This cluster of technical competencies is related to effective ASL-English interpretation of a range of subject matter in a variety of settings. Click a button below to jump to a different domain.
domain 4:
Interpreting Skills
This cluster of technical competencies is related to effective ASL-English interpretation of a range of subject matter in a variety of settings. Click a button below to jump to a different domain.
An outline of a masculine presenting person signs INTERPRET.
Through engaging with Domain 4, I have undergone one of the most significant shifts in perspective of my training. When I entered this program, I understood continuous improvement in interpreting as a linear progression — a matter of building skills steadily toward a point of arrival, reaching that point by graduation, and refining from there. What I have come to understand is that there is no arrival. Interpreting skill is not a destination; it is a practice that is constantly becoming.
This domain encompasses the full range of technical interpreting competencies: consecutive interpretation, simultaneous interpretation, self-assessment, team interpreting, and the flexibility to adapt across settings and consumers. Working across these modalities has taught me that refinement is not a sign of incompleteness, but of engagement. I have learned to work in strictly consecutive and strictly simultaneous modes, as well as fluidly between the two, adjusting my approach to the demands of each situation rather than defaulting to a single method.
Perhaps the most meaningful development in this domain has been learning to set aside perfectionism in favor of something more sustainable. I have come to align my interpreting practice with my core values of connection, authenticity, freedom, and creativity. These are not aspirational ideals separate from the technical work; they are the orientation from which my most effective interpreting emerges. Below is a summary of the domain and artifacts that demonstrate proficiency in interpreting skills.
Domain #4 Essay
The following interpretation is of a wedding planning session between April, the bride, and Tiffany, the wedding coordinator at the church. Throughout the discourse, they work through details of the wedding ceremony, and April asks questions about the process as they arise. For this specific interpretation, I took a consecutive approach.
The video is a split screen. On one side, Megan sits in front of a gray background, wearing a rose-colored top. She has shoulder-length, curly, brown hair with bangs and dark-framed, round glasses. She interprets a wedding planning scenario between two consumers that appears on the other side of the screen. Tiffany is a woman with chin-length black hair and a light pink top with three-quarter length sleeves. April is a woman with blonde hair pulled back in a ponytail, wearing a hot pink tank top and a dark gray cardigan. The video is in both ASL and English and is interpreted consecutively by Megan.
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.
Competencies 4.1, 4.5, 4.6, & 1.4 - Consecutive Interpreting
4.1 - Apply academic and world knowledge during consecutive interpretation using appropriate cultural adjustments, while managing internal and external factors and processes, in a manner that results in accurate and reliable interpretations in both ASL and English.
4.5 - Demonstrate flexibility to transliterate or interpret by observing the language use of D/deaf or hard of hearing consumers and/or make adjustments based on consumer feedback.
4.6 - Negotiate meaning in ASL and English while interpreting in a manner that conforms to recognized linguistic, cultural and professional norms of the speaker(s).
1.4 - Compare and contrast linguistic characteristics in a variety of signed language interpretations.
Competencies 4.2, 4.5, 4.6, & 1.4 - Simultaneous Interpreting
English to ASL
The following interpretation is of a TED Talk by KC Davis, a therapist who speaks to her philosophy of self-care tasks when struggling with mental health challenges. While many people believe that struggling with everyday care tasks, such as doing laundry or cleaning the house, reflects on their self-worth, KC challenges this assumption, arguing instead that tasks should be adjusted to meet current needs and functionality. Drawing on her own experience and the community she built on social media, KC uses this live talk before a seated audience to advance her central philosophy: care tasks are morally neutral and can be adapted to individual needs.
The video is a split screen. On the left side, Megan sits in front of a gray background, wearing a gray top. She has curly brown hair pulled into a ponytail, bangs, and dark-framed round glasses. She interprets a TED Talk that appears on the other side of the screen. KC Davis is a woman with brown hair pulled back into a ponytail and bangs, wearing an orange tank top and light jeans. A floral tattoo is visible on her left arm. She stands on a red circular carpet with blue lights in the background. The video is in spoken English and is interpreted simultaneously by Megan.
