Interpreters work with a diverse population of Deaf¹ signers in academia, including Deaf individuals newly acquiring American Sign Language (ASL). This population, increasingly referred to as emergent signers, is a rapidly growing demographic, particularly in postsecondary education (Smith & Dicus, 2015). However, little research has been done on the linguistic profile of emergent signers or best practices for interpreters working with them. The traditional expectation that the interpreter “matches” the language of their client is challenging when considering the complex linguistic needs of emergent signers (Burke & Nicodemus, 2013). Emergent signers are defined as Deaf individuals who are in the process of learning ASL or a variation thereof and who use interpreting services while acquiring ASL proficiency (Smith & Dicus, 2015).

Emergent signers’ lack of fluency in ASL poses a challenge to interpreters. Indeed, Winston (2004) suggests that in K–12 settings, interpreting for individuals who do not yet have the necessary linguistic foundation is not feasible because interpreting, by its very nature, requires two languages. Postsecondary education is often one of the first settings where this population is exposed to ASL and interpreters. The challenges interpreters face in providing accessible language to these new signers are compounded by the dense academic content and language of the postsecondary educational setting. This study investigates the postsecondary educational interpreting setting with a Deaf client who is an emergent signer and asks the question: What linguistic features can be identified as effectively facilitating comprehension? This study compares a lecture transliteration, where meaning is conveyed by an interpreter through conceptually accurate signed English, with a lecture interpretation that includes specific features of ASL. Emergent signers are shown samples of each approach and tested for comprehension, as well as interviewed to gain insight into their interpreting preferences. Their comprehension scores and stated preferences of interpreting approaches are compared, looking specifically at the effectiveness of various linguistic features for supporting the individual’s comprehension, leading to recommendations for improved practices and future studies.²

The existing literature on linguistic code choice in postsecondary academic settings is inconclusive and does not explicitly investigate the needs of the emergent signing population, resulting in a gap that is addressed by this study. Sign variations used in the Deaf community, associated cultural attitudes, and interpreters’ target language adaptations to facilitate access for diverse signers have been investigated. Transliteration into an English-influenced contact sign has been extensively researched, although its effectiveness, especially in educational settings, is contested. Features of interpretation and transliteration identified in research as effective are incorporated into the present study to test for effectiveness within the population of emergent signers. The goal of this study is to provide guidance for interpreters when working with emergent signers. By identifying features of interpretation and transliteration as effective and ineffective for this population, this study provides interpreters with insight to help them choose linguistic features and interpreting tactics to incorporate into their work.

Literature Review

Interpreting and Transliterating in Postsecondary Educational Settings

The setting of an assignment significantly impacts interpreters’ linguistic choices. The present study focuses on postsecondary education as a significant setting for emergent signers’ exposure to and work with interpreters (Burke & Nicodemus, 2013). Owing to the number of Deaf children born to hearing parents and raised orally, many Deaf individuals begin to learn sign later in life, including in postsecondary settings (De Meulder, 2019). Research has shown that transliteration is frequently used in educational settings and is believed by some to provide Deaf students with access to the language and vocabulary of education (Locker, 1990; Napier, 2002; Siple, 1997). However, other studies have purported ASL interpretation as the most effective approach for access to education (Livingston et al., 1994; Locker, 1990), and yet others have found no significant advantage in either ASL or transliteration (Marschark et al., 2005). Before comparing the literature on the two approaches to interpreting in postsecondary settings and considering the effectiveness of either for emergent signer Deaf students, transliteration as an interpreting approach will be reviewed.

Transliteration

Historically, the work of interpreters has been classified into two basic interpreting approaches: ASL interpretation and transliteration. This was evident in the way the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) previously approached evaluating and certifying the skills of interpreting and transliterating separately through the Certificate of Interpretation (CI) and Certificate of Transliteration (CT) (Stauffer & Viera, 2000). However, under the current certification system, interpreters are expected to be skilled in multiple code varieties and able to match the linguistic preferences of the client (RID, 2007). The definition of transliteration in the interpreting field has changed over time (Siple, 1997). Winston (1989) noted that transliteration is more than merely producing a form of manually coded English and emphasized the importance of conceptual accuracy. RID has defined transliteration as interpreting into “a form of a signed language that uses a more English-based word order” (RID, 2007, p. 1). This definition provides little insight for practitioners on the standard practice of transliteration.

Interpreters often determine whether they will use ASL interpretation or transliteration by asking Deaf consumers which they prefer or by observing the consumer’s language output during their first interaction, colloquially called the “waiting room chat” (Malcolm, 2005; Weisenberg, 2009). Siple (1997) stated that transliteration is a key competency for interpreters to meet the diverse needs of their clients, citing Kannapell’s (1989) research to support her claim. Kannapell categorized Deaf signers’ language abilities into six varieties, and Siple suggested interpretation approaches for each. Emergent signers who effectively acquired English as their first language can be considered English-dominant bilinguals; Siple (1997) classified them as preferring transliteration. For this reason, many interpreters default to transliteration with emergent signers. Siple stated that semilingual Deaf individuals may require interpreters to be skilled in both interpretation and transliteration, in contrast to recommendations by Miller (2000) and Crump and Glickman (2011), who emphasized the use of ASL for working with dysfluent and semilingual clients. Viera and Stauffer (2000), on the other hand, stated that transliteration is often requested by fluent bilinguals who want direct access to the source text. Various and conflicting reports on the effectiveness of transliteration based on clients’ linguistic needs and preferences indicate the need for continued research.

Winston (1989) identified features of effective transliteration produced by interpreters. She found that although there is a lack of standardization, interpreters producing a signed transliteration do not merely repeat the English source text verbatim on the hands using a manually coded signed English. Rather, a variety of strategies drawn from both English and ASL are used to make adjustments to the message when adapted to the visual modality of sign language. The strategies she investigated were conceptual sign choice, addition, omission, grammatical restructuring, and mouthing of English words in combination with the signs produced (Winston, 1989). The current study adheres to Winston’s (1989) definition of transliteration in the creation of a transliterated experimental source text. This study specifically investigates the effectiveness of the transliteration features identified by Winston (1989) of conceptual sign choice, mouthing, and syntactic restructuring for emergent signers.

Code Choice in Educational Interpreting

Transliteration is common in educational settings. Some researchers have suggested that because English is the language of education, transliteration provides Deaf students with access to source language terms and vocabulary important to their education (Locker, 1990; Napier, 2002; Siple, 1997). One example is the inclusion of fingerspelling with a conceptually accurate transliteration, allowing Deaf students to connect English vocabulary from the lecture to their academic texts (Napier & Barker, 2004). Transliteration is sometimes referred to as a “literal” translation or interpretation. Code choice studies in Australian universities found Deaf clients preferred that interpreters include both “free” and “literal” translations and incorporate contact language as needed to convey university-level content (Napier, 2002).

The effectiveness of transliteration in university classrooms has been questioned by other researchers. An early study suggested Deaf students comprehended ASL interpreting better than transliteration, and although lacking demographic data to correlate, suggested communication skills of the students might influence their mode of interpreting preference (Fleischer, 1975). Locker (1990) interviewed three linguistically diverse Deaf students at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) about their interpreting preferences. Although transliteration seemed like the logical choice for a signer who was not fluent in ASL and used English contact sign, Locker (1990) found this contact signing student self-reported the lowest comprehension levels of the transliterated lecture compared with the ASL signing students. In interviews, all students expressed awareness of additional cognitive work required on their part to filter through conceptual inaccuracy and missing grammatical features of transliteration to decode meaning from the message. Locker (1990) stated that consumers “apparently need to be able to extrapolate meaning from partial, incomplete, and distorted forms of both languages, which comprises a substantial portion of the T[target] L[language] message in signed transliteration” (p. 224). Livingston et al. (1994) tested student comprehension after viewing interpreted or transliterated lectures and found an overall advantage of ASL interpretation for comprehension, regardless of clients’ language preferences. They stated, “with respect to Sign Preference, those students who preferred English-like signing but received ASL interpretation understood significantly more of the lecture than the English-like sign preferring students who received the lecture in transliteration” (p. 32). They suggested there were problems inherent to transliteration, and that certain aspects of ASL were overall more conducive to visual language. The use of different interpreters in that experiment impacted the comparison of comprehension across modalities because individual interpreters could have been the determining factor in clarity and comprehension. Also, these students were shown only one interpretation; comprehension of both modalities by the same student was not tested or compared. Although there are limitations, these older studies may suggest that ASL interpretation could provide better access to academic lecture content for emergent signers.

The studies on interpreter code choice, particularly in academic settings, often conflict and do not present a clear direction for educational interpreting. Although Livingston et al. (1994) found that an ASL interpretation was the best way to capture the meaning of complex, fast-paced lectures, Powell et al. study (2013) stated that the speed of lectures influenced interpreters to produce a more literal interpretation into the target language. While Siple (1997) suggested that Deaf individuals with limited ASL fluency often preferred transliteration, ASL linguist and creator of the sociolinguistic model of the interpreting process, Dennis Cokely (1985), stated that because of the decoding work transliteration requires, it is only appropriate for bilingual consumers. This indicates that transliteration is not necessarily the best solution for interpreting with emergent signers in academia.

There are challenges to interpreter-mediated postsecondary education beyond the code choice of the interpreter. Some research has suggested that Deaf students may be underprepared for postsecondary education owing to poor access to their primary education (Powell et al., 2013; Schick et al., 2005). In fact, some studies suggested that in postsecondary settings, interpretation in an integrated Deaf and hearing classroom was not effective in providing full access to education for Deaf students, whether ASL interpreted or transliterated. Marschark et al. (2004) investigated the effectiveness of different approaches to interpreted education through comparing lecture comprehension for hearing students and signing Deaf RIT students with both late and early sign acquisition backgrounds. Rather than testing for a holistic advantage of one approach over another, they hypothesized that “students with greater skills in one mode or another would perform better when those skills match the mode of interpreting than when they mismatch” (p. 350). However, they found that students understood both approaches equally, regardless of preference and personal signing skills. Deaf students also consistently scored lower than their hearing peers. Marschark et al. (2005) replicated this study with multiple experienced interpreters already familiar with the students, hoping this would provide more ideal testing conditions for interpreters and students to coconstruct communication. Deaf students were shown either an interpretation or a transliteration based on their preference, but, again, no significant difference in effectiveness between ASL or transliteration was found. Additionally, they observed no significant impact of demographic correlations such as signing skills and language preferences. Deaf students overall underperformed compared with their hearing peers. This suggests there is no advantage for either ASL interpreting or transliterating and indicates that accessing academic lectures through an interpreter is challenging regardless of approach. This challenge is likely magnified for Deaf students navigating emerging ASL fluency.

