WASLi 2015 Program and Abstracts

WASLI 2015 PROGRAM

Day One – Thursday July 23

0900 -­‐ 0915

Housekeeping

Housekeeping

0915 -­‐ 1045

Keynote:

Keynote:

Dr Robert Adam & Dr Christopher Stone

Liz Scott-­‐Gibson & Markku Jokinen

Morning Tea

Morning Tea

1045 -­‐ 1115

Day Two – Friday July 24

Stream 1

Stream 2

Stream 1

Stream 2

1115 -­‐ 1145

Research on Interpreting for Deaf Professionals – the impact of ideology and strategies on sign-­‐to-­‐spoken interpretations and their influence perceptions of the identity of Deaf Professionals

Stephanie Feyne The Teaming Model and Transparency in Teams for Deaf and Hearing Team Interpreters

Eileen Forestal

International Sign: What is it?

What do we think? What do we know? What does it mean in the pursuit of equality?

Lori A. Whynot Translating between ISL and English: A multi-­‐dimensional model of meaning

Campbell McDermid & Anita Harding

Deaf Perspectives in Interpretation Education and Research: A Long Overdue Critical Element

Eileen Forestal Becoming an Interpreter: A sense of place

Rico Peterson

Making Legislation Work for Sign Language Interpreters

Jeff Brattan-­‐Wilson The legislation of Kenyan Sign Language and the impact on the sign language interpreting profession in Kenya

Leonida T. Kaula

1150 -­‐ 1220

1220 -­‐ 1320

Lunch

1320 -­‐ 1350

Let’s strike when the iron is hot

Jeff McWhinney

“Make a noise”

Maree Madden & Zane Hema

1355 -­‐ 1425

Providing Access to Deaf People through Video Relay Service: Altruism or Egoism

Jeremy L. Brunson

The Deaf as a vulnerable group: When their human rights are violated are interpreters equipped to deal with it?

Jefwa G. Mweri

Lunch Human Rights for Deaf People: The impact of Groupthink within interpreter cohorts Campbell McDermid, Lisanne Houkes, Kathleen Holcombe & Cynthia Collward Educating Sign Language Interpreters advances the Human Rights of Deaf people

Cynthia Roy

A bridge too far?

Challenges for SL interpreters and Deaf clients in the Legal System

Della Goswell Interpreter Training in Developing Countries – Case Study Ethiopia and Kenya

Jack Owiti & Eyasu Tamene

1430 -­‐ 1500

1510 -­‐ 1540 1540 -­‐ 1610

1615 -­‐ 1645

1645 -­‐ 1700

The Digital Revolution in Interpreter Education: An International Panel Presentation on Virtual Learning Environments

Suzanne Ehrlich, Elisabet Tiselius & Kim Wallmach

Justisigns: An overview of accessibility to legal sign language interpreter provision, training and assessment across Europe

Tobias Haug, Liese Katschinka, Lorraine Leeson, Peter Llewellyn Jones, Teresa Lynch, Jemina Napier, Haaris Sheikh, Rob Skinner, Graham H. Turner, Myriam Vermeerbergen, Heidi Salaets

Afternoon Tea European Translation Norm: How is the European Translation Norm Adopted and Used by German Deaf Translators

Christian Peters & Christian Rathmann Deaf Professionals Expectations: utilizing designated interpreters to achieve a sense of equality in pre-­‐professional and professional contexts

Katherine Vance & Lindsay Nickels

High Demands, Limited Resources, High Stakes – An investigation of job demands and resources of Sign Language interpreter educators

Stacey Webb

“Excuse me, the Imam said what?”. Gaining communication access to Islam worldwide

Cheryl Ringel & Mallerie Shirley

Afternoon Tea

Prerequisites for international sign interpreters at high-­‐level European assignments

Maya de Wit & Irma Sluis

Shame Resillience and collaboration in sign language interpreters

Corrie Pond

The Fake SASL Interpreter -­‐ A Curse or a Gift?

Deaf citizens access to European institutions as a linguistic human right: an evaluation of the multilingual Insign project

Jemina Napier, Rob Skinner & Graham H. Turner

Nourishing our roots: Heritage signed language users’ path to becoming a professional interpreter

Amy Williamson

A comparison of community interpreting for deaf signers and immigrants in Flanders, Belguim

Mieke Van Herreweghe

Wrap Up

Allison Swannack

Wrap Up

WASLI 2015 is pleased to release the Conference Program. The themes of the papers span legislation and accessibility, technology, international sign, deaf professionals, collaboration and education. Presenters hail from various parts of the globe, including South Africa, USA, Costa Rica, Kenya, Sweden, Australia, UK, Ethiopia, The Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Belgium. Please continue reading below the program to see the abstracts. Note: some abstracts contain video.

WASLI 2015 Program

PAPER ABSTRACTS - DAY ONE "Research on Interpreting for Deaf Professionals - the impact of ideology and strategies on sign-to-spoken interpretations and their influence perceptions of the identity of Deaf professionals" Stephanie Feyne (USA) Due to the institutional nature of interpreter’s talk, the misapprehension of hearing interlocutors of interpreters solely as transparent animators, as well as the prosodic, lexical and pragmatic choices made by interpreters, interpreter-mediated discourse has an impact on the monolingual addressee’s perception of the professional identity of Deaf presenters.

This paper includes both theory and data from research on the impact of interpretation.

Theoretical underpinnings are conversation analytic research on institutional talk, Goffman’s footing and production format, and Bucholtz and Hall’s identity negotiation and authentication through speech.

Qualitative and quantitative data collection was tripartite.

Certified sign language interpreters rendered the ASL lectures of Deaf museum educators into spoken English. Deaf evaluators

watched the ASL source lectures. Native English-speaking museum evaluators listened to the interpretations. Each cohort assessed the Deaf lecturers for competence and professionalism as demonstrated by their communication.

Data show that evaluations of the lectures in the source signed language awarded higher levels of competence in communication style, knowledge and appropriateness for museum work than did evaluations of recipients of interpretation. The ratings of the English-speaking evaluators also varied depending on the interpreter speaking during each evaluation. Miscues and stylistic choices in the interpreter’s “verbatim� renditions were ascribed to the Deaf lecturers, with negative impacts on perceptions of professionalism and employability.

In addition to natural idiomatic interpretations that were congruent with the message and style of the Deaf originator, sign language interpreters in this study also produced utterances that diverged from the source. Some allowed the form of the ASL source message to influence the form of the English utterances, some expressed utterances with markers of uncertainty despite the fact that the Deaf originators expressed the content with great certainty, and some produced utterances that did not reflect the jargon of presenters in this field. Analysis of the data reveals that interpreters vary not only in expression of the meaning of the source text, but also in representation of its register and genre in the target language, ultimately affecting assessments of the competence of the Deaf originator.

Strategies utilized by interpreters appear to reflect ideologies of language (both signed and oral) and the task of interpretation.

Data demonstrate that more literal transliterations resulted in lower estimations of the skills of Deaf presenters.

Thus, in triadic exchanges, the linguistic resources of sign language interpreters co-contribute to the perception of identity of Deaf interlocutors. This paper offers nuanced contributions to understandings of interpretation: 1) that interpreters not only

participate in the ongoing negotiation and co-construction of the identity of primary participants through their utterances, but also 2) that the utterances of different interpreters contribute to varying perceptions of the identity of Deaf professionals as understood by recipients of interpretation, and 3) that interpreter-specific discourse is accepted as a verbatim transmission of the conversational shape of the original utterances of Deaf professionals.

