It is amazing how much damage four little letters can do. Profanity
as a function of language has often been overlooked and not considered
"real" language, (Jay, 2000) however interpreters
do not have the luxury of dismissing this emotional component. Due
to its potential for miscommunication and emotional harm, professionals
should have educated and informed strategies for managing these
utterances and be able to articulate their decision rationale. Professionals
will benefit from education about profanity, its linguistic function,
analysis of speaker intent, and a facilitated discussion of cultural
differences from country to country. From our collective experiences,
we can re-examine situations we have faced in the past and use those
to plan for the future. Interpreters will significantly benefit
from further education, collaborative discussion, and analysis in
a safe environment - to ready themselves the next time they face
those four little letters.
This presentation will outline the effects of vicarious trauma and the need for self-care strategies for interpreters. Symptoms of vicarious trauma will be identified. There will also be a discussion of models of interpreting and the impact of interpreting in stressful situations. The discussion hopes to elicit experiences and practice in other countries and will set the scene for further discussion about strategies and the impact of supervision in theme two.
Researchers have identified the various challenges that can occur when interpreting for medical encounters, particularly if interpreters are untrained, do not have a clear understanding of their role, or do not understand the linguistic and discourse protocols of medical interactions (see for example Angelelli, 2003, 2005; Dysart-Gale, 2005; Wadensjö, 2001). Language, cultural and educational impediments in the effective use of signed language interpreters in medical and mental health service delivery have been identified by Australian researchers (Cornes & Napier, 2005; Napier & Cornes, 2004; Napier & Johnston, 2005), but until 2008 no linguistic research had been carried out in Australia on signed language interpreter-mediated medical encounters.
In this paper we will describe an Australian project* in which we initially outline the development of a web-based interactive multimedia dictionary and database of Auslan to create an effective, accepted and shared sign language vocabulary for the discussion of medical and mental health issues by deaf clients and health professionals, mediated through Auslan interpreters. The conceptual framework for this project is language planning and development within a small linguistic community of 'limited diffusion'. This technology enables the direct participation of interpreters, deaf people and medical practitioners in a project managed by linguists, sign language interpreters, and language service providers (the National Auslan Interpreter Booking and Payment Service, and the New South Wales Health Care Interpreting Service).
The paper will outline the progress of the project, and specifically
report on findings from discussions held with Auslan/English interpreters
about their perceptions of interpreting in medical settings.
Facing intercultural and linguistic
dilemmas: developing training materials for Sign Language interpreters
in international settings (IISE) by Ester Bot (Netherlands), Kati
Huhtinen (Finland), Raili Loit (Estonia) and Maya de Wit (Netherlands)
In the last decade we can see an increase in the number of deaf people participating in international events (Nardi, 2008). Although English is often used as the main language at an international event, there are also regularly interpreting services provided in other languages. This means that there can be interpretation available in different combinations of languages. Interpreters of spoken languages have a longstanding experience of cooperation in such settings. Sign language interpreters, however, are more used to working independently and solely with the client. In addition, there is no formal training available for sign language interpreters in international settings.
In January 2009 we started a two year EU funded project Training sign language interpreters in international settings (IISE). The aim of the project is to develop a training package for interpreters in international settings, which can be used for free for anyone interested in providing this training. This training does not only focus on sign language interpreters, but also on the cooperation and interpreting techniques between the different kinds of interpreters (spoken language, sign language, speech to text writers).
In order to develop this training we are also using the expertise of experienced sign language and spoken language interpreters already working in the international field. We posted four surveys on the internet for sign language interpreters (hearing and deaf), spoken language interpreters, and speech to text writers. The results of this survey and the research into existing literature were the basis of a first concept of the training package.The first results show, amongst others, that:
During the online conference we would like to discuss these results
in depth and give suggestions on how to proceed with these developments
in the future.
This paper aims to consider the position of an interpreter working in a voluntary capacity during protests or demonstrations. It will outline what kind of work might be commonly encountered in these settings and what kinds of conflicts those jobs might throw up in terms of role, ethics, motivation and power. It considers what skills an interpreter might need that particularly suit this work and what conditions the interpreter might wish to negotiate before embarking on such work. In the light of changing interpreter training ethos, the paper concludes that perhaps more interpreters will choose to engage in this kind of work, and that it might actually be quite a liberating and beneficial experience.
An Interpreter can be barrier between speaker and signer because
the signer has to look at the interpreter and cannot look at the
speaker. Many interpreters appear to lack fluency in BSL because
they allow English grammar to interfere with their production of
BSL. Many interpreters are not aware of regional variance and cannot
adapt to signs in different geographical areas. Interpreters sometimes
fail to change register to suit a deaf person. Often they sign using
English mouth patterns and lack fluency in the use of non-manual
features. Interpreters lack flexibility in translating for deaf
people. The old code of practice prevented them from rephrasing
or giving short explanations if a deaf client looks puzzled and
they continue to feel inhibited from adding information to the translation.