Foster et al. (1999) found that in academic settings, “[f]aculty generally indicated that they made few if any modifications for deaf students and that they saw the support service faculty as responsible for the success or failure of the students” (p. 225). Because interpreters are often the primary support service providers assigned to work with Deaf students, this indicates that the responsibility of successful accommodations for Deaf students in the classroom is perceived as resting entirely on the interpreter. If interpreters in a university classroom have been found to fall short in providing equal access for fluent Deaf signers with native ASL proficiency, the problem is likely compounded for Deaf signers with emerging sign fluency. This demonstrates the extent of the challenge of providing effective interpreted access for emergent signers in postsecondary education.

Emergent Signers

Deaf emergent signers constitute a distinct subgroup of signing Deaf people. These individuals come from diverse backgrounds, including late-deafened individuals and those who grew up relying on aided auditory input and speech reading for access to spoken language (Smith & Dicus, 2015). Individuals newly acquiring a minority language with which they share a cultural or ethnic identity are often called new speakers, and emergent signers have been referred to as “new signers” in the context of language revitalization (De Meulder, 2019).

Emergent signers may show effects of language deprivation. Language deprivation is a linguistic deficiency caused by insufficient linguistic input during critical period, identified as approximately the first few years of a child’s life, which researchers have found to be essential for language development (Mayberry, 2010). Language deprivation often occurs when Deaf infants and children are not raised in a linguistically rich signing environment but are exposed only to oral language, which is not fully accessible to them (Mayberry, 1993). Insufficient linguistic input during critical period resulting in delayed first language acquisition has significant long-term cognitive and linguistic consequences (Crump & Glickman, 2011; Emmorey et al., 1995; Hall et al., 2017; Lieberman et al., 2015). Whether or not an emergent signer has been affected by language deprivation depends on the success of their acquisition of English as a first language. If a Deaf individual experienced delayed first language acquisition, whether spoken or signed, and thus language deprivation, this will inhibit their ability to learn a second language (Mayberry, 2007). Some emergent signers may experience the effects of language deprivation as they acquire ASL. However, the emergent signer population also encompasses individuals who have successfully acquired a spoken language as their first language, often using the support of hearing aids or cochlear implants, and who are newly acquiring ASL as a second language (Burke & Nicodemus, 2013; Smith & Dicus, 2015). Although there has been much research on language deprivation in Deaf late learners of ASL as a first language, there is significantly less research available on emergent signers. The overlap or distinction of emergent signers with Deaf individuals affected by language deprivation has not been explicitly researched.

Emergent signers’ motivation for learning ASL, their process for acquiring the language, and their interaction with interpreters has only marginally been investigated. It may be that oral Deaf youth are choosing to learn sign language as adults, particularly in postsecondary settings, for ease of communication in learning. Although the use of auditory aids has been shown to support Deaf students’ immersion in a mainstreamed academic setting, aiding does not remove all barriers to access and inclusion (Rich et al., 2013). Some oral students found the rapid pace of information exchange and the interactive learning environment at the postsecondary level to no longer be conducive to the communication strategies, such as lipreading and aided listening, that they had been employing previously (Burke & Nicodemus, 2013). This can be a catalyst to requesting interpreters in both oral and signed modalities (Burke & Nicodemus, 2013). As Deaf students age into adulthood and enter postsecondary education, they transition out of individualized education plans where parents and educational professionals determine their accommodations. According to the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1975, at the age of 18, the Deaf individual takes on full legal responsibility for requesting accommodations (Cawthon et al., 2015). Because many hearing parents choose not to learn sign language, they instead pursue other communication approaches besides signing and request disability accommodations other than interpreters for their Deaf child (Knoors & Marschark, 2012). In contrast to the variety of accommodations utilized in primary and secondary education, interpreters are the most common accommodation in postsecondary settings, regardless of the accommodations used in high school settings (Cawthon et al., 2015). These trends in the data could indicate that oral Deaf students, on assuming control of their communication options and educational accommodations in adulthood, are choosing to explore the avenues of signed communication and interpreting services previously untapped when accommodations were directed by parents and educational professionals.

The population of emergent signers in the United States, particularly those using interpreters in postsecondary settings, has been expanding, partially owing to an increased number of Deaf and hard of hearing K–12 students in mainstreamed classrooms (Allen, 1994; De Meulder, 2019; Reagan, 2010). As mainstreaming has become synonymous with the “least restrictive environment” mandated by the IDEA, less Deaf students are experiencing a rich signing environment such as a residential school for the Deaf before transitioning to college (Reagan, 2010). Additionally, the expectation and requirement of higher education for career-readiness in the United States is growing (Carnevale et al., 2010), meaning that more students across the board are transitioning to college after completing high school. Because most Deaf students are not exposed to ASL and Deaf culture in residential schools, those that choose to learn ASL and enter the Deaf community do so later in life, often during their postsecondary education (Smith & Dicus, 2015).

Interpreting for Emergent Signers

The lack of protocol and best practices in the interpreting field for working with emergent signers is indicative of the significant gap in the current literature (Burke & Nicodemus, 2013; Smith & Dicus, 2015). The only study that has directly investigated interpreting practices with emergent signers is a preliminary study by Smith and Dicus (2015). This study was based on a survey of interpreters working at Gallaudet Interpreting Services (GIS) and focused on their approach to working with emergent signers. The authors found that interpreters recognized the uniqueness and difficulty of this work and felt underprepared to interpret for this population. The interpreters reported that their interpretations for emergent signers included altered linguistic choices, such as word choice, pacing, mouthing, and prosody. A primary finding of this study was that interpreters desired training for working with emergent signers, which at the time was unavailable (Smith & Dicus, 2015). GIS has since instituted a mandatory training that focuses on working with emergent signers for their team of interpreters (Sussman & Smith, 2013). Developed in response to the growing number of emergent signers requesting interpreting services at Gallaudet, the training is based on observations and practices identified as effective through interpreters’ experience working with this population (Sussman & Smith, 2013).

A noted limitation of Smith and Dicus (2015) is that interpreting for emergent signers at Gallaudet is unique because Gallaudet is the world’s only Deaf, bilingual university using sign language as the primary language of instruction in the classroom.³ Interpreting for emergent signers at Gallaudet, as it is structured today, entails temporarily providing the support of a Deaf interpreter, spoken English interpretation, or captioning services while students acquire sign fluency through ASL classes and immersion (Smith & Dicus, 2015). In contrast, signing Deaf students, including emergent signers, attending a university elsewhere in the United States work with an interpreter producing sign language for access to the spoken language used by the professor. Deaf students may also use other accommodations, such as live captioning, which is also offered at Gallaudet. Cued speech, oral transliteration, and sound amplification systems are other accommodations provided at other institutions. No studies to date have specifically investigated the practices of interpreters working to provide access for emergent signers at universities other than Gallaudet.

As previously mentioned, emergent signers often learn ASL through sign language interpreters in academia (Burke & Nicodemus, 2013). Burke and Nicodemus’s coauthored publication reflected on their experience working together in academia. Transitioning from purely oral transliteration to signed transliteration and eventually requesting ASL interpreters for access to graduate classes was a catalyst to Burke’s acquisition of ASL and affiliation with the Deaf world. Nicodemus, a preferred interpreter of Burke’s, wrote about the unique situation of providing access through a language that the Deaf person was not native in, while the Deaf person was still acquiring the language and learning to work with an interpreter. She highlighted the complexities of role, relationship, and language code choices when interpreting for emergent signers, who each bring a unique set of experiences and language skills to the table (Burke & Nicodemus, 2013). Interpreters often choose whether their signed output will resemble an ASL interpretation or transliteration on the basis of what the client states as their preference or by observing the client’s language output and then attempting to “match” the code variety that the consumer uses or requests (Malcolm, 2005). What language code choices are appropriate for the interpreter to use with emergent signers is a complicated question. Burke commented that her lack of experience with interpreters inhibited her ability to express her linguistic needs. Nicodemus added,

To complicate things, emergent signers are often in flux about their own communication preferences, for example, they may wish to speak one day, while preferring to sign the next. They may tell the interpreter to always ‘sign in English’ and later, demand ASL at all times. (Burke & Nicodemus, 2013, p. 1)

For Burke and Nicodemus (2013), effective linguistic choices and interpreter dynamics were negotiated together and evolved over time. Because there is limited research on the topic, this example of an interpreter and Deaf individual coconstructing their own norms for working together is likely reflective of the current practices of other interpreters working with emergent signers.

Deaf Signers’ Linguistic Diversity

There is extensive language variation among Deaf people in America, partly because most Deaf children are born to nonsigning, hearing parents (De Meulder, 2019; Knoors & Marschark, 2012). This means ASL is often necessarily passed down through alternate means (De Meulder, 2019; Roy, 1986). Sign language variations, including English-influenced contact signing, were identified from the early works of Stokoe (1969), Woodward (1972, 1973), and Cokely (1983). Further research by Herbert and Pires (2017) described variations of contact signing as a direct result of code-blending, which occurs when signing is constrained by the grammars of both English and ASL. Research has indicated that Deaf and hearing signers regularly blend ASL and English in their signed communication (Emmorey et al., 2005; Herbert & Pires, 2017). These authors argued that native and proficient ASL is not the ubiquitous language of Deaf signers. Interpreters work with a variety of Deaf signers who use both ASL and contact signing; interpreters are expected to be able to comprehend these different variations and adjust their signed output on the basis of the observed language of Deaf clients (Malcolm, 2005). Emergent signers and their evolving sign language use during a period of acquisition is another kind of variation within the spectrum of Deaf linguistic diversity that interpreters must be aware of and prepared to accommodate.

Language Attitudes in the Deaf Community

Although a wide variety of signing styles have been documented, these communication modes are not equally affirmed within the American Deaf community. There is a complex connection between sign code preferences and identity. Hill (2012) studied Deaf participants’ perceptions of various signers’ language use through a series of studies. First, signing samples were shown to Deaf signing participants of various backgrounds and judged to belong to the categories of “Strong ASL,” “Mostly ASL,” “Mixed,” and “Non-ASL.” “Non-ASL” was judged by mostly older, nonnative participants to be a mixture of ASL and English, whereas it was viewed by other participants as English-based signing. However, adding social information about the background of the signers, which was not necessarily accurate, influenced how the signing samples were categorized. This indicated that perceptions about signing style and degree of English influence on ASL are susceptible to assumptions based on background information about the signer, such as whether they were mainstreamed or from a hearing family. As both of these factors are usually descriptors of emergent signers, this could indicate that emergent signers may face assumptions that their signing is heavily English-influenced on the basis of their background regardless of their actual ASL proficiency.

