This video's language was more easier to understand. She repeated the movements of some signs which helped convey the meaning more. Having an topic for the speech like Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination helps you to know what vocabulary can be used - talking about her accomplishments. The happiness that is shown on the interpreter's face matches the speaker's attitude and tone. I also learned the sign for SENATE. Although this was short, it was very fun to see the interpreter with this speech.
This language and vocabulary are way too over my level of understanding, personally. I saw a difference in signs in some instances, maybe because of dialects from here and Washington is different. Personally, I'm not a person that is into politics daily, and I'm okay with that. But seeing the interpreter helps me understand the concepts better in another language. And also the pace is good, the fact that the interpreter summarized everything because it helps make the concepts more clear. Facial expressions matched the tone of speakers involved, also the interpreting was smooth as well.
I learned the sign for AFGHANISTAN from this video, and it looks similar to ATHLETE I believe so I have to keep that in mind to make sure the mouthing matches what I'm signing. I didn't see any role shifting between the different members of the press and Mr. Kirby, who was the speaker at the time. There was a lot of big terms mentioned during the press briefing that I wouldn't know how to react to signing that without some time to do research beforehand. Personally, I feel like she held some signs for a little long, but I know that it can help pursue the concept at hand better.
The interpreter had to trust himself in interpreting fast because the speaker was on a timer. I can relate to this issue because my aunt/godmother works for UMD (University of Maryland) and so she works very close to Washington D.C. I think it may be hard to find the meaning of the speech when it is so fast paced and having to understand to take the meaning across bilingually. The interpreters showed smooth interpreting and the transitions were smooth. Personally, I would choose the negative side about DC becoming a state.
The interpreting began at the 18 minute mark. It was a good strategy for the interpreter because although she was behind, she summarized what was important. The interpreter provided emphasis on the statistics which is important as well. The president repeated "Make it here in America" and I wonder how you could change that so it's not single-toned. Facial expressions were on point as well. This is a hard appointment to handle because the information is so solid, you can't interpret things in the wrong way. The goal is to interpret it right to keep everyone neutral and not biased. I was wondering why the interpreter wasn't interpreting the applause, I can understand that it would be annoying to repeat when you can see it and understand it.
This was a short live clip from the women's march. It was a very passionate experience that was conducted from English to ASL. The speakers were absolutely passionate, and the interpreter relayed that well by great non-manual markers and larger signing that enhanced of her volume of her relayed message. In the beginning, there was a music artist performing a song. The interpreter had slow large signing to relay the sound and message of the singer.
O: COMMUNITY: I watched a Gallaudet presentation with the speaker, Jules Dickinson.
D: Melanie Metzger introduces the speaker. Every time I have watched the Gallaudet presentations, they have a speaker that is doing a voiceover on the speaker while the presenter signs the message. I feel like this is a way to highlight the person signing the message. This is a different situation because the speaker speaks out loud and there are different interpreters that interpret for her.
D: This is interesting because it is different than the presentations that I am used to seeing. Normally everyone presents in sign language but in this instance, the presenter just speaks out loud. I notice that the interpreters switch places at about 30 minutes or so. It is interesting because she is an interpreter herself but she chooses to speak out loud and have an interpreter sign for her instead.
D: I have watched another interpreter before do a presentation with them but they actually chose to sign instead. I guess they can choose how they would like to present.
I found the fashion of the interpreter a little interesting. He was wearing black shorts. It may seem right for this setting, but to me seemed a little unprofessional. I liked the way the interpreter signed these songs and I highly recommend this video for a lot of people. One thing that made me a little mad was that this video claimed to be interpreted, but a some of the time, you couldn't see the interpreter.
This was a webinar to show how to use Windows 11 Teams system. It was done virtually (obviously), and it had ASL interpreters provided. I really like the sense of inclusion here. It's not often that we see the inclusion for the deaf community. A thing that I found interesting was that the speakers seemed to be reading from a script and it made me wonder if the interpreters got the script to practice at all or if it was all on the fly. The did really well though.
O: I watched a presentation about astronauts through Gallaudet University. They spoke about some of Gallaudet's test subjects. The two men share about their experience as NASA test subjects.
D: Like most of their presentations that I've seen, the interpreters do the voiceovers while the presenter signs the message.
