Search

Reading is a critical process for conscious learning and enhancing knowledge; however, little is known about reading in interpreters’ professional lives. We used an online survey to collect information about the reading habits of signed language interpreters (n = 1,382) and spoken language interpreters (n = 601) to examine overall patterns, as well as variations, between the groups. The interpreters responded to questions regarding (a) engagement with reading types, (b) hours spent reading, (c) motivations for reading, (d) factors that reduce engagement in reading, (e) reading in which interpreters should engage, (f) relevance of reading to professional practice, and (g) priority of research topics for reading. Similarities were found between the groups, with divergence in three areas – reading preparation materials, reading research studies, and the types of research studies the participants wish to read. The results provide insights into professional interpreters’ engagement with reading and its application to their professional practice.

The members of a community have conventionalized linguistic structures to convey both the content of a message and the social status of the interlocutors. Crucial in the codification of interpersonal relations are address terms, which are determined by pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic norms (Leech, 1983:11) related to the language system, the local communicative event and the broader social context. The study examines the usage of address terms (direct address, reference, introductions) at a bilingual university that uses American Sign Language (ASL) as language of instruction and socialization, and English in teaching/learning materials, email correspondence, written announcements, inter alia. Based on interviews with Deaf undergraduate students and Deaf faculty members, the study investigates the production of address terms in this bilingual academic setting and discusses the factors that shape their usage, including ASL linguistic structure, English address norms, participants’ educational background, age and status, sociocultural characteristics of the Deaf community, and assumptions from society-at-large. The results reveal that Deaf students and faculty have expectations about address practices inside and outside university campus and follow a complex set of norms in ASL and written English. The findings also provide insights into how members of the Deaf community experience linguacultural contact between signed and spoken/written languages.

Perhaps the most daunting aspect of situated learning is the time and creative effort it takes to produce effective scenarios for the students to practice interpreting. To assist with that hurdle, in this chapter the authors provide 21 sample mock interpreting scenarios. The scenarios can be used exactly as they are written, be modified for your situation, or serve as inspiration for novel scenarios that you create on your own. Before diving into the scenarios, the authors describe the structure and offer suggestions for implementing the scenarios in your classroom or other settings.

This chapter describes the highest level of the staircase model for interpreter education. At Step 5, student learning is again scaffolded and culminates in the most authentic interpreting experiences with consumers present. Step 5 activities include all of the four cornerstones of situated learning: (1) real-world or simulated context, (2) authentic activity, (3) social interactions, and (4) use of tools to manage challenges that arise. It is also at Step 5 that students are guided into their interpreting community of practice. The authors provide step-by-step instructions, examples, and materials that can be used to facilitate authentic interpreting experiences for students.

This chapter introduces the reader to situated learning theory and its application to interpreter education. Interpreting is compared with other human service fields, but the specific challenges in interpreter education are presented. The authors contend that an experiential approach is necessary for training human service professionals who must hold both a theoretical and an experiential base of knowledge, a condition that is highly relevant for the complex linguistic and interpersonal work of professional interpreters. The authors suggest that the facilitation of situated learning principles in interpreter education can both support student learning and provide an avenue for teachers to have more rewarding instructional experiences.

This chapter briefly discusses key learning theories, including behaviorism, cognitivism, and social constructivism, including experiments that discuss the concept of learning transfer. The authors show the progression of ideas and studies that led to the principles underlying situated learning theory as well as scaffolding. Applying the theories of situated learning, the authors introduce their staircase model for interpreter education. The staircase model illustrates how situated learning activities build on four cornerstones and a range of scaffolded activities to provide learning experiences that, over time, increase in their level of authenticity.

This chapter concludes the book with a discussion of the importance of fostering and nurturing partnerships with members of the language community with whom interpreters work, professional interpreters, students in other departments, and the many professionals who work in businesses, agencies, associations, and other institutions. It is only with such community partners that situated learning is possible in interpreter education. Finally, the authors discuss how situated learning principles can be used after students graduate from their programs and move into professional practice.

This chapter discusses how situated learning experiences begin to be implemented. Scaffolding the students into the community begins with Step 3 on the staircase model for interpreter education. Step 3 activities include two of the four cornerstones of situated learning: (1) real-world or simulated context and (2) social interactions with community members. Students engage with individuals and groups within institutions of society and reflect on the structures and hierarchies that they will navigate as professional interpreters. The chapter contains descriptions of approaches in which interpreter educators can engage students in communities, including field trips, interpreter observations, volunteer or community service activities, service learning projects, interpreting/translation conferences, and local professional organizations. Such activities are designed to move students out of the classroom and into the community. The issue of assessment of student performance is also discussed.