Another study in Hill (2012) looked at attitudinal responses to signing samples. Participants were asked to categorize samples as ASL, signed English, or a mixed signing style, and then asked attitudinal questions about the signing samples. Participants were Deaf native signers or late learners of sign. For each attitudinal question, participants responded positive, negative, or neutral. Overall, participants rated ASL positively, whereas mixed signing received mixed evaluation, and signed English garnered primarily negative responses. ASL was specifically rated as more pure and beautiful than the other signing samples (Hill, 2012). Signers using ASL were also evaluated as having a Deaf cultural identity; most participants agreed with statements that the signer “seems to be a strong Deaf person” and “looks like a leader in the Deaf community” for ASL signing samples. Hill (2012) suggested, “It could be that ASL forms and features served as the markers of a Deaf identity. Users of Signed English were not as readily perceived as possessing a Deaf identity because of the presence of English-based forms and features” (p. 83). There was even an association between the use of signed English and a hearing social identity, as Deaf signers who produced a mixed or signed English form were stereotyped as “hearing” or “a mixture of Deaf and hearing” (Hill, 2012, p. 160). The author concluded that there was an ASL ideological standard in the Deaf community and a stigmatization of English-based signing types, leading to social stereotypes. Because identity is strongly tied to language use in the Deaf community, these language attitudes can have a significant impact on identity formation of Deaf students acquiring ASL later in life. The sign language produced by emergent signers during their period of acquisition may be subject to similar evaluations within the Deaf community as those documented by Hill. Although language use may influence perceptions of identity, the first study indicated that the background of a signer can also influence perceptions of language output. Emergent signers acquiring ASL and entering into the Deaf community are likely impacted by these complex interrelated issues of identity and language attitudes.

Deaf People With Atypical Language and Implications for Interpreters

Although there is limited research on emergent signers’ language use and interpreter preferences, there have been studies that focus on Deaf people whose language exhibits atypical features. This group of atypical language users includes those with effects of language deprivation, immigrants, and Deaf individuals with mental illnesses. Although there may or may not be overlap with these populations and emergent signers, analysis of the features of these linguistically atypical populations provides some insight into the features that may be accessible to emergent signers and will be considered in this study.

Language deprivation can result in dysfluent Deaf signers classified as alingual or semilingual. Miller (2000) addressed interpreting for semilingual clients and offered tips for managing communication with this population, such as using ASL expansions,⁴ drawing pictures, and pointing to real-world objects. These suggestions are based solely on her experience as a practitioner. Crump and Glickman (2011) researched dysfluent Deaf clients in mental health settings. Techniques that they documented, such as signing slower, using listing techniques, and incorporating the use of gestures, might also prove effective when working with emergent signers. The need to assess language use and adjust target language output while monitoring for comprehension also overlaps with strategies for interpreting with emergent signers (Smith & Dicus, 2015).

Emergent signers make up a significant portion of the population requesting interpreting services in postsecondary education. As such, interpreters need to be aware of their linguistic needs and have interpreting strategies available to construct a target language that provides comprehensible access to education. There is a significant gap in the research on what effective interpreted education looks like for emergent signers, and research on the use of transliteration versus ASL interpretation in education remains inconclusive. The current study seeks to identify linguistic features and interpreting techniques from both transliteration and ASL interpretation that contribute to an effective interpretation for emergent signers in postsecondary education.

Methodology

This mixed methods study was composed of interviews and an experimental portion. The semistructured interview collected background information and interpretation preference data. Participants also completed playback interviews, where the experiment was played back for the participant and they were questioned about features and invited to comment. These playback interviews elicited participant perspectives on the results of the experiment. Two different interpretations were shown to a population of emergent signers. Participants were then tested for comprehension after viewing both interpretations. The entire process lasted approximately one hour, and participants were compensated 20 dollars for their time. This project was approved and conducted under Gallaudet University’s Institutional Review Board. Appropriate informed consent and video release forms were included, and participants were briefed on confidentiality, privacy of information, and the use of videos and images in publications and presentations.

Background and Participants

Participants with different degrees of hearing loss, history of signing, and educational backgrounds were recruited from postsecondary academic institutions in an effort to reflect the diversity of the emergent signer population. Half of the participants (N = 4) were from Gallaudet University (Table 1), the world’s only liberal arts university for Deaf and hard of hearing students, which recruits nonsigning and emergent signing Deaf students into an immersive ASL environment (Sussman & Smith, 2013). Half of the participants (N = 4) were recruited from other postsecondary institutions where an interpreter is used in an integrated setting (Table 2). Three participants were included in data collection remotely through Zoom videoconferencing; participants could watch a live video feed of the researcher, and the researcher shared their screen to conduct the comprehension experiment. Five experiments were conducted in person. All participants agreed to be filmed.

Data Collection

The semistructured interview (Appendix 3) consisted of demographic questions about language background, identity, education, and previous use of interpreter services. The experiment was designed to compare two ten-minute clips of an undergraduate academic lecture: one interpreted and one transliterated. Participants were shown the videos and were then tested for comprehension. The materials were created from an introductory open access lecture on Black history from Stanford University available on YouTube.⁵ A primary reason for choosing this lecture was to minimize the effect of prior knowledge on the data collection. Because Black history is not a required class in American education, it was more likely that the information in these videos would be new for all participants. Participants were asked if they had any background in the topic to account for prior knowledge that could lead to comprehension test performance discrepancies. Although many academic areas of study require prerequisite background knowledge (e.g., math and science courses), the content in this lecture did not require background knowledge for comprehension. Additionally, this lecture was recorded live because it was given in an introductory college class, which is the closest an experimental video source text can come to the real-world classroom lectures emergent signers experience in postsecondary education. Five question comprehension tests (available in Appendices 1 and 2) were created through collaboration with a certified interpreter with a master’s degree in education and 10 years of teaching experience. These comprehension tests were revised through a piloting process with hearing volunteers. The original tests were found to be too difficult; several hearing volunteers failed the tests after one viewing of the lecture. After revisions were made, hearing volunteers scored perfectly for both lectures.

Table 1. Gallaudet Participants

Table 2. Features Under Investigation

Note. This table lists all the features ultimately included in the analysis. This includes the specific features the researcher requested the interpreter be mindful of while creating the two interpretations, additional relevant features observed in analysis of the completed interpretations, and features that emerged as relevant through interaction with participants during playback interviews. A/E designates the features as primarily, though not exclusively, associated with ASL interpretation (A) or English-signing transliteration (E).

* Although this technique was observed in the transliterated text, nowhere in the literature was there found documentation of fingerspelled English function words specifically, differentiated from fingerspelling generally, as a feature of transliteration.

The lecture was interpreted twice by a different interpreter to create the signed source text. This interpreter was selected on the basis of her reputation within the community and her qualifications; she is RID certified (NIC, EIPA 5.0) with over 10 years of experience. Prior to filming, the researcher briefed the interpreter on the experiment, intent of the interpretations, and linguistic features to be included. The interpreter first recorded an ASL interpretation where she incorporated the ASL features listed in Table 2, including spatial grammar, nonmanual markers, expansion, and depiction (Bellugi & Klima, 2001). Her second production was a transliteration using conceptually accurate ASL signs in English word order, restructuring for modality, and English mouthing, along with the other features of an English-based signing transliteration listed in Table 2. The breakdown of all features identified and analyzed in the interpretations is listed in Table 2. Three Deaf individuals reviewed and validated the interpretations as acceptable samples of interpretation and transliteration.

After completing the recordings, the source texts were uploaded to ELAN, a free computer software program that allows input of notes and coding time-stamped to video. The features described in Table 2 were documented in the interpretations and mapped to the correlated comprehension test questions. On the basis of this analysis, two ten-minute test sections were selected out of the hour-long lecture: part A and part B. Both the transliteration and the interpretation videos were clipped to the ten-minute sections of A and B, creating a total of four possible test videos. Participants took the associated comprehension tests immediately after watching each video. The order in which the videos were shown was alternated to control for any effects of order shown on comprehension. This resulted in four different versions of the experiment: (1) part A transliteration, then part B interpretation; (2) part A interpretation, then part B transliteration; (3) part B transliteration, then part A interpretation; (4) part B interpretation, then part A transliteration. With a total of eight participants, each version was administered twice.

The final portion of data collection was a playback interview, also known as stimulated recall. Playback interviews involved the researcher sitting with the participant and playing back a video of the language or interaction being investigated. The researcher asked participants directly about their mental processes and reactions to the videos and allowed participants to be involved in the interpretation of the data. Playback interviews were used by Tannen (2005) in her linguistic and discourse analysis research and were employed in this study to allow participants to speak directly to their understanding and preference for the various features of the interpretations. This data collection procedure is similar to stimulated recall, an outgrowth of think aloud protocols (TAPs), where participants are asked to recall their mental processes while performing a task, using a recording to aid their memory (Russell & Winston, 2014). Stimulated recall has been used by Bloom (1954) specifically to elicit memories on classroom performance. For this study, the researcher reviewed segments of the experimental videos with each participant after they had watched both videos and taken both comprehension tests. Five-minute sections of both the interpretation and the transliteration were selected for playback interviews. This approach was chosen to limit the time frame for the entire experiment to an hour. The researcher viewed each video and selected five minutes that included robust examples of the selected features and information associated with comprehension question answers. The playback interviews began an introduction to the procedure. The researcher first asked participants which video they preferred overall and then asked them to watch the videos and pause as needed to comment on what the interpreter did that they liked or disliked, as well as anything that supported or interfered with their understanding. Some participants offered this information voluntarily, taking the initiative to pause the video and share, whereas others required more prompting from the researcher.

For each feature that participants selected for discussion or the researcher asked about, responses were rated as positive or negative. Positive responses meant that the feature was liked, understood, and appreciated in the interpretation. This included times when the researcher asked about a feature when it appeared in the interpretation and the participant stated it was clear and understood or when participants paused the video to comment that something was especially effective. Negative responses meant that the feature was unclear or unfavorable and not preferred in the interpretation. For example, several participants paused to comment on instances of fingerspelling that they missed or felt were too rapidly produced. Some features were not brought up by the participant, or the researcher was unable to elicit a definite response from the participant. These features were marked as “did not mention.” The researcher also asked each participant which video interpretation they preferred overall and why. Playback interviews were reviewed and the positive, negative, and “did not mention” responses were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for analysis. Video recordings of each interview and all data collection and analysis materials were stored on a password-protected computer and hard drive.

Data Analysis

Analysis of the overall advantage of interpreting approaches was conducted through the comparison of ASL interpretation and transliteration comprehension scores and participant self-reported preferences. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to gauge statistical significance of comprehension score disparities. This test indicates whether groupings of responses were significantly different from each other. Demographic interview information was analyzed for correlations with approach preferences and comprehension results.

