with the target language’s potential construals becomes essential for achieving equivalence.
This workshop will delve into the cognitive processes behind meaning construction and assess when interpretations successfully capture both the content and the intended construal. We will also explore cases where the content may be preserved, but the construal shifts during interpretation, alters the meaning conveyed. By developing a more refined understanding of both content and construal, interpreters can make more informed decisions about how to approach equivalence at the conceptual level, thus narrowing the range of viable options in the target language.
The theoretical framework provided by Cognitive Linguistics offers interpreters a powerful tool for analyzing both source and target language meanings. By focusing on the cognitive foundations of language, interpreters will gain a clearer sense of how meaning is constructed, how it can shift between languages, and how they can manage these shifts to ensure that their interpretations are accurate and effective. This workshop will equip participants with the knowledge and skills to engage in a more nuanced and conceptually grounded analysis of meaning, ultimately improving their ability to achieve true equivalence in their work. *Presented in ASL*
(NEW) Depiction, what is it?
Have you ever been told to show more and tell less? Or that your use of space is amazing? Or has anyone asked you what “discourse mapping” is? Are there differences between a classifier and a depicting verb? All these questions are related to depiction. Depiction in linguistics is a cognitive phenomena that has observable manifestations that surround the body. However, the term depiction has an unspecialized colloquial definition in the field of interpreting that can lead to an oversimplified thinking about it and its cognitive underpinnings.
In this workshop, I will distinguish what depiction is for sign languages and spoken languages and provide a cursory introduction to the features that are considered depictive. We will also explore the notion of what depiction actually “shows” and what cognitive operations underpin it. We will then compare and contrast the linguistic notion of depiction with other terms that have attempted to classify the same phenomena. *Presented in ASL*
(NEW) How Accurate Are You? A Practice Guide
Accuracy is widely regarded as a core attribute of a competent interpreter. However, defining and measuring accuracy is far more complex than it may initially seem. This workshop delves into this topic by drawing on Cognitive Grammar (Langacker, 2008), specifically the concepts of content and construal, to provide interpreters with a more refined understanding of accuracy in interpretation. While accuracy is often assumed to be a straightforward replication of the source message, this workshop will challenge that assumption by exploring how different interpretations can be equally accurate yet diverge in their construal.
Cognitive Grammar offers a framework for understanding how language works at the conceptual level. In this context, content refers to the elements of meaning supplied by the discourse, while construal refers to the interpreter’s ability to present or “frame” that content in various ways. These two concepts reveal that interpretations can vary based on how the same content is construed. This workshop will not only provide a detailed overview of content and construal, but also demonstrate how these concepts can be applied to assess accuracy in interpretation.
The workshop begins by examining the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf’s (RID) notion of a Faithful Message (CPC 2.3). From there, we will illustrate how an interpretation can be rendered in multiple ways while still adhering to the source message’s content. This flexibility in construal is key to understanding why interpretations that may seem different on the surface can both be considered accurate.
A central focus of the workshop is the development of “content checks”—structured documents that help interpreters evaluate their accuracy based on the ideas present in the source text. Participants will learn how to identify key ideas in a source message and assess whether those ideas are accurately represented in the interpreted text. These content checks serve as a practical tool for interpreters to measure and reflect on their own work, moving beyond superficial judgments of accuracy and focusing on whether the core content has been faithfully conveyed, even if the construal differs.
The latter part of the workshop will be dedicated to hands-on practice with content checks to ensure comprehension of the tool. In addition, participants will be provided with five fully developed content checks, each corresponding to a source text, and will have the opportunity to apply these checks to their own interpretations at their leisure after the workshop. This practice session will enhance participants’ ability to evaluate their work more systematically and develop a deeper understanding of how content and construal interact to shape accuracy.
Through this workshop, interpreters will gain not only a theoretical framework for understanding accuracy but also practical tools to implement in their professional practice. By focusing on both content and construal, participants will leave with a more nuanced and effective approach to achieving and evaluating accuracy in interpretation. *Presented in ASL*
Redefining Expansion, A Critical Look
The meanings of words do not inherently reside within the words themselves, nor do they exist as pre-formed structures in the mind (Langacker, 2008). Instead, meaning is dynamically constructed during communication, created and interpreted as we engage in utterances. This presents particular challenges for interpreters and translators, who must render meaning between different languages. A key issue, which will be the focus of this workshop, is managing utterances with minimal forms and translating the corresponding conceptualization into another language—commonly referred to as "expanding the message."
