Deaf Interpreters – StreetLeverage

Posted on April 12, 2017 by Jimmy Beldon — 2 Comments

Deaf Interpreters: The Value of Formative Experience

Jimmy Beldon presented Deaf Interpreters: The Value of Formative Experience at StreetLeverage – Live 2016 | Fremont. His presentation examines how leveraging Deaf Interpreters and their formative experiences can enhance communication equity in interpreted situations.

You can find the PPT deck for his presentation here.

[Note from StreetLeverage: What follows is an English translation of Jimmy’s StreetLeverage – Live 2016 presentation. We would encourage each of you to watch the video and access Jimmy’s original presentation directly.]

If you enjoy this presentation and accompanying article, consider going to StreetLeverage – Live 2017.

Deaf Interpreters: The Value of Formative Experience

To begin let us consider the meaning of the word “formative”. One dictionary’s definition of the term is “serving to form something, especially having a profound and lasting influence on a person’s development.” “Formative” experience is the accumulation of experiences, which results in the formation of one’s identity. This can include the development of a person’s skills, thoughts, and beliefs among other things.

I would like to share a little bit of my formative journey. I was raised in a Deaf family. I am the third generation of Deaf people in my family, and my children are the fourth generation. I have seen a multitude of interpreters throughout my life. I had the chance to compare my grandparents’ experiences of interpreters, my parents’ experiences, my own experiences and now my children’s experience. Across these generations, I have observed a shift in the field of sign language interpreting.

Now the question that remains is has the profession changed for the better? And if so, what is that positive change? This is a topic that is yet to be discussed. Yes, some changes are apparent throughout the profession, but how have these changes manifested in actual interpreted situations? The power dynamics and life experience varies in any given situation, but I will focus on what the interpreter can do to put the Deaf consumer at ease and equalize communication. In the past, interpreters have at times been unable to alleviate the inequality between hearing and deaf parties and become a barrier to cohesive communication.

Looking at the history of Deaf interpreters, this change in the profession is apparent as well. A Reverse Skill Certificate or RSC was the original terminology for the certification granted to Deaf Interpreters. What we now know as CDIs were originally known as individuals who held RSCs. My mother obtained this certification. After learning about her experience in the field, I soon became involved in the world of interpreting, as well. I began my career as an interpreter in 1993 before formal certification was available. Then in 2001, when certification was finally implemented, I obtained my certification, and my interpreting career progressed from that point. I realized, however, that my experience and my mother’s experience within the profession were vastly different. Now I have trained in a multitude of arenas; I have developed curriculum for the education of Deaf interpreters through the National Consortium Interpreter Education Center (NCIEC), and I continue to observe these changes within the profession. These changes include the provision of the RID certification examination, which is now a bit different. The individuals who make up the pool of interpreters has changed. RID’s CDI Standard Practice Paper (SPP) is outdated and in need of revision. The document has not been revised, however, because the work of CDIs has changed and is still being determined. There are incongruencies and differing perspectives about what it means to be a Certified Deaf Interpreter.

Now let us revisit this term “formative” and it’s relation to interpreting. The ultimate objective of interpreting is communication equity. This is essential, but what does communication equity actually mean? I will explore this crucial concept and how it relates to formative experience. Then further along in my presentation, I will share with you the formula to an ideal interpretation in any given situation. To begin, I would like to help you imagine what it might be like for a deaf person to walk into an interpreted situation. You are already accustomed to American society; so let me instead draw an example outside the United States that parallels the experience of a deaf person.

Imagine you are visiting an unfamiliar country for the first time. You plan to vacation there, but when you arrive disaster strikes and you end up in the court system, a juvenile court or an emergency room.

These are all very high-risk situations. A low-risk situation is one in which you are able to take care of quickly with any interpreter. In these three situations, the risk is higher. While dealing with the government, the stakes are high and therefore these situations will typically require the use of a qualified interpreter, someone to interpret the native language of that particular country. At this point, you might consider who this interpreter will be. You would hope this individual is not only proficient in the country’s native language and culture, but your own language and culture, as well. Thus, as you are American, your interpreter should be knowledgeable about American culture and all that entails. They should be able to put you at ease, to clarify intricate cultural differences that you are unfamiliar with so that you may connect with the professionals around you. On the other hand, if this individual had minimal English skills and was unfamiliar with American culture, communication would be problematic. You may be unable to get your point across, or worse; you could be imprisoned for life. You may not even understand the punishment you are being given. You could be fined, put on death row, beheaded, any number of things. Or decisions regarding your medical care could be miscommunicated. You may not want surgery or would prefer to return to your home country for treatment and this is misinterpreted. Even a single sentence interpreted incorrectly may influence the final outcome.

American vs. Deaf American Formative Experience

Next, I will explain a little bit about the American formative experience. This is essentially the acquisition of experiences throughout your life. Last night, Aaron Brace discussed enculturation, the process of learning American culture because you grew up here. Over time, people naturally become knowledgeable about common values, present systems, language, and cultural norms, among other things. They are competent in legal, medical and educational systems because they navigate through them in their daily life and these daily experiences result in competence.

With this in mind, what do the formative experiences of Deaf individuals look like? Deaf people’s lives, at home, at work, and in public places include oppression, lack of understanding systems, communication barriers, lack of access to current events, language deprivations, and lack of empowerment in their own culture.

I am sure many of you are aware of the obstacles deaf people face and by no means would I imply otherwise. But consider for a moment, the multitude of people who experience these obstacles. My grandparents, my parents and so many others did not have the same privileges that you now have. Their lives were quite different. Growing up in a Deaf family, as I did, was ideal because communication was readily available. Those who are raised in hearing families often lack full communication access. If an individual works in manufacturing or agriculture in a rural area, it is rare they will ever be able to meet and interact with other deaf people. In total, these communication obstacles make life extraordinarily difficult. These individuals experience oppression every day of their lives. Upon entering the workforce, they are often the only deaf employee and make do with very little communication. They go to work simply to make ends meet and with few interactions with their coworkers. When they go to the grocery store or out to eat, they once again have to muddle through conversations with minimal gestures and written communication. In the end, it is deaf people who suffer in these subpar interactions. This is their everyday reality.

Then, when a Deaf person enters an interpreted situation, for any number of reasons, they find themselves surrounded by a room full of hearing people and an interpreter who is hearing as well. At this point, all they can do is desperately hope that this interpreter is competent. This competency is not simply a skill set, it encompasses the attitude an interpreter brings. The same attitude you would hope for if you required the use of interpreter while abroad. It is how the interpreter navigates the interaction; clarifying cultural differences for the deaf individual and supporting communication equity in the exchange so that the Deaf person can understand and be understood.

An interpreter’s ability to equalize communication is paramount. Although Deaf people may always hope for an interpreter who brings this attitude, there are days when they will not be so lucky. They simply have to make do with the interpreter who shows up; however, in doing so, they compromise their personal opinions, ideas, and needs. Once again they are forced to revert to survival mode, as they do at home and their place of employment. They scrape by with the information they can gather and try to fit the pieces together, all the while holding back all the questions they wanted to ask. In the end, they just abandon the hope of understanding and conform. This is not what interpreting is meant to be; this system is desperately in need of revision. In short, interpreters’ formative experiences become relevant at this point.

Some interpreters do not have the necessary formative experience to equalize communication. CDIs can be utilized at these times.The use of CDIs across the nation is increasing, and this is an exciting time for us. But as our field grows, it is important that we determine how and when a CDI’s services should be implemented.

[See “How can an interpreter ensure everyone in the room is at the same playing field?” in video presentation at 10:01]

Leveling the Playing Field

In yesterday’s and this morning’s sessions, we have discussed interpreter’s accountability, boundaries, feedback and unwritten rules. An interpreter who brings all of this to their work can level the playing field for all parties. Through the interpreter’s work, the Deaf individual can feel at ease in their communication. The interpreter is able to manage the equilibrium of communication. Throughout my work, I often hear, “Well, you’re a Deaf interpreters, so you have more flexibility in the work you do. You can stretch the boundaries, hearing interpreters can’t do that.” There is no separate, secret RID Code of Professional Conduct for Deaf interpreters; CDIs adhere to the same code of professional conduct as all other interpreters. CDIs do not stretch the boundaries; however, due to their formative experience, they do have a unique relationship with the Deaf consumers. CDIs can accommodate the needs of someone with a different dialect, language challenges, minimal language skills, cultural differences, or a lack of understanding about hearing world systems. It’s a common misconception that a Deaf person with a graduate degree will not need a CDI. But imagine you are appearing in court for the first time, you may appreciate this accommodation. A CDI could relieve the linguistic and cultural pressures, enabling a Deaf individual to focus on their case and defense. It is these small components, which equalize communication, that make up Deaf Space.

Deaf Space

You may have heard this term Deaf Space before. It is typically associated with the actual architectural design of a building, an open floor plan with easy visibility and mobility. This is not specifically what I am speaking of, but rather, a similar principle, the open exchange of communication through interpreters. How interpreters ensure open communication parallel this concept. This could mean including a CDI in the interpretation process or it could mean assessing the interpretation for possible modifications. Formative learning is an ongoing process and an interpreter can continue to add to their repertoire through extensive practice and experience or acculturation.