International Sign: What is it? What do we think? What do we know? What does it mean in the pursuit of equality?

Lori A. Whynot (Australia) http://youtu.be/cwfpC8P7zY8 The equal rights of Deaf people is the pursuit of the World Federation of the Deaf, Deaf associations, and supported by WASLI. At the root of this mission for equality is a sense of pride and a right to recognition and continuation of each national and local signed language. The UNCRPD gives leverage towards this effort. Meanwhile, the Deaf world becomes more globalized in the 21st century, and the distinct signed languages used by Deaf people in all corners of the globe are increasingly in contact. This comes from technology, Internet video communication, and increased travel by signed language users. At international conferences, important information is shared between leaders in advanced and developing countries to help fight for human rights of deaf people back at home. On the Internet, signed language videos offer news and other important information to all. An evolving International Sign contact language is used to communicate across barriers between many vastly different signed languages. Demand for IS interpreting and IS training continues. However, there is little research on this contact phenomenon with one limited study showing that IS is less effective for some audience members. Importantly, how accessible

is International Sign (IS) and for whom? What are the limitations and possibilities of this Deaf global lingua franca compared to a native signed language? At first we must clarify what we mean by “International Sign”.

This paper reports some findings from a current PhD research project. A linguistic analysis was made of diverse Deaf people presenting in IS, and comprehension tests were administered to Deaf people in 5 different continents. This is compared with what interpreters think regarding communicating with IS. What we think and what we know from research does overlap, yet there are some differences. Several factors are shown to impact the use of IS and it’s potential understanding. The presentation explores IS as a contact phenomenon, raising implications for interpreting in an increasingly globalized Deaf community.

The Teaming Model and Transparency in Teams for Deaf and Hearing Team Interpreters Eileen Forestal (USA) The buzzword, transparency, has been going around professional interpreting circles for some time -- and people have been asking, "who owns the interpretation?” which is the essence of our work as interpreters. As Deaf interpreters, our work has evolved and we have been utilizing a process that has interactive dialogues between the teams and stakeholders, also labeled as the “open process model” (Wilson, 2001, p. 1), in teams of Deaf, Deafparented, and hearing interpreters. For the past several years in specific settings, such as medical and legal settings, this approach have been utilized and deemed effective and essential, based on the empirical observations of the Deaf interpreters as well as the team members and from research and a preliminary study with three Deaf interpreters and hearing or Deaf-parented interpreters in interviews. This process seems to particularly enable transparency, as there is a "co-created dialogue between the interpreter [team], the consumers who are present, and the

context of their collective encounter" (Dean & Pollard, 2011, p.

155). As a practice profession, it is critical that any interpretation is openly “applied in a dynamic, interactive social context� (Dean & Pollard, 2011, p. 156), contributing to the essence of the message within the interpretation. Consequently, the open process model enables interactive dialogues and rapport with all parties, especially Deaf consumers. During the open process proceedings, aspects of the interpreting and related decisions are discussed openly in ASL, when deemed appropriate, between the team and/or the consumers. The consumers can contribute towards the interpretation and related decisions, which assures the effectiveness, essentiality, and accuracy of the messages; thus, the ownership of the interpretation occurs.

We argue that there is a need to move away from current teaming practices that are not transparent and thereby closed to the stakeholders while the interpreter teams work as conduits (Witter-Merithew, 2012). The same applies to Deaf interpreters who primarily function as relay interpreters, predominantly based on the conduit model within the teams. Perspectives of Deaf and hearing/Deaf-parented interpreters who work with Deaf Interpreters in teams gleaned from interviews will be discussed -we will share what we learned from their experiences and observations using the open model process as opposed to the closed process model. Research-based examples will demonstrate the open process model as an effective practice for teams in specific settings.

Translating between ISL and English: A multidimensional model of meaning Campbell McDermid & Anita Harding (USA) Several models have been proposed to describe the work of interpreting between a signed and spoken language, many of which are process oriented in nature (Cokely, 1992; Colonomos, 1992; Russell, 2002). These models, however, do not address in detail the end product of the interpretation process between a spoken and signed text. Current research on interpreters has identified that when working between signed and spoken messages, they clarify or enrich aspects of the source (Stone, 2009) or even break from the logical form and produce a potential speaker meaning (McDermid, 2014). A more recent model of the interpreting process (McDermid, 2014), grounded in pragmatics (Grice, 1975; Searle, 1979; Sperber & Wilson, 1995), suggests there are three levels of meaning: the literal, the enriched and potential implicatures. At the literal or lexico-semantic level, an interpreter replaces the words or signs of the source message with contextually appropriate tokens in the target text while following the grammar of the target language. Little if anything is added to the target text. At the enriched level, a similar process occurs but in addition, the interpreter adds to the text and clarifies aspects of the source message. At the implicature level, an interpreter breaks from the logical form or function of the source and produces a potential meaning. To test the efficacy of this model, 5 samples of formal presentations in International Sign Language (ISL) with written English translations were taken from the World Wide Web. A comparison of the ISL and the written English target texts found examples of literal translations as well as enrichments and the inclusion of potentially implied meanings (implicature). This supports the efficacy of using a model of interpreting that encompasses three levels of meaning when working between and signed and spoken language and the philosophy that interpreting is a constructivist process.

Let's strike when the iron is hot (How collaboration optimises human aspects when designing Video Relay Services) Jeff McWhinney (UK) http://youtu.be/3BSQqftHqVk WASLI 2015 Abstract

Make a Noise Maree Madden & Zane Hema (Australia) In 2007-08, the Queensland Government committed $30 million over 4 years to transition to Auslan as the language of instruction for Deaf and hard of hearing students in Queensland schools. This initiative was originally referred to as the Transition to Auslan Project – now The Auslan Project.

The main premise of the Auslan Project is that many Deaf and hard of hearing students require signed communication to fully access the curriculum in a mainstreamed setting (there are no deaf schools in Queensland). The funding was intended, among other things, to provide for Educational Interpreters (EI) and Auslan Language Models (ALM) for Deaf students, as well as a regime of professional development activities designed to support teaching staff through the transition.

Deaf students who are sign language users have a right to an education and should be educated by teachers who are fluent in their sign language. If the teacher is not a fluent Auslan user, which is often the case, the responsibility for education falls to the EI and/or ALM. Both these roles are crucial in assisting students’ language development to support their learning, however in Queensland, ALMs and EIs do not require formal training or accreditation to work.

Lack of training and qualifications makes it impossible for EIs and ALMs to clearly articulate what is needed in order to provide quality educational outcomes.

This paper re-examines the problems inherent in mediated

education and argues that overall quality educational outcomes for students have not been delivered as expected. The presenters wish to make a call to action to all interpreters to do more to change this situation, by advocacy (in concert with Associations of the Deaf) to Government to bring it to account for their apparent lack of will to address the deficiencies in the system.

Stronger policy must be implemented that is informed from experts within the fields of Deaf education and Sign Language interpreting provision. Interpreters and Deaf people should no longer stand by witnessing the rights of Deaf students being violated. There is a need for a call to action.

