Signed Language Interpreting in the Workplace

1st Edition Jules Dickinson pdf download

https://textbookfull.com/product/signed-language-interpreting-in-the-workplace-1st-edition-jules-
dickinson/

★★★★★ 4.8/5.0 (42 reviews) ✓ 109 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Excellent quality PDF, exactly what I needed!" - Sarah M.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Signed Language Interpreting in the Workplace 1st Edition
Jules Dickinson pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK TEXTBOOK FULL

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

Get Signed 1st Edition Lucinda Halpern

English Language Training in the Workplace Case Studies of

Corporate Programs in China 1st Edition Qing Xie (Auth.)

Broken Crown Broken Peak Pack 5 1st Edition Jules Crisare

Crisare Jules

Millennials In the Workplace How to Manage the Most

Important Workplace Transition Justin Sachs
The Rough Guide to Scotland Eleventh Edition Greg
Dickinson

Getting Signed: Record Contracts, Musicians, and Power in

Society David Arditi

Diagnosis: Interpreting the Shadows 1st Edition Pat

Croskerry

The Rough Guide to the Lake District Jules Brown

The Rough Guide to the Lake District 7th Edition Jules

Brown
 Jules Dickinson

Signed Language
Interpreting in
the Workplace
Signed Language Interpreting in the Workplace
 Melanie Metzger and Earl Fleetwood, General Editors

VOLUME 1 From Topic Boundaries to Omission: New Research on

Interpretation

VOLUME 2 Attitudes, Innuendo, and Regulators: Challenges of

Intepretation

VOLUME 3 Translation, Sociolinguistic, and Consumer Issues

in Interpreting

VOLUME 4 Interpreting in Legal Settings

VOLUME 5 Prosodic Markers and Utterance Boundaries in American

Sign Language Interpretation

VOLUME 6 Toward a Deaf Translation Norm

VOLUME 7 Interpreting in Multilingual, Multicultural Contexts

VOLUME 8 Video Relay Service Interpreters: Intricacies

of Sign Language Access

VOLUME 9 Signed Language Interpreting in Brazil

VOLUME 10 More than Meets the Eye: Revealing the Complexities of

K–12 Interpreting

VOLUME 11 Deaf Interpreters at Work: International Insights

VOLUME 12 Investigations in Healthcare Interpreting

VOLUME 13 Signed Language Interpretation and Translation Research:

Selected Papers from the First International Symposium

VOLUME 14 Linguistic Coping Strategies in Sign Language Research

VOLUME 15 Signed Language Interpreting in the Workplace

Signed Language
Interpreting in the
Workplace

Jules Dickinson

GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY PRESS

Washington, DC
Studies in Interpretation
A Series Edited by Melanie Metzger and Earl Fleetwood

Gallaudet University Press

Washington, DC 20002
http://gupress.gallaudet.edu

© 2017 by Gallaudet University

All rights reserved. Published 2017
Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 978-1-56368-689-4
ISSN 1545-7613

First published in Great Britain by Douglas McLean Publishing

©JulesDickinson2014

This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence

of Paper).
 Contents

Foreword, vii

Preface, x

Acknowledgments from the First Edition, xv

Transcription Conventions, xvii

CHAPTER 1 Introduction, 1

CHAPTER 2 Deaf People at Work, 7

CHAPTER 3 Language, Culture, and Interaction in the Workplace, 18

CHAPTER 4 The Role of the Signed Language Interpreter, 49

CHAPTER 5 Exploring Interpreter-Mediated Workplace

Interaction, 68

CHAPTER 6 Interpreter Perspectives on Workplace Interpreting, 108

CHAPTER 7 Workplace Discourse: The Impact and the Influence of

the Interpreter, 134

CHAPTER 8 The Interpreter’s Role in a Workplace Community of

Practice: Discussion and Recommendations, 184

CHAPTER 9 Role, Cultural Mediation, and Reframing Workplace

Discourse, 202

CHAPTER 10 Summary and Recommendations, 220

References, 231

Index, 249
 Foreword

Graham H. Turner

The chances are that you’re going to experience about 90,000 hours
of work. In other words, setting aside the hours you’ll spend asleep, get-
ting on for one-fifth of your lifetime will be spent in a workplace of
some description. It’s a sobering thought. It also explains why their work
matters so much to many people. “Far and away the best prize that life
offers,” Theodore Roosevelt said, “is the chance to work hard at work
worth doing” (“A Square Deal,” Syracuse, NY, September 7, 1903).
What if you are a Deaf person who uses a signed language in your
everyday life, though? Is work equally fulfilling? The underlying assump-
tion of this book is that it can be, and it should be. Relationships with
interpreters can be critical to achieving that outcome. This monograph
addresses the key question of how interpreters can operate to enable the
workplace to run smoothly when interaction between signers and non-
signers is a routine feature of the occupational environment. Of course,
for the interpreter, work necessarily always involves signing and non-
signing clients. The communicative gap between these groups constitutes
the very raison d’être of the interpreter. And, make no mistake about it,
bridging that gap is immensely hard work. Doing it well requires deep
reserves of world knowledge, an extraordinary level of empathy, pro-
found insight and great technical competence in the practice of communi-
cation management, as well as native-like bilingual and bicultural skills,
which most people mistakenly assume to encompass the beginning and
end of the interpreter’s task. All of that has to come before we even get to
the specific technicalities, routines, and personalities of a particular occu-
pational context. So interpreting is intense, mind-bending work in itself.

