Blog Archives
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.
Register for the “United We Stand” Hawaii state conference today!
I am excited to be presenting my Vague Language (VL) workshop at the “United We Stand” Hawaii state conference co-hosted by the Aloha State Association of the Deaf (ASAD), Hawaii Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (HRID), and Miss Deaf Hawai`i Ambassador Program (MDHAP). The conference takes place August 19-21, 2011, in Honolulu, HI at the Pacific Beach Hotel in beautiful Waikiki. For those of you in Hawaii, or who would like to make the trip to the tropical island, follow this link to register: ASAD STATE CONFERENCE 2011 REGISTRATION FORM
Response to RID Invalid NIC Scores Announcement
The gist of my comments, for those who don’t know American Sign Language, is that we should trust the validity of the NIC (National Interpreter Certification) and the RID (Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf). This unfortunate incident of one individual’s corrupt behavior does not invalidate test scores any but 3% of test takers during the time in question; those candidates have already been notified and will have to retest. RID conducted the examination into this matter professionally in every way, and though I was frustrated myself while waiting for my test results for a long time, I now applaud RID for following a stringent protocol and maintaining secrecy about the situation until the investigation was complete. Please, consumers of interpreting services, continue to trust RID. It is a trustworthy organization. And please, fellow interpreters, do not doubt your scores. If you passed at the level you wanted, there is no need to retest. If you failed, you failed. Many of us fail tests the first time. Believe the results, learn what you need to learn to pass the test, and retake it. That’s what I did, and it worked. Again, this is a sad situation, but it has been handled. Let’s not let this get us down. We are good and RID is good. I am proud of us.
[P.S. I forgot to include a link to the source announcement. I don't want to post a link to the RID media page, because that link is constantly changing, so I will refer you to RID Addresses Invalid Rater Scores on National Interpreter Certification Exam — FAQs.]
Response to Eh? What? Huh? – Please Don’t Use Sarcasm With My Students
via Eh? What? Huh?: Please Don’t Use Sarcasm With My Students.
The original poster started a very interesting discussion about using language that might be misunderstood by children, and I am reposting my comment because I would like to share my viewpoint with my readers.
I wrote:
I can appreciate your concern for your students, (e, but I agree with MM. Although some ways of communicating may be confusing, I believe they should be taught rather than avoided. Each instance of misunderstood sarcasm can be a teaching moment for a second language learner. Sarcasm and other elements of second language, which English is for most deaf and hard-of-hearing people, have to be explicitly taught.
I sometimes have to reverse myself when I begin to — forgive the expression — “dumb down” my writing with deaf people. With certain people, things must be greatly simplified, but with many people I think one should be oneself and let the person figure it out. Most deaf people certainly don’t dumb down their ASL for me or slow down their signing for me. I am an interpreter, and they just expect me to understand them and interpret what they are saying. I learn new bits of visual language all the time because of deaf people’s being themselves and signing naturally. Don’t I owe them the same genuineness of myself? Perhaps the more I write English or — with the appropriate person — sign English or fingerspell unusual turns of phrase, the more I express who I am and give them the opportunity to learn how a hearing person speaks and writes.
It’s not that my place is to teach; it’s just that everyone–hearing and deaf alike–can learn more about each other and each other’s language when we speak naturally. I thank every French-speaking, Spanish-speaking, and ASL-speaking person who has ever spoken to me in their natural way, because that is how I have learned their languages.
