Introduction to Deaf Culture by Thomas Holcomb

I just received Thomas Holcomb’s book on deaf culture published in 2013. There’s no way I’ll have time to read the whole thing, but I’m really only interested in his chapters on defining deaf culture. As many of you know, I’ve long been interested in how conceptions of culture have been incorporated into deaf studies and interpreting studies. Holcomb’s book is the most recent engagement with deaf culture by a leading member of the deaf community. 

Have any of you read this book? I’m curious to know what you think.

  

New Research in Interpreting Studies: Western Oregon University

Western Oregon University offers one of the hottest degrees around: an online MA in interpreting studies that gives working interpreters a chance to earn a graduate degree, network, and produce original research. I found their website with recent MA theses today and I think you should know about. Any time another interpreter produces original work, it’s worth having a look. Plus they have a cool map of where their students are from. Check it out.

Making Research Count 4 – Purpose and Objectives

 

Purpose

The main purpose of this workshop is to advocate for a view of interpreting as a field. I emphasize field in contrast to skill or profession.

  • As a skill, interpreting involves a relatively discrete set of behaviors and mental processes that are applied to a variety of social situations. Skills are the foundation of an individual interpreter’s ability to do their job. But specific skills do not determine the way that interpreters are organized socially, nor do they determine one’s conceptual framework. Skills should be a key element in determining the quality of individual interpreters.
  • As a profession, interpreting is more or less institutionalized through organizations and workplace demands. For instance, one can study interpreting as the college level, one can belong to RID, and one can comport oneself with various principles of professional behavior. Professions are a way of understanding interpreters as a collective.
  • As a field, interpreting depends on a set of ontological and epistemological assumptions about language, human behavior, and ethics – none of which are unique to either the skill or profession of interpreting, per se. Depending on training, education, and experience, individual interpreters are on a spectrum of ability to identify and discuss these assumptions.

If we view interpreting as a field, we can start to understand why research might be helpful and how we can engage with current research. In fact, one of my hopes is that interpreters could have more of an impact if we would make substantive contributions as a field (which intersects with many academic perspectives), and not only as a profession (which only applies to people who actually work as interpreters).

Objectives

The objectives are pretty self-explanatory.

  • Objective 1: Participants will recognize key organizations, researchers, and academic disciplines that are currently producing research related to interpreting.
  • Objective 2: Participants will be able to identify and retrieve current interpreting research, including academic articles, books, and reports.
  • Objective 3: Participants will be able to read, summarize, and evaluate research materials.
  • Objective 4: Participants will be able to incorporate research into daily practice, professional development activities, and contribute to future research.
  • Objective 5: Participants will improve their receptive and expressive academic ASL skills.

Making Research Count 1 – Introduction

Making Research Count

Welcome to “Making Research Count: Your Travel Guide to Researchistan”.

A few comments on the title. First, I chose the title “making research count” to point to two related ideas: the idea of countability and the idea of making an impact. Strange, isn’t it, that to make something “count” is to increase the value of something, as if quantity is tied to quality? And yet, in academic research — certainly in the interpreting field — this powerful assumption guides how we value research. I remember on several separate occasions, other interpreters telling me that Metger’s book “Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality” had limited value because it was only based on a few observations. (I disagreed, of course. That argument misses the point of the book.)  So I want research to be valued, but I hope that interpreters will not assume that quantitative research implies quality research. On the contrary, I believe that interpreting research could benefit the most from understanding the kinds of qualitative misunderstandings we make, and why those misunderstandings matter.

Second, and more simply, I want research to be valued. I see this as the responsibility of the entire professional interpreting community, which includes researchers, community interpreters (including CDIs), Deaf and hearing leaders, and ITP instructors.

Third, the subtitle, “Your Travel Guide to Researchistan”, was intended to give us a picture of research as a journey that required:

  1. packing our intellectual suitcase, i.e. take thinking seriously
  2. learning about how to get to a new place and meet the locals, i.e. how to obtain and read a basic research article
  3. getting home safely, i.e. not spending our whole lives in research-land.

In any case, the subtitle seems weird to me now. But there you have it. Nothing more to say about that.