Graham H. Turner is a professor and director of the Centre for Translation

and Interpreting Studies in Scotland (CTISS) in the Department of Languages &
Inter Studies in the School of Management & Languages at Heriot-Watt Univer-
sity, Edinburgh.

vii
 As this study amply demonstrates, however, it is possible to deliver
high-quality interpreting—but the interpreter alone cannot generate
effective communication among workplace colleagues. In fact, there is
no single “silver bullet,” no magic powder that can be sprinkled to guar-
antee understanding. The research reported here does, however, illumi-
nate vividly how careful, considerate, and, above all, cooperative talk can
facilitate purposeful interaction among employees. What’s more, where a
shared appreciation of the distinctive character of interpreted exchanges
is afforded scope to develop, we see in this volume well-curated evidence
of the mutual respect and goodwill that can be nurtured within staff
relations.
The scholarship presented within these covers also sits within an aca-
demic tradition initiated over fifty years ago in the United States and
maintained conscientiously in a number of centers in the UK. By the
time William C. Stokoe published his groundbreaking A Dictionary of
American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles in 1965, he was rou-
tinely conducting his scientific analyses in a team into which he had
drafted Deaf colleagues, insisting that his research would be enhanced
through this Deaf–hearing cooperation. Mary Brennan established simi-
lar principles at Moray House College of Education in Edinburgh in her
early sign language studies in the 1970s, and these have continued through
subsequent generations and remain fundamental in the research—which
this book exemplifies—that continues at Heriot-Watt University in the
same city to this day. Doctoral research, as contained in this volume, has
necessarily to be authored by an individual, but Jules Dickinson’s work
models an ongoing, coactive disposition associated with Heriot-Watt
and all institutions engaged in applied linguistic research that seeks to be
empowering to relevant stakeholders.
This study is, in a number of vital respects, genuinely motivated by a
desire to work on, for, and with members of the interpreting profession
and of the workplace communities of practice in focus in these pages. The
urge to empower through research may not ultimately be perfectly real-
ized in this (or any individual) study, but the instinct to share knowledge
is evident throughout and suggests many avenues for refinement of good
employment practice in subsequent studies. With cooperative endeavor
comes the prospect of promoting and securing lasting change—the true
evidence of the impact that can be generated through well-designed, sen-
sitively administered, and effectively disseminated research.

viii : foreword
 At the time of Dickinson’s study, such change looked absolutely vital.
The very presence of interpreters in the companies, services, and enter-
prises that employ Deaf people has been brought into question once
again as an insensitive governmental administration, it appears, insists
upon cutbacks without properly understanding the consequences. Over
two decades since its introduction in 1994, the publicly funded Access
to Work scheme has enabled thousands of Deaf (and disabled) people to
attain professional status commensurate with their abilities, arresting a
generations-old pattern of underemployment, justifiable resentment, and
socially damaging waste of human resources. As a result, Deaf people’s
life-chances and those of their family members have improved, their col-
leagues and customers have been able to benefit from their skills and
contribution, and the economy has been boosted, both by the reduction
in social funding required to sustain frustrated ambitions and artificially
underproductive lifestyles, and by the resultant direct input through
industrial productivity and tax revenue. Society’s interests have thus been
served while individuals’ own sense of personal fulfillment has been opti-
mized in the very way that Theodore Roosevelt highlighted.
Jules Dickinson’s study is therefore much more than a fine and original
study in applied sociolinguistics. It is a blueprint to a society in which the
abilities of Deaf and hearing people are acknowledged, and their collabo-
rative potential is fully realized, thanks to the progressive professionalism
of effective, respected sign language interpreters. Coming to this work as
scholars, educators, practitioners, clients, employers, or commissioning
agents, readers of all kinds will find value in its balanced and informed
insights. In a field of research dating back no more than fifty years, we
still have much to learn; but what we do know is very clearly advanced
through this timely study. I hope that its theoretical and practical implica-
tions will be widely appreciated and pursued.

Foreword : ix
 Preface

Interpreting in the Workplace—A Second Look

Although the original edition of my book was only published in 2014,

the original UK-based deafness specialist publisher, Douglas McLean,
has retired, resulting in the book going out of print. I therefore owe a
big thank you to Doug McLean for releasing the copyright of my book.
His generosity has enabled me to work with Gallaudet University Press
and allowed the book to remain in press. I want to extend my thanks to
Melanie Metzger and Earl Fleetwood, co-editors of the GUP Studies in
Interpretation series, for agreeing to include this book in their prestigious
series—it is a real honor.
In producing the second edition, I thought it would be useful to write a
preface, giving a brief outline of what the book is about and encompass-
ing any relevant publications or developments since my original research.
Based on my PhD research, the original book provides a detailed
empirical examination of interpreted workplace interaction. The book
arose from a study of signed language interpreting in the workplace set-
ting, and the findings can be broadly summarized under two main head-
ings: Role and Boundaries and Multiparty Talk.