Enculturation, as previously mentioned, is the way by which you acquired American culture; acculturation, on the other hand, is the acquisition of a novel culture. Acculturation is how you develop skills as an interpreter. If you have not yet acquired these skills, you can use a CDI to support your interpretation. I will further describe this concept using a model by a good friend, Trenton Marsh. After seeing him present this model, I adopted the idea and tweaked it. However, the model was originally his and the idea remains the same. You can see it here.

The Acculturation Gap

As indicated on the power point slide, there are two sets of arrows pointing toward one another. We will discuss the bottom set later on. For now, let us focus on the top. The left side represents the Deaf world and the use of American Sign Language; and the right side, the hearing world and use of English. For example, a deaf individual with no formal language would fall outside this spectrum on the left side. They would be further distanced from the English side of the model than someone with ASL skills. The same would hold true for a hearing person who does not speak English; they would fall outside the ASL-English spectrum on the right side, farthest from the ASL side. In regards to culture, a Deaf individual who has acquired more linguistic and cultural knowledge will be better able to evaluate their own culture. They can differentiate and recognize their own culture from others. Therefore this individual will be capable of covering a larger portion of the cultural spectrum, starting from the Deaf side (the left) towards the center. Furthermore, a deaf person who lacks this knowledge will remain closer to the left side of the spectrum. This could include a lack of knowledge about particular settings, such as the court system or juvenile court. It could be an individual’s first time experiencing heart surgery and they are unsure of what heart surgery entails. This lack of knowledge will decrease their freedom to swing towards the hearing side of the continuum. Although they are fully fluent in ASL and Deaf culture, the lack of competency in a particular setting will influence their flexibility on the continuum.

Now, an interpreter, who has learned ASL as a second language, despite significant proficiency in the language will never fully reach the Deaf side of the continuum. As they continually develop their skills, they will move progressively from the right towards the center. This is the process of formative learning. Cultural competency is an additional component to this process; interpreters develop this skill through socialization in the Deaf community. As MJ Bienvenu has said, only 20 percent of interpreters actually socialize within the community. That leaves 80% of interpreters who may end up interpreting high-risk cases, but do not engage in the Deaf community. Nonetheless, these interpreters can still interpret effectively. I will explain this solution using the bottom portion of the Acculturated Gap model.

First, Deaf interpreters, due to specialized training, are more knowledgeable of ASL and English, Deaf culture and necessary systems. These skills allow them the flexibility to swing closer to the English side of the continuum. Then, when paired with a skilled hearing interpreter, who has had formative experiences within the Deaf and hearing communities, the two interpreters’ competencies will overlap, bridging the communication gap between the two worlds. You can see this represented again on the slide.

Now, you can see on the bottom of the slide, the hearing and Deaf interpreters spectrums’ of competency overlap. You can imagine how this might make a difference in an actual interpreted situation; hence, the reason people find utilizing a Deaf interpreter to be so beneficial. By pairing the receptive formative experience of both interpreters and through a trusting relationship, a bridge of communication is built between the two communities. Often, upon realizing that one of their interpreters is deaf, you will see, as I have seen many times myself, the d/Deaf consumer’s eyes light up and their body relax. They become more articulate. They become more willing to ask questions and Deaf people tend to be highly inquisitive. American culture discourages questions because questions are an admittance of ignorance and should be kept to a minimum. But with an interpreter who shares the same formative experiences and culture, Deaf people can feel more confident and take advantage of the opportunity to freely ask their questions without feeling out of place in a foreign culture. With these benefits in mind, we must think about how to infuse more CDIs into the interpreting profession.

Effective Interpreter Formula

I was involved in one particular research project which addressed this topic. The project was lead by Dr. Leah Subak and topic was of cultural acquisition among interpreters. This research resulted in a five-part formula on how to become an effective interpreter. The formula uses the abbreviation EI to mean “effective interpreter;” to clear up any confusion, it does not refer to the more common abbreviation for emotional intelligence.

[See “Effective Interpreter Formula”, 17:56.]

CDI – Deaf Formative Formula: L1/L2 + C1/C2 + ELK = EI (Effective Interpreter)

L1/L2 means fluency in both languages. C1/C2, or proficiency in both cultures, is where many interpreters are lacking; they do not possess the ability to effectively communicate within Deaf culture. This draws us back to the statistics that I mentioned earlier: only twenty percent of interpreters are actively involved in the Deaf community and experience the necessary level of enculturation. The other eighty percent are only proficient in their own American culture and are not familiar with Deaf norms. Finally, ELK refers to “extra-linguistic knowledge,” which researcher, Daniel Gile, describes as the familiarity with and understanding of a particular situation. Interpreters who have experienced the same situation in the past have greater knowledge of things like specific terminology and what a normal interaction in that setting looks like. The interpreter who accomplishes all three of these aspects is considered an effective interpreter, and the response by deaf consumers is generally one of relief and confidence because they know that they can communicate across barriers while on an even playing field.

The Value of Formative Experience

In summary, I will show you one final slide on the value of formative experience. (speaker indicates slide.)

Let me explain. I have previously attended several presentations by Nigel Howard and he introduced to me the concept of “co-” or co-communicating. Often interpreters become tied up in the limitations of their role and forget to act naturally. They treat their work like a formalized process in which everyone must follow a rigid, stipulated set of guidelines, instead of treating it like a direct and free-flowing interaction. Interpreters whose work allows for that freedom of interaction are rare. But if an interpreter can come into a situation with the necessary mindset, they can “co-”communicate. For example, in a courtroom setting, an effective interpreter will be fully prepared to take on the very persona of the prosecution or defense in their commentary and arguments. The interpreter who does this is co-communicating or communicating the message as if they were the lawyer. This skill requires formative experience.This interpreter should be able to explain the finer points of the content with the expertise of those lawyers. Many interpreters don’t have that kind of skill. Moreover, they must have the ability to express that message with high-academic ASL to match the environment and the characters involved.

I’ll give you another example. A medical appointment during which the doctor is explaining some medical information; a substandard interpretation will pass on the jargon while trying to figure out the meaning on the fly. An effective interpreter will have the formative experience to understand medical jargon and will have a discussion with the doctor prior to the visit to ensure that all of the information is prepared and correct so that the interpreter can, in essence, become the doctor and provide an equivalent message in ASL. The interpreter will put aside his or her own persona and become the doctor to provide that even playing field and encourage a d/Deaf consumer to pursue more information. That is the concept of co-communicating.

Breaking Away from the Status Quo

For the rest of this afternoon, we will be discussing how interpreters can achieve this “co-communication”, and the formative experiences required to make an effective interpretation. I propose that there is a different way, and I challenge us to break away from the current status quo. Now, if we want to make the change, we need to think long-term. How do we implement these changes in the long run, and how do we instill the new status quo in the next generation of interpreters?

We need to stop forgetting about the importance of Deaf Space, and instead, make it a standard. Earlier, Pamela Collins spoke about operating procedures in interpreting agencies; she mentioned that requests for CDIs are rare and that interpreters carry on without ever thinking about the need for one. We need to be more responsible, and determine in advance whether an interpreting situation is conducive to Deaf space; if it is not, then the request for a CDI to bridge that gap should be an automatic and smooth process. There are some places across the country that are prepared to call in CDIs at the drop of a hat and feel comfortable doing so even if it is later determined that the CDI is not necessary and can be dismissed.

I would much rather have a CDI be called in initially, and have that CDI excused when not needed than be called in last minute, which causes scheduling conflicts and postponements at the d/Deaf consumer’s expense. The current conditions in the field of interpreting do not allow for last-minute requests, even for urgent situations. That is the unfortunate reality, and we need to change our approach. For now, I will leave it at that and we can discuss more this afternoon.

Thank you.

* Interested in receiving StreetLeverage posts in your inbox?

Simply enter your name and email in the field above the green “Sign Me Up!” button (upper right-hand side of this page) and click “Sign Me Up!”

Posted on January 27, 2016 by Anna Mindess — Leave a comment

Deaf Interpreters in Denmark and Finland: An Illuminating Contrast

Denmark and Finland exemplify contrasting approaches to DIs and HIs. While roadblocks and resistance often hinder DIs in Denmark, having HIs and DIs study together in Finland leads to mutual cooperation.

Note: Anna Mindess, an American hearing interpreter wrote this post, incorporating interviews with Didde Nylander, a hearing Danish sign language interpreter and Markus Aro, a Finnish Deaf interpreter.

Looking through the eyes of people from other cultures, I believe, can provide a clearer perspective on our own situation. Recently, I’ve gotten a glimpse of two very different stances — regarding DIs and HIs — in Denmark and Finland. I hope sharing them will allow us to reexamine our own American struggles.

[Click to view post in ASL]

[Click to view post in International Sign Language]

Opening the Conversation

In 2008, I was invited to present several lectures in Denmark. For the last one, at the Deaf cultural center in the town of Castberggaard, before an audience of Deaf community members, I had the help of two wonderful Danish Deaf Interpreters, Bo Hårdell and Janne Niemelä. They translated my ASL into Danish SL so smoothly that I felt an effortless connection with my audience. On the train back to Copenhagen after the lecture, I thanked Bo and Janne again, adding that with their professionalism and language skills, they must surely receive many requests to work. They shook their heads and explained that in Denmark they felt their skills as DIs were not really appreciated. I was dismayed, but not that surprised, considering that many American DIs face the same challenges here.