In those countries where progress has been made, there is a need to share strategy more broadly. For those countries in the early stages of developing provision for the education of Deaf students, this paper offers guidance on how access to education should developed in order to avoid making the same mistakes.

Providing Access to Deaf People through Video Relay Service: Altruism or Egoism?

Jeremy L. Brunson (USA) To have human rights is to have access. Primarily it is to have access to information. Technology has, throughout industrialized era, played an important and contested role vis-à-vis access. It has been both a liberator by providing access to the oppressed to the means by which they are able to overthrow their oppressors (see Pierre Claude 2002), and an oppressor by providing the tools for service providers to place the onus of receiving such service on the shoulders of those wishing to receive services (see Brunson 2010).

It has also been a way by which certain members of a society have been able to gain access. In this way it might be said it is “the great equalizer” (Brynjolfsson and Smith 2001). The labor processes of industrialized societies are entangled with technology. And while industrialization’s dependence on technology has had the effect of disenfranchising members of

society (Marx 1976), for some members of society it is only through technology that their integration into society occurs.

Furthermore, it is through this marriage that management is able to enforce policies, increase efficiency, and monitor production (Burawoy 1979). While sign language interpreting has enjoyed a great deal of ludditesque existence, within the last decade the role of technology has invaded the field of sign language interpreting in several countries. One way this has happened is through video relay service (VRS). VRS has become a staple venue within the field of sign language interpreting. This has allowed deaf people to gain wider access to the world around them. From the start, the benefits enjoyed by deaf persons were clear; however, the reasons that sign language interpreters choose to do this work have been less so. This paper draws on interviews with twenty-two sign language interpreters who work for VRS providers in the United States. The findings suggest that providing access to deaf persons, although mentioned, was not the guiding factor motivating these sign language interpreters but rather they are motivated by more pragmatic considerations, namely financial, anonymity, and skill development. Furthermore, it seems that VRS is another example of how capitalism is counterproductive to access. Access in VRS is a means to an end rather than an end to itself.

The Deaf as a vulnerable group: When their human rights are violated are interpreters equipped to deal with it?

Jefwa G. Mweri (Kenya) Over the years deaf people in Kenya have suffered stigma and discrimination based on their vulnerability. Like other persons with disabilities, the deaf suffer diminished capacity to deal with socio-economic challenges because of their disability thus making them among the most vulnerable groups in society. The main obstacle the deaf like other persons with disability face is majorly one of discrimination leading to violations that hinder them from

enjoying their human rights. The discrimination is often the result of exclusion, restriction, or preference.

The Deaf in Kenya have suffered negative perceptions and stereotyping that have over the years made it impossible for deaf people to enjoying their fundamental human rights. For the deaf to enjoy their rights as human beings, rights that are entrenched in Universal, local and internal legal instruments, we argue for the adoption an approach where we conceptualized the notion of deafness as a socio-political construct in which empowerment of the deaf is foregrounded so as to disabuse the notion that persons with disability need to be dependent and not independent.

Though vulnerable groups like the deaf enjoy additional guarantees and special protection for the equal and effective enjoyment of their human rights, they still remain vulnerable to the abuse of their human rights.

This paper examines why this is the case especially in Kenya. It also examines the role of the interpreter in the fight for the respect of deaf people’s human rights. While the interpreter has an important role to play as a mediator in the language barrier that exists between the Deaf and the hearing, they also belong to the majority culture of hearing that enjoys more human rights than the deaf. The question then is can they be trusted to interpret on issues of deaf human rights? Similarly, most interpreters are ill equipped to deal with issues that touch on human rights and the deaf because they lack capacity in terms of knowledge and understanding of issues of human rights. This paper will argue therefore that this lack of capacity infringes on the deaf human rights. This lack of capacity is twofold. The deaf lack capacity to claim their rights as rights holders. Similarly, the interpreters equally lack capacity and have no ability to deal with issues of deaf human rights or ability to assist the deaf deal with such issues.

The government of Kenya and its institutions as duty bearers also lacks no capacity to work towards meeting its obligation in as far as deaf human rights are concerned and in terms of respecting the

role that the interpreter plays in all this. The question then is does the duty bearer (government) respect the rights of the deaf and the interpreters?

This paper argues for an approach that views the deaf as a linguistic minority that is vulnerable due to their disability and their issues must be viewed as human rights issues. We argue that deafness like any other disability should be seen as a social consequences resulting from having impairment and recognize that they suffer inequalities on a daily basis. The paper argues following the Iceland human rights center (P1): In order for disabled persons to freely enjoy their fundamental human rights, numerous cultural and social barriers have to be overcome; changes in values and increased understanding at all levels of society has to be promoted, and those social and cultural norms that perpetuate myths about disability have to be put to rest.

This paper argues for a human rights approach that works towards fulfilling the rights of deaf people – a human rights based approach that then would empower the government as a rights holder to meet its obligation towards the human rights of the deaf, the interpreters to be able to meet their obligation in a conducive environment where their own and their clients rights are respected and the deaf as claim holders to be able to claim their rights and the rightful place in society.

The Digital Revolution in Interpreter Education: An International Panel Presentation on Virtual Learning Environments Suzanne Ehrlich, Kim Wallmach & Elisabet Tiselius (USA, South Africa & Sweden) As the world evolves, so does our need to adapt to the everchanging landscape of interpreter education in the virtual world.

With this in mind, new approaches to tried and true practices can seem threatening, even disruptive. The world of interpreter

training is no exception. Many interpreter trainers and academic institutions are looking with apprehension at the advent of virtual learning environments and beginning conversations on what this may mean for practice, while others have already crossed the digital divide and embraced the virtual classroom.

This panel is comprised of trailblazers in the field of online learning for interpreters. Panelists from four different continents will share their experiences in creating communities, learning environments and bridging between virtual and face-to-face experiences through virtual training programs for signed and spoken language interpreting. The panel will present issues related to course design and implementation, access, creating a sense of community online, blended learning approaches and training.

Justisigns: An overview of accessibility to legal sign language interpreter provision, training and assessment across Europe Tobias Haug, Liese Katschinka, Lorraine Leeson, Peter Llewellyn Jones, Teresa Lynch, Jemina Napier, Haaris Sheikh, Graham H. Turner, Myriam Vermeerbergen & Heidi Salaets (Switzerland, EULITA, Ireland, efsli, Scotland & Belgium) There is a growing body of literature that examines sign language interpreting provisions and practices in legal contexts in various countries (e.g., Brennan & Brown, 1997; McCay & Miller, 2005; Miller, 2001; Napier, 2011, 2012, 2013; Roberson, Russell & Shaw, 2011; Russell, 2002; Turner, 1995; Turner & Brown, 2001). The common theme in the results of all these studies is the limitations faced by deaf sign language users in gaining access to justice, either through inadequate interpreting provision, poor quality interpreting services, or lack of training, accreditation and standards for legal signed language interpreters and translators.

