The animals on Noah’s Ark. The students in Madeleine. Socks. The common thread here? Pairs. Two heads are better than one, goes the old saying, and in the case of American Sign Language – English interpreters, this is often true.
But WHY?
This cry is frequently sounded throughout the village of I’m Uninformed. It’s a strange name for a village and yet, it’s apropos. The population is made up of folx who are often willing to provide access; still they question the need for two interpreters, believing one can get the job done. They tend to see it as an extra cost rather than essential. Of course, in every village, there’s also the village idiot who resents the very idea of investing in access for others.
Fortunately, a village such as this is tiny and sparsely populated. Those who learn about interpreter teams frequently leave the village and move to the town of Now I Know and its sister city, I’m Still Learning.
So Why Do Interpreters Tend to Work in Teams?
As noted in Language Scientific, “Interpreting is mentally taxing. Studies show that after 20 minutes interpreting, no matter how much of an expert the interpreter is, they will begin to slip and lose information” (2024).
That loss of information is counterproductive to the goal of the interpreter. The message is key. In order to make sure that message is conveyed, we rely on a team.
What does this team look like?
Imagine, if you have ever seen one, an interpreted event. You are probably picturing a pair of hearing, sighted interpreters, right? That is likely the most common team. However, it is not the only option. Among many options, there may be a hearing and a Deaf interpreter (DI). Other situations may require more than two interpreters. Each opportunity is unique and is assessed to provide the best team for the job.
No matter the players, the team works towards the same goal: the message.
Meet the Team: Preparing Together for Better Access
When an assignment is offered, I always like to know if it will be a teamed job and, if so, who I’ll be working with. If it’s someone I’ve teamed with before, I have an idea of what to expect. If it’s a new person, I usually ask my agency to share contact information, so we can connect ahead of time if they’re open to it. Nothing intrusive; just a quick message to touch base and establish communication and set a collaborative tone from the start.
If there is any prep that needs to be done (documents to go through, terms to research, videos to watch, people to learn about, etc), we can start that conversation as well. “Hey, I found this,” or “Do you know about ____?” or “What sign do you use for ____?” This is an opportunity to coordinate our signs so the message is understood and cohesive. Of course, we adjust as needed in real time based on the preferences of those using the services, but that initial preparation strengthens our team and ultimately enhances access.
On and Off: Lead and Support Roles in Interpretation
When onsite, there are few concepts to discuss: order, feeding, time amount, and placement. When interpreting in a team, people will refer to one person as the “on” interpreter and the other as the “off” interpreter. The “off” interpreter is a misnomer. There is no “off” when you are interpreting. A better way of thinking of the team is “lead” interpreter and “support” interpreter.
The lead interpreter is the person that you see actively interpreting what is being communicated. They are often the visible one, recognized as currently “doing the work.”
The job of the person who is not currently in the limelight is to support the lead interpreter and, by extension, the message. They are watching and listening in case the “lead” interpreter misses or misinterprets something vital. In this situation, they are responsible for “feeding,” which means to give that information to the lead interpreter.
To Feed Or Not To Feed? Interpreting Preferences
Just like trying to provide dinner for a toddler, feeding is tricky. Each lead interpreter has their own preferences for content and modality when receiving information from the support interpreter.
Some interpreters do not want a feed unless it’s a grievous error. If it’s information that isn’t truly important to the message, they don’t want the feed. Personally, I like to have the feed whether it’s deemed “important” or not.
We also have preferences for how that feed is given to us. For example, a lead interpreter may ask the support interpreter to please feed them information in the target language. The target language is the one conveyed by the lead interpreter. If they are listening to spoken English and interpreting into ASL, then ASL is the target language. If they are watching ASL and interpreting into spoken English, spoken English is the target language. I, myself, prefer target language feeding.
Then there’s timing. Interpreting requires processing time. That means that there is often a little delay between what is being said/signed and the interpretation. Some interpreters have a longer processing time than others. This is something we discuss with our teams. We also might discuss signals for when to feed.
Some of the following statements may show up in this conversation:
“Hey, I have a long processing time so if you see me standing but not yet interpreting, I’m still processing. I don’t need a feed.”
“If you see me tilt my head to the side like a confused dog, give me the feed.”
“I prefer to be fed in ASL no matter what language I’m interpreting into.”
“If you see that I don’t have the message but you have it, go ahead and take it and then give it back to me.”
This last comment may seem strange, but as we talked about before, the message is the important part. Not the interpreter. It doesn’t matter who says/signs it; the vital piece is that it is conveyed to those who are requesting the service. There’s just no room for ego.
Making the Switch: Taking Turns in Interpreting
Another part of that initial conversation is when to switch interpreters and how to switch. You may see interpreter teams look at each other and say, “Fifteens? Twenties?” We’re asking how many minutes we will interpret before switching roles between lead and support interpreters. I like to go for equal times, so if an event is supposed to be an hour, I’ll vote for fifteen minutes each. If it’s two hours, I may vote for twenty minute intervals instead. This also depends on the content.