To prepare for this interpretation, I tried to simulate what it would be like to interpret the TED Talk live. If I were actually interpreting this talk, I would have requested access to preparation materials ahead of the event. This might look like an outline from the speaker or from seeing her slides, but because the presentation was already recorded, I watched the video once to simulate a practice run. Then, I worked with the transcript as if it were an outline. To further prepare, I did some quick research on KC to get background information and review the posts she referenced in her presentation. This helped me gain a clearer sense of her communication style and the humor that comes through in her presentation. From there, I considered how best to use ASL features to convey meaning. Establishing these strategies ahead of time helped me feel more prepared to manage demands, as outlined in Dean and Pollard's Demand Control Schema (2013), such as the pace of the discourse, because I had already considered how to use space, what vocabulary to use, and which areas might be particularly challenging. Through this prep, one area I focused on was how I would differentiate between her experiences with her firstborn and her secondborn. She provided that information very close together, so I decided to shift my body back when providing information about the first child, to show that it happened first, and shift my body forward when providing information about the second child to show that it happened later. I was able to actually implement this at about 0:40 in the interpretation, and I believe it helped clarify the difference between the birth experiences.
Competency 4.2 asks interpreters to apply their academic and world knowledge, including cultural considerations, to manage the interpreting process (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005). Within this competency, one cultural consideration I wanted to be incredibly mindful of was how I interpreted the discussion of suicide within the presentation. In my Seattle community, there have been more conversations between the Deaf and interpreting communities about trauma-informed interpreting. When looking at content through this lens, practitioners are deliberate about signs that could be potentially triggering to audience members, with the goal of finding alternative ways to convey that meaning. In the conversations I have been part of, most of the time, the preferred route is to fingerspell the term that has the sign that could potentially be triggering. Upon doing some research, I found a vlog made by Shelly Hansen where she discusses different approaches to interpreting the English word suicide. Ultimately, her recommendations come down to, depending on the context, either signing it in neutral space in a small manner or fingerspelling it (Hansen, 2025). This was based on other information she saw from the Deaf community. In my interpretation, I decided to fingerspell the term, as seen at about 0:17. Since this was a TED Talk and I did not know who my audience members were, I wanted to take a more general approach that would not trigger anyone from a graphic sign. I believe this choice was effective and reflects the kind of culturally informed decision-making I want to continue developing as I move into the field.
A few other considerations related to competency 4.2 I needed to address were how to convey specific phrases in ASL. Some key points of the message in English did not have direct translations into ASL. Around 3:24, I first encounter the phrase "care tasks." This was a phrase that I put a lot of thought into how I wanted to render, because it was not only one that KC repeated frequently in the discourse, but also one that is central to the goal of her presentation. I decided to use a sign for CARE that meant care as in to take care of something, and I fingerspelled TASKS because there was no direct translation and because I found that Deaf people also fingerspell it. Once I made this decision, I was consistent with it, which was key to ensuring the term did not shift or confuse throughout the interpretation. Looking back, I think it would have also been effective to include an expansion on what care tasks are, since KC was not explicit about this until later in the presentation. ASL discourse norms favor making implicit information explicit, and establishing early what care tasks include would have supported a more effective interpretation from the start. At the time, managing the demand of her pace made this difficult, but it is a choice I would make differently given the opportunity.
Another phrase I considered was how to render "morally neutral," as it was central to KC's presentation, and I wanted to be sure it was clear. Because there is no single ASL sign that captures the English concept of "morally," a direct translation would have been awkward and potentially unclear. At 6:09, I interpreted the phrase as VALUE NEUTRAL, using the sign VALUE to mean what one holds as important, which more naturally captures the concept in ASL. I then fingerspelled "morally" and signed NEUTRAL to also match the phrasing she used in her slideshow. This decision set me up for cohesion later in the interpretation, at about 12:20, as KC drove home her central argument. I was able to return to the same VALUE sign, reinforcing the concept in a way that felt linguistically consistent and clear.