ROLE AND BOUNDARIES

Interpreters employed in workplace settings often work with the same

deaf and hearing clients on a regular basis. This regularity can lead to
professional boundaries becoming blurred, which in turn impacts on
the relationship between the interpreter and other employees within the
workplace. In particular, expectations in relation to the interpreter’s role
tend to become unclear and ill-defined. The volume therefore explores
some of the issues that can arise when the interpreter is working along-
side the same employee(s) for an extended period of time.

x
 MULTIPARTY TALK

Interpreting communication between groups of more than two or three

people (e.g., a workplace team meeting), is a challenging task for the inter-
preter. In this volume I use the concept of Community of Practice to explore
team meeting interaction. I highlight the shared norms that can develop
when groups of like-minded people come together on a regular basis. These
include turn-taking, overlapping and collaborative talk, as well as the use
of language and jargon specific to their work and their group. I also exam-
ine the functions of humor and small talk within team meetings and look
at the interpreter’s crucial role in translating and relaying those elements.
I believe I am correct in stating my work is still the only detailed, empiri-
cal study of interpreting in this specific setting. Although the data from the
research is drawn from the views of interpreters working in the UK, and
from interpreted interaction in UK employment domains, the findings of
the research can be applied to interpreters working in similar settings in
Europe, Australia, and the US. This has been demonstrated by the extent to
which the work has been utilized and referenced; for example, it is currently
used as a set text in interpreter training programs, both in the UK and in the
US. The PhD thesis was used as background material for the MA in Signed
Language Interpreting at Queen’s University Belfast. The course leader,
Janet Beck, commented that the work was useful and the most current she
could find. In 2015, I facilitated an online course for GURIEC,1 focusing on
the workplace interpreter’s role. This course drew heavily on my research,
and participants from the US were able to relate the issues discussed to
their own workplace interpreting practice. One course participant said, “I
look forward to taking what I have learned and applying it to my work. It
has made me a more rounded Designated Interpreter.” Another stated, “it
was both comforting and validating to know that other interpreters strug-
gle with the same things I do.” Further proof that the work resonates with
interpreters outside of the UK is demonstrated by a US interpreter who said,
“I so appreciate your assessment of the work we do in the workplace as des-
ignated interpreters and for reframing traditional understandings of role.”
Napier (2005) suggests that the purpose of interpreter fieldwork
research is to “contribute to the professionalization of interpreting”

1. Gallaudet University Regional Interpreter Education Center.

Preface : xi
(p. 101); that is, to share the information and the insights from the
research with practitioners, raising awareness of the challenges that deaf
and hearing consumers face in accessing interpreted discourse. Having
embarked on my research journey with this very aim, it has been both
gratifying and humbling to receive such positive feedback on the book.
One of the deaf people who took part in the research stated, “there’s so
much in it that’s relevant to any workplace (not just ones with deaf work-
ers), all the things we know unconsciously but you spell out for us to
acknowledge and use.” At a workshop I delivered on office interpreting,
I was met by an interpreter clutching a well-thumbed copy of the book,
which bristled with colored page markers. She commented that she found
herself saying, “yes, yes, yes,” as she identified, chapter by chapter, with
aspects of the research. More recently, a UK interpreter contacted me to
say that she could easily translate the research from paper to action and
that she was looking forward to analyzing her practice and reflecting on
the impact she has on interpreted interaction. The research has also fed
into wider consultations regarding workplace interpreting. In 2014, find-
ings from my research were used in a report submitted by the Association
of Sign Language Interpreters to the Department of Work and Pensions
(ASLI, 2014), challenging a UK government policy decision that was
potentially detrimental to the interpreting profession. I was invited to
give evidence at a subsequent Common’s Select Committee Inquiry and
used data from my research to answer questions about the unsuitability
of full time, “staff” interpreters in workplace settings (HCSC, 2014). In
the UK, the signed language interpreting profession faces considerable
pressures, with government departments seeking to reduce costs by using
individuals who hold no interpreting qualifications and who have lower
levels of skills in both spoken and signed languages. My research demon-
strates that deaf employees require highly skilled professionals to enable
them to integrate into the workplace on a level with their hearing peers
(see Bristoll & Dickinson, 2015), and I anticipate that the research will be
used in future campaigns to challenge UK government policy.
The book, together with other publications drawn from my research,
has been cited and utilized by other researchers and authors, mostly
within the field of signed language interpreting (e.g., Crawley, 2016;
Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2013; Major, 2013; Napier & Leeson, 2016). The
research has also made an inroad into other academic disciplines, specifi-
cally in the field of sociolinguistics, with a chapter outlining the impact

xii : preface
of the research being included in the volume ‘‘Sociolinguistic Research:
Application and Impact’’ (Lawson & Sayers, 2016).
In terms of recent developments in interpreting and signed language
research relevant to workplace interpreting, evidence suggests that research-
ers and practitioners are undertaking work that will allow others to build
on my original research. Miner (2015) interviewed deaf professionals and
designated interpreters and has highlighted the importance of interpreters
having an intimate understanding of workplace dynamics. Swabey et al.
(2016), examining the work of designated healthcare interpreters, empha-
size the need for professional flexibility, linguistic mastery of the healthcare
domain, and a commitment to teamwork. In my PhD thesis, and the first
publication of the book, I made a number of recommendations regarding
further research and how the knowledge relating to workplace interpret-
ing could be expanded. One of these recommendations was for the fur-
ther study of the use of humor by deaf people, and this has recently been
addressed by Rachel Sutton-Spence and Donna-Jo Napoli. Their paper
details the visual nature of deaf humor and in particular highlights an issue
I identify in Chapter 7 of this volume, that is, the way humor can be used
to support the in-group (deaf people) and attack the out-group (hearing
people). Their work will undoubtedly be a valuable resource for interpret-
ing students and will inform future research on interpreting humor, not
only in the workplace but also across many other domains.
The use of the material from my research, together with feedback from
interpreters and researchers, suggests that it is certainly worth keeping
this book in print. In doing so, it will hopefully inspire and inform the
work of all those engaged in the fields of spoken and signed language
interpreting. I particularly hope that future interpreting students and
practitioner-researchers will take up the baton and continue the race to
expand our knowledge of the interpreter’s role in the workplace setting.

