Sign-To-Text Interpreting (Was Interpreters as Typists)

[twflynn at aol.com]

Isabelle:


In the paragraphs below, I refer always to "English", but you can substitute any spoken language.


I have taught English to Deaf college students for over six years. Many of my students come back to me for help with essays assigned in other college classes. In one or two instances, when a student was really struggling with writing out her ideas, I have negotiated with the instructor to allow the student to express her ideas not in written English but in signed ASL.  

The reasoning I present to the other instructor is: This student has learned this topic in ASL (through an interpreter); this student has the right (under the American ADA law, and as a negotiated accommodation through our Disabilities/Access Office) to have her tests interpreted into ASL; it is therefore unfair to change the student's mode of expression for this assignment and require her to write in English. The purpose of an essay is to force the student to do some research in order to teach herself something; writing it down is simply a convenient way for us teachers to evaluate that learning process. Writing is, at least by the most common definition, nothing more than spoken English trapped on paper. However, if the student cannot write English - because she has never heard the spoken form of it - she will never be able to write out the English accurately, even though she may have learned a great deal in the process of "writing" the paper. However, the student may very well be able to prove/exhibit her learning if she is allowed to express herself in her native language.

In at least one instance, the other instructor allowed the Deaf student to sign her information, and the interpreter who had worked with her in that class all semester voiced the ASL. Making an oral presentation is a standard variation on the written essay, at least in some classes in American colleges. An oral presentation still requires the student to discover information, order it, choose specific words in presenting it, and it is nearly as formal as written English. The instructor still had a "frozen" copy of the presentation (with voicing) because she videotaped the student in class. The interpreter was able to voice the signed presentation rather easily because the student was using the same signs that the two of them had agreed to use for specialized terminology throughout the semester. The videotape provided the instructor with the same ease of grading in that she could review the tape a number of times before assigning a grade, just as one would read through an essay a number of times before assigning a grade. 

If an instructor is committed to collecting words on paper, the only remaining question is, Who will write down the spoken ideas that the student has learned, ordered, and expressed in ASL? That could be a secretary working from either an audiotape or from a videotape, or it could just as easily be the interpreter.

Now let's think about the work world. If I have a very good employee who happens to be Deaf, and the Deaf employee is promoted to a position which requires the writing of weekly reports, for instance, the same challenges apply. The Deaf employee reports for work every day, on time, handles the work load well, gets along well with other employees, and is an excellent employee in every way - except in her difficulty in writing her weekly report. Do I want to fire the employee, or replace her, simply because she can't write down a language she has never heard? Or would I and the company be better off to develop an accommodation that will allow the employee to write her weekly reports promptly? If an interpreter is already available, the solution is simple - at least in my mind; let the interpreter smooth the process of getting the report onto paper. Let the employee sign, the interpreter voice, and someone transcribe the voiced words onto paper. And if the interpreter actually knows her language thoroughly, as she ought to, why even bother with step two - she should be able to go from sign to written English without having to voice it first. 

One objection I have heard about this process is that instructors say, "But the student has to be able to read and understand the textbook, the research materials, the journals, and other written sources of information." And that's true to a certain extent. Deaf individuals can also learn about a topic from other Deaf individuals expressing themselves in ASL. Additionally, I can read a second language better than I can speak or write it - I'm in the process of learning Italian informally, and I read an Italian newspaper every week. I can understand about 75% of what I read, although I still stuggle to pronounce it, and I would struggle even more to write it. I keep my Italian/English dictionary handy, and I look up vocabulary that stumps me. Given enough time and the right study skills, I can understand 90% or 95% of what I read. The same applies to Deaf students & employees - they may be able to read written sources better than they can speak them or write them.

And if a Deaf individual wanted to publish a written article, s/he would almost certainly work with a mentor, or a writing coach, or an editor  to get the English exactly correct, just as I would if I needed to write an article in Italian. To my way of thinking, an interpreter is simply another kind of writing coach/editor/resource - one who knows both languages thoroughly and can assist the Deaf writer in expressing her ideas clearly in her non-native language.  


In sum, it seems to me that we hearing, English-based people, who are usually in a position of power over Deaf individuals, are simply addicted to our English and we expect our Deaf students and employees to express themselves just as we do because we're too lazy to learn their language. We're willing to let interpreters negotiate our spoken communication with the Deaf - largely because the law requires us to accept it - but not our written communication. What, exactly, is the difference? If interpreters are necessary - and beneficial! - to negotiate spoken meaning, they are probably more necessary to negotiate written meaning. 

Other work situations that might require interpreters to work with written text are: job applications, government forms, insurance forms, legal documents, and so forth. Interpreters in the US do typcially translate/interpret those, but usually only from pre-printed English to ASL. Why is interpretation only in one direction - from print to sign? Should it not also be available from sign to print? 

Tom Flynn


-----Original Message-----
From: Isabelle Heyerick <isabelle.heyerick at fevlado.be>
To: A list for linguists interested in signed languages <slling-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu>
Sent: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 3:38 am
Subject: RE: [SLLING-L] Sign-To-Text Interpreting (Was Interpreters as Typists)





Hello Tom,

 

Interesting point you make about sign-to-text interpreting. 

For as far as I know that is unheard of in Belgium. Mostly it is either sign language – spoken language (and vice versa) or spoken language to text.

Can you provide me with examples of situations where sign language-to-text interpreting is necessary or preferred?

 

Thank you in advance,

Isabelle Heyerick

 


Van: slling-l-bounces at majordomo.valenciacc.edu [mailto:slling-l-bounces at majordomo.valenciacc.edu] Namens twflynn at aol.com
Verzonden: maandag 25 februari 2008 6:09
Aan: slling-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
Onderwerp: [SLLING-L] Sign-To-Text Interpreting (Was Interpreters as Typists)


 


I had a discussion on just this topic, about two years ago, with an agency that has Deaf employees. 

The agency wanted me to provide ten or twelve workshops to help the Deaf employees improve their written English. The agency has interpreters on staff, so I tried to convince the agency to use the interpreters - let the Deaf employees sign their texts, let the interpreters voice the text onto audio tape, and let the secretaries transcribe the voicing onto paper.

The agency no longer hires secretaries - each employee writes documents on her/his own desktop computer.

So I recommended that the interpreter watch the signed text (in real time) and transcribe it onto the Deaf employee's desktop computer. 

My thought is that the interpreter's job is to convert text from source language to target language, but the target language doesn't necessarily have to be produced with the voice. Converting from signed ASL to written English is just as much within the purview of "interpreting" as going from signed ASL to spoken English. Technically, it might be defined more as "translating", or somewhere on a continuum between translating and interpreting, but all of that is a moot point to a Deaf individual who needs to transcribe a spoken language. And there is probably more need for sign-to-text interpreting than most people imagine - or there will be as more and more Deaf individuals take mainstreamed jobs under the ADA (here in the US). 

Some caveats: 

1. The interpreter may want or need to use the consecutive mode of interpreting for this kind of work. Typing is generally slower than speaking. 

2. The interpreter ought not to be held responsible for formatting the document - the Deaf employee should know the company/agency expectations for that sort of thing.

3. The interpreter should be held responsible for correct syntax, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation. Anna Whitter Merithew maintains that interpreters need to know both languages (source and target) deeply; knowing the syntax, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation is simply part of knowing the target language deeply.

Tom Flynn





More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!





_______________________________________________
LLING-L mailing list
LLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
ttp://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l


________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20080225/76b95822/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
SLLING-L mailing list
SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l