Throughout the presentation, I needed to make decisions because the TED Talk format required a simultaneous approach, which meant I could not pause the speaker or ask for clarification. I drew on the Gish Model of interpreting, which allows interpreters to negotiate meaning by keeping the speaker's main ideas intact and letting some details fall away to keep up with the speaker's pace and prioritize their meaning (Gish, 1987). Because speakers have strict time limits, TED Talk presenters approach their speeches with a quick pace while packing their words with a lot of meaning, so I knew that would be a heavy demand throughout the entire interpretation. Because I was able to prep, I knew some of the things that I would likely condense ahead of time. Starting at about 3:30, KC highlights all of the steps and decisions that actually go into doing a load of laundry. I started the list with a sign that shows how many items are on it, more than five fingers can represent. KC uses a fast pace at this point for rhetorical emphasis, so I used my judgment to pick out what I could remember and produce the items as quickly as I could, then returned to that same sign to indicate the list continued beyond what I had named. In watching this section back, I can see that I do omit detail. It would have been ideal to include the level of detail that KC had. However, in managing my processing time and the cognitive demand of simultaneous interpretation, I had to condense to keep up.
Another section where I had to condense was when KC used the examples of Amanda and Lula, starting at about 2:50, and later when she returned to their resilience at about 7:00. When KC first brought these stories up, I realized my lag time had extended further than I wanted. Knowing I needed to shorten that lag to catch up, I prioritized the message's main idea and kept moving, consistent with the Gish Model. However, I was able to establish each person in space, which made it easier to return to them later and made the interpretation more cohesive when KC referred back to them. This showed me that even under pressure, I can still make deliberate use of space and set myself up to return to an idea later. Each of these sections is condensed when watching back, and if I were to do it again, I would prefer to retain more detail, which is an area I expect to develop as I continue building my processing skills.
Competency 4.6 concerns how interpreters negotiate meaning across languages to stay true to the speaker's intent (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005). Keeping KC's affect was very important to me because she did not present this TED Talk like a stuffy therapist. She was down-to-earth, and even when she touched on heavy topics, she did so with humor and humility. This was evident almost immediately, at about 0:25, when she shares a touching message she received about someone saying her book saved their life, then undercuts it with self-deprecating humor — her book is about how to clean, so how could it have had that much impact? In my interpretation, I took a split second after interpreting the person's message before making a face that conveyed KC's own surprise and humor about her book's title. I believe this choice helped the consumer understand not just what KC said, but how she said it, preserving the self-deprecating tone that is central to who she is as a speaker.
One impactful moment for me came at about 6:38, when KC described digging through a pile of clothes on the floor to find a shirt. Her point being that if you know where it is, it doesn't matter that it's on the floor as long as it works for you. I decided to use depiction and role shifting to show myself digging through the pile, which felt like a natural fit for both the content and KC's playful delivery at that moment. From getting a sense of KC as a speaker during prep, I knew this was the kind of moment where some creativity would serve her intent well. I am continuing to work on letting that creativity show through in my interpretations, doing more depiction when the situation calls for it, rather than defaulting to a more literal approach. Going forward, I want to look for more moments like this one, where depiction can bring the meaning to life in a way that feels natural and true to the speaker's voice.
Another moment came at about 9:00, when KC recalled a major revelation she had while folding a baby onesie. In the presentation, KC mimicked picking up the onesie herself. I saw this as an opportunity to utilize depiction and mirror her action, creating cohesion between what I was doing in the interpretation and what the audience saw KC doing on stage. I also used my own facial expressions at this point to embody KC's affect in that moment. Then, at about 10:05, I signed "AUDIENCE APPLAUSE" to indicate the applause. I felt this was important because KC was driving home her point after spending the last ten minutes building up to it, and conveying the audience's response gave Deaf consumers access to the same contextual information hearing audience members had, that the room was fully invested in what she was saying at a pivotal moment in the presentation.
Competency 4.5 asks interpreters to observe the language use of the consumers they serve and to adjust their approach accordingly (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005). Because this was a TED Talk and I did not have a specific consumer in mind, I took a more generalized approach. Without a consumer to observe, I had no language use to inform my decisions, which likely contributed to my product having more English influence at times than a specific consumer might have preferred. Had I known who my consumer was, I might have been able to briefly meet them beforehand to get a sense of their language use and adjust accordingly. Even without that opportunity, having a consumer present in person would have allowed me to monitor their feedback in real time and restructure the message based on what I observed. This competency comes more naturally to life in live interpreted settings, and I look forward to continuing to develop it there.
