Deaf Interpreters: Exploring Their Processes Of

Interpreting

byEileen M. Forestal, Ph.D.

OutlineI. Introduction to the StudyII. Literature ReviewIII. Research MethodIV. Data Collection and AnalysisV. Results, Conclusions, and

Recommendations

Statement of the Problem It is not known what steps Deaf Interpreters (DIs)

use in their work to ensure effective interpretation (Cokely, 2005; Forestal, 2005; Stone, 2005).

Ressler (1998) and Cerney (2004) pointed out a need to explore what transpired in the mind of a DI during the process of interpretation for an equivalent message.

Compounding the problem, there is no known research on the education of DIs to determine effective practices without understanding their thought processes (Cokely, 2005; Stone, 2005; Winston, 2005).

Purpose of the Study To determine the steps that Deaf

interpreters use in their work for effective interpretation for a specific audience.

To provide a means to explore the thought patterns as the DIs work through their steps for an effective interpretation.

To explore the DIs’ educational background, as well as how and why they got involved as DIs.

Conceptual Framework

Steps

Thought Patterns

Background

Deaf Interpreter

Effective Interpretation

Research Questions What steps do Deaf interpreters use in

their work to ensure effective interpretation?

What strategies and resources do Deaf interpreters use while working on the analysis for interpretation?

Significance of the Research Provide:

Rudimentary and clearer understanding of steps that DIs carry out for effective interpreting.

effective means of describing the processes, steps, and decisions DIs utilize.

Some predicators of teaching skill development and cognitive processing

Enhance literature for research purposes

Literature Review Deaf Interpreters

Demographics The Beginnings of Deaf persons working as

interpreters Evolution of Deaf Interpreting as a Profession The Deaf Translator Norm Deaf-Hearing Interpreting Team Processes

Think Aloud Protocol Interpretative Theory of Translation

Methodology Research Design

Qualitative Descriptive and cross-sectional Inductive

Three-phase Preliminary interview Think Aloud Protocol Retro-debriefing protocol

Participants Six certified Deaf interpreters with more than

five years of experience as DIs

Methodology, continued Data Collection

Rationale for a small number of participants Data was collected through two interviews and

primarily the think aloud protocol activity Ethical considerations

IRB procedures Backyard research Authenticity of material for TAP Validity of translation from ASL to English

Methodology, continued Data Analysis

Preparation of the data Translations Organization of recurring themes

Responses for the three-phase study were categorized into emergent themes.

Interpretation of the data

Figure 1. Interaction as seen on video for TAP activity.

Participant as DI

Deaf Consumer

Hearing interpreter

Hearing consumer

The lines separate the DI from the DC and HI. Note the dotted arrow from DI to DC as there was no interaction between the DC and the DI or between the DI and HI.

 Figure 2. In live situations with each party interacting with one another.

Deaf Interpreter

Deaf Consumer

Hearing interpreter

Hearing consumer

Table 1. Breakdown in Minutes of the Interview, TAP, and Debriefing Phases

Participant Preliminary interviewThink aloud protocolactivity

Retro-debriefing protocol Total

A 10 34 8 52

B 11 24 14 49

C 12 41 17 70

D 13 25 13 51

E 18 40 10 68

F 21 50 12 83

Table 2. Gender, Age, and Deaf Family Members of Participants

Participant Gender Age Deaf family members

A F 33 None

B F 53 nephew, husband

C M 51 None

D F 61 None, husband

E M 28 None; however a distant cousin

F F 67 None, husband

Table 3. Certification, Years of Experience, and Employment Status

Participant CertificationYears of experience as DI

Working as DI  

A CDI 10 Full time  

B CDI 13-15 Full time

C CDI 26 Part time

D RSC, CDI, ASLTA 32 Part time

E CDI 5-6 Part time

F CDI 12+ Part time

Table 4. College Degrees and Type of Institution Attended

ParticipantCollege degrees Type of institution attended

A BA in Deaf Studies and Psychology; MA in

Interpreting

University for Deaf students

B None; high school diploma

C BA in Business Management; MA in Deaf

Studies

College for the Deaf under auspices of a college for

BA; university with small population of Deaf students

D BA in Psychology and Sociology; MA in

Deafness Rehabilitation

University for Deaf students; university with small

population of Deaf students for MA

E BA in Psychology College with support services

F BA in Sociology; MA in Counseling College with support services for BA; university for

Deaf students for MA

Data Collection and Analysis

Data Collection and Analysis, continued

Analysis of each phase Preliminary interview

Based on 15 open-ended questions TAP activity, based on consecutive interpreting Retro-debriefing interview

Based on 5 open-ended questions

Triangulation of the data from the three phases for emergent themes

Discovery of steps, strategies, and resources employed by DIs for effective interpretation.

Results: Recurring Themes Background information

Postsecondary education

Formative experiences

Interpreter education

Professional development

Drafting Deaf interpreters

TAP experiences

Recurring Themes, continued

Assessment of the Deaf consumer and hearing

consumer

Team processes

Strategies & resources

Discourse analysis

Power issues between team members

Issues of involvement with Deaf consumer

Referential context from Deaf consumer

Results and Analysis, continued Paradigm

“dialogic discourse-based interaction[al]” (Pöchhacker, 2004, p. 79) model for their work as DIs teaming with hearing interpreters

in settings that necessitate consecutive interpreting a “socio-cognitive framework” (Zhoa, 2004, p.

110) “co-construction of meaning” (Janzen, 2005. p.

332) through “collaborative interpreting” (Mathers, 2009, p. 74)

Limitations of the Study Qualitative study was based on the results

from small number of participants from the Northeast region of the U.S

DIs’ experiences with TAP TAP

Time-consuming to use with larger number

Recommendations for Further Study Processes between the DI and HI, as this study

focused only on half of the team – the DI. Deaf interpreters regarding their ages and years

of interpreting experience. Exposure to different service models of

interpreting How they affect DIs’ decisions, team dynamics, and

processes DIs’ ethnicity or racial status

Multi-cultural formative experiences more likely have impacted their discourse styles, resulting in a different socio-cognitive framework.

Future Plans Presentations on Findings, Results, Conclusion,

and Recommendations at National conferences Work with Deaf Interpreter Competencies Develop interpreter education workshops, based

on the results May do further research, using TAP, with Deaf-

hearing interpreter teams Research on implementation of TAP as

instructional tool for DIs