World Association of Sign Language Interpreters (original) (raw)
Related papers
American Sign Language/English Interpreting in Legal Settings: Current Practices in North America
2012
Standard demographic information was collected on certified and non-certified sign language interpreters relative to the provision of interpreting services in legal settings. The study examined which practices interpreters incorporate into their work in legal settings, with particular attention to working in teams consisting of deaf and hearing interpreters, use of consecutive interpreting, preparation for interpreting in legal settings, and maintaining
Interpreting in legal settings has become a specialized area of practice that requires specific training and ongoing professional development. This study examined the training and professional development needs of ASL-English interpreters in North America. The 1,995 participants in an online survey included interpreters who provide services in legal settings and those who do not. The data suggest that interpreters desire certificate programs that are delivered in multiple formats, including face-to-face intensive experiences, online distance learning, and regional and local mentoring experiences. The training content areas participants wanted most include specialized interactions; legal discourse across a range of settings including police, domestic violence, depositions, and jury trials; interpreting techniques when working in deaf/hearing teams, using consecutive interpreting and error identification and correction; and ethics and decision making. All of the data analyzed offer insight into how best to design learning events that are meaningful for interpreters who want to work with legal discourse and interactions in a variety of settings, including courtrooms. Recommendations for educational institutions, professional organizations, and individual practitioners follow from the data.
A Case for Training Signed Language Interpreters for Legal Specialization
2012
Interpreting in legal settings has become a specialized area of practice that requires specific training and ongoing professional development. This study examined the training and professional development needs of ASL-English interpreters in North America. The 1,995 participants in an online survey included interpreters who provide services in legal settings and those who do not. The data suggest that interpreters desire certificate programs that are delivered in multiple formats, including face-to-face intensive experiences, online distance learning, and regional and local mentoring experiences. The training content areas participants wanted most include specialized interactions; legal discourse across a range of settings including police, domestic violence, depositions, and jury trials; interpreting techniques when working in deaf/hearing teams, using consecutive interpreting and error identification and correction; and ethics and decision making. All of the data analyzed offer insight into how best to design learning events that are meaningful for interpreters who want to work with legal discourse and interactions in a variety of settings, including courtrooms. Recommendations for educational institutions, professional organizations, and individual practitioners follow from the data.
A Case for Training Signed Language Interpreters for Legal Specializaation
Interpreting in legal settings has become a specialized area of practice that requires specific training and ongoing professional development. This study examined the training and professional development needs of ASL–English interpreters in North America. The 1,995 participants in an online survey included interpreters who provide services in legal settings and those who do not. The data suggest that interpreters desire certificate programs that are delivered in multiple formats, including face-to-face intensive experiences, online distance learning, and regional and local mentoring experiences. The training content areas participants wanted most include specialized interactions; legal discourse across a range of settings including police, domestic violence, depositions, and jury trials; interpreting techniques when working in deaf/hearing teams, using consecutive interpreting and error identification and correction; and ethics and decision making. All of the data analyzed offer in...
2016
Interpreting in legal settings is a complex task in which multifaceted factors such as the setting, individuals involved, roles of those participating individuals, expanded ethical considerations, and the language of the legal system require specialization from the interpreter practitioner (Berk-Seligson, 2002; Mathers, 2007; Russell, 2000; Simon, 1993). There are many texts, workshops, and resources that promote best practices; however, only one study has been done related to the demographics of the interpreters who do legal interpreting work and their use of proposed best practices in the legal setting (Roberson, Russell, & Shaw, 2011). This research is designed to collect information about who is currently doing the work of legal interpreting and discover what their daily practice entails. An online survey was designed and disseminated to current signed language interpreters working in legal settings to ascertain demographic information and the frequency of certain circumstances ...
This study investigates how and when hearing interpreters in the United States decide there is a need for a Deaf interpreter in court proceedings. Previous publications have strongly suggested that it is best practice to work with a Deaf interpreter for specific situations . In this study, the author utilized two frameworks: Brennan & Brown's (1997) Equality before the Law, and Mathers' (2009) Deaf interpreters in court: an accommodation that is more than reasonable, to design this study which brings to light the criteria used by hearing ASL-English interpreters when calling upon Deaf interpreters. This research also explores the hearing interpreter's view of the Deaf interpreter and allows for discussion about the experience of working as the hearing member of a Deaf-hearing team in the courtroom. Findings suggest that hearing interpreters are generally in alignment with best practices for working with Deaf interpreter specialists, but significant inconsistencies and barriers remain. Further research into this configuration and its accompanying dynamics is needed.
Sign Language Court Interpreters in Turkey: Professionalization and Impartiality
transLogos Tranlation Studies Journal, 2021
Interpreters in court settings have a significant role to play. A party in a court who does not speak the language of the country will be dependent on a court interpreter to present their claim accurately, unbiasedly, fairly, and effectively; and therefore, well-trained and professional interpreters are needed. However, worldwide (Witter-Merithew and Johnson 2004; Napier and Haug 2016) and particularly in Turkey (Conker 2017; Gökce 2018), it is reported that there are problems concerning education, language skills, and other professional conditions of sign language court interpreters. This study investigates the professional profile of sign language court interpreters in Turkey. The research was conducted through an online survey which focuses mainly on the components of professionalization (Tseng 1992), professional interpreters' knowledge and skills (experience, training, accreditation, in-service training), professional working conditions (payment, security), professional association, and professional ethical standards, specifically impartiality (Judicial Council of California 2013). The online survey was administered to 23 Turkish Sign Language court interpreters from 10 different cities in Turkey. Briefly, the results strikingly suggest that none of the interpreters, who are mostly CODA (child of deaf adult) (91%), graduated from translation and interpreting programs of the universities, which is seen as one of the major hindrances among participants in terms of professionalism. Most of the interpreters with more than ten-years-experience are exposed to unstable jobs with low payments and have a profession other than sign language interpreting due to financial concerns. Regarding impartiality, the general tendency of the participants reveals that they serve for both the victim and the defendant parties (52%) and that they are in a conflict of interest such as interpreting for someone they know (74%). The results of the study indicate that it may not be an easy task to be professional and impartial under these circumstances. Finally, the findings of this study have a number of important implications for future practices such as sign language court interpreter training and professionalization.
Justisigns: A European overview of sign language interpreting provision in legal settings
The Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 establishes common minimum rules for European Union (EU) countries on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings as well as in proceedings for the execution of the European arrest warrant. This provision as well as the right to sign language as a human right reiterated by the EUD in the Brussels Declaration ensure that deaf sign language users can access the justice system, typically through sign language interpreters. There is a growing body of literature that examines sign language interpreting provision and practices in legal contexts in various countries. 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 SLIs. This paper reports on a survey that was developed as part of the Justisigns project to provide an overview of the current status of sign language interpreting in legal settings across Europe to better understand what the training needs of interpreters, and other stakeholders such as police officers and deaf people themselves might be. Drawing on key themes from the European Commission survey on legal interpreting in the EU (Hertog & Van Gucht, 2008) and the survey of ASL legal interpreters in the United States (Roberson, Russell & Shaw, 2011), a questionnaire instrument was developed and delivered through an online survey tool. The findings reveal that there are inconsistencies in how legal sign language interpreting provision occurs across Europe.
Deaf Community’s Expectations On The Roles Of Sign Language Interpreters
The European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2019
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.