Museum of Photographic Arts San Diego ASL Tours


The Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego at 1649 El Prado has tours lead by a Deaf docent using American Sign Language. The next one is March 3, from 11a-12noon. The cost is $4.00 per person. (Maximum capacity 30 people) (No reservations) (First come first serve)
 
How lucky is San Diego?
 
I’d consider camping outside the door.

Museum of Photographic Art - San Diego, CA

Image provided by:   www.GoSanDiegoCard.com

Gridcheck Maintenance


Gridcheck will be down for maintenance tonight from approximately 10p-1a MST 9p-12midnight PST

Interpreter and Customer Schedule Confirmations Yesterday


Yesterday, due to some technical server updates, the automated schedule reminders of the next day’s schedules were not emailed to interpreters and select customers. We apologize. The issue has been resolved and you should see those emails start up again this afternoon at their regularly scheduled time.

Thanks!

Check Envelope


For those vendors/interpreters whose invoices are paid by check, rather than EFT, it could be helpful to know what the outside of the envelope looks like, so it is not set aside as junk mail.  At a glance, it might appear to be one of those solicitations that come in the form of a check that you are invited to cash as a way of accepting their offer.

Here is what the check envelope currently looks like:

Sample Check Envelope Image

We have also had interpreters/vendors wonder where the remittance information is because the check does not come with an accompanying stub.  The remittance information is in the top left hand corner of the check and will indicate the invoice number(s) being paid.  It is printed in relatively small font.

Also in the top left corner of the check are the big bold words “Account Number: No Account Number”.   This means that we, NIS, do not have an account number assigned to us by YOU, from your system.  If this check were paying the electric bill, instead of your invoice, our account number with the electric company would appear there.

 

 

Phones back in business


Well, it only took almost the entire business day but our phones seem to be reaching live people again now and not just our voice mails. Thank you for your patience and for contacting us through other channels today.

Phones Down


We are switching phone providers today and it looks like Murphy’s Law is temporarily applying itself to the situation. Thank you for your patience. Email us, chat on the website, or text us as alternatives.

Email: support@getnis.com
Text: 858-799-0123
Website Chat: (bottom right hand corner of every web page)

Charles Ward – #deafstory


Phones Down


6:46 PM, 10/29/17:

We are aware our phones are down. The VOIP provider we use is working to correct their system-wide problem. We are in the same boat with a lot of other companies at the moment. As alternatives to a phone call you may reach us by email, text, or live-chat on our website. We are, coincidentally, in the process of switching our VOIP phone provider and that will be completed in approximately 2 or 3 more days.

Please click on the “Contact” link at the top of the page to find our email address and text number.

A Conversation with Deaf Youth


At the Idaho Association of the Deaf Conference that Cliff and I attended a few weeks ago I had a chance to talk with Deaf youth about interpreters and interpreting services. Part of our conversation was focused on them identifying characteristics of both ideal and problematic interpreters. I thought their insight was valuable, interesting, and worth sharing:

The Ideal Interpreter:

  • Remains very engaged in the process with the Deaf person
  • Works with the student to develop appropriate signs for the class
  • Willing to be a friend
  • Signs clearly
  • Is willing to adjust and accommodate requests and needs
  • Shares knowledge of other sign languages
  • Has good ASL skills
  • Asks the teacher questions if the information is not understood to ensure an effective interpretation
  • Is friendly

The Problematic Interpreter:

  • Does not maintain eye contact while interpreting
  • Stops interpreting abruptly without a clear reason
  • Shows up late resulting in the Deaf student being unable to understand what’s going on and participate
  • Signs too fast so that the information is incomprehensible
  • Does not acknowledge my efforts to communicate my needs
  • Does not know the subject matter
  • Gets distracted by other stuff while interpreting
  • “Too SEE”
  • Does not receive feedback well
  • Defends self when getting feedback, “Well I learned that way!”
  • Knowing ASL is not enough- need to be able to interpret

There are some key themes that emerged in their descriptions of ideal and problematic interpreters. Good interpreters, according to the Deaf youth of Idaho, are the ones who have linguistic fluency in ASL as well as interpreting competency. They are constantly engaged in the interpreting process and interaction with the Deaf students to ensure needs are met. Positive rapport is a key value for those Deaf youth. Extralinguistic knowledge is essential. One student commented on the importance of having an interpreter who knows and understands Chemistry.

The Deaf youth in the discussion vary in how much they use interpreting services. Some attend the school for the Deaf without needing interpreting services. Some are mainstreamed full-time. However, they all agreed on what makes an interpreter ideal. Their insights are in line with things I have heard from Deaf adults over the years. What can you do, as an interpreter, to incorporate the wisdom of those Deaf youth in your practice?