The concept of Expansion, introduced by Lawrence (1995), has been widely adopted in sign language interpreting. However, the precise nature of what is being expanded remains unclear. Is it the linguistic forms, the semantic content, or the underlying conceptual structures? Furthermore, what Lawrence identifies as “expansion features” may be better understood as discourse features, given that monolingual users of ASL are not expanding their messages but rather employing the natural linguistic resources of their language. Lawrence herself notes that while ASL and English differ in form, they offer equivalent messages, with ASL utilizing spatial and visual features suited to its modality. Yet, the rationale for labeling these discourse features as “expansion” remains unresolved.
In Translation Studies, the term Explicitation refers to a translation technique in which the target text becomes more explicit than the source, often making implicit information more overt (Englund Dimitrova, 2005). However, the challenge lies in identifying what qualifies as implicit (Murtisari, 2016). Researchers typically look for forms in the target text that are not present in the source, but this approach often focuses more on surface-level changes than on underlying meaning. This form-centric focus in both translation and interpreting has led to the tendency to equate expansion with the mere addition of linguistic material, rather than considering changes in conceptualization. This emphasis on form, counting the number of “countable forms” added during translation, has shaped traditional accounts of expansion and explicitation.
This workshop will explore a more meaning-centered approach to managing situations where the source language does not explicitly state something yet still conveys a concept. The goal is to equip participants with tools to discern which aspects of the conceptual world can be carried into the target language and to evaluate whether this constitutes "expansion." Additionally, we will discuss how explicitation has become normalized as a near-universal strategy in both interpreting and translation.
Drawing on cognitive linguistics, this workshop will argue for a meaning-based understanding of expansion, which focuses on the content and construal of concepts evoked by language (Langacker, 2008; Halverson, 2007). By considering how conceptual meaning is construed differently in source and target languages, participants will gain a better understanding of shifts in meaning that do not necessarily expand the message but instead offer a different construal of the original meaning. *Presented in ASL*
Fingerspelling: Prescription vs. Description
This workshop challenges three common misconceptions surrounding fingerspelling, often held by both learners and primary users of the language alike. Rather than focusing on how to fingerspell—a skill you already possess—the session addresses these misunderstandings to foster a deeper appreciation of linguistic variation in signed language. The aim is to move interpreters beyond prescriptive norms and toward a more descriptive understanding of fingerspelling as it is authentically used.
The three misconceptions we will address are:
Letters are consistent in form, and deviations from the “dictionary” form constitute errors (e.g., the “screaming E,” where the fingertips do not touch the thumb but instead are held apart).
Letters are always presented with clear, distinct boundaries.
Fingerspelling is always directed toward the interpreter or observer.
These beliefs can lead to the false assumption that only non-native signers deviate from these prescribed/proscribed norms, implying that any variation is indicative of lesser language fluency. This kind of thinking not only upholds a prescriptive view of language, which can perpetuate linguistic oppression, but also limits interpreters’ ability to accurately recognize and interpret natural language variation. By confronting and debunking these misconceptions, this workshop encourages interpreters to embrace a more flexible and descriptive approach to language.
The session begins by laying the theoretical foundation for understanding the difference between prescriptivism, and descriptivism in language studies. Prescriptivism is often rooted in judgmental ideas of how language “should” be used, usually based on static, idealized forms rather than on how language is actually employed by the community. In contrast, descriptivism observes and analyzes real-world language patterns. In the context of fingerspelling, interpreters who adhere strictly to prescriptive rules may struggle when encountering natural variations in fingerspelled forms (Geer, 2016).
Using real-world data, I will demonstrate how many fingerspelled forms that are often deemed “incorrect” by prescriptive standards are, in fact, legitimate and widely used. For example, the so-called “screaming E” and other variations are not errors, but rather common patterns in authentic language use. Throughout the workshop, participants will engage with data-driven examples of these variations, learning to recognize fingerspelling forms that deviate from textbook standards but nonetheless convey the intended message with accuracy and fluency.