Two hours in an organic chemistry class? I’ll vote for fifteen, thank you. This is not my area of expertise.
Two hours in a Dungeons and Dragons campaign? I could go for an hour! (I wouldn’t, of course. Familiarity with the material brings comfort, but I’m still human and my brain will need a break.)
In general, despite the time we’ve agreed on, it’s not a hard stop. It would be jarring to have the interpreters switch mid-sentence. I always try to find a natural break to make the switch. Somewhere around the fifteen or twenty minute mark, I’ll start watching for a change in speakers, a new slide, or a different topic.
Scenario 1: In-person, with the lead interpreter at the front of the room and the support interpreter seated in the first few rows, such as in a classroom setting. In this environment, changing roles is as simple as standing up to take their place.
The Signal: The support interpreter, minding the time, signals to lead the sign, “My turn?” and awaits their response. The lead interpreter knows that their time is coming to an end and should find a natural place to wrap up and transition it over to their team.
The Switch: When ready, the lead nods and signs in reply, “Your turn,” stepping forward to take their seat as they assume the support role.
Scenario 2: In-person, with the lead interpreter positioned on a stage and the support interpreter in the audience, such as at a theater or conference. In this environment, changing roles requires a bit more subtlety.
The Signal: The support interpreter will stand and make their way to the side of the stage. The lead interpreter will notice that the support interpreter has moved – they are no longer in direct view but can usually catch a glimpse of their team in the peripheral sight line.
The Switch: The lead interpreter finds a natural place to wrap up and walks to exit the stage, allowing their team to pass in front so they can begin interpreting, effectively switching roles.
Scenario 3: Online via a platform such as Zoom that has co-host abilities. In this instance teams usually replace each other using the spotlight feature.
The Signal: The support interpreter will send a chat message (1 min to switch or switch after this slide/speaker) to their team before changing the spotlight.
The Switch: During a natural pause, the spotlight is changed between the team and the now support interpreter is off camera to the audience while providing feed through the chat or a separate private screen.
Scenario 4: Online via a platform without co-host abilities. In this scenario, the persons using services must find and change the pinned videos between interpreters during a switch.
The Signal: The support interpreter turns on their camera, signaling to the lead that they’re ready to take over. Personally, I avoid signing anything to indicate the swap to prevent distracting those using services. Additionally, I’ll send the same chat message as in Scenario 3.
The Switch: The current lead interpreter finds the natural pause and turns their camera off while the team assumes the lead role. A note in this specific instance, I will sometimes ask the presenter to pause as we switch interpreters. In general, I err on the side of non-interrupted switching. The benefit of announcing the swap is to allow persons using our services a moment to change pins to the new interpreter’s video.
Tech Trouble in Interpreting: Switch Glitch
Speaking of online interpreting, I’d like to offer a situation that really emphasizes that the support interpreter is never “off.” It was a broadcasted government announcement. My team and I were ready. We were online early, had spotlight privileges, had already tested it out and knew it worked. Everything was set to go. It was agreed that I would start and my team would take over in fifteen minutes. The announcement started, I lifted my hands, and BOOM. I was kicked out of the Zoom call.
I immediately went through the process of reconnecting, which required an ID number and a password, so it was not as quick a recovery as I would have hoped. As I said before, my team was ready. Though their camera was off, they were watching and jumped in as soon as they saw my video freeze and blip out. The message was still conveyed, so despite my own personal frustration at the technical issue, the job was done.
Deaf Interpreters: Vital Team Members
Some jobs are a better fit for a Deaf and hearing interpreting team. It may be a very sensitive situation or a person whose culturally-oriented linguistic needs cannot easily be met by a non-native signer. A native user of ASL (a Deaf Interpreter or DI) is often better able to accommodate the cultural and linguistic needs of these folx. After all, language and culture influence each other in multiple, intricate ways.
I have had a few invaluable opportunities to work with fantastic DIs. In such an instance, I listened to the spoken English and interpreted as I would normally do. The DI takes my interpretation into ASL and interprets that message to match the linguistic needs of the person using the services. The process goes back the other way when the person signs to the DI, who interprets it into ASL, which I then interpret into spoken English.
Working with a DI is wonderful. It’s an opportunity to collaborate and learn. I am always gratified to have this opportunity.
Teamwork Makes the (Accessible) Dream Work
Whether Deaf or hearing, a good team makes a huge difference in the success of an interpreted event. I have had the good fortune to work with many fantastic teams over the years and I look forward to many more.
I hope this provides a little more insight into what teaming actually looks like. As always, I can only offer my own experiences on the subject and I encourage you to ask other interpreters about their own experiences.
So as Rob Base and DJ E-Z Rock said back in 1988, it takes two to make a thing go right.