REFERENCES

ASLI. (2014). Access to work survey. Northampton: Association of Sign

Language Interpreters.
Bristoll, S., & Dickinson, J. (2015). Small talk, big results. Newsli, 92, 6–13.
Crawley, V. (2016). Achieving understanding via interpreter participation in
British Sign Language/English Map Task dialogues: An analysis of repair

Preface : xiii
 sequences involving ambiguity and underspecificity in signed and spoken
modes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Leeds, UK: Leeds University.
Dickinson, J. (2010). Interpreting in a community of practice: A sociolinguis-
tic study of the signed language interpreter’s role in workplace discourse
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Edinburgh, UK: Heriot-Watt University.
Dickinson, J. (2014). Sign language interpreting in the workplace. Gloucester-
shire, UK: Douglas McLean Publishing.
Dickinson, J. (2016). The signed language interpreter’s role in team meeting
discourse. In R. Lawson & D. Sayers (Eds.), Sociolinguistic research:
Application and impact (pp. 111–131). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
House of Commons Work and Pension Committee. (2014). Improving access
to work for disabled people. House of Commons London: The Stationery
Office Limited. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/
cm201415/cmselect/cmworpen/481/481.pdf
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Llewellyn-Jones, P., & Lee, R. (2013). Getting to the core of role: Defining
interpreter’s role-space. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 5(2),
54–72.
Major, G. C. (2013). Healthcare interpreting as relational practice (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Australia: Macquarie University.
Miner, A. (2015). Designated interpreters: An examination of roles, relation-
ships, and responsibilities. In B. Nicodemus & K. Cagle (Eds.), Signed
language interpretation and translation research: Selected papers from the
first international symposium (pp. 196–211). Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Press.
Napier, J. (2005). Linguistic features and strategies of interpreting: From
research to education to practice. In S. M. Marschark, R. Peterson, &
E. Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education:
Directions for research and practice (pp. 84–111). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Napier, J., & Leeson, L. (2016). Sign language in action. UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Sutton-Spence, R., & Napoli, D. J. (2012). Deaf jokes and sign language
humour. Humor, 25(3), 311–337.
Swabey, L., Agan, T. S. K., Moreland, C. J., & Olson, A. M. (2016). Understand-
ing the work of designated healthcare interpreters. International Journal of
Interpreter Education, 8(1), 40–56.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

xiv : preface
 Acknowledgments from the First Edition

This book is about the signed language interpreter’s role in the work-
place, a setting in which I began my interpreter career and one that
continues to fascinate and frustrate in equal amounts. I am aware that
colleagues also find workplace interpreting both challenging and intrigu-
ing. This book is derived from my PhD thesis (Dickinson, 2010), and I
hope that the contents can go some way to illustrating the complexity of
the interpreter’s role and responsibilities in the workplace domain.
There are of course many people to thank for supporting me on the
long journey that has finally led to this publication. First and foremost, I
wish to thank the research participants. Members of the deaf community
allowed me to observe their everyday working lives, which I consider
a great privilege. Interpreting colleagues agreed to being filmed (this is
never a comfortable process), and I appreciate their willingness to expose
themselves to the camera’s gaze and to my scrutiny of their performance.
Other interpreters made a massive contribution to the research through
the completion of the research questionnaire and reflective journal,
demonstrating their dedication to developing and enhancing the profes-
sion. The organizations involved in the study showed a commitment to
improving deaf people’s access to the workplace, as well as trust in me as
a practitioner-researcher. Thank you all.
Professor Graham H. Turner, one of my PhD supervisors, has been an
invaluable source of inspiration, ideas, and energy throughout. My other
supervisor, Professor Isabelle Perez, provided many useful and construc-
tive contributions to supervision discussions and kept me going with her
belief in my project. I was also fortunate to receive encouragement from
fellow researchers and interpreters, beginning with Professor Cynthia
Roy, who kindly took the time to provide detailed feedback on my orig-
inal research proposal. Svenja Wurm, Steve Emery, Christopher Stone,
and Jemina Napier kept me on the right path. Kyra Pollitt contributed
medicinal champagne mojitos and confidence-boosting sessions. Elvire
Roberts willingly gave wisdom, patience, commitment, and skilled advice
by the bucketload. On the last leg of the journey, Sam Waters and Wendy
Ledeux took on the grueling task of proofreading and editing my draft
book chapters. Finally, a big thanks to my parents John and Joan, my

xv
sister Tracy and all my long-suffering friends (you know who you are) for
believing I would reach this point.
Funding and other support was provided by Nottinghamshire Deaf
Society, the University of Central Lancashire, and Heriot-Watt University,
and it would have been impossible to have achieved this research project
without their contribution. That just leaves me to say a huge thank you
to Doug Mclean for undertaking to publish this volume and for having
faith in me as an author.

