Activities of the Council of Europe to protect and promote sign languages and the rights of their users
Mr. Thorsten Afflerbach, Council of Europe

The Council of Europe is a political organisation in Strasbourg, founded in 1949, with currently 47 European member states and a total population of 800 million, which aims to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and to foster social cohesion in Europe. Several Council of Europe legal instruments ban discrimination on the grounds of language. However, not many make explicit reference to sign languages. It was in 2001, when sign languages were put high on the political agenda. A report on cochlear implants in deaf children (May 2001) promotes the acquisition of sign languages also after cochlear implant surgery. A report on the status of recognition of sign languages in 26 European states (April 2005) also describes various policy initiatives to facilitate and promote the use of sign languages. Discussions on a possible legal instrument to protect sign languages and the rights of their users are under way. In that context, a study of the needs of sign language users was written in 2006 to contribute to the decision-making process. The Council of Europe Disability Action Plan 2006-2015 promotes the use of sign languages in the key action lines on information and communication, and on participation in cultural life.

Third Language Interpreting: From Necessity Towards Perfection
Mrs. Anna Lena Nilsson, Stockholm University

According to the conference web site of EFSLI 2008 “[t]here are two sides to ‘third language interpreting’, both of which are becoming of increasing importance in Europe: interpreting to and from a language that is not the interpreter’s mother tongue or second language, and the use of a third language in an interpreting setting by a relay interpreter, whether deaf of hearing. Together these two subjects form the topic of this conference.” In addition, as we will see, the two are often combined, giving rise to even more matters for consideration.

Sign Language interpreters in Europe face many situations where not only the national language/s and national sign language/s are involved, but other languages as well. This can be at multinational meetings, international conferences, in higher education, etc., but also due to e.g. a need for interviews with immigration authorities, or other situations where deaf people need interpreting in a country where they do not know the national Sign Language. In a perfect world, we could declare that nobody should be allowed to interpret to/from a language that s/he does not fully master. However, we will take a more pragmatic look at the situation - and discuss what kinds of considerations can be made in different situations, also taking into account e.g. the state of interpreting services and interpreter education in a country. We will thus discuss “ideal scenarios”, but also how to get there, and possible steps on the way.

The cognitive complexity of relay interpreting
Mrs. Barbara Moser-Mercer, Université de Genève, Switzerland

There is considerable scientific evidence pointing to the extraordinary complexity of the interpreting process even under ideal working conditions. More challenging working conditions such as increased input speed, accents, unavailability of background documentation, accents, and prolonged time on task, render the interpreting process even more complex and oblige the interpreter to resort to compensatory strategies designed to optimize output quality even in adverse working conditions. Usually, such compensatory strategies require the re-deployment of cognitive resources, leaving parts of the interpreting process without the attentional resources required for monitoring and quality control. The less experienced the interpreter is in deploying such compensatory strategies, the more at risk the process becomes, with fatigue setting in earlier than under normal or rehearsed working conditions.

Relay interpreting is one of those interpreting scenarios requiring the mobilization of additional cognitive resources, or their redeployment, as it puts additional strain on the comprehension part of the interpreting process. Strategies acquired for anticipation in non-relay conditions cannot be applied without modification to the relay situation, as the original message has already been processed once, stripped of much of its redundancy and repackaged for optimized output by the first interpreter. In addition, the second interpreter is also deprived of the original message’s extra-linguistic features, which puts further strain on the decoding of the original message.

Understanding the complexity of non-optimal working conditions allows trainers to develop pedagogical scenarios that will help trainees acquire and perfect compensatory strategies before being exposed to difficult working conditions in a professional setting.

Relying on relay: with English and sign
Cynthia Jane Kellett Bidoli, University of Trieste, Italy

As international communication between deaf people is expanding through increased mobility and technology, sign language interpreters are facing additional linguistic challenges in the workplace by needing to use a third language. They may be required to work either between two languages of which neither is their native language (often English and a signed language) or to work from relayed information where English may be a source language (SL), a target language (TL) or a relay language (RL).

A brief overview of when and where English is used by Italian Sign Language (LIS) interpreters is followed by a look at what may go wrong in relay interpreting from English to LIS, taking examples from research undertaken at the University of Trieste. The main areas of investigation include phonology, prosody and linguistic intrusions from one language into another leading to the shadowing of the SL, or RL morphology in the signed TL thus rendering it ungrammatical, ambiguous and difficult to follow. Other problematic areas are the interpretation of English LSP (language for special purposes), directionality of interpretation and the stress factor.

Deaf Interpreters. Partners or Rivals?
Gardy van Gils, Hogeschool Utrecht, The Netherlands

This presentation outlines the results of van Gils’ thesis which completed her MA-programme in Deaf Studies in 2007. The research sought answers to questions such as: what is the general image of hearing sign language interpreters about deaf sign language interpreters, and vice versa? To this end a web-based questionnaire was developed that was completed by 123 NGT interpreters and by 134 deaf and hard-of-hearing people. The questionnaire included questions about the frequency of interpreting and about the target audience of deaf interpreters. Further, the expected level of education of deaf sign language interpreters was investigated.

The presentation will discuss the frames that are being used in viewing deaf interpreters, and what the challenges are in reframing deaf and hearing sign language interpreters. Which role can deaf and hearing interpreters play together both in the Netherlands and on a European level, and what is needed for that? Where are the opportunities? These are some of the questions that will be discussed.

Interpreting, the third language, and its dynamics
John Walker, University of Sussex, UK

The medicalisation of deaf people has prevented the establishment of the profession of Deaf interpreters, and placed them always in the position of the client. If we are to come away from this hegemonic stigma, only then can Deaf people be seen equally as the client or the service provider. Sign language interpreting services have long since been restricted to interpreting between one spoken and one sign language but the increase in movement within Europe developed a demand for interpreters with the ability to work with other sign languages and international sign.

This presentation will explore the dynamics and the ongoing progress we are seeing between Deaf and hearing interpreters, and how Deaf interpreters are often better placed to interpret within immigration, tourism, business, international relations and entertainment. If NASLI’s within Europe do not commit themselves to the professionalisation and inclusion of Deaf interpreters, they will further deny Deaf people of movement through Europe and the ability to interact at an international level.