Interpreting: September 2004 Archives

I got some confirmation from one of Eileen's examples that time is perceived and experienced differently by the Deaf than the hearing. It actually came up a couple times, in a couple of different ways. Betty talked about it in terms of "silence" in an example she gave in the Discussion part of the workshop about what it means to be an ally. She said, "Hearing people hate silence!" I think the emphasis on silence might be ... not mistaken, but confused with the experience of time. When there IS a "silence," hearing people experience the passage of time. This is what makes them nuts, not the silence itself. (Which is not to say that Hearing people like or are comfortable with silence; most Americans are not.) Deaf people, however, are used to experiencing the passage of time during "visual silences" when they are waiting for eye contact to resume. This is what is happening when an audience member comes to stage to make a comment, and the presenter (and the rest of the audience) waits until that person returns to their seat before responding. It's a form of turn-taking. It shows respect. It is not experienced (I don't think) as "wasting time."

Confusion was the main emotion at most of the Allies conferences (spilling out sometimes as rage, sometimes as grief). I strongly believe that the Allies conferences were an important attempt to try and address some of the deep sociopolitical differences among and between Deaf folk and interpreters. I do believe that many individuals benefitted personally from the experience, but overall, the conferences did not move us toward any kind of collective understanding. Why they failed, given the good intentions and positive desires of the founders, participants, and later planners, has been a puzzle that I continue to think about.

First, let me record what happened today.

Since I think the ways we talk about things have a great deal to do with dynamics, I was fascinated by some of the anecdotes and jokes about certain terms. For instance:

RSC - originally known as the "reverse skills certificate" was renamed the "relay skills certificate" at least partially because RID wanted to maintain the same initials. (Thanks to Betty Colonomos for sharing this historicial tidbit with us.) Eileen made a joke about driving in reverse as an example of the kind of metaphor, or implied meaning, might have been "hidden" in the original term. (Now the certification for Deaf persons who are trained as interpreters is CDI - Certified Deaf Interpreter, which Betty also let us know has its problems: the linguistic construction in English indicates that it is the "deafness" that is being "certified"; not the interpretation skills!) Betty suggested, when one is trying to explain to hearing interlocutors why a Deaf interpreter is needed, describing them as a "specialist."

I was (am still) overwhelmed by the amount of stimulation I received from Eileen's presentation, "Teaching Deaf Interpreting Processes." She and I are looking at a very similar subject - what I usually call dynamics - but in different ways from our different experiences and positions. I'm going to try and organize some of my thoughts in a few separate posts...

Itís been a long time since Iíve been in an all-signing environment; my eyes are rusty! We had a characteristically Deaf start at my first ever Interpreter Trainers convention, the keynote began only 50 minutes past the scheduled time. I, in my introvert fashion, found a seat to plant myself while most folks schmoozed. Anna R. knows how to work a crowd! I exchanged greetings with lots of people from Allies ñ that feels like a very long time ago. Saw Trix and recalled juggling in Alaska. (I was hiding from Angela.) And Rhonda said hi; I had to confess to choosing to share a hotel room with Patty because of my age (i.e., the need for comfort.) Once we got underway, there were a few of those moments when someone went up to the stage to say something, and we all waited while they returned to their seat and turned around to watch the response. There is just no doubt that time passes differently in Deaf. ;-)

I especially enjoyed the institutional history that Anna Witter-Merithew and Becky Carlson shared.

David has located a wonderful site for me! The EU Directorate General for Interpretation! I'm gonna have to peruse this site thoroughly. :-) It's a great site and the timing couldn't be better! How do you say thank you in Hungarian? ;-)

The town's agog with a special exhibit at our (fairly small!) museum which includes items from a private collection apparently not shown in public before.

The opening gala was covered by the local paper this past Monday: Wild About Warhol. (I often have trouble with the links to the local paper; they seem to take 2-3 tries to get through. If you want the article via email, let me know - I sent a copy to myself.)

I was contacted about interpreting this event but couldn't manage to squeeze it in. Besides, what would I have worn? I'd have looked like I was slumming!

