7 Philosophical Frames of Interpreters

By Janice Humphrey and Bob Alcorn

HISTORICAL PHILOSOPHIES OF INTERPRETING

The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) was established In 1964 as the first professional association of sign language Interpreters In the world. Prior to its establishment and in the early days of RID’s existence, the common approach to delivery of service for interpreters was the philosophical frame. Deaf people were generally viewed as handicapped, limited, and unable to fully manage their personal and business affairs. Thus, it fell to the interpreter to be a caretaker to some extent.

The philosophical frames include (chronologically listed):

• Helper
• Conduit (or machine)
• Facilitator
• Bilingual-bicultural
• Ally, Deaf-centered
• Accomplice

Helper Philosophy

The benefactor often takes on a proprietary and caretaker attitude toward members of the oppressed group (Freire, 1973, 1970 and Freire & Vasconcillos, 1989). There is an intense need on the part of the power group for everything to work out well, yet there is a corresponding lack of trust in the abilities of the minority group to do well on their own. It becomes necessary, then, for the family member who can hear or for the professional who is not Deaf to take charge and to be In control making decisions for the Deaf person, assuming he or she Is unable to do or to learn certain things.

Parents or childcare counselors may assume that Deaf children and youth are unable to develop an internal locus of control. Therefore, they do everything for them: wake them up every morning, set their schedules for them, dole out their money, permit or forbid one student to interact socially with other specific students, and so on, as they deem appropriate. All of these behaviours foster unhealthy dependence in the child and damage his or her self esteem.

The Helper Philosophy in Action

A prime example of this model can be told through the eyes of two fictional people whose experience resonates with the truth of the model. George is a Deaf man who has a doctor’s appointment. His friend’s daughter, Sarah, is his interpreter and his ride to the doctors. When the two arrive at the doctors Sarah asks him what’s been going on. Slightly embarrassed, George say she’s been having a lot of pain with his bowel movements and he’s concerned the blood in his stools could be cancer.

When the nurse calls him In, the doctor asks him how he is. As George begins to sign, Sarah steps in and takes over, answering the question for him and continuing to explain George’s problem, George watches as the two converse, unsure about what is being shared. When the doctor asks questions that Sarah does not have answers to, she summarizes her discussion with the doctor to George then asks him the question before continuing her discussion with the doctor.

While George is changing into an examining gown, the doctor turns to Sarah and asks how sign language. The two continue to chat while the doctor examines George. The doctor asks George the name of any medication he is taking and Sarah interrupts before informing the doctor that George’s medications are in his briefcase in the waiting room. She pats George’s hand and tell shim she will get the briefcase for him. After the appointment ends and the two are heading home, Sarah mentions how her parents’ the same issue that George Is experiencing. She asks George if his wife knows about the pain and mentions that if It is cancer there are things he needs to figure out. George doesn’t quite understand what she means, but Sarah continues speaking. Sarah says he should check his life insurance benefits and adds she will call and make those appointments for him. She also points out that if he dies in an accident his insurance will pay twice as much than death by cancer. She adds that there is a new stomach cancer drug that can be purchased on the black market and if he’s interested, she can hook him up with a guy who brings it from Mexico .

The illustration above shows an interpreter following the helper philosophy, which is overly involved in the personal lives of Deaf people and patriarchal. The interpreter may move out of their role of Interpreting to advise, direct, teach, or cajole Deaf and hearing clients. The idea behind the interpreter’s actions are founded in the belief that Deaf people are incapable of understanding or participating in the world around them, due to their limited experiential base or intolerance of. Thus, this Influences the transition for the interpreter to become an interloper. This mode represents the early days of interpreting when interpreters were volunteers with no formal training and whose primary roles were parent, child, teacher, VR counselor, or clergy .

The RID Code of Ethics was developed partially in response to the presence of helper mode interpreters in the field. The RID founders felt the behaviours described above resulted in inappropriate boundaries that imbalanced the power between Deaf and hearing people (which gave people who can hear power). Deaf professionals would no longer tolerate the paternalistic caretaking attitudes exhibited by the interpreters they encountered. Through this, eight principles emerged known as the Code of Ethics, which were intended to guide the decisions made by interpreters in the field .

