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.

1. I didn’t trust myself.
2. I overestimated the importance of the little thing I missed.
3. I wanted to control my work.
4. 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.

The UPS truck delivered something today that brought tears to my eyes: my own hardcover copy of the book Sexting including an chapter by lil’ ol’ me. Gale Cengage Learning approached me a year ago about including a blog post of mine, Sexting highlights society’s issues with privacy and shame, in one of their their textbooks. I agreed to publication with a writer’s fee and copy of the book. They complied with a check and a copy of the book as promised. My article appears as chapter two titled “The Threat of Sexting Has Been Exaggerated” on page 15 of the hardcover edition. The book is part of the At Issue: Social Issues series.

Here is the Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Sexting / Stefan Kiesbye, book editor.
p. cm. — (At issue)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-7377-5161-1 (hardcover) — ISBN 978-0-7377-5162-8 (pbk.)
1. Internet and teenagers. 2. Internet–Safety measures. 3. Teenagers–Sexual relations. 4. Electronic mail systems. I. Kiesbye, Stephan. II. Title. III. Series.
HQ799.2.I5.S49 2011
004.67’80835–dc22

I am excited to be a part of this compilation and I look forward to reading the other chapters!

Daniel,
As a working interpreter have you noticed anything that proactive experienced interpreters tend to do??

Many things, Catlin. When I am offered an assignment, I find out the exact location down to the room or suite number, who the deaf and hearing clients are, what the deaf client(s)’ language preference is/are, what the event and/or topic(s) is/are, the contact person’s name and phone number and/or email address, where I need to check in or register, how long the assignment will last, who my team is, if applicable, where the parking is, and any other information that will help to orient me. I make sure to get the zip code so I can look it up in Google Maps and have my Android phone navigate me in the car with GPS.

If it is a conference for a certain company or organization, I look at their website to learn about the entity and their personnel, and if they have a section devoted to the conference, I review the speakers, plenary and workshop topics, and–very handy to have–the conference center map.

If the assignment is from an agency I have never worked with before, or if someone is contracting with me directly, I make sure that we sign a contract before the job starts. I have neglected to do this in the past and regretted it. I find out how many forms they will require me to complete as well as any background checks that may need to be done. I have also been shocked in the past by how many hoops I had to jump through to get paid, and I regretted how little I had charged for the job considering how many extra hours it took me just to push paper. A few minutes (or even an hour or two) of business dealing can save you hours later on, and can help you determine how much to charge so you have no regrets. You might even want to do a little “background check” on the paying client to see whether they have a reputation for paying on time and without too many hassles. Finally, I have started charging as much to contract with people individually as an agency would charge them. If they want to go with an agency instead of me, that is just fine by me. It makes less work for me, and if they want me they can save me time and effort by requesting me from an agency. The pay cut is worth it for the trouble it saves me. I cannot speak for other interpreters, but that is how I feel at this point.

In short, proactive, experienced interpreters do many things and spend a considerable amount of time before assignments to prepare for success.

I took this exam even though I was already RID-certified in 1998 and 1999, respectively, with the CI (Certificate of Interpretation) and CT (Certificate of Transliteration). The reason I took it was to stay current with my profession and show the interpreters I train and students I teach that I have mastered the test they hope to pass or advance in.

Studying for the interview portion of this exam got me more familiar than ever with the NAD–RID Code of Professional Conduct (CPC). This helped me become a more ethically minded interpreter who can think through dilemmas, see the perspectives of all the stakeholders, enact solutions, and foresee the short– and long–term effects of my actions. If for nothing else, I am glad I took the exam the professional development aspect.

I am grateful to Michelle Monahan, NIC Master, for her Mastering the Interview Portion of the NIC Exam workshop and to Windy Kellems, NIC Master, for being my study buddy as we practiced together to articulate answers to ethical dilemmas. You were both a great help, Michelle and Windy!