We will conclude by exploring other factors that can influence the readability of fingerspelled items, such as hand orientation and depicting. By adopting a descriptive framework, interpreters will be better equipped to recognize, analyze, and interpret fingerspelled forms as they occur naturally, thus improving their overall accuracy and adaptability in real-world settings. *Presented in ASL*
Modeling Visual Language in the Classroom
Educational interpreters are language models for Deaf students. For some Deaf students, their interpreter is their only language model for a signed language. This workshop will help you explore the meaning of being a ‘language model’ and how this modeling impacts students acquiring at least two languages within the school system, American Sign Language and English. The workshop then introduces concepts from cognitive linguistics to analyze how language provides access to knowledge structures through categorization and how each language provides a specific ways of viewing, or construing, that knowledge. With this foundation in place, you will then review and practice the depictive components of ASL. You will learn how each concept is used in the spoken language community, and then how the Deaf community has further specified and evolved these depictions into language and modality-specific units. After practicing these concepts, you will use real-world classroom stimuli to practice further entrenching these depictive techniques. One final goal in this workshop is to work toward becoming comfortable with using conventional depictive expressions in the ways, and with the frequency, that Deaf people do. *Presented in ASL*
Do we overuse nouns and pronouns in ASL?
Many spoken and signed languages do not produce a noun or a pronoun to refer to a referent during discourse. English does not do this, preferring to use explicit nouns or pronouns to refer to objects. This is clearly not required in many languages who drop their nouns or pronouns, otherwise known as a pro-drop language. Funnily enough, users of a pro-drop language who learn a second language that is also a pro-drop language will still use overuse nouns and pronouns. Also children who have Deaf parents have been observed to also overuse their pronouns in ASL whereas Deaf children with cochlear implants tend to not therefore we all would benefit from learning more about this topic. However, sign languages have additional features not yet observed in spoken languages that facilitate the ability to pro-drop. In this workshop, participants will learn the three contexts in which signers tend to pro-drop and what features signers tend to use that facilitates their use. *Presented in ASL*
Depiction in Interpreting, How and When?
Participants should be familiar with the following concepts, as only a refresher will be provided: constructed action, classifiers, partitioning, unrealized inceptives, and indicating verbs. This session bring these aspects together for working and aspiring interpreters. This workshop presents the view that English linguistic items and structures evoke conceptual content that can guide interpretation. Once we see these structures and how they symbolize meaning as they are derived from conceptualization, the depiction options narrow to a more suitable list. Construal will be of paramount importance and will be discussed at length with detailed attention given to cognitive semantics. For example, these four sentences evoke three different scenes:
The farmer caught the rabbit
The rabbit was caught by the former
The rabbit was caught
I saw the farmer catch the rabbit
All four of these structures can inform how we construct our interpretation. Simply examining the vantage point they provide can narrow the options of who to become (constructed action/surrogate). Examining these constructions in terms of passive vs. active voice can also guide our options.
When interpreters internalize how structures in language evoke not only conceptual content, but also a specific way of viewing said content (the construal), the method of depicting the construal will become more apparent. Workshop participants will first work sentence by sentence to examine structures in source messages, discuss the options to depict, and then reexamine all structures to constrict the available options in order to construct a truly equivalent target message. *Presented in ASL*
“Into” and “Enter” what is the difference? Examining Structures to Improve Conceptualization
Beyond their respective parts of speech, what are the differences between the words, “into” and “enter”? What about “Explode” and “Explosion”? These words have different conceptual meanings, in that your mind sees them differently. What can this do for us as language learners? Learning how your mind categorizes meaning and how meanings are manifested in language can change the way you look at language and the world. This workshop focuses on how your mind dynamically creates meaning and will selectively choose words and sentences that communicate your intention. Once we analyze this we can have a deeper understanding of our mind and languages. I am hoping that when we improve this skill, we can learn to articulate our conceptualizations in ASL more accurately. *Presented in ASL*
Name this! Learning and Identifying ASL and Linguistic Concepts Trivia Game
Come play a humorous game about ASL, linguistics, and the deaf community, in this interactive game format. Participants will be divided into teams, which will compete for points by providing the right answer to questions like: What does the mouth morpheme BRR mean? Does ASL have Be verbs? If you don’t know the answers to these questions, answers will be provided with demonstrations and examples. Be sure to pay attention as the same concept might reappear in a different question later in the game with even higher points at stake. Points may be redeemed for goods, services, and CEUs on the planet Eyeth *(transportation not provided by Wink)* *Presented in ASL*
Reframing Depiction: Construction Action, Dialogue, Surrogation and the like
Metzger (1995) observed in the early days of sign language linguistic research that, “there seems to be general agreement that signers use their body, head, and eye gaze to report the actions, thoughts, words, and expressions of characters within the discourse” (p. 256). However, these bodily actions didn’t come with a standardized name. Some called them gestures, pantomime, and role shifting, among other things. Metzger (1995) settled on the term constructed action due to Tannen’s 1986 typology of constructed actions and dialogues.