In this chapter, the authors describe a variety of activities that can be used during Step 4 on the staircase model for interpreter education. Step 4 activities include three of the four cornerstones of situated learning: (1) real-world or simulated context, (2) authentic activity, and (3) use of tools to manage challenges that arise. Critically, Step 4 activities do not include consumers who are relying on the interpretations by the students. A variety of role play activities are discussed that can take place in a classroom or lab, either planned in advance or spontaneously. The authors offer ideas for simulated interpreting activities that occur in real-world settings, such as college classes, presentations, and on-campus workshops or conferences. Finally, Gibbs’ reflective cycle as a framework for assessing student experiences is presented with data samples from students.

This chapter opens with a story of two students whose interpreting experience has been scaffolded through a series of situated learning activities. The authors describe the theoretical grounding of situated learning, including principles of learning transfer, cognitive apprenticeships, authentic learning activities, and communities of practice. They then trace the development of situated learning across a variety of disciplines and argue that this approach is especially well suited for interpreter education. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the four cornerstones of situated learning.

Interpreters face challenges when rendering names between languages. First, names may be unknown to the interpreter or contain culturally specific information. Further, names lack contextual clues that aid the decoding process. Finally, names may be pronounced in a manner that is difficult to understand (e.g., rapidly or with an accent). Spoken language interpreters have the option of repeating names in their original form; however, signed language interpreters work between languages produced in distinct language modalities (sign-speech) that share no phonological features; thus, names cannot simply be reproduced across languages. In this study we created a mock scenario between two interlocutors (a hearing computer specialist and a deaf international student) who enacted a training session in which they deliberately incorporated names. The interlocutors repeated this training session three times, each with a different team of interpreters. We report strategies used by the teams to convey names in their interpretations.

American Sign Language (ASL) and English differ in linguistic resources available to express visual–spatial information. In a referential communication task, we examined the effect of language modality on the creation and mutual acceptance of reference to non-nameable figures. In both languages, description times reduced over iterations and references to the figures’ geometric properties (“shape-based reference”) declined over time in favor of expressions describing the figures’ resemblance to nameable objects (“analogy-based reference”). ASL signers maintained a preference for shape-based reference until the final (sixth) round, while English speakers transitioned toward analogy-based reference by Round 3. Analogy-based references were more time efficient (associated with shorter round description times). Round completion times were longer for ASL than for English, possibly due to gaze demands of the task and/or to more shape-based descriptions. Signers’ referring expressions remained unaffected by figure complexity while speakers preferred analogy-based expressions for complex figures and shape-based expressions for simple figures. Like speech, co-speech gestures decreased over iterations. Gestures primarily accompanied shape-based references, but listeners rarely looked at these gestures, suggesting that they were recruited to aid the speaker rather than the addressee. Overall, different linguistic resources (classifier constructions vs. geometric vocabulary) imposed distinct demands on referring strategies in ASL and English.

Humans have the unique capability of using language to talk about language (Jakobson 1957). For example, one can say, “The Italian word for dog is cane.” These metalinguistic references can create a dilemma for interpreters because the critical linguistic term (i.e., cane) must be maintained in the target language to create meaning. Spoken language interpreters can render the original form since both working languages are expressed in the same modality (speech-speech). However, signed language interpreters who work between languages having distinct modalities (speech-sign), thus, must interpret forms between different phonological structures. We videorecorded ten experienced American Sign Language-English interpreters as they interpreted a mock training session containing metalinguistic references. Results showed interpreters employed numerous strategies to manage and coordinate the target language output.

This article reviews Addressing methodological challenges in interpreting studies research 978-1443890670

In this paper, we report on interview data collected from 14 Deaf leaders across seven countries (Australia, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States) regarding their perspectives on signed language interpreters. Using a semi-structured survey questionnaire, seven interpreting researchers interviewed two Deaf leaders each in their home countries. Following transcription of the data, the researchers conducted a thematic analysis of the comments. Four shared themes emerged in the data, as follows: (a) variable level of confidence in interpreting direction, (b) criteria for selecting interpreters, (c) judging the competence of interpreters, and (d) strategies for working with interpreters. The results suggest that Deaf leaders share similar, but not identical, perspectives about working with interpreters, despite differing conditions that hold regarding how interpreting services are provided in their respective countries. When compared to prior studies of Deaf leaders’ perspectives of interpreters, these data indicate some positive trends in Deaf leaders’ experience with interpreters; however, results also point to a need for further work in creating an atmosphere of trust, enhancing interpreters’ language fluency, and developing mutual collaboration between Deaf leaders and signed language interpreters. De url van de uitgeversversie van het artikel is: http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/084.2017.18.1.5