Features were individually investigated for comprehension and preference, and analysis was conducted in several different ways. Comprehension of features was analyzed by looking at the ASL interpretation or transliteration features correlated with the comprehension questions. Each comprehension question was associated with a section of the interpreted texts, and the features that appeared in that clip were documented. This resulted in the researcher creating a document showing which features were in the section of the message that had to be comprehended by the participant in order to correctly answer each comprehension question. Overall trends were observed in which features were associated with questions correctly and incorrectly answered. These trends were then compared across participants. Individual test questions that showed a discrepancy in regard to how often they were correctly answered based on whether participants viewed the ASL interpretation or transliteration were investigated for which specific features were present in each interpretation of that associated text. The researcher looked at specific portions of the message represented in each interpretation and noted when one approach clearly facilitated greater comprehension than the other. This type of comparison provided insight into which features may have contributed to one approach more effectively conveying the content. Preferences were investigated through self-reported favorability of individual features in the playback interviews. For each comprehension question incorrectly answered, playback data was reviewed for associated participant comments. For example, if the participant missed a question that relied on fingerspelling comprehension, the playback data was reviewed to see if the participant had specifically mentioned not understanding that instance of fingerspelling.

Feature comprehension analysis is preliminary and inconclusive. The nature of interpretation and language is complex, and multiple features are present simultaneously, so it is difficult to pinpoint which features were responsible for facilitating comprehension or contributing to misunderstanding. This data was looked at broadly for trends in reoccurring features associated with either correctly or incorrectly answered questions.

Results

This study was designed to test for comprehension of features through a comprehension experiment and to ask participants which features were effective through qualitative interviews. Interpretation into ASL and transliteration into English-influenced contact sign were chosen because they represent two traditional approaches to interpreting. Linguistic features were tested through their incorporation into both approaches. The hypothesis for this study was that neither ASL interpretation nor transliteration provides complete access for emergent signers in an academic setting. Instead, a more detailed description of the set of discourse features will outline the tools interpreters use to create variations that meet the language needs of the many differing individuals of this diverse population.

Comprehension Experiment Results

Each participant was tested for comprehension of two separate sections of a lecture: one interpreted into ASL and one transliterated into English-based signing. The median score of participants for both lectures was three out of five. Scores ranged from one to five correct responses. No one scored perfectly on both lectures. Scores by participant and interpretation type are illustrated in Figure 1. Out of eight participants, two (25%) had higher comprehension scores for the ASL interpretation compared with the transliteration, three participants (37.5%) had higher comprehension scores for transliteration, and three (37.5%) had even scores. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test showed no statistically significant difference between the scores of ASL interpreted and transliterated lectures. This supports the hypothesis that neither approach facilitates significantly better comprehension for emergent signers. Comprehension scores for lectures one and two also showed no statistically significant difference, suggesting that the two lectures had similar levels of content requiring comprehension, validating the experimental design.

Preference Results

In between the comprehension experiment and the playback interview, participants were asked which of the interpretations they preferred. This included asking participants which interpretation they liked, which was clear, which was better understood, and so on, and was followed up with questions such as “Which type of interpreting would you request?” The responses provided were considered self-assessments of comprehension. However, self-reported comprehension (hereafter in this chapter referred to as “preference”) and comprehension test results did not always align (see Figure 2). Six out of eight (75%) participants self-reported preference for ASL interpretation, but only two out of eight (25%) scored higher on the interpretation test compared with the transliteration (Figures 1 and 3). Two participants from the mainstream group, Elizabeth and Tony, demonstrated a mismatch of stated ASL interpretation preference and higher transliteration comprehension scores. Both of these participants reported English as their first language; Elizabeth was postlingually deafened at the age of 15, and Tony stated that English had been an effective first language and language of education through frequency modulation (FM) systems and communication access real-time translation (CART) educational accommodations. Interestingly, these two participants were also the most educated of the pool; both Elizabeth and Tony were PhD graduate students and had not used interpreters until graduate school. Mismatch only went in one direction: ASL interpretation was always preferred when there was a mismatch between preference and comprehension.

Figure 1. Comprehension scores by interpretation type.
Note. The y-axis presents comprehension test scores ranging from one to five correct answers. The x-axis lists individual participants. Arrows indicate degree of difference in comprehension scores for the two interpretations.

Figure 2. Participant interpretation preference: ASL 75% vs. transliteration 25%.

Whereas 75% of both Gallaudet and mainstream groups preferred ASL interpretation, the comprehension data differed between the two groups. No one in the Gallaudet group comprehended transliteration better; all three students with higher transliteration scores were from the mainstream group. Conversely, none of the mainstream students had higher comprehension scores for ASL interpretation. Two participants, one Gallaudet and one mainstream, preferred transliteration (25%). Overall, ASL interpretation was the preferred approach. Participants’ own language preferences for communication were generally found to have an impact on their interpretation preferences, albeit with inconsistencies in comprehension scores. All participants who stated ASL as their preferred language for communication during the qualitative interview also preferred the ASL interpretation. However, none of these participants had higher ASL interpretation comprehension scores; one scored higher on transliteration, and two had even scores. ASL interpretation preference correlated with preference for ASL in communication, but patterns were less clear for comprehension.

Features Investigation

Beyond comparing ASL interpretation and transliteration broadly, the effectiveness of specific linguistic features was investigated through the correlation of features with comprehension questions and the discussion of features in playback interviews. Feature preferences were investigated through playback interviews. Playback interviews asked participants to express their preference for specific features as they appeared in the interpreted videos. The playback interviews were less effective than anticipated, because participants often lacked the metalinguistic knowledge necessary for these conversations. This was designed to be a participant-led discussion, but most participants were reticent to offer insights, thus putting the impetus on the researcher to initiate dialogue. As a result, not every participant offered their opinion on every feature, and some features, such as expansion and depiction, were not a good fit for data collection through playback interviews. Expansion was observed mostly in an interpretation when compared with the source message, and depiction was ultimately too broad and vague a feature to clearly identify and discuss with participants who had no familiarity with ASL linguistics. Feature preference findings were based on the limited data that was elicited.

Figure 3. Mismatch of comprehension and preference.
Note. “match” refers to preference matching comprehension (ASL n = 2, transliteration n = 1), “mismatch” refers to instances of preferred ASL but higher transliteration comprehension scores (n = 2), and “inconclusive” refers to instances of even scores (n = 3).

Feature comprehension was investigated through analysis of the features associated with the comprehension questions. The features under investigation, listed in Table 2, were documented as they were found in each content section in the ASL interpretation and transliteration associated with an answer to a comprehension question. By investigating which questions were correctly and incorrectly answered, along with the features that were present in the associated video sections and the participants’ comments about such features, trends were observed in the influence of certain features on the ability to understand information in the interpretation and correctly answer comprehension questions.

Feature Preferences

ASL interpretation-preferring participants. Of the six participants that preferred ASL interpretation, two (33.3%) also responded positively to all ASL interpretation features in the playback interview. All six (100%) preferred ASL syntax. Five of six (83.3%) preferred the use of affective facial expressions; one participant did not mention this feature. Four of six (66.6%) preferred nonmanual markers; two participants did not mention this feature. Val said she did not notice the facial expressions; perhaps her stated strong reliance on lipreading forced a focus on the mouth, eclipsing the role of the rest of the face. In regard to both affective facial expressions and nonmanual markers, Elizabeth stated her appreciation for “big face people” who effectively used the facial expressions of ASL. Four of six (66.6%) preferred the use of spatial grammar in ASL, one disliked this feature, and one did not mention it. Three of six (50%) preferred constructed action/constructed dialogue (CA/CD), two did not mention this feature, and one did not prefer it. Three of six (50%) preferred the mouthing of individual words coupled with signs, but did not prefer pervasive English mouthing, showing a distinction in preferences between English mouthing as a transliteration feature and ASL’s more limited, lexical use of mouthing. Val specifically stated the mouthing in the ASL interpretation was more helpful than the mouthing in the transliteration.

Depiction preferences, in particular, were difficult to clearly identify and discuss with participants; no reliable data on depiction preferences was recorded. Jack and Tony were some of the most reticent to offer insights during the interviews, although Jack did express a strong dislike for CA/CD. ASL interpretation-preferring participants expressed little to no preference for transliteration features overall. The exceptions to this included one participant who preferred English mouthing, two participants who appreciated conceptual accuracy, and one who preferred fingerspelling. Elizabeth, while expressing preference for all of the tested features of ASL interpretation, also preferred both conceptual accuracy and fingerspelling. Interestingly, she was one of the three participants who had a mismatched preference and comprehension; she preferred ASL, but scored higher, a perfect five out of five, on the transliteration. Her background may be relevant to this mismatch; she is late-deafened, English-dominant, and very new to using ASL and working with interpreters. Tony explicitly expressed no preference for any transliteration features, disliking the English word order, lack of facial expressions, reliance on English mouthing, literal choices, and reliance on fingerspelling, stating the transliteration was “more work” to understand. Unlike Elizabeth, he had significant experience working with interpreters to draw on. Overall, most ASL features were preferred by ASL interpretation-preferring participants; these participants showed the least preference for CA/CD.

Most participants who preferred the ASL interpretation did not prefer many of the transliteration features. Val said that the transliteration was too fast-paced and that she understood little, which was reflected in her scores. She specifically mentioned that the speed of fingerspelling inhibited her comprehension. Elizabeth said, “I felt like it was a very direct translation … and that slows you down.” She did not prefer the literalness and English word order. Mark said he would have preferred the interpreter to fingerspell less and instead use mouthing to specify English words in the original message. Mark’s comments indicated that English mouthing in ASL was preferred as a way to reduce fingerspelling as a transliteration feature to specify lexical choices and meaning in the source message. The need to mentally decode the transliterated message by mapping the English-based signing and mouthing back to the source English was mentioned in a negative way by Tony, Mark, Anna, and Elizabeth.

Transliteration-Preferring Participants

Two participants, Lauren and Kelly, expressed a preference for transliteration. Lauren very strongly preferred transliteration, whereas Kelly was more neutral, stating a mild preference for transliteration when pressed to make a binary choice. Both participants preferred mouthing in English and the use of English word order, which are fundamental features of transliteration. Lauren said she preferred transliteration because she wanted “to get what all the hearing people are getting.” Lauren appreciated the use of fingerspelling but not for English function words; Kelly preferred all fingerspelling.

Both Lauren and Kelly expressed the view that transliteration better supported their multimodal approach to information reception. Lauren relied heavily on lipreading the signer, whereas Kelly utilized listening, lipreading, and watching the signer. Kelly stated that the pacing of the ASL interpretation was more delayed from the source text, which impeded her ability to watch and listen simultaneously. It was difficult to capture data regarding conceptual and literal sign choices, and no definitive trends were observed in the sparse playback data collected on these two features.

