ASL link: https://youtu.be/7cUFI1Io_ao

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*