Anna Mindess

A few months ago, I was contacted by a hearing Danish interpreter, Didde Nylander, who read my Street Leverage article Are Hearing Interpreters Responsible to Pave the Way for Deaf Interpreters? Didde is actively involved in furthering the goals of DIs in Denmark. She recounted a familiar narrative of Danish Deaf people explaining and clarifying for each other in school and later in Deaf Clubs; and also the hurdles they currently face trying to be accepted as professional interpreters.

A “Shadow Profession”: Challenges for Deaf Interpreters in Denmark

Denmark’s first official interpreter training program was established in 1986 and now hearing graduates can earn a professional degree. “But what about Deaf interpreters?” I asked Didde.

Didde: Until recently it has mainly been a ‘shadow profession’ operating below the awareness of most hearing interpreters and even most Deaf people, themselves. Even the Deaf professionals (e.g. teachers and social workers) who act as interpreters are not always aware that is what they are doing.

While it is clear that Deaf people are serving as interpreters in Denmark, Didde tells me they have been effectively barred from enrolling in the country’s only interpreter training program (ITP).

Didde: So far, Deaf people cannot be accepted because of a clause in the program description stating that ‘the aim is to train interpreters to work between spoken Danish and Danish SL.’ When two Deaf persons applied for the program in 2011, they were accepted but asked to wait a year so the program could adapt their curriculum. In 2012, however, the Ministry of Education rejected requests to change the curriculum for Deaf students, because they assumed that Deaf interpreting students could not complete the coursework on their own, but only if a hearing interpreter, in essence, did all the work for them. They likened it to a mute person who wanted to become an opera singer, but would need a speaking proxy to do the actual singing.

The training program finally proposed that the Deaf students could audit classes, but could not take the final exams, which meant they would not become ‘qualified interpreters’. The two DIs quit the program, then were accepted into EUMASLI instead. (European Masters in Sign Language Interpreting).

Hearing Interpreter Reactions in Denmark

I asked Didde about the majority of Danish HIs’ reactions to the unequal opportunities offered to DIs.

Didde: When they applied, these two interpreters, Vivien Batory and Bo Hårdell, had already been working as interpreters for about ten years for foreign visitors and at international conferences. But I don’t think most HIs even knew this took place, because we did not attend those events. The HIs who did attend were not concerned because these were not jobs we would have been assigned anyhow, since we did not know SLs other than Danish.

What did catch the HIs’ attention was when Vivien and Bo joined a team of HIs who had been interpreting television news broadcasts for several years. When their work became very visible, many HIs felt threatened.

Didde: Some HIs stated that they did not see the benefit of adding DIs, as they felt they were already doing a great job. Many took the position that they could not approve of DIs because they were not ‘trained.’ Fears multiplied: ‘Will the DIs take our work?‘ ‘Will we be ‘reduced’ to positions as feeders?’

As Danish Deaf interpreters increasingly worked in diverse settings, the Deaf community started to view interpretation as a viable profession for Deaf people. In 2012, the Deaf Association established a ‘DI project,’ in which 13 Deaf persons were given a course on interpretation and employed to work as freelance interpreters. They mainly worked in community settings, which made them more visible to HIs, which led to even more resistance within the HI community and emotional debates in our national interpreters’ association (the FTT).

In 2015, the national authority paying for community interpretations offered to certify the now 10 Deaf interpreters in the project, plus Vivien and Bo. So finally, Denmark has its first group of certified DIs, but that doesn’t mean they are fully accepted and equal to HIs. Currently, although several agencies have contracts with freelance DIs, they are certified to interpret only in pre-approved situations, which means a special application has to be made for each interpretation, explaining the exceptional need for a DI. And DIs still cannot take the full ITP.

Didde told me that earlier this year, there was much debate in FTT as to whether the certified Deaf interpreters could even become members. Some HIs supported the idea, while others were strongly against it. A large group was undecided. One concern Didde noted was, “whether we would need to use SL during our meetings. Many HIs say they are able to express themselves more freely in their first language, spoken Danish”. The issue of whether DIs can be members of FTT will be decided in a membership ballot this fall.

Didde: On an official level, we have come a long way. But has our cultural knowledge of Deaf people developed as completely? It seems to me that there is still a residue of old notions of Deaf people being inferior to the hearing majority and having limited professional options. The emergence of the DI profession has raised many attitudinal and cultural questions, which we need to examine with openness and curiosity. Our biggest challenge now is to secure a good relationship between HIs and DIs.

I told Didde I see several areas where DIs in the U.S. are ahead of those in Denmark, but at the same time, there is still resistance from certain HIs. Since I have heard similar stories regarding other countries, I hazarded a guess that this might be a worldwide phenomenon.

A Different Story in Finland

Didde corrected my overly broad assumption based on research she did in Finland, where a different path seems to have led to a more cooperative relationship between HIs and DIs. She suggested I interview Markus Aro, a Finnish Deaf Interpreter.

Markus shared with me that Finland has a history of using Deaf people to interpret for Deaf Blind people. In the 1980’s, there were not enough hearing interpreters to do tactile interpreting. So Deaf people were drafted. But the Deaf Blind consumers wanted their Deaf interpreters to get trained. The Finnish Association of the Deaf created a 175-hour course to train and certify a group of DIs in Deaf Blind interpreting.

Interpreter Education with HIs and DIs in Finland

Then, in 2001, when HUMAK (The University of Applied Sciences) announced that their four-year interpreter training program would welcome both Deaf and hearing students, the first six Deaf interpreters joined that program. Of the original six, four successfully completed the program, (Markus was one of them).

Besides trying to attract Deaf people into their program, HUMAK’s target group is hearing students with no experience in the Deaf community. Markus told me that most hearing students enter HUMAK at 19-20 years old, without knowing sign language. Since the HIs come in with little or no previous knowledge about Deaf people and then are thrust into a collaborative learning environment with Deaf students also studying to become interpreters, they learn “good attitudes” from the beginning and early on get used to working with Deaf interpreters. While the hearing students spend much of their first two years learning Finnish Sign Language, the Deaf students focus on written Finnish and English.

Markus: The courses for Deaf and hearing students differ only slightly. They try to make as few adjustments as possible so all students receive the same education. Linguistics is taught separately to hearing and Deaf students, but they have many courses together, such as Interpretation Theory. The third and fourth years focus on interpreting skills for all students. There is a folk high school for Deaf immigrants, in the same location as HUMAK, where the Deaf students practice interpretation with the immigrant students.

“It was a good experience studying together with HIs, “ Markus told me. “And we figured out how to team together.”

Markus: When I studied at HUMAK, there hadn’t yet been a lot of analysis of best practices for HI and DI teams. The teachers informed us that we would just have to work it out together. We told the HIs we didn’t just want them to be ‘mindless feeders.’ It’s all about teamwork and the need to keep checking in and seeing how to support each other.

Community Buy-In is Key

After graduating, however, the DIs found there was not much work for them.

Markus: Part of the problem was a feeling among the Deaf Community, ‘Why do we need Deaf interpreters?’ So we explained about Deaf blind, International Sign, translation from written Finnish into SL and immigrants. Gradually, the Deaf Community became more open and after a couple of years their attitude was much more positive. Most of the HIs were happy to work with DIs, but a few had some resistance.

Ironically, a shortsighted governmental policy helped some HIs appreciate DIs’ valuable skills. In 2012, the Finnish government (who pays for the majority of interpreting services) declared that Deaf immigrants would only be entitled to DI services for one year, assuming that after a year, the immigrants would learn enough Finnish SL that HIs alone could satisfy their communication needs.

Markus: After the one-year mark, HIs found themselves on their own with these Deaf immigrants, wishing the DIs could come help them interpret. If, however, these immigrants went to a police station or a hospital, those entities can pay for Deaf interpreters from their own funds. Then the HIs were again relieved and grateful for DIs’ help.

Markus concludes: “We need HIs! We can’t work without them. We need to work together so Deaf people get the best access.”

In Conclusion

I think there is much we can learn from these two narratives. Markus credits the fact that HIs start HUMAK with a “blank slate” of no previous knowledge of sign language or Deaf Culture as being key to their openness to learning together with Deaf colleagues. Meanwhile, in North America, we seem to be pushing for a higher bar of language and cultural competency as prerequisites for entering ITP students.

Acknowledgements

**This article and its ASL and IS translations were made possible thanks to the contributions of many people across the world: Didde Nylander, Markus Aro, Ryan Shephard, Nana Marie Søltoft, Bo Hårdell, Tegnsprogstolken.dk, the Danish Deaf Association and Damon Timm.

* Interested in receiving StreetLeverage posts in your inbox?

Simply enter your name and email in the field above the green “Sign Me Up!” button (upper left-hand side of this page) and click “Sign Me Up!”

Questions for Consideration

1) Which do you think is the best approach?

2) Is this a generational issue? (i.e., when many of us older interpreters were trained, there were no “Deaf Interpreters” so it may seem jarring to introduce a whole new element into an established system –even though Deaf people have been “interpreting for each other” forever? Will the younger generation have an easier time accepting Deaf interpreters?

3) For readers from other countries, what is your experience in training Deaf and Hearing interpreters? Any tips for us?