—Daniel Greene, BA, CI and CT, NIC Master

Hello Mr. Green
We have a patient coming in who has requested an asl interpreter (this would be a first for us). Some of the agencies i checked into seem pretty steep and are asking for a minimum commitment of 2 hours. Our eye exams ususally last no longer than 30 minutes. Any suggestions you have would be greatly appreciated.

Hi, Donna. Actually, the two-hour minimum is pretty standard. Without it, interpreters would have a very hard time making a living. You have to consider drive time and prep time. An interpreter usually arrives 5–15 minutes before an assignment— longer if they don’t know the location or the personnel, and it can take anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour-and-a-half to get from one job to another (these are just ballpark figures). On a typical day, an interpreter might be able to get to four assignments at the most. If each of those assignments is a two-hour billable, that makes up an eight-hour billable day. However, if each of those jobs actually took two hours, the interpreter might only be able to do three of them. So that’s the issue with the minimum fee. (Besides, if an interpreter only got paid for 30 minutes at those four jobs they spent their whole working day journeying to, they would only earn two hours’ pay for a day’s work.)

As far as the cost goes, I know it is expensive. Consider, though, that an agency probably has to spend at least an hour or two in paperwork alone— filling out the paperwork your company may require of vendors, sending and receiving signed contracts, sending out messages to all their interpreters to see who’s available, fielding phone calls and emails from interpreters who are available, taking into consideration the wants or needs of the deaf client, who might say “I love working with these interpreters, I will work with these interpreters, and I won’t work with these interpreters.” Then there’s the time the agency spends getting all the job-related information from you, including things you might not have thought of such as language preference of the deaf client, any dual disabilities (such as Ushers Syndrome, for instance), the name of the medical center, driveway entrance, building number, parking, floor number, room number, contact person, doctor’s name, etc.

Also, consider the time it takes the interpreter to receive requests from agencies asking if they’re available for jobs, checking their calendars, responding to the agency, getting job-related info from the agency (which often includes questions the agency hadn’t thought of, which then entails more correspondence between agency and you and back to the interpreter)… time spent figuring out where the job is and how to get there, time spent after the job possibly case-conferencing with a colleague on how to handle various linguistic or ethical issues that might have arisen, time spent with the agency proving pass-along information such as “you’ll want to take the south entrance because there is more parking there than the north entrance” or “you have to check in at window three” or “the deaf client does not know much sign language.” Then there’s the time spent billing the agency, receiving payments, depositing, accounting, tax preparation, etc.

When it comes right down to it, we’re worth it.

All that said, I do have a cost-saving option for you: VRI – video remote interpreting. Not cheap, but you can pay by the minute instead of paying a minimum fee. A remote video interpreter is not the best replacement for a local interpreter, but it is an option that may or may not work for you and your deaf consumers.

Oh, and consider the interpreter’s costs to retain individual health insurance and professional liability insurance, advertising costs, telecommunications costs, home office costs, continuous education costs, licensing and certification maintenance dues and fees, legal fees, accountant fees, the cost of massages (usually not covered by interpreters’ already expensive private health insurance), etc. I’m sure I’m forgetting something, but it’s expensive to be an interpreter, and if we couldn’t make a living at it, we would leave the profession. I hope this helps explain our value.

As much of the tele-relay system, particularly IP-Relay, is open for public use, it is possible for anyone with the proper equipment to place calls. This includes people who are not members of the original intended user group (i.e., persons who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or speech-impaired). Some such users have noted its usefulness in making long-distance or local calls free of charge and without a telephone. The accessibility even to those who are not deaf, etc. has been defended by providers as a necessary evil. This is because the principle of “transparency” – the belief that the operator and the mechanics of relay should generally go as unnoticed as possible in the call – requires that Relay be as easy to use as a normal telephone, which does not require any kind of verification for hearing people to use. This decision has been defended by leaders in the deaf community, and generally retains strong support among speech and hearing-disabled users of the service.

