Educating signed language interpreters in Australia: A blended approach

New Approaches to Interpreter Education

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 67-103

  Napier, Jemina ^a  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 57849165403     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (109)

1. Alonso, F., G. Lopez, D. Manrique, and J. M. Vines. 2005. An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology 36(2): 217-36.
2. Angelleli, C. 2004. Medical interpreting and cross-cultural communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Baker, M. 1992. In other words: A coursebook on translation. London: Routledge.
4. Banna, K. 2004. Auslan interpreting: What can we learn from translation theory? Deaf Worlds 20(2): 100-19.
5. Barbian, 2002. Blended works: Here's proof! Online Learning 6(6): 26-31.
6. Bélanger, D. 2004. Interactional patterns in dialogue interpreting. Journal of Interpretation 1-18.
7. Bergson, M., and D. Sperlinger. 2003. "I still don't know what I should have done": Reflections on personal/professional dilemmas in sign language interpreting. Deaf Worlds 19 (3): 6-23.
8. Berk-Seligson, S. 1990. The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. Bidoli, C. J. K. 2004. Intercultural features of English-to-Italian sign language conference interpretation: A preliminary study for multimodal corpus analysis. Textus 17: 127-42.
10. Boudrealt, P. 2005. Deaf interpreters. In Topics in signed language interpreting, ed. T. Janzen, 323-56. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
11. Bowen-Bailey, D., and P. Gajewski. 2002. Designing digital resources a.k.a. CD-ROM creation for dummies. Proceedings of the 14th National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers. Minneapolis: CIT.
12. Brennan, M., and R. Brown. 2004. Equality before the law: Deaf people's access to justice, 2nd ed. Coleford, U.K.: Douglas McLean.
13. Carr, S., and D. Steyn. 2000. Distance education training for interpreters: An insurmountable oxymoron? In The critical link 2: Interpreters in the community, ed. R. Roberts, S. Carr, D. Abraham, and A. Dufour, 83-88. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
14. Catford, J. C. 1965/2000. Translation shifts. In The translation studies reader, ed. L. Venuti, 141-47. London: Routledge.
15. Chesterman, A. 1998. Contrastive functional analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamens.
16. Cokely, D. 1992. Interpretation: A sociolinguistic model. Burtonsville, Md.: Linstok Press.
17. -. 2000. Exploring ethics: A case for revising the code of ethics. Journal of Interpretation 25-60.
18. Cokely, D., and J. Hawkins 2003. Interpreting in teams: A pilot study on requesting and offering support. Journal of Interpretation 49-94.
19. Conlon, C., and J. Napier 2004. Developing Auslan educational resources: A process of effective translation of children's books. Deaf Worlds 20(2): 141-61.
20. Cook, A. P. 2004. Neutrality? No thanks. Can a biased role be an ethical one? Journal of Interpretation 57-74.
21. Cragg, S. 2002. Peeling back the skins of an onion. Deaf Worlds 18(2), 56-61.
22. Davis, J. 2000. Translation techniques in interpreter education. In Innovative practices for teaching sign language interpreters, ed. C. Roy, 109-31. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
23. Dean, R., and R. Q. Pollard. 2001. The application of demand-control theory to sign language interpreting: Implications for stress and interpreter training. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 6(1): 1-14.
24. Dickinson, J. 2005. Boundaries, boredom and bad habits. NEWSLI: Magazine of the Association of Sign Language Interpreters of England, Wales & Northern Ireland 10-12.
25. Eggins, S., and D. Slade. 1997. Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.
26. Fairclough, N. 1992. Critical discourse analysis: A critical study of language. New York: Longman.
27. Fenton, S. 1997. The role of the interpreter in the adversarial courtroom. In The critical link: Interpreters in the community, ed. S. E. Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour, and D. Steyn, 29-34. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
28. Forestal, E. 2005. The emerging professionals: Deaf interpreters and their views and experiences on training. In Interpreting and interpreter education: Directions for research and practice, ed. M. Marschark, R. Peterson, and E. A. Winston. New York: Oxford University Press.
29. Fullan, M. G. 1991. The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.
30. Goswell, D., and J. Napier. Forthcoming. Training deaf interpreters: Developing a new curriculum.
31. Gresswell, E. 2001. How applicable to BSL are contemporary approaches to translation? Deaf Worlds 17(2): 50-62.
32. Hale, S. B. 2004. The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
33. Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
34. Harrington, F. 2000. Sign language interpreters and access for Deaf students to university curricula: The ideal and the reality. In The critical link 2: Interpreters in the community, ed. R. Roberts, S. A. Carr, D. Abraham, and A. Dufour, 219-42. Vancouver: John Benjamins.
35. Harris, J. 2002. Innovations in translating for the Deaf. The Bible Translator 53(2): 233-38.
36. Hatim, B., and I. Mason. 1990. Discourse and the translator. London: Longman.
37. th National Convention of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf), ed. D. Swartz, 140-51. Silver Spring, Md.: RID Publications.
38. Hoza, J. 2003. Toward an interpreter sensibility: Three levels of ethical analysis and a comprehensive model of ethical decision-making for interpreters. Journal of Interpretation 1-48.