Nigel Howard – Deaf Interpreters and the World’s Stage

Janis Cole – How the Deaf Interpreter Conference Clarifies the Role and Trajectory of Deaf Interpreters

Nigel Howard | Deaf Interpreters: The State of Inclusion

Posted on February 24, 2015 by Eileen Forestal — Leave a comment

Deaf Interpreters: Shaping the Future of the Sign Language Interpreting Profession

Eileen Forestal presented Deaf Interpreters: Shaping the Future of the Sign Language Interpreting Profession at StreetLeverage – Live 2014 | Austin. Her talk examines the paradigm shift occurring within the sign language interpreting profession as Deaf interpreters challenge traditional interpreting service models.

You can find the PPT deck for her presentation here.

[Note from StreetLeverage: What follows is an English translation of Eileen’s talk from StreetLeverage – Live 2014 | Austin. We would encourage each of you to watch the video and access Eileen’s talk directly.]

Deaf Interpreters: Shaping the Future of the Sign Language Interpreting Profession

Good morning. It is so great to see all these beautiful people here today. Everyone is here supporting our field – the interpreting field and the field including Deaf Interpreters.

Deaf Interpreters truly are shaping the future of the sign language interpreting profession. Currently, the interpreting profession is experiencing a social transformation. This transformation stems from a variety of origins; there is research being done to develop best practices, StreetLeverage is encouraging new ideas and new ways to dialogue and view professional issues from a wider lens, bringing us together to engage with open hearts and minds. Deaf Interpreters have been involved every step of the way since the beginning of the profession. Deaf Interpreters are here to stay. We will shape the future of the profession for all interpreters whose work includes American Sign Language and English.

Historical Perspectives

I want to talk a little bit about history. Although there were no formal labels like “Deaf Interpreter” in the Deaf Community early on, their presence was felt. Where there is Deaf Community, there is reciprocity – Deaf people taking care of each other. Sharing skills, knowledge and information has always been an integral part of the Deaf Experience. This idea is nothing new to us.

I’ll share a story from my own experience. I attended oral school as the only Deaf child in my hearing family. During my oral school years, I was constantly in trouble. At recess and outside of the classroom, on the playground, the other Deaf students would come to me for explanation and clarification. I would try, through our own version of gestures, signs and mouthing, the lessons and pieces the other students had missed. When I got caught doing this, I was punished with a ruler to my hands. It was innocent enough – they wanted to understand. We were young – only 8-10 years old, if you can imagine.

Later on, when I was in high school, my Deaf classmates would come to my house regularly. I was mainstreamed in high school. The St. Louis educational system was staunchly in favor of mainstreaming and students were spread out around the community in their school programs. On the weekends, the high school students would all come together. Those gatherings were my saving grace. At these weekend gatherings, the other high school students would come to me for help understanding their work. It always made me think about how I could explain and describe the material – how to make the information clear and understandable in ASL. As time went on, these interactions progressed to job seekers concerned and looking for help with their interview skills, etc. I would provide them with cues and assistance as best I could. Those experiences were powerful- I felt a deep sense of obligation. Obligation in the most positive sense – I was fulfilling my duties by providing reciprocity to the community. My participation played a part in maintaining that strong value in the community.

Even after I was married, Deaf community members sought me out at our home. There were even times when the police would come to the door. Bear in mind, this was before we had door bell signalers. My hearing children would awaken to knocking on the door and come to get my husband and I, letting us know the police were at the front door. The police would indicate that one of us needed to go with them to assist a Deaf Community member. My husband and I would determine which of us would go with the police and which of us would stay home with the children. On scene with the police, we would use all manner of communication – written, signed, whatever was required – to work through communication for clarity. As you can see, I’ve been interpreting and translating for quite some time now.

At some point, there was an epiphany that Deaf people can interpret. This realization led to many Deaf people being placed in a variety of situations to act as a professional interpreter by default. Eventually, after being thrust into situation after situation, Deaf people started to realize they could find work as a professional interpreter, part-time or full-time. Professional interpreting wasn’t a known career path – no one was in high schools talking to Deaf students about interpreting as a potential career. We see that starting now, this career path idea is making progress and slowly, but surely, the word is getting out. Gallaudet and a handful of other colleges and universities are on the forefront of the movement to encourage Deaf individuals to consider becoming a professional Deaf Interpreter, to consider interpreting as a career path.

As a result of this growing opportunity, the pool of Deaf Interpreters is expanding rapidly. While this expansion is positive, we still don’t have a sufficient body of research focused on how Deaf Interpreters approach the interpreting task. This research gap created a hole which hearing interpreters sought to fill – defining the function and role of Deaf Interpreters, but from a very limited perspective. In that model, hearing interpreters would take the lead and the Deaf Interpreter’s role was to follow that lead and sign for the Deaf consumer.

I’ve experienced this dynamic in my own work. One particular situation comes to mind. I was called to a hospital I had been to on numerous occasions. This was in the mid-1980s, maybe 1985, or so. I had worked with the hearing interpreter on numerous occasions in medical, legal and law enforcement situations. Even with those shared experiences, the hearing interpreter was very directive and insistent that they were the lead interpreter. At times, the hearing interpreter went as far as telling me when and what I should tell the Deaf consumer. Although I was a bit taken aback, I continued to try to interpret. The hearing interpreter, feeling I had somehow misunderstood their instructions, interrupted the process, indicating that I should follow their lead and “sign” for the person. This limited understanding of the Deaf Interpreter’s role completely disregards my innate sense of turn-taking and discourse flow within the cultural and linguistic norms of ASL. Rather than allow for a natural dialogic flow, the hearing interpreter tried to impose their views about a Deaf Interpreter’s role on my work, expecting machine-like behavior and utterances. Their insistence that I take on this foreign role, one which does not allow for development of rapport and natural language, created a sense of discord in me. Many Deaf Interpreters report similar experiences and feelings.

Hearing Interpreters Have Been Making Decisions About Interpreting By Themselves

Since its inception in the early 1960s, the profession of sign language interpretation has utilized a number of service models. There was the conduit or machine model, the communication facilitator model, etc. The Deaf Community has always had their own rubric for what makes a good interpreter and what good interpreting looks like. Unfortunately, those community expectations were not heard by those with decision-making power in the interpreting field. If you look at the professionalization of sign language interpreting, you can see, from the Code of Ethics to the service models used (conduit, communication facilitator, etc.), all these decisions have been made by hearing interpreters.

If we look to spoken language interpreters for a comparison, the decision-making process is quite different. The users of each language represented in a given situation are included in the decision-making process, and any relevant cultural considerations are also taken into account. In the sign language interpreting arena, hearing interpreters have traditionally made all the decisions, often stating, through the lenses of disability and paternalism,“We know what is best for you.” This perspective disregards the historical reality that Deaf people have been interpreting, supporting and deciding what is best for the community all along. This has been the reality since the beginning of the interpreting profession.

Now, as Deaf Interpreters enter the picture, there is a radical shift to a new paradigm. This shift is creating a level of dissonance for many hearing interpreters. The expectation that the hearing interpreter is the professional and the Deaf person is the client is an old paradigm. When that expectation is not met, hearing interpreters experience some uncertainty. They may feel off-balance – if the Deaf person isn’t the client, who are they? How do I do my job in this new landscape? This dissonance also impacts the Deaf Interpreter as they are left trying to respond to hearing interpreters in flux. Deaf Interpreters are clear on their function in an interpreting setting – they follow the interactive rules of ASL, as well as the natural discourse flow, using rapport and cultural knowledge to guide the interaction. They use their inherent understanding of the cultural and linguistic needs of the Deaf consumer(s) to manage and mediate between participants and to coordinate the process as a whole. When those tasks and roles are denied, it creates a dichotomy between hearing and Deaf Interpreters.

Deaf Interpreters have an expectation that they will be permitted to use the more traditional “community based” model of interpreting as described previously. To discard that model to utilize the “machine” model, as prescribed by hearing interpreters, also creates some tension and unease. This other way of interpreting is the antithesis of our approach, our practice, our work. We then become linguistic and cultural brokers. The expectation that our interpretations should be produced simultaneously is not our norm. Simultaneous interpreting is not the norm for a Deaf Interpreter – the pace, the speed is not natural. For a Deaf consumer, having signs thrown at them in rapid-fire succession does not equate to communication, does not encourage comprehension. Let’s set aside conversation about simultaneous interpreting for a moment and look at consecutive and dialogic interpreting. The interactive nature and the more natural pacing of these styles of interpreting do encourage and support comprehension.

(Aside to the moderator: Do you have the time? How much time is left? Great.)

Let’s look at research for a moment. There is a substantial body of research on the European approach to interpreting. In a situation where two spoken languages are present, for example, French and Spanish, the interpreter whose “mother tongue” or native language is Spanish would interpret from French (their second language) into their native Spanish. Working in their native language allows the interpreter to use their expertise with the linguistic and cultural aspects of their own language to accurately interpret from the other language. This has been the European process for interpreting. If we follow that line of reasoning, it is logical to use Deaf Interpreters’ “mother hands” in interpreting situations where ASL is the language being produced.

