Are most ASL interpreters working in their C language?
[I began writing this as a comment to C is for… – The Interpreter’s Languages (Part II), a follow-up to Learning your ABCs – The Interpreter’s Languages (Part I)— both posts from the blog The Interpreter Diaries. The comment got so long, though, I decided to make it a post on my own interpreting blog. So, here we go.]
The American Sign Language interpreting profession has a lot of catching up to do to bring it on par with foreign language interpreting international conference interpreting. I would venture to say that most ASL interpreters are working not only from but also to their “C language.” You have to understand that until the ’60s and ’70s, there was no ASL interpreting profession, and those who interpreted for the deaf were usually family, friends, or neighbors. Deaf people counted themselves lucky to get anyone to interpret for them— free of charge, no less! Unfortunately, here we are in the 2010s and deaf people still find themselves lucky to get an interpreter to provide the service even for pay.
There is a shortage of interpreters to fulfill the demand for “qualified interpreters” required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. There are very few native hearing signers. Even those with deaf parents do not all learn the language fluently; in fact, it has been seen that one child may learn ASL fluently and the other siblings will rely on that child to interpret between them and their parents. And then, even the CODAs (children of deaf adults) who are fluent in ASL are not always as fluent in all registers of the language that they would need to be to call ASL their A language. What’s more, CODAs often have English as a B language because it is their second language. (Babies are developmentally able to learn signed languages at a younger age than spoken languages, so for many CODAs, sign language is their native language.)
To make matters worse, CODAs account for a small percentage of ASL interpreters. Most interpreters don’t learn ASL until college or high school at the earliest. I will speak for myself: I started learning ASL when I was 21. I have been interpreting for 21 years. Most people are very happy with my interpreting services, but I by no means possess native-like fluency in ASL! I always have to work on my fluency, and I honestly don’t know if my ASL will ever be even good enough to even call it my “B language.” And, if I may venture to say so, I am by no means alone in this.
In my defense—and so as not to be so hard on my colleagues—the ASL interpreting profession is still nascent. For decades, one didn’t even have to have a high school diploma to be an ASL-English interpreter. Only a few years ago did an associate degree become a prerequisite to stand for national certification exams. All of the already certified interpreters were “grandfathered” in. As of June 2012, candidates will have to have bachelor’s degrees to sit for the national exams—and their degrees don’t even have to be in interpreting. We still have a situation in which both entrants and graduates of interpreter training programs do not possess the fluency in ASL required to be an interpreter. Things are getting better, but we have much work to do.
Consider, finally, one last thing about sign language interpreting in America: most deaf people are non-native users of ASL. Many deaf children have limited, if any, exposure to spoken, written, or signed language until elementary school! I have heard the expression “semilingual” to describe deaf people who are native in neither ASL nor English. According to your terminology, the word would be “alingual.” I think that is too strong a word, and one that Deaf people would take umbrage to because the Hearing world tells them that if they don’t have English, they don’t have “language.” Deaf people are very proud of their sign language, even the 90% of them who did not learn it from birth (only 10% of deaf people are born to deaf parents). And many deaf people who are not “native” in ASL still have what would be considered to be “native-like” fluency— better than what I and many other hearing sign language interpreters possess. All in all, though, a fair number of the deaf people we interpret for do not sign more fluently than us C language hearing people do. Deaf education and ASL interpreter education both have a long way to go. I do honor our consumers and my colleagues for doing the best that can be done given the circumstances, and I look forward to the better future we are working toward.
Why shouldn’t I let my consumers do my work for me sometimes?
Some interpreters just hate it when they’re trying to interpret from ASL to English and someone in the audience who knows sign language blurts out a word the interpreter missed or is trying to think of. I had such an interpreting experience recently, and it made me think about my willingness to let my consumers help me with my interpretation. Looking at it now, I think it is a question of humility, not laziness, but that is the wisdom of hindsight talking. Let me bring you back to the not-so-wise moment when I had a conflict with my audience.
The deaf speaker, presenting to an audience of people who knew ASL pretty well but not fluently, fingerspelled a number I wasn’t entirely sure of. I thought I got it, but wasn’t 100% confident in my perception. I didn’t have a team interpreter to support me in voicing. Someone in the audience said the thing I wasn’t sure of, and it turned out I was right. Yet, after they did that bit of work for me, I asked the presenter to reiterate the lexical item. I was doing consecutive interpreting, and while I was watching the deaf signer, yet another audience member said the thing I wasn’t sure of. I said, “Just a moment. I’m getting this.” And then I said the thing we all thought the deaf person said, only this time I was sure of my interpretation. The dialogue between me and the audience members was quiet, and it didn’t seem to be a big deal for anyone, but I couldn’t stop thinking about it after the assignment.
