Corpus Size

Whilst the aim of the study is to develop an analytical framework that in the future may be used to assess a wider corpus of theatre renditions, the testing of the analytical framework provides an opportunity to identify patterns of interpreter activity that may emerge from the data, which, in turn, may suggest particular approaches to task.

The approach taken was to use triangulated data gathered from public BSL language interpreted performances and their respective renditions; data triangulation is the collection of data from different sources, which may also include collection of data at different times and in different locations (Flick, 2002). The comparison of data collected in this manner attempts to determine a reliable basis for inference (Hammersley, 2008), and is considered to provide rich, robust and comprehensive results (Wilson, 2014; Fusch and Ness, 2015;

Denzin, 2017:301; Flick, 2018:192).

My initial intention was to have three interpreters interpret the same piece of theatre. I’m aware that this approach would have offered the opportunity to make interesting comparisons of interpretations of the same text, however, it was not feasible since theatres typically only interpret one performance per production. The practicalities of getting an agreement from one theatre to provide three interpreted performances of the same production, each with a different interpreter, and the co-ordination of those events and interpreters would be too complex and time consuming, and it would also be prohibitively costly since the interpreters would all have to be paid for their time and effort. I also feel that the value of the study of publicly advertised interpreted

performances in a genuine context, outweighs the elegance of the experimental conditions described above that would not happen in life.

Having more than one interpreted play allows the framework to be tested not only on a broader variety of approaches, but also on a broader variety of texts.

As mentioned earlier, the primary purpose of the study is to create an analytical framework, and the current corpus provides a sufficient range of features to enable its design and testing, with the potential to provide an opportunity to identify patterns of interpreter activity that may emerge from the data.

The features that I want to capture are introduced in the research questions, and specified here:

• The presence or absence of the interpreter giving focus to the stage during sections of salient scenic or mimetic activity.

• The demonstration of characters’ orientations and directions of address through role shift.

• In character perspective, replicating of the topographical construction of the performance space in the rendition.

A corpus of sufficient size is necessary to test the validity of the framework. It is pertinent at this juncture to acknowledge the on-going debate in relation to corpus sizes, and what is deemed a suitable size; from Sinclair’s (2004:189) view ‘there is no virtue in being small…it is simply a limitation’ to Ooi’s

(2001:179) position ‘the optimal size can be reached only when the collection of more texts does not shed more light on its lexicogrammatical or discourse patterning.’

Ooi’s positioning also raises the issue of data saturation, ‘when the ability to obtain additional new information has been attained’ (Fusch and Ness,

2015:1408; see also Guest et al., 2006). Whilst it is outside scope of this study to strictly define data saturation - Fusch and Ness (2015:1409) state ‘there is no one-size-fits-all [their italics] method to reach data saturation’ - the key is in the richness of the data (Morse, 1995; Coffey and Atkinson, 1996; Cutcliffe and McKenna, 2002) and frequency of the features in the corpus studied. As Norris (2011) observes, in the multimodal analysis of social interactions the ‘modes’ of proxemics, posture and directionality are always present, and spoken language and gesture ‘are used profusely’ (Norris, 2011:133). She continues to note that other nonverbal modes such as layout and ambient sound are also present in

the modal ensemble and move in and out of focus depending on the needs of the communication.

The features of the fictional dramatic interactions (orientation, direction of address and the referencing of entities present in the immediate dramatic context) that the study aims to identify and investigate are, similarly, present and, to borrow from Norris, used profusely throughout the performance. In terms if the work of the theatre interpreter, we anticipate that she will either be rendering the spoken text through role shift, or providing the audience with the opportunity to look to the stage, also throughout the performance.

The study is focused on a small specialised corpus, of a specific event, the sign language interpreted theatre performance; ‘even a very small specialised corpus may provide more plentiful documentation of many features of that type than can a larger general one’ (Aston, 1997:no page). As Koester (2010:67) explains specialised corpora have a distinct advantage ‘through having a close link to the context in which they are produced’, and can give insights into patterns of ‘language use in particular settings’. Anthony (2013:146) states:

‘The value of a corpus is clearly dependent not on its size but on what kind of information we can extract from it. Therein lies the importance of corpus tools;

we need to have tools that can provide us with the information that we desire.’