We stand at a crossroads as Deaf Interpreters seek a return to the “community based” model of interpreting. Some hearing interpreters accept this change process to varying degrees, while others are firmly resistant. We see a lot of resistance to the mere idea of standing and working alongside a Deaf Interpreter. There can be a variety of reasons behind their resistance. Perhaps the interpreter feels threatened or disheartened. They may question their own skills and qualifications or fear judgment from the Deaf Interpreters. There is a whole host of potential issues. It’s important to remember that hearing interpreters do have skills, they do possess valuable knowledge, particularly related to the English language, hearing cultural norms, etc. These skills, this knowledge creates successful interactions with hearing English speakers. Deaf Interpreters have their own experiences, their innate understanding of the Deaf Experience, their intuition, their cognitive frame – the way Deaf people see and understand the world. All these skills and traits allow Deaf Interpreters to find the linguistic and cultural equivalents that provide for more cohesive interpretations and result in clearer communication for Deaf consumers.

If we, Deaf and hearing interpreters alike, begin to recognize and acknowledge the skills, knowledge and abilities each group contributes to interpreted situations, if we come to the interpreting task as equals, the experiences for the Deaf consumer and the hearing consumer have been powerfully enhanced. After all, who do we serve? Our consumers.

A Demanding Presence of Deaf Perspective and the Emergence of Deaf Interpreters

I’ve already discussed some of the points from the previous slide. Today, Deaf Interpreters are here (at StreetLeverage Live – Austin). I see a number of them scattered around the room. In yesterday’s session, there were 30-35 Deaf Interpreters in attendance. I’m starting to see larger numbers of Deaf Interpreters attending various conferences. In fact, Deaf Interpreters are becoming more active in every aspect of interpreting from conference attendance to linguistic research, Deaf studies, etc. The truth of the matter is that Deaf Interpreters are making regular and rich contributions to the field of sign language interpreting by virtue of their knowledge, skills and experiences.

We also have to recognize the shift in positioning that is taking place. Until recently, hearing interpreters have worked comfortably within the status quo, making decisions and going about the business of interpreting. When Deaf Interpreters enter the picture, many have experienced a moment of discomfort as they confront this shifting reality. This is a normal reaction. We, as Deaf Interpreters, have to create an environment where both Deaf and hearing interpreters can come together as a team. We can work together as allies, as partners. Deaf Interpreters aren’t here to take power away from hearing interpreters. We can share communication, share the power of that. Historically, Deaf people have had communicative power. Now, as Deaf Interpreters enter the scene more frequently, we can share our power with hearing interpreters. We will build meaning together. We can’t do it separately. Deaf and hearing interpreters will own our interpretations, as will the Deaf and hearing consumers. As a unit, we can work through interpreted events to ensure that all consumers ultimately benefit from this teamwork and gain a clearer understanding of the interpreted message.

“Community Based” Interpreting Model vs. “Mainstream” Interpreting Model

Let’s talk about “community-based” interpreting and how we, as Deaf Interpreters, approach our work, versus the “mainstream” model of interpreting, the more machine-like, simultaneous, fast-paced interpreting. The “mainstream” model of interpreting goes “against the grain” for Deaf Interpreters. That model of interpreting focuses primarily on speed, on the fast-paced production of information in an unending stream. Speed is really the only goal for this model. “Community-based” interpreting, on the other hand, focuses on more holistic goals: relationship/rapport, message comprehension, maintaining linguistic and cultural identity and community cohesion. As Deaf Interpreters, we have to recognize that “mainstream” interpreting does have its place. At the same time, we need to make some shifts to utilize the “community-based” interpreting model more frequently.

Reclaiming the “Deaf Interpreter Norm”

It is time. It’s time to reclaim the “Deaf Interpreter norm.” The rich contributions Deaf Interpreters make need to be infused and incorporated into the sign language interpreting profession. Along with the influx of Deaf interpreters I’ve described, there are also a host of Deaf researchers who are looking at translation, interpretation, culture and any number of other relevant topics. The expansion of Deaf participation in the field is not intended to exclude hearing interpreters but to embrace them and bring us all together. At times, hearing interpreters may feel we are pushing them away, but that is not the case. We are all working toward the same goals. It is remember that. By the same token, hearing interpreters need to give Deaf Interpreters the power to make decisions about how and when translations and interpretations should happen.

When we reclaim our “Deaf Interpreter norms”, you will see increased collaboration between Deaf and hearing interpreters, elevated conversation and discussion about language and interpreting choices and much more. Deaf and hearing interpreters will be working as true teams, coming together as a unit in courtrooms, mental health and medical settings, job trainings, education, performing arts – the list of possibilities is endless.

I remember one instance – as you know, I’ve worked extensively as a Deaf Interpreter in the courts, etc. At one point, I was called to be an expert witness in court. The court had a Deaf Interpreter working throughout the proceedings. When I was called to testify, I took the stand and I realized that I felt a sense of freedom by having that Deaf Interpreter there. I knew that I wasn’t bound by speed in this setting.

The first question came and I began to give my answer, feeling relaxed and confident. The Deaf Interpreter signed to me rapidly appearing to be concerned about hearing cultural norms and the impatience hearing people often feel with confronted by silence. By so doing they were suggesting that interpreter are unable to take the time needed to ensure communication truly occurs. While that may be the status quo as we know it, we need to make time. We must make time for communication to happen. As we do that, we will build more collaboration between Deaf and hearing interpreters.

I’d like to close with a poem. This poem will utilize the “1” and “5” hand shapes. [Note from StreetLeverage: Please access Eileen’s ASL poem at 18:25 of the ASL version of her talk. No English equivalent is available.]

Thank you, everyone.

* Interested in receiving StreetLeverage posts in your inbox?

Simply enter your name and email in the field above the green “Sign Me Up!” button (upper left-hand side of this page) and click “Sign Me Up!”

Posted on August 19, 2014 by Anna Mindess — Leave a comment

Are Hearing Interpreters Responsible to Pave the Way for Deaf Interpreters?

Deaf interpreters are marching up the road to take their place as equal and valued professionals alongside their hearing counterparts. As more Deaf interpreters are trained, become certified and collaborate with hearing teammates, it will inevitably alter our way of working. We can welcome this evolving development and cherish the new opportunities it brings or dig in our heels and resist.

[Click to view post in ASL]

Two Street Leverage posts have addressed the gathering momentum of this movement. In Deaf Interpreters in the Blind Spot of the Sign Language Interpreting Profession, Jennifer Kaika documents the increasing numbers of Deaf interpreters and challenges us to support Deaf interpreters as “a long-standing and lasting part [of our profession], present since the inception of RID.” In Deaf Interpreters: The State of Inclusion, Nigel Howard, a Deaf interpreter himself, urges us to truly realize a team approach by “working together toward a shared and collaborative target language interpretation that is an equivalent to the source language.”

Recently, when revising my book, Reading Between the Signs, for a new edition, I added a section on Deaf interpreters. With the book’s focus on the cultural aspects of our work, it struck me that the resistance some hearing interpreters seem to feel to this “new” development in our field, might be rooted in cultural values (more about this later). First, let’s confirm the fact that Deaf interpreters belong to a tradition with deep roots.

Long Tradition

Eileen Forestal, a Deaf interpreter who has been at the forefront of research and training, contributed a chapter to the new book, Deaf Interpreters at Work: International Insights. While awarding official certificates to Deaf interpreters may be a relatively recent development, Forestal writes that, “as long as Deaf people have existed, they have been translating and interpreting within the Deaf community.” It goes back to the residential schools, where “Deaf children, both in and out of the classroom, would frequently explain, rephrase, or clarify for each other the signed communication used by hearing teachers.” Once out of school, this supportive activity did not cease. “Deaf persons would interpret for each other to ensure full understanding of information being communicated, whether in classrooms, meetings, appointments, or letters and other written documents” (Forestal, 2014, 30).

My Experience

Researching the history of Deaf interpreters allowed me to look back at my own career and see it through different eyes. After discovering the Deaf World via theater in the mid 1970’s when I was an actress in Los Angeles, I found CSUN where I took all four(!) classes offered at the time: ASL 1 and 2 and Interpreting 1 and 2.

Clearly, I was not prepared to work as a sign language interpreter, but with encouragement from my Deaf theater friends, I cautiously began community interpreting. In hindsight, I recall that at several Social Security or VR appointments, the Deaf person I was supposed to meet brought a “Deaf friend.” And if my interpretations were not clear enough, the friend would succinctly convey the point, assuming the role of unofficial “Deaf interpreter.”

In the mid-1980’s, I got a full time job at a large TDD distribution center in downtown Los Angeles to handle the crush of new customers thrilled to get the latest communication devices. When walk-in customers arrived, my co-worker, a Deaf woman named Sue Lee, would greet them and demonstrate their choice of equipment. My job was to interpret the registration process between Deaf customers and the hearing phone company reps on-site. As LA is a city of immigrants, it often happened that the Deaf person and I needed some extra help going over the rules of the program. I’d ask Sue to join us and she would come up with a way to best convey the information. Once again, everyone benefitted from the skills of a “Deaf interpreter,” although we didn’t label it as such at the time.

After moving to the San Francisco Bay Area, I continued community interpreting, but returned to CSUN in 1991 for a 6-week course in legal interpreting. Our class of two-dozen seasoned interpreters included 3 Deaf interpreters and we enjoyed figuring out how to best work together in the legal scenarios we practiced.

Over the last 20 years, I’ve specialized in legal interpreting and often team with Deaf interpreters (now CDIs). Most of my peak moments interpreting have occurred while collaborating with a Deaf interpreter to achieve the shared goal of optimal understanding. To me, it feels like dancing with the perfect partner. Having the benefit of teaming together repeatedly, we can often anticipate each other’s needs and intentions and seamlessly move as one.