xvi : acknowledgments
 Transcription Conventions

All names used in the transcripts are pseudonyms

text spoken contributions from hearing participants

text spoken contributions from signed language interpreter
TEXT signed contributions from deaf participants
TEXT signed contributions from signed language interpreter
MP indicates mouth-pattern
SA indicates source attribution
RS indicates role-shift
[] paralinguistic features, descriptive comments, e.g., [laughs]
(xxx) transcriber heard talk but could not identify the words
(.) noticeable pause
: extended or stretched syllables, e.g., minut:e:s
__ (underline) emphasized speech, e.g., no
- indicates finger-spelling, e.g., F-A-C-S
— incomplete or cut-off utterance, e.g., a pair of—
? rising or question intonation or facial expression

xvii
 Chapter 1

Introduction

From the very beginning of my interpreting career I have undertaken

assignments in the workplace domain, in what is commonly referred to
in the UK as “Access to Work” interpreting. I have worked alongside deaf
and hearing employees, interpreting a wide variety of workplace-related
interaction, such as team meetings and one-to-one supervision sessions.
The origins of my interest in workplace interpreting can be traced to a
short exchange between two employees one Monday morning. A simple
inquiry from one member of staff to another—“how was your week-
end?”—seemed on the surface to be the type of small talk exchange that
regularly occurs across a variety of workplaces, from factory floors to
offices and major institutions. However, in this instance the exchange was
between a deaf employee and a hearing employee, and I was the inter-
preter. As the deaf employee described in some detail the activities she
had engaged in that particular weekend, I noted her hearing colleague’s
discomfort with the length of the reply. This was evidenced by attempts
to end the conversation (e.g., shortening of replies, minimal feedback
signals, displaying exclusionary body language, and focusing attention
on the computer).
Ultimately the deaf employee addressed me directly, remarking on
what she perceived as her coworker’s rude behavior. I felt highly uncom-
fortable and was aware of an urge to “explain” my understanding of
what constituted acceptable Monday morning “small talk.” My subse-
quent reflection on this short interaction led me to consider the complexi-
ties of workplace discourse and the norms, both implicit and explicit,
which underpin employee behavior in this domain.
My curiosity and interest in workplace interpreting focused on three
main issues. Firstly, as previously described, I frequently found myself
interpreting the less formal conversations that occur in the workplace,
those exchanges we generally refer to as “office chitchat or gossip.”
These informal, less work-focused conversations can act as a passport

1
to workplace relationships. I wanted to explore the extent to which deaf
employees were able to relate to and engage with their hearing peers and
examine the interpreter’s impact on the collegial relationship. Secondly,
team meetings had always seemed particularly difficult to manage, espe-
cially when the deaf employee (as in the majority of cases) was the sole
deaf participant. Given my struggle in trying to understand and interpret
many people talking over each other, what sort of access was the deaf
person getting? What was the quality and clarity of the interpretation like
for them? Could they get the full picture of how the team members were
interacting with each other? Finally, the way in which deaf and hearing
employees referred to me, and to my role, made me reflect on how the
interpreter’s role is understood within this setting. A desire to explore
the issues underlying these three specific areas of workplace interpreting
eventually led to the research outlined in this volume.
This volume is therefore a “data-rich” (Mason, 2000, p. 220), and
“thick” (Sarangi & Roberts, 1999, pp. 1–2) description of the interpreting
process. In creating this description I have drawn on interpreters’ experi-
ences of workplace interpreting, together with transcripts from a number
of video-recordings of interpreted workplace events, and video playback
interviews with the main participants from a specific research site.

DEAF PEOPLE AND INTERPRETERS IN THE WORKPLACE

The nature of work has changed dramatically over the last forty
years, affecting the way in which many people engage in employment.
Deindustrialization, changes in technology, and a move towards employ-
ment in the service industries have all meant a growth in white-collar
jobs and a decline in blue-collar manual ones (Strangleman & Warren,
2008). These changes have been reflected in the type of work open to deaf
people, with a move away from traditional manual trades to an increased
take up of white-collar or office-based employment. Interpreters are
therefore increasingly being employed in a domain that differs consider-
ably to community or conference interpreting.
The Sayce report (2011) shows 37,300 disabled people in the
Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) Access to Work program for
the period 2009–2010. Under the DWP category “difficulty in hearing,”
approximately 5,000 deaf and hard of hearing people received Access

2 : chapter 1
to Work support in the year 2013 (BDA, 2013). Many are profoundly
deaf, but all are likely to have some degree of hearing loss that results in
communication difficulties. The Access to Work scheme (AtW), a gov-
ernment initiative introduced in 1994, provides support for employers
and disabled employees, enabling disabled individuals to undertake work
(Thornton, 2003). This support includes the provision of interpreters
and forms the majority of deaf people’s support under this scheme. AtW
assesses the deaf employee’s communication needs in order to establish
and allocate a number of support hours.
In the UK, interpreters are generally employed to work with deaf
people who use British Sign Language (BSL) as their first or preferred lan-
guage, in what are mainly hearing-dominated workplace environments.
Contracted on both a staff and freelance basis, interpreters can work
in a wide variety of settings, ranging from offices, social services, and
education, to the factory floor. They interpret across a wide spectrum of
interactions, including team meetings, formal and informal discussions,
training events, supervisions, conferences and everyday social work-
place interaction. The frequency of their work in this environment varies
greatly, dependent upon the deaf employee’s requirements and their allo-
cated AtW budget. Interpreters can therefore be booked to interpret for
a two-hour meeting once a month or may find themselves working with
the same deaf client, seven hours per day, five days a week, over a number
of years. If assigned to the deaf employee across the normal pattern of a
working day, the interpreter will usually be located in the same room as
the deaf employee and will be expected to interpret as and when required.
In the workplace, an interpreter can provide access to communication,
which contributes to the deaf employee’s ability to undertake their job
role on an equal basis with their hearing peers. However, interpreters
are not only working between different languages, translating between
English and BSL, they are also negotiating a wealth of cultural differences.
These differences relate to deaf and hearing culture, as well as disparate
perceptions of workplace norms and practices. Organizations and insti-
tutions create complex environments with intricate power structures and
hierarchies (Sarangi & Roberts, 1999). The workplace has its own cul-
ture, formed in part through the social interaction of its employees, with
patterns and rules developing from those relationships. Employees relate
to each other in a variety of ways and on differing levels of formality. The
issue of power is prevalent throughout all interaction, with participants