Conduit (Machine) Philosophy

The beginning model {helper) began with extreme over involvement and was viewed as inappropriate and oppressive. To combat this over Involved model, the machine model was introduced<. The dynamics between machine and helper were on opposite ends of the spectrum, The machine (conduit) philosophy became accepted as the most appropriate model for interpreters. This machine mindset interpreted the Code of Ethics as a rigid set of rules. The philosophical frame inverters followed the rules; denying that their presence had an influence on the dynamics and often unaware of the inequality resulting from the history of oppression experienced by Deaf people .

When looking at the work of an interpreter functioning from this philosophical frame, you would see a verbatim transmission of words/signs. Interpreters focused on volume, being sure to sign every word spoken and to speak every sign produced. Unfortunately, consumers often saw a torrent of signs or heard a great number of words – from which it was often difficult to derive meaning. Interpreters took on an almost robot-like role in the communication process, assuming no responsibility for the interaction or communication dynamics taking place between clients.

It was also during this time that interpreters began to describe themselves as equivalent to a telephone wire – simply relaying information from one receiver to another. The following scenario captures an Interpreter working from a machine philosophical frame.

The Conduit (Machine) Philosophy in Action

George, a Deaf man, has a doctor’s appointment. He arranged an interpreter through a referral agency. When he arrives at the hospital, the Interpreter is waiting for him. George identifies himself as the Deaf client and asks for the interpreter’s name. The two sit to chat while waiting for George to be called back, George asks the interpreter, Steve, how he got involved with interpreting before asking if he has Deaf parents. Steve looks up from his magazine and shakes his head, trying to avoid any unnecessary personal Interaction with his client before reading again. George is confused about Steve’s actions and considers the possibility that Steve is shy. However, George knows how important it is that the two can properly understand one another and a nervous interpreter may not understand him.

George decides to inform Steve about what’s been going on and tells him he’s been having pain with his bowel movements and has had blood in his stools. He tells Steve he’s afraid he might have colon cancer, like his friend. Steve puts his magazine down and tells him that they cannot discuss George’s medical condition in the waiting room and that Steve is not a retainer of information. Steve adds that George should think of him as a telephone wire that passes information without emotions, feelings, or personal involvement.

After he finishes, Steve picks his magazine up. George feels unsettled by Steve’s words and is worried whether or not he can understand Steve or trust him to accurately convey the message. Other concerns prompt George to question If Steve understands the Deaf community, and if he understands George as a Deaf man. Soon after, the nurse calls George into the doctor’s office. Steve conveys everything that is said into sign language and everything that is signed into spoken English. After the initial questions are over, the doctor moves George into an examining room. While George is changing, the doctor turns to Steve and asks him how he learned sign language. Steve responds by saying he isn’t allowed to engage in personal dialogue while working. In turn, the doctor feels embarrassed by Steve’s response.

When George returns, the examination begins. At one point, the doctor mumbles something to the nurse and Steve asks the doctor to repeat what was said. The doctor mentions it wasn’t important, just a comment to the nurse. Steve vocalizes his disagreement by demanding to know what was said because he must convey everything to George.

Later in the examination, the doctor asks Steve to hand him a bottle of medication that George has in his pants pocket Steve refuses and tells the doctor it isn’t his role.

The two models are a on the opposite ends of a pendulum swing. The “Inappropriate” behaviour was modified, and many interpreters became insensitive to the human dynamics within the interpreting setting. They became rigid and Inflexible. They also began to refer to themselves as “professionals” and perhaps they thought this because they displayed “Involved but separate” attitudes which were demonstrated by some hearing professionals. However, in many ways, interpreters became clock punching, insensitive appendages within Deaf and hearing interactions. In a human service profession, people must recognize their presence impacts situations .

Facilitator Philosophy

In the early to mid-1970s, interpreters became aware of the field of communications and another shift was made in the philosophical frame, which migrated away from the machine philosophy and toward the communication facilitation philosophy. Within this philosophy, the base of ethical decision making was not significantly impacted. However, interpreters became more aware of the need for appropriate placement, lighting, background, etc. They began to Indicate who was speaking since the realization had now dawned that this was an important component in the communication dynamics.

Interpreters became more aware of the need for proper physical placement within proximity of the speaker so Deaf clients could see both the speaker and the interpreter In one visual Intake. It was during this period that interpreters adopted solid coloured smocks to contrast with the tone of their skin as “uniforms”. Finally1 the interpreter’s personal appearance was analyzed in light of the characteristics that would undergird professional status of the practitioner. They began to exclude those features that could hamper communication. It was expected that interpreters would not have beards, mustaches, fingernail polish, patterned clothing, and most jewelry.