For a new chapter in my book, I interviewed five very skilled Deaf interpreters with whom I have had the privilege and pleasure of working in court: Linda Bove, Daniel Langholtz, Priscilla Moyers, Ryan Shephard and Christopher Tester.

What We Found

Probably the Deaf interpreter’s most important skill is the ability to provide language access to a range of Deaf clients. But since the theme of my book is culture and my space was limited, I narrowed my focus to cultural aspects of Deaf interpreters’ work.

In analyzing the techniques DIs used for cultural adjustments, we discovered that besides the same kind of adjustments that hearing interpreters employ (including those I previously labeled “Highlighting the Point,” “Context Balancing,” and “Road Mapping”) Deaf interpreters also employed several other techniques, which we tentatively called “Empathy,” “Setting the Stage,” “Directive Form,” “Deaf Extra Linguistic Knowledge,” “Enlarging the Perspective” and “Deeper Understanding.” Further research will undoubtedly refine, redefine, and add to this initial attempt at classification.

Cultural Adjustments Only Deaf Interpreters Can Make

This discussion about techniques may prompt you to wonder, “Why can’t hearing interpreters just learn to do whatever the Deaf interpreters (DIs) are doing?”

In his seminal chapter, “Deaf Interpreters,” Patrick Boudreault, specifies that besides having sign language as a first language, DIs “share the Deaf experience with the Deaf consumer; this ‘sameness’ is an important factor in establishing rapport and communicating effectively.” He adds that the cultural identification “can generate a sense of empowerment within the Deaf consumer with which to express her thoughts to other people whom she could not previously communicate with” (Boudreault 2005, 335).

A classic example of “Directive Form” in legal settings occurs when a line of questioning posed to a Deaf witness requires only “yes” or “no” answers. Since ASL is highly dependent on context, the witness is often tempted to add some background which he or she probably assumes will clarify the “yes” or “no.”

Sometimes a reminder from the attorney or judge is all that is necessary for a Deaf (or hearing) witness to reluctantly confine their answers to a single word or sign. But it often happens that the Deaf witness repeatedly tries to include additional context in their answer. In these situations, I’ve seen DIs sign a very direct, ASK-YOU-QUESTION, ANSWER YES, NO, FINISH PERIOD. [The question.] ANSWER YES, NO, WHICH?

In this instance, it seems that coming from another Deaf person, the directive style is accepted, but if a hearing interpreter delivered the same command it could well be perceived as patronizing or controlling.

In Deaf Interpreters at Work, the authors describe a division of strengths: “DIs have a better understanding of sign language nuances, hearing interpreters have a better understanding of spoken language nuances…”(Adam et al. 2014, 7). This would naturally extend to nuances of cultural expectations. With mutual respect, these distinct spheres of expertise can become a source of synergy.

Here’s the Problem

This is a fascinating area of study and fertile ground for more research. But presently there are more pressing obstructions and potholes in the road ahead for CDIs. I’ve seen many CDIs describe their determination to get trained and become certified, only to find that they cannot get enough work to make a living (unless, perhaps, they are willing to zigzag across the country to follow the work). So things may be changing, but at a snail’s pace.

I don’t believe that hearing interpreters have the luxury to shrug off this situation and stand by “neutrally.” It is up to us–the majority–to enable this transition and encourage the use of CDIs. Although the Deaf consumer sometimes requests a CDI, most often the hearing interpreter acts as first responder and gatekeeper. If communication is not going smoothly, we need to be honest with our clients and ourselves, stop the transaction and explain the need for a CDI.

This post ends with a few actions each of us can take to further the inclusion of DIs in our profession. But first, another bump in the road: our own attitude. Are we open, proactive, apathetic, threatened or resistant to increasing numbers of Deaf interpreters?

Taking Responsibility

As an interculturalist, I often look beneath the surface to see if there might be a cultural basis behind a persistent conflict. In collectivist Deaf culture, ensuring that the rest of the group has full access to information is a primary value. For those hearing interpreters who feel threatened by the influx of Deaf interpreters, I wonder if this could this relate to the competition that permeates American culture or the value we place on individual accomplishments? Is it our fear of judgment? Not wanting to give up our power?

Why does asking for a language specialist to bring expertise to a tough situation make some hearing interpreters feel like they are admitting failure or deficiency? Can we shift that view to see that together we can co-create meaning and provide the best possible language and cultural access?

5 Steps You Can Take:

1) Take a workshop or class in teaming with DIs. If you can’t find one in your area, organize one.

2) Find out who are the CDIs closest to your location. Make contact with them; ask for their availability and any special areas of expertise.

3) Ask agencies you work for if they have contracts with CDIs. If not, urge them to put everything in place. (Often when a CDI is needed, it is discovered during an assignment with some urgency, e.g. medical or legal).

4) Recognize the, often subtle, signals that a CDI is needed in a specific situation or for a certain Deaf consumer, (e.g., head nodding, repeating back your signs, reticence to reply in depth). Ask yourself, “Am I ‘working too hard’ to get the meaning across or fully understand the signs I see?”

5) Be brave enough to stop the proceeding and explain why a language specialist (CDI) is required. Give appropriate resources, if needed. Stand firm; it may not feel comfortable.

What else can we do to bring Deaf interpreters back into their traditional cultural roles?

* Interested in receiving StreetLeverage posts in your inbox?

Simply enter your name and email in the field above the green “Sign Me Up!” button (upper right-hand side of this page) and click “Sign Me Up!”

References

Adam, Robert, et al. “Deaf Interpreters: An Introduction.” In Deaf Interpreters at Work, edited by Robert Adams, Christopher Stone, Steven Collins, and Melanie Metzger. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Press, 2014

Boudreault, Patrick. “Deaf Interpreters.” In Topics in Signed Language Interpreting, edited by Terry Janzen, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2005.

Forestal, Eileen. “Deaf Interpreters: The Dynamics of their Interpreting Processes.” In Deaf Interpreters at Work, edited by Robert Adams, Christopher Stone, Steven Collins, and Melanie Metzger. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Press, 2014

Howard, Nigel. “Deaf Interpreters: The State of Inclusion.” Street Leverage, April 16, 2013, www.streetleverage.com/2013/04/nigel-howard-deaf-interpreters-the-state-of-inclusion

Kaika, Jennifer. “Deaf Interpreters: In the Blind Spot of the Sign Language Interpreting Profession.” Street Leverage, March 6, 2013, www.streetleverage.com/2013/03/deaf-interpreters-in-the-blind-spot-of-the-sign-language-interpreting-profession

Mindess, Anna. Reading Between the Signs: Intercultural Communication for Sign Language Interpreters, 3^rd edition, Boston, MA, Intercultural Press (forthcoming, October 2014).

Posted on April 16, 2013 by Nigel Howard — Leave a comment

Nigel Howard | Deaf Interpreters: The State of Inclusion

“No two persons ever read the same book.” I share this quote from Edmund Wilson with you to highlight a point in this presentation. A reader brings to a book their own experience and understanding in order to create meaning from the story they read. We all approach our work with our own experience and understanding and often ascribe our own to others’ work. In our work with a team, these differences or similarities in how we understand our work become very clear. In order to work through it all we have to keep in mind the goal of the interpreter’s work in the first place…to ensure that people who do not have a common language are able to communicate with each other.

Perceptions/Misperceptions

Many people incorrectly believe that the concept of deaf interpreters is new when, in fact, deaf people have been functioning as interpreters within the community for as long as there have been deaf people. A good example of when this happens is in the classroom when the teacher is not a fluent user of sign language. In this situation, students will ask other students to interpret for them what the teacher is saying. In this situation, the interpreter is functioning as a deaf interpreter. The standardization, training (of which there is currently not enough), and certification of deaf interpreters are more recent developments but the function itself is not a new one.

Another belief many hearing interpreters hold about working with a deaf interpreter is that they will be perceived as unskilled or new in the field. This can lead to a lot of self doubt on the part of the interpreter. The other side of this misperception comes from deaf interpreters themselves when they believe that because know sign language then that automatically means they will be a good interpreter. As a profession we know that interpreting takes more than language fluency.

All of these perceptions play into an interpreter’s beliefs and understanding about their own work and our field in general. Another perceptual layer is added on for deaf interpreters who are interpreting in their own community where they have relationships and shared pasts with the people they are interpreting for. Every interpreter carries around their past with them. For the deaf interpreter, their past can haunt them on the job when they are working with a community member that has shared their past, a fact that can lead to distrust and misunderstanding.

The deaf community also ascribes to a perception about deaf interpreters. Some deaf community members hold a belief that deaf interpreters are useful only for deaf people that have cognitive impairments or have some idiosyncratic language need that calls for it. They don’t yet understand that deaf interpreters could benefit them as well. This misunderstanding could simply be a result of having always worked with hearing interpreters and no experience working with a deaf interpreter. The misunderstanding could be rooted in that shared experience with the deaf interpreter and feeling distrust and lack of confidentiality or a boundary.

The misunderstanding could go back to simply not understanding that deaf interpreters are required to go through training and abide by the same code of conduct that hearing interpreters do. Or they may not trust the fact that the number of hours required for a deaf interpreter to sit for the certification test is currently FAR LESS than it is for a hearing interpreter, lending less credibility to the deaf interpreter. The discrepancy in the amount of study required to sit for a certification test also leads to misperceptions between hearing and deaf interpreters about who is more or less qualified to be working as an interpreter.