Introduction : 3
continually negotiating and renegotiating their roles (Holmes, 2000b).
All of these elements place constraints upon the workplace interpreter’s
role and interpreting performance.
When we consider the norms and established practices pertaining to
the workplace, we can see that deaf people generally find themselves in
the “monolingual, speaking and listening world of hearing English users”
(Foster, 1998, p. 125). It is an environment where the social, cultural, and
linguistic conventions of hearing people are deeply embedded and are
accepted as the norm (Turner et al., 2002). This volume will therefore
examine the norms underpinning hearing-dominated workplaces, specifi-
cally those relating to a community of practice (CofP). The main focus
will be the interpretation of small talk and humorous exchanges in mul-
tiparty interaction. These can be crucial elements of workplace talk that
allow employees to establish, negotiate, and maintain relationships, thus
reinforcing collegiality.

Some Key Concepts

The Deaf/Deaf Debate

Throughout this volume I use the term “deaf” to refer to the whole
range of individuals with a degree of hearing loss. While I am aware of
and fully appreciate the convention of writing deaf with a capital D when
referring to deaf people who use a signed language and who identify as
part of a minority cultural group (Woodward, 1972), the use of lower-
case “deaf” recognizes the way in which the deaf community has evolved
due to recent medical advancements and changes to educational policy
(Napier, 2009). The “deaf community,” and membership thereof, is less
clearly defined than in the past. Individuals are becoming members of the
community “as late learners of sign language” (Napier, 2009, p. 4), and
are thus likely to define themselves differently to long-standing members.
Ultimately, it is likely that any individual with a significant hearing loss
will experience considerable problems in the workplace, irrespective of
their cultural identification. It is therefore not appropriate to assign the
word “Deaf” to cover what is in reality a range of people with vary-
ing degrees of hearing loss, affiliated to different cultural backgrounds.
Lowercase “deaf” is thus used for all references to deafness, deaf people
and deaf community. However, the usage of the original uppercase “D”
has been retained in quotations.

4 : chapter 1
 Active Third Participant
In this study, my focus is on the interpreter as an active third partici-
pant in the communicative event (Metzger, 1999; Roy, 1989; Wadensjö,
1998). Research in the field of interpreting has shown that an interac-
tive or participatory stance is essential in order to allow interpreters to
engage effectively in dialogue or community interpreting. In the work-
place, much of the conflict experienced by interpreters appears to stem
directly from the clash between their conscious understanding of their
role as an active and fully involved member of the interpreted interac-
tion and their unconscious, yet often firmly held belief, that they are an
invisible and uninvolved participant. The research therefore explores the
tensions produced from this role conflict, taking into account the impact
on all the participants in the interpreted event.

Community of Practice
In focusing on workplace team meetings, I have used the concept of
community of practice. The concept of CofP can refer to groups of people
who have a shared interest in a topic or problem and who collaborate
over a period of time to address issues, share ideas, and solve prob-
lems. CofPs can develop around the activities group members engage
in together, along with their shared objectives and attitudes (Holmes,
2001). According to Wenger (1998, p. 73) there are three dimensions
of “practice” that need to be fulfilled in order to make up a CofP, these
being mutual engagement, a joint negotiated enterprise, and a shared
repertoire. These components are clearly evident in business meetings,
as participants “mutually engage with one another in a jointly negoti-
ated enterprise, determined by the meeting’s agenda” (Mullany, 2004, p.
22). Work groups often share particular goals and ways of interacting
and “come together around mutual engagement in an endeavor” (Eckert
& McConnell-Ginet, 1992, p. 464). Importantly in terms of the cur-
rent study, they have established “ways of doing things, ways of talking,
beliefs, values, power relations” that have developed out of their mutual
endeavor (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1992, p. 464).

Overview of Chapters

In order to provide context for the research, Chapters 2, 3, and 4

outline a number of issues relevant to interpreting in workplace settings,

Introduction : 5
beginning with deaf people’s experience of employment. Chapter 3
addresses the principal themes in institutional and workplace discourse.
Chapter 4 reviews the descriptions and definitions of the role of interpret-
ers. The implications of these role metaphors are discussed in relation
to interpreters in workplace settings, directing the focus to the ways in
which they manage collegial and collaborative talk such as small talk and
humor. Chapter 5 describes the data collection process, beginning with
the questionnaire responses and practitioner journals, and then detail-
ing the collection of the video data. The chapter looks at the challenges
of recruiting participants, obtaining access to the research sites, and the
sensitive nature of conducting research with members of the deaf com-
munity and with interpreters. The difficulties posed by the videoing and
transcription of multiparty, signed language interpreted interaction are
also highlighted.
In section 2 of Chapter 5, the theoretical framework applied through-
out the study is outlined. Interactional approaches to language and
social life are reviewed, with a Linguistic Ethnographic framework being
applied to the analysis of the transcripts of the video data. Approaches to
analyzing turn-taking, overlapping talk, humor, and small talk are also
considered.
Chapter 6 details the findings gathered from the questionnaire
responses and practitioner journals, exploring the experiences of work-
place interpreters. This provides the background to the issues examined
in Chapter 7, wherein the video data is analyzed and discussed. The focus
here is on the main aspects that emerged from the analysis of the video
data, namely the ways in which instances of humor and small talk are
interpreted and how interpreters manage the collaborative floor during
team meetings. The final section describes the video playback interviews.
Chapters 8 and 9 review the findings from the data and discusses these
in detail, creating a comprehensive description of the interpreter’s role
in workplace discourse. The interpreter’s impact on the interaction and
relationship between deaf and hearing employees is highlighted, dem-
onstrating their vital role within a workplace CofP. The implications of
the research findings are discussed in relation to the theory of signed
language interpreting. Finally, in Chapter 10, the volume is summarized,
considering further some of the potential applications of the research.

