Should interp students be REQUIRED to learn signed english?

I'm a 3rd year ASL-English Interpretation major at Columbia College Chicago. Up until now, my classes have been entirely in ASL (signed english not allowed or heavily discouraged).

I found out on my first day of "Transliteration and Educational Interpreting" that the focus of the class is learning/producing signed English (I have already been reprimanded and laughed at for using ASL in the classroom). This class is required for the major and I am now being told I NEED to learn signed english because most of the jobs I'm offered will require signed english/transliteration.

Do you think that interpreting students should have no choice but to learned signed english? I feel that ASL and MCE users deserve equal language access but I would prefer that a CDI or at least a hearing interpreter with an OTC (Oral Transliteration Certification) take those jobs, because they would be more qualified. I also feel uncomfortable being forcibly taught how to profit off systems that took ASL's place while it was banned from classrooms in America.

What do you think? Is it fine for hearing schools to require hearing students to learn signed english, or should members of the interpreting community stand against it? Would it be better for hearing interpreters to know signed english AND american sign language, or should CDI's have first pick for all MCE/translit jobs? I'm new to the community and would appreciate advice.

Thank you!

It's not a bad thing to know but to be required is a bit of a stretch. I can understand it being part of a major.

This comment--

I am now being told I NEED to learn signed english because most of the jobs I'm offered will require signed english/transliteration.

Click to expand...

Seems like a bunch of hooey. Depends on what type of job. However I don't think most jobs would be relying on Signed English... most would be ASL with a few MCE scattered in there for those who prefer it. Key word being "CLIENT preference" not Interpreter preference.

Since it appears to be required (and I hope the only class) might be better off taking it and get through it. It's a "nice to have" in your toolbox of skillset if/when you become an interpreter.

(And irony- I had to take a SEE (now called MCE) class as part of my education major...at Gallaudet of all places. Promptly forgot half of what I learned- if not all lol)

Could the title of the course hold the key to why signed English is required? With it being "Transliteration and Educational Interpreting" wouldn't that mean what it is focused on includes an emphasis on Educational Interpreting and instruction in the use of English would be a good part of education.

The course covers "problems in educational interpreting" but doesn't teach us to interpret in those settings, necessarily. The focus as I understand it is teaching us to transliterate/sign English effectively in any interpreting situation.

Course description: "This course focuses on the transfer of information from spoken English to a signing system and from a signing system to spoken English. Students practice transliteration skills in a variety of planned and unplanned situations. Issues specific to educational interpreting settings are discussed, and opportunities to observe educational interpreters are provided."

It depends if you want to work or not. It's not the interpreters job to decide on education policies.

Jane B. said:

Could the title of the course hold the key to why signed English is required? With it being "Transliteration and Educational Interpreting" wouldn't that mean what it is focused on includes an emphasis on Educational Interpreting and instruction in the use of English would be a good part of education.

Click to expand...

To the bolded, no. Educational Interpreting refers to being able to interpret in the elementary, middle, high schools, college-level, and beyond. There is a vast difference in how d/Deaf people sign, some prefer straight-out ASL, some prefer straight-out English (word for word,) and so on (i.e. PSE.) What is important is being able to get the message across to the d/Deaf person. The interpreter should know how to sign all variations. I can still write English and sign in ASL. An interpreter signing in ASL doesn't impede my English, and vice versa.

AlleyCat said:

To the bolded, no. Educational Interpreting refers to being able to interpret in the elementary, middle, high schools, college-level, and beyond. There is a vast difference in how d/Deaf people sign, some prefer straight-out ASL, some prefer straight-out English (word for word,) and so on (i.e. PSE.) What is important is being able to get the message across to the d/Deaf person. The interpreter should know how to sign all variations. I can still write English and sign in ASL. An interpreter signing in ASL doesn't impede my English, and vice versa.

Click to expand...

What did they use when teaching you how to write and speak English (not one of the other subjects taught in school)?

Jane B. said:

What did they use when teaching you how to write and speak English (not one of the other subjects taught in school)?

Click to expand...

Same as any other child, hearing or not. I did have to take speech therapy, but that's just for the spoken (pronunciation-wise) word, not written.

Jane B. said:

What did they use when teaching you how to write and speak English (not one of the other subjects taught in school)?

Click to expand...

AlleyCat said:

Same as any other child, hearing or not. I did have to take speech therapy, but that's just for the spoken (pronunciation-wise) word, not written.

Click to expand...

I was thinking of sign being involved and thus which version of sign language?

You may have seen enough of my postings to remember that I lost all hearing in left ear at 5 but right ear was very, very good throughout my school years. Thus, although they kept testing to make sure I wasn't loosing, I needed nothing other than sitting to the front of the class. So, my own experience is no guide.

Jane B. said:

I was thinking of sign being involved and thus which version of sign language?

Click to expand...

I learned ASL at the same time as speaking and writing. I've posted about that many times.

I voted "yes". I am deaf and not that great with ASL...okay I suck at ASL. I like English. Just the way you would write it on paper w/ a few shortcuts to speed things up. ASL is popular, but not for everyone.

When I went thru ITP, my college also required a course in transliterating. The description of my course was similar. It's no big deal to learn. If you already have a strong foundation in ASL you're not going to get ruined by learning signed English.

If you want to be an interpreter who can work in a variety of settings with a variety of clients, you should learn both ASL and signed English, and be able to flow up and down the signing continuum between them. You should be able to work with PSE or MCE or whatever name is in current use. You should be able to sign in whatever it takes to meet the client's needs. If the client requires teaming with a CDI, do that, too. As an interpreter (or at least a successful one), you need to stay flexible.

You'll also find out that sometimes you'll show up for an assignment where the client requested ASL signing and find out that the client really uses PSE in the English end of the continuum. Surprise! Well, you better be ready to adjust.

Honestly, take as many classes that you can in the ITP; you can't learn too much.

Take as much as you can in courses in other subjects too, and keep up with current events (news and pop culture) because you'll be expected to be familiar with EVERYTHING in the the world.

well if you have a deaf ASL teacher, she/he won't know signed English

mikemike said:

well if you have a deaf ASL teacher, she/he won't know signed English

Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. Plenty of deaf people know how to code switch. They can be bilingual or multilingual. Why not?

mikemike said:

well if you have a deaf ASL teacher, she/he won't know signed English

Click to expand...

As Reba said, not necessarily. In the course I had to take for my degree (SEE back then), the teacher was deaf if I remember correctly.

It's good to have it on hand if you meet a deaf person who only knows signed english/not much ASL. But having it be required? No thanks. ASL is the vast majority, but soon-to-be interpreters should be given a choice.