Constructed actions are the perceived actions that one attempts to recreate in space, however, they also may be fabricated actions from the signer’s mind. Nevertheless, the actions are construed in the signer’s mind for encoding using constructed action.
Dialogue is a type of constructed action, and surrogation is often used as a more general term for both. But does the body always report actions? Or is there another layer involved? This workshop is designed to demonstrate the body’s role in ASL depiction. In addition, useful techniques will be proposed to answer such questions as: who should be surrogated, what are the types of surrogation, and how does personification play a role?
Classifiers/Depicting Verbs reduced to three
How many classifiers/depicting verbs are there? Would you be surprised to know the list of classifiers can be simplified to only three different types? How do they work? What is going on in people’s minds when they use them? Will I ever learn how to use them!? Come and see a different approach to classifiers using a cognitive linguistics approach to understand the conceptual structures that give rise to classifier use in American Sign Language. Within this workshop focus will be given to Whole Entity constructions and how location, manner, and path are combined to construct depicting verbs. Instrument depicting verbs and Size and Shape Specifiers differ from whole entity depicting verbs. But how? One cognitive explanation can be found in what they foreground and what they background. How are these units stored in the lexicon and how are they made? In answering this question we will again turn to a cognitive explanation and will discuss one such proposal, the Analogue Building Model. In addition, we will study the body’s role with instrument classifiers constructions and how embodied experiences motivate these. Finally, we will also discuss how SaSS constructions also work with whole entity depicting verbs and how their progression through space illuminates how we perceive objects in the physical world. Analyzing how linguistic units and the conceptual perception of the world are related can help elucidate how and when to employ these items in our daily lives.
How to show and tell: Parsing, a new Practice model
Parsing is an innovative tool that gives interpreters and students a deliberate practice model to enhance their work. It forces users to break English form and to think critically about ASL when generating options for rendering an interpreted message in ASL.
Sign language interpreters seek message equivalency. The interpreter education landscape has historically focused on language acquisition, interpreting models, and other tools to assist second language users to become familiar with ASL grammar and provide techniques to provide message equivalency (Cokely, 1984. Lee, 1992). These sets of theoretical directions leave the user to make decisions without an explicit guide. The goal is to break the source message from its form and reconstruct the target message within the constraints of its linguistic system...but how?
When presented with a flowchart of guided questions, participants discover more effective and reproducible results in message comprehension and translation of the target language. This is parsing: to separate out and compartmentalize the message in order to unpack, understand, and practice English-to-ASL interpreting with detailed steps that utilize the interpreter’s abilities and knowledge of both languages.
This workshop will instruct participants on how to parse written English texts using a flowchart which will guide comprehension of the English text (and detachment from it) and provide structured choices for the target text. This deliberate practice provides the key to creating an internal framework for processed interpretation. With continued use and internalization of the process, participants will produce live work with more awareness and intentional choices for creating equivalent messages. *Presented in ASL*
Idioms! Do You See What I’m Saying?
English idioms can be an interpreter’s worst nightmare. However, idioms are a common form of expression, used with purpose. Interpreters are supposed to take a message and convey it with the speaker’s intent into a language most accessible to the receiver. If you revert to the receiver’s second language during the use of an idiom, the intention may be lost. Imagine interpreting the phrase, “there is more than one way to skin a cat.” When I was a kid, I signed that — almost verbatim — to my Deaf father. Let’s just say we spent an additional 15 minutes clearing up why the mechanic would want my dad to skin our cat. On the other hand, the intent can be lost when we try to convert the idiom to the lowest common denominator. An idiom is often used as a “period” to a sentence, which is part of the crucial information about that message that must come across to the receiver.
This workshop isn’t limited to only practicing these idioms. Rather, interpreting idioms becomes easier with a little theory to build these interpretations upon. This workshop demonstrates how to break down idioms by the meaning of the English expression, not by the individual words that are used. Participants will use the structures of both English and ASL to their benefit, as well as learn tools that will enable them to analyze these idioms and discuss best practices with regards to interpreting them. This will be accomplished by the use of dozens of samples, some of which have multiple meanings and various options for delivery. This workshop sets the groundwork for deconstructing English idioms in order to determine their core meaning and strategies to effectively interpret them into ASL concepts. *Presented in ASL*
Space Walk: Working Proposal for Tracking and using Depictive Space
Every one has been there: you set up a beautiful and visually clear scene, and are thrilled about your fantastic use of space. Then you want to introduce a new concept that doesn’t fit in your masterpiece. What do you do? How can you organize your space to make everything fit?