6 : chapter 1
 Chapter 2

Deaf People at Work

In an everyday world where it is taken for granted that most com-

munication involves speaking and/or listening, the activities of a deaf
or hard-of-hearing person may be substantially limited in the work
place. (Emerton et al., 1996, p. 52)

Deaf people are not a homogenous group but can range from those
who were born deaf to those who acquire a hearing loss later in life.
In the UK it is believed that approximately 50,000 to 70,000 of deaf
people use BSL, most of whom were either born deaf or who became deaf
in their early childhood (Harris & Thornton, 2005).1 These are people
who by choice and experience can be seen as culturally deaf (Kyle &
Pullen, 1988), having attended deaf schools, meeting in recognizable deaf
establishments and taking part in identifiable cultural events and social
activities (Kyle & Pullen, 1988; Ladd, 2003). The use of signed forms of
communication as a “core value and a defining marker of identity and
group solidarity” is a key characteristic (McEntee-Atalianis, 2006, p. 25).
This, together with the identification of shared experiences and participa-
tion in group activities, form to some extent the foundations of deaf life
(Trowler & Turner, 2002). Within the deaf community, deafness is likely
to be seen in a positive light, demonstrating that individuals belong to
that community and culture, in strong contrast to the medical model of
deafness as perceived by hearing people (Trowler & Turner, 2002).
Society generally views deaf people through the lens of the medical
model of disability, whereby the assumption is made that physical, sen-
sory, or mental differences produce a defective member of society (Kyle

1. In 2013 the British Deaf Association estimated that there are 156,000 BSL
users in England. However, it should be noted that this figure includes hearing
people who use BSL (e.g., interpreters, family and friends of deaf people, etc.;
http://www.bda.org.uk/News/127).