D: When the camera shifts, you can see two interpreters interpreting the message to Harry and David. There is also an interpreter facing the stage that is interpreting to the audience. All of the interpreters are dressed very professional and mostly in all black attire. They also even had captions on a big screen for the audience to read along with. They also use different interpreters when different people are communicating so that it can differentiate between different people I suppose.
D: Personally, I just thought this was a very interesting concept and it was interesting to hear from the older men's perspective about being NASA test subject.
Since this was taken at the peak or when Covid-19 was most prevalent, the interpreter had to wear a facemask and this can greatly hinder non-manual markers. Those in the deaf community who rely more on 'lipreading' may be at a disadvantage for understanding this because the majority of her face is covered. The interpreter I noticed had a significant lag time and this could be due to her processing delay, but she interpret all that was said. This lag could also be due to the speaker speaking relatively fast. It is important that the interpreter know specific terminology because they are interpreting information about an active pandemic. The interpreter also had to have good memory skills because there were phone numbers stated. I have heard from people that phone numbers are really difficult to interpret sometimes.
-the interpreter is shifted to one side of her screen- giving her more room on the left side of her body.
-when multiple people are speaking at once but there is one interpreter it is interesting to see who the interpreter chooses to sign for. I think the most important thing?
-interpreter does a great job moving her eyebrows
-when the interpreter signs music she moves her lips to sing along
-the interpreter is watching and listening to the observation on a computer lower than her head and I wish it was eye level with her so she was looking straight.
-interpreter uses mouth movements in a good way. The emotions are really shown by her mouth moving at the appropriate time
-I enjoyed watching the interpreter during this observation. She did a very good job. Growing up ive watched this movie many times and to see in translated was amazing.
-the interpreter is in an awful lighting with a bad background
-the interpreter's hands continue to get cut off by the screen because she is too close
-the interpretation feels very unprofessional
-the interpreter looks like she is having fun role-playing characters with different emotions. Noticing how much she enjoys it makes the observation more entertaining.
-the interpreter has sign names for the characters - I wonder who made these and how she found them
-the interpreter keeps playing with her hair and it's confusing to know if it's part of her translation or not.
-overall I did not like this observation. I had a hard time watching the interpreter because of her background and camera setup. She was a good interpreter but now after observing this I see how many things play a role in a good interpreter. It's not just about the signing.
-The interpreter sounds like they are whispering. Maybe this is so nobody else hears the interpreter?
-the presenter is very loud with their signing and has a lot of energy. The interpreter is not matching her energy at all.
-The interpreter is does a great job but without the register of emotion the speech is lacking something greatly.
-the presenter's signing space is huge. She used one side of the stage to the other side. But the interpreter did not emphasize the same way she did
-the interpreter was having trouble figuring out a synonym for a word and it took her longer to translate- it was noticeable
-I am aggravated with this observation. The speech that was given had so much potential to be great but the interpretation ruined it in a sense and made it more boring.
The audio was clear on this presentation but the video was a little pixelated and seemed as though the camera was far away with poor zoom quality making it a little bit difficult to read specific signs or fingerspelling. This presentation was also very vocabulary heavy and there were many signs I did not know. I think I learned a lot from this observation but I had to take a couple of brain breaks because of how hard I was focusing on the content as well as the more scientific language. It didn't help that I was a little lost as far as the communication of neuroscience between communities in my first language so this heavy lecture was most definitely a challenge for me to observe.
-the interpreter is upbeat
-the interpretation sounds like it is a google translate that goes really fast.
-the interpretation is going faster than the person giving the lecture- I think this was because of the edit?
Is it harder for interpreters working from asl to English to see the signer's hands when they are wearing bright colors? (Because they don’t have to dress in a dark color)
-the presenter signs fast but clear. I wonder if the speed of how she signs is more or less stressful on the interpreter.
- I enjoyed this observation. I like how the interpreter kept up with the lecture the whole time and the register of the signer was matched.
It's interesting to see the panelists adding their backgrounds, that's a really nice touch. It's nice hearing what different types of medicines they use in different countries. One thing that I heard that I never really thought about was comfort levels with doctors when talking about vaccines. If it's someone new that you don't really trust right away, you will be reluctant to getting the vaccine if they ask you. The interpreting was very clear to understand and the transition between interpreters was smooth. One comment from Alicia that really caught my eye was the fact that Asians are not in a identified group, and the Indians etc. are in the Hispanic group and the fact that you can't group them together in that way because there's many differences between the groups involved. I liked Teresa's point of understanding your cultural values and applying that to how we interact with people.