- Slides: 1
A Comparison of Interpre)ng Teams: Are There Universals Across Team Make. Nup and Se. Ongs for Teams? By: Page Green ABSTRACT THE PROCESS This research will explore how teams support each other through feeds and more precisely why a feed is given. The focus will be on three types of teams: a hearing team, a Deaf team, and a hearing/Deaf team. The research will try to show if feeds are universal across teams despite differences in settings and team make -ups. There were five video sources used in this research: two video sources of the hearing team, two video sources of the hearing/Deaf team, and only one video source of the Deaf team. There also three different registers: formal for the hearing team, consultative for the hearing/Deaf team, and informal for the Deaf team. From these video sources, eight categories of feeds were noted: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, LIST OF ITEMS, NAMES AND DATES, GOT BEHIND, CORRECTIONS, TONE AND AFFECT, DROPPED INFO, and BACKCHANNELLING. Out of these eight categories, only feeds in one category appeared in all three interpreting teams, and that was LIST OF ITEMS. A combination of two teams also shared another category of feeds: the hearing team and the hearing/Deaf team shared REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, and the hearing team and the Deaf team shared the category of NAMES AND DATES. DISCUSSION All three groups had similar feeds in ONLY one category: – LIST OF ITEMS Why ALL three teams needed support feeds in the category of LIST OF ITEMS: - Speed of source language (Spoken or Print/Caption) - Accent of Speaker/Presenter (Simultaneous) - Consecutive Interpreting SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION – HI/HI and the HI/DI Teams HI/HI – Clarification only occurs from stage interpreter to support team. CONCLUSION ONLY Category that appeared in ALL THREE TEAMS was: • LIST OF ITEMS Categories that appeared in two of the teams: • CLARIFICATION • NAMES AND DATES. Categories that ONLY appeared in the HI/HI TEAM: • GOT BEHIND • CORRECTIONS Categories that ONLY appeared in the HI/DI TEAM: • TONE AND AFFECT • DROPPED INFO Category that ONLY appeared in the DI/DI TEAM: • BACKCHANNELLING RESULTS REFERENCES Hoza, J. (2010). Team interpreting as collaboration and interdependence. Alexandria, VA: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. Gile, D. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995. Janzen, T. (2005). Topics in signed language interpreting: Theory and practice/ edited by Terry Janzen. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia, Pa. : Benjamins. Egnatovitch, R. (1999). Certified Deaf Interpreter - Why? Views, 16(10), 1, 6 -7. HI/DI – Clarification can occur from anyone. Bentley-Sassaman, J. , & Dawson, C. (2012). Deaf-hearing interpreter teams: A teamwork approach. Journal of Interpretation, 22(1, Article 2), 1 -33. NAMES AND DATES – HI/HI and the DI/DI Teams HI/HI Team – Only asks for above information when needed. Russell, D. (2011). Team Interpreting: Best Practices. 1 -5. DI/DI Team – Continuous feeding/ Form of Backchannelling LIMITATIONS • Limited sample size for each team • Lack of variations in settings • Lack of access to interpreters for interview purposes • Lack of control over video recording and quality RECOMMENDATIONS • More in-depth study of teams in different situations (across registers) and in various settings (government, church, legal, community, etc. ) • Expanding study with more video samples • Possibly looking into the feeds exchanged between consumers and interpreters as well. RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2012 w ww. Poster. Presentations. com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I’d like to thank Hilary Mayhew for letting me borrow her DVDs from the GURIEC library. I really appreciate Keith Cagle and Phyllis Rogers giving me countless hours of feedback on my paper and Power. Point. I want to thank my family who has put up with having a busy and “not very available” mom for the past three years, and a husband who constantly supports me in every way possible, without whom none of this would even be possible.