There is a tool that can help guide you to efficiently arrange visual concepts to make the most of your space: spatial frames. A major difference between English and ASL is that ASL uses space and kinetics in a 3-dimensional manifestation (Winston, 1995, 1996). The use of these spatial frames will help you to create a visual-spatial language. *Will even help interpreters*
Proper use of spatial frames allows for clearer depiction of comparisons and complex relationships. Instead of merely using body shifting or static listings which can limit detail or expansion, spatial frames allow creation of visual images with extensive detail without cluttering the visual field. They even have the flexibility to build ancillary spatial frames for additional information.
For example: An individual describes three houses he is considering buying. In the course of discussion, he lists details such as the locations of the houses, what each house looks like, and the pros and cons of each house. Creating three distinct spatial frames provides generous space for descriptive detail and allows for additions if the speaker retroactively adds them in future utterances. Likewise, if he includes contrasts, additional frames may be necessary.
This workshop introduces the concept of space frames with real world application on how to create and then transition between frames. Participants practice spatial techniques and guidelines to enhance their language use, applying a practical rubric to organize their thoughts and make the best use of their space. *Presented in ASL*
Deliberate practice, how?
What does it take to become an expert? The journey to being an expert brings practitioners to conferences, workshops, webinars, and mentoring to learn from peers who have devoted hours of research and constructed presentations to provide tools that can be taken home. However, passively listening to a lecture, reading a skill development book, and watching vlogs will not transform that practitioner into an expert, nor will working eighty hours a week. The key is to incorporate deliberate practice by identifying a goal that can be narrowed to the smallest unit of skill, and to practice that skill unit until it is mastered. After exhausting all possible ways of wringing learning from the practice, the next skill unit can be identified and practiced.
Researchers Simon & Chase (1973) point out that it can take up to a decade of deliberate practice to obtain this desired level of expertise. This workshop brings research from Simon and Chase, Ericsson, and Bloom to sign language interpreters to forever dispel the myth that mastery is unattainable. Diving into these researchers’ work has given Wink the resources needed to define how to create individualized deliberate practice regimens. He will discuss and model how to accomplish this.
Some may assume that fingerspelling is such a ubiquitous aspect of ASL that they have no more to learn about it. However, deliberate practice and research helps one gain a deeper understanding by way of breaking down this broad topic into distinct categorizations of lexical fingerspelling, and the functions of fingerspelling in conversational repair. Deliberate practice and research helps one gain a deeper understanding of the process. Likewise, more experienced interpreters may want to hone their non-manual signals (NMS). Ericsson's research (2006) shows that deliberate practice is not simply practicing things you already know. Instead, it requires digging deeper and learning the differences between lexicalized mouth morphemes (PAH, AF- FO) and modifiers (BRRR, SAO) as well as exploring the layers and grammatical complexity that fall under the umbrella of NMS (Bridges & Metzger, 1996).
This workshop breaks down how participants can analyze and identify their own goals for practice, demonstrates how to deliberately practice discrete linguistic aspects, and provides an opportunity to begin this process. *Presented in ASL*
Make the English Tangible in ASL
Have you ever received feedback that you should “show” more, and “tell” less? This is excellent advice, but a bit hard to follow without further explanation. Picture a train...What do you see? Now ask a friend to picture a train and have them explain or draw what they first saw. Is it the same image you had? Most likely not. Everyone, regardless of culture and language, pictures things differently in their heads. These variations in mental “seeing,” or construal, help account for the wide range of communication and language use we encounter every day.
This workshop applies visual-spatial techniques in order to better produce visual language. ASL has more than simple lexical signs and fingerspelling, which make up the “tell” options. Some of the “show” options come in the form of depiction. Depiction is a topic that has made quite a stir among researchers in ASL linguistics. It includes depicting verbs, surrogation, partitioning, blending, affect, mouth morphemes, other non-manual signals, and networking. Using these aspects of ASL, interpreters can create clear and powerful ASL messages that create a bridge between consumers.