Misperceptions abound within the deaf interpreter community as well. Deaf interpreters are often quick to judge other interpreters entering the field based on their educational background, involvement in the community past and present, and their sign language fluency. There are also deaf interpreters who are fluent users of sign language; however, do not have a clear grasp on the task of interpreting. These judgments and perceptions occur regardless of the deaf interpreter’s certification status.

I put the “C” in CDI in quotes because I often see deaf interpreters who have achieved a national certification place emphasis on the fact that they are not just a deaf interpreter but a certified deaf interpreter. I commend the individuals who are able to attain a national certification; however, the label has little meaning for me. If we look at hearing interpreters for comparison, interpreters who have achieved a national certification do not ascribe to the label of certified interpreter. They are simply, interpreters. I believe that the addition and emphasis on certified in labeling oneself is a tacit way of bringing validity and an implication of expertise to one’s work. The current certification systems are developed with a focus on generalist/entry level skills. Having this certification does not make one an expert in all things interpreted and this fact should be reflected in the work a deaf interpreter chooses to do and not do. I argue that deaf interpreters should accept this same model as hearing interpreters and not overly emphasize certification status.

Definition

Before we go any further, I ‘d like to make sure we are all working from the same understanding of terms that are often used when talking about what a deaf interpreter does in their work. We can’t really talk about perceptions until we are using common definitions.

A Relay Interpreter is one that passes the information from one person on to another. I see relay interpreting used often by deaf interpreters. Relaying information is retaining the form of the language in its original state. It is passing the message on to another person without analyzing or unpacking the source text for cultural, linguistic, or environmental factors to meet the goal of the communication in the target language.

A Shadow Interpreter is used in theater settings but can be seen in other settings as well. With this method, the interpreter literally shadows the speaker as they move about.

A Mirror Interpreter is useful in settings where there are members of an audience or setting that cannot see the original signed message due to sight line or distance restrictions. This interpreter will employ relay interpreting function by maintaining the form of the source language.

A ‘translation’ according to The Oxford Companion to the English Language is “communication of the meaning of a source-language text by means of an equivalent target language text”. With this definition in mind, we can understand what an Interpreter or Translator is doing.

Deaf-Blind Interpreters are often deaf interpreters. People who function as Intervenors/SSPs for Deaf-Blind people may also be deaf interpreters but their role is very different than when they are functioning as an interpreter. Often the terms (and roles) are conflated and I’d like to make clear here that Deaf-Blind interpreters and intervenors serve very different functions even though it may sometimes be the same person doing both.

Calling someone an International Sign Interpreter is a misnomer. There is no International Signed Language, per say, so in looking at our definition of translation/interpretation the word translation or interpreter doesn’t apply in its strictest sense. Deaf interpreters who are providing access for an international audience have developed their communication skills from interacting with many deaf communities in many geographical areas that are not their own. They have learned how deaf people talk about specific concepts and topics in a common and sometimes gestural way and are able to modulate their language used depending on the audience. This is a very specific skill of which some deaf interpreters claim to have but in fact do not because they lack the experience in a variety of international sign language communities.

High Visual Orientation/Gesturing as a form of communication is another function of deaf interpreters and is sometimes used.

More Definition

The term ‘Interpreter’ should conjure some meaning for you since I am addressing an audience of interpreters. I envision your understanding of interpreter is ‘someone who provides equivalent translations between a signed language and a spoken language’. An ‘ASL-English Interpreter’ would be the appropriate term for those of you who work between those two separate and distinct languages.

If we take the basic definition of ‘interpreter’ that I have presented above and apply it to the term ‘Deaf Interpreter’, what is the definition? What languages are deaf interpreters working between? It is not a signed language and a spoken language.

There are some deaf interpreters for whom they view their role as interpreter and advocate. Advocating is a very different function all together and one that should not be confused with the interpreting role. As members of the very community of people we are serving, deaf interpreters need to be cognizant of our role as language and cultural brokers only. Deaf interpreters with little training or experience may be quick to attribute mental health issues that manifest as communication barriers to our function as interpreters and may overstep a boundary. A boundary that is not ours to cross but should instead be conveyed to the provider that is communicating with the deaf person. This mixing of roles by some deaf interpreters may feed into the resistance and lack of trust that some deaf community members feel about using a deaf interpreter.

According to RID’s Standard Practice Paper on Team Interpreting, “Team Interpreting is the utilization of two or more interpreters who support each other to meet the needs of a particular communication situation. Stewart, Schein, & Cartwright define it as “two or more interpreters working together, not just physically but intelligently”. These two definitions get at the fact that while there may be individual members of the team, they are not to work individually. Instead, each member is charged with working together toward a shared and collaborative target language interpretation that is an equivalent to the source language. Truly a team approach.

I have worked as a deaf interpreter in a variety of settings. I have because it is true that a deaf interpreter can and should be used in a variety of settings; including but not limited to medical, mental health, legal and with deaf people who are non-native signers, immigrants and are of any age.

As hearing interpreters yourselves, you may be faced with a situation where you realize that you would prefer to team with a deaf interpreter. A common scenario where deaf interpreters are called in is to work with children or in mental health situations. I advocate bringing one in but you need to also remember that simply because someone is deaf, fluent in sign language and hangs a shingle out calling themselves an interpreter, it does not mean they have the requisite skill set for the situation you are faced with. Keeping in mind that we are all generalists and may not be the best qualified for every situation out there, discretion on the part of all interpreters is paramount to ensuring the best outcome.

It is usually the hearing interpreter that first identifies that a deaf interpreter would be beneficial in any given situation. If an agency has past experience with the deaf person or the situation, they may identify the need ahead of time but usually it falls on the hearing interpreter to make this assessment.

The interpreter may determine that a deaf interpreter is needed as a team for a variety of reasons such as the complexity of the situation. The need for discretion applies to determining when and if a deaf interpreter is needed as well. Careful consideration needs to happen before calling a deaf interpreter in for any and all interpreted situations. A thoughtful weighing of the situation, the environment, and the resources has to be considered along with understanding that calling in a deaf interpreter is a team approach and that, together, each interpreter will remain responsible for the communication that happens.

Benefits

An interpretation of someone else’s thoughts will rarely be error free. With that in mind, 2 heads are better than one. Each interpreter processing the source message and then creating a shared understanding will result in a more accurate target message. A teamed interpretation with both a deaf and hearing interpreter working collaboratively will result in a better overall interpretation that results in a product that provides clarity of ideas and message equivalency for the intended audience.

* Interested in receiving StreetLeverage posts in your inbox?

Simply enter your name and email in the field above the green “Sign Me Up!” button (upper right-hand side of site) and click “Sign Me Up!”

Posted on March 6, 2013 by Jennifer Vold — 25 Comments

Deaf Interpreters: In the Blind Spot of the Sign Language Interpreting Profession?

A few weeks ago, I was looking through StreetLeverage posts and as I neared the end- perhaps even after I had looked at all of the titles—I realized that I had not seen anything explicitly about Deaf interpreters.

Of course, the phrase “sign language interpreters” appeared often, and of course Deaf interpreters are included in that population. Still, I thought, I have read several articles since StreetLeverage began and I couldn’t help but feel like they were written with hearing sign language interpreters in mind. (For the purposes of this post, when I say “hearing” interpreters, I am also referring to coda interpreters; I am using the label to refer to auditory status, not cultural identity.)

I contacted Brandon, asking if this observation was accurate, and he invited me to write about it. (Let that be a lesson to anyone else thinking about piping up—you may have to follow through on your thoughts!)

Are Deaf Interpreters Invisible?

What does it mean that I hadn’t even noticed the absence of posts about Deaf interpreters for a year and a half? Does it send a message, unintentional but unmistakable, that I do not think about Deaf interpreters often; that they are invisible; that they are unimportant to the field?

I am reminded of an observation that was shared with me recently about another instance of the absence of Deaf interpreters. In my area, there is a group of freelancers who run a website for direct contracting of sign language interpreting services. I do not work through this site, but I know many of the interpreters who do. I like many of them, I respect many of them, I have sought many of them out to team with me. When people ask how to find an interpreter, I include this website among my list of referrals. In short, this network of freelancers is by no means new or unfamiliar to me. Yet, I never noticed that there are no Deaf interpreters on their site. What does it say to my Deaf colleagues that I never even noticed—that their presence is not missed?

The Organizational Level: Overt Messages

Upon looking through online resources, Deaf Interpreters are an unmistakable and long-standing part of the profession. Certifications have been offered to Deaf interpreters for as long as they have been offered to hearing interpreters. According to RID’s CDI bulletin, the Reverse Skills Certificate has been awarded since 1972- the same year that certification began for hearing interpreters- and was primarily awarded to Deaf Interpreters. Twenty years later, development of the Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI) exam began as result of a 1989 vote that “a generalist Certificate of Relay Interpreting be established for Deaf persons.”[i]

During the National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers’ 2005-2010 grant cycle, they “delineated the unique competencies required of Deaf Interpreters in a document titled Toward Effective Practice: Competencies of the Deaf Interpreter (available at www.DIInstitute.org).” In the current grant cycle from 2010-2015, the Northeastern University center (NURIEC) is piloting a curriculum for Deaf interpreter education called Road to Deaf Interpreting. A total of 34 interpreters from two cohorts have already graduated from the program, and the 2012-2014 session is currently underway.[ii]

In 2007, RID assembled a taskforce to revisit the application criteria for taking the CDI exam. In the same year, NCIEC conducted a survey of Deaf interpreters and got 196 responses- a number that surpasses the estimated 162 Deaf interpreters listed in RID.org.[iii] Assuming the number of certified Deaf interpreters is accurate, then Deaf interpreters represent 2% of the 9,846 people listed as certified on RID.org.

