1. A Comparison of Interpre)ng Teams: Are There Universals Across Team MakeNup and SeOngs for Teams?
By: Page Green
ABSTRACT
THE PROCESS
CONCLUSION
ONLY Category that appeared in ALL THREE TEAMS was:
LIST OF ITEMS
This research will explore how teams support each other through feeds and more precisely why a feed is given. The focus will be on three types of teams: a hearing team, a Deaf team, and a hearing/Deaf team. The research will try to show if feeds are universal across teams despite differences in settings and team make-ups. There were five video sources used in this research: two video sources of the hearing team, two video sources of the hearing/Deaf team, and only one video source of the Deaf team.
There are also three different registers: formal for the hearing team, consultative for the hearing/Deaf team, and informal for the Deaf team. From these video sources, eight categories of feeds were noted: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, LIST OF ITEMS, NAMES AND DATES, GOT BEHIND, CORRECTIONS, TONE AND AFFECT,
DROPPED INFO, and BACKCHANNELLING. Out of these eight categories, only feeds in one category appeared in all three interpreting teams, and that was LIST OF ITEMS. A combination of two teams also shared another category of feeds: the hearing team and the hearing/Deaf team shared REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, and the hearing team and the Deaf team shared the category of NAMES AND DATES.
DISCUSSION
All three groups had similar feeds in ONLY one category:
– LIST OF ITEMS
Categories that appeared in two of the teams:
CLARIFICATION
NAMES AND DATES.
Categories that ONLY appeared in the HI/HI TEAM:
GOT BEHIND
CORRECTIONS
Categories that ONLY appeared in the HI/DI TEAM:
TONE AND AFFECT
DROPPED INFO
Category that ONLY appeared in the DI/DI TEAM:
BACKCHANNELLING
REFERENCES
Hoza, J. (2010). Team interpreting as collaboration and interdependence. Alexandria, VA: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
RESULTS
Why ALL three teams needed support feeds in the category of LIST OF ITEMS:
Speed of source language (Spoken or Print/Caption)
Accent of Speaker/Presenter (Simultaneous)
Consecutive Interpreting
Gile, D. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995.
Janzen, T. (2005). Topics in signed language interpreting: Theory and practice/ edited by Terry Janzen. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia, Pa.: Benjamins.
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
Egnatovitch, R. (1999). Certified Deaf Interpreter - Why? Views, 16(10), 1, 6-7.
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION – HI/HI and the HI/DI Teams
HI/HI – Clarification only occurs from stage interpreter to support team.
HI/DI – Clarification can occur from anyone.
Bentley-Sassaman, J., & Dawson, C. (2012). Deaf-hearing interpreter teams: A teamwork approach. Journal of Interpretation, 22(1, Article 2), 1-33.
NAMES AND DATES – HI/HI and the DI/DI Teams
HI/HI Team – Only asks for above information when needed.
DI/DI Team – Continuous feeding/ Form of Backchannelling
LIMITATIONS
Russell, D. (2011). Team Interpreting: Best Practices. 1-5.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Limited sample size for each team
Lack of variations in settings
Lack of access to interpreters for interview purposes
Lack of control over video recording and quality
I’d like to thank Hilary Mayhew for letting me borrow her
DVDs from the GURIEC library. I really appreciate Keith Cagle and
Phyllis Rogers giving me countless hours of feedback on my paper
RECOMMENDATIONS
and PowerPoint. I want to thank my family who has put up with
More in-depth study of teams in different situations (across registers) and in various settings (government, church, legal, community, etc.)
Expanding study with more video samples
Possibly looking into the feeds exchanged between consumers and interpreters as well.
having a busy and “not very available” mom for the past three
years, and a husband who constantly supports me in every way
possible, without whom none of this would even be possible.
RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2012