deaf interpreter The Interpreter ... An extension of the Deaf?

The Interpreter ... An extension of the Deaf?

Section: Articles, interpretation.

How do we define the interpreters? As "helpers"? "Facilitators"? "Mediators"? It is an offense for my fellow interpreters to ask these questions at this point, but let us pause for a moment in one of the most common meanings: We are mediators ... we serve as media, and in strict terms we could say that in the exercise of our work, we are a means . Of course, everything depends on the meaning we attribute to the middle term. The meaning we use will be closely related to the concept or image we have of ourselves. Surely when we mention that word to someone, the image of a translator machine could come to mind: a medium, a communication tool like the image [1] above. Another may think of "medium" more as the activity or role that any human being can exercise: mediation ... activity that necessarily has nothing to do with objects but with people.

I think that the discussion about the task, the role, the function, and the socio-cultural nature of the interpretation in sign language, can not be reduced to linguistic matters, to moral discourses or to technical disquisitions. Of course, these issues are inherent to the profession in question, however, the dynamics of contemporary societies require reflections from broader points of view that address the questions from interculturality. I do not think that everything has already been said about it. What I intend is to enrich the discussion by broadening the notion of the interpreter as "medium" from another perspective through this reflection.

In mid-2005, a training course for sign language interpreters from Colombia was organized by FENASCOL (National Federation of the Deaf of Colombia) where Adele Routliff (Canada) was invited as an instructor. The interpreter made a very interesting exhibition based on a section of So you want to be an interpreter? (Humprey & Alcorn, 2001) on the development of the interpretation in sign language, explaining the conceptions that have been presented in North America through time, something like the "evolution of the Canadian interpreter". On that occasion Adele mentioned that the interpreters had gone through a kind of what I would master "Eras":

He was a "Helper" Interpreter

He was an interpreter "Machine to translate"

He was a "bilingual-bicultural" interpreter

I remembered this experience, because in these days I had the opportunity to read a biographical and introductory work of a deceased media thinker: This is Marshal McLhuan. The idea that this author presents in his books is that the media [2] are extensions of the individual's body.

If we say that the interpreter is a medium (remember "mediators") From the media perspective of McLuhan we could ask ourselves the following questions:
1) Is the interpreter to an extent an extension of the Deaf in the exercise of his duties? Y

2) The perspective of means Does the notion of "Helper Interpreter", "Interpreter Machine" or "Bilingual-bicultural Interpreter" reinforce?

Of course, everything depends on what "medium" means, and what for us is a help interpreter, a machine or a bilingual-bicultural interpreter. To begin, let's talk a little about who Marshal MacLuhan was and what his theory was about the media in a rough way, closely following the book McLuhan for Beginners (Gordon & Willmarth, 2001)

Marshall McLuhan (1911 - 1980) was born in Edmonton (Canada) and received a bachelor's degree in arts (letters) in 1933 and a master's degree in arts in 1934 at the University of Manitoba. In 1936 he graduated in English literature from the University of Cambrige, England. The teachings he received during his years at Cambrige form the basis of his later studies on the media. (ibid.)

The thought of McLuhan that is framed in what is known as "technological determinism" begins with two premises:
1) "We are what we see"

2) "We make our tools, and then you are transforming us"
In addition, to these affirmations we could add the emblematic principle that synthesized his theory of communication:

3) "The medium is the message"
Of course, to fully cover his point of view we would delay a good number of pages, because to begin with -according to him- he had no point of view. His theory was the following: Not having theory. It was in opposition to the linearity of thought that came about as a result of writing, to understand it better, McLuhan thought that to get closer to his writings we should do it like someone who is entering a bath tub: No matter which way he does it, the same is true. going to submerge (ibid.) Of course nobody believed that and received harsh criticism for his position and his assertions, some of the most acidic on the part of his academic contemporaries who considered it little or not at all rigorous. But what is "medium" for McLuhan then? It is not simply a television or a cell phone. It is more than that, it is a device that has the power to modify the course and functioning of human relations and activities. The means transform those who use them, whether for good or for bad. And what is the "message"? for McLuhan, the message is not the content, but the transformation produced by a particular medium.
An unusual point of view, right? If your way of defining (or rather, re-defining) "medium" and "message" seems implausible, see the following examples when analyzing media as extensions of the body:
The city? ... A collective extension of our skin
Weapons? ... Extension of the hands nails and teeth
Clothes? ... an individual extension of the skin
Home? ... An extension of the body's temperature control mechanisms.
The bike? ... An extension of the human foot
Shoes? ... An extension of the keys of the feet
Computer? ... An extension of the central nervous system.

