The Analysis of Social Neuroscience Challenges Matrix Measurement for Sign Language Interpreter (JBIM) in Malaysia

Loh Hock Boey

doi:10.55544/ijrah.2.6.4

Authors

Loh Hock Boey Department of Arts & Humanities, Faculty of social Science, Lincoln University College, MALAYSIA.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55544/ijrah.2.6.4

Keywords:

JBIM, sign interpreter, social neuroscience, challenges, measurement, sord

Abstract

The critical shortage of sign language interpreter (JBIM) in Malaysia has immensely affected more than 55,000 registered Deaf who live in the silence world. It is the result of the non-recognised status of JBIM as a profession and low public awareness on the accessibility of sign language interpreter (JBIM) services and the non-existent of accredited sign interpreter training program in Malaysia. Hence, the low new entry with high attrition rate in long term has damaged and post social challenges to sign interpreters industry. The objective of the study is to focus on the social neuroscience challenges identification by creating an exactness of measurement matrix to the situation. The methodology is qualitatively analyse the social neuroscience dimension of JBIM’s challenges in their practise by examining each phrases of interpreting in social context from message flow matrix and spatial struggle matrix. The major finding is that there are three phrases of social neuroscience challenges. Pre-entry industry challenges; during-interpreting 3 dimensional challenges with 4 competencies dimension, 5 quadrants social neuroscience challenges and 3 interpreting process challenges; post-graduate inspiration maintenance challenges. The contribution of the study after synthesize the major findings and the research literature is that a model of social neuroscience challenges analysis for sign interpreters (JBIM) has helped to identify the actual challenges with measurement matrix which could minimise the further damage to the industry at the same time to maximise the performance standard for sign interpreters in the industry. The interpreters engagement flow has gave a clear career path landscape of social neuroscience challenges for the pursuing of interpreting career. Many private institution step in to stabilize this critical situation by introducing intensive training program to include any interested party without taking into account the suitability of the candidate as part of the educational components has created the further drop of the quality of the sign interpreter. With the newly introduced challenges analysis model will help the private institute to identify the problems by achieving an effective interventions to the problem. The recommendation after this study is to present a policy review to the government concerning a systematic ways of sign interpreter training program by providing a new spectrum on the identification of the challenges of the sign interpreter that lead to the improvement of the current situation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Anderson, G., & Stauffer, L. (2021). Identifying standards for the training of interpreters for deaf people.

ASLIA. (2006). State reports on interpreter education and training. Second ASLIA National Interpreter Trainers’ Workshop, Perth, Western Australia.

Bancroft, M. A. (2015). Community interpreting: A profession rooted in social justice. In The Routledge handbook of interpreting (pp. 229-247). Routledge.

Belknap, P., Korwin, K., & Long, N. (2021). Job coaching: A means to reduce unemployment and underemployment in the deaf community.

Bontempo, K., & Napier, J. (2007). Mind the gap! A skills analysis of sign language interpreters. The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter, 1, 275–299.

Bontempo, K. (2013). The chicken and the egg dilemma: Academizing a semiprofession. In E. A. Winston, & C. Monikowski (Eds.), Evolving paradigms in interpreter education (pp. 33-41). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Camgöz, N. C., Saunders, B., Rochette, G., Giovanelli, M., Inches, G., Nachtrab-Ribback, R., & Bowden, R. (2021, December). Content4all open research sign language translation datasets. In 2021 16th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG 2021) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.

Cokely D. (2009) Phase II Deaf Consumer Needs Assessment Final Report. Report submitted on behalf of the National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers, .

De Meulder, M., & Haualand, H. (2021). Sign language interpreting services: A quick fix for inclusion?. Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association, 16(1), 19-40.

Diriker E. (2011) “User expectation surveys: questioning findings and drawing lessons for interpreter training” İ. Ü. Çeviribilim Dergisi, (in English, IU Journal of Translation Studies), 1(3), <http://www.journals.istanbul.edu. tr/iuceviri/article/view/1023011090/1023010348>.

Drugan, J. (2017). Ethics and social responsibility in practice: Interpreters and translators engaging with and beyond the professions. The Translator, 23(2), 126-142.