For example, utilizing the doctor scenario above, the interpreter would likely put on a smock before entering the doctor’s office and would remove the smock before doing any non-interpreting activities, like using the restroom. The interpreter would place himself or herself behind the doctor’s desk alongside the doctor to facilitate eye contact between the doctor and her patient, whether or not this was an uncomfortable Invasion of the doctor’s personal and professional space. While in the examination room, the interpreter might go to great efforts to be sure he or she was “appropriately” placed and to direct an adequate amount of lighting on the area where interpreted communication was taking place.

It is the opinions of the authors that when observing the work of an interpreter functioning from a communication facilitator philosophical frame, the output looked much like that of a machine model interpretation – rigid. The focus continued to be on volume (quantity) of signs and words. While interpreters were sensitive to communication dynamics in a physical sense, they were still making ethical and communication decisions that resulted In a lack of equality in terms of access and participation for Deaf consumers.

Bilingual Bicultural

In recent times, interpreters work primarily from a bilingual bicultural philosophical frame when /approaching their Jobs. This is a direct result of the recognition of American Sign Language (ASL) as a language and the accompanying research validation of Deaf culture. The bilingual bicultural philosophy of interpreting has emerged in an effort to achieve a midpoint between the two extremes of interpreter behaviour: overinvolved (helper) and invisible (machine).

In the bilingual bicultural philosophy, the interpreters are sensitive to physical communication dynamics, indicate who is speaking, place themselves appropriately, etc. They are also keenly aware of the inherent differences in the language, cultures, norms for social interaction and schema of the parties using interpreting services .

Interpreters utilizing this philosophy are often more mindful of people involved in interpreting situations. This method is aware of goals outside the interpreters themselves. For example, interpreters practicing the bilingual bicultural philosophy is aware that a speaker has individual goals and uses words to accomplish his or her goals. However, interpreters know that these goals are accomplished differently in each language and culture and he or she identifies this goal to help analyze the text and select appropriate target language elements .

Bilingual bicultural philosophy is vastly different from the prior philosophies introduced during the earlier years. This philosophy is far more aware of the needs of participants (Deaf and hearing alike) .The bilingual bicultural philosophy has learned from previous models and explored new ideas of supporting without over imposing. The emphasis on culture and linguistic mediation has aided this approach to gain an understanding of both cultures to equivalently convey accurate messages across the different cultures and languages .

Ally Philosophy

The Ally philosophy is the current philosophy utilized by the majority of sign language interpreters. It grows out of the bilingual bicultural philosophy. An Ally can be defined as “one who supports the goals of the community and accepts leadership … from the oppressed group” (Baker-Shenk, p. 9) .

Interpreters practicing this philosophy recognize that Deaf people retain experiential knowledge beyond their scope and that Deaf people are capable of making their own decisions (Baker-Shenk).

This philosophy balances the power dynamics between hearing and Deaf and across the interpreting philosophies .This philosophy encompasses more than “facilitating communication”. The role does not encroach on “helper” by being overinvested in lives nor does it cater to machine, pretending one is invisible .Instead, this model follows a healthy line between the two which allows the Interpreter to be a human that impacts a setting. For example, an interpreter named Carol ls working at an elementary school where she Interprets for a Deaf girl. One of the Deaf girl’s friends runs up to Carol and presents her untied shoe. The girl asks Carol to tie it because she hasn’t learned how. If Carol were to follow the machine philosophy, she would Ignore the girl or tell her to find a teacher. However, Carol ls an ally and participates in the world of both Deaf and hearing, thus she ties the girl’s shoe.

Accomplice Philosophy

The Accomplice philosophy encourages interpreters to not simply “support” the Deaf community, but to stand with them and fight for them; when Injustice happens, the expectation is that the Interpreters will stand with the Deaf community and support, whether by interpreting or by utilizing their platform to invoke justice (Webb, 2017). It is imperative that people who can hear use their “hearing” privilege to create an equal space for the Deaf to voice their concerns (Webb, 2017).

People in the social Justice sphere have begun to adopt this philosophy by working with the Deaf community in an attempt toward equity (Webb, 2017). Jonathan Webb, the founder of this philosophy, is reframing the word “accomplice” to become a positive support system between people who can hear and people who are Deaf as they march toward equity for all (Webb, 2017).

Credit

This section is copied from Pages 218-221 in Humphrey, J. H. & Alcorn, B.J. (2007). So you want to be an interpreter?: an introduction to sign language interpreting (4th ed.). H & H Publishing.