So let’s get started.

Fulbright Grant in Italy for Deaf Studies

Fulbright_logo1

This is a fantastic, unique opportunity: a chance to earn a Fulbright doing research on a Deaf-related topic in Italy. Description below, or click on image (above) or link (below) for more details.

Candidate Profile

Graduate students with an interest and background in deafness related studies, with at least some experience in the area of the proposed project will be considered.

Proposals should involve research, teaching, and/or collaboration on projects aimed at iproving the lives of deaf and/or deaf-blind children; improving the lives of deaf adults; improving infrastructure accessibility for deaf individuals; strengthening specific areas of expertise that are lacking in Italy.

Examples include: early intervention for deaf and/or deaf-blind children; deaf education; specialized teaching methods for deaf-blind children; bilingualism and bi-culturalism; school psychology; clinical psychology; counseling; theater education; art education; interpreter education; teaching ASL to deaf students; teaching English through ASL; developing tools that will contribute to creating a positive environment where deaf and/or deaf-blind people can enjoy free and total access to curriculum and the world around them.

Click here for more information.

 

Fragmentation of (Interpreter) Knowledge

This is an installment of my recent presentation on “Making Research County” from the 2014 OCRID conference in Columbus, Ohio.

Making Research Count (Recovered)

We cannot avoid the problem of fragmentation when we think about the history of interpreting. I have tried to advocate for a less individualist view of the history of interpreting, i.e. less focus on person A did B or law X was passed, then things got better/worse/stayed the same. Instead, I like to think about the “conditions of possibility” for interpreting becoming  a profession.

One condition is that an educational system had to exist which allowed for specialized, technical training. Most interpreter training programs began (and remain) in two-year technical and community colleges. This institutional situation cannot be easily ignored. Yes, it is common to recognize this as a problem in training duration. As in, “There’s no way we can train someone in a language and also in interpreting skills in two year.” Absolutely true. (Although in my recollection, the teachers who complained about this most often also seemed the least organized, least committed to developing a strong curriculum, and wasted the most time during class.)

But there’s another aspect to specializing in two-year programs. Although I am glad that education has been, to some degree, more democratized, it has also become less about education and more about training. Education provides you with a broad skill set for reasoning that one uses to interpret constantly changing worldly experience, while training teaches you to perform a particular skill set with the boundaries of a professional position. Yes, there is plenty of overlap. But there are also important gaps in what training can provide, especially when it comes to answering important question such as, “why is there poverty, and how does poverty impact the Deaf community?”, “how should interpreters think about sexism?”, and so on.

Most importantly, the move towards economic specialization through technical training should be seen as a product of changes in 20th century capitalism, in particular the movement toward service economies that preceded alongside outsourcing labor to the developing/third world.

Antonio Gramsci made such an observation long before interpreting was a profession. It’s important for us to ponder how this change has impacted us.

Interpreting Citations: An Attempt at a Comprehensive List

Interpreting References

Explanation: This is a reasonably comprehensive list of research articles and books from the last 30 years that focus specifically on interpreting. It does not include texts in Deaf studies, linguistics, sociology, geography, literary theory, etc.

