Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/264631312
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
59
2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Ronice Mller de Quadros
Federal University of Santa Catarina
37 PUBLICATIONS 46 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
doi:10.1093/deafed/enu020
Advance Access publication August 6, 2014
Review of Literature
Current research and commentary on signed poetry
has focused primarily on the text, performance, and
significance of the poetry rather than the relationship
between signing deaf poets and their audiences. In this
section we contextualize our research within the current situation of sign language poetry and research into
it. We then review research on relationships between
poets and audiences in performances of oral poetry, as
settings that have more in common with signed performances than written poems, to see how they might
inform our preliminary investigations into signed
poetry. Especially we consider what makes poems difficult for audiences and readers of spoken language
poetry so that we can understand how sign language
poets perceive these difficulties and work withthem.
Context of SignedPoetry
Signed poetry is an art form gaining increasing recognition within Deaf communities and among hearing people who are not part of the Deaf community but who
appreciate the experience of this visual poetry (Bauman,
1998; Eddy, 2002; Souza, 2009 inter alia). It has been
hearing nonsigners views about spoken language interpretation of signed poetry, as they are consumers of the
product of interpretation (Janzen, 2005; Nilsson, 2010).
However, the signing poets are also consumers of interpretation. Until we understand what signing poets want
and intend, we cannot know how they can achieve their
intentions, including how best to interpret their poems
into spoken language.
We find that the poets see signed poetry as primarily a linguistic and cultural act for deaf audiences and
that they use a range of approaches to ensure deaf audiences understand the language used and the meaning
of the poem. However, we also see that hearing audiences may be part of the poetic act if they understand
sign language, although all hearing people (signers and
nonsigners) are expected to understand the content
differently from deaf audiences because of their different life experiences. For those hearing people who cannot sign, the poets express clear views of the culturally
appropriate ways to allow access to the poetry. In this
way, they may also learn to see the poet as the book.
548 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014
550 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014
ResearchMethod
Our Informants
In a field where there has hitherto been so little exploration, our study here draws upon information we
were given during interviews with three experienced,
widely respected signing deaf poets. All three have formally studied linguistic and literary analysis of signed
Our Approach
Our research is conducted within a qualitative paradigm that gives a voice to people. In this research, the
data collected take the form of words that can be analyzed and interpreted via a number of different means
(Braun & Clarke, 2013). We paid particular attention
to the way that the poets explained their work to us,
focusing on the form of the signs they used, as well as
the meaning as we translated them into English for the
purposes of reporting. As this is a small-scale inquiry
in an underexplored area, we do not simply report on a
set of facts but also aim to reveal the experience and
thoughts of the poets (Coleman & Briggs, 2002). We
conducted a member check (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)
with the poets, revisiting with them their comments,
and our interpretation of the comments so we hope
that our findings are trustworthy. Paul was shown an
advanced draft of our work in English (his written language) although he declined an offer to discuss it further in BSL. Fernanda and Cacau had the opportunity
to read it in Portuguese translation and we discussed it
in Libras with Fernanda.
Although we are always interested in instances
where all our informants agreed on a point, we also want
to see variety of opinion and experience that show the
552 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014
554 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014
there are many visual images they can see. We connect with what is expressed in the signs because the
audience and Iare the same First Itake the feelings and convert them [into poetry] and then Igive
them to the people in the audience. [The emotion] comes from language itself so that is where the
emotion comes from - from intently watching the
language as [the audience] take it into themselves. It
creates the emotion, because it is my language.
Maybe Iwould be criticizing interpreters or criticizing hearing people or any number of different things,
then a hearing person might think, ooh, thats my
mistake. Imade that mistake. Iam saying, No, you
didnt make that mistake but other people have made
that mistake and we have suffered because of it. Im
saying that you need to remember what it was like in
the past. Through history weve had suffer this and
this. And this makes them feel uncomfortable.
There is a paradox here that hearing people may only
be aware of this perspective in a signed poem because
the poem has interpretation to give them access to it.