One of the “necessary evils” the above quotation refers to is the use of text relay services by Nigerian scam artists. Some text relay operators actually gave up their jobs in order to stop doing what made them sick and be free to break the story to the news. Here are two of those news stories that are linked to from the aforementioned Wikipedia entry:
Con artists target phone system for deaf – Security – MSNBC.com and Overseas crooks abuse phone service for deaf | www.azstarnet.com ®

I feel sorry for those relay operators who lost their jobs, but I applaud them for doing what was right. If it were not for their refusal to remain silent, the world might not know about the abuses that were going on. And as they said, having to relay fraudulent calls was driving them crazy. That’s what we have consciences for: to nag us into doing what is right.

I have to be so careful what I say about my work. This makes it hard to talk about publicly, but I feel a need to say what I can without breaking any confidences or codes of professional conduct.

The abuse I see occuring in video relay is not so much that the scam artists are masquerading as deaf people, but that they count on the interpreters to interpret everything they say without advising the deaf person that they are being scammed. Good old “transparency”!

Yes, “transparency,” may be a necessary evil, because if interpreters advised their deaf clients of their opinions all the time, the interpreters might sometimes be wrong in their assessment of the situation and the hearing consumers would no longer feel confident that interpreters would render their messages faithfully without injecting the interpreter’s opinion.

But transparency is evil in the sense that hearing scam artists take advantage of it, knowing that they can tell deaf people whatever they want without the interpreter interfering!

There is something interpreters can do, however. In public forums such as this blog, or in private discussions with their deaf friends or colleagues, they can alert people to the fact that such scams are going on. And if an interpreter receives a call that they cannot interpret for ethical or personal reasons (whatever those reasons might be), the FCC allows for that interpreter to transfer the call to another interpreter. When transfering a call, it is permissible for the interpreter handing off the call to give pertinent information to the interpreter taking the call. I don’t see why one interpreter cannot tell another, “I believe this is a scam call.” Then, the receiving interpreter may choose whether or not to accept the call. Another thing the FCC allows an interpreter to do is look at the telephone numbers of incoming calls and decide whether or not to take them. There is nothing to stop an interpreter from keeping a personal list (not shared with anyone else!) of numbers that they will not accept calls to or from.

Still, the FCC does not allow any telecommunications relay service, be it text or video, to terminate a call unless one or both of the callers directly abuses the interpreter or fails to follow the rules of the service. Unless the interpreter rejects the call before it even begins, his or her only recourse is to handoff the call to another interpreter. Perhaps the frustration of having to wait a long time for an interpreter (because they are all “on to you”) or having to be handed off from one interpreter to another (because no one can stand you) might be enough to disuade frauds from abusing the service. But I wouldn’t count on it.

I think that more safeguards need to be in place, and I just thought of one idea I may have write about in another entry: if a relay service has all of its deaf consumers agree to “terms of service,” or a “license,” then why don’t they make the hearing consumers agree to the same? One of the rules could be: “I agree not to use this service to defraud people or commit crimes punishable by law.” Then, if an interpreter saw either party breaking the rules, the interpreter would be in his or her rights to terminate the call and report the abusers to the service. Hmm!

First of all, my sources for the bylaws were the RID bylaws, the RID Affliate Chapter Handbook Sample Bylaws (pp 238–257), and the AzRID bylaws (which link will probably be broken soon when they upload the new ones). I also consulted Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised when I was writing the SDCRID bylaws. I pretty much followed the Sample Bylaws except when I felt the RID bylaws were clearer or more up-to-date. I also, of course, checked the AzRID bylaws for any special bylaws that needed to stay. That takes care of the bylaws part of it.