They make no bones about being prescriptive and laying out the principles and values that "should" inform deliberation. I agree with many, if not all of them, but doubt everyone does, or would, or even should. My agreement is probably based upon (emanates from?) a subjectivity similar to theirs, but I don't think I want everyone I interact with to be boilerplated along "my" lines (! Horrors!)

While I am attracted to the idealism and possibility in Habermas (as I understand the distillation of his views, having not yet squeezed him in ~ even via Bryan's audio link), what a bland, dull, and monotonous mode of production.

I am intrigued, however, by the chart G&T have put together on p. 53, contrasting prudence, reciprocity, and impartiality as principled (philosophical?) bases for approaching moral disagreement. The notable absence in sign language interpreter's code of ethics (in the US) of any mention of "impartiality" has been a gap that has drawn my attention for a variety of reasons, but this reading has me wondering if there is an even deeper debate between/among members of the Deaf community and sign language interpreters - one which challenges the basic assumptions embodied in an "impartial" base. Deaf people have overtly questioned this as a different cultural value, but I hadn't yet come across an alternative. I think the notion of reciprocity might do it ~ being as it already is a noted and notable intra-group value of American Deaf Culture. The premises and assumptions that accompany these three foundational bases (as laid out by G&T) open up terms for deliberation (!) that might actually move the institutionalizing forces of the RID (national certifying body) and NAD (nat'l advocacy organization for the Deaf) toward a mutually-satisfactory outcome.

So, I'm wondering if deliberation based on reciprocity is a contingent strategy or mode that needs to be responsive to the conditions and environment of a particular issue? It may, in fact, be quite well suited to some contexts, and inappropriate for others. G&T seem to propose it as the rubric for all political decisions. I think this is much too broad.

Well, almost everything that could go wrong *did* go wrong yesterday, except that I got a hug from a very sweet cabbie from Cameroon who tried to teach me some French. :-)

Actually, the workshop was well-received by the 20-some folk, mostly Deaf, who attended. I'd targeted it towards hearing folk, so had to do some adjusting (mostly that means I signed about half of it). The sucky Washington Hilton didn't have a cable for my Mac and no one informed me I needed my own cable (despite two months notice) so THAT just about put me over the edge, thank the spirits I finally found the videotape I had misplaced the night before because I was at least able to show the clips, even though no one got to see my pretty powerpoint that I spent (sigh!) hours developing. Interpersonally (notes for COM250!), my stress came through and Randy felt the need to reassure me that it was worth my time to be there and make this presentation. :-)

I do believe that and am glad I went. I will add some explanatory notes to the powerpoint slides ~ Randy wants them for the Proceedings and the slides by themselves probably won't convey much to anyone not at the workshop. He also encouraged me to get in touch with Robyn Dean, the driving force behind demand-control theory. Others have recommended her too, and I think I actually did email with her 3+ years ago....but we haven't really connected. She has a similar premise that interpreters need to be much more assertive in our management of the "environment" (that's the term Randy used).

My thoughts were clarified by my reading (on the plane) for the Democracy, Rhetoric, and Performance class.....I think defining mutually acceptable boundaries for the interpreter's role and performance is a suitable topic for deliberation guided by the principle of reciprocity. More on that soon.

The Pennsylvania Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf has posted my articles on Sign Language Interpreters and the Practical Management of the Communication Process on their conference website. The papers will be prep for their professional discussion on the interpreter's role. :-) (No direct link, click Conference then "Kent article".)

This article, Sign and spoken language interpreting: a componential approach to skills development by Carol J. Patrie is in the September-October issue of Communicate!. It emphasizes similarities between signed and spoken language interpreting, and provides detailed information on the Conference of Interpreter Trainers (CIT).

In her article on Critical Link (previous post), Maria Rosaria BURI references Samuel P. Huntington's book, Who Are We? The Challenges to American National Identity. The book seems to be an exploration of the changing geopolitical situation in which Huntington argues that "'civilizations' are replacing ideologies in international relations and politics" (Buri).

Buri recommends this book for community interpreters.

"The Critical Link is a network established in 1992 at the University of Ottawa, Canada when a group of interpreters gathered together with people providing services in legal, health and social settings to clients with whom they did not share a common language. That first group became the think tank..."