domain 4:
Interpreting Skills

For this cluster, I decided to revisit one of the very first interpretations we did in our first interpreting skills course. Not only did this provide me with an interesting opportunity to see how my skills have grown in the nearly two years since I last interpreted this content, but it also allowed me to see how my perspectives have changed regarding what effective interpreting truly is. 

To prepare to re-record this interpretation, I reviewed instructor feedback and my own self-analysis of the interpretation from when I first did it. The self-analysis, using Marty Taylor's framework, allowed me to review specific language features in the initial interpretation and identify which were effective and which were ineffective, informing how I approached the re-recording (Taylor, 2002, 2017). I did not want to watch the video again because I wanted the recording to be as close to a real-life interpretation as possible, to mimic what I will experience in the real world. Of course, I had some familiarity with the content from working with it a couple of years prior. Still, I wanted my interpretation to be based on my prep and what I was seeing in the moment, rather than on having watched the video repeatedly.

​

Competency 4.5 relates to an interpreter’s ability to match the language they observe Deaf or hard of hearing consumers using when making interpreting decisions (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005). In a real-life scenario, this would include collaborating with consumers to ensure understanding and clarity are achieved and taking their feedback to make adjustments. However, in a situation like the recording of this artifact, I was unable to collaborate with the consumer to inform my product. I had to rely on observations of the consumer’s language use and tailor my interpreting approach to match her language. If we were together in real life, I would have appreciated the opportunity to get her feedback to be sure she understood and that my product matched her preferences. 

​

Based on my observations of her language use, I decided to use a product that was more English-influenced. I noticed the consumer using language that followed English grammar, and that she fingerspelled words that could have been expressed conceptually in ASL. She also mouthed/whispered everything she signed, providing clarity on what she specifically wanted interpreted in English. Identifying these features — her use of English word order, fingerspelling, and mouthing — required drawing on knowledge of linguistic characteristics across the signing continuum, which directly relates to Competency 1.4 and informed my second approach (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005). When thinking about my first recording of this interpretation, I did not match her use of language at all. Given that it was so early in my interpreting education, I had not yet understood the importance of matching consumer language preferences and needs. My original product was fighting to stay close to ASL. Looking back, I realized I had biases that led me to believe that, even though I could observe the consumer’s language use, it was my job to render the product into “true” ASL.     

​

Coming back to this interpretation, I have learned that matching consumer preferences and needs is far more important than any opinion I have about what the product of my interpretation should be. The goal is for clear communication to occur, and my job is to adjust my language to meet the needs of the Deaf and hard of hearing consumers that I work with. With this in mind, I made a concerted effort to mouth the English as she did, kept the English word order as much as possible, and mirrored her specific sign choices and fingerspelling when they differed from mine. An example of the fingerspelling I specifically used in my interpretation, because she used it first, was "bridesmaid" and "groomsmen". Additionally, at around 9:00, she asks about bringing in catering. I would have interpreted this more conceptually if I were with a consumer who preferred more ASL, but she fingerspelled anything related to catering, such as “caterers.” I followed her lead and adopted those preferences into my interpretation. While I still felt some of that initial tension, the pull toward what once led me to default to ASL, I now know it is important to push through that and prioritize the consumer's needs over my own comfort.

When interpreting the signed message into spoken English, I also had to adjust my mentality compared to the first approach. The consumer mouthed or whispered, signing in English word order much of the time. The first time I interpreted this, I remember overthinking my word choice. If she said it, would that mean I could just repeat it? This relates to Competency 4.6, which requires interpreters to demonstrate skill in negotiating meaning in both languages while still honoring linguistic, cultural, and professional norms of participants (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005). With my first interpretation, I did not allow myself to follow the consumer’s lead. I felt that it was almost too easy, so instead of adopting her English choices in my voice interpretation, I would substitute my own word choices, adding adjectives or rephrasing unnecessarily. With this attempt, I interpreted the word choices that I saw her mouthing to match her sign choices. I felt this better aligned with her goals and made the overall interpretation more effective. 

​

Beyond language matching and meaning negotiation, Competency 4.1 addresses the broader management of the interpreting process itself. It requires interpreters to manage the interpreting process, whether using a simultaneous or consecutive approach, while also being mindful of cultural adjustments, situational norms, and other factors that may need to be addressed (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005). Using Dean and Pollard’s 2013 Demand-Control Schema theoretical framework, interpreters can name these factors as demands and discuss how they might address them by utilizing controls. This framework can help interpreters in their decision-making, especially when multiple factors must be considered at once. One demand that I remember needing to manage a lot during my first interpretation was the working memory required to be effective in the consecutive interpreting mode. I remember being afraid of forgetting parts of the message and having to work very hard to remember each consumer’s phrase before I could start interpreting. I noticed that in this recording of the interpretation, I was not concerned about my memory at all. This is likely due to the intentional effort I have put into improving my memory over the last year or so, as well as to my growing confidence in my ability to remember. It was encouraging to see this improvement, as it allowed me to focus on other factors of the interpretation.   