I also had an interesting challenge and a gratifying success with writing the bylaws in a plain-text editor (BBEdit) using XHTML 1.1 and CSS. I did this because I wanted tight control over sectioning and listing. Bylaws documents need to be very structured. One can write in all the sections, subsections, and list numbers, but that is a waste of time, especially if one ever wants to rearrange the order of sections and list items. If one does use styles in a word processing program, sometimes formatting can become corrupted during routine editing operations such as cutting, pasting, deleting, etc., and then one can lose the document structure. Besides, I enjoy the challenge of hand-coding HTML and CSS, and I like to demonstrate the power of these structural and presentational markup languages working hand-in-hand.

For those that are interested in such things, I am posting some of the source code below so you can see how it’s done. Below that, I will include a screen shot of how this code is rendered in the Opera browser— the only browser I know of (for the Mac platform, anyway) that renders CSS counter properly.

Here is the AZRID Bylaws HTML+CSS, so you can look at the code.

And here is what it looks like in Opera 9.01 for Mac OS X:

Note that I never actually wrote the words Article or Section except in the CSS, and I never explicitly numbered any of the articles, sections, lists, or sublists except in the CSS. The CSS elements content and counter took care of that!

I don’t like to call in sick to work, but I do it when I need to. It’s never convenient for the workplace, but you know what? They’ll manage. If I don’t stay home and rest when I’m sick, I won’t get better. If I’m contagious and I go to work, I’ll get other people sick and the business will lose even more money than if I had stayed home. I just try to give my employers and/or clients as much notice as possible so that they’ll have time to find a replacement. I hate to lose the money by not working, but one has to budget for being sick, and that’s what the bank is for.

Looking on the bright side, being sick always reminds me to appreciate being healthy! What a joy it is to breathe freely, feel energized, and be relatively free of pain and discomfort!

The American Deaf community represents a cultural and linguistic group having the inalienable right to full and equal communication and to participation in all aspects of society. Members of the American Deaf community have the right to informed choice and the highest quality interpreting services. Recognition of the communication rights of America’s women, men, and children who are deaf is the foundation of the tenets, principles, and behaviors set forth in this Code of Professional Conduct.

As an RID-certified interpreter and transliterator, I must agree to uphold and follow this code of professional conduct — and I do — but there is a bit of nonsense in that paragraph that I cannot endorse, and that is the fallacy of “inalienable rights.”

It is ironic that such a fallacy is promulgated under the heading “Philosophy.” Anyone familiar with philosophy knows that rights are social constructs: they are given by society and can be taken away by society. “Inalienable” means “cannot be taken away.” Well, the fact is that rights are given and rights are taken away.

It may sound paternalistic to say so, but the only rights deaf people have are the ones that hearing people give them. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news to people who won’t acknowledge the obvious, but that’s the way it is. This is simply because deaf people are in the minority and hearing people are in the majority. Don’t get me wrong— I acknowledge that, in part, I owe my livelihood to those deaf people who fight for the right to an interpreter. Ultimately, though, I think you know who I owe my livelihood to: those hearing people who follow the Americans with Disablilities Act and give deaf people that right.

I know what it’s like to be in a minority who wants the majority to give him a right. I am a man who is married to another man (in our eyes), but the government doesn’t see it that way. Clearly gay people do not have the inalienable right to marry, because if we did, we would. But even if we win that right, it will only be because straight people gave it to us. Why? Because we are in the minority! No matter how many gay people vote for gay marriage, the right to marry another person of the same sex will never be granted until a majority of the people vote for it— and most of “the people” are straight! (Just like most people are hearing!)

Now, I do believe that within my lifetime gay people will win the right to marry, but when we do, I won’t ignore the truth and call that right “inalienable”!

Before I close, allow me to quote one more thing from the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct:

Interpreters who are members in good standing with the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. and the National Association of the Deaf voted to adopt this Code of Professional Conduct, effective July 1, 2005. This Code of Professional Conduct is a working document that is expected to change over time. The aforementioned members may be called upon to vote, as may be needed from time to time, on the tenets of the code.

I hope that, in the future, we members of NAD and RID will change this document. Let us improve its credibility by removing from it the illogical language about “inalienable rights.”