Both transliteration-preferring participants also mentioned some ASL interpretation features positively, such as the use of affective facial expressions. Lauren preferred spatial grammar but did not appreciate CA/CD or nonmanual markers, stating that the “deaf mouthing” interfered with the English mouthing that she relied on for lipreading. She was less concerned about conceptual accuracy, stating that both conceptual and literal choices were clear to her. Kelly, on the other hand, appreciated the use of nonmanual markers and CA/CD but misunderstood one instance of spatial grammar. Neither preferred ASL syntax and expressed that signing in English word order provided clarity.

Feature Comprehension: Comparative Analysis

For each comprehension question incorrectly answered, the associated video content was reviewed to identify which features were present during that time frame. Because specific ASL interpretation or transliteration features were correlated with comprehension questions, error analysis gave insight into feature comprehension. This analysis was conducted by comparing errors of individual participants to find patterns across comprehension scores. Those with perfect scores in one mode were excluded from this analysis as outliers.

For ASL interpretation features, one participant, Mark, had a perfect score and was not included in the analysis. Of the remaining participants, the questions most often answered incorrectly in the ASL interpretation had the following features in common: CA/CD, spatial grammar, and fingerspelling. All participants missed at least one question associated with spatial grammar and CA/CD. Six of those seven participants, excluding Mark (85%), made an error on at least 65% of the questions containing CA/CD. Lauren and Kelly, two participants who did not prefer ASL interpretation, both incorrectly answered questions that relied on spatial grammar and CA/CD. Participants who did prefer ASL interpretation also missed at least one question that relied on CA/CD or spatial grammar. This indicates that the ASL interpreting features of spatial grammar and CA/CD may not effectively support comprehension.

For transliteration features, Lauren, who most strongly preferred transliteration, had a perfect score and was excluded from the analysis. Kelly was the only other participant to express preference for transliteration, and the questions she missed included strong reliance on fingerspelling, as well as an instance where the mouthing did not closely match the signing. For ASL interpretation-preferring participants, Elizabeth had a perfect score for the transliteration and was excluded from the analysis. All other ASL interpretation-preferring participants most often missed questions in the transliteration that were associated with heavy reliance on fingerspelling and more literal, less conceptual choices. For instance, Tony missed all questions that relied heavily on fingerspelling, and Val only caught the question with fingerspelling that also incorporated an expansion that provided sign equivalents for the fingerspelled word.

Across both ASL interpretation and transliteration, all participants missed some questions with extensive fingerspelling, particularly those without any accompanying sign support or expansion. Two participants missed more than 65% of questions with extensive fingerspelling. This seems to indicate that an overreliance on fingerspelling hinders comprehension for this population. However, across approaches, questions most often answered correctly were found to frequently include fingerspelling and expansion techniques. These findings on fingerspelling seem to contradict. However, a closer look at the texts found that repetition or additional expansion made the difference in comprehension of fingerspelling, such as the use of both fingerspelling and a sign for the same concept. An example of both uses of fingerspelling was found in the two contrasting interpretations associated with the answer to question #1, “What was one reason W. E. B. Du Bois was such a central figure in African American history? Answer: His life was an example of many themes throughout African American history.” The ASL interpretation handled fingerspelling of a prominent term (biography) in the following way: B-I-O-G-R-A-P-H-Y STORY WRITE ABOUT HIS (3rd person possessive index) LIFE. Later, in the same chunk of text, the term “biography” was fingerspelled again. The repetition of the concept of biography three times, including an expansion on the meaning of the English word fingerspelled (STORY WRITE ABOUT HIS LIFE), demonstrated the ASL use of fingerspelling coupled with the features of expansion and repetition in the ASL interpretation. In contrast, “biography” was fingerspelled once in the transliteration without immediately associating a sign. Later in the text when that word surfaced, the interpreter signed STORY and mouthed “biography” to make the association between the English word and the sign chosen. This is an example of how transliteration uses fingerspelling and relies on English mouthing.

Feature Comprehension: Question Comparison

Along with broadly comparing the comprehension scores for ASL interpretation and transliteration, looking at the error rates of individual questions in both approaches can shed light on the effectiveness of features used in ASL interpretation and transliteration. Of the 10 comprehension questions, two questions (#1 and #15) were answered correctly considerably more often in ASL interpretation than transliteration, and two questions (#4 and #10) were answered correctly 75% of the time in transliteration, but only 25% of the time in ASL interpretation (see Figure 4).

Questions #1 and #15 (see Table 3) were answered correctly more often when viewed in the ASL interpretation, which exhibited repetition, expansion techniques, and less reliance on fingerspelling. The contrasting transliteration relied heavily on fingerspelling, including fingerspelling specific adjectives to match the speaker’s word choice, or using fingerspelling without any accompanying sign for a specific term. Fingerspelling in the ASL interpretation associated with the answer to question #1, that W. E. B. Du Bois’s life was an example of many themes throughout African American history, is described in the preceding section. The corresponding transliteration relied heavily on fingerspelling, including B-I-O-G-R-A-P-H-Y, the adjective S-U-C-H, the phrase P-U-L-I-T-Z-E-R P-R-I-Z-E, and the entire book title without coupling signs to the fingerspelled words to expand on the meaning, as was done in the ASL interpretation. The use of repetition and expansion with fingerspelling in the ASL interpretation along with less overall fingerspelling seemed to positively impact comprehension. Question #15 (Table 3) again demonstrates the contrasting use of fingerspelling in the different approaches. In the ASL interpretation, the interpreter fingerspelled B-O-Y-C-O-T-T and associated a sign, RESIST, to accompany the fingerspelled word. In the transliteration, B-O-Y-C-O-T-T was fingerspelled, but not signed, and D-R-A-M-A-T-I-C was fingerspelled to match the speaker’s specific word choice. Questions #1 and #15 showed the greatest disparity in results between approaches, and ASL interpretation supported greater comprehension in both instances.

Figure 4. Number of correct responses by question.
Note. The x-axis indicates individual comprehension questions, and the y-axis indicates the number of correct responses by interpretation approach. Questions with the widest gap in correct scores between approaches are outlined in black.

Table 3. Key Questions in Feature Investigation

Note. Listed are the top four comprehension questions with correct answers that were answered accurately considerably more frequently in one approach to interpreting than the other. Shadowed boxes show which approach has the higher number of correct responses, always at least two more correct responses (50%) than the other.

For questions #4 and #10, which were more frequently answered correctly when participants were shown the transliteration rather than the ASL interpretation (see Table 3), spatial grammar and CA/CD were core features in the ASL interpretation. In the transliteration of questions #4 and #10, the signer followed the English structure and implemented conceptual sign choices and English mouthing. The answer to question #4, namely, that Booker T. Washington and Du Bois argued over the importance of liberal arts education as opposed to vocational education for African Americans, did include some spatial grammar, even in the transliteration. The contrastive use of space is common in comparing or contrasting two ideas, such as liberal arts and vocational education. However, there was enough English structuring in the transliteration that comprehension did not hinge on the use of space; the English structuring provided additional support to the organization of ideas. Additionally, both transliteration samples included some form of expansion, such as repetition. This was observed to be a common theme across all questions with higher rates of correct responses. It appears that reliance on complex ASL features such as spatial grammar and CA/CD may have hindered comprehension for this population, whereas English mouthing and English grammatical structuring of the discourse supported comprehension.

Overall, there were mixed results for both transliteration and ASL interpretation features. The features that seemed less effective for message comprehension included the ASL interpretation features of CA/CD and spatial grammar, as well as the transliteration feature of extensive fingerspelling. Effective features included use of repetition and expansion, particularly when partnered with slow-paced fingerspelling, as well as English mouthing and structuring.

Preference and Comprehension

For each comprehension question incorrectly answered, playback data was reviewed for associated participant comments when participants overtly mentioned either a lack of clarity or nonpreference of features associated with their comprehension errors. ASL syntax, CA/CD, and spatial grammar were all mentioned negatively. Tony preferred the ASL interpretation but specifically expressed confusion with CA/CD. He scored poorly overall on the ASL interpretation and missed two out of three questions that included CA/CD. For questions #3 and #4, Jack stated that the spatial grammar and CA/CD were unclear; he answered both questions incorrectly. Val also expressed a lack of clarity in this section and answered question #3 incorrectly. Kelly stated that she did not catch the limited spatial referencing associated with question #3 in the transliteration, which she also answered incorrectly.

The same analysis of the missed questions for transliteration found that several participants did not prefer most transliteration features, particularly English mouthing, English word order, and fingerspelling. The exception was Lauren. Lauren had a perfect score in the transliteration and preferred all of these features. She often requests interpreters to “follow the English,” noting that in educational settings, specific English words from a lecture may appear on a test. This aligns with Napier and Barker’s (2004) findings that literal interpretation, or transliteration, can provide students with access to the language of education. Other participants mentioned these transliteration features interfering with their comprehension in correlation with the incorrectly answered question. Tony stated that the English word order of the transliteration associated with questions #1 and #2 made the overall message more difficult to access through the signs. He added that he would have to attempt to lipread to make sense of the message. He answered both of those questions incorrectly. Tony also stated that the literal interpretation of idioms was not preferred on a question he answered incorrectly. Anna answered questions #1 and #3 incorrectly and stated that the fingerspelling interfered with her comprehension.

There were also times when participants positively mentioned linguistic features that correlated with incorrectly answered comprehension questions, including spatial grammar, CA/CD, and ASL structure. Elizabeth mentioned enjoying the use of CA/CD in question #13, but she answered that question incorrectly. Lauren did not prefer the spatial grammar associated with question #4, saying it is an ASL feature she does not prefer, but she thought that she still understood. However, question #4 was also the only question she answered incorrectly. Tony, Val, and Anna all expressed that the spatial grammar was preferred and clear at times when they actually misunderstood and incorrectly answered an associated comprehension question. In an interesting reversal, Tony said the spatial grammar was unclear in the one instance he answered an ASL interpretation comprehension question correctly. These responses suggest a disparity between what participants thought they understood and what they actually understood. This could indicate a mismatch between which features participants prefer and which features contribute to their comprehension.