And so on.

So far, when we talk about media, we talk about things. And the sign language interpreter? I do not know of any of McLuhan's writings on the subject, even where he suggested people as media, although it is curious that a chapter of his work Understanding Media Communication is entitled "media as translators". Of course, wanting to make the connection between McLuhan's conception of medium and an interpreter, is daring, because that author never (I think) consider the possibility of a "living" medium with its own subjectivity, that is, he could not have imagined a hammer with conscience or a computer equipped with artificial intelligence ... but is not it true that the idea of ​​an interpreter-medium as an extension of the body of the deaf sounds interesting at least to consider it? Especially because of the myriad of implications and debates that could be generated in this regard.

To delve a little deeper into the McLuhanian thought in relation to the social nature of interpretation, it would be good to present another aspect of his theory: the Mediatic Tetrads which he proposed in his Laws of media: the New Science (1988)

A medium…
Extends Obsolete Revert Retrieves

For example, a car is a means that ...
Extend.

the human foot and the back
Does obsolete:

The carriage and the tricycle
Revert:

Immobility in a traffic jam
Recover

Canoe, the Horse

Wine is a means that ...
Extend.

a grape juice by fermentation
Does obsolete:

the common flavors
Revert:

in vinegar
Recover

a ritual observance

The Internet is a medium that ...
Extend.

access to information and communication
Does obsolete:

The postman, pornographic magazines, telephones
Revert:

In Individualism [3]
Recover

The act speaks unlike writing

And the Interpreter? It could be a means that ...
Extend.

Sign language

Does obsolete:

Oralism (cochlear implant, verbotonal, lip-facial reading, hearing aid, etc.)
Revert:

the dependency (Deaf-Interpreter) and (Interpreter -Sordo)
Recover

The Deaf as a member of a linguistically minority people, who needs mediation

So far I could have been wrong in several things (even if they have a better interpretation I would appreciate it if they let me know) As I explained at the beginning, I would like to highlight the connotations that we can suggest from the first of the mediatic mdluhanian tetrads:

"The interpreter is an extension of the Sign Language of the Deaf"

For example,

The interpreter is a part of the deaf

The interpreter and the deaf are one

The deaf is a part of the interpreter,

Or what do you think,

The interpreter is a machine that the deaf uses to communicate at $ 250 (USD $ 0.12) a minute ... (In my country, one hour of interpretation service in sign language is paid between USD $ 2.50 and USD $ 10)

So to have a little fun (hey, do not take it too seriously) I will approach this fascinating subject: The interpreter as an extension of the body of the deaf from a media focus.

That being the case, we have two options:
1) We can consider McLuhan's point of view absurd, and our respective interpretation for x reasons. Point. That would be the end of everything.

2) Or, we could consider this interpretation of the theory of communication from two perspectives, which I dare to describe as:

    a) Taylorist Perspective
    b) Emancipatory perspective

Taylorist Perspective

In other words, the "Interpreter Machine" (technician, executor, employee, contractor, worker, volley-hand, taximeter, object, pet, bullfighter, ragpicker ... in short, with the nuances that try to call it or disguise it). I chose the term "Taylorist" because I thought it appropriate to link the concept of "Machine Interpreter" with that current typical of modernity.

Frederick Taylor (1856 -1915) was an Engineer, mechanist and economist who did studies on the efficiency and production models of American workers in their companies, for Taylor the workers were practically not people but parts of a great machine that was the Industry, for which, in order for this great machine to work optimally, it had to have all its "parts-employees" synchronized and make the most of the resources to obtain the maximum efficiency and effectiveness, for that reason it did analysis of things like time ( timed) that delayed every movement of the employee when executing his work, the number of repetitive steps that were needed to build a certain object in a sequence of employees, the unnecessary movements that wasted energy etc. It illustrates perfectly the thought of this time, the film of Charles Chaplin titled Modern Times.