Feel free to comment below.

A Conversation with Deaf Consumers


Cliff and I just attended the Idaho Association of the Deaf conference in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. The conference focus this year was on interpreting. I presented to several different stakeholder groups about interpreting. In my interactions with Deaf people over the years, I have heard the same story about how they did not know they had a voice pertaining to their own interpreting services. In my workshop with Deaf consumers at this conference, my goal was to remind them that they do, indeed, have a voice.

The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) was originally established for maintaining a registry of American Sign Language-English interpreters. RID’s purpose has evolved to include testing, certification, and ongoing training of interpreters (Fant, 1990). Professionalization of sign language interpreting within the United States began with the founding of RID. Typically, the process of developing a profession becomes dominated by those within the majority group, disregarding insights from the population they intend to serve, namely the Deaf community, and this practice further promotes political and cultural tensions between the Deaf and interpreting communities (Kent, 2007). One result of the professionalization of sign language interpreting in the United States was the exclusion of Deaf perspectives in the testing and training of interpreters (Cokely, 2005) as well as in interpreter education programs (Cokely, 2005; Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005; Forestal, 2013; Shaw, 2013). It is important to note, however, that this is not only happening nationally. The Deaf voice is minimized in other countries as well (Leeson & Foley-Cave, 2007). While some Deaf people continue to fight for participation in the profession (Kent, 2007), many Deaf people have accepted the status quo.

When interpreters do not receive feedback from Deaf consumers about their services, they may make the erroneous assumption that Deaf consumers are satisfied with services received. It is very common for Deaf people to discuss amongst themselves their own assessments of interpreters’ hard and soft skills, as well as their level of involvement in the Deaf community (Bienvenu, 1987; Corker, 1987; Napier & Rohan, 2007).

In my conversation with the Deaf consumers at the Idaho Association of the Deaf conference, many of them did not realize they could offer feedback directly to the interpreters and/or communicate their feedback to organizations scheduling interpreters. In addition, many were unaware of the RID’s Ethical Practices System (EPS) that allows them to file grievances against RID members for any violation of the Code of Professional Conduct. Regardless, the RID EPS does not have the teeth to push for appropriate consequences. The establishment of the interpreter license law makes the quality of interpreting services legally binding, which could mean a future that will entail stricter consequences (Andrew & Snow, 2017).

I emphasized to those present that if they want interpreting standards to improve, they have to speak up; otherwise interpreters will continue doing what they have been doing. I also believe that interpreters need to begin asking Deaf consumers for feedback and checking for their preferences. If interpreters are proactive in this manner, it will help the Deaf community understand that they do have a voice in the provision of interpreting services.

References

Andrew, L. & Snow, S. (2017, August). HB46 Interpreter Law: What is it. Presentation at the

Idaho Association of the Deaf Conference, Post Falls, ID.

Bienvenu, M.J. (1987). Third culture: Working together. Journal of Interpretation 4, 1-12.

Corker, M. (1987) Deaf people and interpreting: The struggle in language. Deaf Worlds

13(3),13-20.

Cokely, D. (2005). Shifting positionality: A critical examination of the turning point in

the relationship of interpreters and the Deaf community In. M. Marschark, R. Peterson & E.A. Winston (Eds.). Sign language interpreting and interpreter education: Directions for research and practice (p. 3-28). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Fant, L. (1990). Silver threads: A personal look at the first twenty-five years of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications.

Forestal, E. (2013). Foreword. In S. Shaw Service learning in interpreter education: Strategies for extending student involvement in the Deaf community (p. ix-x). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Kent, S. J. (2007). “Why bother?” Institutionalization, interpreter decisions, and power relations. In C. Wadensjö, B. E. Dimitrova, & A. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings (p. 193-204). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Leeson, L. & Foley-Cave, S. (2007). Deep and meaningful conversation: Challenging interpreter impartiality in the semantics and pragmatics Classroom. In M. Metzger & E. Fleetwood (Eds.) Translation, Sociolinguistic, and Consumer Issues in Interpreting, (p. 45-68). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Napier, J. & Rohan, M.J. (2007) An invitation to dance: Deaf consumers’ perceptions of signed language interpreters and interpreting. In M. Metzger & E. Fleetwood (Eds.) Translation, Sociolinguistic, and Consumer Issues in Interpreting, (p. 159-203). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Shaw, S. (2013). Service learning in interpreter education: Strategies for extending student involvement in the Deaf community. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Witter-Merithew, A. & Johnson, L.J. (2005). Toward competent practice: Conversations with stakeholders. Alexandria, VA: RID Press.

 

1 2 3 6