Competency 1.4 relates to an interpreter's ability to analyze sign language use (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005). Since this is an English-to-ASL interpretation, there is no consumer's language to analyze. By observing my own language use, I can identify areas where I want to continue improving. I recorded this interpretation prior to my internship, but completed this analysis during it, which gave me a valuable lens for self-observation. After receiving feedback from my internship mentors, it became easier to see specific areas for growth in my own product. One area in particular is continuing to push myself to produce signs clearly across all parameters. My mentors have noted that there are times when one parameter of a sign is slightly off, which I have since learned is related to hypermobility in my hands. Now that I am aware of it, I can see it in my work and have been more deliberate about producing signs cleanly, particularly when moving quickly through an interpretation. Alongside this, I can also observe strengths in this particular product, such as my use of space, depiction, and role shifting, which reflect intentional ASL choices that I am continuing to build on. Going forward, I am increasingly motivated to develop my production across all parameters while continuing to lean into the ASL features that are already serving my work well.
This interpretation, like all of the others on this page, is not perfect. However, I wanted to challenge myself to use a source text I knew would be quick-paced and dense, and I am proud that I employed strategies to manage those demands. Completing this analysis during my internship gave me a sharper lens for observing my own work — one I did not have when I recorded it. Through that lens, I can see that my tendency is to condense, which is a legitimate strategy for managing the demands of simultaneous interpreting, but one to be mindful of when a consumer needs a more complete or English-influenced product. Going forward, I want to continue building my processing skills so that condensing becomes a deliberate choice rather than a default. This interpretation reminded me that growth is not always visible in the moment. Sometimes it takes distance, feedback, and reflection to see clearly.
ASL to English
The following interpretation is of a Deaf man's narrative recounting an experience from high school. In high school, he and a friend worked on landscaping projects for one of their teachers. One day after class, they went to work on a project, but after accidentally scaring the teacher's maid, the maid called the police. When the police came, they approached the man with their guns drawn. The man, realizing what had happened, reached into his pocket to retrieve his hearing aid and approached the police officer to explain what they were doing there. Eventually, they cleared up the issue, and the boys got back to work. When the teacher arrived home, she could not believe what had happened. The next day at school, she told them that her maid felt so guilty and embarrassed about what had happened. The man now realizes that he probably should not have been so quick to reach into his pocket, as the story could have ended very differently. For this interpretation, I took a simultaneous approach.
The video is a split screen. On the left side, Megan sits in front of a gray background, wearing a green button-down top with a black undershirt. She has curly brown hair pulled half up, bangs, and dark-framed, round glasses. She interprets an ASL narrative that appears on the other side of the screen. The Deaf consumer is a man with grey hair wearing a maroon bandanna and a black T-shirt sitting on a tan fluffy chair with a grey wall, and to the left is a painting of a blue circle, and to the right is a window with blinds partly open behind him with the CATIE Center logo in the right corner. The video, in ASL, is interpreted simultaneously into English by Megan.
I decided to revisit this interpretation because it marked a significant turning point in my development and understanding of what it means to culturally mediate and transfer meaning between two languages. When I first approached this interpretation in the spring of 2025, I started to play with dropping ASL form and going for the speaker's intent and meaning. This prompted a meaningful conversation between my professor and me about the appropriate liberties interpreters may take, which I will return to below. At its core, the nature of interpreting is not to produce a perfect translation but to convey equivalent meaning. This was a major step in my journey to free myself and make decisions that break from the source-language form, which in itself became a major stepping stone in my fight against perfectionism.
Some cultural considerations I needed to make right away before beginning this interpretation included the fact that the consumer is a man older than me. While his race is not explicitly stated, the nature of this story, a police encounter with guns drawn, carries weight that is inseparable from the current cultural conversation around race. As a white, young woman, I needed to be especially mindful of my language use to ensure it matched the consumer, which directly relates to Competency 4.5 (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005). Had I approached my lexical choices the same way I would in my everyday life, it would not have properly matched the consumer and would not have been an effective interpretation. This is a skill that I am continuing to hone, especially when interpreting for people who are vastly different from me, but I feel that the preparation I did leading up to revisiting this interpretation set me up for more effective decisions than my first attempt.
