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.

Advertisements

CityLab Got it Wrong: The Real Story is English Monolingualism

Is the U.S still influenced by Anglo-centrism? In an article published yesterday by the CityLab project at the Atlantic, researchers at the Urban Institute claim that “one in fifteen children are linguistically isolated.” By “linguistically isolated”, they mean that a child lives in a home where no one over 15 years of age speaks English less than “very well.” This research is based on census data that reports language proficiency in the home.

Map From Article

DC-Metro-791x1024

While the researchers may be right that English proficiency is an important factor in accessing public services, and certainly may have an impact on socialization, I read this and wondered if this conclusion is not only inadequate but ethnocentric. Rather than dive into the conclusions of the investigation, I want to reverse the claim to illustrate what I mean.

Are we aware of the enormous linguistic isolation of American children all over the country? Are we aware that in the majority of states, children from a young age are inflicted with monolingualism as a result of parents who are carriers of the monolingual illness? Shouldn’t we be more concerned about the ignorance and prejudice that results from having no way to communicate across language barriers? I decided to draw up a quick map (below) of the percent, by state, of residents who are monolingual in English. The map shows that in most states, that number is above 75%, with the national average being at 79%. In other words, 79% of the people in the United States are linguistically isolated by only knowing English. I think that’s a more important story about racial and linguistic segregation.

My Map of Percent English Monolinguals (by State)

data

 

Monolingualism is contagious, but it is also treatable. It seems that more children in the U.S. should be required to vaccinate as early as kindergarten so that we can build a future where no children is “linguistically isolated”.

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.

 

Sample Interpreting Workshop Proposal

Unfortunately, workshop proposals are difficult to come by. (Maybe our hesitance to get observed as interpreters carries over into professional development?) To help with this and practice some vulnerability, I’ve decided to share my workshop proposal for the OCRID 2014 conference. It’s not perfect, and some elements of the workshop shifted between creation and implementation. But on the whole, I think it’s a decent overview of what a workshop proposal looks like – even if it is a work in progress. Special thanks to OCRID for allowing me to present, and to all the participants who contributed to a rich conversation.


 

Making Research Count: Your Travel Guide to the Republic of Researchistan

Presented by Austin Kocher, The Ohio State University

Program Description

The term “research” – like travel to foreign country – provokes mixed reactions among sign language interpreters: beguiling to some, terrifying to others. Yet as sign language interpreting continues to grows as a practice profession and more working interpreters earn graduate level degrees, we cannot ignore the increasingly important role of academic research. But how can we make research count? Workshop participants with receive hands-on training in the art of reading and evaluating interpreting research, applying research to daily practice, incorporating research into workshops and presentations, and improving academic ASL skills. This workshop is organized like a travel guide, with actual travel stories and photographs along the way. We will learn how to pack our intellectual suitcase for the journey, visit the must-see sights in the current state of interpreting research, learn how to talk with the curious academic locals, and navigate back to safety when we get lost.

Benefit to Practitioners

The content of this workshop is applicable to all working interpreters, interpreter trainers, and interpreters interested in creating a professional workshop. Participants will gain confidence discussing academic research and develop skills to make research relevant in the field. Working interpreters will improve their ability to evaluate research, and apply it to their daily practice. Interpreter trainers will become more familiar with research outlets and learn to incorporate it into interpreter training program. Interpreters interested in creating a workshop will be able to utilize up-to-date professional knowledge as a foundation for workshop development. As a result, workshop participants will become better consumers of information, and better able to create new knowledge for the benefit of the interpreting profession.

Workshop learning objectives.

  • 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.

Activities

  • To accomplish Objective 1, the presenter will use didactic instruction and group discussion to provide an overview to the current state of interpreting research with specific examples from across the U.S. and around the world. (20 minutes*)
  • To accomplish Objective 2, the presenter will demonstrate how to retrieve research-related publications using online databases and web searches, including how to gain legal access to research materials through public libraries. (20 minutes*)
  • To accomplish Objective 3 the presenter will provide introductory instruction to the research process and writing practices, using personal examples from the presenter’s own work. The presenter will then distribute one academic publication to participants. Participants will work individually and in groups to identify the key parts of the publication, summarize the results, and evaluate the conclusions. (60 minutes*)
  • To accomplish Objective 4, the presenter will use examples his own research to demonstrate how to incorporate new research into existing knowledge frameworks, reference research publications, and ask new questions. Workshop participants will be differentiated by professional experience and interest into two groups: the first group(s) will apply research to daily practice, and the second group(s) will incorporate research into workshop development or interpreter training. Both groups will be asked to reflect on how new research raises new questions about interpreting. (60 minutes*)
  • To accomplish Objective 5, the presenter will use ASL as the language of instruction, and participants are invited (but not required) to use ASL during workshop discussion. Specific research-related signs will be discussed as applicable. (This objective will run concurrent with objectives 1-4.)
  • *An additional 20 minutes is allotted for a workshop introduction, closing comments, and flex time.

