Login | Join Today

  • All
  • Advocacy
  • ASL
  • Athena Matilsky
  • Attorney Education
  • Business Practices
  • Certification
  • Community
  • Community Interpreting
  • Conference Interpreting
  • Continuing Education
  • Court Interpreting
  • Equipment
  • Ethics
  • Fiction
  • Finances
  • Gladys Matthews
  • Hilda Zavala-Shymanik
  • Idioms
  • Interpreters
  • Interpreting
  • Janis Palma
  • Jiraporn Ann Huynh
  • Jules Lapprand
  • Julli Jaramillo
  • Language
  • Language Associations
  • Leadership
  • LOTS
  • Medical Interpreting
  • Mentoring
  • NAJIT Academy
  • NAJIT Affairs
  • NAJIT Conference
  • New Ideas
  • Nutrition
  • Odds & Ends
  • Past Posts
  • Personal Growth
  • Professional Development
  • Professional Hazard
  • Professional Practices
  • Recent Posts
  • Reme Bashi
  • Remote Interpreting
  • Self care
  • Technology
  • Terminology
  • The Profession
  • Tools of the trade
  • TRAINING
  • Translation
  • Uncategorized
  • Urszula Bunting
  • Volunteer

The NAJIT conference in Atlanta was intellectually stimulating and for some of us—or maybe all—it was also very good for the soul. We laughed, we sang, we danced, we ran into old friends and made new ones. In short, a lot of those present thought...

29 May, 2015 /

**Flashback First Friday** This was originally posted on the NAJIT Blog back in 2012. Leave a comment about being challenged! A good, healthy session of constructive criticism by a senior colleague about our performance or skills as interpreters is something I venture to say we would all...

03 April, 2015 /

At the memorial for deceased South African leader Nelson Mandela on December 10, 2013, the world-wide interpreting community was stunned and dismayed when a fake sign language interpreter was shown on television and the internet pretending to interpret the words of heads of state...

31 January, 2014 /

Sometimes my first answer is NO if I know I am not qualified to perform a task. However, if the authorities persist due to the nature of an incident, that incident is likely to be documented. It comes down to personal ethics; more precisely, it...

11 January, 2013 /
First off, I apologize to Robert Pollard for getting his name wrong last time! In any case, this will be the last entry in my “Time for a Paradigm Shift” series. But in the immortal words of Winston Churchill, “this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” I’ve spent the last six months laying out a framework for a new perspective on our field (and by “our field,” I mean interpreting as a whole and unique field); but unless we implement that perspective, it’s nothing more than a thought exercise. (And I, for one, would be disappointed if there weren’t practical implications as well, after all that.)

A quick review of teleological decision-making

In this series, I’ve introduced the concept of teleological [outcome-oriented] decision-making and the Demand-Control Schema. To review, this process requires that we:
  1. Be aware of our values as interpreters: accuracy, completeness, neutrality, professionalism, and so on.
  2. Recognize the demands being placed upon us in any given situation. What environmental, interpersonal, paralinguistic, intrapersonal, linguistic, and divergent factors are influencing the way in which we do our work?
  3. Identify the controls at our disposal. What are all of the things that we could do, regardless of whether or not we should do them?
  4. Be aware of the values of the context in which we are working. What is valued in a legal setting? A medical setting? A religious setting? A conference setting?
  5. Handle the demand(s) by applying the control(s) that best fits with our values as interpreters and those of the context in which we are working.

31 August, 2012 /

I didn’t exactly grow up on a farm, but my small town was indeed surrounded by fields of corn and soybeans. When I was in my teens I started out on what turned out to be years of travel, living in enormous cities both in...

24 August, 2012 /

I’d like to share with you an ethical dilemma that has been an ongoing subject of debate among interpreters I know for the last several years. First I’ll set up the situation for you; then I’ll offer you the two extreme opposing points of view....

27 July, 2012 /
Now that we’ve established in Part I that we’re going to think about interpreting in a teleological (outcome-based) way, the obvious next question is: What outcome are we talking about? In this entry, I will use the term “goal” rather than “outcome.” outcome Pronunciation: /ˈaʊtkʌm/• noun • the way a thing turns out; a consequence: it is the outcome of the vote that counts goal Pronunciation: /gəʊl/• noun • 1(in football, rugby, hockey, and some other games) …2 the object of a person’s ambition or effort; an aim or desired result: he achieved his goal of becoming King of England That is, an “outcome” is what eventually happens in a given situation. A “goal” is a desired result (outcome) that you put an effort into reaching. (Thanks to The Oxford Dictionaries Online.) Because, as a practice profession, we make decisions in such a way as to bring about the outcome we want (teleologically), we will refer to the desired outcome we are working towards as the “goal.” Any situation in which we find ourselves has an ultimate goal, a desired end outcome. When we go to the grocery store, our ultimate goal is to acquire the things we need. We probably also have other, intermediate goals, such as not taking all day to get them all, not spending more than our budget permits, and so forth.  The same can be said for any situation in which we find ourselves interpreting.
06 April, 2012 /
My apologies for the slightly off-topic salute to this year’s Academy Award-winning Best Song. The question I really want to ask is, of course, less silly and more important: is interpreting a technical profession or a practice profession? Think of each of the following groups of professions; then consider which group you would place interpreting in: 1. Astronomy, medical research, product safety inspection, archaeology. 2. Medicine, law, law enforcement, pedagogy, ministry. Can I get a show of hands?

So why the pop quiz?

I’m going to bet that most people would instinctively place interpreting into group #2, and therein lies the problem. It's not that #2 is the wrong answer (actually, I would argue that it’s more correct than we know!), but that we interpreters (of all stripes, but particularly court interpreters) relate to our profession as if it belongs in group #1 ... causing ourselves no end of headaches, backbends, self-justification, defensive posturing, and guilt. (Really!) Let’s explore what the professions in each group have in common.The professions in group #1 are all scientific and objective in their approach; they are called technical professions. A technical profession follows a specified process to reach an unspecified end result. (For example, the Scientific Method: “First, define the question. Second, gather information and resources. Then, formulate a hypothesis...”) If the process is not strictly adhered to, then the end result is invalid. The second group is a list of practice professions, which are extremely context-dependent and subjective in their approach, despite requiring technical skills. A practice profession employs various processes to reach a specified end result. (For example, the Hippocratic Oath: “...I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism...”) A physician may get from point A (sick patient) to point B (applying required measures while avoiding over- and undertreatment) through many different techniques, based on the circumstances, and the context in which he or she works; but the goal is always the same.

Why does this matter to me?

Why do I say we treat interpreting (especially court interpreting) as if it were a technical, rather than a practice, profession?
02 March, 2012 /
Show more
Loading...