In the Hands of the Interpreter

jillio
This is an article describing intended research. It was written and contained in a publication regarding research being conducted at a university. Therefore, proper terminology shoudl be employed. It can be safely assumed that the author of the article received the information regrading the research project from either the researcher, or the researcher's assistants. Therefore, correct terminology should be used.
Click to expand...

I do not dispute that correct terminolgy should be use, perhaps the authour of the article is not versed in the many layers of the topic. Really cannot tell from this without contacting that person.


jillio said:
loml said:
And it is an article reporting on intended research. Yes, people do research what they are passionate about. But they also include those variables and controls that, omitted, have the propensity to skew data collected. In this case, that would be ASL. I never suggested anything of the kind. What I have stated is that this is not a complete study without the inclusion of ASL.
Click to expand...

I believe that the largest variable is the Dr. Krause is looking at English and the accuracy of the delivery of the method. This is NOT about ASL, this, imo, is about Enlgish. And without you contacting Dr. Krause directly, you accusations of skewed data are unjustified.
potaoe or potato??
Click to expand...
 
jillio said:
I agree that it very well could be a useful tool to teach phonetic decoding and assist in literacy. However, it is being portrayed in this particular research, not as a teaching tool, but as a communication method. So you are correct in your conclusions regarding my problems with such research. If the intent is to make parents aware of all methods, and to investigate the effectiveness of each in order to better inform parents regarding those methods, then all methods must be included. If one is concerned about the number of comprehension errors involved in transliteration/interpretation, then one must look at the errors from the perspective of all situations.

I have stated numerous times that CS could very well be a useful teaching tool. I do not discount it when used for that purpose at all. I discount its promotion as a communciation mode, and especially when advocated as the primary communication mode.

The deaf student population is not homogeneous. Just as there are hearining children who do not do well with a phonetic approach to reading skills, there are those deaf students who will not do well with a phonetic approach. Therefore, it is necessary to keep CS in mind as a tool, not as an overall answer to literacy problems.

And a very Merry Christmas to your P.J. as well.
Click to expand...

jillio - I understand that you cannot accept Cued Speech as a communication method for a hearing family with a child that is deaf/hoh/Down Syndrom/Autism etc. I however, cannot lay idle when Cued Speech is portrayed as unsuccessful as a primary communication and inclusion method. I have witnessed many successes.

Unfortunately I have also witnessed more hearing families with a child that is deaf/hoh/Down Syndrom/autism etc. who are unsuccessful using ASL as a primary communication and inclusion method.
 
Last edited:
deafskeptic - Thank you for sharing. Was your mother a fluent cuer of Enlgish? Were you?
 
deafskeptic said:
jillio said:
I'm a very visual learner and I've always thought that even if I were hearing, I'd be a visual person. Spoken words will have little meaning to me unless I have a visual symbol for it even though I can hear them quite clearly. A recent example is the time I called my big sister on the phone and she told me what town my niece is going to. I have no idea what town she's in even though I know it's near the beach and that the community college she's going to near is it. I must see the name of the town for the name to register.

Heh English Phonics.. I believe Bernard Shaw is famous for complaining about it.
Click to expand...

Yep, Shaw was a quite critical of English phnoics.:giggle:

I bet when you remember directions to a destination, you do it by using landmarks rather than street names, too. I'm the same way....go to the gas station and turn left. And I take in information much better by reading it than by listening to lecture. In order for lecture to have an impact, I have to take notes and put it into something visual. And when I am trying to recall a specific word, I don't recall by the way it sounds, but by the way it looks. I actually see the written word in my mind.
Click to expand...
 
loml said:
jillio - I understand that you cannot accept Cued Speech as a communication method for a hearing family with a child that is deaf/hoh/Down Syndrom/Autism etc. I however, cannot lay idle when Cued Speech is portrayed as unsuccessful as a primary communication and inclusion method. I have witnessed many successes.

Unfortunately I have also witnessed more hearing families with a child that is deaf/hoh/Down Syndrom/autism etc. who are unsuccessful using ASL as a primary communication and inclusion method.
Click to expand...

It is unsuccessful as a primary communication method. You, yourself, have said agreed that CS was never intended as a communication mode. I have no doubt that you have witnessed successes. But it is unsuccessful as a communication mode because of it's relatively infrequent use. Likewise, to use it as a communication method is a distortion of what the system was designed to do. I can use a butter knife as a screwdriver, too, but a butter knife was never intended as a screwdriver and does not accopmplish the task as efficiently or as successfully as a screwdriver would.

And I have witnessed numerous successes with ASL.
 
jillio said:
deafskeptic said:
Yep, Shaw was a quite critical of English phnoics.:giggle:

I bet when you remember directions to a destination, you do it by using landmarks rather than street names, too. I'm the same way....go to the gas station and turn left. And I take in information much better by reading it than by listening to lecture. In order for lecture to have an impact, I have to take notes and put it into something visual. And when I am trying to recall a specific word, I don't recall by the way it sounds, but by the way it looks. I actually see the written word in my mind.
Click to expand...

