Mapping Reality: Self-Analysis (M.R.S.) Model

MAPPING REALITY

SELF-ANALYSIS (M.R.S.) MODEL

Daniel Gough, Ed.D.

Daniel Gough, Ph.D., An educator and administrator, he has taught ASL for 21 years.

Jenny Margarita Gough (Contreras), Ed.D.

Jenny Margarita Gough (Contreras), Ed.D., is the vice president of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers, she serves as department chair and ASL professor at Berkeley City College in California.

Leslie C. Greer, Ed.D

Leslie C. Greer serves as an ALTSA certification evaluator, and presents workshops on sign language teaching, Deaf culture, linguistics, and interpreting.

We are Deaf interpreters, interpreting educators, researchers, and stakeholders. We have trained, practiced, and taught using a variety of interpreting processing models such as Model of the Interpreting Process (Seleskovitch, 1978), Gish Processing Model (Gish, 1986), Sociolinguistic Model of Processing (Cokely, 1992), Depth of Processing Model (Colonomos, 1992), Effort Modeling for Interpreting (Giles, 1995), Ten-Step Discourse Analysis Process (Witter-Merithew, 2002), and MeaningBased Model (Russell, 2002). Each model mainly focuses on information processing from top to down, detail processing, and interpreting at the discourse level.

In our studies and careers, we have recognized that there are missing aspects that are significant: cultural perception, cultural norms, and built-in schema/extralinguistic knowledge (ELK). Today’s interpreting process models have persistent challenges with the Deaf community’s cultural norms. These interpreting processing models are determined by many factors within the traditional interpreting research and curriculum. While the importance of cultural norms is significant, there is not sufficient research that examines the development and progression of using and applying cultural norms to the models. Furthermore, the global interpreting environment has blurred the lines between cultural and interpreting processes, creating cultural gaps that are often a struggle for pre-certified and working interpreters.

To address this, we studied various factors, such as worldviews, experiences, and language and cultural norms.. We examined research done at Maryville University (MU) in Missouri, which focused on multicultural issues in counseling and cultural counseling competence. “The driving force behind multicultural counseling is that people from minority groups view the world

through different lenses and that counselors, psychologists, and therapists of any race need to be sensitive to their unique difficulties and experiences.

Multicultural counseling involves therapists demonstrating an understanding of their patients and their struggles with cultural issues, racism, and other related experiences. Always emphasizing caring and empathy, multicultural counseling enables therapists to better address unique challenges, considering how a patient’s experience may be different from their own.” (Maryville University, n.d.)

Based on MU's work, we revised the concept from counseling to interpreting, creating a new model: Mapping Reality Self-Analysis (MRS), which includes types, strategies, and techniques. This new model creates the possibility of easing adjustments among interpreters as they increas awareness and recognize cultural differences that blend into their interpreting processes.

We recognize that the three multicultural competencies each interpretr needs are cultural sensitivity, cultural intelligence, and mindful intercultural communication, all of which are incorporated into the MRS model. Furthermore, we recognize that interpreting always involves at least two languages, but also involves a host of other facets such as racial, cultural, ableist, audist, etc., experiences.

Another key aspect of MRS is having knowledge of Deaf extralinguistic knowledge (DELK), which can be used as a cultural collaboration tool for access to Deaf cultura aspects, experiences, and/or nuances. That may influence the interpreting process and add any necessary information using visual aids, classifiers, and visual information. We embrace one theorist, Nord’s (1997) research work about the functionalist approach. The strategy for cultural adaption, paraphrasing, expansion, reduction, literal, and more translation is an indispensable element that influences the translation Mapping comprises two distinct domains. Reality is the quality of being real. Selfanalysis helps to fill the content from the missing gap. The MRS model leads interpreters into taking part in authentic cultural norms, individual experiences, and interpreters’ schema to apply to what dimensions of cultural diversity exist in their alliance. It makes sure that interpreters understand the words and references used.

Let's look at cooking omelets as an example. Most of us don't realize that the omelet didn't originate in France; rather, the omelet, Kookoo sabzi, originated in anciet Persia. Over time, as the omelet came to the United States, we converted it to fit our style without any knowledge of its origins. Mapping explains what we know and don't know; reality looks at what we have now; self-analysis identifies how we know the origins of the omelet.

The MRS model enables the awareness and nuances of a culture that is reflected in a body of sign language, allowing interpreters to utilize tools during the process and interpret effectively. The MRS model enhances their awareness and recognizes the cultural differences that blend into their interpreting process.

References:

Beldon, J., Forestal, E., Garcia, L. M., & Peterson,

D. (2009, August). NCIEC Deaf Interpreting

Initiative. Paper presented at the RID Deaf

Caucus, Philadelphia, PA. http://www.diinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/

RID2009_DI_FINAL0802.pdf Cokely, D (1992). Interpretation: A sociolinguistic model. BurtLinstok Press.

Colonomos, B. (1992). Processes in interpreting and transliterating: Making them work for you. The Bicultural Center. Giles, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. John

Benjamins. Gish, S. (1986). I understood all the words, but I missed the point: A goal-to-detail/detail-togoal strategy for text analysis. In Marina L. McIntire (Ed.), New Dimensions in Interpreter Education: Curriculum and Instruction (pp. 125–137). RID Publications.

Maryville University. (n.d.) Multicultural

Counseling: Types, Strategies, and

Techniques. https://online.maryville.edu/blog/ multicultural-counseling/

Multicultural counseling: Types, Strategies, and

Techniques. (2020, January 7). https://online. maryville.edu/blog/multicultural-counseling/ Nord, C. (1997). Translation as a purposeful activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained.

St Jerome.

Russell, D. (2002). Reconstructing our views: Are we integrating consecutive interpreting into our teaching and practice. In Laurie Swabey (Ed.), New Designs in Interpreter Education:

Proceedings of the 14th National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers (pp. 5–16). St. Paul, MN: Conference of

Interpreter Trainers. Selekovitch, D. (1978). Interpreting for international conferences. Pen & Booth.

Witter-Merithew, A., Taylor, M., & Johnson, L. (2002). Guided self-assessment and professional development planning: A model applied to interpreters in educational settings. Appendix A. In Clay Nettles (Ed.),

Tapestry of our World: Proceedings of the 17th National Conference of the Registry of

Interpreters for the Deaf (pp. 177–196). RID

Publications.

Maryville University. (n.d.) Multicultural

Counseling: Types, Strategies, and Techniques.

Retrieved n.d., from https://online.maryville. edu/blog/multicultural-counseling/