Quoting a deaf person in a magazine article

[MellyG]

I interviewed a deaf man for a magazine article. His family interpreted for us. When quoting him in the story, should I write "Bob says," or use something else (since he didn't actually say this to me)? I do mention that an interpreter was involved.
Thanks!

[Lisa Cox]

Yes, using "says" is fine. Any alternative might seem... I don't know, insensitive? Even if he didn't verbally say it, he did say it. If that makes sense.

People online get quoted all the time using "says", and none of them are verbally saying anything.

[CatMuse33]

I agree... although if the article is a profile piece about him or about deafness in general, I think certain 'signs' could be tactfully described to add color... it's such a beautifully visual language. If it's about a completely different topic, no need whatsoever to call attention to his deafness or even mention it.

[Ludka]

I hate to disagree, but the accepted convention in literature generally is to put things that have been translated from another language in italics. As catmuse stated above, sign language is a different language from english. You are, in effect, translating his signs for the reader.

I would also say, 'he signed,' instead of 'he said.'

[Chase]

My older sister has been deaf since birth, so I grew up with both ASL and English. I've been totally deaf for about eight years.

Lisa is correct that says and said are fine. (Chase holds the thumb of the open five-hand to his chest, then snaps the hand outward, little finger first.)

However, we may also write the above as: Chase signed, "Fine."

[Ludka]

Here's my thing. Although ASL is "American Sign Language", and therefore is derived directly from English, it is still a different language, and you, as the writer, are technically translating their speech, not transcribing it. If you directly quote, but do not state that you are translating, you aren't being completely honest to the reader. Like any kind of translation, translating ASL to English can have the unintended effect of the translator adding or removing words in order to add clarity.

In short, if you are quoting a deaf person, be sure to let the reader know they signed it.

EDIT:

I take back the bit I said in post #4 about italics. I believe that is for when you write a word in a foreign language in a story.

[CatMuse33]

I think, again, it still comes down to whether the article is about his deafness (or any deafness in general). If not, I don't think it's necessary to use "signed" constantly.

For instance, say I interview someone in Italian about, oh, whatever, a restaurant. It would detract from his quotes to constantly note that it is a translation. However, if it fits, you might note it ONCE at the beginning of the piece and then go from there.

Similarly, if I did an e-mail interview, I might state once, after the first quote: "Quote," leading expert said in an e-mail interview. Or "Quote," leading expert stated via e-mail.

After that, no need to note it anymore. You've told people. You can use "said" from there on in, since the word "wrote" would draw attention to itself and "said" is the transparent verb. :)

However, since e-mail interviews are becoming more the norm, unless there's a compelling reason to tell people (or the editor wants you to) I don't think you have to.

There's an option... you may ask the editor how they would prefer you to treat it, or even read similar examples in the publication.

[Chase]

When I posted my reply, I didn't realize Ludka had already posted the same advice for "signed."

I agree that afterwards, "said" and "signed" may be interchanged, but I don't necessarily agree that the writer should limit "signed" to once and only once.

As stated, "said" might imply a one-to-one translation from American Sign Language (ASL) to spoken English, when that's not strictly the case.

Other technical asides:

Signed Exact English (SEE) is a modified form of ASL which may be translated word-for-word.

In both ASL and SEE, some words cannot be signed and must be finger spelled, which is technically separate.

"His name is G-E-O-R-G-E," Mary signed and finger spelled.

As are most things, sign languages are complex.

[Grebbsy]

Perhaps on the first occasion that he is quoted in the article, you might consider inserting an aside such as:

"I am going to take over the entire world!" says Bob. (These words, as are all Bob's words quoted in this article, were interpreted by his wife Lucy.) "And when I'm in power, ASL will be a compulsory subject in all schools!"

[Prawn]

Also, just because someone is deaf does not mean that they use sign language or that they can't speak. There are degrees of deafness, and many partially deaf people or even those who are completely deaf can speak. If someone is using ASL it is important to note this.

[Greenwolf103]

Both my husband and I are deaf. I have often noted conversations with him on my blog. I usually go with "signed/said." I know it looks clunky, but it's accurate because, for the most part, we speak when we sign. You might also want to read other articles that include a deaf interviewee and see how it was done there. If your interviewee does not speak when he signs, then just say "he signed."

Just my opinion.

[ideagirl]

I hate to disagree, but the accepted convention in literature generally is to put things that have been translated from another language in italics.

That's not correct. Go find an interview published in an English-language magazine with, say, a French person (or Russian or Spanish or Japanese or...) and you will observe that it's printed exactly like any other interview, in normal text, not italicized.

You might be thinking of a different rule--the one whereby if you use an untranslated foreign word or short phrase in an English sentence, you italicize it: "She always had so much joie de vivre, I was amazed."


I would also say, 'he signed,' instead of 'he said.'

I agree, but it could be overdone--it calls more attention to itself than "said" just because readers don't see it much, so you probably want to use it more sparingly than "said." In other words, rephrase sentences so you don't have to use it as much.

[IceCreamEmpress]

I like Grebbsy's idea about mentioning the interpretation.

Also, you can just finesse "said" unless the article's really long.

According to Bob, Deaf culture is under siege. "I see these parents getting cochlear implants for their kids, and I wonder if the Deaf schools will be wastelands in a couple of decades." That's not the only problem he identifies. "With the rise of cell phones, there are fewer and fewer pay phones out there, and fewer phones with TTY devices."

But not all the news is bad. "Now that text messaging is cheap or free in the US," Bob points out, "Deaf kids can communicate with each other, and with their hearing friends."

[Ludka]

That's not correct. Go find an interview published in an English-language magazine with, say, a French person (or Russian or Spanish or Japanese or...) and you will observe that it's printed exactly like any other interview, in normal text, not italicized.

You might be thinking of a different rule--the one whereby if you use an untranslated foreign word or short phrase in an English sentence, you italicize it: "She always had so much joie de vivre, I was amazed."

Yup. I realized my error and corrected it back in post #6.