The use of the first person by the interpreter can confuse the listener
by identifying the interpreter as the deaf person. Having to use
an interpreter can cause a deaf person to feel a lack of independence
and control in a situation where speakers are unfamiliar with signed
communication. BSL interpreting can be thankless work, necessary
but pleasing neither signer nor speaker who fail to establish a
rapport when in communication with each other.
Interpreters working in mental health settings work with clients
who often exhibit dysfluency from psychosis, etiology of deafness,
and language deprivation. Considerations for appropriate interpretations
change depending upon the language fluency, background and current
diagnosis of the patient. Participants will examine how behavior
and language patterns may present themselves differently and review
approaches and techniques for interpretation including analysis
of working relationships with CDIs in therapeutic settings and development
of a visual toolkit and a mental health portfolio.
This workshop will focused on identifying sensitive sexuality situations that could arise when working with individuals or the community. During the discussion, participants will be encouraged to assess what makes a situation challenging to deal with, to apply suggested tips for managing the situations and then will be invited to share other experiences.
The session hopes to:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Interactions between members of any two cultures are fertile ground
for misunderstandings and misjudgments based on cultural differences
in values and behavior. This presentation will include three scenes
from an educational DVD entitled SEE WHAT I MEAN: Differences between
Deaf and Hearing Cultures, 2nd edition. These enacted scenarios
illustrate common situations (involving phone etiquette, lateness
and information sharing) from both Deaf and hearing (American) cultural
perspectives. Subsequent discussion questions encourage viewers
to examine their own definitions of cultural politeness as well
as consider interpreting strategies that may be useful in situations
where Deaf and hearing participantsâ€ opposing
views of politeness can lead to conflict. With delegates from around
the world, this is a rare opportunity to engage in lively comparison
of cultural mismatches among a variety of cultures.
This paper looks closely at the many roles taken on by Deaf interpreters in the UK, who have been around just as long as 'hearing' Sign Language interpreters, but whose functions are subject to much misunderstanding and controversy.
As a Deaf person who works as a British Sign Language/English interpreter, the author of this paper frequently encounters misconceptions about her role, when it is assumed that she either works as a Deaf relay interpreter or that she is somehow miraculously able to hear.
It cannot be denied that whatever communicative forms of interpreting
Deaf interpreters employ, they play an important role in interpreting
between the Deaf community and hearing society. This paper seeks
to examine exactly what UK-based Deaf interpreters do, how their
roles vary, and how the traditional confusion may be cleared up.
As hearing people working in the Deaf world we are used to thinking, talking and acting from a hearing perspective and see ourselves, deaf clients and hearing clients from this perspective. Nothing new so far. To make it understandable to ourselves we have divided the cultures involved into hearing and deaf culture. Depending on how long we work in the Deaf world, we consider ourselves part of the hearing culture and, after a period of time, we can become members of the Deaf community, although this promotion depends on the willingness of Deaf people to accept them. Mmmm...this a new phenomenon for hearing people, used to be the part of a majority (hearing society) suddenly to be in the minority.
What makes it even harder: dependency comes knocking on our door. Dependency when it comes to sign language, voicing, knowledge of the rules of this new culture. And also the interpreters can face many dilemmas - for example, hearing people asking silly and painful questions; deaf people are as straight forward as possible (what will the hearing client think about it?); I dont want the hearing client to think deaf people are fools (and maybe they think they same about me!).
To survive in this jungle and to juggle all these different skills and feelings we have created a new culture of ourselves:
SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS CULTURE!
So: Sign Language interpreter culture......Food for Thought!
There is a common misconception of interpreting as solely working from a source to a target language without an understanding or appreciation of how interpreters manage the complexities of human interaction. In addition Interpreters often work in isolation in highly sensitive and emotive situations with limited support structures. Interpreters are responsible for conveying not only the narrative, but also the emotional content and affect of any given situation. Unlike the other interlocutors, they are not active participants and therefore cannot respond or have a visible reaction to what is being said. As a result interpreters can experience vicarious trauma, which causes direct, but perhaps unrecognised emotional impact.
The paper discusses the benefits of supervision for interpreters.
The main focus is on the 'restorative' function of supervision,
which provides the supervisee with an opportunity to talk about
their own emotional responses to interpreting situations and reflect
on the effect the work has on them as individuals. These reflections
can help supervisees recognise symptoms of stress and burnout, along
with possible triggers which may otherwise go unrecognised. Such
reflections can inform what assignments supervisees undertake and
enable the supervisee to develop strategies for dealing with work
related stress and trauma.
This workshop is based on interpreting dilemmas (experienced as either an interpreter or a consumer) submitted by delegates. During the pre-conference reading week delegates have the opportunity to submit dilemmas. In theme one, 10 will be selected and voted on. The most popular will discussed during theme two.