Gish, Sandra. (1992). A Vygotskian Perspective on Interpreter Assessment. In ElizabethWinston (Ed.) Student Competencies: Defining, Teaching and Evaluating: Proceedings of the9th National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers

Hall, M. L., Hall, W. C., & Caselli, N. K. (2019). Deaf children need language, not (just) speech. First Language, 39(4), 367-395.

Hermans D. / Dijk R. van / Christoffels I. (2007) De effectiviteit van gebarentaaltolken in de communicatie tussen dove en horende mensen, (in English, The effectiveness of sign language interpreters in the communication between deaf and hearing people), Utrecht, Pontem.

Hurst, C. E. (2012). Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequences (8th Edition ed.). Routledge.

Jankowski, K. (2014). Where are we? Back to our roots as we move forward in an evolving world. In D. Hunt & S. Hafer (Eds.), 2014: Our roots: The essence of our future. Conference of Interpreter Trainers (pp. 12-14). Retrieved from http://www.cit-asl.org/new/2014-1-where-are-we-back-to-our-roots-as-we-moveforward-in-an-evolving-world-jankowski/

Johnston, Trevor. (2004) whither the deaf community? Population, genetics and the future of Auslan (Australian Sign Language). American Annals of the Deaf 148: 358-375.

Kahane E. (2001) “Thoughts on the quality of interpretation”, <http://aiic.net/ page/197/thoughts-on-the-quality-of-interpretation/lang/1>.

Locker McKee R. (2008) “‘Quality’ in interpreting: a survey of practitioner perspectives.” The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter (SLTI), 2/1, 1-14.

Merriam, S.B. & Associates. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Napier J. / Rohan M. J. (2007) “An invitation to dance: deaf consumers’ perceptions of signed language interpreters and interpreting”, in M. Metzger / E. Fleetwood (eds) Translation, Sociolinguistic, and Consumer Issues in Interpreting, Washingtion DC, Gallaudet University Press, 159-203.

Olson, A. M., & Swabey, L. (2017). Communication access for deaf people in healthcare settings: Understanding the work of American Sign Language interpreters. The Journal for Healthcare Quality (JHQ), 39(4), 191-199.

Orima Research. (2004). A report on the supply and demand for Auslan interpreters across Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. Available at http://www.facs.gov.au/ disability/auslan_report

Rastgoo, R., Kiani, K., & Escalera, S. (2021). Sign language recognition: A deep survey. Expert Systems with Applications, 164, 113794.

Roberts, Roda P. (1992). Student Competencies in Interpreting: Defining, Teaching andEvaluating, in E. Winston (Ed.) Student Competencies: Defining, Teaching and Evaluating: Proceedings of the 9th National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers

Silver, S. (2021). Attitudinal changes of employers to hearing impaired workers after utilizing an ASL/awareness videotape: A pilot study.

Sluis I. (2011) An Effort to make a Cultural Bridge in Sign-To-Voice Interpreting, unpublished MA thesis, Edinburgh, Herriot Watt University.

Stone, C., & Allsop, L. (2007). Collective notions of quality of interpreting: Insights from the British Deaf community. Unpublished paper presented at Quality in Interpreting: Critical Link 5 Congress.

Vincent, L., & Chiwandire, D. (2019). Funding and inclusion in higher education institutions for students with disabilities. African journal of disability, 8(1), 1-12.

Wang, B. (2015). Bridging the gap between interpreting classrooms and real-world interpreting. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 7(1), 65-73. Retrieved from http://www.cit-asl.org/new/bridging-the-gap-between116 interpreting-classrooms-and-real-world-interpreting-7-1/

Winston, E. A. (2013). Infusing evidence into interpreting education: An idea whose time

has come. In E. A. Winston, & C. Monikowski (Eds.), Evolving paradigms in

interpreter education (pp. 164-187). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Wit M. de (2008) Het beroep tolk gebarentaal, (in English, The sign language interpreter profession) Enschede, Gildeprint Drukkerijen.

Won, J. H. (2019). The past, present, and future of interpreting studies in Korea: Focus on shifting research paradigms 1. In Translating and Interpreting in Korean Contexts (pp. 219-237). Routledge.

Yin, R. K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications Ltd: London.

Zwischenberger, C. (2010) Quality Criteria in Simultaneous Interpreting: An International vs. a National View. The Interpreters... Newsletter 15: 127...142.