The situation that Paul describes, of blurred boundaries between audience and poetic addressee is characteristic of performed poetry where, as (Novak 2012,
374)explains, the second-person function P2 (the
listener) is split in two in live poetry, which may create
an interesting relationship between the physically present audience (P2a) and a poems fictive addressee(s)
(P2b). It may make the hearing people in the audience
feel uncomfortable, but that is part of overcoming the
modal difficulties of the poetic performance.
As with Slam poetry, the signing poets are often
expected to reflect the experiences and outlook of the
group they represent. Again, the performance nature
of the signed poetry can blur the boundaries between
the poet, the performer, and the fictive speaker
(or poetic I). As Novak (2012, 367)has observed,
there is no conventionalized distinction between poetperformer and (fictive) speaker [] in live poetry.
Audiences may find it hard to distinguish between
the views of the poet and the fictive speaker. Paul also
showed how he aimed to produce collective views of
the Deaf community rather than simply his own view,
insisting although people might say Thats your view
its not my view, its a deaf view.
Interpreting
We saw above that the poets expect their deaf audiences to work at engaging with signed poetry. Having
made their own efforts to engage with written poetry
in a language that is not their own, the poets might
expect hearing people who wish to be involved with the
Deaf community to make a greater commitment to the
process than those who are merely the public. Paul
showed how signed poetry can be a motivating factor to
persuade hearing people to learn tosign:
I go into a book shop and take a book down, theres
no handy interpreter nearby to help me so Ihave to
force myself to read it even if Idont understand it.
So if Iam signing for a hearing audience they have
to learn it. So having an interpreter for themIts
like, Ihave learned written English for them so why
dont they learn to sign for me? Come On! Learn
it! Then you wont need an interpreter. Learn it
There are so many books in English all over the
place, everything in English for hearing people. Im
556 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014
Conclusions
Although the poets we talked to here have different
family backgrounds, national cultures, poetic styles and
are simply different people and poets, there are several
points that emerge clearly from what they have told us
about their aims and intentions.
Sign language poetry is a deaf cultural event where
poet, poem, and audience interact, creating a range of
potential difficulties that poets and audiences need to
work together to resolve. It occurs in a signing deaf
space, where the primary audience is hoped to be a
deaf one, effectingand building upona specific
cultural and linguistic connection between deaf people.
Understanding how the poets see this connection and
how they work with it can give us extensive insight into
what it means to be literate in sign language poetry. Deaf
poets welcome hearing audiences into this space, where
they can learn and enjoy the aesthetics and cultural
messages, and learn sign language. The poets expect
their audiences, deaf and hearing, to be entertained but
also to work with them to overcome contingent, tactical, and modal difficulties in order to understand the
deeper aspects of the poetry. Sign language interpreters,
have a specific task, as understood by the poets, to allow
the general public access to the poetry performances,
through explanation of the language and poetic structure, if not through full translation of thetexts.
We find that much of what these deaf poets told us
reflects what was described by Boudreau in relation to
minority-group community Slam poetry. The close community ties and the live embodied aspect of the signed performances show how the poet-audience expectations are
managed in similar ways. Further studies, perhaps of direct
comparison, could be conducted to explore thismore.
Ultimately, we can see that the signing poet is
indeed the book of signed poetry, containing a wealth
of cultural and linguistic work, that deaf and hearing
people, signers and nonsigners alike, can learn from
and delight in. The poets we interviewed provided
All the poets accepted there are times when an interpreter is necessary, and they also had clear views on
what the interpretation could provide. They agreed
that interpreting the whole poem during the performance would distract the audiences attention from
the visual performance and break the important bond
between poet and audience. Fernanda said that if they
want to voice-over to speak the whole thing - they
are free to do so but Iwill just warn them that they
are going to lose a lot if they do. Thus, an explanation
beforehand was greatly preferable. The explanation
could be about the meaning of the signs in the poem,
or of the significance of the signs in the poem, making the poem less tactically obscure, at least. Cultural
explanations were less of a priority. Cacau said: They
have the explanation before a translation of the poem
would not be the same - its impossible. They can have a
translation of the explanation and they will understand
it, thats all.
He pointed out that similar translation issues arise
with interpretation from spoken language into sign language: Its like when you read a Portuguese poem if a
hearing person translates that into sign language they
arent the same. Although he acknowledged having
had positive experiences of sign language interpretation of a spoken poetry performance, he could see the
limitations especially as he found himself focusing
entirely on the interpreter, not on thepoet.