From another lens, I needed to be sure that the cultural considerations from the Deaf consumer's perspective were adequately mediated for a hearing audience. There were quite a few instances where I crafted the interpretation with cultural mediation in mind. The first came at about 1:54, when I emphasized that the friend was waving to him to get his attention. Had I just said that he waved at him, hearing audiences might not know that waving is an attention-getting device for Deaf people. Shortly after, at 2:06, I used the phrase 'I could see his mouth moving' to highlight the Deaf experience. Next, at 2:19, I added a more explicit statement in the English interpretation to make it clear that the officer realized he was Deaf. In the consumer's discourse, this realization was slightly more subtle, mostly shown through a facial expression. Finally, at about 3:59, when it was time to drive the point of the story home, I decided to make the point broader before adding the detail that was specific to the Deaf experience. By making the point broad at first, it highlighted it for the audience as well. Then I was able to add details about the consumer's hearing aid, tailoring it to his specific experience. Altogether, these decisions reflect Competency 4.6 — negotiating meaning in a manner that conforms to the cultural and linguistic norms of the consumer — helping bridge gaps that hearing audiences with little knowledge of the Deaf experience might otherwise miss, without straying too far from the source message (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005).
The consumer's language use was more on the ASL side of the language continuum, with some English influence. He utilized facial expressions that convey meaning, constructed action and dialogue, and classifiers — all features of ASL that relate to Competency 1.4 (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005). I found the consumer clear to understand, so my lag time stayed close to the message, especially given that my lag time is usually farther from it. There were moments when I needed to work along the spectrum of simultaneous interpreting and adjust my approach to craft the message best. I realize that there are moments of disfluent pausing throughout the interpretation, and I could have used a lag time farther from the message to allow for more natural phrasing.
With some of the richer ASL features, like constructed action and dialogue, I noticed more demand to manage the simultaneous process, which speaks directly to Competency 4.2 (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005). This was especially evident at about 2 minutes into the interpretation when the consumer began discussing the interaction with the police. I saw that he was using a lot of role-shifting to show the reactions of all the participants in the story — his friend, the police officer, and himself — and I decided to use a narrative voice to carry the story. I think this was an effective choice because I was able to keep it consistent throughout the interpretation, and in the simultaneous approach, I did not need to think much about how to adapt what I was seeing to fit within that narrative voice.
Part of the conversation I had with my professor regarding my initial interpretation of this source material concerned making meaning in the target language based on what is seen in the source language — a direct application of Competency 4.6. With my first attempt at this interpretation, I had the impulse to use lexical choices like 'statement' at about 2:59. However, the consumer did not explicitly say that the police collected his statement, and I did not know whether this would be considered an addition. My professor and I had a meaningful discussion about how using lexical choices, such as the police collecting a statement, fits the consumer and what he was describing as an adult looking back on the experience, and how that would be appropriate. This same principle guided my choice at 3:38, where I described the scene as an 'emergency response.' While deviating from the source form feels risky, it ultimately yields a richer, more culturally appropriate interpretation, which is the goal.
This interpretation, although not perfect, stands out to me as a turning point in my education, as it was the first time I gave myself permission to actually interpret. Revisiting it enabled me to approach the source text more deeply and produce a more culturally aware and nuanced interpretation.
4.2 - Integrate academic and world knowledge during simultaneous interpretation using appropriate cultural adjustments while managing internal and external factors and processes in a manner that results in accurate and reliable interpretations in both ASL and English.
4.5 - Demonstrate flexibility to transliterate or interpret by observing the language use of D/deaf or hard of hearing consumers and/or make adjustments based on consumer feedback.
4.6 - Negotiate meaning in ASL and English while interpreting in a manner that conforms to recognized linguistic, cultural and professional norms of the speaker(s).
1.4 - Compare and contrast linguistic characteristics in a variety of signed language interpretations.
Competencies 4.3, 1.2, 1.3, & 1.5 - Analysis of Work
4.3 - Analyze the effectiveness of interpreting performance generated by self and peers by applying contemporary theories of performance assessment and peer review.
1.2 - Demonstrate knowledge of linguistics and cross-cultural and interpretation theories by discussing the implications of each for the work of interpreters in various contexts (e.g., approaches to the process and analysis of task).
1.3 - Apply linguistics and cross-cultural and interpretation theories by analyzing a wide range of consecutive and simultaneous interpreting samples in a manner that reflects synthesis of the theoretical frameworks as they apply to the interpretations.
1.5 - Identify and discuss personal and professional demands that occur during interpreting and identify strategies leading to an effective interpretation (e.g., strategies to prevent injuries, reduce stress, ensure personal safety, use of team interpreting).
