Running head: EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING PARADIGMS TO PREVENT DEAF

Evolution of Interpreting Paradigms to Prevent Deaf Oppression

Charlotte Patterson
Western Oregon University

EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING PARADIGMS TO PREVENT DEAF OPPRESSION

As members of an oppressed minority group, Deaf people are subjected to being

stigmatized, discredited, and mistreated by those of the majority--hearing people (Baker-Shenk,
1986, p. 3). According to Baker-Shenk (1986), being a member of an oppressed minority means
you suffer because the dominant group denigrates your self-worth, your abilities, your
intelligence, and your right to be different and affirmed in your difference (p. 2). Baker-Shenk
(1986) defines an oppressor group as those who believe their way of acting and being is the
best way, the appropriate way, the cultured or intelligent way and have dominant power,
to which those, who are not members of this dominant power group, are then stigmatized as
different . . . inappropriate and inferior (p. 6). Baker-Shenk (1986) claims that hearing
interpreters, being members of the oppressor group, and the Deaf, being members of the
oppressed minority, run a clear risk of being highly influenced by the way oppressors think and
feel about oppressed people (p. 8). Some common examples of oppressive behaviors are, but
are not limited to, leaving the Deaf person out of a conversation or decision making, unethically
expanding the role of the interpreter to the detriment of the Deaf consumer, or misusing ones
power, as a hearing person, to discriminate against Deaf people (Harvey, 2003, p. 207). This
paper reviews how hearing American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters approach their work and
reflects the interpreting fields attempts in lessing Deaf oppression in America.
In a journal article by Harlan Lane (2005), titled Ethnicity, Ethics, and the Deaf-World,
Lane addresses the history of Deaf oppression, societys misunderstandings of the Deaf
community, and ways to reform the representation of Deaf people in todays society. Lane
(2005) claims that historically, the hearing majority have labeled Deaf people as disabled and
handicapped, though Deaf people see themselves as being a member of an ethnic minority (p.
293). Lane (2005) states that members of the Deaf community pay the price of social stigma,

EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING PARADIGMS TO PREVENT DEAF OPPRESSION

as do disabled people, blacks, women, [and] gays, by being viewed as biologically inferior
(p. 296). Due to the history of oppression of the Deaf community in America, their community
has had to be constructed in the face of adversity and in the face of self doubt created by
handicapping attitudes and failure-bound programs (Baker-Shenk & Kyle, 1990, p. 65). As a
result, the Deaf community today reveals strengths in community, identity and values, language,
traditions and art forms, among other things. Membership offers the chance to create a positive
self image, which is disallowed so often by hearing values (Baker-Shenk & Kyle, 1990, p. 66).
Oppression of Deaf people is not only a problem in America, but a problem worldwide.
Hilde Haualand and Colin Allen, for the World Federation of the Deaf and the Swedish National
Association of the Deaf in 2009, conducted a study called Deaf People and Human Rights. The
study asked 123 countries National Association of the Deaf a series of questions (93 of which
replied to the questionnaire), to find out what the rights of Deaf people look like in various
places in the world (Haualand & Allen, 2009, p. 6). The goal of the survey was to find if Deaf
people have access to and recognition of sign language including acceptance of and respect for
Deaf peoples linguistic and cultural identity, bilingual education, sign language interpreting and
accessibility (Haualand & Allen, 2009, p. 6). The results of the study show that Deaf people
around the world are denied many basic human rights (Haualand & Allen, 2009). The study
reveals that many countries still fail to recognize sign language as a being a vital part of Deaf
culture and Deaf education; there is a severe lack in quality interpreter training opportunities,
which limits the Deaf people to accessibility and job opportunities; and the overall education
provided to Deaf people around the world is resulting in high illiteracy rates (Haualand & Allen,
2009).

EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING PARADIGMS TO PREVENT DEAF OPPRESSION

Deaf people have been oppressed throughout history by the lack of recognition for their
language and lack of proper teaching systems in education, limiting their access to information
by limited availability of sign language interpreting services, and the widespread lack of
awareness and knowledge about the situation of Deaf people (Haualand & Allen, 2009, p. 7).
This topic is relevant and crucial for the hearing population and hearing interpreters to learn
about because the more knowledgeable we all become to learning the history of Deaf oppression
and the type of oppression Deaf people face today, the better we can come to understand what
should be done to prevent it from continuing.
Brief History of Interpreting Paradigms
According to Witter-Merithew (1999), Sign language interpreting was first recognized in
the United States as a profession during the mid-1960s when the Registry of Interpreters for the
Deaf (RID) was first established (p. 1). Witter-Merithew (1999) claims that since the birth of the
profession, the roles of hearing ASL/English interpreters and their approach to the work has
changed and evolved as the needs of the Deaf consumer evolves over time (p. 8). By examining
the changes in the various ways interpreters approach interpreting work, known as interpreting
paradigms, one can evaluate the existing power dynamic that is exemplified through the
interpreter interactions with consumers (Baker-Shenk, 1992). To better understand what a less
oppressive interpreting paradigm looks like, it is important to have a clear understanding of what
the word power means, what interpreting paradigms are commonly used in the past and the
present, and how they effect the consumers with whom they work.
If one were to look up the word power in the Merriam-Webster dictionary online (n.d),
one would get definitions such as the ability or right to control people or things or a person or
organization that has a lot of control and influence over other people or organizations. Baker-

EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING PARADIGMS TO PREVENT DEAF OPPRESSION

Shenk (1992) defines power as the ability to act. You have power when you can make decisions
and implement or act on those decisions (p. 120). Hearing ASL/English interpreters have power
due to privilege. Being born hearing gives interpreters automatic privileges, while they can also
use their education, economic status, ethnicity, and gender to gain even more privilege and
power over others in the community (Baker-Shenk, 1992, p. 121). McIntosh (1989) defines those
who are privileged as individuals who have an invisible package of unearned assets (para. 3).
Though much oppressiveness is done unconsciously by those with privilege, it is important to
realize we are justly seen as oppressive even when we dont see ourselves that way (McIntosh,
1989, para. 5).
Multiple interpreting paradigms have been used since the birth of the interpreting
profession, however, not all of them are commonly used today, due to the oppressive nature, lack
of empathy, or level of neutrality that these paradigms displayed to the Deaf consumers (Swabey
& Mickelson, 2008). The first approach of interpreting was called the helper paradigm. This
paradigm refers to a time when there was no professional organization for interpreters, and most
people doing the interpreting were hearing friends and relatives of Deaf people who had some
fluency in both languages (Metzger, 1999, p. 22). Baker-Shenk (1992) describes this approach
to interpreting as being the most oppressive, as it viewed Deaf people as disadvantaged, where
hearing people took it upon themselves to intervene on their behalf (p.123) in a manner that
was paternalistic and controlling (p. 125).
The conduit approach to interpreting, became very common among interpreters in the
1970s (Swabey & Mickelson, 2008). The conduit or machine approach was developed in
response to the helper approach, which eventually lead to negative perceptions of interpreters
(Metzger, 1999, p. 22). This paradigm came to surface when interpreters aimed to gain

EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING PARADIGMS TO PREVENT DEAF OPPRESSION

professionalism and worked, as the name suggests, like a machine or telephone. The next
paradigms to follow include the communication facilitator approach and the bilingual, bicultural
(bi-bi) paradigm. These approaches to interpreting followed the progression of the Deaf
community and their demands for more respect for their language (ASL), its quality of
deliverance, and consideration of the situational and cultural factors as relevant to the
interpreting task (Metzger, 1999, p. 22). Though interpreting seemed to have evolved to be less
and less oppressive, from the helper approach to the bi-bi paradigm, Metzger claims that, many
interpreters still follow the conduit model (1999, p. 23). An interpreter who has been in the field
for over 30 years, Aaron Brace, in a Street Leverage article titled The Duality of the Sign
Language Interpreter, claims
I believe that fully empowered customers may still request that I perform more like what
wed call a machine or conduit. Even as I understand that some customers express such a
preference because thats all they think sign language interpreters can do, or they think
theyre doing me a favor in making my job easier. My Mr. Hyde and I go round and
round over whether its more oppressive to comply with requests that might stem from
internalized oppression or an incomplete understanding of ones options, or to presume
that its even my place to try to diagnose such things (2012, p. 2).
During the time when the conduit and communication facilitator paradigm was most
popularly used, Interpreters viewed their role as neutral and the goal of interpreters was to be
invisible, believing that the maxims interpret everything and only interpret would empower
deaf people (Swabey & Mickelson, 2008, p. 53). The bi-bi paradigm was created in response to
the communication facilitator paradigm, which was lacking any level of cultural
mediation(Swabey & Mickelson, 2008, p. 54). This paradigm challenged the idea of neutrality

EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING PARADIGMS TO PREVENT DEAF OPPRESSION

and identified more clearly the cultural and linguistic tasks required in meaning transfer
(Swabey & Mickelson, 2008, p. 54).
Removing neutrality out of the interpreters work even further, Baker-Shenk
(1992)argues that interpreters and the Deaf consumers would greatly benefit from an ally or
advocate approach to interpreting (p. 125). Baker-Shenk (1992) claims that through her
experiences with the Deaf community and her research, interpreters hold a great amount of
power, which should be used to bring the power of the Deaf consumer up to an equalized level
(p. 125). Baker-Shenk (1992) claims that to help Deaf people overcome oppression, interpreters
should work as their allies and advocates. Baker-Shenk (1992) defines being an ally interpreter
as someone that works to be competent in both ASL and English, as well as working towards
better understanding of the values, norms, rules of behavior, and other aspects of both Deaf and
hearing cultures (p. 139). Baker-Shenk (1992) also states that ally interpreters show deep
respect for Deaf persons and their abilities to become self-determining, and making the choice
to be part of the solution to Deaf oppression through self-analysis and equalizing the power
dynamic (p. 139). The advocate/ally paradigm asks interpreters to take an active stance on
oppression by using their power and privilege in ways that do not mimic the helper model, but
instead empower Deaf consumers to act for themselves while enabling them to trust the
interpreter as an ally (Baker-Shenk, 1992).
Moving Towards More Effective Approaches
More recent paradigms have been created to be more inclusive and less oppressive by
recognizing the patterns and the interconnectedness of events as they have influenced how the
work of interpreters has been perceived (Swabey & Mickelson, 2008, p. 55). One example of
this is the multicultural/multilingual approach, which takes into account that Deaf and hearing

EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING PARADIGMS TO PREVENT DEAF OPPRESSION

people may identify as being multicultural or multilingual, thus evolving the bi-bi paradigm even
further (McKee & Davis, 2010). The multicultural/multilingual approach recognizes that Deaf
people are not a homogenous group, despite how often they may be depicted as such (Ulloa,
2014). Deaf people have various backgrounds of race, religion, ethnicity, and language and are
just as diversified in America as hearing people (Ulloa, 2014). McKee and Davis (2010) claim
that while the general hearing population in the United States is diverse, sign language
interpreters in Western countries tend to be white, majority-culture females, and . . . are more
commonly bilingual than tri- or multilingual (p. 1), making them less diverse than the Deaf
population, which is rapidly diversifying in the U.S. (McKee & Davis, 2010, p. 1). It is important
to realize that though the majority of sign language interpreters in the U.S. are not widely
diversified, the rest of the hearing and Deaf populations come from various ethnic, cultural, and
linguistic backgrounds (McKee & Davis, 2010). The lack of diversity within the field of sign
language interpreting can thus have negative impacts on both Deaf and hearing consumers, as it
can be hard to find an interpreter with overlapping social characteristics and thought-worlds, or
the ability to work in a third language that would connect them to the minority language
community of their family (McKee & Davis, 2010, p.1).
Another interesting approach to interpreting, which aims to reduce oppression in the Deaf
community inflicted upon them by their hearing interpreters, comes from Lynne Eighinger and
Ben Karlin (2001). This paradigm is called the feminist-relational (F-R) approach. By just the
title, one may be wondering what feminism has to do with the interpreting field. Eighinger and
Karlin (2001) explain that the values incorporated in the F-R philosophy include listening,
consensus building, cooperation, empowerment, social justice, and experience between those in
the oppressed minority and those of the majority (para. 2-4). These six values are not limited to

EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING PARADIGMS TO PREVENT DEAF OPPRESSION

the interactions between males (a dominant group) and females (an oppressed group), but instead
are philosophies on how dominant and oppressed groups can interact with one another to treat
each other as equals and build stronger relationships between the two (Eighinger & Karlin, 2001,
para. 3).
This F-R paradigm is built upon feminist values, which according to Eighinger and
Karlin (2001), focus on being nonjudgmental and empowering others by giving the support
needed to allow individuals to use power that is naturally their own (p. 6). The first F-R value,
listening, is described as active listening; that is a process where one pays attention to what is
said, and meant, without judgment of the individual. Consensus-building refers to soliciting
agreement and buy-in from parties before proceeding (Eighinger & Karlin, 2001. para. 4).
Cooperation means working towards the greater good and does not to gain or benefit
individually (Eighinger & Karlin, 2001, para. 4). The value of empowerment recognizes that
people can make their own decisions and encourages the act of unconditional support (Eighinger
& Karlin, 2001, para 6). Social justice is acting accordingly as an agent for change and
requires discerning and understanding oppression and inequity (Eighinger & Karlin, 2001,
para. 7). Experience is linked to respecting individuals and valuing their stories. It takes into
account the unique perceptions of people who, although sharing an event, experience it
differently (Eighinger & Karlin, 2001, para. 8). The overall goal of the F-R approach is to
manage interpreters actions and ethical decisions, despite the diverse sociolinguistic factors they
face, using the six values listed as guidelines to their work with Deaf people (Eighinger &
Karlin, 2001). Certain areas of the F-R approach seem to resemble the ally/advocate paradigm,
described by Baker-Shenk (1992), by including values such as social justice and empowerment,

EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING PARADIGMS TO PREVENT DEAF OPPRESSION

10

but is perhaps an evolved perspective with four other values also guiding the interpreters
approach.
Disscussion
According to Swabey & Mickelson (2008), the interpreting field has not come to a
predictable or uniform role-metaphor in the profession's guiding framework (p. 67). It is
acknowledged that the presence of interpreters in any situation can lead to risks of oppression,
however, as the Deaf communitys needs evolve, so will the approach interpreters take to their
work (Witter-Merithew, 1999). The importance to learning about Deaf oppression and interpreter
paradigms is to understand interpreters influence on Deaf oppression and to continue the
conversation on ways to end the perpetuation of oppressive behaviors.
Perhaps, the more we look into ways we can improve the way interpreters approach their
work with Deaf consumers, the decisions interpreters make will be more ethical. While
acknowledging that there is a bilingual/bicultural default, analyzing the
multicultural/multilingual approach and finding ways to implement this paradigm may result in
less oppression upon Deaf consumers. It may also guide interpreters to change the language they
use when describing the goals of interpreting work with Deaf people. Perhaps, looking at the F-R
paradigm and its relation to feminist values, we can begin finding ways of implementing and
integrating these values into the profession.
It can be argued that the importance of the various paradigms that exist in the interpreting
field reflect the current code of professional conduct, which was adopted by RID and the
National Association of the Deaf in 2005, and serves as the guide for decisions made by
professional interpreters (Swabey & Mickelson, 2008, p. 58). The NAD/RID Code of
Professional Conduct, which is used today, is a progression of past Codes of Ethics (Swabey &

EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING PARADIGMS TO PREVENT DEAF OPPRESSION

11

Mickelson, 2008). The first RID Code of Ethics was drafted in 1965 (Swabey & Mickelson,
2008, p. 53). The paradigms used during that time were mainly as the conduit and
communication facilitator, which could be evidence of the Code of Ethics, which Swabey and
Mickelson (2008) claim was very rule-based and resulted in interpreters working long hours,
in isolation, without the use of a team interpreter, due to being too afraid theyd be accused of
breaking the code (p. 53).
The CPC is an evolved version of the Code of Ethics, and better reflects the field of
interpreting and the paradigms more commonly used today (bi-bi and ally/advocate approaches).
It would behoove the writers of the next RID/NAD code to consider the existing paradigms
being used by professionals in the field; take into account conversations and arguments made on
how to improve these paradigms; analyze what modern paradigms do to reduce Deaf oppression;
and ask what they say about interpreters values and approaches to ethical decision making. The
face of the interpreting field is bound to change and evolve, as the profession itself is only 50
years old, and it is important that these changes empower consumers and positively reflect the
Deaf communitys needs.

EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING PARADIGMS TO PREVENT DEAF OPPRESSION

12

References
Baker-Shenk, C. (1986). Characteristics of oppressed and oppressor peoples:
Their effect on the interpreting context [Monograph]. Retrieved from
http://www.interpretereducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Characteristics-of-theOpressed_110314.pdf
Baker-Shenk, C. (1991). The interpreter: Machine. advocate, or ally? J. Plant-Moeller (Ed.)
Expanding horizons, Proceedings of the 1991 RID Convention. (pp 120140).
Baker-Shenk, C., Kyle, J. G. (1990). Research with deaf people: Issues and conflicts.
Disability, Handicap & Society, 5(1), 65-75. doi:10.1080/02674649066780051
Brace, A. (2012). The duality of the sign language interpreter. Street Leverage. Retrieved
from http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/06/the-duality-of-the-sign-languageinterpreter/
Eighinger, L., Karlin, B. (2001). Feminist-relational approach: A social construct for
event management [Website letter]. Retrieved from http://www.signs-ofdevelopment.org/website/Letters.htm
Haualand, H., Allen, C. (2009). Deaf people and human rights (WFD & SDR report).
Retrieved from World Federation of the Deaf website: http://www.wfdeaf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/Deaf-People-and-Human-Rights-Report.pdf
Harvey, M. A. (2003). Shielding yourself from the perils of empathy: The case of sign language
interpreters. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 8(2), 207-213. doi:
10.1093/deafed/eng004

EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING PARADIGMS TO PREVENT DEAF OPPRESSION

13

Lane, H. (2005). Ethnicity, ethics, and the deaf-world. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf
Education, 10(3), 291-310. doi: 10.1093/deafed/eni030
Metzger, M. (1999). Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality.
Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.
McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible backpack
[Monograph]. Retrieved from https://www.isr.umich.edu/home/diversity/resources/whiteprivilege.pdf
McKee, R. L., Davis, J. E. (2010). Interpreting in Multilingual, Multicultural Contexts
(pp. 1-5). Retrieved from http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/excerpts/IMMC.html
Swabey, L., Mickelson, P. G. (2008). Role definition: A perspective on forty years of
professionalism in sign language interpreting. In Valero-Garcs, C., & Martin, A. (Ed.),
Crossing borders in community interpreting: Definitions and dilemmas
(pp. 51-80). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Ulloa, A. W. (2014). Multicultural/multilingual interpreting [Prezi slides]. Retrieved from
https://prezi.com/qvmyampxtbgb/multiculturalmultilingual-interpreting/?
utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy
Witter-Merithew, A. (1999). From benevolent care-taker to ally: The evolving role
of sign language interpreters in the United States of America
[Monograph]. Retrieved from http://www.interpretereducation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/From-Benevolent-Caretaker.pdf

EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING PARADIGMS TO PREVENT DEAF OPPRESSION

14