The Justisigns project being conducted by a consortium of hearing

and deaf researchers and signed language interpreter practitioners across Europe fits with the WASLI theme of ‘accessibility as a human right for Deaf people and the involvement of SL interpreters’ in that it represents a groundbreaking initiative focussing on providing qualified and qualifying sign language interpreters new competencies in interpreting within a legal setting. The remit of the project is to develop training courses to be made available to sign language interpreters, legal professionals and deaf sign language users in Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, and the UK. In addition the project will develop: a European guide for interpreters practicing in legal settings; a European guide for legal professionals working with Deaf communities and signed language interpreters to improve their communication skills; an information tool-kit for Deaf people in the national sign language to better understand the legal framework in each country; European outreach seminars and awareness sessions; project information leaflets; training posters with practical legal/sign language/Deaf culture & communication tips; and case studies of best practice and experiences from Deaf users. This mixed-methods study will involve surveying deaf people, interpreters and legal professionals through questionnaires, focus groups and interviews, as well as conducting qualitative linguistic case study analyses of signed language interpreter-mediated legal communication, with a view to informing the development of the training courses and other deliverables in the project. The first phase of the project involves the administration of an online questionnaire survey to professional signed language interpreter associations across Europe to develop an overview of the training, assessment, certification and accreditation available to legal signed language interpreters and translators. This presentation will, in effect, be a 'scoping' analysis, bringing current concerns to the fore and highlighting the topics that emerge as priorities for research and development in making quality legal sign language interpreting

accessible.

European Translation Norm: How is the European Translation Norm Adopted and Used by German Deaf Translators?

Christian Peters & Christian Rathmann (Germany) Background In Germany there are currently approximately twenty Deaf interpreters and translators who are governmentally certified.

One of main working settings entails translations of written German texts appearing in governmental websites into German Sign Language. At this point, they are expected to follow the European Translation Norm (DIN EN 150381) in order to achieve the high professional quality of translational work. However, the translation work has started in early 2000’s i.e. before the interpreting training program (designed for Deaf students) at the University of Hamburg was established in 2009. Therefore, it is interesting to observe the emergence and transformation of professional translation services.

Research Questions This talk addresses three core issues on (i) how the European Translation Norm has been implemented in the work of German Deaf translators, (ii) which key aspects need to be considered in the translation process, and (iii) whether it has an significant impact on the quality of translations?

Analysis The analysis is based on ethnographic observations (with special attention to professional training, professional attitude and published translation products) and videotaped interviews with certified Deaf translators.

Results The results from ethnographic observations and interviews are divided into three areas: (i) Correlation between professional training and quality of translations: Differences between Deaf translators by training and noncertified Deaf translators (ii) Standardization of quality and project management with special attention to technical areas, contractual basic conditions and procedure for translation delivery: Change of (Professional) Attitude of Deaf Translators since 2000 (iii) Translation stages in lieu of DIN EN 15038: what kind of issues (e.g. quality control, reassurance and mainteance) has been emerged and resolved? Which aspects play a role in particular translation stages (e.g. „four-eyes principle“ with special emphasis on translation errors and on Deaf viewers’ perspective)?

Discussion Implications of research findings on ongoing professionalization of Deaf interpreters and translators, on interpreting training program as well as on public awareness will be discussed.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EN_15038 Prerequisites for international sign interpreters at highlevel European assignments Maya de Wit & Irma Sluis (The Netherlands) During the past ten years, deaf sign language users have become increasingly active politically on European level. Due to the intensified involvement of associations such as the European Union of the Deaf (EUD) and the European Union of the Deaf Youth (EUDY), the demand for international sign interpreters has

increased within EU institutions and in the political arena in Brussels, Strasbourg, and Geneva.

In order for deaf sign language users to exercise their human rights and participate in the European political arena, access through sign language interpreting services is required. The EU institutions and European organizations have extensive experience in working with spoken language interpreters, but little to no experience recruiting and working with sign language interpreters. This lack of experience poses an array of challenges to the deaf associations and individuals, as well as interpreter associations and interpreters.

To gain further insight into the specific challenges the international sign interpreter faces in these specific settings, a research was conducted. The research first looked at the current status of international sign interpreters at EU level, the need for international sign interpreters, the hiring and recruitment process, as well as the profile of the international sign interpreter.

The second part of the research was carried out through a survey among the international sign interpreters and focused on the aspect of preparation for an assignment by international sign interpreters. The research also considered the question if and what different preparation was carried out for an international sign assignment in comparison to an assignment in their national sign language.

The research findings indicate, among other things, that due to the inexperience of the event organizers of working with sign language interpreters, the interpreters face challenging working conditions and consequently high stress levels. More importantly, it appears that the interpreter’s attention is shifted towards raising awareness and addressing event logistics and therefore leaving less room to focus on providing a quality interpretation.

This presentation will provide an overview of the research findings and offer recommendations on improving the working conditions of international sign interpreters at European level

through adequate interpreter preparation. The improved working conditions will assist the interpreter to focus on the quality of the interpretation instead of handling the complexity of the underlying logistics.

Deaf professionals' expectations: utilizing designated interpreters to achieve a sense of equality in preprofessional and professional contexts Katherine W. Vance & Lindsay Nickels (USA) Increased accessibility for Deaf individuals in the US calls into question the existing paradigm that addresses the expected relationships between interpreters and Deaf clients in a professional environment and signifies a need to reimagine the role of sign language interpreters. The presenters have considered this need by collecting quantitative data from Deaf professionals regarding their expectations of interpreters and how they implement their services in a professional context. This data was collected in order to ascertain a better understanding of how these individuals envision their interactions with interpreters and what the implications of said expectations have on the role of the interpreter. This data was coupled with comparable quantitative data solicited from Deaf students in a university/pre-professional setting. The purpose of these research endeavors was to define expectations of Deaf professionals and to identify improved ways to train and potentially employ future interpreters in a university context for students pursuing professional degrees. The results of this research suggest a revision to Deaf professional—designated interpreter relationships and an adoption of a more teleological ethical stance. The presentation will include discussion of these results, which have led to new initiatives aimed at improving our provision of services in order to avail Deaf individuals of more equitable participation in pre-professional and professional settings. It will also include limitations of implementation and a discussion of the need for further research.

Deaf citizens’ access to European institutions as a linguistic human right: An evaluation of the multilingual Insign project Jemina Napier, Graham H. Turner & Robert Skinner (Scotland & UK) Several studies have been conducted on video relay services (VRS) and video remote interpreting (VRI) in various countries (e.g., Brunson, 2011; Napier, 2011; Taylor, 2009; Warnicke & Plejert, 2012) that have documented the views of deaf people and interpreters about quality and access. Each of these studies focuses on VRS/ VRI in national countries with one signed language. In the European Union (EU) context, the EU aims to protect linguistic diversity and human rights by having 24 official languages. EU citizens have the right to communicate with EU institutions in any of these languages; all EU regulations and other legislative documents are published in these 24 languages; and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are fully entitled to speak in any of the EU official languages. Implicitly recognising the linguistic human rights of deaf sign language users, the Director General (DG) Justice of the European Commission funded the Insign project. Insign is a pilot 1-year project, launched in December 2013, to develop a web-based service platform, enabling European Deaf and HoH citizens to communicate independently and to contact their EU Institutions and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in their preferred signed language. Insign is led by the European Union of the Deaf (EUD) with a consortium of organisations from four European member states: Heriot-Watt University, Sign Video, IVèS, efsli, Designit. The goal of the project is to develop a ‘Total Conversation’ platform that offers the option of communicating via a sign language interpreter and/or real time captioning. The project methodology involves key stages to review existing VRI/ VRS practices, develop the platform, demonstrate and test the

platform, and make recommendations to the DG Justice for future implementation. Our role is to evaluate the communicative aspect of the VRS calls made through the Insign service and platform.