The following interpretation is part of a graduation ceremony completed for a course in the School Interpreters Series for Preparing School Interpreters Project. For insight into my preparation for the interpretation, please see Competency 5.2.
Due to the nature of the environment, the interpretation had to be completed simultaneously without any interruption for clarification. Using the preparation materials I was given, I honored the environment and kept going despite challenges. This was the last assigned interpretation I completed in the program during my internship.
The video is a split screen. On the left side, Megan stands in front of a light wall, wearing a black long-sleeved shirt. She has curly brown hair, bangs, and dark-framed, round glasses. She interprets a graduation ceremony that appears on the other side of the screen. There are assorted scenes, including a choir performing the National Anthem, a principal's welcoming remarks, and the valedictorian and salutatorian's speeches. The video is interpreted simultaneously into English and ASL by Megan.
When I began this program, I believed that with enough practice, my interpreting would eventually feel near perfect. This interpretation reminded me that effective interpreting is not about reaching perfection. It is about preparing as thoroughly as possible, applying what you can in the moment, making adjustments as demands arise, and continuing on. There will always be unexpected demands, and the goal is not a flawless product but effective communication for the consumer. Sometimes I will walk away from an interpretation not feeling my best, and this experience taught me that does not mean it was a failure.
Throughout my time in the program, I have found that my interpreting approach most closely aligns with the Gish Model of interpreting (1987). In this interpretation in particular, I found myself relying on this model frequently. Given that this was a commencement ceremony, interrupting the discourse to request clarification would not have been an appropriate control or responsive strategy under Dean and Pollard's Demand Control Schema (2013). I had access to some preparation materials in advance, but memorizing the hearing student's speech would not have honored the act of interpreting itself. The familiarity I had with it allowed me to remain in the moment. These frameworks, and their implications for interpreting in a setting like this one, are central to Competency 1.2 (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005).
That said, the pace of the ceremony was a demand I knew would be challenging. When I fell behind, I needed to condense or summarize the speaker's points to keep up, as is consistent with the Gish Model of interpreting. At 6:28, when she was listing examples of the events in high school she will always remember, I noticed that the pace of her list quickened. Dropping a few of those details was necessary to keep up, so I had to prioritize the information. I decided to include her example of "Winter Ball" because of the gesture she used with it. Knowing that Deaf audience members are more attuned to body language and gesture, I wanted to include that information so they were not left wondering why she used that gesture. Ideally, my interpretation of that moment would have been closer to when she produced the gesture herself, but I was still able to include it, which at least attempted to explain what it meant. If I had more time, I would have provided more expansion, but especially in this setting, an interpreter has to do what they can and keep going. I then provided a few more examples and a sign at 6:40 indicating there were many more.
Similarly, at about 8:00, the student used a discourse pattern in which she listed information quickly again. It would have been ideal to capture each value she listed and the actions she said demonstrated it; however, this was not possible at the time. I included two examples and then summarized her main point: that your actions demonstrate to the world what you value.
In managing the content, there were moments when I had to choose what to prioritize. There were times when I decided to include the speaker's humor, such as right at the beginning when she feigned having the wrong speech, or when she mentioned needing Red Bull to finish writing it (4:35). I felt these were especially important pieces of the discourse to include because they helped paint the full picture of the speech. If Deaf participants saw hearing audience members laughing, but my interpretation omitted the jokes, the experience would not have been equivalent. I did include these details in a way that fit the demand of the fast pace, however. Using the Gish Model, instead of fingerspelling "Red Bull" as I have seen Deaf friends use, I signed "ENERGY DRINK." Going more general is exactly what the Gish Model calls for, and it allowed me to convey the same concept more quickly and keep pace with the presentation.
During the band's performance, I attempted some cultural mediation, but competing demands arose. Upon reflection, it would have been more effective to indicate that the music had started, provide the song's name, and convey that it was slow and inspirational in tone. My focus was not entirely on managing that demand, as I was reviewing my notes for Deaf student Zara's upcoming speech, mentally preparing to accurately represent her while keeping my face neutral. It was only then that I realized it would have been helpful to provide more context about what was happening with the band. In the future, I would want to give more thought to effective controls that provide enough context without becoming distracting or overwhelming.