The overarching theme in the analysis is that, as a whole, neither approach of ASL interpretation nor transliteration into an English-based contact sign is significantly more effective than the other. Two participants expressed preference for ASL interpretation in conflict with their higher comprehension scores of transliteration, indicating a mismatch between what was most comprehensible and what was preferred. However, some individual participants’ preference aligned with their higher scores, as in the case of Lauren, who strongly preferred transliteration and earned a perfect comprehension score when viewing that approach. Overall, this points to the diversity of the population, even in a small sample. A closer look at linguistic and interpretation features revealed some rough consensus was found with regard to the most effective features within an interpretation. ASL interpretation features of CA/CD and spatial grammar and the transliteration feature of extensive fingerspelling seemed less effective for message comprehension. Repetition and expansion, particularly partnered with slow-paced fingerspelling, as well as English mouthing and structuring seemed to be generally effective features. The implications of these findings are discussed next.

Discussion

This study investigated ASL interpretation and transliteration in postsecondary education for emergent signers. Effectiveness of these approaches and associated features within the interpretations were investigated by asking for preferences and testing for comprehension. However, the results of this study indicated that preference did not always correlate with comprehension. This is significant because interpreters are trained to ask clients for their preference between ASL interpretation or transliteration, and interpreters commonly base their language output on the answer they receive (Malcolm, 2005). The results of this study indicate that the group of emergent signers in this study was too diverse for a singular interpreting approach to provide appropriate linguistic access for all participants. In correlating demographic data for the participants in this sample, subclassifications such as Deaf or hard of hearing identity, age of acquisition, linguistic and educational background, and previous experience working with interpreters provided insight but were insufficient to account for the discrepancy between preferences and comprehension. Comprehension, preference, and the interaction of these two regarding overall approach and individual features are discussed in what follows, along with demographic correlations and suggestions for future research.

Comprehension

The results of this study point to the ASL grammatical features of spatial grammar and CA/CD in a signed target output as potentially inhibiting comprehension by emergent signers. Expansion, slower pacing, and English mouthing were found to be more effective. The ineffectiveness of the features of spatial grammar and CA/CD is indicated by the lower rates of correct responses to questions containing those features, such as questions #4 and #10 (Table 3). This could be attributed to the fact that this population is still in the process of language acquisition. CA/CD and spatial grammar features are more advanced elements of ASL grammar and are usually some of the last features acquired by children learning ASL (Pichler et al., 2019). The emergent signers in this study may not have mastered, and therefore were not able to fully comprehend, these features. The features identified as supporting comprehension, such as slower pacing, repetition, and expansion techniques seen in examples #1 and #15 (Table 4), show overlap with recommendations in the literature regarding interpreting for other populations of nonnative signers. The finding that expansion was effective for emergent signers echoes the findings by Miller (2000) purporting expansion as an interpretation technique for semilingual clients. Similarly, Crump and Glickman (2011) found instances of slower pacing effective when interpreting with dysfluent clients, a feature that was also effective for these emergent signer participants. Inclusion of English mouthing was shown to be helpful for some emergent signer participants, particularly those who rely on lipreading or who are in an early stage of acquiring sign vocabulary. These findings align with the study by Smith and Dicus (2015), who also found that interpreters working with this population make adjustments to word choice, pacing, and mouthing. Although the findings for these features are not novel, extending the research to show their efficacy in working with emergent signers in English to sign interpreting is a new development.

Table 4. Key Question Features

Note. This chart lists the features of each interpretation approach evident in the text associated with the correct answer to the comprehension question numbered on the left. Shadowed boxes show which approach had the higher number of correct responses, always at least two more correct responses (50%) than the other. Bolded features are unique features attributed to effectiveness of the interpretations, whereas italicized features are associated with ineffectiveness of interpretations. Reference Table 2 for a description of each feature.

Fingerspelling was found to have both positive and negative effects on comprehension. Only one of eight (12.5%) participants preferred inclusion of English function words in the transliterated message through fingerspelling, and many stated that fingerspelling, used to convey specific content words or proper nouns, was difficult to catch. For example, the differences in the use of fingerspelling in questions #1 and #15 may be one of the crucial distinctions that resulted in better comprehension of those questions in ASL interpretation than transliteration. This suggests that overreliance on fingerspelling as a transliteration technique to convey specific English vocabulary was detrimental to comprehension. Val and Anna specifically stated that fingerspelling is an element of ASL they are still acquiring, which likely was true for other participants who shared their struggle to comprehend fingerspelling. Nevertheless, emergent signers sometimes acquire sign vocabulary through fingerspelling. Val specifically stated she relies on slow fingerspelling to learn new signs. Slow, clear production of fingerspelling, accompanied by a sign, was noted positively, perhaps as an adaptation that helped to compensate for limited sign vocabulary. The role and suggested limitations of fingerspelling for emergent signers are unique findings to this study not mentioned by Smith and Dicus. The effect of all these features on comprehension should be considered by interpreters when crafting an interpretation for a client who is an emergent signer.

Preference

Not surprisingly, overall ASL interpretation or transliteration preference was generally correlated with preference for associated features of that approach. Both participants who preferred transliteration appreciated the English mouthing and English word order. They stated that they depend on lipreading and mental decoding of the signed interpretation back to the English source. These participants grew up using a combination of aided listening and lipreading to access language, and now as they work with interpreters, they mentally map the signs and English mouthing back to the spoken source text. This aligns with existing research that found consumers of transliteration desired a signed message close to the source text (Viera & Stauffer, 2000). Both participants who preferred transliteration can be categorized as English-dominant bilinguals according to Kannapell (1989), which offers further evidence of Siple’s (1997) claim that transliteration is the preferred approach of that population. Other participants, such as Tony, recognized transliteration as verbatim visual access to the source that required decoding to fully comprehend. They specifically stated that the mental workload required for comprehension of transliteration is the reason they prefer to access the message through the visual language of ASL. This offers some evidence to support Locker’s (1990) findings and Cokely’s (1985) suggestion that transliteration is most appropriate for bilingual consumers because of the decoding it requires. This could be related to the fact that preference for ASL interpretation does not always align with better comprehension. The ASL interpretation seemed to be preferred by these participants because it required less attention and was visually easier to access. Although the transliteration required a higher level of attention, that may have also translated to higher levels of comprehension.

Interaction of Comprehension and Preference

Initially, comprehension and preference data were collected as two different approaches to answer the research question regarding the effectiveness of individual features. On further analysis, two participants preferred ASL, but scored higher on transliteration, while three participants showed equal comprehension for both approaches, which resulted in a mismatch between preference and comprehension. The substantial percentage of participants with even comprehension scores regardless of approach (38%) resembles the findings by Marschark et al. (2004, 2005) that neither approach significantly improves comprehension. The mismatch between ASL interpretation preference and higher transliteration comprehension scores is contrary to the trend reported by Livingston et al. (1994), who found that ASL interpretation, even for students who preferred English-based signing, facilitated better comprehension. Playback interview data indicated some participants spoke positively about ASL features such as spatial grammar and CA/CD, although those features actually correlated with incorrectly answered questions. This suggests participants’ lack of awareness of their own comprehension levels. It is possible that features not understood are features of ASL that participants have not yet fully acquired. Anna noted that the use of depiction and CA/CD reflected features that she was currently learning in her ASL classes. Some of the mismatches could be attributed to participants’ lack of metalinguistic knowledge, because some participants had never taken ASL classes or in any way been formally taught the linguistics and structure of ASL. Findings suggest that the qualitative data on preference may not be reliable to indicate effectiveness. More research is needed to investigate the mismatch between preference and comprehension and identify factors contributing to that mismatch.

Demographic Correlations

In addition to these findings, themes in the data emerged around demographic correlations with preference and comprehension. The most significant of these themes centered on the participant’s educational setting, language acquisition background, Deaf identity, and prior experience working with interpreters. The themes listed previously are discussed here in relation to effective linguistic choices and approach in an interpretation.

First, current educational setting seemed to have an impact on both preference and comprehension. Although Gallaudet and mainstreamed students preferred ASL interpretation more often than transliteration, Gallaudet students tended to understand ASL interpretation better, whereas mainstream students tended to have higher transliteration comprehension scores. The overall trend in this data set showed that although ASL interpretation is preferred (75% of the time), transliteration may facilitate better comprehension, particularly for students in integrated settings, none of which had higher comprehension scores for ASL interpretation over transliteration. Gallaudet students’ slight trend toward better comprehension of ASL interpretation could be related to the immersive pattern and rapid rate of student ASL acquisition at Gallaudet compared with those at other universities. If ASL interpretation preference and comprehension are associated with more advanced ASL knowledge, exhibited in this study by students who were further along the acquisition path, then it is interesting to note that Gallaudet students on average had been signing for a much shorter period of time (1–5 years) compared with mainstream participants (5–6 years). Three of the four participants had no exposure to ASL before coming to Gallaudet, and yet they were accessing their education entirely in direct ASL instruction when the study was conducted. Three out of four of the Gallaudet participants stated that the immersive signing environment on campus had been instrumental in their language acquisition. They are likely acquiring ASL at a faster rate compared with mainstream students whose ASL exposure is often limited to the language used by their interpreters and their involvement in the Deaf community off campus. All non-Gallaudet students reported seeking out Deaf community interaction with mixed results. The immersive signed language environment at Gallaudet clearly has an impact on ASL acquisition, resulting in better comprehension of ASL features of an interpretation.

Another interesting observation in regard to the impact of the educational setting on interpretation preference is that two participants who preferred the ASL interpretation of the lecture in this experiment stated in their interviews that they request transliteration from their educational interpreters. Tony preferred an ASL interpretation in the experiment but expressed flexibility with his own educational interpreters, encouraging them to default to transliteration if they do not fully comprehend the advanced scientific jargon of his PhD classes. For Tony, linguistic features of ASL or English are lower in priority than preservation of the message content. This reflects the findings by Napier (2002) that clients prefer interpreters to employ various linguistic approaches as needed to convey university-level content.

Secondly, general language acquisition background was found to impact the effectiveness of the interpretation approaches. One explanation for the mismatching comprehension scores and stated preference of approach could be that some participants’ late ASL acquisition coupled with ineffective access to their first language impacts their overall linguistic skill and self-awareness. For example, Val was unable to answer most questions about feature preference and stated that her limited sign vocabulary inhibited her comprehension of most of the lecture content. This is similar to Miller’s (2000) suggestion that advanced features of ASL grammar might not be accessible to semilingual Deaf clients. Val also repeatedly mentioned the need for a slower pace of signing; this sentiment was echoed by multiple other participants. Crump and Glickman (2011) found slower pacing to be an effective feature for interpreting with dysfluent clients. From difficulties in communication during the interviews with both Val and Jack and the limited linguistic input they reported receiving in their formative years of language acquisition, the researcher suspects that a lack of accessible first language input early in their lives negatively affected their linguistic development. This theory would explain the overlap between interpretation approaches for dysfluent or semilingual clients and these emergent signers, who might also be classified as semilingual or dysfluent signers.