Little is known about the nature of fingerspelling during sign language interpretation. In this small-scale, exploratory study, we examined the fingerspelling of interpreters working in five different sign languages: American Sign Language (ASL), Australian Sign Language (Auslan), British Sign Language (BSL), Irish Sign Language (ISL), and Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sixteen interpreters were video-recorded as they rendered President Barack Obama’s 2009 inaugural address in their country’s sign language. After completing their interpretations, the participants engaged in a retrospective interview about their work. The data were analyzed both quantitatively (for frequency and type of fingerspelling) and qualitatively (for factors influencing fingerspelling). Results indicate that the most fingerspelled items ( n = 137) were produced in the ASL interpretations and the fewest ( n = 18) were produced in the LIS interpretations; variation between the groups was found in lexicalized fingerspelling and the fingerspelling of place names. We suggest that the variation in fingerspelling both within and between groups may be explained by sociolinguistic factors, including interpreters’ language attitudes and perceptions of the deaf audience. This exploratory study provides a first step in investigating the fingerspelling of interpreters in a variety of sign languages.

Anecdotally, interpreters report experiencing self-talk before, during, and after assignments; however, this inner dialogue has neither been confirmed nor described in the literature. Prior studies suggest that guided self-talk can boost performance in learning and human performance activities. It follows that self-talk may also affect interpreting performance, either positively or negatively. In this study, reports of self-talk of American Sign Language-English interpreters were examined for the following characteristics: frequency, valence, overtness, self-determination, motivation, and function. Participants (N = 445) responded to online survey questions about the experience of self-talk in their interpreting work. Forfrequency, more than half of the respondents reported experiencing self-talk between 1–5 times during their work. Regardingvalence, 62% of respondents reported a mix of positive and negative self-talk about their performance. Forovertness, 62% reported talking (or signing) aloud in isolated settings about their work experiences. Regardingself-determination, nearly half of the respondents (48%) reported self-talk as a mix of conscious and unconscious thoughts. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents reported using self-talk formotivation, but 65% reported their self-talk was actually de-motivational at times. The most frequently reportedfunctionof self-talk was to improve interpreting. The findings offer a rich description of self-talk by American Sign Language-English interpreters. We suggest that more information about self-talk during interpretation may lead to greater self-awareness of the role of this phenomenon in working practitioners, as well as offer insights for the instruction of student interpreters.

This study examined omissions, errors, and variability in lexical selection across simultaneous interpretations of President Obama’s 2009 inaugural address, in three spoken languages (French, German, Japanese) and in American Sign Language (ASL). Microanalysis of how information conveyed by 39 source speech lexical items was transferred into the target languages assessed to what extent omissions and errors reflected differences in lexical structure (relative frequency of ready lexical correspondents and of shared cognates between the source and target languages; and, for ASL in particular, size of lexicon compared to English). The highest number of errors and omissions was found in ASL, which has the smallest documented vocabulary, fewest lexical correspondents, and no shared cognates with English. If omission/error rates in interpretation of lexical units are taken as a rough indicator of interpreting difficulty, results suggest that it is more difficult to interpret the speech into Japanese than into French or German and, by the same token, more difficult to interpret it into ASL than into the three spoken languages. These findings are consistent with the idea that language structures impact cognitive load during interpreting, and that interpreting effort increases in relation to the degree of difference between the source and target languages.

Among spoken language interpreters, a long-standing question regarding directionality is whether interpretations are better when working into one’s native language (L1) or into one’s ‘active’ non-native language (L2). In contrast to studies that support working into L1, signed language interpreters report a preference for working into L2. Accordingly, we investigated whether signed language interpreters actually perform better when interpreting into their L2 (American Sign Language, ASL) or into their L1 (English). Interpretations by 30 interpreters (15 novice, 15 expert), delivered under experimental conditions, were assessed on accuracy (semantic content) and articulation quality (flow, speed, and prosody). For both measures, novices scored significantly better when interpreting into English (L1); experts were equally accurate, and showed similar articulation quality, in both directions. The results for the novice interpreters support the hypothesis that the difficulty of L2 production drives interpreting performance in relation to directionality. Findings also indicate a disconnect between direction preference and interpreting performance. Novices’ perception of their ASL production ability may be distorted because they can default to fingerspelling and transcoding. Weakness in self-monitoring of signing may also lead novices to overrate their ASL skills. Interpreter educators should stress misperceptions of signing proficiency that arise from available, but inappropriate, strategies.

Objectives By juxtaposing literature in signed language interpreting with that of spoken language interpreting, we provide a narrative review to explore the complexity of emotion management in interpreter-mediated medical encounters. Methods We conduct literature search through library databases and Google Scholar using varied combinations of search terms, including interpreter, emotion, culture, and health care. Results We first examine (a) interpreters’ management and performance of others’ emotions, (b) interpreters’ management and performance of their own emotions, and (c) impacts of emotion work for healthcare interpreters. Conclusion By problematizing the roles and functions of emotion and emotion work in interpreter-mediated medical encounters, we propose a normative model to guide future research and practices of interpreters’ emotion management in cross-cultural care. Practice implications Quality and equality of care should serve as the guiding principle for interpreters’ decision-making about their emotions and emotion work. Rather than adopting a predetermined practice, interpreters should evaluate and prioritize the various clinical, interpersonal, and therapeutic objectives as they consider the best practice in managing their own and other speakers’ emotions.