Fernanda observed that all specialist forms of interpreting require interpreters to have specialist skills, and
poetry is no different. For Fernanda, the ideal interpreter might be a poet in his or her own right but also,
for preference, interpreters should be qualified interpreters with good signing skills, who have studied literature, stories, and poetry to give them the fluency
that comes from in-depth knowledge of metaphors and
aesthetics. In this way, the interpreter is able to reflect
the poets control the amount of difficulty experienced
by different audiences.
Paul suggested poets should work with interpreters
to train them in signed poetry. Cacau referred to the
fact that he already does this and Fernanda remarked
that she has a small pool of interpreters with whom she
works regularly so they were familiar with her work
Funding
Coordenao de Aperfeioamento de Pessoal de Nvel
Superior, Programa Professor Visitante do Exterior fellowship (BEX 17881/129) at the Federal University
of Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Conflicts of Interest
No conflicts of interest were reported.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the editors and anonymous reviewers
for their very helpful comments on previous drafts of
our work. We are especially grateful to the three poets
named in this article who gave us their time and insights.
References
Arenson, R., & Kretschmer, R. (2010). Teaching poetry:
Adescriptive case study of a poetry unit in a classroom of
urban deaf adolescents. American Annals of the Deaf, 155,
2, 110117.
Bahan, B. (2006). Face-to-face tradition in the American Deaf
Community. In H-D Bauman, J. L. Nelson, & H. M.
558 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:4 October 2014
Schallenberger, A. (2010). Ciberhumor nas comunidades surdas
[Cyberhumour in deaf communities] (Unpublished masters
dissertation). Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil: UFRGS Federal
University of Rio Grande do Sul.
Scott, P. (2010a). Macbeth of the Lost Ark. British Sign
Language poem. Retrieved from www.bristol.ac.uk/
bslpoetryanthology
Scott, P. (2010b). Two Books. British Sign Language poem.
Retrieved from www.bristol.ac.uk/bslpoetryanthology
Shetley, V. L. (1993). After the death of poetry: Poet and audience
in contemporary America. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Souza, S. X. (2009). Traduzibilidae potica na interface LibrasPortugus: Uns aspectos lingusticos e tradutrios com
base em Bandeira Brasileira de Pimenta (1999). [Poetic
translatability at the interface of Brazilian Sign Language
and Portuguese: Some linguistic and translatory aspects
based on The Brazilian Flag by Pimenta (1999)]. In R. M.
Quadros (Ed.), Estudos Surdos IV (pp. 310363). Petrpolis,
RJ: Arara Azul.
Sutton-Spence, R. (2012). Poetry. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach,
& B. Woll (Eds.), Sign language. An international handbook (HSK Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication
Science 37) (pp. 9981022). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Sutton-Spence, R. & Quadros, R. M. (2005). Sign Language
poetry and Deaf identity. Sign Language and Linguistics, 8,
175210. doi:10.1075/sll.8.1-2
Sutton-Spence, R., & Quadros, R. M. (2014). Performance
Potica em Sinais: o que a audincia precisa para entender
a poesia em sinais. [Poetic performance in sign languages:
what the audience needs to understand signed poetry]. In
M. Stumpf, R. M. Quadros, & T. A. Leite (Eds.), Estudos da
Lngua Brasileira de Sinais II (pp. 207228). Florianpolis,
SC: Insular.
Taub, S. (2001). Complex superposition of metaphors in an
ASL poem. In V. Dively, M. Metzger, S. Taub, & A-M.
Bauer (Eds.), Signed languages: Discoveries from international research (pp. 197230). Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Press.
Valli, C. (1993). Poetics of American sign language poetry
(Unpublished PhD dissertation). Union Institute Graduate
School.
West, D., & Sutton-Spence, R. (2012). Shared thinking processes with four deaf poets: Awindow on the creative in
Creative Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 12, 188
210. doi:10.1353/sls.2011.0023
Wilcox, P. (2000). Metaphor in American sign language.
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Ye, Y. (1996). Chinese poetic closure. New York, NY: Peter Lang.