One interesting finding is the indication that emergent signers’ identity within the Deaf community is correlated with their linguistic preferences for interpretation approach but not in a universal or clear-cut way. Some emergent signers, particularly English-dominant bilinguals, requested transliteration. However, there was a trend of ASL interpretation preference with the participants. While all participants who primarily self-identified as Deaf stated a preference for ASL interpretation, they did not understand ASL interpretation significantly better than transliteration. Participants with a less developed sense of Deaf identity, such as those who identified as hard of hearing, had mixed transliteration and ASL interpretation preferences. Because every participant in this study had been actively pursuing ASL acquisition and association with the Deaf community within the last 1 to 6 years, their preference for an approach to interpreting labeled ASL and more closely resembling the language associated with the Deaf community is not surprising. Several participants noted that the ASL interpreting sample better matched the language taught in ASL classes or seen in the Deaf community. This can be interpreted in light of Hill’s (2012) findings that ASL is seen as a marker of Deaf identity in contrast to the use of English-based signing, which has been stigmatized in the Deaf community. However, some participants who preferred ASL interpretation did not state a preference for all associated features; perhaps because of their still emerging ASL fluency. This trend overlaps with Miller’s (2000) suggestion that advanced features of ASL grammar might not be accessible to semilingual Deaf clients. CA/CD was a feature often misunderstood, not preferred, or not mentioned by participants. For example, Jack’s response to instances of CD was to state he preferred that the interpreter face the consumer, saying, “Why turn and sign toward the side if there’s no one there?” This indicates a complete misunderstanding of the feature and its function within the discourse of ASL. It is possible that the formation of Deaf identity and the perceptions of ASL and English-based signing in the Deaf community influences emergent signers’ stated preference for ASL interpretation in spite of their gaps in comprehension of some ASL linguistic features. In that case, ASL interpreting is preferred not because it best facilitates comprehension but because ASL is associated with membership in the Deaf community. This could explain the conflict between comprehension and preference. Interpreters should be aware of these dynamics when emergent signing clients request ASL interpretation. Interpreters should also take the time to engage in sufficient dialogue with the client to identify any ASL features that may cause confusion and disrupt the discourse. By including some transliteration features, such as English mouthing and leaning toward English word order while maintaining an overall ASL-structured signed output, as well as avoiding CA/CD and spatial grammar, the interpreter can respect the stated client preferences while enhancing the comprehensibility of the message. Additionally, interpreter education programs should consider including information on emerging signers, focusing primarily on the interaction of Deaf identity and language attitudes with code preferences for emerging signer clients new to working with interpreters.

Furthermore, participants’ previous experience working with interpreters had an impact on their preferences and comprehension of interpreting approaches and features. Participants had a wide range of preferences and ability to express those preferences. The ability to express their preferred interpreting approach was related to their degree of experience working with interpreters. Some participants confidently articulated strong preferences; Lauren was confident in her preference for transliteration from her experience with educational interpreters. Her preference for transliteration features was consistent with her strong transliteration preference. She positively mentioned English mouthing and English word order and did not prefer ASL interpretation features such as CA/CD. Tony had worked extensively with interpreters in his PhD program and knew that while he preferred ASL interpretation, transliteration was often the best mode to convey the advanced scientific content of his classes. Val said she had requested interpreters to sign and fingerspell slowly but still regularly struggled to fully comprehend signed messages. Others felt they did not have the experience or confidence to direct interpreters’ linguistic choices. Elizabeth was particularly aware of this as a new client of interpreting services, stating that her participation in the experiment had stimulated her thinking about her preferences, which she imagined would change as she gained experience. Kelly and Anna stated that there were times when they did not understand, but they did not have the confidence to interject for clarification or to request an adjustment. Anna felt she had no right to “tell the interpreters how to do their job.” Interpreters are often in the best position to educate clients about how to utilize interpreting services. This is especially true when working with emergent signers who may not have strong connections within the Deaf community to help educate them. Interpreters should be aware of this predicament and take the initiative to engage participants in the interpreting process.

There were some mismatches between what participants stated they usually request of interpreters and what they said they preferred in the experiment. This was notably evident in two participants, who stated they usually request something akin to transliteration but preferred the ASL interpretation video in the experiment. For example, Mark, who had limited experience with interpreters, stated that in his experience working with interpreters as a social work intern, he asked his interpreters to sign exactly what the client said, but in the experiment, he showed higher comprehension and stated a preference for the ASL interpretation. When Jack began working with interpreters, he requested what he called “oral ASL,” which seems to be transliteration with an emphasis on English mouthing and English word order. However, in the experiment he preferred the ASL interpreted lecture over the transliterated lecture. This seems to reflect the fluctuating interpretation preferences of emergent signers noted by Burke and Nicodemus (2013) and supports their suggestion that a flexible working relationship is crucial.

It was observed that participants lacked knowledge of linguistic and industry-specific terms related to ASL and interpreting. Several participants did not know the term “transliteration,” and when the researcher rephrased the concept by saying “signing English” or “English word order,” that led to participants confusing the approach with manually coded sign systems. Only one participant specifically used the term transliteration. Some had created their own terminology, using phrases such as “oral ASL” or saying, “I don’t prefer the ASL grammar… follow exactly what my teacher is saying” or “please follow word for word.” Several initially did not understand questions about spatial grammar, spatial referencing, and other features. In some cases, communication breakdowns inhibited elicitation of feature preferences. This could potentially be an indication of language deprivation. It could also be attributed to a lack of explicit ASL instruction; several participants had learned to sign through immersion without ever taking an ASL class. Interpreters should be aware that these terms may not be familiar to an emergent signer, and when discussing preferences before the assignment, clients may not have the language to express their needs. Including Deaf students in the interpretation process in order to coconstruct a comprehensible message may require the interpreter to introduce metalinguistic concepts and terms, such as defining and demonstrating the concept of transliteration and how that contrasts with ASL interpretation or discussing specific features of both approaches. While this may fall outside of the typical scope of work for interpreters, it can be considered an extension and adaptation of the “waiting room chat” concept (Malcolm, 2005). Those in the unique position of providing access to a client in a language that the client is still developing fluency in requires additional flexibility and intentionality on the part of the interpreter to ensure an effective interpretation.

Implications

The findings of this study have multiple implications that apply to the work of educational interpreters. Emergent signers make up a significant proportion of the consumers requesting interpreting services in academia. Interpreters should be aware of the unique linguistic situation of these students who are still in the process of acquiring ASL and may not be able to articulate their needs or preferences using metalinguistic and interpreting terms like “transliteration” or “contact sign.” Their process of identity development within the Deaf community may lead them to request ASL interpretation even if they do not yet fully understand ASL. They may benefit from interpreting techniques such as expansion; slower pacing; English word order; and clear, slow fingerspelling partnered with new sign vocabulary. It is worth noting that these strategies are reminiscent of second language teaching techniques, which highlights the role interpreters often play in language modeling and de facto teaching of ASL to emergent signer students. This language modeling and teaching aspect of interpreting with emergent signers should be addressed in future research. This population is linguistically diverse, and students have varying sign fluency levels based on their backgrounds. Additionally, because ASL acquisition is an ongoing process, the needs and abilities of emergent signing students continually change over time. Flexibility and open communication between the interpreter and the student throughout their working relationship is key.

Interpreters often tailor their interpretation to match the language they observe clients using in their brief initial interactions. However, the language varieties used by participants during their interviews were often not reflective of their interpretation preferences; their sign production often resembled contact language, but they preferred ASL interpretation. Considering the concept that interpreters often gauge the language they will use in their interpretation by the language they see clients produce, this mismatch could cause them to mistakenly choose an interpretation mode that is not well suited for the consumer. This is a phenomenon that needs further investigation, particularly with emergent signers who are in a language acquisition process and whose comprehension may outstrip their production. In this study, five of eight (62.5%) participants requested either spoken English or simultaneously signing and speaking, which they referred to as Sim-Com, as their preferred communication mode for the interview. The use of language blending is a commonly observed and researched linguistic phenomenon in all bilingual communities. This type of language blending, however, is a sensitive issue within the Deaf community owing to historic associations with artificially created sign systems and now disfavored educational policies (Davis, 2005). In such an interaction, an emergent signer’s dysfluent signing, particularly the use of a bimodal codemix resembling Sim-Com, is likely to trigger certain assumptions that could influence an interpreter to use fewer ASL features and instead transliterate. Indeed, that would be effective and match the preferences of a client like Lauren. However, a client like Mark, who also blended ASL and English, preferred and better understood an ASL interpretation. The language used by these two participants is currently the subject of a follow-up study. The preliminary results from that study suggest that the two signers use bimodal codemixing very differently. Lauren’s language resembles the English-dominant blending common to Sim-Com, but Mark’s ASL dominance is indicated through his use of advanced discourse features of ASL. Because of the stigma associated with Sim-Com, interpreters may have certain biases and stereotypes triggered when encountering a client who communicates through bimodal codemixing, including assumptions about ASL fluency, identity, and affiliation with the Deaf community. These examples indicate that such assumptions may be inaccurate, and choosing to interpret into an English-based signing code based on these assumptions could produce an interpretation in conflict with the client’s needs. Interpreters should be aware that there are different varieties of bimodal codemixing used by emergent signers. Rather than making assumptions on the basis of the presence of a sign-speech blend, interpreters should keep an open mind when observing a client’s language. Advanced discourse features such as CA/CD and use of spatial grammar are potential indications of a client’s degree of ASL acquisition and language dominance. Further research is forthcoming on codemixing during ASL acquisition by Deaf and hard of hearing adults new to the signing Deaf community.

Limitations

This study was conducted as a required research project to earn a master’s degree in Interpretation Research at Gallaudet University. Because of the limited time allotted to complete this project and lack of prior experience of the researcher, there are a number of limitations to this study. As a preliminary mixed methods study, the number of participants was low for this quantitative experiment. The diversity among participants and small sample size disallowed for statistical significance of the comprehension experiment results. The small sample size limits any general application of the results from this study until further research replicates findings. A replication of the quantitative experimental portion of this study with a larger population size would likely yield more statistically significant results. Additionally, this topic merits a deeper qualitative study, such as an ethnography, to further explore the experiences and stories of emergent signers.

Lack of linguistic knowledge among the participants inhibited data collection from the playback interviews. As previously mentioned, participants struggled to clearly articulate their preferences and experiences with different features of the signed interpretation. This may be indicative of a general lack of formal linguistic knowledge about ASL within this population. The experiment could be improved with a more fine-tuned experimental approach that does not ask participants to provide feedback on the basis of their linguistic knowledge. The playback interviews were designed to be participant-led discussions, but because most participants were reticent to offer insights, the researcher initiated the majority of the dialogue. Although researcher-direction allowed for targeted discussion of the features identified to be of interest, it also resulted in reduced collection of spontaneous and richly varied data.