Basically, the interpreter as a means or extension of the deaf from this approach has negative connotations for the exercise of our work as people. Would be constituted in what I think of calling "the dehumanization of the interpreter" ... the interpreters do not have to have emotions, or feelings, or opinions


they must neutralize their accent and their own characteristics so as not to affect the interpretation, the interpreters can not and do not have to feel anything when they perform their work, indeed, as the interpreter has taught us is and must be invisible, a thought that led to extreme degrees it is another way of trying to deny or disappear your own subjectivity (which is impossible) [4].

Such a reduction survives and translates into the mentality of some deaf people, listeners and entities that feel that the interpreters belong to them during the hours they are hired, that they are their objects of possession, that these characters come to be understood (or desired ?) as a device to which information is introduced and transformed into something else, therefore they must be predictable and precise as a mathematical function: f (x) = and where "f" is the Interpreter "x" a term of the source language and "and" one of the target language. They have thought of and imagined the interpreters as little more than a tool for communication, a sophisticated kind of telephones or simply as McLuhan would say ... an extension of their bodies.

The matter can be tried to explain from the laws that govern the media, the "media tetrads" of McLuhan that I presented a few paragraphs above. From this approach, a medium can "revert" its original function. For example, a table is an extension of the ability to select and order food when we are going to consume it, but if a table is unusually long, it would stop fulfilling its main objective and become instead of a facilitating element, in a nuisance. to eat Let's think how a simple operation would become like passing the salt, in a whole odyssey. That's where we clearly see how -do well-the media transform its users. In this case, among the things that could happen would be the destruction of the habit of eating at the table.

But hey, so as not to deviate from the subject, we could ask: Why do the media revert? It happens when a medium or technology is pushed to the limit or is over-extended. It is clear how the table is over-extending. Now, it would be interesting to try to approach the problematic of the interpreter-machine by focusing it as a means that can revert its function by its over-extension.

Why can sign language interpreters be considered as translation machines? The question is thorny, because there are many variables to analyze that range from the personal characteristics of the same interpreters, the deaf and hearing people that have their roots in the social, temporal and cultural contexts of our region to the political and economic models in the which we develop our activity ... the problem is great. I would commit great imprudence if I did not mention that not only sign language interpreters but everything employed within the framework of modernity is considered virtually a "machine" or "piece" in the exercise of its functions, it is an idea that has already worked sociologists and philosophers such as Nikolas Rose, Guilles Deleuze and Karl Marx among others. I am content, then, to focus without ignoring the above in the Deaf - Interpreter relationship.

Think of the following, if we say that the interpreter is an extension of the Sign Language of the Deaf. Then, being an extension of this nature, the interpreter becomes a generating device of certain independence. Why independence? Well, we all know that inherently to our service as Umberto Eco says in Saying almost the same (2008: 31) "there are deontological factors that nobody can discuss, not even a deconstructivist theory of translation". In this way, the Deaf person knows, reasonably, that he is in control of the situation. You can shut up, you can choose to respond, to insult, to lie etc. and he knows that he can do all this because he does not have to give an account to another present that functions as a conscience (in this case the interpreter) and also has the guarantee that the interpreter will say everything as its function is (remember, f (x) = y)

At the moment of communicative interaction, we can deduce that the interpreter is not someone who should be there to judge him, it is a means, at that moment it is an extension of him ... a prosthesis, an organ, a limb that is under his control. So far so good, although it might sound somewhat shrill to some colleagues what I am writing, but I think I have said nothing out of the ordinary, we all know and in a way we accept it, the difference may lie in that we call the processes with other euphemisms.


The interesting point would be when does the interpreter's function begin to be reversed? we had said that the reversion of a medium happens when that medium is pushed to the limit or over-extended. Then the specific question would be: At what point is the limit pushed or the interpreter-media over-extended?