This project is breaking new ground in two ways: (1) It is the first VRS of its kind to provide access to deaf people in more than one spoken-signed language pair. All other services focus on national spoken and signed languages (e.g., English and British Sign Language in the UK). The pilot phase of Insign, however, involves the provision of 6 signed languages: British Sign Language, Dutch Sign Language, French Sign Language, Hungarian Sign Language, Spanish Sign Language, and International Sign; and 5 spoken languages: Dutch, English, French, Hungarian, Spanish. (2) It is the first international research study that will have access to natural (not simulated) data of VRS calls between Deaf sign language users and hearing people, as well as data from ethnographic observation field notes, surveys and interviews with Deaf people, interpreters, captioners/re-speakers, and MEPs. This presentation will give an overview of the research findings, and in particular the views of deaf sign language users and interpreters about their experiences of VRS generally and with the Insign project. Results will also be presented from observations and analyses of interpreter-mediated VRS calls through Insign.

Recommendations will be made about how a service such as Insign can contribute to access to linguistic human rights for Deaf people in order that they can participate in the EU political sphere (Turner & Napier, 2014).

PAPER ABSTRACTS - DAY TWO Deaf Perspectives in Interpretation Education and Research: A Long Overdue Critical Element Eileen Forestal (USA) Deaf perspectives are greatly lacking in signed language interpretation research. Among themselves, Deaf people share their experiences with interpretation, including being uninformed about the decision-making process surrounding the communication, feeling powerless with the delivery of interpreting services, and lacking influence in how interpretation is taught. Further, Deaf interpreters are often expected to work within an interpreting frame that is contrary to how Deaf people have effectively interpreted for one another for years (Forestal, 2011). To date, documenting Deaf perspectives and incorporating them in research has been rare. In this talk, I argue that inclusion of viewpoints from the Deaf community should play a critical role in interpretation education and in research studies as these ways of seeing contribute towards a “transformative paradigm” (Mertens, 2004) in both interpreter education and research. I claim that it is both critical and ethical to include Deaf people’s views in each step of interpretation research, including determining the research question, selecting participants, collecting data, and analyzing results. Additionally, Deaf persons should become faculty members of translation and interpreter education. Examples of how inclusion of perspectives from members of the Deaf community, Deaf interpreters, Deaf consumers, and Deaf professionals can be accomplished will be discussed.

Making Legislation Work for Sign Language Interpreters Jeff Brattan-Wilson (UK) The presentation will examine how the Royal Association for Deaf people (RAD) in the UK responded to changes in legislation (from

the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 to Equality Act 2010) and the impact of this legislation on Deaf people and Sign Language Interpreters in the UK. RAD has witnessed interpreters struggle to find information since the legislation was introduced that is specifically related to their work as well as relevant to the Deaf community.

The impact is also more noticeable due to the British Government’s reduction in funding for provision and front line services due to the economic downturn. This eventually will have an impact on the numbers of interpreters being hired by public bodies.

The UK interpreters began to question how they could use the legislation to ensure that the Government and public bodies would carry out their duties under the Equality Act 2010 legislation. However, the legislation itself is rather vague. Thus meaning that the interpreters were left to defend either on the behalf of or with Deaf people.

RAD decided that rather than keep giving interpreters advice, we would invest in a new legislation training model for interpreters so that they are better informed of the law and what it actually means for them in the long term.

RAD has also noticed that after training the Sign Language Interpreters were able to attract more bookings due to using the legislation to remind the Government and public bodies of their duties. The impact of this has been trifold; Interpreters are not losing work, the generated income has contributed to the economy and Deaf people benefit from access to information.

The author will share the outline of the training and how this has been designed to ensure that it responds to the scenario that has been described above. The presenter will share the journey from the birth of the training concept to how this training has benefited a number of Sign Language Interpreters.

The delegates will be given access to data thus showing what impact the training as had on interpreters and how it has

developed the profession further.

There will be an opportunity for delegates to understand the training framework and the outline of how the training has successfully educated interpreters on the legislation and why this approach works better than providing interpreters just with an advice. Furthermore, the speaker will share some surprise outcomes from this training model which has additional value for the Deaf community.

The presentation will be designed so that it also relevant to the Human Rights Act so that all delegates, regardless of which countries they come from can benefit from the presentation.

The speaker will end his presentation with advice and tips for any delegates who would like information in order to replicate a similar training model to implement in their own country.

Becoming an Interpreter: A Sense of Place Rico Peterson (USA) In the United States, until the 1970s, the preparation of interpreters was largely a community endeavor. Deaf communities took it upon themselves to school, to train, and to forge interpreters. The curriculum of community norms and needs was largely tacit and widely successful in inculcating the values and beliefs that were necessary for interprets to negotiate successfully across cultures.

In the 1970s the growing need for more interpreters was expressed by the proliferation of sign language interpreter training programs in institutions of higher education (IHE). This first handful of programs has grown to well over 100 in 2014.

With the space of 40 years experience now behind us, it is appropriate to consider some fundamental questions regarding interpreter education: • What does it mean to have moved the education of interpreters from the locus of community standards to the locus of IHE and academic standards?

• How best can we replicate community values in our curriculums?

• How best to create curricular experiences in an academic setting that simulate real-world experience?

• How do young interpreters reckon the success of their work?

In the fall of 2012, the Department of Access Services (DAS) at Rochester Institute of Technology’s National Technical Institute for the Deaf (RIT/NTID) began a formal apprenticeship program for recent graduates of Interpreter Education Programs (IEPs).

Originally designed as a semester-long program, apprentices were hired by DAS, furnished with a mentor, access to a vast array of professional development opportunities, and given a target schedule of 18-20 hours of interpreting a week.

In the spring of 2102, DAS began in earnest collecting data on how these apprentices spent their time, and how they measured their work. By reviewing work logs, journals, portfolios, and selfassessments, data is emerging that offers a fascinating glimpse into the minds of novice interpreters as they make their way from the symbolic world of the classroom into the dynamic world of interpreters at work.

Early findings cast light on issues central to interpreter education, as apprentices wrestle with issues of confidence and confidentiality; with the role confusion that comes from making the transition from student to practitioner; and with internalizing metrics that are essential to independent and responsible practice. This data has clear and compelling ramifications for IHEs. IEPs are essentially vocational programs. How well students do in school is less important than how well they do on the job. The apprenticeship program offers IEPs a unique opportunity for “downstream” evaluation of their programs and students. By comparing the outcome assessments of IEPs with incoming and developing assessments of apprentice competencies, IEPs are afforded invaluable data on the success of the relative efficacy of their programs.

The legislation of Kenyan Sign Language and the impact on the sign language interpreting profession in Kenya Leonida T. Kaula (Kenya) Kenya has moved a step further in regard to the sign language interpreting profession after her promulgation of the current constitution in 2010. In addition to the recognition of Kenyan Sign language as the language of the deaf in Kenya, the law also stipulates that the state should promote its development.

Moreover, Kenya Sign Language is also one of three languages of the Kenyan parliament. The Disability Amendment Bill 2013 also provides several rights and privileges to the deaf among them reservation of employment opportunities in the public sector and catering for the communication needs of the deaf in learning institutions. The law also reiterates that the deaf have a right to access information and access justice through a language that they understand.

