By: Daniel Greene

Daniel Greene — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:07:17 +0000

That’s true, Gregory… in some ways. There was a time when you could become an RID-certified transliterator (IC, or later, CI). However, the National Interpreter Certification (NIC) in place now demands a level of fluency in both transliteration and interpretation, so it is necessary to demonstrate skills in processing both PSE and ASL. So, in theory (and in some states), you could practice without certification or a license and just say, “Hey, I’m a transliterator; I’m PSE” and that would be okay for clients who are well served by that. But, increasingly, certification and/or even licensure is required of interpreters, so it is harder to specialize in PSE/transliteration only.

By: gregory k gilbert

gregory k gilbert — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:17:00 +0000

I agree 100% especially about not enough emphasis in training programs regarding transliteration process. I was once involved in a mock eval for recent graduates of an ITP program and after noticing graduates struggled with ASL processing ( expressively) but could switch to tranliteration easily I asked the trainer their opinion on graduates skills and it was agreed that transliteration was something the graduates could handle but processing in ASL would take more time. So interperters need to self identify or know where they fit on the language continuum and serve consumers accordingly. I am PSE/ conceptually accurate and that is the population I will best serve and it is okay to tell consumers we are more “English”it’s not a crime and give them the option of declining service.

Comments on: Interpreting or Transliterating?

By: Daniel Greene

By: gregory k gilbert