​

Another demand related to the process of consecutive interpreting in this recorded setting was the need to manage it by pausing the video. The nature of the stimulus video was that it was recorded with an interpreter facilitating the communication. To allow interpreters to practice, the interpretation was removed, but the rest of the conversation remained. Given that the video was recorded based on another interpreter’s pacing and interpretation, I went into the recording knowing I wanted to use the control to pause the video while I interpreted, giving myself enough time to process and get my thoughts out before the next consumer responded. In the first interpretation of this scenario, I did not always do this; when I was completing my phrase, the other consumer would start to respond, and I would rush to finish to keep up. Overall, this was an effective control, as it allowed me to focus on my interpretation rather than trying to fit within the timeframe set by another interpreter. However, it did take me out of the natural flow of the conversation, and I can see it affected certain aspects of the interpretation. In general, my affect did not always match the wedding coordinator as much as it could have. She was asking a lot of questions, and I do not think my facial expressions were always as clear as they could have been in signaling that she was ending her turn with a question. Upon reflection, I think this was because I was about to hit the start button again. Matching affect is something that I am continuing to work on, so it is important to keep in mind, but it is also important to recognize the demands of the recorded environment that could have impacted it as well.       

​

One example of cultural mediation that I needed to manage was around 6:30. The wedding coordinator was asking the bride about music choices for the wedding. When asked if she would be using a CD for the music, the bride light-heartedly responded that she would have to ask her fiancé about his preferences because, being Deaf, she wouldn’t be able to hear it and wants him to like what he hears. She had a light-hearted tone in the comment, and I knew I would need to add a slight expansion to ensure the wedding coordinator fully understood what she was saying. I made sure to emphasize the Deaf experience and the light-hearted nature of the comment. Had I not landed either of those pieces adequately, a miscommunication or an awkward moment could have occurred. I think that this moment was more effective than my first interpretation, so seeing this improvement was more encouraging. 

​

I was pleased to see that I managed the demand for missing information. Around 11:15, I saw what the consumer signed, but I misunderstood what she was trying to say. Instead of just throwing something out, I first signed to the Deaf consumer that I needed to clarify, and then I informed the hearing consumer that I was obtaining clarification. In real life, this would have been more collaborative, but in the recorded setting, I rewound the video to watch the phrase I missed again to simulate the consumer repeating herself. I was able to better understand and then move forward with the interpretation. This was an effective control; in the past, I found it challenging to use effectively, especially in recorded environments. This experience reiterated to me how important it is to be transparent when misunderstandings arise so that mutual understanding can be achieved.

​

While there are always aspects of the interpretation that can be improved, this work demonstrates consistent, reliable skills necessary for entry-level work. The biggest shift in my work comes from realizing that my job is not to determine what is “right” in the product I put out, but to match my product to the needs of the consumer. Competency 1.4 asks me to acquire the tools necessary to observe consumer language use, and I feel confident in my ability to do so. I noted the consumer’s language use; even with my first interpretation two years ago, I hesitated to adjust my approach to match it. Competency 4.5 asks me to respond to the observations I make about language use, and that is where I have seen the most growth. I now feel empowered to make decisions about my interpreted product based on consumer preferences. Competency 4.6 is related, reminding me of the importance of staying centered on the consumer's meaning and intent. This skill also took practice, but I have seen meaningful improvement. As I gain more experience, Competency 4.1 becomes more manageable as well, as I have the tools to better manage factors of the interpreted environment. Within this competency, I have also come to know myself as an interpreter, which helps me set myself up for success in different interpreted scenarios, even when they present new challenges (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005).     

​

Looking ahead, this piece of work reminds me of the importance of continuing to develop my skills throughout the signing continuum. I do feel more comfortable when consumers' preferences are closer to the ASL side of the continuum, which suggests that my deliberate practice should include incorporating more English influence so I can be more flexible when consumers present with different needs. I have also noted that adjusting along the continuum within a single interpretation can be difficult. If I begin with a more English-influenced product and the situation then calls for something closer to ASL, that in-the-moment flexibility remains an area for growth for me. That linguistic flexibility will be important as I move into the field, and utilizing deliberate practice to move along the continuum will be essential going forward. 

​

Additionally, I have noted tendencies in myself beyond this interpretation to prefer a more consecutive approach to interpretation. Realistically, many situations that are interpreted are not conducive to effective consecutive interpreting. Upon realizing this, I have been working on improving my processing skills to better support simultaneous interpreting. However, going forward, I’d like to be able to use consecutive and simultaneous interpreting on a continuum. As I currently use them, they are separate tools. By placing them on a continuum, I can move between the two approaches, using what best fits the situation. I started to do this in this sample at about 31 minutes. The wedding coordinator started pointing to specific locations in the sanctuary, and as she began to speak, I realized that the utterance would be better served by a more simultaneous approach so that the bride could see what she was saying as she pointed. Especially because I was not in the same room as them, it made more sense to let the wedding coordinator carry the meaning in the pointing and provide the contextual information as close to her points as possible. I felt this was effective, and it showed me how interpreting along the continuum and doing so comfortably can ultimately serve the goals of the communication.        

​

This work makes me excited to work in live settings where collaboration can continue to be a greater influence in my work. Picking up this work has allowed me to reflect on a piece I encountered early on in my education, and, by redoing it, I have been able to see my growth through the lens of these competencies. This growth shows me that I am ready to move from recorded settings to live interactions. I can see that I am able to interpret with greater nuance across all aspects, especially when considering consumer preferences and my own approach, whether consecutive, simultaneous, or a mixture of the two. I will trust the growth I have seen to carry momentum and continue building skill, truly supporting my philosophy that I am never arriving, but becoming.