  1. Adam, R., Carty, B., & Stone, C. (2011). Ghostwriting: Deaf translators within the Deaf community. Babel, 57(4), 375–393. doi:10.1075/babel.57.4.01ada
  2. Antia, S. D., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2001). The role of interpreters in inclusive classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf, 146(4), 355–365.
  3. Bade, D. (2012). Language Sciences. Language Sciences, 34(3), 361–375. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2012.02.003
  4. Bancroft, M. A., Bendana, L., Bruggeman, J., & Feuerle, L. (2013). Interpreting in the Gray Zone: Where Community and Legal Interpreting Intersect. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 5(1). doi:10.12807/ti.105201.2013.a05
  5. Beaver, D. L., Hayes, P. L., & Luetke-Stahlman, B. (1995). In-service trends: General education teachers working with educational interpreters. American Annals of the Deaf, 140(1), 38–46.
  6. Bentley-Sassaman, J., & Dawson, C. (2013). Deaf-Hearing Interpreter Teams: A Teamwork Approach. Journal of Interpretation, 22(1), 2.
  7. Berge, S. S. (2014). Social and private speech in an interpreted meeting of deafblind persons. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 16(1), 81–105. doi:10.1075/intp.16.1.05ber
  8. Berge, S. S., & Raanes, E. (2013). Coordinating the Chain of Utterances: An Analysis of Communicative Flow and Turn Taking in an Interpreted Group Dialogue for Deaf-Blind Persons. Sign Language Studies, 13(3), 350–371. doi:10.1353/sls.2013.0007
  9. Birgitta Nilsen, A. (2013). Exploring interpreting for young children. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 5(2).
  10. Bishop, R., & Phillips, J. (2006). Language. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2-3), 51–58. doi:10.1177/0263276406062571
  11. Bontempo, K., Napier, J., & Hayes, L. (2014). Does personality matter? An international study of sign language interpreter disposition. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research.
  12. Chin, N. P., Cuculick, J., Starr, M., Panko, T., Widanka, H., & Dozier, A. (2013). Deaf Mothers and Breastfeeding: Do Unique Features of Deaf Culture and Language Support Breastfeeding Success? Journal of Human Lactation, 29(4), 564–571. doi:10.1177/0890334413476921
  13. Christensen, K. M., & Delgado, G. L. (2000). Deaf Plus: A Multicultural Perspective. DawnSignPress.
  14. Christensen, T. P. (2008). Judges’ deviations from norm-based direct speech in court. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 10(1), 99–127. doi:10.1075/intp.10.1.07chr
  15. Cokely, D. (1982). Sign language interpreters: a demographic survey. Sign Language Studies, 32(1), 261–286.
  16. Cokely, D. (1984). Towards a Sociolinguistic Model of the Interpreting Process: Focus on ASL and English. Georgetown University.
  17. Cokely, D. (1986). The Effects of Lag Time on Interpreter Errors. Sign Language Studies, 1053(1), 341–375. doi:10.1353/sls.1986.0025
  18. Cokely, D. (1992). Interpretation: A Sociolinguistic Model. Linstok Press.
  19. Cokely, D., & Baker-Shenk, C. (1991). American Sign Language: A Teacher’s Resource Text on Curriculum, Methods, and Evaluation. Gallaudet University Press.
  20. Coyne, D. (2012). The Exploration of Signed Language Interpreters’ Practices and Commitments with a Social Justice Lens. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati.
  21. Dahl, C., & Wilcox, S. (1990). Preparing the educational interpreter: A survey of sign language interpreter training programs. American Annals of the Deaf, 135(4), 275–279.
  22. Davitti, E. (2013). Dialogue interpreting as intercultural mediation: Interpreters’ use of upgrading moves in parent–teacher meetings. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 15(2), 168–199. doi:10.1075/intp.15.2.02dav
  23. de Bruin, E. (2006). The Psychotherapist and the Sign Language Interpreter. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(3), 360–368. doi:10.1093/deafed/enj034
  24. Dean, R. K. (2014). Condemned to repetition? An analysis of problem-setting and problem-solving in sign language interpreting ethics. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research.
  25. Dean, R. K., & Pollard, R. Q. (2001). Application of Demand-Control Theory to Sign Language Interpreting: Implications for Stress and Interpreter Training. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf ….
  26. Ervas, F., & Tripodi, V. (2012). New Perspectives on Quine’s ‘Word and Object’. Disputatio.
  27. Fant, L. J. (1990). Silver Threads: A Personal Look at the First Twenty-Five Years of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. Registry of Interpreters for.
  28. Feuerle, L. M. (2013). Testing Interpreters: Developing, Administering, and Scoring Court Interpreter Certification Exams. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 5(1). doi:10.12807/ti.105201.2013.a04