On StreetLeverage, when you search the phrase “deaf interpreter” you get 5 results out of the 67 total posts, for a rate of 7%.[iv] Not bad. At the organizational level, then, there seems to be a proportionate level of attention paid to and recognition of Deaf interpreters. What happens at the individual level?

The Individual Level: Covert Messages

Using myself as an example (for better and for worse), I have worked alongside Deaf interpreters in various capacities: in a platform setting as a hearing team, in situations where Deaf interpreters are working with DeafBlind consumers, sometimes from my interpretation and sometimes not, and in situations that involve Deaf consumers with intellectual disabilities. When I began my career, I worked with a deaf independent living center and the deaf counselors often served as de facto Deaf interpreters. I can think of many enriching experiences working with and watching Deaf interpreters at work.

Jennifer Kaika - Sign Language Interpreter — Jennifer Kaika

At the same time, I have been guilty of not asking if Deaf interpreters have been assigned to a job that I’m on, even when I have reason to believe they would be. I don’t always think to share prep materials with Deaf interpreters until the day of an assignment- often not until we’ve all arrived. When I’ve been in touch with hearing teams to prepare for assignment, I don’t always include Deaf interpreters (again, usually because I haven’t asked if they were assigned.) What messages are sent when I consistently forget about my Deaf counterparts? Is there a reason I seem to consistently forget?

Is Frustration the Impetus?

There have been times where I have been frustrated by experiences working with a Deaf team—perhaps because they were new, perhaps because they had a different view of how to approach interpreting or teaming, perhaps because they usually work with DeafBlind consumers but I expect them to excel when working with consumers with different linguistic needs. Is this the reason I forget? If it is, does that mean that I hold Deaf interpreters to a double standard? After all, I have had similar experiences with hearing interpreters.

The range of experience and professionalism I have seen among DIs and CDIs parallels that of hearing interpreters: some are new, some have years of experience, some are certified, some are not, some have specializations, some are generalists, some aim to work at the national and international level, others aim to practice only in their local communities.

Should this range or these less-than-ideal experiences deter us from working together? Or can they become opportunities for us to talk openly about what wasn’t working? Can they serve as opportunities for us all to be more specific about what skills we possess and what skills we are asking for when making a request to work with a Deaf interpreter?

Group Dynamics: Unintended Messages

Four years into my interpreting career, and only months after becoming a full-time freelancer, I had taken a staff position at Gallaudet University. Not long after coming aboard, discussions surfaced about speaking versus signing around the office and on campus. I had grown up on this campus. As a coda, I was accustomed to talking in front of my deaf relatives—whether to hearing friends or on the phone. All throughout my childhood and into my college years, I knew very few hearing people who could sign; thus, I spoke to hearing people and signed with Deaf people. All of this to say that the issue of hearing people speaking to each other when Deaf people were around was foreign to me. I was in need of an explanation.

Deaf people talked about feeling shut out—that choosing to speak when you could sign was exclusionary. Some hearing people said it was their right to use their first language. Deaf and hearing people talked about incidental learning—the ability to “overhear” a conversation and learn from it in the way you might pick up on the fact that people are talking about a bad storm approaching or some tidbit of news. This was pretty convincing, but still I wondered would it really be that big of a deal if I just talked with a hearing person and started signing when a deaf person came around? Then they could see what we’re saying and join the conversation if they wanted. When someone said that they wouldn’t even join the conversation if I weren’t already signing, I finally got it.

Nobody wants to disrupt their environment, you don’t want things to change just because you’ve walked into a room; you just want to be able to feel like you belong- no matter where you go.

Apply this same thinking to local and national RID conferences. Do we create spaces in the informal areas that send the message that Deaf interpreters belong there? On the organizational level, I would say yes. At the 2011 conference, I believe each Board member signed when they presented on stage. But as I recall, the hallways and social areas presented a different story.

The estimated 162 certified Deaf interpreters mentioned earlier represent 31 states.[v] In the directory on the Deaf Interpreter Institute, there are 35 interpreters listed representing 22 states. Between the two groups, 33 states are represented. If we truly believe that Deaf interpreters are a part of our profession—a long-standing and lasting part, present since the inception of RID, another way to connect to the Deaf community and maintain Deaf-heart, then wouldn’t our actions be aligned with our messages?

Addressing the Fundamental Question

Does the presence of DIs remove our status in the room as the ‘experts’ on sign language and interpretation in a way that is different than working with another hearing interpreter? Does it challenge a hearing interpreter’s ability to be “in control” of the environment? Does it raise questions about the quality of our work? Does all of this (and thus, the presence of a Deaf interpreter) make some of us nervous?

Have you grappled with some of these same questions? Do some of these experiences mirror your own?

I think these are some of the things that Nigel Howard addressed in his StreetLeverage – Live 2012 | Columbia, MD presentation, Deaf Interpreters: The State of Inclusion, in November of 2012, bringing up “the perception that ASL-English interpreters have that requesting to work with a deaf interpreter is an indication of an “inferior skill-set” and the “need to broaden the view of how and why deaf interpreters are used in order to improve their inclusion and contribution to the field.”[vi] I did not go to the presentation, but would appreciate contributions from those who did.

Beginning a Dialogue

I am sharing my own experiences openly in the interest of having an open discussion. Perhaps, though, I am alone in my experiences and the majority of our profession has good working relationships with Deaf interpreters. If this were the majority opinion, not only would I be relieved, I would be prouder of my profession (if not a little embarrassed for admitting my own ignorance.)

* Interested in receiving StreetLeverage posts in your inbox?

Simply enter your name and email in the field above the green “Sign Me Up!” button (upper right-hand side of site) and click “Sign Me Up!”

[i] “Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI) Examination Information Bulletin.” RID.org. Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, 24 Sept. 2001. Web. 15 Feb. 2013. <http://www.rid.org/education/testing/index.cfm/AID/89>.

[ii] http://roadtodeafinterpreting.webs.com/rdisstory.htm

[iii] Calculated by adding the total CDIs (139), the total who hold the RSC without certifications that Deaf interpreters are not eligible for (21), and the total of those who hold the CLIP-R without CDI (2). It is possible that some who hold the RSC alone are hearing, which is why I refer to this number as an estimate.

[iv] Trudy Suggs mentions that she is a deaf interpreter: http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/12/deaf-disempowerment-and-todays-interpreter/

Brandon Arthur describes Nigel Howard’s presentation “Deaf Interpreters: The State of Inclusion” in http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/11/a-salute-to-big-thinking-sign-language-interpreters and http://www.streetleverage.com/streetleverage-live

Robyn Dean says that hearing and deaf interpreters participated in supervision sessions in http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/04/ethical-development-a-sign-of-the-times-for-sign-language-interpreters

Debra Russell talks about Deaf interpreters being part of international collaboration efforts in http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/03/international-collaboration-should-sign-language-interpreters-do-more

[v] Some states only have one certified Deaf interpreter listed, but again this is only the number of interpreters who hold an RID certification.

[vi] http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/11/a-salute-to-big-thinking-sign-language-interpreters/ Nigel’s talk explored some of the perceptions that challenge better integration of deaf interpreters into the field and into daily practice. Most notably, the perception that ASL-English interpreters have that requesting to work with a deaf interpreter is an indication of an inferior skill-set.

Deaf Interpreters: The Value of Formative Experience

American vs. Deaf American Formative Experience

Leveling the Playing Field

Deaf Space

The Acculturation Gap

Effective Interpreter Formula

CDI – Deaf Formative Formula: L1/L2 + C1/C2 + ELK = EI (Effective Interpreter)

The Value of Formative Experience

Breaking Away from the Status Quo

Opening the Conversation

A “Shadow Profession”: Challenges for Deaf Interpreters in Denmark

Hearing Interpreter Reactions in Denmark

A Different Story in Finland

Interpreter Education with HIs and DIs in Finland

Community Buy-In is Key

In Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Questions for Consideration

Related Posts

Deaf Interpreters: Shaping the Future of the Sign Language Interpreting Profession

Historical Perspectives

Hearing Interpreters Have Been Making Decisions About Interpreting By Themselves

A Demanding Presence of Deaf Perspective and the Emergence of Deaf Interpreters

“Community Based” Interpreting Model vs. “Mainstream” Interpreting Model

Reclaiming the “Deaf Interpreter Norm”

Long Tradition

My Experience

What We Found

Cultural Adjustments Only Deaf Interpreters Can Make

Here’s the Problem

Taking Responsibility

5 Steps You Can Take:

Perceptions/Misperceptions

Definition

Are Deaf Interpreters Invisible?

The Organizational Level: Overt Messages

The Individual Level: Covert Messages

Is Frustration the Impetus?

Group Dynamics: Unintended Messages

Addressing the Fundamental Question

Beginning a Dialogue