On one hand, this legislation has provided legal protection and backing that the deaf Kenyans require to demand for their right to communication as they access services and job opportunities resulting from the legislation. On the other hand recognition of Kenyan Sign Language has also resulted in an increased demand of sign language interpretation services in different settings. In addition to an increased awareness of the sign language interpreting profession in Kenya, interpreters have began interpreting in new domains such as the parliament setting, Court setting and television setting among others. While this is a positive step towards awareness and recognition of the profession, the sign language interpreters are providing services in new domains that they have not been previously exposed to.

On the other hand, the Kenyan government structure does not have the position of sign language interpreter as one of its job titles. In an attempt to meet the constitutional requirement, different government ministries have used diverse terms to refer

to sign language interpreters in order to fit the profession in the existing job descriptions in the government structure.

Interpreting in Educational setting is one other area that has been impacted greatly by the new legislation. Recognition of Kenyan Sign Language and its use as the language of instruction in deaf schools and as an examinable subject has also resulted into increased number of deaf Kenyans in higher institutions of learning. In the last six years, more deaf people have attained the entry requirements to the mainstream universities. Though several of them may be enrolled in the same university, the careers are diverse. This notwithstanding, all are in different departments, enrolled at different academic years and attending classes at different times.

The positive move of the Kenyan Sign Language recognition has therefore impacted the profession greatly and brought about dimensions about interpreting that the practitioners themselves and the stakeholders have to grapple with in order for the profession to move to the next level.

Human Rights for Deaf People: The impact of Groupthink within interpreter cohorts Campbell McDermid, Lisanne Houkes, Kathleen Holcombe & Cynthia Collward (USA) Several authors have reflected on the deportment of sign language interpreters and how their actions impact the human rights of Deaf people. For example, individual interpreters have been cautioned against adopting audist behaviors (Baker-Shenk, 1989; Page, 1993). However little exists in the literature concerning the behaviors of large cohorts of interpreters working within complex structures, such as in the role of a staff member of a large educational institution or telecommunications company. To address this gap, a small group of interpreter practitioners, some of who were interpreter educators, engaged in an autoethnographic conversation to discuss the concept of Groupthink.

Following Janis’ (1982) original conceptualization, Groupthink was defined by a number of antecedents, symptoms and resulting behaviors. Antecedents included such things as isolation, group homogeneity, low self-esteem and perceived high stress (Janis, 1982). Symptoms included actions such as stereotyped thinking and pressure for conformity (Janis, 1982). Adopting a “particularistic� interpretation (Turner & Pratkanis, 1998A, p.

108), where Groupthink was identified by some though not all antecedents and behaviors, the authors shared examples of the negative symptoms of Groupthink they witnessed. These included but were not limited to a tacit agreement to the use of simultaneous communication with Deaf people present (signing while speaking), disregarded retaliation against Deaf clients for perceived misconduct or lack of deservedness, and nepotistic practices where less qualified interpreters were assigned work over better qualified colleagues. The authors argue that such behaviors impede the ability of Deaf and hearing clients to interact successfully and as such impacts their human rights. The researchers end by suggesting institutional recognition of the potential for Groupthink where it has not been considered and further study of the phenomenon to eliminate or reduce structures that provoke it and its deleterious effects.

A bridge too far? Challenges for SL interpreters & Deaf clients in the Legal System Della Goswell (Australia) Deaf people in many countries are disadvantaged in the legal system, and even where SL interpreters are provided, equal access is not guaranteed (Brennan & Brown,1997). Legal settings, especially criminal cases, are potentially high stakes and high stress domains for interpreters and their clients. In Australia, Police and Court matters are a key employment area for AuslanEnglish interpreters (Orima, 2004), but few interpreters choose to do the work, or seem confident articulating what they do.

Apart from the lack of specific training (there is one elective Legal Interpreting unit in one SLI program in the country), there is a fundamental and relatively unexplored question about what we actually do with the gap between the languages and knowledgebases we are frequently trying to bridge. Most deaf defendants are not well-educated bi-lingual professionals, and some are not fluent in any language. The level and precision of English usage (terminology, concepts and register) in legal settings can therefore be a challenge to match in Auslan, given the cultural and educational realities of many deaf clients (Power & Leigh, 2000), regardless of any support from skilled DI's. Expectations of the legal process often conflict with the linguistic and cultural resources available to us, especially the notion of ‘verbatim’ translation of witness testimony (Mikkelson, 2008). We often find it hard to explain why that’s not so simple.

This presentation is based on early-stage PhD research, which aims to better understand the work that Auslan-English interpreters are doing (able to do) in adversarial legal settings, with a view to explaining our choices and our limits more effectively, and therefore being better advocates for our clients and ourselves. The paper will explore two aspects of my research so far: a) It is useful to situate SL interpreting in the broader context of interpreters working between different language pairs, cultures and clients. We are not alone in having difficulty. I have therefore undertaken a comparative analysis of the language resources available to interpreters in our court system, working between English and: Auslan, Spanish, Mandarin and Yolngu-Matha (an Aboriginal language). This first stage research looks at what vocabulary and knowledge base is available for each LOTE (language other than English) in terms of legal register and concepts (Johnston & Napier, 2010) and highlights some of the differences in the work interpreters need to do with the same English source text.

b) The analysis of focus group data – from experienced AuslanEnglish interpreters working in legal settings. This examines the challenges encountered and strategies employed by practitioners when dealing with lexical and conceptual gaps between legal talk and client understanding.

This paper and the further research aims to increase our understanding of our choices and role in these typically asymmetrical communication and power dynamics, where Deaf people's human rights are in the balance.

Educating Sign Language Interpreters advances the Human Rights of Deaf people Cynthia B. Roy (USA) Well-educated interpreters understand how access to communication with others is a human right, and the right of all Deaf people. Educating interpreters about discourse processes makes for better decisions about meaning, and about issues of power and control among participants. Tannen (1986) has shown that power and solidarity entail each other, thus awareness of how people display their perceptions and thinking through language make for better decisions about meaning.

In community settings, institutional gatekeepers (Erickson and Shultz 1982) often follow institutional routines, ask indirect questions, or have differing conversational styles. Likewise, deaf participants may also ask or respond indirectly, or have differing styles. When people talk together, they are doing more than exchanging information – they think of themselves as engaged in asking for help or services, or telling others what to do – thus talk is about the presentation of self, attitudes, and relationships among participants. This requires that interpreters be not only fluent in their respective languages but also explicitly aware of how people mean what they say.

In this presentation I discuss the various ways of teaching about discourse and meaning, from programmatic considerations to

specific teaching strategies, such as discourse mapping (Winston and Monikowski 2000). I will discuss the discourse-based approach of Gallaudet University’s bachelors degree program and how discourse exercises are infused throughout skills, observations, and practicum courses. I will show examples of student work in analyzing discourse, and examples of assignments that are presented in ASL and English.

Studying discourse processes also offers educators not only a disciplinary focus, but also a methodology for analyzing how people talk to each other and how those conversations are interpreted. We cannot teach students professional skills if we ourselves are unable to knowledgeably describe the communicative acts that occur. Students’ understanding of discourse processes enable them to recognize ways of using language that will help them make well-considered decisions among a range of linguistic choices. Because these processes and an interpreter’s role are ineluctably bound to language and patterns of discourse, discourse-based approaches offer focused theory- and research-based understandings of various aspects of teaching interpreting.