  29. Frankel, M. A. (2002). Deaf-Blind Interpreting: Interpreters’ Use of Negation in Tactile American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 2(2), 169–181. doi:10.1353/sls.2002.0004
  30. Frishberg, N. (1990). Interpreting: An Introduction. Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Incorporated.
  31. Garzone, G., & Viezzi, M. (2002). Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities : Selected Papers from the 1st Forlì Conference on Interpreting Studies, 9-11 November 2000. J. Benjamins.
  32. Gómez, M. J. L. (2007). Predicting proficiency in signed language interpreting. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 1–25.
  33. Grbić, N. (2008). Constructing interpreting quality. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 10(2), 232–257. doi:10.1075/intp.10.2.04grb
  34. Haricharan, H. J., Heap, M., Coomans, F., & London, L. (2013). Can we talk about the right to healthcare without language? A critique of key international human rights law, drawing on the experiences of a Deaf woman in Cape Town, South Africa. Disability & Society, 28(1), 54–66. doi:10.1080/09687599.2012.699277
  35. Hastings, S. O., Musambira, G. W., & Ayoub, R. (2011). Revisiting Edward T. Hall’s Work on Arabs and Olfaction: An Update with Implications for Intercultural Communication Scholarship. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 40(1), 3–20. doi:10.1080/17475759.2011.558315
  36. Hlavac, James. (2013). A Cross-National Overview of Translator and Interpreter Certification Procedures. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 5(1). doi:10.12807/ti.105201.2013.a02
  37. Hlavac, Jim. (2010). Ethical implications in situations where the language of interpretation shifts: The AUSIT Code of Ethics. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 2(2).
  38. Hlavac, Jim. (2011). Sociolinguistic profiles of users and providers of lay and professional interpreting services: The experiences of a recently arrived Iraqi language community in Melbourne. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 3(2).
  39. Horváth, I. (2010). Creativity in interpreting. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 12(2), 146–159. doi:10.1075/intp.12.2.02hor
  40. Humphrey, J. H., & Alcorn, B. (2007). So You Want to be an Interpreter?: An Introduction to Sign Language Interpreting. H \& H Publishing Company.
  41. Ingram, R. M. (1988). Interpreters’ Recognition of Structure & Meaning. Sign Language Studies, 1058(1), 21–36. doi:10.1353/sls.1988.0025
  42. Jacobsen, B. (2012). The significance of interpreting modes for question–answer dialogues in court interpreting. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 14(2), 217–241. doi:10.1075/intp.14.2.05jac
  43. James, J. R., & Gabriel, K. I. (2012). Student interpreters show encoding and recall differences for information in English and American Sign Language. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 4(1).
  44. Janzen, T. (2005). Topics in Signed Language Interpreting. John Benjamins Publishing.
  45. Johnston, T. A. (2004). W(h)Ither the Deaf Community? Population, Genetics, and the Future of Australian Sign Language. American Annals of the Deaf, 148(5), 358–375.
  46. Kent, S. J. (2013). Deaf Voice and the Invention of Community Interpreting. Journal of Interpretation, 22(1), 3.
  47. Kicey, M. A. (2014). Road to Nowhere: The Mobility of Oedipus and the Task of Interpretation. American Journal of Philology, 135(1), 29–55. doi:10.1353/ajp.2014.0004
  48. Kritzinger, J., Schneider, M., Swartz, L., & Braathen, S. H. (2014). Patient Education and Counseling. Patient Education and Counseling, 94(3), 379–383. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.12.006
  49. Kukkonen, P. (2013). The translating and signifying subject as homo interpres and homo significans: Victoria Welby’s concept of translation – a polyfunctional tool. Semiotica, (196). doi:10.1515/sem-2013-0059
  50. Lai, M., & Mulayim, S. (2010). Training refugees to become interpreters for refugees. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 2(1), 48–60.
  51. Lee, J. (2009). Conflicting views on court interpreting examined through surveys of legal professionals and court interpreters*. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 1–23.
  52. Lin, I.-H. I., Chang, F.-L. A., & Kuo, F.-L. (2013). The impact of non-native accented English on rendition accuracy in simultaneous interpreting. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 5(2).
  53. Livingston, S., Singer, B., & Abrahamson, T. (1994). Effectiveness Compared: ASL Interpretation vs. Transliteration. Sign Language Studies, 1082(1), 1–54. doi:10.1353/sls.1994.0008