Biographical Sketch

Austin Kocher is a Ph.D. student at the Ohio State University in the Department of Geography. He graduated with an interpreting degree from Columbus State Community College in 2006, and earned an MA in geography in 2009. Austin’s recent projects include organizing a Deaf Geographies working group among international scholars to improve the quantity and quality of scholarship on Deaf culture and the interpreting profession in academic research. He blogs regularly at https://theinterpretingreport.wordpress.com.

Language Considerations

The presenter will review the following language plan at the beginning of the workshop. Given the importance of being able to discuss research in both ASL and English, the workshop will use both judiciously and systematically. The presenter will use ASL throughout the workshop. Workshop participants are invited to use this workshop as an opportunity develop their academic signing skills, but are also encouraged to balance this with their ability to attain the learning objectives of the workshop. Where necessary, participants will be grouped by modality preference.

Workshop Information

The requested time for the workshop is three hours. The workshop is designed to be appropriate for all levels of interpreters who do not have a research background. A projector is required, but the presenter will provide the laptop and connectors. It is requested that voicing into English will be conducted in a way that balances the objectives of the workshop and the needs of the participants. Copy-signing during audience discussion will be helpful.

References

This workshop uses recent research in two ways. First, the workshop itself draws upon the following recent research in the field of interpreting.

  • Gile, Daniel. (2001) Getting Started in Interpreting Research: Methodological Reflections, Personal Accounts and Advice for Beginners. John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Napier, Jemina; McKee, Rachel Locker, and Goswell, Della (eds.) (2006) Sign Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice in Australia and New Zealand. Federation Press.
  • Nicodemus, Brenda and Swabey, Laurie, eds. (2011) Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in Action. John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Marschark, Marc; Peterson, Rico; and Winston, Elizabeth (eds). (2005) Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directions for Research and Practice (Perspectives on Deafness). Oxford University Press.

Second, the workshop will use the following recent resources (or similar resources) as hands-on material for discussion.

  • Cokely, Dennis. “Shifting positionality: A critical examination of the turning point in the relationship of interpreters and the deaf community.” Interpreting and Interpreter Education (2005): 1.
  • Dean, Robyn K., and Robert Q. Pollard. “Application of demand-control theory to sign language interpreting: Implications for stress and interpreter training.”Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 6.1 (2001): 1-14.
  • Debevc, Matjaž, Primož Kosec, and Andreas Holzinger. “Improving multimodal web accessibility for deaf people: sign language interpreter module.” Multimedia Tools and Applications 54.1 (2011): 181-199.
  • Fischer, Steven L., Matthew M. Marshall, and Kathryn Woodcock. “Musculoskeletal disorders in sign language interpreters: A systematic review and conceptual model of musculoskeletal disorder development.” Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 42.2 (2012): 173-184.
  • Palmer, Jeffrey Levi, Wanette Reynolds, and Rebecca Minor. “”You Want What on Your PIZZA!?”: Videophone and Video-Relay Service as Potential Influences on the Lexical Standardization of American Sign Language.” Sign Language Studies 12.3 (2012): 371-397.

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.

OCRID Conference is Next Weekend!

The Ohio (OCRID) state conference for sign language interpreters is just next weekend – May 16-18. I’m excited and nervous at the same time. I love being involved in the planning process, and I’m grateful for the entire OCRID team. Good people, them. (See the program overview below.)

I’m excited about three major things.

First, I am looking forward to seeing this year’s batch of student research posters on the first night of the conference. I organized this session last year hoping that my belief in the power of ITP students would pan out. The students did not disappoint. But second acts can be difficult. Fortunately, we have five excellent participants who are ready to share their original thoughts and make a very smart contribution early on in their careers. Kudos to them.