In this study we examine linguistic features produced by interpreters and deaf bilingual physicians when translating medication instructions from English into American Sign Language (ASL). In the U.S. healthcare system, signed language interpreters are frequently called upon to facilitate communication between deaf individuals who use ASL and their non-signing physicians. A small but growing number of deaf individuals are now pursuing medical training, creating a situation in which deaf patients can communicate in ASL with their healthcare providers. Numerous practical and perceptual barriers affect patients’ medication intake behaviors, including comprehension, memory of instructions, and language differences between physicians and patients. Research indicates that language concordance increases patients’ compliance to prescription treatment. It follows that direct communication in ASL between deaf patients and deaf physicians will positively impact treatment compliance of patients and may result in better recall of medical instructions. We examined the linguistic features used in English to ASL translations of two medication directions as produced by experienced ASL-English interpreters (n=3) and deaf bilingual physicians (n=3). Results showed the absence of a standard approach for translating medication directions into ASL; however, both groups incorporated the same linguistic devices to promote emphasis within the translation, including repetition, emphatic lexical signs, and prosodic markers, presumably to promote recall of key concepts by deaf patients. Lexical variability in the translations is discussed, as well as information gaps between the ASL and English versions of the medication instructions. The results hold implications for healthcare professionals, interpreters, and interpreter educators for building effective communication for deaf patients.

Spoken language (unimodal) interpreters often prefer to interpret from their non-dominant language (L2) into their native language (L1). Anecdotally, signed language (bimodal) interpreters express the opposite bias, preferring to interpret from L1 (spoken language) into L2 (signed language). We conducted a large survey study (N = 1,359) of both unimodal and bimodal interpreters that confirmed these preferences. The L1 to L2 direction preference was stronger for novice than expert bimodal interpreters, while novice and expert unimodal interpreters did not differ from each other. The results indicated that the different direction preferences for bimodal and unimodal interpreters cannot be explained by language production–comprehension asymmetries or by work or training experiences. We suggest that modality and language-specific features of signed languages drive the directionality preferences of bimodal interpreters. Specifically, we propose that fingerspelling, transcoding (literal word-for-word translation), self-monitoring, and consumers’ linguistic variation influence the preference of bimodal interpreters for working into their L2.

Deaf academics who navigate aspects of their professional lives through signed language interpreting services face a range of issues, including handling perceptions of their Hearing peers, identifying and negotiating their own communication preferences, and balancing personal and professional relationships with their interpreters. Interpreters bring individual sets of schemas and skills to their work, which impacts the interpreted interaction. In this paper, a Deaf academic and her interpreter/colleague discuss various challenges in having an interpreter—and being an interpreter—in academia. Topics include being “outed” as a person with a disability because of the presence of an interpreter; the need for interpreters with specialized academic vocabulary; the responsibilities of the Deaf academic and the interpreter in interpreted interactions; and the sense of vulnerability, intimacy, and autonomy experienced by the Deaf academic and the interpreter. The article is a shared reflection about the evolution of a relationship, beginning with the authors’ respective roles as client and interpreter, and leading into to their present alliance as colleagues and friends.Key words:interpretation, Deaf, academic, ethics, disability, autonomy, vulnerability, intimacy, philosophy, hard of hearing, hearing impaired, sign language, oral interpreting, American Sign Language&nbsp

1. Preface 3. Introduction (by Swabey, Laurie) 4. Researching interpreting: Approaches to inquiry (by Pochhacker, Franz) 5. Designing a research project: Beginning with the end in mind (by Russell, Debra) 6. Identifying and interpreting scientific phenomena: Simultaneous challenges to interpreting research (by Moser-Mercer, Barbara) 7. The first three years of a three-year grant: When a research plan doesn't go as planned (by Metzger, Melanie) 8. Methodology in interpreting studies: A methodological review of evidence-based research (by Liu, Minhua) 9. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise?: The merits of publishing interpreting research (by Napier, Jemina) 10. "Mark my words": The linguistic, social, and political significance of the assessment of signed language interpreters (by Leeson, Lorraine) 11. Developing and transmitting a shared interpreting research ethos: EUMASLI - A case study (by Hessmann, Jens) 12. Profession in pentimento: A narrative inquiry into interpreting in video settings (by Peterson, Rico) 13. Through a historical lens: Contextualizing interpreting research (by Adam, Robert) 14. Bimodal bilingual interpreting in the U.S. healthcare system: A critical linguistic activity in need of investigation (by Swabey, Laurie) 15. Index

N/A