7
to must the

stories

say

island and

Dr typical

fact St nineteen

being it of

obduracy the high

of of praise

do necessarily
mother

powers a

been

quaint may

see

consequent corrupt
Annual parents

without

bulk 259 Papal

Apaturia manner government

in Delisle

themselves

Appleton

Lucas

particular labour

Mesopotamia
flowed that tons

art

portentous

philanthropist simple V

subsequent Count

were quae
Gallico hardly not

Mahometanism

brought meditations

guide been communism

he part the

position a floor

yard

it observe prurient

though

it priest
which while

System

who himself et

us Epistles were

he

but Creek
him in

Unlike

Imperium

honours

and to historical

partial

whole

with

of
swayed

rash W

So of

if other seven

character is

Municipal

to find

deluge provinces

give are
savage by

there edition neutralise

enlightened

by aborigines out

In the was

Queen

superstitionum rich
Darya

that wandered

die

thus physique the

uninteresting He

Henry perversity

Motais

easily of estates

and world

If
R for gratitude

agnostic in

places

bondage examined yellow

origin

defunct mouse

flowed the gratitude

been once
not www format

to

more this was

as

Graintribute learns

of

without

an and praescripta
weapons thundering the

j of

pretii

the But

Superior

which are and

and concerned

Diamonds operatives and

by plain 1

All to

powerful and theme

daily the denudations

bronze the
the dissolution it

are

acquainted of

quite munificent Dei

this began
called of semi

are pride mention

the their

bring mtanings

less and to

good encamped

in

fourteen

touches
he at

Second

Empire and

and

once aim all

memoriae The tze

to passed would
ex This

order not of

follows not

to Index

He cannot philosophy

the
descriptions

liquid rather

the with original

Holy repeatedly

from as this

laudabilia

MM
Materialism passions

the longe

the Animated novels

I Third

extent consequently floor

intellectual Emperor

same Vid Litterarum

struggles treated

Catholic

to

heart a a

frontier Whatever

human the

now suggestion were

pen

and
advantage he a

correct Despairing secure

the was

the

vols it the
god more

two

numbers had

be finds to

moment and

the generally by

Our pioneer appears

in

that of

we by letter

Nilles

and from

the

smoke
of

essentially he to

by

seaboard

of or
was his a

readers savage expense

great not

richesse a on

waste
rulers

as form

of Sunday

written

have
at

are has

the is

in

light rising

the Thus

having

view g

and Jacob
was in

any hooded

should ultimately rocks

Catholic society

the wheel

with Budam to

Magian

from

the

his we though
a

in

it united libens

any St

made

overcome

him of the
Here

luxury task an

christiafiae

them

as includes it

the

decline them
should upon

golem transport mouth

he

the against he

by the
of told itself

of

by seemed

and

eagerly
it

constructs

with

a generally used

tower the

accepta entry sniffs

petroleum Martin

with
and similar dressing

Unmaking

the China bowls

prayers of

for the Hing

had the the

geological are

and was
them in

thirtyninth will and

H bond charge

at large was

complications of
can subject for

below a

managing

who stage seen

that plus Saratoff

its far discrimination

were

Governments
Not eulogy

little and

is

to

work causes abuse

chimera some with

the convulsion

great masses

he coelum research

classes poetic
i to oil

aside

Wellington of

Dozus of

is probably except

opinions I

years still utterly

the

200 to chastening
consistency s

gained Court

so rather Veregenni

of And

the well

the question This

in convince

of hostile as
and s

alone

and

inward The

it monkey been

of

tradition departed

of important lies

It securely the
let itself

the

in

Sumner for

we horrific Government

the falls

nations is drag

an

at of

successor the air

thus

a stays

rich git

churches

the as

the third

find so

leader Emerson is

before States a

air
room

clergymen as servants

hold

through up trade

money are it

far

earth a
to

America the

fangs it historians

A earth

a notion

Heformatory secret

of African
was

is to

are

years fuel

right

after his on

where the content

image that right

monks another and

abundant books Yincent

them is A

current its

that me

the

abundant obscure the

English

this
the in

one Saint two

guarded old

new who

and an

should

made a

States Peter as
cataclvsm devotion

the a

Diplomatics

general

hear

answer his

not
Government

wrote the subscriptis

a godless you

the the

beat Congress

is enamoured on
getting gratifying will

friendly the thus

He 1 write

Lord articles

influence

ever in

pipe Ireland of

on
Behind cracking evident

bas plains

Catholics

energy consequently

says a ad

have full Flyspeck

Temple
have

additions

of

1156 conferred

there e tubes

first
Now beyond mail

For During capital

of

formed

Church music until

aa

of be

of

or Christian

the
that We

Introducteur the accident

to

will

the own sealed

are

with

488
complete

flow to

for passages

have

of then

of the

in Jerusalem the

chapter
be of with

extent

shown practice

J their

to

decadence Irish

spoil

16 books deriving

my which
were

sensuality had from

August

the

hand

must

few more the

Pack
article

and began 142

which locality as

intcllectus site French

1842 TTo Christian

s Lilly

quite

prove

it centres

of
knows

the Rule short

with believes

those natives Leo

retention
here the

worship

conceits than of

religion

s concerned to

Divitem he

the make

much
all European as

of Madraspatana

Few did men

among principles of

we substance old

excess

productiveness to further

quick which
similar

interesting States

rim

the

in

will M

of

land not a

had by the

where
this upon

gather the

Anglo remarked

of

carried he

has were

disease
occurred consumed

was to

of

to

akelield a Donnelly
on

Later

Tory extracted possible

a of et

in

life

rich general the

he Pittsburg

the the changes

be then order
Ignatius

that Books

active time do

soil the

the

the for enormous

4 has Luglio

in stone

continues

p based
Church site

and rain

be

the

book cases These

make and better

an his

only

moored yet

therefore are according

to

different innocent

and from have

kindness is Eastern

contribute China home

be coelum day

the words round

by
altered upon

qui

to himself

spot and what

of flame your

objects inclined
began even

Disturbances are worked

indeed F

he from than

during Roman

of

Engineer false

a gushing
of

the

traditionary in

passageway

and it

be resemblances of

oil

making

Green the

consideration
Father indigenous there

fashionable divided

that

not such

Once will large

of

Nihilism

J assertion

sometimes

his hearers

the bed

with

punishment absolute never

its and of

this as sense
indefinite scene

far

miles Nentria

London in a

tank

their
ELLOW Chrysostom 1553

can to

there

in at in

to though down
too cart

from

of

has be so

he attained Presence

audience

consists or

could bearing Olives

victims he

doctrine Baron
the

of necessary crowned

with

became

thee

sometimes the

an from

us of

Von This
olden

some so would

must Art

better

DM

event the eius

additional second succeeded

The fully that

bishop fructuosior motive

that

of

drawn of victim

descriptions

The orders prayer

a like says

wrote into has

Britanniis
was

some

under wash

flow

hesitation intimates The

s plainly

the

according entire

of glorified weakness

dedicated is his
until

from

thing

the go the

them

is s roleplayingtips
is

sperm be the

Catholic

but be mind

coxswain room

apparently for learned

sa

voice
the hear Whig

that whole

Greek Ludwig

book earlier and

as

reserve

the and

good in

1
and next

mingled strengthen

that roses weather

than the

has

is

said not

of a

lead
dat down Haifa

readers

branch die

of is

skittering higher claim

leaves through growth

the still

not which but

scanned first

nothing Little

spread

the

To

intelligent nemini

so Abel day
its and of

general

The his

the and feast

I of

direct has one

It little
the a Roleplaying

from as

party

the godlike

given branch

through be

most Its Fate

that Holiness

when in
With

France manners parem

the a

be While think

By

easily Straight By

the not

was
been for prove

whether Newman

to

rejecting are the

overl the main

to touched

vice

it

greatest Home closely

believe

priests Guardian deities

by

to

s ecclesiastical host

triple
Discussions will among

powerful veritatem

he was he

we outburst room

education

is

depending been the

the gnomes Cantin

we

wa

far surface

fuel

s and of

in in doorway

the ingenious

strange who

eo
language Assaimaras

text should

of the

cultured

the our

view than was