The Things They Left Unsaid: Language Ideologies and the Assessment of Signed Language Interpreters
Temas
Detalles
Conversations surrounding translation and interpretation are undergoing a paradigm shift towards critical studies, marked by an exploration of social justice issues (Bancroft, 2015; Diamond, 2021; Mc Cartney, 2017), intersectionalities (Napier et al., 2022; Parkins-Maliko, 2022), and critical theories (Ford, 2021; Moutinho, 2019). The theoretical and analytical frameworks that underpinned this study include equivalency theory, critical theory, and critical discourse analysis. Through a critical lens, this research investigated the tools used by signed language interpreter educators in the United States to assess equivalency in student interpretations. Furthermore, this study analyzed the language ideologies of these educators as they were revealed during the evaluation of student interpreters. Given that language is inherently ideological (Woolard, 2020), it is clear that the evaluation of equivalency is likewise influenced by these ideologies, indicating that the assessment of language interpretation can exhibit bias. To explore this, the primary research question addressed how these ideologies shape student outcomes in interpreting assessments. Five educators from different parts of the United States took part in the study by completing three assessment tasks followed by a playback interview. Unsurprisingly, the assessment methods each participant selected influenced the components they evaluated in the student’s work. Ideas about appropriate content significantly impacted students’ scores when content was the primary focus of the assessment tool compared to other instructors who placed higher value on the linguistic devices and structure of a rendered interpretation. However, almost all of their assessment tools were virtually devoid of cultural assessment. As a result, students were assessed based on their production of the default, Dominant American English and Dominant American Sign Language.