The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity - Chapter 14 Summary

Edited by Jordan Zlatev, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha, and Esa Itkonen.
Part of the series "Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research" (Volume 12).
Published by John Benjamins Publishing Company.
ISBN: 978 90 272 3900 6.

Introducing an interpreter into a discourse event alters the interaction.
The interpreter's interpretation is influenced by their assumptions about shared and non-shared knowledge between interlocutors.
Connection to American Sign Language (ASL)-English interpreters: The concept of "expansions" seen as grammatically required in ASL may not accurately represent intersubjectivity.
Importance of contextualization in ensuring accurate representation of interlocutors' minds during discourse.

John Du Bois (2003): "Conversation is highly contextualized, filled with subtle cues at all levels marking the relation of utterances to contexts of prior discourse…"

Discourse incorporates both known and new information hence it is crucial to balance both in communication.
Discourse becomes co-constructed as no two speakers share exactly the same experiential backgrounds.
Reference to Per Linell (1995): The intersubjective relationship is a continuous, collective process of mutual understanding.

The dynamics of interpreting discourse are inherently face-to-face.
The interpreter's understanding does not always align with that of the primary interlocutors, complicating discourse management.
Contextualization is essential for coherent interactions whether language sharing exists or not.

Interpreters face challenges due to variations in knowledge bases, experiences, and language training.
Misrepresentations arise when interpreters misunderstand unique ASL discourse strategies that require contextualization rather than fixed grammatical formulations.

Lawrence (1995) classifies expansions in ASL such as contrasting, faceting, reiteration, etc., suggesting they are grammatical requirements.
The discussion critiques the rigid application of these expansions as grammatical mandates instead of recognizing them as strategic discourse maneuvers.

Example provided:
- English: "Lenin's tomb is austere."
- ASL: "LENIN GRAVE PLAIN. FANCY // NOT." (Implying a contrasting statement)

Clarifying information to ensure comprehension.
- Example: Understanding 'allergy' through a detailed ASL description which serves to contextualize the term for clarity.

Interpreters often assume expansions are part of ASL grammar, thus leading to an obligatory application, which can distort communicative functions.
The need to align more closely with pragmatics and discourse strategies rather than assuming grammatical uniformity across languages.

The significance of pragmatics in interpreting involves ensuring that messages co-constructed consider the contextualized knowledge of discourse participants.
Gumperz (1982) discusses the critical role of contextualization cues in maintaining communicative cooperation.

Interpreters face a dual role—mediating between two languages while constructing their own intersubjective connections with each participant.
The choice to contextualize or not impacts the coherence and perceived meaning of the message delivered.

Effective interpretation requires a deliberate approach to balancing fondness for grammatical requirements with attentive sensitivity to the situational context and shared knowledge.
The interpreter’s role necessitates an awareness of how their linguistic choices can influence the relationship and interaction of the primary interlocutors, highlighting the complexity of language use and intersubjectivity in interpreted discourse.