Interpreting at TISLR 8, Barcelona 2004

Mon Apr 21 12:47:06 UTC 2003

Dear Josep,
Dear all,

Diane, my Deaf colleague, is enjoying a few days "away from the office"
at the moment so I have not yet been able to discuss this issue with
her but we did talk about the Amsterdam manifesto and the issue of
interpreting at international conferences after the last TISLR and I
will try and summarize some of our thoughts and comments...

-We too think that the Amsterdam proposal means that those Deaf people
who are least able to pay for interpreting services will be the ones
who will have to come up with the money... We work in Flanders, the
northern part of Belgium. Belgium is not a developing country ( but as
far as Deaf/Flemish Sign Language-issues are concerned, we definitely
need a great deal of development) but ever since Diane got involved in
sign language research and became interested in participating in
conferences, the "how to find money for the interpreter-question this
time" keeps on coming up...

-There are very few Flemish/Belgian signers who know either ASL or BSL
and there are -as far as we know- no opportunities to learn these
languages (apart from traveling abroad to take language courses there,
that is). We think this is the case in many other countries around the
world.
Also, there are very few Deaf Belgians who read (or write) English, the
spoken language most often used as the lingua franca in sign
linguistics and here again: there are no -or very few- possibilities
for Deaf people to learn this language. Again, we think this is the
case in many other countries as well.
(We feel that the fact that Deaf people coming from
not-English-spoken-countries often do not have easy access to the
written material (abstracts, hand-outs, general information)
distributed at conferences...) is often forgotten. But we do not want
to complicate things any further...)

-We agree that it should be a joined effort to try and give access to
all information/events at conferences to as many people (Deaf or
hearing) as possible. Here, I would like to say something on the
following comment from Dr. Ladd:

"If you are a hearing person and you cannot sign your own paper, then
you are DEFINITELY responsible for ensuring that your communication is
effective and successful. If you deny this responsibility then you are
saying that your only audience is those who can hear your language and
the rest of us must scramble around using time and energy for the
privilege of trying to understand you."

What I would like to say is that I don't think this is a hearing
person/Deaf person (or signing versus non-signing)-issue. If I (a
hearing linguist) would sign my paper, I would use Flemish Sign
Language, the same sign language my Deaf colleague would use if she
would present. Since there are not many Deaf people outside of
Flanders/Belgium who know this language, interpreters would be needed
any how...

We think that for any international meeting where users of different
languages are involved there are two main options:

1. each participant is enabled (by the organization) to use his/her own
language
2. only one or a limited number of languages are being used/made
available

In the case of scientific international meetings and (only) spoken
languages, we think the second option predominates i.e. one or more
lingua franca (English but also e.g. French or Spanish) is/are being
used and all participants participate in this/these languages. This
means that people like myself are hardly ever able to present in their
first language even if the conference is held in their own country.
Although I myself would prefer to use my first language, i.e. Dutch,
having to use French or English is not preventing me from participating
since I do have (had) opportunities to learn these languages.
For sign languages we feel the situation is somewhat different. We
don't think there is one sign language/a few sign languages that is/are
being widely taught/learned outside of the country/countries where it
is/they are being used as a first sign language. This means that option
2 above (i.e. limiting the number of languages being used/made
available) prevents (too) many people from participating or forces them
to take care of/pay for their own interpreter's service.

The ideal situation would be that all sign languages that are needed
(i.e. all sign languages for which there are users participating in the
conference) are being "offered" so that no one would have to take care
of his/her interpreters him/herself but this of course costs a lot of
money, most probably more money then there will be available...
If it is not possible to pay for all interpreters that are needed, then
there are several options:

1. use the money available to offer interpreting in a limited number of
sign languages only
2. do not provide any interpreting at all (all are equal and equally
get nothing)
3. dived the money there is so that every one who is bringing his/her
own interpreter(s) gets part of his/her money refunded
et cetera

I am afraid we do not know how to solve this problem...

One last thing. Josep, in your last mail you said:

>>  I felt
>> uncomfortable when a Deaf colleague from the US  offered to
>  bring the
>> ASL interpreters himself, making use of the resources his
>  institution
>> has allocated for this purpose, because that might limit his
>> opportunities to attend other conferences where no SL
>  interpreting will
>> be provided.

I may be mistaken and fail to see certain points, but I myself do not
see any problem in people using resources made available to them by
their institution, government,... and bringing their own interpreters
if that means that there is (more) money to pay for the interpreter(s)
for those people who do not have such resources... I am wandering how
other people (especially Deaf people) feel about this?

And one very last thing: about the creation of a SL linguistics
associations. The issue of reviving ISLA has been discussed at the last
TISLR and if I am not mistaken also before that, at TISLR 1998 (in
Washington). So far this did not result in the actual re-installation
of the association. I really really really hope this TISLR is going to
be "third time lucky".

So far our few (Euro)cents on this.

Best wishes,

Myriam Vermeerbergen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6419 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20030421/ef334466/attachment.bin>