“Shifting one ear or removing one ear piece completely and using only one ear in simultaneous interpretation essentially puts you in a situation of a hearing loss patient.”
“Using only 1 ear makes our brain think the sound is not loud enough, as a result we tend to increase the volume of our headset to compensate for the soft sound.On the contrary,the binaural summation of signals can increase perceived loudness of signal by up to a ratio of 2:1”
“So if you use only one ear, or even shift one ear, potentially, there may be more damage from an acoustic incident or an acoustic shock, or online ‘dirty’ sound.”
👉 Some possible technical solutions:
(Remember: both ears fully covered AND self-monitoring)
- For #r1nt from a PC, solution is easy (works both with mics like Yeti AND headsets such as Sennheiser SC160)
Another very experienced member of DIN is Radha Starr, who trained with me in my translation course, works as a deaf translator & deaf relay interpreter in a variety of settings. She is currently in great demand as a deaf practitioner & has done a lot of public health videos 7/x
A shout out now for @royaldeaf who have done a sterling job in providing covid19 public health using deaf practitioners & presenters: see this video for example: COVID vaccination: Why it’s important and how you can help save lives 8/x
@royaldeaf And here is Carla Anderson AM. My first deaf interpreter trainer, role model & long time advocate for DeafBlind ppl who organised a series of workshops for local deaf people in Melbourne in the late '80s to become deaf interpreters. She is now a Board member of @ASLIAnational 9/x
Today I would like to highlight some deaf people who have contributed to the profession through being long-time practitioners or as strong advocates for deaf interpreters. 1/x
Secondly: Pamela Morgan. Now happily retired, she worked as a qualified deaf counsellor in deaf mental health services & worked for many years as a deaf interpreter working in many relay settings (more about terminology later). She did a lot to represent deaf practitioners 3/x
One of the biggest internal conflicts I have faced when training came about bc of a close collaboration with an employer. The name does not matter.
Point is, we were asked to train "their" dialogue interpreters - i.e. people who worked for them on a regular basis.
During the training, it became apparent that some of these interpreters had such an insufficient command of the language of training that they could not understand basic instructions.
This was their main working language as interpreters.
What do you do in that situation?
"Notifying" the employer - who clearly must have been aware of this to some extent already?
Potentially contributing to these interpreters losing their job?
Say nothing and legitimize a practice that cannot ensure access for beneficiaries?
Yes but let's be honest: many European conference interpreters consider some "variants" no worth learning or engaging with... there is huge bias in this.
I mean the number of people who go on and on about having to read James Joyce to be a conference interpreter. Do I really? How many have read Wole Soyinka? Amadou Hampaté Bâ?
What counts as "world knowledge" is really, really biased.
It is stark if we compare the perception of Latin American Spanish and literature vs. francophone/anglophone Africa. We all know LatAm Spanish is a force to be reckoned with but if you don't know the person speaking right now is actually the president of Togo no one bats an eye.
It was a bit more complex. They had a right to an interpreter for things to do with their case (i.e. the reason they were in prison). But often their visa / work permit tended to expire during their sentence and there was no right to legal counsel / interpreting for this.
bc basically once imprisoned, a process of stripping ppl of their work permit / residency takes place and they are not entitled to a lawyer / interpreter to fight this and have to submit filings while inside detention to keep the deadlines.
Is it a human rights violation? I am not an expert - my gut says yes. But it is also legal and common practice in many countries, EU included.
Today I want to tweet about an interpreter training course I did a few years ago. For data protection reasons I will not disclose the names of institutions and persons involved. The point here is to give you some food for thought. #1nt #Terps
The request came through a group of academics who had made contact with a nearby prison. This prison was reserved for foreign nationals, i.e. people not holding citizenship of the country of detention. My task: teach the inmates to interpret better.
For a variety of legal reasons, these inmates had no right to an interpreter. Even when they had interpreters for official exchanges, 95% of exchanges inside the prison were not covered by this provision. Many inmates did not or only barely speak the official language.