39. Humphrey, J. H. 2000. Portfolios: One answer to the challenge of assessment and the "readiness to work" gap. In Innovative practices for teaching sign language interpreters, ed. C. Roy, 153-76. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
40. Irons, L., R. Keel, and C. L. Bielema. 2002. Blended learning and learner satisfaction: Keys to user acceptance? USDA Journal 16(12). Available at http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/DEC02-Issue/index.html.
41. Isham, W. 1986. The role of message analysis in interpretation. In Interpreting: The art of cross-cultural mediation, ed. M. McIntire, 111-22). Silver Spring, Md.: RID Publications.
42. Johnson, L., and E. A. Winston. 1998. You can't teach interpreting at a distance! (And other myths of a fading century). In The keys to highly effective interpreter training (Proceedings of the 12th National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers), ed. J. Alvarez, 109-36. Minneapolis: CIT.
43. Kim, M. 2005. Using systemic functional grammar to identify translation problems. Unpublished research manuscript, Macquarie University.
44. Kiraly, D. 2000. A social constructivist approach to translator education: Empowerment from theory to practice. Manchester, U.K.: St. Jerome.
45. Kopczynski, A. 1980. Conference interpreting: Some linguistic and communicative problems. Poznan, Poland: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
46. Leeson, L. 2005. Making the effort in simultaneous interpreting: Some considerations for signed language interpreters. In Topics in signed language interpreting, ed. T. Janzen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
47. Leneham, M. 2005. The sign language interpreter as translator: Challenging traditional definitions of translation and interpreting. Deaf Worlds 21(1): 79-101.
48. Leneham, M. Forthcoming. Analysing approaches to interpreting and translating texts from Auslan to English. Unpublished doctoral diss., Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
49. Leneham, M., and J. Napier. 2003. Sign language interpreters' codes of ethics: Should we maintain the status quo? Deaf Worlds 19(2): 78-98.
50. Li, D. 2000. Needs assessment in translation teaching: Making translator training more responsive to social needs. Babel 46(4): 289-99.
51. th National Conference of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf), ed. D. Swartz, 97-104. Alexandria, Va.: RID Publications.
52. Love, J. 2004. Blended learning: How to integrate online and traditional learning. New York: VNU Business Media.
53. Martin, J. R., and D. Rose. 2002. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
54. Metzger, M. 1999. Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
55. Metzger, M. 2005. Interpreted discourse: Learning and recognizing what interpreters do in interaction. In Advances in teaching sign language interpreters, ed. C. Roy, 100-22. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
56. Mitchell, T. 2002. Co-working and equal participation. Deaf Worlds 18(2): 66-68.
57. Montoya, L. A., R. Egnatovitch, E. Eckhardt, M. Goldstein, R. A. Goldstein, and A. Stenberg. 2004. Translation challenges and strategies: The ASL translation of a computer-based psychiatric diagnostic interview. Sign Language Studies 4(4): 314-44.
58. Napier, J. 1998. Free your mind-The rest will follow. Deaf Worlds 14 (3): 15-22.
59. -. 2002a. Sign language interpreting: Linguistic coping strategies. Coleford, U.K.: Douglas McLean.
60. -. 2002b. University interpreting: Linguistic issues for consideration. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7 (4): 281-301.
61. -. 2003. A sociolinguistic analysis of the occurrence and types of omissions produced by Australian Sign Language/English interpreters. In From topic boundaries to omission: New research on interpretation, ed. M. Metzger, S. Collins, V. Dively, and R. Shaw, 27-54. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
62. -. Napier, J. 2004a. Interpreting omissions: A new perspective. Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 6(2): 117-42.
63. -. 2004b. Sign language interpreter training, testing, and accreditation: An international comparison. American Annals of the Deaf 149(4): 350-59.
64. -. 2005a. Linguistic features and strategies of interpreting: From research to education to practice. In Sign language interpreting and interpreter education: Directions for research and practice, ed. M. Marschark, R. Peterson, and E. A. Winston. New York: Oxford University Press.
65. -. 2005b. Making learning accessible for sign language interpreters: A process of change. Educational Action Research 13(4): 505-23.
66. -. 2005c. Teaching interpreting students to identify omission potential. In Advances in teaching sign language interpreters, ed. C. Roy, 123-37. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
67. -. In press. Effectively teaching discourse to sign language interpreting students. Language, Culture and Curriculum.
68. Napier, J., A. Carmichael, and A. Wiltshire. Forthcoming. Look-pause-nod: A linguistic case study of a Deaf professional and interpreters working together. In Deaf professionals and interpreters working together, ed. P. C. Hauser., K. L. Finch, and A. B. Hauser. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
69. Nida, E. 1964/2000. Principles of correspondence. In The translation studies reader, ed. L. Venuti, 126-40. London: Routledge.
70. Nord, C. 1997. Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester, England: St. Jerome Publishing.
71. ORIMA Research. 2004. Supply and demand for Auslan interpreters across Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services.
72. Osguthorpe, R. T., and C. R. Graham. 2003. Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4(3): 227-33.
73. Padden, C. 2000/2001. Simultaneous interpreting across modalities. Interpreting 5(2): 169-86.
74. -. 2004. Translating Veditz. Sign Language Studies 4(3): 244-60.