Why did I do what I did? Was it the most appropriate and effective behavior? What could I have done differently? Why didn’t I just let it go when the audience member guessed rightly? And, even if they had guessed wrongly, would it have mattered? These are the questions that nagged me this morning.
I think I did what I did for several reasons I’m not necessarily proud of.
- I didn’t trust myself.
- I overestimated the importance of the little thing I missed.
- I wanted to control my work.
- I didn’t want to set an unfavorable precedent.
Notice I said, “not necessarily proud of.” That is not to say that it’s never okay to do these things. It is just to say that, in this case, I don’t think any of those “intrapersonal demands” in Demand-Control Schema (Karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990; Dean & Pollard, 2001) were well founded. First of all, I need to get better at trusting myself when I’m 90% sure I’m right; second, I need to get better at realizing when something’s just not that important; third, control is an illusion (or so they say); fourth, and the point of this post, is what is so wrong with letting consumers doing our work for us once in a while?
Could two different members of the audience both be wrong about something I’m 90% sure I’m right about? Unlikely. As far as precedent is concerned, there may be times we want our consumers to let us do our job because we are the interpreter in the room; they are not. It is sometimes not a good thing to have more than one person interpreting at once. And it is not a good thing if the “peanut gallery” gets the interpretation wrong. But we have to look at each case individually and not be rigid. In this case, I don’t think it would have done any harm at all to allow what happened to happen and let it go. It would have modeled good interpreter behavior, acknowledged them for their linguistic ability, and let the speaker go on unimpeded. If I had it to do over, my “control” in Demand-Control Schema would be either to say nothing or say something funny like, “what she said!” Next time, next time…
Incidentally, after I analyzed this interpreting scenario this morning, I read this today in a book by one of the world’s foremost experts on interpreting:
It should be noted that in interpreting, unlike translation, all parties concerned are aware of the communication situation, including possible difficulties associated with the interlingual and sometimes intercultural transfer. Since generally all parties wish to communicate, more cooperation can be expected from them than in translation…. Cooperation may also be forthcoming from listeners, especially in consecutive, where they can help the interpreter with word equivalents and generally listen sympathetically, though this is not always the case. In other words, although the interpreter essentially works alone, he or she may be helped through on-line interaction with both Sender and Receiver, while in translation such interaction is rather rare (Gile, 1995, emphasis mine).
It was so great to read something this afternoon that reinforces the reflections I had this morning! We interpreters should always strive to do our best. One way we can do our best is to be humble enough to let our consumers do our work for us sometimes.
Resources
Dean, R. K. & Pollard, R. Q (2001). The application of demand-control theory to sign language interpreting: Implications for stress and interpreter training. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 6 (1), 1-14.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (p.24). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Workshops in Yuma cancelled due to low registration
Unfortunately, not enough people registered for the workshops I was going to present in Yuma, Arizona in October, so the workshops had to be cancelled. I hope whatever led to the low registration this time is remedied in the future, and I look forward to presenting to those who registered as well as those who wanted to but were unable to do so at this time.
Keep watching here for details about future workshops!
Upcoming workshops:
- September 24, 2011, Virginia Beach, VA: Vague Language
- October 15, 2011, Milwaukee, WI: Vague Language
Recent workshops:
- August 20, 2011, Honolulu, HI: Vague Language
- August 12, 2011, Monmouth, OR: Vague Language
For more information about the workshops I offer, take a gander at my Interpreting Workshops page.
Prompt for comments
Have you ever had a speaking engagement cancelled or have you ever had to cancel one as a planner? Or perhaps a college class? Do you have any ideas about getting sufficient registration to avoid cancellation?
LAST CALL for October workshops in Yuma
If you’ve been planning to register for the workshops I’m presenting in Yuma, you need to register today so they don’t get canceled. Vague Language is Oct 1st and Genre Recognition is October 2nd. Both workshops will be held at the Southwest Regional Co-op, 1047 S 4th Ave Yuma AZ 85364. Saturday is 9a-4p and Saturday is 8a–3p, both with a one–hour lunch break. I hope to see people from both California and Arizona since Yuma is on the state line. Please pass the word so these workshops are a successful venture for the sponsor, Arizona RID, and reach the greatest number of people possible.