Second, I’m getting some nervous energy about presenting my own three-hour workshop called “Making Research Count”. I’ve resisted doing a three-hour session in the past because I’m more comfortable with research-style presentations which last between 15 and 45 minutes. Plus, even when I do properly teach, my classes are up to 80 minutes, less than half the time. Teaching a workshop is a different beast. But now that I’ve had a little over a year to work on it, I think I’ve boiled it down to the right mix of theory, practice, hand-on work, and discussion. After the conference, I’ll put pieces of the workshop on the blog for your feedback. Oh yeah, and I’ll be signing it, too.

Workshop description: The term “research” – like travel to a foreign country – provokes mixed reactions among sign language interpreters: beguiling to some, terrifying to others. Yet as sign language interpreting grows as a practice profession and more working interpreters earn graduate level degrees, we cannot ignore the increasing importance of academic research. But how can we make research count? Workshop participants will be introduced to core research concepts and current thinking in interpreting research, followed by hands-on training in the art of reading and evaluating interpreting research, applying research to daily practice, incorporating research into workshops and presentations, and improving academic ASL skills. We will learn how to pack our intellectual suitcase for the journey, visit the must-see sights in the current state of interpreting research, learn how to talk with the academic locals, and navigate back to safety. (.3 CEUs)

Third, I’m eager to see us support the Mahoney family during the Saturday evening fundraiser for Audacity to Exist. It’s terrific that Shalene Germani made the event happen. I’m interested in seeing how the audience conversation goes. It’s open to the public, so I hope we see community members of all stripes present for the trailer and the discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnQx94herr0#t=27

I hope to see some of you there.

OCRID new conference schedule

Is Culture the Solution or the Problem?

Just the other week, I wrote a post (here) on the importance of recognizing the problems with using the concept of culture to understand Deaf social relations. I just came across a great article about immigrant sociology that makes the same point called “Herder’s Heritage” for short. I will quote from it at length because the argument is much better than the one I made. The final paragraph is the most important one, and it corresponds to points #1–4 on my earlier post What do sign language interpreters need to accomplish? In other words, I think the framework that interpreters use to understand “Deaf culture”, and indeed the framework that has been taught to many in the Deaf community, needs massive revision. Andreas Wimmer explains why:

“In the eyes of 18th-century philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder, the social world was populated by distinct peoples, analogous to the species of the natural world. Rather than dividing humanity into “races” depending on physical appearance and innate character (Herder 1968:179) or ranking peoples on the basis of their civiliza- tional achievements (Herder 1968:207, 227), as was common in French and British writings of the time, Herder insisted that each people represented one distinctive manifestation of a shared human capacity for cultivation (or Bildung) (e.g. 1968:226; but see Berg 1990 for Herder’s ambiguities regarding the equality of peoples).

Herder’s account of world history, conveyed in his sprawling and encyclopedic Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit, tells of the emergence and dis- appearance of different peoples, their cultural flourishing and decline, their migra- tions and adaptations to local habitat, and their mutual displacement, conquest, and subjugation. Each of these peoples was defined by three characteristics. First, each forms a community held together by close ties among its members (cf. 1968:407), or, in the words of the founder of romantic political theory Adam Mu ̈ller, a “Volksge- meinschaft.” Secondly, each people has a consciousness of itself, an identity based on a sense of shared destiny and historical continuity (1968:325). And finally, each people is endowed with its own culture and language that define a unique worldview, the “Genius eines Volkes” in Herderian language (cf. 1968:234).  …

But I should first discuss Herder’s heritage, which has left its mark not only on his direct descendants in folklore studies and cultural anthropology (Berg 1990; Wimmer 1996), but also on sociology and history.

In the following review, I will limit the discussion—for better or for worse—to North American intellectual currents, which are a source of inspiration to many discussions in other national contexts, and to three sets of approaches: various strands of assimilation theory, multiculturalism, and ethnic studies. As we will see, these paradigms rely on Herderian ontology to different degrees and emphasize different elements of the Herderian trinity of ethnic community, culture, and identity. They all concur, however, in taking ethnic groups as self-evident units of analysis and observation, assuming that dividing an immigrant society along ethnic lines—rather than class, religion, and so forth—is the most adequate way of advancing empirical understanding of immigrant incorporation. …

In conclusion, we can gain considerable analytical leverage if we conceive of immigrant incorporation [or Deaf social relations] as the outcome of a struggle over the boundaries of inclusion in which all members of a society are involved, including institutional actors such as civil society organizations, various state agencies, and so on. By focusing on these struggles, the ethnic group formation paradigm helps to avoid the Herderian ontology, in which ethnic communities appear as the given building blocks of society, rather than as the outcome of specific social processes in need of comparative explanation.”