3.2.4.1 Corpus collection

As mentioned in the previous section, the corpus is drawn from publicly

advertised interpreted performances. Searches of national theatre websites for BSL interpreted performances were undertaken to identify those performances within the coming two seasons of productions, and 17 were found within reasonable travelling distance and timescale. I contacted the theatres to request the names of the BSL interpreters of the particular performances, 4 of which did not know or did not respond. With the list of names of the remaining 13 qualified interpreters, I contacted each of them through the NRCPD

[National Registers for Communication Professionals working with Deaf and

Deafblind People], explaining the research, and asking them if they would like to be involved. I also personally asked 5 qualified colleagues who interpret theatre if they would be happy to be involved in the research.

Of the 18 interpreters in total, 5 interpreters responded positively. I sent them a letter requesting informed consent, and obtained consent from all 5

interpreters. I also sent them a letter of introduction, explaining the purpose of the study and filming, and asked them to make the first approach to the

respective theatres. All 5 interpreters obtained agreements from the respective theatre venues to go ahead. All of the venues were in England, three in the North West, one in the North East, and one in the East Midlands.

I contacted the theatre venues personally to introduce myself, explain the study further, confirm requirements and to request agreement and clearance to film from the company and performers. Four of the five companies agreed to the filming on the night of the interpreted performance; it was not possible to film at one venue due to the refusal of one of the actors. A further interpreted performance was cancelled due to actor illness and was not rescheduled.

Therefore three interpreted performances were filmed, two in the North West, and one in the East Midlands. The performances recorded were from

productions of Goodnight Mister Tom, adapted for the stage by David Wood;

Gravity by Arzhang Luke Pezhman; and Blackberry Trout Face by Laurence Wilson.

I initially considered outsourcing the filming, however it was not possible to pursue this for practical and logistical reasons. The future replicating of the experiment, however, does not preclude outsourcing of filming, as long as specifications for making the recording are established. At each performance, two cameras were rigged at the back of the auditorium, behind the audience to film the stage and interpreter separately. The camera filming the stage was positioned centrally and end on, to take in the widest shot possible of the performance area, and the camera filming the interpreter filming was also positioned end on. Filming both stage and interpreter end on allows easier comparison of the construction of space in the performance and in the

interpreter’s rendition. These six films, three of the performances and three of their respective interpretations, comprise the corpus.

Other studies investigating the multimodality of performance have raised the issue that the act of videoing a theatrical performance:

is necessarily already an interpretation of that performance:

it involves choice of what to record, what position to record from, what point of view (in both senses of that term) to adopt, and the video recordings in the creation of a new artifact.

(McAuley, 2007:187)

Whilst McAuley is justified in taking the position that the permanent recording of a live unrepeatable event creates a new artefact (see also Espasa 2012:317) this investigation is not to establish the ‘meaning’ of a text - ultimately that is for the spectator to decide - but to test the design and validity of an analytical framework. Making fixed recordings of the specific interpreted performance and its simultaneous rendition is the only way the analysis can be made tractable.

My presence at the recording of each of the interpreted performances will have had some influence on my knowledge of each prior to annotating the selected sections of the corpus. Indeed, while making the recordings, I observed that one rendition did seem overly busy with little opportunity for the audience to look to the stage, while the other two allowed the spectator the opportunity to witness stage activity much more often, and none displayed any regular occurrences of substantial time lag in the rendition; this last note is in contrast to prior observations (see 1.3.4). I have, however, taken measures to mitigate this potential subjectivity, as noted in 3.4 and 3.5, and the annotation scheme facilitates a detailed empirical analysis, revealing a much more nuanced picture than maybe gleaned from simply watching the performance.

Interviewing the interpreters in respect of their experience, preparation and approaches would have been possible, however this was not part of the investigation. The study is the development and testing of the analytical framework for comparative textual analysis, on a corpus gathered from live

interpreted performances at the point of the Deaf audience’s interface with the event. The data resulting from the analysis would enable the development of much more pertinent and focused questions for interpreter interviews after the fact. Indeed the use of the framework with interpreter interviews would be a highly appropriate area for future investigation.