  54. Lommel, A. R. (2013). Alternatives to Certification. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 5(1), 222–234.
  55. Lukin, A., Moore, A., Herke, M., Wegener, R., & Wu, C. (2011). Halliday’s model of register revisited and explored. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 4(2). doi:10.1558/lhs.v4i2.187
  56. Marais, K. (2013). Constructive Alignment in Translator Education: Reconsidering Assessment for Both Industry and Academy. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 5(1).
  57. Marks, A. R. (2013). Participation Framework and Footing Shifts in an Interpreted Academic Meeting. Journal of Interpretation, 22(1), 4.
  58. Marschark, M. (2005). Access to Postsecondary Education through Sign Language Interpreting. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(1), 38–50. doi:10.1093/deafed/eni002
  59. Marschark, M. (2006). Benefits of Sign Language Interpreting and Text Alternatives for Deaf Students’ Classroom Learning. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(4), 421–437. doi:10.1093/deafed/enl013
  60. McDermid, C. (2008). Social Construction of American Sign Language–English Interpreters. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(1), 105–130. doi:10.1093/deafed/enn012
  61. McDermid, C. (2014). Cohesion in English to ASL simultaneous interpreting. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research.
  62. McKee, R. (2014). Breaking news: Sign language interpreters on television during natural disasters. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 16(1), 107–130. doi:10.1075/intp.16.1.06kee
  63. Merlini, R. (2009). Seeking asylum and seeking identity in a mediated encounter. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 1–37.
  64. Metzger, M. (1999). Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Gallaudet University Press.
  65. Metzger, M., Fleetwood, E., & Collins, S. D. (2004). Discourse Genre and Linguistic Mode: Interpreter Influences in Visual and Tactile Interpreted Interaction. Sign Language Studies, 4(2), 118–137. doi:10.1353/sls.2004.0004
  66. Mikkelson, H. (2013). Universities and Interpreter Certification. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 5(1). doi:10.12807/ti.105201.2013.a03
  67. Miller, K. R. (2001). Access to sign language interpreters in the criminal justice system. American Annals of the Deaf, 146(4), 328–330.
  68. Mindess, A. (1999). Reading Between the Signs: Intercultural Communication for Sign Language Interpreters. Intercultural Press.
  69. Morell, J. L. R. (2011). Toward the development of a metacognitive intercultural communicative competence in the education of students of bilingual interpreting: general theoretical/pragmatic foundations. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 3(1), 106–118.
  70. Napier, J. (2002a). The D/deaf-H/hearing Debate. Sign Language Studies, 2(2), 141–149. doi:10.1353/sls.2002.0006
  71. Napier, J. (2002b). University Interpreting: Linguistic Issues for Consideration. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(4), 1–21.
  72. Napier, J., & Barker, R. (2004). Sign Language Interpreting: The Relationship between Metalinguistic Awareness and the Production of Interpreting Omissions. Sign Language Studies, 4(4), 369–393. doi:10.1353/sls.2004.0020
  73. National Technical Institute for the Deaf Rochester Institute of Technology Marc Marschark Director, Rico Peterson Professor of Psychology Rochester Institute of Technology, Elizabeth A. Winston Professor of Psychology Northeastern University, Patricia Sapere Professor of Psychology Northeastern University, Carol M. Convertino Professor of Psychology Northeastern University, Rosemarie Seewagen Professor of Psychology Northeastern University, Christine Monikowski Professor of Psychology Northeastern University. (2005). Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education : Directions for Research and Practice. Oxford University Press.
  74. Nicodemus, B., & Swabey, L. (2014). Conveying medication prescriptions in American Sign Language: Use of emphasis in translations by interpreters and deaf physicians. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research.
  75. Obasi, C. (2013). Race and ethnicity in sign language interpreter education, training and practice. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 103–120. doi:10.1080/13613324.2012.733686
  76. Ott, E. K. (2012). Do We Eat Our Young and One Another? Horizontal Violence Among Signed Language Interpreters. Western Oregon University.
  77. Ozolins, U. (2009). Back translation as a means of giving translators a voice. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 1(2), 1–13.
  78. Ozolins, U. (2011). Telephone interpreting: Understanding practice and identifying research needs. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 3(2).
