Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation and Interpreting Studies
Vol. 16:3 (2021) ► pp.347–367

Exploring deaf sign language interpreting students’ experiences from joint sign language interpreting programs for deaf and hearing students in Finland

| Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
ORCID logo | Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
ORCID logo | Western Norway University of Applied Sciences | Stockholm University
Integrated university programs for deaf and hearing sign language interpreting students are rare. In Finland, deaf interpreting students have been integrated in the only university program for sign language interpreting since its beginning in the early 2000s. This article investigates the experiences of the deaf interpreting students and deaf sign language interpreters (n = 5) who attend and have attended the program. We analyzed interview responses using critical discourse analysis and the concept of identity construction, and found that deaf interpreting students, despite some disadvantages, benefited from the integrated program. We also found three identity positions – competent deaf identity, student identity, and professional DI identity – and support for recognition (Honneth 1996) in both the solidarity and legal sphere developed through the program.
Keywords: critical discourse analysis, deaf interpreters, higher education, interpreting training, sign language interpreting, theory of recognition
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • Deaf interpreters and deaf identities
      • Sign language interpreting in Finland: Rights, rules, and regulations
  • Method
    • Participants
    • The interviews
    • Ethical and methodological considerations
    • Critical discourse analysis as method of analysis
    • Construction of identity as method of analysis
    • Choice of pronoun in relationship to social belonging
  • Results
    • Competent deaf identity
    • Student identity
    • Professional identity
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.18033.ska
References (33)
References
Adam, Robert, et al. 2014. “Deaf interpreters: An introduction.” In Deaf Interpreters at Work: International Insights, ed. by Robert Adam, et al., 1–18. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Adam, Robert, Breda Carty, and Christopher Stone. 2011. “Ghostwriting: Deaf translators within the Deaf community.” Babel 57 (4): 357–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Böser, Ursula. 2015. “Interviews and focus groups.” In Researching Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Claudia V. Angelelli and Brian J. Baer, 236–246. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boudreault, Patrick. 2005. “Deaf interpreters.” In Topics in Signed Language Interpreting, ed. by Terry Janzen, 323–356. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burr, Vivien. 2003. Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, Karin and Maria Nyström. 2001. “Pre-understanding and openness: A relationship without hope?” Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 15 (4): 339–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Wit, Maya. 2016. A Comprehensive Guide to Sign Language Interpreting in Europe. Amsterdam: de Wit.Google Scholar
European Forum for Sign Language Interpreting. 2011. The Rights to Sign Language Interpreting Services When Working or Studying Abroad. EFSLI Report 1101.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Finnish Association of the Deaf. 2015. Viittomakielen tulkkaus [Sign language interpreting]. [URL]. Last accessed 21 January 2020.
Forestal, Eileen. 2005. “The emerging professionals: Deaf interpreters and their views and experience on training.” In Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directions for Research and Practice, ed. by Marc Marschark, Rico Peterson, and Elizabeth A. Winston, 235–258. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Deaf Interpreters: Exploring their Processes of Interpreting. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Minneapolis, MN, Capella University.Google Scholar
Friedner, Michele. 2018. “Negotiating legitimacy in American Sign Language interpreting education: Uneasy belonging in a community of practice.” Disability Studies Quarterly 38(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra. 1997. “The interpreter on trial: Pragmatics in court interpreting.” In The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community, ed. by Silvana. E. Carr, et al., 201–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Stuart. 1996. “Introduction: Who needs ‘identity’?” In Questions of Cultural Identity, ed. by Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay, 1–17. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Holcomb, Thomas K. 1997. “Development of Deaf bicultural identity.” American Annals of the Deaf 142(2): 89–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 1996. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, Marianne W. and Louise Phillips. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Annelies, Maartje De Meulder, and Dai O’Brien. 2017. “Innovations in Deaf Studies: Critically mapping the field.” In Innovations in Deaf Studies: The Role of Deaf Scholars, ed. by Annelies Kusters, Maartje De Meulder, and Dai O’Brien, 1–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto, and Mouffe Chantal. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Lai, Miranda. 2018. “Training deaf learners to become interpreters: A pilot project.” International Journal of Interpreter Education 10 (1): 30–45.Google Scholar
Leigh, Irene W. 2009. A Lens on Deaf Identities. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, Mette Sommer. 2016. Deaf Interpreters in Europe: A Comprehensive European Survey of the Situation of Deaf Interpreters Today. Copenhagen: EU.Google Scholar
Marschark, Mark, Rico Peterson, and Elizabeth A. Winston, eds. 2005. Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directions for Research and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDermid, Campbell. 2010. “Culture brokers, advocates, or conduits: Pedagogical considerations for deaf interpreter education.” International Journal of Interpreter Education 21: 76–101.Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher. 2020. “Positionality in public service interpreting research.” FITISPos International Journal: Public Service Interpreting and Translation 7 (1): 92–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees. 2016. The Norwegian Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology. 4th ed.Google Scholar
Olsen, Elisabet, Ingeborg Skaten, and Gro Hege Saltnes Urdal. 2018. “Grenseløs tolkning: Tolking mellom fremmedspråklige døve og norske talespråklige” [Borderless interpreting: Interpreting between foreign-language deaf and Norwegian hearing]. In Tolking: Språkarbeid og profesjonsutøvelse [Interpreting: Language work and professional practice], ed. by Anna-Lena Nilsson, Eli Raanes, and Hilde Haualand, 222–241. Oslo: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Patton, Michael Quinn. 2015. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rogers, Jeremy. 2016. “Deaf interpreter education: Stories and insights shared by working deaf interpreters and deaf interpreting students.” Unpublished MA thesis, University of Western Oregon.Google Scholar
Russell, Debra. 2017. “Deaf/Non-deaf interpreter teams: The complexity of professional practice.” In Interpreting and the Politics of Recognition, ed. by Christopher Stone and Lorraine Leeson, 138–159. Routledge: New York.Google Scholar
Sawyer, David. 2004. Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education: Curriculum and Assessment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tester, Christopher. 2018. “How American Sign Language-English interpreters who can hear determine need for a deaf interpreter for court proceedings.” Journal of Interpretation 26(1): article 3.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Urdal, Gro Hege Saltnes, Ingeborg Skaten & Elisabet Tiselius
2024. Educators of deaf and hearing interpreting students as agents of change: challenging the curriculum. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 18:3 ► pp. 364 ff. DOI logo
Ramadhan, Fija, Luthfia Jayyida Ainaya Fatiha, Haeranisa Bella Krisanti, Daffa Rozan & Caezario Rafie Anggara Z
2023. Pengembangan Website ‘BALASAN’ Sebagai Upaya Peningkatan Minat Belajar Bahasa Isyarat Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan Non formal 1:2 ► pp. 12 ff. DOI logo
Llamazares de Prado, Jose Enrique
2021. Sign language teaching technological advances and differences in international contexts. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology 38:5 ► pp. 433 ff. DOI logo
Urdal, Gro Hege Saltnes & Ingeborg Skaten
2021. Fra bruker til kollega – døve som mottakere og ytere av tolketjenester. Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning 24:3 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Urdal, Gro Hege Saltnes & Ingeborg Skaten
2023. Expectations of qualified deaf interpreters (DIs). STRIDON: Studies in Translation and Interpreting 3:1 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.