Wimmer, A. (2009). Herder’s Heritage and the Boundary‐Making Approach: Studying Ethnicity in Immigrant Societies. Sociological Theory, 27(3), 244–270.

ASL Interpreters Among Peers

Much to do has been made about whether sign language interpreters should consider spoken language interpreters partners in the same profession or similarly-titled language workers with vastly different everyday experience. 

GarfieldInterpreter

The “separate-but-equal” argument has been promoted by people on both side of the isle, from Dennis Cokely to the AIIC (click here to read more about the AIIC). I believe there is good reason to view interpreting as a whole profession regardless of some important differences. I’ll come back to this question in a later post. But for now, I’m back to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Basically, I want to know what percent of interpreters nationwide and by state are sign language interpreters. There are two pieces of data. (1) RID membership, which I’m using as a proxy for working interpreters even though I know this is far from true. (2) The total people who identified as a 27-3091, the BLS code for an interpreter or translator. If you look at the numbers below, you can tell just how wonky this approach is. Nationwide, RID members make up about one-third of all reported interpreters and/or translators. Yet in some states, there are more RID members than interpreters/translators!

Here are some plausible explanations for what’s going on. I hope that you will suggest more explanations for the data, and perhaps send better data if you have it. This is a community exercise. We should all know what’s going on in our profession, shouldn’t we?

  1. The BLS data is skewed because not everyone who works as an interpreter is filling out 27-3091 on their IRS paperwork. (That is where the BLS is getting their data, n’est pas?
  2. The RID membership numbers are not entirely working interpreters.
  3. The RID membership numbers represent only a fraction of working ASL interpreters (which fraction, then?)
  4. In many cases, interpreting is so part-time that it’s hard to get accurate data.
  5. Many interpreters aren’t claiming interpreting wages on their taxes.
States RID Members Total Interpreters/Translators (BLS) Percent of Total are RID members
Total 15,617 48050 32.50%
Alabama 174 290 60.00%
Alaska 49 50 98.00%
Arizona 460 1470 31.29%
Arkansas 82 90 91.11%
California 1,762 7860 22.42%
Colorado 343 1200 28.58%
Connecticut 188 280 67.14%
Delaware 36 unk
District of Columbi 147 400 36.75%
Florida 1,064 1930 55.13%
Georgia 420 1410 29.79%
Hawaii 62 190 32.63%
Idaho 83 250 33.20%
Illinois 500 1570 31.85%
Indiana 298 870 34.25%
Iowa 151 420 35.95%
Kansas 88 580 15.17%
Kentucky 273 400 68.25%
Louisiana 150 350 42.86%
Maine 104 150 69.33%
Maryland 565 870 64.94%
Massachusetts 357 1820 19.62%
Michigan 407 690 58.99%
Minnesota 755 1220 61.89%
Mississippi 43 110 39.09%
Missouri 169 680 24.85%
Montana 30 50 60.00%
Nebraska 75 450 16.67%
Nevada 95 310 30.65%
New Hampshire 65 180 36.11%
New Jersey 354 590 60.00%
New Mexico 240 280 85.71%
New York 1,007 3590 28.05%
North Carolina 419 130 322.31%
North Dakota 21 1870 1.12%
Ohio 620 330 187.88%
Oklahoma 106 1030 10.29%
Oregon 280 1470 19.05%
Pennsylvania 546 310 176.13%
Puerto Rico 22 120 18.33%
Rhode Island 34 390 8.72%
South Carolina 96 230 41.74%
South Dakota 81 560 14.46%
Tennessee 237 3860 6.14%
Texas 735 640 114.84%
Utah 206 90 228.89%
Vermont 37 4000 0.93%
Virginia 455 1170 38.89%
Washington 542 110 492.73%
West Virginia 50 1070 4.67%
Wisconsin 371 70 530.00%
Wyoming 14 unk