75. Patrie, C. 2001. Translating from English. San Diego: Dawn Sign Press.
76. Pollitt, K. 1997. The state we're in: Some thoughts on professionalisation, professionalism and practice among the UK's sign language interpreters. Deaf Worlds 13(3): 21-26.
77. -. 2000. Critical linguistic and cultural awareness: Essential tools in the interpreter's kit bag. In Innovative practices for teaching sign language interpreters, ed. C. Roy, 67-82. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
78. Ressler, C. 1999. A comparative analysis of a direct interpretation and an intermediary interpretation in American Sign Language. Journal of Interpretation 71-104.
79. th National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers), ed. M. McIntire, 139-47. Silver Spring, Md.: RID Publications.
80. -. 2000a. Interpreting as a discourse process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
81. -. 2000b. Training interpreters-Past, present, and future. In Innovative practices for teaching sign language interpreters, ed. C. Roy, 1-14. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
82. Russell, D. 2002. Interpreting in legal contexts: Consecutive and simultaneous interpretation. Burtonsville, Md.: Sign Media.
83. Schäffner, C. 2002. Discourse analysis for translation and translator training: Status, needs, methods. In The role of discourse analysis for translation and in translator training, ed. C. Schäffner, 1-8. Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
84. Scott, G. 1999. Change matters: Making a difference in education and training. St. Leonards, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.
85. Seal, B. C. 1998. Best practices in educational interpreting. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon.
86. Seleskovitch, D. 1976. Interpretation: A psychological approach to translating. In Translation: Applications and research, ed. R. Brislin, 92-116. New York: Gardner Press.
87. -. 1978. Interpreting for international conferences. Washington, D.C.: Pen and Booth.
88. Shaw, R. 1992. Determining register in sign-to-English interpreting. In Sign language interpreters and interpreting. ed. D. Cokely, 71-98. Burtonsville, Md.: Linstok Press.
89. Shuy, R. 2001. Discourse analysis in the legal context. In The handbook of discourse analysis, ed. D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. E. Hamilton, 437-52. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
90. Singh, H. 2003. Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology 43(6): 51-54.
91. Slatyer, H. 2006. Researching curriculum innovation in interpreter education: The case of initial training for novice interpreters in languages of limited diffusion. In New approaches to interpreter training, ed. C. Roy. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University.
92. Tannen, D. 1984. Conversational style: Analysing talk among friends. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
93. Tate, G., J. Collins, and P. Tymms. 2003. Assessments using BSL: Issues of translation for performance indicators in primary schools. Deaf Worlds 19(1): 6-35.
94. Tate, G., and G. H. Turner. 2001. The code and the culture: Sign language interpreting-In search of the new breed's ethics. In Interpreting interpreting: Studies and reflections on sign language interpreting, ed. F. J. Harrington and G. H. Turner, 53-66. Coleford, U.K.: Douglas McLean.
95. Turner, G. H. 2005. Towards real interpreting. In Sign language interpreting and interpreter education: Directions for research and practice, ed. M. Marschark, R. Peterson, and E. A. Winston. New York: Oxford University Press.
96. Turner, G. H., and R. Brown. 2001. Interaction and the role of the interpreter in court. In Interpreting interpreting: Studies and reflections on sign language interpreting, ed. F. J. Harrington and G. H. Turner, 152-67. Coleford, U.K.: Douglas McLean.
97. Turner, G., and K. Pollitt. 2002. Community interpreting meets literary translation: English-BSL interpreting in the theatre. The Translator 8 (1): 25-48.
98. Van Herreweghe, M. 2005. Teaching turn taking and turn yielding in meetings with deaf and hearing participants. In Advances in teaching sign language interpreters, ed. C. Roy, 151-69. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
99. Venuti, L., ed. 2000. The translation studies reader. London: Routledge.
100. Vermeer, H. J. 1989/2000. Skopos and commission in translational action. In The translation studies reader, ed. L. Venuti, 221-32. London: Routledge.
101. Wadensjö, C. 1998. Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.
102. th National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers). Silver Spring, Md.: RID Publications.
103. Winston, E. A., ed. 2004. Educational interpreting: How it can succeed. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
104. Winston, E. A., and C. Monikowski. 2000. Discourse mapping: Developing textual coherence skills in interpreters. In Innovative practices for teaching sign language interpreters, ed. C. Roy, 15-66. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
105. -. 2005. Translation: The GPS of discourse mapping. In Advances in teaching sign language interpreters, ed. C. Roy. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
106. th National Conference of the Registry of Interpreters of the Deaf). Minneapolis: CIT.
107. Witter-Merithew, A., and L. Johnson. 2005. Toward competent practice: Conversations with stakeholders. Alexandria, Va.: RID.
108. th national convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers), ed. L. Swabey, 33-52. Minneapolis: Conference of Interpreter Trainers.
109. Witter-Merithew, A., and K. M. Stewart. 2004. The dimensions of ethical decision-making: A guided exploration for interpreters. Unpublished manuscript.