I must admit that from here, we must begin to take precaution of the Mcluhanian Theory, or in other words, we have reached its fuzzy frontiers, which forces us to leave relatively the media conceptual scheme that sheltered us to risk a triple somersault towards the void of personal interpretations. In addition, I also admit that the McLuhanian thought is dense, although not extensive but rather dense [5]. What I have researched has not been enough to fill me with arguments and strengthen my thesis ... also, this reflection does not claim that (for now).

From now on more than answers I have many questions and I will try to address them from what I have built in my experience and partially with what I have said so far ...

I expose it concretely:

The interpreter reverses its function, precisely by being treated as an object, from a Taylorist perspective as an extension of the Deaf ... a perspective of its over-extension as a medium.

What happens is that although their functions coincide with those of Babel Fish, a translator machine or a mathematical function, the interpreter is not an object, it is not a machine. It is a human being in all its dimension. That's simple, but it has many implications.

Then we would stay like this: The Deaf and the hearing person have a professional who "lends media" to facilitate communication, therefore the job of this professional is to make available both the Deaf person and the listener; disposition that leads him to have to comply with certain deontological parameters and self-regulation of his own subjectivity in order to negotiate the meanings and transmit as faithfully as possible the message of a text in a source language to a text in a language of origin, trying to the maximum not to bias the meaning of its product of interpretation. And this, generates certain "independence" of the interlocutors in the communicative interaction.

The problem lies - focusing only on one arm of mediation - when the Deaf person experiencing the power and control over another human being (which in these cases speaking in anthropological terms belongs to the oppressive majority) loses balance in the management of his social relationship and he comes to feel that the Interpreter - at least at that moment - is not a person, but a part of himself. I think that at this moment the Interpreter is reverted as a means, because instead of independence, it generates dependency.

At this time, as I said I am being bold when making these statements, but I do not want to be understood dogmatically, the dependency could be presented subtly in several ways, some more obvious than others (I mention them, because at some point in my career as interpreter, I have had to live them) I will expose the three most common.

1) The hearing or Deaf person needs an interpreter, even to say "yes" and "no": I am exaggerating, but in some occasions it gives the impression that the interlocutor feels that he can not look for other strategies to make himself understood in order to communicate with the others.

2) The hearing or Deaf person, or the contracting entity, resents that the Interpreter rests. It is not a question of labor and contractual functions where there are obligations. Quite simply, your work force throws losses if it is not optimized. (He is paid not to remain seated)

3) The person Deaf or hearer can not accept that the interpreters are wrong: It is very different if "you are always wrong" perhaps because you lack competence, expertise or training. But I have noticed that some think that the interpreters are perfect or that we respond automatically to the commands, being that the interpretation is a human product, and therefore subject to errors ... for something the pencils bring draft.


When I asked my wife (who is Deaf) why, in some sense or in some way, were the deaf people of the interpreters, I was speechless when she said:

-We are as dependent on interpreters as you are on your glasses or as a disabled person with your crutch or wheelchair-

Which left me thoughtful ... my wife so I know her does not treat others as objects, (or at least she does not treat me like an object when I interpret her) even though like a large number of Deaf people, she also uses the sign "PRESTEME" to request an interpretation service (Glossed: PLEASE / PAY-ME / INTERPRETE / PLEASE).

Then, arrived at this point ... I do not know what to think, many questions arise.

Why does this phenomenon happen? Why are interpreters treated like machines? Could it be that it is only a reflection of the capitalist neoliberalism that survives on the machineries and the establishments of power in society? ... or in a few words, what happens to the interpreters, is what happens to a large number of employees because of the system, which is increasingly interested in the dehumanization of humanity? Could it be that the interpreters are becoming too sensitive? Or is it that our sensibility is so callous that it has become customary to work with the insensibility of the machines? Can there be something good in being considered an extension of the deaf?

I think so. In the good sense of the expression, of course.

To the point that this link Sordo-interpreter could constitute itself in a fundamental step for an innovative enmancipatory proposal ... which is nothing else than the search for a certain freedom or a certain professional and academic Independence on the part of the Interpreter ... freedom of the interpreter? Independence of the interpreter? they are things that could -give redundancy- misinterpret, moreover, that could sound sacrilegious and heretical.

