So You Want to be an Interpreter? Chapter Eight How We Approach Our Work

Our Philosophical Frame  Determines how we: –See our clients, their roles, and our roles as interpreters –View ASL/English and Deaf/hearing norms and rules of interaction –Interpret the tenets in the professional Code of Ethics and use the power inherent in the position of interpreter

The Four Philosophical Frames  Helper Philosophy  Machine (Conduit) Philosophy  Communication Facilitation Philosophy  Bilingual-bicultural philosophy

Helper Philosophy  Common prior to the formation of RID in 1964  Deaf were viewed as handicapped, limited, and unable to fully manage their personal and business affairs. The interpreter took on the role of ‘care-taker’  Interpreters often were overly involved with their clients

Helper Philosophy  Frequently move out of interpreting role to advise, direct, teach, edit, or cajole  Motivated by the belief that Deaf people are incapable of fully understanding or participating in the world around them  Early interpreters were frequently volunteers whose primary roles were parent, child, teacher, or clergy

Machine (Conduit) Philosophy  Knee jerk reaction (pendulum swing) to the ‘Helper Philosophy’  Code of Ethics interpreted as a rigid set of rules  Interpreters strictly followed the rules – denying our presence had any influence on the communication interaction  Not aware of the history of Deaf oppression

Machine (Conduit) Philosophy  Volume emphasized over quality of message – 750 words / 750 signs (Verbatim)  Often difficult to derive meaning from their work  Interpreters became ‘robot-like’  No responsibility for communication dynamics  Created the analogy of the telephone wire

Communication Facilitation Philosophy  Early to mid-1970s  Ethical decision making unchanged  More aware of environmental conditions –Interpreter placement –Lighting –Background  Interpreters began to indicate who was speaking

Communication Facilitation Philosophy  Greater realization of communication dynamics and the interpreters impact  Dawn of the smock  Banning of beards, mustaches, fingernail polish, patterned clothing, and most jewelry  Communication still focused on volume not quality of message

Bilingual – Bicultural Philosophy  The current approach to our work  Compromise between the extremes of helper and machine  Interpreters are sensitive to the communication environment  Interpreters are keenly aware of linguistic and cultural differences between Deaf and hearing

Bilingual – Bicultural Philosophy  Interpreters make use of cultural and linguistic expansions and reductions  Significantly higher levels of comprehension for our customers  Takes into account issues of –Speaker goals –Dynamic equivalence –Cultural and linguistic mediation

Bilingual – Bicultural Philosophy  Ethical Decision-Making –Aware that interpreters are human beings, not machines –Aware of the power inherent in the interpreter role –Respectful of customers preferred mode of communication –Understands history of oppression –‘sore thumb theory’ by Gary Sanderson (the interpreter’s presence is obvious)

Cultural and linguistic mediation  Linguistic Expansion  Cultural Expansion  Cultural or Linguistic Reduction

Linguistic Expansion  Involves interpreting implicit information or ideas, as well as the explicit information and ideas, if it is needed to guarantee full communication

Cultural Expansion  Involves providing the contextual information needed to make sense out of something that is signed or said to someone with a different schema or experiential base

Cultural or Linguistic Reduction  Involves reducing the volume, and sometimes the detail, of information without affecting the meaning intended. This is sometimes required due to different cultural and communication norms and expectations

Reasons for Cultural and Linguistic Mediation  Linguistic need – due to inherent differences between ASL and English  Cultural need – due to differences in cultural norms for Deaf and hearing people  Difference in experiential frame – due to differences in individual schema or world experiences

A Word of Caution  There is a fine line between expanding or reducing source language elements to allow a cultural and linguistic equivalent and the Helper perspective of adding or deleting information to help or protect the Deaf customer  Expansions and Reductions require that we have adequate processing time – Consecutive interpreting is best, if possible