  79. Peng, G. (2009). Using Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) to describe the development of coherence in interpreting trainees. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 11(2), 216–243. doi:10.1075/intp.11.2.06pen
  80. Pérez, M. S. (2011). The role of interpreters in the conquest and acculturation of the Canary Archipelago. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 13(2), 155–175. doi:10.1075/intp.13.2.01sar
  81. Phelan, M. (2011). Legal Interpreters in the news in Ireland. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 3(1), 76–105.
  82. Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing Interpreting Studies. Routledge.
  83. Pöchhacker, F. (2010). The role of research in interpreter education. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 2(1), 1–10.
  84. Pöchhacker, F., & Shlesinger, M. (2002). The Interpreting Studies Reader. Routledge.
  85. Ra, S., & Napier, J. (2013). Community interpreting: Asian language interpreters’ perspectives. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 5(2).
  86. Roy, C. B. (1992). A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Interpreter’s Role in Simultaneous Talk in a Face-to-Face Interpreted Dialogue. Sign Language Studies, 1074(11), 21–61. doi:10.1353/sls.1992.0018
  87. Roy, C. B. (1999). Interpreting As a Discourse Process. Oxford University Press, USA.
  88. Roy, C. B. (2000). Innovative Practices for Teaching Sign Language Interpreters. Gallaudet University Press.
  89. Roy, C., & Metzger, M. (2014). Researching signed language interpreting research through a sociolinguistic lens. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research.
  90. Rudser, S. F. (1986). Linguistic Analysis of Changes in Interpreting: 1973–1985. Sign Language Studies, 1053(1), 332–340. doi:10.1353/sls.1986.0009
  91. Rudvin, M. (2007). Professionalism and ethics in community interpreting. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 1–24.
  92. Russell, D., & Winston, B. (2014). Tapping into the interpreting process: Using participant reports to inform the interpreting process in educational settings. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research.
  93. Santos, C. M. S. M. (2011). Supervising sign language interpreters students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 5–12. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.200
  94. Scarpa, F., Musacchio, M. T., & Palumbo, G. (2009). A foot in both camps: Redressing the balance between the “pure” and applied branches of translation studies. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 1(2), 32–43.
  95. Schäffner, C. (2004). Translation research and interpreting research: traditions, gaps and synergies.
  96. Schick, B. (2005). Look Who’s Being Left Behind: Educational Interpreters and Access to Education for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(1), 3–20. doi:10.1093/deafed/enj007
  97. Scott-Baumann, A. (2010). Ricoeur’s Translation Model as a Mutual Labour of Understanding. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(5), 69–85. doi:10.1177/0263276410374630
  98. Seal, B. C. (2004). Psychological Testing of Sign Language Interpreters. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(1), 39–52. doi:10.1093/deafed/enh010
  99. Seeber, K. G. (2011). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories — new models. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 13(2), 176–204. doi:10.1075/intp.13.2.02see
  100. Seleskovitch, D. (1978). Interpreting for international conferences: problems of language and communication. Pen and Booth.
  101. Seleskovitch, D., Lederer, M., & Harmer, J. (1995). A Systematic Approach to Teaching Interpretation. Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
  102. Setton, R. (2013). Brenda Nicodemus and Laurie Swabey (Eds.). Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 15(1), 127–138. doi:10.1075/intp.15.1.06set
  103. Shaw, S. (2006). Launching International Collaboration for Interpretation Research. Sign Language Studies, 6(4), 438–453. doi:10.1353/sls.2006.0028
  104. Shaw, S. (2011). Cognitive and motivational contributors to aptitude: A study of spoken and signed language interpreting students. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 13(1), 70–84. doi:10.1075/intp.13.1.05sha
  105. Shaw, S., & Roberson, L. (2009). Service-learning: Recentering the Deaf community in interpreter education. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(3), 277–283.
  106. Sheppard, K. (2011). Using American Sign Language Interpreters to Facilitate Research Among Deaf Adults: Lessons Learned. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 22(2), 129–134. doi:10.1177/1043659610395765