Interpreter Training in Developing Countries - Case Study Ethiopia and Kenya Jack Owiti & Eyasu Tamene (Kenya) In many African countries students, volunteers, family members or community corps are trained by Deaf communities in signed languages and turn to community interpreters due to their exposure and involvement with the Deaf community. As these community interpreters grow there emerges the need for collective sharing and peer counseling, specialized training, professional business ethics and the birthing of national Sign Language Interpreters (SLI) associations, then professional code of conduct and formalized training begin to happen. Deaf and Interpreter community forge alliances to lobby governments,

universities for curriculum and certification processes to be set up.

Kenya and Ethiopia have in the recent past undergone through the cycle of establishing professional interpreter training programs. There presents lessons in this journey that many developing countries could learn from and better manage their journey to professional interpreter training. This paper showcases these developments: Kenya: Disjointed, unstructured and quasi professional interpreter training in Kenya can be traced back to the 1980s and 90s with the emergence of the National Association of the Deaf (KNAD). It was natural for interpreters to be trained, most of these training were mainly on vocabulary, ability to understand signs and voice into spoken languages. There were attempts to have regional exchanges within Eastern/Southern African countries to improve interpreter quality and delivery. The recognition of Kenyan Sign Language by Kenyan Constitution 2010 presented a clear opportunity to development of interpreter curriculum which is ready to be implemented. These interpreter training programs are Consumer Centered - with a Certification mechanisms, Conflict resolution and continued professional education that involves the interpreter at all spheres.

Ethiopia: Like Kenya, there have not been formal and organized SLIs training in Ethiopia until recently. Addis Ababa University has launched Ethiopia’s first Bachelor program in EthSL and Deaf Culture in 2008 - sign language interpreter training is one of the components. There are also efforts carried out to single out the interpreting training to set up a specialized SLI training program and fulfill the enormous need of signers across the nation. Apart from that a number of domains of SL interpreting have been seen such as in the Parliament, television, court rooms, schools and etc, though unofficial. Although the demand for educational SLIs

is growing from time to time, only few of them could be engaged and are mostly limited to Addis Ababa. Thus, the relevant of formal and organized training on basic and specialized SLI training is vital to secure good quality of interpreting.

This paper describes the status, content and scope of SLI training implemented in Kenya and Ethiopia. Questionnaires consisting of qualitative questions were used to assess the current situation of SLI in schools, colleges, associations, churches and courtrooms.

The outcomes will enrich the current programs in both countries to improve curriculum, training methods, strengthen evaluation and certification of qualified SLIs. High Demands, Limited Resources, High Stakes- An investigation of job demands and resources of Sign Language interpreter educators Stacey Webb (UK) Access to communication is a human right; therefore, the quality of signed language interpreters is essential to ensure that consumers of sign language interpreting services have full communication access. However, in various countries interpreters graduating from signed language interpreter education programs have been reported to be unprepared for professional interpreting work. This has become known as the readiness to work gap (Anderson and Stauffer, 1990). In an attempt to better understand the readiness to work gap, researchers have predominantly focused their attention on signed language interpreters and interpreting students. However, this research explores how educators and programs, rather than students, may impact the widely recognized readiness to work gap that is impacting the quality of interpreting services.

As part of ongoing PhD research, I have been applying the Job Demand-Resource Model as a framework to better understand and identify specific job demands faced by signed language interpreter educators and the specific job resources they employ

and need.

The Job Demand- Resource Model (Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007) is a theoretical framework used to examine how specific job demands and specific job resources across various occupations influence employees’ overall well being. Well- being includes employees’ level of work engagement and feelings of burnout, both of which have been linked to job performance (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Therefore, if educators are working in environments without appropriate resources, which can aid in managing job demands, it is possible that overall job performance may suffer.

The experiences and perspectives of the signed language interpreter educators included in this research provide an increased understanding of the current state of signed language interpreter education and student learning outcomes.

Furthermore, this research includes signed language interpreter educators from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. This presentation will seek to offer a cross contextual perspective on how we can aim to better protect deaf and hard of hearing people’s right to communication access through improving signed language interpreter education.

Consequently, when there is quality signed language interpreter education it can lead to improved standards, improved quality of communication access and exchange, and ultimately contribute to meeting the linguistic human rights of deaf and hard of hearing people.

"Excuse me, the Imam said what?": Gaining communication access to Islam world wide Cheryl Ringel & Mallerie Shirley (USA) A professor of interpreting once commented, “People rightly stress the skills needed for medical interpreting but then say religious interpreting does not require such skill. Think about it: with one you are being trusted with someone’s life, with the other,

their soul.”

Religious freedom is a human right; that freedom cannot be exercised when basic access to religion is denied. Deaf Muslims have faced this obstacle for decades. Our research will look at the struggles of Deaf Muslims to gain access to their religion through interpreting services, in the US and globally. We will be collaborating with the Deaf Muslim community to ensure the issue is represented from both Deaf and interpreting perspectives.

Communication access to religion – specifically the religion of Islam for Deaf Muslims – is a timely issue. Momentum in recent years has led to some successes with communication access, as evidenced by interpreters provided at US Muslim conventions, Toronto’s ASL Masjid classes on YouTube, and Tariq Mahmood’s recent eBook documenting UK Muslims’ access struggle). We believe that analyzing and then sharing information about what is being done will allow others to develop successful strategies for their local communities and keep this momentum going.

Questions we will address include: 1) What attitudinal, philosophical or logistical issues have contributed to lack of communication access to religion for Deaf Muslims?

2) What has been done by Deaf individuals, Deaf groups, interpreters, and religious leaders to improve communication access?

3) What are the strategies and approaches that have been successful and are these transferable?

4) What do Deaf Muslims think regarding the quality, quantity and continuity of services where progress has been made?

5) What notable changes have Deaf Muslims experienced given communication access?

6) What does the future of Deaf Muslims gaining access to Islam look like, and what barriers remain?

7) What are the thoughts and experiences of non-deaf Muslims who have witnessed Deaf Muslims becoming active in their

community due to improved access?

One issue when conducting this type of research is ensuring not only access to the population, but also to the individuals with knowledge and experience germane to the research. The researchers will be attending a large US Muslim convention in early September and have planned meetings with Deaf Muslims and Imams active in the movement for communication access as a starting point for sampling. We will use chain referral sampling to find those with the most relevant information.

We will also be working collaboratively with Global Deaf Muslim, a Deaf-run organization founded to deal with this issue. (GDM is headquartered in the same metropolitan area as the lead researcher.) This will allow us to reach out to Deaf Muslims at the international level as well as note organizational level strategies.

Given the importance of the human right to freedom of religion, and the timeliness of the issue, we believe that presenting this research at WASLI 2015 will be beneficial to the interpreting profession and, ultimately, to consumers of interpreting.

Shame Resilience and collaboration in sign language interpreters Corrie Pond (USA) As the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) continues to be ratified by nations across the globe, sign language interpreters are challenged to consider ways in which our actions align with principles to protect the rights and promote equality of people with disabilities and those who use sign language. In line with the ideals of the CRPD, the national organization for sign language interpreters in the United States (US), The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) promotes "informed choice and the highest quality interpreting services" for deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans (RID, 2005). An important aspect of choice and quality in interpreting service provision is collaboration with consumers and colleagues.