Emancipatory perspective

This conclusion will be short on approaches. Unfortunately, we have much to say to complain and little to propose. I use the term "emancipate" because of the clear social and political connotations that it entails. It is true that we are used to hearing about the emancipation of women, of peoples, of slaves, etc. But the emancipation of the interpreter? I will speak in symbolic terms, of course.

Will the interpreters be subjugated by the entities that hire them? Or by some Deaf people who consider them an extension of their bodies? Or by some listeners who also think that they are translation machines? Or will it be the system? Or is it that the interpreters are slaves of themselves? Slaves of their own unsustainable lifestyles? Or a profession that does not provide enough to live with dignity and throws them to work many more hours a day? Will they be slaves to a profession that will squeeze them until they are thrown away when they are no longer useful? Or is it that the interpreters are very lazy and do not realize that all the jobs demand effort, and that in Colombia the 'best job' is the interpretation in sign language? ...

The only thing that I say is that I do not know in Colombia an older adult interpreter who can answer us giving testimony of a long and fruitful career (if there was one, he would surely be doing something different to the interpretation), it is more, the interpreters of Colombia in a A large percentage are young and middle-aged people ... something happens, and as I said at the beginning, it's not me who has the answer.

This is the paradox of interpretation in our country. It seems that in Colombia interpreters are trained (for those who are interested in training), gain experience, enhance their skills, abilities and talents. For what? ... To stop being interpreters. To dedicate to something else; to be professors, to set up your own company, to occupy bureaucratic positions, to rest ... or simply, to do something that your body is able to do.

I do not know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm too young or too old to see things in their historical context or to see lucidly the progress of our profession. Or maybe it could be that some interpreters are like I've "heard" you say to a Deaf leader: "They're like the boyfriend who likes to benefit from the privileges of the relationship, but they do not want to know about marriage"

If it helps, here is a clue to help us clarify the problem, which I found in the book The Bilingual Family (Harding & Riley, 1986: 157-8)

"[...] Interpreters and translators must strive hard to reach the levels of speed and precision expected of them. For many, they are the only "true" bilingual speakers, although this is the same as saying that only Formula 1 drivers know how to really drive. [...] It is important to point out that the most outstanding professional interpreters and translators have specialized a lot and usually deal with very restricted, such as biochemistry or the law of the sea. People often marvel that the most prestigious conference interpreters only work three hours a day: they attribute these "privileged" schedules to the incredible tension to which they are subjected, which is undeniable. However, they do not realize that the interpreter dedicates his "free time" to the intensive study of the latest advances in the specialized field in which he works: to be able to interpret, one must first understand [...] "

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

However, as in this reflection I have focused on the Deaf - Interpreter relationship, I will proceed to expose my approach in this regard bluntly:

The emancipatory perspective consists in the conception of the interpreter as a translation professional, whose immediate work team is the Deaf person. In this sense, interpretation fully fulfills the function of extension as a means in the McLuhanian sense. Deaf and hearing are allies in the work and the vindication of Deaf people.

More than an extension of his body, for me the interpreter and the Deaf for a moment unite as one, in a kind of symbiotic mutualism, where they build knowledge looking in the same direction. As in the previous entry, I have not said anything spectacular either.

I explain. As the Taylorist perspective refers to an interpreter-machine (object), the emancipatory perspective refers to a professional interpreter of translation (Subject). What "enslaves" or "subjugates" the interpreter in his relationship with the Deaf person in this sense, is that he becomes a thing, an accessory, he is deprived of his freedom essentially as a subject, that is, he is denied as a person with a knowledge, who thinks and has a way of seeing and feeling the world ... as a translation professional.

When closing this reflection, it is very difficult to determine what "era" of the interpretation we are in Colombia. I have pointed out that we are in an "era of the Machine Interpreter" that is widely assumed from a Taylorist perspective of interpretation. On occasion I have felt treated as an object, in others, interpretation has resulted in my academic growth so I have experienced the satisfaction of interpreting with valuable and intelligent co-workers: Deaf people.