One challenge I encountered with Zara's speech came at about 11:20, when she added details not included in the outline she had provided in advance. She had mentioned she might do this, but it was an added challenge in the moment. I did not want to leave a large lag time while trying to make sense of the message, even though I was not fully confident in what I was seeing. In almost any other setting, I would have stopped to clarify. The implications of putting out a message you are not sure is accurate are significant. In a doctor's office, classroom, or courtroom, I would never take the same approach. However, in this environment, the primary goal was to make the presenter sound educated and maintain the spirit of the message. In the moment, I thought I saw Zara sign "board game," so in the spirit of the event and what I knew about her future plans, leaving home to attend college, I rendered the phrase as, "and I've always appreciated our board game nights and family bonding. I know I'll miss that next year." It did not feel great, but I knew I needed to keep going and shake it off for the sake of the message.
At about 7:22, I had to employ a higher presentation of self, as interpreters do from time to time under Llewellyn-Jones and Lee's Role-Space Theory (2013). Going into the ceremony, I had not anticipated needing to present myself more prominently, meaning becoming more involved in the discourse, given the formality of the setting. However, I noticed the video had begun lagging significantly while I was finishing one of the students' thoughts. I did not know how long it had been buffering when I completed the statement I was on, but I knew it had been quite a while and that I likely needed to take action. Looking back at the recording, I can see the video lagged for just shy of 20 seconds before I caught it. When I finished signing the concept, I briefly put my hands down, then informed the Deaf consumers of a technical issue and that I would try to fix it. I made this decision because stopping without any notification could have caused concern or eroded trust. I was able to resolve the issue by jumping ahead in the recording and continuing. The decisions reflected throughout this section of the analysis demonstrate the application of theoretical frameworks to a live interpreting sample, as Competency 1.3 asks (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005).
Considering the experience as a whole, this interpretation gave me a unique opportunity to see what my instincts were for preserving a message under stressors. In approaching the work, I had to shift my mindset, as clarification was not an option in this environment. While the goal of the interaction is always a consideration in any setting, the goal of a graduation ceremony carried me further in this interpretation than a goal had in any other. Any time I was unsure about what I had seen or heard, I centered myself on the celebratory nature of the event, knowing that the kind of language people typically use in those situations could help me craft an appropriate message.
This interpretation confirmed that there are skills I need to continue working on, the same skills I had been focusing on during my internship. One of those is processing time. While I have seen improvement in this area, the depth of my interpretation would have been even better with a quicker processing time. I noticed this especially with Zara's speech, where I found myself wanting to pause to process. In this setting, however, a shorter lag time is particularly necessary. If the audience can see Zara signing but the interpreter is not voicing, trust is eroded, or at the very least, the audience is confused. The challenge was that I needed more time to form the message, and finding that balance will make the overall process more effective. This self-assessment reflects Competency 4.3 (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005).
The need to develop my processing time created a snowball effect that impacted other aspects of the interpreting process. The conditions of internship have also made it difficult to see my current skill development completely clearly. I look forward to taking time after graduation to decompress and reassess. From there, deliberate practice will allow me to continue improving the areas I know need attention.
Aside from the technical demands of the interpretation, I also carried several intrapersonal demands, as addressed in Competency 1.5 (Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005). A primary one was that I knew this would be the last interpretation that I would submit for the program. I put strange pressure on myself to prove something with this interpretation, but I was not sure what it was I was trying to prove. There is no way a single recording could hold everything I've learned over the past four years, and even if it could, it would be too much to expect of myself to place that kind of weight on one assignment. When I noticed these thoughts, I did some journaling to work through them and did my best to remind myself of the interaction's goals. These thoughts are indicative of patterns of thinking I often have to manage, so it is a good reminder to make sure I don't let them spiral too far as I start my practice.
Another demand I needed to manage was low confidence stemming from my internship experiences. When I envisioned doing this final interpretation, I thought it would feel like the best work I had ever done. Instead, I relied on the preparation I had done beforehand to help fill some of the gaps my lack of confidence left. This experience also reminded me that there will be times when I need to interpret even when I'm not feeling my best. For this interpretation, I did my best to set aside my own feelings and prioritize effective access for the consumer. This is a strategy I will continue to practice as intrapersonal demands arise.
