Old News, Perhaps Still Relevant?

(Image taken from barr productions via fookembug)

Okay, so this article, Hear No Evil, by Sara Minogue, was posted in the online magazine This, in the May-Jun 2005 issue, so it is definitely old news. I still think it poses a lot of interesting questions for interpreters.

Here is the opener:

Deaf since childhood, Bobby Suwarak grew up in isolation, able to understand no known language. Now charged with a crime, he has presented Nunavut’s court system with a problem. But the form of charades he uses to communicate is being used by deaf Inuit across the territory, leading one researcher to call for the court to recognize it too

Ignoring the very troublesome use of the word “charades” to refer to home-signs (which is a whole discussion in itself and surely burns a lot of people up) there is a lot in this article worth discussing, i.e. how to deal with a situation like this professionally and whether in this particular situation, the interpreters should all learn Inuit Sign Language, or should just try to teach everyone ASL. But while trying to address the question of whether to start teaching ASL in this part of Canada, the author makes a huge blunder! (Notice my emphasis below.)

[McDougall] urged the Government of Nunavut to create a court interpreter training program in ISL with the goal of producing impartial legal interpreters for deaf Inuit. But that never happened.

A reasonable person might ask: Does it even matter? In 2000, MacDougall estimated that there were 155 deaf people in Nunavut, of whom approximately 30 percent—perhaps 47 people—are untrained in ASL. A simpler, and cheaper, solution would be to train these people to use ASL. But how? By sending them to cities in southern Canada? Many Inuit still associate the South with medical emergencies and residential schools. Furthermore, ASL is based on the English language, and the dominant language in Nunavut is Inuktitut. In many small communities, 90 percent of people speak Inuktitut as a first language, and many speak limited English. Learning ASL would not only require deaf Inuit to first learn English, using it would effectively cut them off from their communities.  

What!? Don’t you just want to smack this author? How can a person write an article about sign language without doing at least a bit of research on the subject. Where are the fact checkers?

 Of course we all know that ASL in fact came from LSF (langue des signes française), not BSL. But aside from that, sign languages are not based on spoken or written languages in the first place. It is ludicrous to think that Inuit people would first have to learn English before they could learn ASL. Am I wrong? Yes, there is a continuum between more English based signing (PSE and all that) and ASL because the Deaf people in America are often bi-lingual and interact with English speakers on a daily basis. This is a modification of pure ASL due to language contact, but the language itself is in no way, shape, or form related to English. The bottom line is that ASL could be translated and taught people of any native language without teaching them English first.  

And finally, it is just plain irresponsible for a magazine to print fallacious material about a language that a communitty of people must constantly fight to defend. Media of the world, Deaf issues are controversial, do your homework before you write about them!

Deaf-Friendly Cities Survey

Hmm, this is interesting. I just got an email about a research project: “Deaf-Friendly Cities in the U.S.” by Deaf411, Inc. Here is what they have to say about themselves and their project:

Deaf411, a marketing and public relations company, has launched an internet video website with an online survey. This survey is part of their research to compile a report of “Deaf-Friendly Cities in the U.S.” which will be made available to interested consumers free of charge.
 
This research will involve identifying criteria of what a deaf person living in any city needs in terms of accessibility and general services; compilation of services and resources needed in that city, identifying and listing cities with proven track records of providing such services; attitudinal considerations, and other factors involved in determining what constitutes an ideal city that is fully accessible.
 
Areas covered in this project will include employment, government, business, and community services and opportunities. In the video at Deaf411 online, Michel Swafford describes some factors that a consumer who is deaf or has a hearing loss face when they move to a new city. Findings of the online survey and correlating research will provide a powerful tool for professionals and businesses with clientele who are pre-dominantly deaf or have a hearing loss.
 
The project is expected to take six months. More information on the “Deaf-Friendly Cities in the U.S.” project, the online survey, and the upcoming report is now available at Deaf411 online. 

Personally, I think this seems like a worthwhile project. I’d be interested in knowing more about the Deaf scene in a new city to which I might  move.

Interpreting Introductions

I really can’t wait until there is a forum set up for aspiring interpreters to talk to each other online – I’m working on it.

There are a few groups on LiveJournal that talk a little bit about these topics, but not in the frequency or detail that I would like. I really want to discuss this Joey Baer vlog with someone. (Via gnarleydorkette: EXPOSED.)

In this video Joey Baer discusses a linguistic convention of introductions in ASL whereby people sign: MY NAME, FIRST J-E-S-S-I-C-A LAST N-A-M-E. I understand that much, I’m just not sure if I got all of the points that he was making even after watching it a few times (I’m still learning). These are the things I think he’s saying:

1. It is an interesting cultural/linguistic pattern that has evolved among many signers.
2. He wonders how this evolved in the first place and welcome ideas and comments from viewers about that.
3. He wishes that interpreters would voice “My name is John Smith” rather than “My first name is John last name Smith.”
4. Some people have strong preferences about whether they like to see this used or not.

So I’d love to know how other wannabe interpreters translate his video. Am I right about the content? As for an answer to Joey’s musing about why it is done in the first place, I think many of the reasons put forth by people in the comments are plausible. Such as, that it appeared at a certain time period in Deaf Schools for various reasons. As a linguist, I tend to agree with the idea proposed in comment #31, that it might be related to the topic-comment pattern in ASL where the signer establishes the topic of the conversation then elaborates on it. It also goes along with rhetorical conventions of ASL. So, that would mean that the signs FIRST NAME, and LAST NAME merely set up the topic rhetorically (or you could even say grammatically) and that’s why they are not supposed to be voiced by the interpreter.

What do you think? I welcome the ideas of any other aspiring interpreters who are trying to perfect their ASL – as well as those of Deaf signers, of course!