Making Waves When You Dont Swear:

A Cross-Cultural Linguistic Study on

Profanity in South Carolina

Alton Brant and Kim Misener Dunn

Clemson University - Clemson, SC

Warning:
This presentation contains obscene
and offensive language that some
members of the audience may find
disturbing.

Agenda
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

Introductions (Roles of the Researchers)

Program Objectives
Statement of the Problem
Sensitive and Controversial Signs
Vision/Mission of the Study
Research Questions
Design, Reliability, and Validity of the Study
Procedures
Demographic Information Part I: Participants (Interpreters)
Demographic Information Part II: Participants (Deaf Community)
Take the Test
Compare your results
Discussion

Role of the Researchers

Introduction
1.

2.

Role of the Researcher - Brant

Role of the Researcher - Misener Dunn

Program Objectives
1.

Have the audience leave with a better understanding of the challenges

transliterating ASL obscenities to defined spoken word(s).

2.

Demonstrate the correct application of The Code of Ethics and practices

as applied to this ethical dilemma.

3.

Develop awareness of the challenges and various nuances of another

linguistic culture.

4.

Bring attention to the range of problems posed by the interpretation of

swearing and the different possibilities available for the interpreters in
order to cope with them.

Statement of the Problem

How did we get here?
Interpreters often have difficulty determining appropriate English translations
for selected signs in various sensitive situations.

How do Deaf clients expect interpreters to voice these signs?

Registry of Interpreter for the Deafs Code of Conduct
Section 2.3
Render the message faithfully by conveying the content and spirit of what is
being communicated, using language most readily understood by consumers,
and correcting errors discreetly and expeditiously.
In this study, many interpreters defined this expectation in a subjective rather
than objective fashion.

Sensitive and Controversial Signs

Sociolinguistic Perspective
Swearing is viewed as a type of linguistic behavior that society regards as
disrespectful, vulgar, and even offensive.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Obscenities
Vulgarities
Curses
Expletives
Profanities

Swearing reveals the signer/ speakers attitudes and feelings in a certain

setting.

Sensitive and Controversial Signs

(continued)
Interpreters Role in Swearing
The interpreters role interpreting any form of swearing is, however, quite a
complex task.
ASL swearing expression(s) have different possible translations in ASL.
What about spoken English language user to express in his/her own language?

Vision and Mission of the Study

Vision - The goal of this study is to bring light to a longstanding ethical
dilemma regarding the voicing of particularly sensitive or controversial
signs in ASL interpreting.

Mission - The study seeks to compare the opinions, attitudes, and

expectations of both parties involved (the Deaf client and the professional
interpreter) concerning these situations to gain a better understanding of
each perspective.

Research Questions
1. What is considered "ethical" in voicing for Deaf clients?
2. Why are some interpreters hesitant to express signed
profanity, vulgarity, or morally controversial content?
3. How do Deaf clients expect interpreters to voice these signs?

Design, Reliability and Validity

1.

A mixed methods

2.

45 day study period

3. The generalization of the data is strictly limited to areas sampled.

4. Survey sample was gathered and analyzing using 4 approaches:
i) data triangulation of geographical areas (interviews, observations)
ii) data source triangulation
iii) methodological triangulation (surveys)
iv) peer reviewers (Deaf and Interpreter)
5. Data were collected and analyzed using a Chi-Square distribution with 3
degrees of freedom and a significance level of .05.

Procedures
Instrument was created by ASL Creative Inquiry Class.
The survey consisted of 29 questions that covered demographics, survey
sent to the members of the Deaf Community and ASL interpreters in the
Upstate of South Carolina then electronically throughout areas of the
southeastern US.
Data were collected electronically.
Number (N) for this study was 159.
Meetings were held with two focus groups for interviews

Demographic Information: Interpreters

N=96 interpreters
Gender

84% female
16% male

Religion

67% considered themselves religious

35% considered themselves Protestant
31% were other religious denominations

Political Attitudes

47% were moderate

31% Liberal
22% Conservative

Demographic Information: Interpreters

(continued)
Deaf Members in the Family

61% of the interpreters had no deaf members in their family

Those who did have deaf members 52% had deaf parents

16% had deaf children

Interpreters - Professional Information

29% Bachelors degree, 25% Masters degree, and 20% Associates
degree
57% of the interpreters reporting were certified and 43% were not
certified
The most preferred method of signing is ASL at 68% then PSE at
32%
31% have been formally interpreting for 0-5 years, while 24% have
been for 21+ years
31% have been formally interpreting for 0-5 years, while 24% have
been for 21+ years (57%... Interpreting was their main income)

Demographic Information: Deaf Participants

N=63 Deaf participants
Gender

50% female
50% male

Religion

27% considered themselves religious

30% considered themselves Protestant
17% were Catholic

Political Attitudes

54% were moderate

24% Liberal
19% Conservative

Demographic Information: Deaf Participants (cont.)

Deaf Members in the Family

42% had no Deaf members

28% had Deaf parents
13% had Deaf siblings

Education Background

63% attended Residential School for the Deaf

37% mainstreamed

Post-Secondary Education

31% obtained Bachelors degree

30% received Masters
15% some college

Demographic Information: Deaf Participants (cont.)

Preference of Communication Mode

65% preferred ASL

25% associated with PSE

8% used other

Disclaimer
This is a legitimate study of language and culture concerning the
relationship between the deaf consumer and the interpreter.
Many of the signs used in this study are controversial and may be
offensive. If you choose to participate in this study, please remain
objective in your responses.
The content of this study does not reflect the values of Clemson University
or the research team.
All responses are anonymous and intended for educational purposes.
Treat each scenario as a paid, professional interpreter.

Lets Take the Test

Worksheet

Compare Results: Scenario # 1

A deaf individual is setting up for a formal presentation and signs this
statement to the audience.

Compare Results: Scenario # 2

A deaf student is in a classroom (public school setting) and signs to this
statement to the teacher.

Compare Results : Scenario # 3

A deaf client is in a counseling session and signs this to the therapist.

Compare Results : Scenario # 4

A deaf patient is in a medical setting and signs this to the physician.

Compare Results : Scenario # 5

A deaf person is in court testifying for another person and signs

Compare Results : Scenario # 6

A deaf person is calling through a relay operator to her mother and signs . . .

Compare Results : Scenario # 7

A deaf individual is at a family wedding party and toasts the couple signing.

Compare Results : Scenario # 8

A deaf person is preaching a sermon at a local church and signs . . .

Compare Results : Scenario # 9

A deaf patient is receiving mental health counseling and signs to the
therapist.

Compare Results : Scenario # 10

A deaf person is preaching a sermon at a local church and signs

Discussion
1. What is considered "ethical" in voicing for Deaf
clients?
2. Why are some interpreters hesitant to express signed
profanity, vulgarity, or morally controversial
content?
3. How do Deaf clients expect interpreters to voice
these signs?

Conclusion
Data clearly show discrepancies between
interpreters choice of words vs. Deaf
Communitys selection. (Objectivity?)
Data gathered suggest interpreters use a
great deal of latitude when voicing
controversial/sensitive signs in
professional settings.
(Was the spirit of the signer honored?)

 In only two instances did interpreters feel

comfortable voicing profanity in a public
setting (e.g., comedy routine and Sunday
school classroom).
Majority of deaf participants preferred a
more straightforward coarse interpretation.
Expectations are unclear with both
interpreters and members of the Deaf
Community

Contact Information
Kim Dunn Kmisene@Clemson.edu

Alton Brant Alton@Clemson.edu