  107. Shlesinger, M. (2009). Crossing the divide: What researchers and practitioners can learn from one another. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 1(1), 1.
  108. Shlesinger, M., & Pöchhacker, F. (2008). Introduction: Doing justice to court interpreting. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 10(1), 1–7. doi:10.1075/intp.10.1.01shl
  109. Shores, P., Hohenstein, C., & Keller, J. (2014). Deaf and non-deaf research collaboration on Swiss German Sign Language (DSGS) interpreter training in Switzerland. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research.
  110. Siegel, P. (1995). What they didn’t know may have helped us: How the Supreme court misinterpreted the role of sign language interpreters. American Annals of the Deaf, 140(5), 386–395.
  111. Siegel, P. (2004). Language and the Law in Deaf Communities. Sign Language Studies, 5(1), 137–142. doi:10.1353/sls.2004.0025
  112. Siple, L. A. (1993). Interpreters’ Use of Pausing in Voice to Sign Transliteration. Sign Language Studies, 1079(1), 147–180. doi:10.1353/sls.1993.0020
  113. Smith, A. (2014). Think aloud protocols: Viable for teaching, learning, and professional development in interpreting. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research.
  114. Stephens, C. J. (2013). Phonological Parameters of Indigenous and ASL Country Name-Signs. Journal of Interpretation, 22(1), 5.
  115. Stewart, D. A., Schein, J. D., & Cartwright, B. E. (2004). Sign language interpreting: exploring its art and science. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
  116. Stone, C., & Woll, B. B. (2008). Dumb O Jemmy and Others: Deaf People, Interpreters and the London Courts in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Sign Language Studies, 8(3), 226–240. doi:10.1353/sls.2008.0009
  117. Storey, B. C. (2004). Sign Language Vocabulary Development Practices and Internet Use Among Educational Interpreters. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(1), 53–67. doi:10.1093/deafed/enh012
  118. Strong, M., & Rudser, S. F. (1986). The Subjective Assessment of Sign Language Interpreters. Sign Language Studies, 1053(1), 299–314. doi:10.1353/sls.1986.0018
  119. Taibi, M., & Martin, A. (2012). Court translation and interpreting in times of the“War on Terror”: The case of Taysir Alony. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 4(1).
  120. Takeda, K. (2010). What interpreting teachers can learn from students: a case study. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 2(1), 38–47.
  121. Tryuk, M. (2010). Interpreting in Nazi concentration camps during World War II. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 12(2), 125–145. doi:10.1075/intp.12.2.01try
  122. User. (2009). Interpreter’s non-rendition behaviour and its effect on interaction: A case study of a multi-party interpreting situation. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 1–12.
  123. Valero-Garcés, C., & Abkari, A. (2010). Learning from practice: Interpreting at the 11M terrorist attack trial. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 2(2).
  124. Van Dijk, R., Boers, E., Christoffels, I., & Hermans, D. (2011). Directionality effects in simultaneous language interpreting: The case of sign language interpreters in the Netherlands. American Annals of the Deaf, 156(1), 47–55.
  125. Van Orman Quine, W. (1960). Word and Object. MIT Press.
  126. Varney, J. (2009). From hermeneutics to the translation classroom: current perspectives on effective learning. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 1(1), 27–43.
  127. Vernon, M., & Miller, K. (2001). Interpreting in mental health settings: Issues and concerns. American Annals of the Deaf, 146(5), 429–434.
  128. Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. Longman.
  129. Wadensjö, C. (2004). Dialogue interpreting: A monologising practice in a dialogically organised world. Target: International Journal on Translation …, (16), 1.
  130. White, J. A. (2014). Cognitive spaces: Expanding participation framework by looking at signed language interpreters’ discourse and conceptual blending. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research.
  131. Wolbers, K. A., Dimling, L. M., Lawson, H. R., & Golos, D. B. (2012). Parallel and divergent interpreting in an elementary school classroom. American Annals of the Deaf, 157(1), 48–65.
  132. Yarger, C. C. (2001). Educational interpreting: understanding the rural experience. American Annals of the Deaf, 146(1), 16–30.
  133. Youdelman, M. (2013). The Development of Certification for Healthcare Interpreters in the United States. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 5(1).
  134. Zimányi, K. (2009). On impartiality and Neutrality: a diagrammatic tool as a visual aid. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 1(2), 55.

