| Speaking of things I am working on other than my PhD, this. Thanks for asking!
The role and responsibilities of the Deaf Interpreter (DI) are constantly under review. Many have claimed that the most common task is not even “interpreting” in the strictest sense. One interpreter educator and deaf native signer argued: “They do not translate from a language into another except for the rare situations where they translate from printed English into ASL or from one sign language to another sign language.”1 Fair enough. The DI job varies widely, and includes mirroring, sight translation, all of the tactile and close-vision tasks, among many other things. Maybe we have been miscategorizing some of the intra- / interlingual and intercultural transfer, and bulldozing it all into a big “interpreting” pile. Rather than contrive a special case to go “beyond the CPC if necessary” to fulfill some “higher level of ethics,”2 maybe some things can be discussed in terms of other existing functions. This might resolve the “DIs are different! It’s not just interpreting!” and “DIs are the same as any interpreter! Stop saying we’re Deaf!” paradox. In order to not explode both words in the title of “Deaf Interpreter,” I offer these unfinished thoughts on Localis/zation & Adaptation |
|
| Localis/zation takes language from one place, and moves it to a more appropriate place for the users. You can insert whatever DEAF-space or Deaf-World metaphor, or Eyeth parable you like here. |  |
| For example, one interpreter renders into unadorned English, and the localis/zation specialist converts it into a regional dialect — or an HI feeds a DI working on a platform. I think it is a matter of specificity. Depending on the nature of the interaction and the primary participants, an interpreter might be expected to get people to the right | |
| continent
time zone country village, or an exact chair. |
 |
| Adaptation is about how the interpreted event functions as a whole. What is this language supposed to do, and what is the best format to accomplish that? Transforming a text into a movie or play is an apt metaphor for what all signed language interpreters do. For our purposes, the HI might sketch out the plot, for the DI to animate in Technicolor onstage. Or the reverse: an HI delivers the unabridged version, and the DI distills the salient points to a minor. | |
 |
|
| If there is still “no standard definition of Deaf interpreting,”3 I think discussing HI–DI teams in these terms could diffuse some of the rhetoric. Whether DIs apply objective judgment or subjective intuition to drop a character or add one, omit or invent dialogue, or turn a salteña into a pasty, I’m guessing Danish gravediggers would be equally satisfied with either. | |
| More on this later, and much more much later! | |
- Johnston, E. (2005). Guest editorial. CIT News, 25(2).
- The National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers Deaf Interpreter Work Team. (2009). Analysis of deaf interpreter focus group discussions conducted April–July 2007.
- National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers Deaf Interpreter Work Team. (2009). Findings of deaf interpreter educator focus groups conducted December 2007.
This is one of the ongoing conversations I have around DI-HI teaming. My first question when working in such a team is to try and establish what the DI is *for*. My role is fairly well laid out and has a strong body of pedagogy, protocol, and ethical frameworks that guide my practice. DIs do not have the luxury of that. In order for us to be an effective team, I have to understand what I’m meant to be providing the DI in order for them to do what they need to do. For them to do what they need to do, they need to understand what the end goal is of their production as well.
I find that the teaming is a thousand percent more effective when I have this conversation.
YES my sister. It is truly foundational to the entire conversation. If the expectations are set, 99 questions are already answered. HIs have a semi-standardized repertoire of 10-second shorthand inter-team messages, and we’re just not there yet with HI–DI teams. Maybe this is because so many are inseparable double acts, instead of shuffling from team to team as HIs colleagues do? I’m always surprised when a DI asks me *my* preferences, because it seems theirs (chunking? cranking away? pause for your eyes? keep going? ASL? verbatim? bullets?) is the main driver. I do wish more DIs 1) knew what worked best for them, and 2) knew how to communicate it quickly and clearly.