When we see how Deaf people developed ASL, and how it has evolved into the complex language it is today, we see much of that was due to their subjective knowledge and experiences. This workshop encourages participants to think about the objects and required actions in a sentence in order to formulate an ASL concept based on their experiential views of the world, and do so without imposing their own biases. This framework takes English and makes it tangible in ASL. *Presented in ASL*
Blockbuster: Cinematic ASL
Have you ever seen an ASL story performance and thought, "That's like watching a movie!"? Television and film use certain conventions (often referred to as their "grammar") when recording and editing audiovisual media. ASL literature has been found to use the same types of conventions by ASL writers (Krentz, 2006. Bauman, 2006.) This workshop examines the parallels between cinematic techniques and ASL grammar conventions such as use of space, depiction, sign modification, and facial affect (Wink, 2011).
A common misconception is that Cinematic ASL is only used by ASL performers, so is only appropriate for theatrical interpreting. This is simply not true. Cinematic ASL techniques are used by native signers in a myriad of settings, and have numerous applications for interpreting: when discussing anatomy, conducting an interview in a legal setting, teaching history, or telling a story. One benefit in studying these techniques observed by past participants is the variety of options that this workshop presents. ASL messages can be composed of so much more than a few rote approaches.
Cinematic techniques used by the Deaf community in storytelling and conversation will enhance interpreters’ work as well. Incorporating these techniques and ASL grammatical features supports linguistic integrity in interpreted messages. If someone wants to create captivating “blockbuster” of ASL literature or stunning visual interpreting work, they must be aware of and practice these conventions.
In addition to learning how to produce such concepts expressively, it is imperative interpreters are able to recognize them receptively. ASL signers, including performers, commonly use techniques such as long shots, close ups, and panning shots to show action in ASL narratives. Once interpreters recognize cinematic techniques in action, they must also be able to deduce their intended function and purpose within the interaction. Without catching the cinematic action, an interpreter can misunderstand the interaction between referents, creating miscues.
This workshop includes some of the most important conventions for conveying meaning through particular camera and editing techniques (as well as some of the specialized vocabulary of film production) which relate directly to ASL’s use of space, depiction, eye gaze, and other parts of ASL grammar commonly employed by native ASL users. *Presented in ASL*
Layers: The Interdisciplinary Study of Animation and ASL
The field of American Sign Language linguistic has looked to other fields to enhance our understanding of various attributes of ASL. This interdisciplinary approach helps interpreters broaden their knowledge of and their outlook on ASL, allowing them to incorporate various tools into their products. Wink has studied the field of cartoon animation and computer generated images to find application for sign language interpreters. The process that animators go through to create their work of art is strikingly similar to how ASL images can be created and depicted.
Additionally, the practice that animators employ to enhance their skills can be applied to deliberate practice for interpreters. Animators often spend hours studying how objects work, move, look, and are expressed in order to deliver life-like attributes through a lifeless medium. If interpreters study these same techniques, they can see their work through the lens of an an animator rather than the headset of a sound technician. They can then expand their options to produce visually equivalent messages.
One of the greatest hurdles for interpreters is building depiction. Following the concepts of animation, we find that they build objects in layers. This process allows animators to build the object section by section to give it a more 3D appearance, and to simplify and organize the construction process. Once interpreters realize they have the ability to build the depiction with layers, they often find brilliant and innovative ways to produce the object, and the process becomes much more manageable.
Interpreters can draw on these animation principles to create visual images and to organize their thoughts. By applying techniques found in the animation text book “Animation, The Whole Story.” (Beckerman, 2012) augmented with examples from film, ASL performers, and interpreting material, this workshop provides interpreters with useful application and deliberate practice. *Presented in ASL*
Partition Zones: Show 6 Entities at the Same Time
Interpreters sometimes wish for an additional hand or the ability to summon a twin to complete a concept. Unfortunately, we currently do not have the technology or the magic to accomplish this. We therefore must rely on peer-reviewed linguistics.
The above wish can also be applied to showing two distinct concepts in tandem. “I walked into the room and everyone was starring at me!” can be produced as two separate concepts in isolation with role shifting and narration, but they can also be produced in a simultaneous display with the use of partitioning. ASL linguists have identified partitioning as designating a section of your space to represent another entity. This technique, native to ASL grammar, can help signers to better produce what is so clear in their mental landscape.
ASL linguist and chair of Gallaudet’s linguistics department, Paul Dudis, says in a 2004 paper, “Partitioning zones... their existence allows for the creative potential of signers during creation of real space blends.” We see how surrogating and then blending with other depiction techniques can crystalize the message. This workshop covers partitioning in various ways: manual articulators as partitionable zones, scales of blends, how onomatopoeias coincide with blends, and how non-manual signals can be partitioned. *Presented in ASL*