Directionality in ASL-English interpreting
Accuracy and articulation quality in L1 and L2
Among spoken language interpreters, a long-standing question regarding directionality is whether interpretations are better when working into one’s native language (L1) or into one’s ‘active’ non-native language (L2). In contrast to studies that support working into L1, signed language interpreters report a preference for working into L2. Accordingly, we investigated whether signed language interpreters actually perform better when interpreting into their L2 (American Sign Language, ASL) or into their L1 (English). Interpretations by 30 interpreters (15 novice, 15 expert), delivered under experimental conditions, were assessed on accuracy (semantic content) and articulation quality (flow, speed, and prosody). For both measures, novices scored significantly better when interpreting into English (L1); experts were equally accurate, and showed similar articulation quality, in both directions. The results for the novice interpreters support the hypothesis that the difficulty of L2 production drives interpreting performance in relation to directionality. Findings also indicate a disconnect between direction preference and interpreting performance. Novices’ perception of their ASL production ability may be distorted because they can default to fingerspelling and transcoding. Weakness in self-monitoring of signing may also lead novices to overrate their ASL skills. Interpreter educators should stress misperceptions of signing proficiency that arise from available, but inappropriate, strategies.
Keywords: American Sign Language, directionality, articulation quality, accuracy
Published online: 03 September 2015
Cited by 7 other publications
Bragg, Danielle, Naomi Caselli, Julie A. Hochgesang, Matt Huenerfauth, Leah Katz-Hernandez, Oscar Koller, Raja Kushalnagar, Christian Vogler & Richard E. Ladner
De Meulder, Maartje & Hilde Haualand
Gabarró-López, Sílvia & Johanna Mesch
Han, Hyun-Hee & Han-Nae Yu
K. Pokorn, Nike, Jason Blake, Donald Reindl & Agnes Pisanski Peterlin
Riès, Stephanie K., Linda Nadalet, Soren Mickelsen, Megan Mott, Katherine J. Midgley, Phillip J. Holcomb & Karen Emmorey
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 august 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
Bontempo, K., Haug, T., Leeson, L., Napier, J., Nicodemus, B., van den Bogaerde, B. & Vermeerbergen, M.
(2014) Deaf consumers’ perceptions of signed to spoken language interpretation in eight signed languages. Presentation given at the International Symposium on Signed Language Interpretation and Translation Research (March 28-30), Washington, DC.
Chang, C. & Schallert, D.L.
Christoffels, I.K. & de Groot, A.M.B.
Clark, E.V. & Hecht, B.F.
(2006) Why is it hard to ‘voice interpret’? Presentation given at Magdeburg University of Applied Sciences, Germany.
Darò, V., Lambert, S. & Fabbro, F.
De Bot, K.
Déjean le Féal, K.
Emmorey, K., Bosworth, R. & Kraljic, T.
Emmorey, K., Korpics, F. & Petronio, K.
Emmorey, K., Gertsberg, N., Korpics, F. & Wright, C.E.
Ericsson, K.A. & Lehmann, A.C.
Kroll, J.F. & Stewart, E.
Napier, J., Rohan, M. & Slatyer, H.
(2008) Directionality in signed language interpreting. Presented at the Conference of Interpreter Trainers, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Nicodemus, B. & Emmorey, K.
Padden, C. & Humphries, T.
Schweda Nicholson, N.
Tommola, J. & Helevä, M.
Valli, C. & Lucas, C.
Van den Bogaerde, B.
(2010) Voicing barriers. Presentation given at the European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters (efsli) Conference, Glasgow, Scotland.
Van Dijk, R., Boers, E., Christoffels, I. & Hermans, D.