This poster presents on work done for the speaker’s undergraduate thesis on the phonological patterns of ice hockey player nicknames. Specifically, this poster focuses on naming and classifying the different available forms of attested nicknames, nicknames that have been used by hockey players for their teammates. These forms include derived hypocoristics, or nicknames derived from the original name (e.g., Schroeds from Corinne Schroeder); suppletives, or nicknames not related to the original name (e.g., Beast from Denis Hildeby); initials (e.g., MPP from Marie-Philip Poulin); and compound clippings, or nicknames formed from combining parts of both the first and last names (e.g., Rosco from Ross Colton). Compound clippings are further split into initial-syllable (e.g., KHam from Kate Ham) and syllable-syllable or Rosco-type forms. 

The poster will further discuss some of the wordplay elements involved in the formation of nicknames, particularly those of the suppletive or Beast type. Differences between fan-created and teammate-created nicknames, particularly along wordplay and form lines will also be noted. These are most visible in the suppletive or Beast and compound clipping or Rosco type. Ultimately, the poster will discuss the general requirements for the forms of hockey nicknames, classify the most common available formats, and reflect on the social value and linguistic creativity such nicknames display. This work extends the current nicknaming literature outside of solely a suppletive or Beast-type focus (in the onomastic literature) and hypocoristic or Schroeds-type focus (in the phonological literature) by offering a typology of the many different hockey player nickname forms available.

The author of the Epistle to the Colossians is often interpreted as an anti-Gnostic writer. Despite being a somewhat disjointed movement, several authors of the early CE era reflected the growing philosophy of Gnosticism, emerging from Judeo-Christian ideals, and thus spurred early Church fathers to write against the burgeoning heresies. Leaving aside questions of authorship which are prominent in many modern discussions of the epistle, I argue that Colossians is not a direct attack on a specific sin or heresy, but a more general letter to a people who would have been familiar with the works of the Stoics, and thus are capable of deriving new meaning from familiar terms.  Furthermore, I will argue that the current works defending Colossians as a response to Gnosticism fail to consider the reality of rabbinic schooling at the time of its most likely writing. For example, a consideration of στοιχεῖον through a historical Gnostic lens reveals a sense of the universe as an active deity, while from a Stoic or general view depicts these ‘elements’ as non-autonomous (i.e. created, not creator). However, I will argue that to some degree this language was intended to further a general defense of Christian philosophy rooted in Stoic ideology in response to divergent beliefs appearing immediately after Jesus’ death.

Abstract

Background and Method   This study focused on American Sign Language (ASL) Interpreters, the main question being: Do interpreters prefer working onsite or remotely? The study employed a survey consisting of five categories of questions. The 24 question survey was constructed, posted,  and advertised to a network of ASL interpreters to form an understanding of their work experience and preferences. 

Limitations   Limitations include broad terminology, as well as a relatively small sample size with 66 survey respondents. In addition, not all respondents answered all 24 questions. 

Delimitations   A delimitation that was considered for this study was excluding Deaf Interpreters (DIs).  Another delimitation of this study was the limited survey advertising and posting. The survey was sent to a collective network of interpreters, encouraging them to share with their colleagues who would also be willing to participate. The survey was also posted to Facebook to reach interpreters who may not be in the established personal network. 

Results   While there are benefits and downsides to both onsite and remote interpreting, a majority of respondents indicate that the type of jobs they accept depend on the location. However, their preferences aren't dependent on whether it is onsite or remote. 

Conclusions   Considering preferences of interpreters is only part of why this research is important. Arguably more important is considering the preference of dDeaf consumers. Consumers lean towards a preference of onsite interpreting. This could be for a multitude of reasons including, but not limited to, personal connection, accessibility, and/or avoiding general technical interruptions.