For Fidelity as a Core Value in Interpreting Studies

high_fidelity_wallpaper_by_Likely_Lad

Early on in interpreting and translation studies, the central theoretical discussion was focused on fidelity, defined as likeness to the original. In recent years, the discussion of fidelity has been largely sidelined through a very useful focus on the important mediating effects of language that were ignored in earlier debates. The move away from fidelity, however, is based on a misunderstanding of the enormous importance and richness of what fidelity means.

I am reminded of two related uses of the term fidelity. First, the Marine motto is semper fidelis, a Latin phrase that means “always faithful” or “always loyal”. Faithful to what? Loyal to what? From the outside, it may seem that this loyalty is synonymous with following orders. Any service member knows this is not exactly the case. The point of following orders is not to follow blindly, but to orient one’s being in such a way that the order is simply the verbal recognition of a commitment that precedes the order. In other words, the soldier who gives the order and the soldier that follows the order are, together, fidelis/faithful to something larger than the two. What this “larger” thing is, is precisely the question of fidelity, since it can only be intuited as nationalism, patriotism, soldierly love for one another, etc. Fidelis, therefore, means behaving with discipline as a responsible individual within a regime where individual responsibility is always collective and organized. (Hence the General-Philosopher David Patraeus.)

Second, fidelity is faithfulness in the religious sense. Again, a religious person who is faithful is not one who follows the church commandments to the letter. Such a person may be devout but not necessarily faithful — a central feature of the division between Protestants and Catholics (i.e. Catholics are devout but Protestants are faithful). Faithfulness does not consist in adhering to the known the will of God, but in adhering to the will of God despite the impossibility of either knowing it or adhering to it. And faithfulness especially means adhering to the will of God as a material being “in this world” who is said to have purchase within the next world.

In sum, faithfulness, it seems to me, means holding onto two things which are impossible and yet mutually necessary.

This is why interpreting is so interesting to me. To interpret is to hold onto two separate languages that are mutually unintelligible and create the circumstances for an appearance that they actually are intelligible.

For example, most of us who interpret or translate do a pretty good job, even though we recognize how enormously difficult it is to explain this job to others. We know that interpreting is possible despite the fact that the process itself is complex beyond any practitioner’s understanding. Interpreting proceeds almost as a miracle which we, ourselves, are unable to explain or fully control. And yet, we also know that interpreting is impossible. We often discuss this among ourselves. We know that no matter how good our voicing or signing is, there’s always a certain gap that exists between the two languages which cannot be bridged with even the best interpreter. Interpreting is an impossible task.

Wholly possible. Wholly impossible. And as interpreters, we are motivated and guided by fidelity. We are committed to a task which we are all very qualified to do, and which none of us are fully qualified to do.

Fidelity is a rich concept which allows us to think about our job in this way, and for that reason I think we should include fidelity among our list of core principles in interpreting — albeit by including its richer philosophical valences.

Why May Day Matters for Interpreters

HaymarketRiot-Harpers

May Day is a unique international celebration of labor rights movements. On recent discussion boards, interpreters have been discussing the detrimental impact that comprehensive interpreting agencies have been having on sign language interpreting services. However, much of the discussion continues to view this problem within the potentially limited framework of what is best for the Deaf consumer or best for the interpreting field. On May Day, I think it’s important to remember that worker rights – including the right of interpreters to provide quality services – is an international struggle within the economic system known as capitalism. To understand what’s happening in the interpreting field, we have to understand labor and capital more broadly and recognize that no efforts to improve the quality of interpreting services will be possible without organizing across professions. Unfortunately, a countervailing trend in the interpreting profession is to view interpreting as a unique and often solitary profession. I hope that we can reflect on these problems on May Day.