Please register right now.
Daniel is a very dynamic presenter!
Daniel Greene, BA, CI & CT, NIC Master, has been brought out to present his Vague Language (VL) workshop in Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Hawaii, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. He has presented on VL locally as well as at state and national conferences. Nationally known for his feature article “Just What They Said: Interpreting Intentionally Vague Language” in the RID Views Spring 2011 edition, Daniel is furthering his research of vague language in the Master of Arts in Interpreting Studies program through Western Oregon University.
Loved, loved, loved Daniel’s passion for his work and wanting colleagues to improve and expand knowledge.
Daniel’s Genre Recognition workshop has been well received at the local, state, and national level. In addition to presenting several times at the Desert Valleys Regional Cooperative, he also presented on Genre Recognition at the Arizona RID State Conference in Phoenix, Arizona and at the RID Region V Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Daniel is an active member of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers and loved attending the 2006 conference in San Diego and the 2010 conference in San Antonio.
I really enjoyed this workshop and how Daniel presented it. I feel like I learned a lot on the topic and that it will help me in my interpreting. I loved the open participation.
Workshops Descriptions
- Just What They Said: Interpreting Intentionally Vague Language
- As Interpreters, we tend to be very direct about delivering the message, but what if our consumers intend to “beat around the bush”? How do you interpret such messages without being blunt? Participants will study and explore the use of vague language (VL) in both English and ASL, the communicative purposes of VL, the importance of retaining ambiguity when conveying vague messages from one language to another, the benefits of leaving language vague instead of interrupting to request clarification, and specific strategies for conveying VL in both ASL and English. As a result of deeper interpreting studies, this workshop is constantly evolving, discovering increasingly unique and intriguing perspectives on sociolinguistic interpreting models and ethics.
- Knowing What They’re Going To Say Before They Say It: Using Genre Recognition To Improve Predictive Skills
- Ever miss a joke while interpreting or realize that a story was a cautionary tale only after the fact? We interpreters can become so focused on the words that we miss the point. An interpreter who grasps the speaker’s goal and the “type” of story that is being told or the “kind” of conversation that is taking place has a better shot at delivering a cohesive message. This workshop introduces attendees to genre theory and teaches the skill of genre recognition. Attendees will be guided in the recognition of generic elements of discourse and will be empowered to enhance their predictive skills, thus increasing their self-confidence and composure while improving the accuracy and effectiveness of their interpretations.
What kind of slideshow presentations do you like?
I have seen and read various commentaries about slideshow presentations (PowerPoint, Keynote, watchamacallit…). Some people can’t get enough and some people can’t get too little. In the feedback I’ve gotten on the interpreting workshops I present, I’ve gotten everything from:
Loved how daniel validated participants questions and comments by responding to individuals. He used examples from a variety of settings which was helpful. Powerpoint was great.
to:
It was not a particularly involved workshop (last year it seemed there was more participation) and was very powerpoint heavy. I could have skipped and snagged a copy of the P.P.T. notes. =(
Now, I know “there’s always someone” (you can’t please everyone), and most of my participants rate my presentations highly on “Audiovisual and supplementary study materials were an asset to this activity,” but I take all feedback into account. Recently I previewed a PowerPoint presentation to prep for an interpreting assignment, and it got me to thinking about how much or how little a slideshow presentation can tell you about an actual presentation— and how much it should.
Most of the people I present to want me to give them handouts of my presentation, and when I change my presentations at the last minute to include things that aren’t on the handouts—or I offer to send a list of references (works cited)—most people give me their email addresses so I can send them the latest and fullest. But the idea that someone could “snag a copy of the P.P.T. notes” and perceive that they got the workshop is not a pleasing one. My presentation is much more dynamic than my slideshow, and the participation makes it even more so.
But, if someone thinks it’s all in the handouts, does that mean I’m putting too much of my presentation on the slideshow? I know there will always be people who think if they’ve seen the photos, they don’t have to go to the country; if they’re heard the album, they don’t have to go to the concert; if they’ve read the book, they don’t have to go see the author speak. And I think they’re wrong! I also know from feedback I’ve gotten that most people would be frustrated if the slideshow didn’t help them follow and take notes on the lecture. Yet… I wonder if I should pare down my slideshow.
What do you think? Should a slideshow be skeletal or fleshy? How do you perceive a workshop vis-à-vis the handouts? I would love to hear your comments.