Some interpreters are skilled at collaboration while others shy away from it. This paper strives to identify patterns in behavior of interpreters who eagerly accept and provide feedback and on-thejob support. Nine sign language interpreters from the US, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Norway were interviewed on their experiences, actions, and perceptions of collaboration. The results of the interviews were compared to the psycho-social framework of Shame Resilience developed by BrenĂŠ Brown (2007).

The research indicates that interpreters who willingly engage in collaborative behaviors may also practice elements of Shame Resilience. One of the four elements of Shame Resilience is critical awareness. Study participants exhibited critical awareness by contextualizing circumstances of interpreted interactions that presented extraordinary challenges. Participants reported that they remained engaged with colleagues and consumers throughout those interactions. The theory predicts that individuals who practice the four elements of Shame Resilience will remain engaged while those who do not will disengage and indulge in blame of self and others.

Shame Resilience theory identifies possible commonalities among interpreters who seek out collaboration and organizes those commonalities into a framework that allows us to recognize effective strategies in our own interpreting practice. In addition to the opportunity to become more mindful of our own behaviors, it also provides language to share these strategies with colleagues, protĂŠgĂŠs, and students.

The resulting positive engagement and collaboration have the potential not only to improve the quality of our services, but to solidify our commitment to empowering consumers to make choices relating to their language and service provision.

The Fake SASL Interpreter - A Curse or a Gift?

Alison Swannack (South Africa) At Nelson Mandela’s memorial service on 10 December 2013, sign language (SL) interpreter Mr Thamsanqa Jantjie caused worldwide consternation when it became clear that about 70 million Deaf people worldwide could not understand him, including the South African Deaf community. He was accused of being a ‘fake’ and there was extensive inquiry into his credentials as well as the professional standards of sign language interpreting in South Africa.

The saga of the “fake interpreter” was both a curse in that it showcased real gaps in the government’s understanding of the importance of a standard SASL (South African Sign Language), and embarrassingly portrayed South Africa negatively on the world stage, but the incident also raised this issue to national and international platforms. Around the world both deaf and hearing communities were outraged and in a round about the way Mr Jantjie has elevated the sign language debate to a new national level - a gift for us all.

The event raised a number of questions: How can one distinguish a real interpreter from a ‘fake’ interpreter? How can we distinguish sign languages from gestures? In South Africa there are many untrained and unqualified interpreters who deprive Deaf people of proper services every day. Was this an example of that? Were the accusations against Jantjie fairly attributed to his alleged mental illness and criminal record? Did he know about sign language at all or was he just gesturing? Was he perhaps using a Zulu or Xhosa version of South African Sign Language (SASL), one of 100 SASL dialects, as was claimed by public officials? (Smith, 2013) Is there indeed no “standardised” sign language in South Africa, or an ongoing battle between black and white sign language, urban and rural dialects?

This presentation will examine the issues raised by the ‘fake’

interpreter’s performance at Mandela’s memorial services and compare it with two of his previous interpreting efforts at the official funeral service for Mama Albertina Sisulu (YouTube, 2011)and an ANC rally in Bloemfontein (Herinnering, 2012). I will explain the basic concepts of sign language by analysing and comparing how the fake interpreter differs from a real SASL interpreter, exploring the phonological, morphological and syntactical processes which Jantjie failed to produce. Some of these include blank expressions, very few handshapes, insufficient placement, no fingerspelling and no use of indexing to indicate who the speaker refers to. He also appears to have lacked knowledge of basic signs. Furthermore, I will clarify why it was possible for many people to identify the interpreter as fake, even if they themselves do not know a signed “language” (Mail and Guardian, 2011). Finally I will outline a recommended process that any department or organisation should go through to ensure that their SASL interpreter is real.

Nourishing our roots: Heritage signed language users' path to becoming a professional interpreter Amy Williamson (USA) Interpreter education programs for American Sign Language (ASL)/English interpreters are designed for and geared toward the second language (L2) user of American Sign Language (CCIE 2010). These programs and courses are designed with the assumption that the student is naïve to ASL and the community that uses it. Students who have one or more Deaf parents can be considered heritage learners of ASL (Valdes 2005) and have had language-brokering experiences before entering a formal program or attending any training (Napier 2011). Despite the difference in experiences and skills that are being brought to the classroom and the profession of ASL/ English interpreting, Deaf-parented interpreters say that educational opportunities do not account for their specific differences. This presentation will share the results

of a mixed-methods study that explores the relationship between demographic characteristics, including the linguistic environment of interpreters in their formative years, of ASL/English interpreters who have one or more deaf parents, their route of induction into the profession of interpretation, and their professional status as an interpreter. The results of this research aim to benefit the field of signed and spoken language interpreting by influencing curriculum design and teaching techniques so that the unique demographic of deaf parented interpreters are recruited to and retained within the profession of ASL/English interpretation/translation. These topics can be explored within a larger international context as comparisons to how heritage signed language users are entering the profession in other regions of the world.

A comparison of community interpreting for deaf signers and immigrants in Flanders, Belgium Mieke Van Herreweghe (Belgium) The present paper concentrates on a comparison between two “worlds of interpreting� which are typically discussed separately, that of deaf signers and that of hearing end users (immigrants). In Flanders, interpreting is provided for both groups of people, though with considerable organizational difference. Since the 1980s the Flemish government has incorporated the provision of community interpreting on behalf of speakers of other languages in its policy for the integration of immigrants (there is one central and there are eight local agencies). The decision to enlist the aid of a community interpreter for a hearing individual is with the professional or institutional end user (Roels 2012). In (partial) contrast with this, deaf people, when granted an official status, receive a set number of interpreting hours paid by the Flemish government for private, educational and work-related matters.

This is done through the Bureau for Communication Assistance (Communicatie Assistentie Bureau, since 1994) (Van Herreweghe

2011). In addition to this, the Flemish Ministry of Integration (in the context of a highly mediatized immigrant debate) attributes two functions to community interpreting: (i) to improve access to and the quality of public social welfare provisions and (ii) to further integration into mainstream society. Methodologies: The EIF/ESF-funded research project (2012-2013) reported on in this paper gauges the use and effects of community interpreting for both deaf signers and hearing immigrants by charting the specific dynamics of 4 institutional domains (health care, education, employment and public services) across three Flemish regions. A combination of methods is used (survey by questionnaire, indepth interviewing using vignettes and focus groups). Results: This paper will report on: (1) the differences in the amount and types of settings of the employability of community interpreters by deaf signers and hearing immigrants; (2) the determining factors for choosing a professional interpreter or an informal interpreter (or other multilingual instruments) and the rationale behind them; (3) the effects of interpretation on the accessibility of public social welfare organizations as experienced by deaf signers and hearing immigrants and by social welfare organizations; and (4) the impact of community interpeting use on integration as expected by mainstream society and as perceived by deaf signers and hearing immigrants. By comparing community interpreting for deaf signers to community interpreting for hearing immigrants we have managed to extricate underlying factors related to choice and effect of community interpreting on accessibility and integration independent of political constellations or (dis)ability.