Ha ha I do.
Click to expand...
 
loml said:
What you are saying may be factual for you geographics, but my experiences has not been as clearly defined. I have seen the terms interchanged, not necessarily something that I agree with, it is an ardurous task of re-educating.
Click to expand...

Your experience, all due respect, is irrelevant. And I don't mean that in a personal way because I have had the same experience -- been called "the translator" a million times -- but that isn't the point here. This is an academic research paper on the topic of communication providers for the deaf. There is no excuse for using the terms incorrectly.
 
loml said:
jillio

I do not dispute that correct terminolgy should be use, perhaps the authour of the article is not versed in the many layers of the topic. Really cannot tell from this without contacting that person.


jillio said:
I believe that the largest variable is the Dr. Krause is looking at English and the accuracy of the delivery of the method. This is NOT about ASL, this, imo, is about Enlgish. And without you contacting Dr. Krause directly, you accusations of skewed data are unjustified.
potaoe or potato??
Click to expand...

One does not have to speak to a researcher to see flaws in the research design.Krause hopes her research will help contribute to the improvement of the certification process for interpreters.

And, that is exactly the point. English only is included, which is hardly representative of the deaf community. and it applies only to English transliterators, not interpreters. Therefore, any results found wil hardly be applicable to interpreter testing and qualification, as it is stated the results are intended. Likewise, with English only, the inforamtion is not useful insuring that parents are informed of ALL options. Both have been pointed out early in the responses to the OP. So it would appear that we have come full circle here, and you are now agreeing with the earlier posts.
Click to expand...
 
I agree with Interpretrator and Jillio. Interpreter and Transliterator are two different terms. They are NOT interchangeable no matter where in the world you go. They have different meanings. Some laypeople might refer to a CLT as an interpreter because they don't know any better, but someone who is in the field should know the difference.

I also agree with Jillio's question about the funding for this research. I do not find it an offensive question at all. I am also curious to know if the NCSA funded this research. I think I will e-mail them and ask.
 
Interpretrator said:
Your experience, all due respect, is irrelevant. And I don't mean that in a personal way because I have had the same experience -- been called "the translator" a million times -- but that isn't the point here. This is an academic research paper on the topic of communication providers for the deaf. There is no excuse for using the terms incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Interpretrator - This is an OP, and not the research paper.
 
Etoile said:
I agree with Interpretrator and Jillio. Interpreter and Transliterator are two different terms. They are NOT interchangeable no matter where in the world you go. They have different meanings. Some laypeople might refer to a CLT as an interpreter because they don't know any better, but someone who is in the field should know the difference.

I also agree with Jillio's question about the funding for this research. I do not find it an offensive question at all. I am also curious to know if the NCSA funded this research. I think I will e-mail them and ask.
Click to expand...


I would not expect you to find jillios' comment as crass. Why would you think that the NCSA is funding this research, when Dr. Krause is a faculty memeber of the USF?
 
deafskeptic said:
Neither of us were fluent cuers. My mother was the better cuer.
Click to expand...


Thank you deafskeptic.

You have stated that you were raised oral for the first thirteen years, during this time, you mother ventured into cueing, albeit briefly, did your mother implement cueing into your oral practice?

Please correct me if I have made any errors.
 
loml said:
I would not expect you to find jillios' comment as crass. Why would you think that the NCSA is funding this research, when Dr. Krause is a faculty memeber of the USF?
Click to expand...

Its a quite logical question, given the fact that membership in the NCSA is nationwide, and that she is involved in training of CS transliterators. And, as NCSA claims to be involved in research efforts regarding CS. Simply becasue she is a faculty of USF does not preclude funding for research from an organization outside of the university. Faculty members receive outside grants all the time in order to fund research projects that are univsersity based. In fact, the great majority of research is funded outside of the university.
 
Etoile said:
Cueing is funny in that regard. I have no problem with cued speech, personally. I think it benefits many of the kids who use it. I think more parents need to be aware of cueing, it is not that well-known, and some families might benefit greatly from being able to communicate easily with their deaf children. It's not for everybody, but it helps some people, and anything that helps can't be all bad.
However...I have noticed an extreme tendency for cueing advocates to be REALLY strong pushers for cueing. And like you noted, it's not just motivated by finding the best solution for deaf students...it's because she thinks cueing is the best method and wants to develop research to support that.

Again: cueing can be great. Cueing advocates, though, can be a little too high-pressure.
Click to expand...
:gpost: While I have not yet looked into CS for my child I may do that not as a single method but more as another tool in the toolbox. I do agree that CS has it's place and based on what I have read it's helpful to some. As far as high pressure advocates, I see it in CS and other methods as well. I guess it's how passionate we are about what we support and believe that drives the pressure tactics. I am a firm believer that not every method is the best for every child. I also believe that's partially why so many different methods have evolved over time.
 
Back
Top