This interpretation is not perfect. However, it is significant to me because it marks where I am at the end of the program while managing many competing demands. It represents work in which I made the best decisions I could in the moment. I will always view my work with an analytical eye, but when there is so much to manage moment to moment, I have to extend grace to myself. Not every interpretation will feel like a success, but as long as I give it my all, that does not mean the work lacks value or failed to achieve its goals. There are things I wish I could have done better, but I now know what to work on and will continue improving as I become the interpreter I want to be.
Competencies 4.4 & 2.5 - Teaming Strategies
4.4 - Demonstrate the ability to effectively team interpret during consecutive and simultaneous low-risk interactional assignments.
2.5 - Collaborate with participants and team members in a manner that reflects appropriate cultural norms and professional standards during all phases of assignments and implement changes where appropriate and feasible.
Due to the nature of teaming work, it was not possible to record a demonstration of this competency that shows how I support the interpreters I work with. In lieu of a video, I decided to provide a statement about what I learned about teaming throughout my time in the program.
At the start of the program, when we were first provided opportunities to team, we learned the different strategies that teams use. As an online student, we first discussed strategies for teaming online. The first strategy I tried included feeding phrases I saw into the private Zoom chat between my team interpreter and me. After providing these feeds and, in hindsight, learning that the interpreter decided a few minutes into the interpretation that the Zoom chat box was distracting and ignored it, I realized that I was too attached to the pre-established system we had in place. That learning experience taught me that it was important to tune in to my team and provide the best support for them possible. I should use the established systems, but also not be afraid to switch to other strategies if I feel something is not working. In that particular case, the interpreter said that she wished I had moved to feeding her out in the open rather than sticking to just feeding her in the chat.
Further into the program, we had the opportunity to practice feeding in person. There, I was able to use more physical strategies, such as leaning over to signal when I needed a feed. Additionally, we had just taken a ProTactile workshop with an incredible DeafBlind presenter, who taught us that DeafBlind people use pats on the leg as a way to backchannel and show they are following the conversation. We decided to use those pats as gentle encouragement for each other while we were sitting next to each other, voice interpreting, because it was subtle and a way to signal to each other that we were on the right track. This was incredibly effective for me because if I was navigating a difficult moment, getting pats as I came out of it gave me the encouragement that what I just said made sense and that I was still tracking with the message.
Perhaps the biggest thing that I have learned about teaming during my time in the program is that I am allowed to ask for support that is different than the support my team asks for. At the beginning of my teaming experiences, I thought that my team and I had to feed each other in the same approach, but that isn't necessarily true. In the Zoom setting, my team can ask me to feed them out in the open by providing a sign quickly if that is what they prefer. In that same setting, I can ask my team to type feeds in the private chat. I am allowed to ask for what is most supportive for my process as long as I turn around and support my team in the way they ask to be supported.
What I have come to value most about teaming is that it keeps the focus on the consumer. Two interpreters checking each other, filling gaps, and signaling encouragement means the message gets through more completely. I look forward to continuing to develop these skills and to being a team member others can rely on.
This competency is demonstrated through the development of this website and the included artifacts. Throughout the program, I have developed proficiency in using video technology and setting up lighting, camera placement, and audio equipment to support effective ASL-English virtual interpreting. I can confidently operate and troubleshoot interpreting-specific technology and adapt quickly to new platforms and tools as needed throughout my career.
Competency 4.7
Demonstrate the ability to use technology and equipment specific to ASL-English interpreting.
References
Dean, R. K., & Pollard, R. Q. (2013). The demand control schema: Interpreting as a practice profession (1st ed.). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Gish, S. (1987). I understood all of the words, but I missed the point: A goal-to-detail/detail-to-goal strategy for text analysis. In M. L. McIntire (Ed.), New
dimensions in interpreter education, curriculum, and instruction (pp. 125–137). RID Publications.
Hansen, S. [ASL Interpreter@S.Hansen]. (2025, February 28). ASL how to interpret the terms suicide (advanced video) [Video].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUDN9OGyaXE
Llewellyn-Jones, P. & Lee. R.G. (2014). Redefining the role of the community interpreter: The concept of role-space. SLI Press.
Witter‑Merithew, A., & Johnson, L. J. (2005). Toward competent practice: Conversations with stakeholders. Registry of Interpreters for
the Deaf, Inc.
Note: AI was used to check grammar and clarity, but the ideas and writing on this page are my own.