Technical difficulties affected some virtual interviews conducted via Zoom. Poor connection caused repeated interruptions for one interview and had occasional effects on video quality for another interview. This necessitated repetition and clarifications during the dialogue, which perhaps stunted the flow of the interview and resulted in reduced data collection. The lower video quality may have additionally impacted participants’ comprehension test scores.

Conclusions

This study investigated the language use, code choice preferences, and comprehension of emergent signers working with interpreters in academia. Findings that neither ASL interpretation nor transliteration showed a significant advantage in comprehension align with the hypothesis that neither approach is the definitive answer for interpreting with emergent signers. Overall preference for ASL may be attributed to language attitudes and emergent signers’ developing identity and affiliation within the Deaf community. Conflict between preference and comprehension is an important finding and indicates the challenge interpreters face in crafting an interpretation for emergent signers. The results of a closer look at individual features of the interpretations suggest possible effectiveness of slowing the pace of the interpretation, the use of expansions, and the inclusion of elements of English contact signing, such as English mouthing and structure. Interpreters should be aware that even when ASL is the stated preference, ASL features such as CA/CD, the use of spatial referencing, as well as an overreliance on fingerspelling can cause confusion. Interpreters should consider adjusting their approach with emergent signers; instead of asking a client for their preference between ASL or transliteration, perhaps engaging in a deeper conversation with a client about language and their experience working with interpreters will better inform linguistic choices. Variations within the findings for individual participants support the notion that interpreters’ language code choices benefit from ongoing dialogue and coconstruction with Deaf consumers. Emergent signers are a diverse subpopulation within the larger, heterogeneous Deaf community. Interpreters working in postsecondary educational settings will likely encounter emergent signing students and should be prepared to accommodate their distinct linguistic situation with flexibility and a willingness to make adaptations based on the unique needs of each individual.

Notes

1.The use of the term “Deaf” in this chapter is drawn from the Deafhood Foundation’s recent position paper encouraging the use of “Deaf” as an inclusive term for the spectrum of Deaf individuals rather than to designate cultural status (Cantrelle, 2017).

2.A version of this study appeared in the 2018 CIT proceedings.

3.There are other universities besides Gallaudet that have a significant Deaf population, most notably the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID), one of the nine colleges at Rochester Institute of Technology. NTID also has a significant population of emergent signers. Their New Signer Program offers a one-week course on ASL and Deaf culture and various interpreting and captioning accessibility services (Smith & Dicus, 2015).

4.ASL expansion is a common term in interpreting research, but it is not defined in the source articles. For this chapter, ASL expansion is defined as additional explicitness in the target language in accordance with Sequeiros’s (2002) article on pragmatic enrichment in translation.

5.The video is available at https://youtu.be/lPjfbStnWd8.

References

Allen, T. E. (1994). Who are the deaf and hard-of-hearing students leaving high school and entering postsecondary education? [Unpublished manuscript]. Pelavin Research Institute, Washington, DC.

Bellugi, U., & Klima, E. (2001). Sign language. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 21, pp. 14066–14071). Elsevier Science.

Bloom, B. (1954). The thought processes of students in discussion. In S. J. French (Ed.), Accent on teaching: Experiments in general education (pp. 23–46). Harper.

Burke, T. B., & Nicodemus, B. (2013). Coming out of the hard of hearing closet: Reflections on a shared journey in academia. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.18061dsq.v33i2.3706

Cantrelle, J. (2017, December 6). Deafhood Foundation’s position paper on naming deaf people. Deafhood Foundation. http://deafhood.org/news/to-d-or-not-to-d/

Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010). Help wanted: Projections of jobs and education requirements through 2018. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 1–11. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/help-wanted/

Cawthon, S. W., Leppo, R., Ge, J. J., & Bond, M. (2015). Accommodations use patterns in high school and postsecondary settings for students who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2015.0012

Cokely, D. R. (1983). When is a pidgin not a pidgin? An alternate analysis of the ASL English contact situation. Sign Language Studies, 38(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1983.0017

Cokely, D. R. (1985). Towards a sociolinguistic model of the interpreting process: Focus on ASL and English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Crump, C., & Glickman, N. (2011). Mental health interpreting with language dysfluent deaf clients. Journal of Interpretation, 21(1), art. 3. http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol21/iss1/3

Davis, J. (2005). Code choices and consequences: Implications for educational interpreting. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, & E. Winston (Eds.), Sign language interpreting and interpreter education (pp. 112–141). Oxford University Press.

De Meulder, M. (2019). “So, why do you sign?” Deaf and hearing new signers, their motivation, and revitalisation policies for sign languages. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(4), 705–724. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0100

Dudis, P. (2007). Types of depiction in ASL [Unpublished manuscript]. Gallaudet University.

Emmorey, K., Bellugi, U., Friederici, A., & Horn, P. (1995). Effects of age of acquisition on grammatical sensitivity: Evidence from on-line and off-line tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716400006391

Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H., & Thompson, R. (2005). Bimodal bilingualism: Codeblending between spoken English and American Sign Language. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Eds.), SB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 663–673). Cascadilla Press.

Fleischer, L. R. (1975). Sign language interpretation under four interpreting conditions (Order no. 7600700) [Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Foster, S., Long, G., & Snell, K. (1999). Inclusive instruction and learning for deaf students in postsecondary education. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4(3), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/4.3.225

Hall, M. L., Eigsti, I., Bortfeld, H., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2017). Auditory deprivation does not impair executive function, but language deprivation might: Evidence from a parent-report measure in deaf native signing children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 22(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw054

Herbert, M., & Pires, A. (2017). Bilingualism and bimodal code-blending among deaf ASL-English bilinguals. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 2(14), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v2i0.4054

Hill, J. C. (2012). Language attitudes in the American Deaf community. Gallaudet University Press.

Kannapell, B. (1989). Inside the Deaf community. In S. Wilcox (Ed.), American Deaf culture: An anthology (pp. 21–28). Linstok Press.

Knoors, H., & Marschark, M. (2012). Language planning for the 21st century: Revisiting bilingual language policy for deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(3), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ens018

Lieberman, A. M., Borovsky, A., Hatrak, M., & Mayberry, R. I. (2015). Real-time processing of ASL signs: Delayed first language acquisition affects organization of the mental lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(4), 1130–1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/XLM0000088

Livingston, S., Singer, B., & Abrahamson, T. (1994). Effectiveness compared: ASL interpretation vs. transliteration. Sign Language Studies, 82(1), 1–54. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1994.0008

Locker, R. (1990). Lexical equivalence in transliterating for deaf students in the university classroom. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 167–195. http://intrpr.info/library/locker-lexical-equivalence-deaf-students-transliteration.pdf

Malcolm, K. (2005). Contact sign, transliteration and interpretation in Canada. Benjamins Translation Library, 63, 107–133. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.09mal

Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Convertino, C., & Seewagen, R. (2005). Access to postsecondary education through sign language interpreting. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eni002

Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Convertino, C., Seewagen, R., & Maltzen, H. (2004). Comprehension of sign language interpreting: Deciphering a complex task situation. Sign Language Studies, 4(4), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2004.0018

Mayberry, R. I. (1993). First-language acquisition after childhood differs from second-language acquisition: The case of American Sign Language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 36(6), 1258–1270. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3606.1258

Mayberry, R. I. (2007). When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(3), 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070294

Mayberry, R. I. (2010). Early language acquisition and adult language ability: What sign language reveals about the critical period for language. Oxford Handbooks Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195390032.013.0019

Metzger, M. (1995). Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities (pp. 255–256). Gallaudet University Press.

Miller, K. R. (2000, December). Managing communication with semilingual deaf persons. VIEWS, 10–11.

Napier, J. (2002). University interpreting: Linguistic issues for consideration. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(4), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/7.4.281

Napier, J., & Barker, R. (2004) Accessing university education: Perceptions, preferences, and expectations for interpreting by deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(2), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enh024

Pichler, D. C., Kuntze, M., Lillo-Martin, D., Müller de Quadros, R., & Stumpf, M. R. (2019). Sign language acquisition by deaf and hearing children [Video text]. Gallaudet University Press.

Powell, D., Hyde, M., & Punch, R. (2013). Inclusion in postsecondary institutions with small numbers of deaf and hard-of-hearing students: Highlights and challenges. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19(1), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ent035

Reagan, T. G. (2010). Language policy and planning for sign languages. Gallaudet University Press.

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. (2007). Standard practice paper: Professional sign language interpreting. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3DKvZMflFLdeHZsdXZiN3EyS0U/view

Rich, S., Levinger, M., Werner, S., & Adelman, C. (2013). Being an adolescent with a cochlear implant in the world of hearing people: Coping in school, in society and with self identity. SciVerse ScienceDirect International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 77, 1337–1344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.05.029

Roy, C. (1986). Who is a native speaker? Journal of Interpretation, 3, 63–66. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3h0GbabTGqqSmQwZ3pKWHJGaVE

Russell, D., & Winston, B. (2014). TAPing into the interpreting process: Using participant reports to inform the interpreting process. Translation & Interpreting, 6(1), 102–127. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.106201.2014.a06

Santiago, R. R., Barrick, L. F., & Jennings, R. (2015). Interpreters’ views on idiom use in ASL-to-English interpreting. In B. Nicodemus & K. Cagle (Eds.), Signed language interpretation and translation research: Selected papers from the first international symposium (pp. 165–195). Gallaudet University Press.

Schick, B., Williams, K., & Kupermintz, H. (2005). Look who’s being left behind: Educational interpreters and access to education for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Oxford University Press.

Sequeiros, X. R. (2002). Interlingual pragmatic enrichment in translation. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1069–1089. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00026-7

Siple, L. (1997). Historical development of the definition of transliteration. Journal of Interpretation, 9, 77–100. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3h0GbabTGqqZkVUZjlkQTcwelU

Smith, C., & Dicus, D. (2015). A preliminary study on interpreting for emergent signers. Sign Language Studies, 15(2), 202–224. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2015.0003

Stauffer, L., & Viera, J. (2000). Transliteration: A comparison of consumer needs and transliterator preparation and practice. Journal of Interpretation, 11, 61–80. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3h0GbabTGqqUWFaZUg5bUQzc1E

Stokoe, W. (1969). Sign language diglossia. Studies in Linguistics, 20, 27–41. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED030086.pdf

Sussman, J., & Smith, C. (2013). Interpreting for emergent signers [Unpublished manuscript]. Gallaudet Interpreting Services, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.

Tannen, D. (2005). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Oxford University Press.

Viera, J. A., & Stauffer, L. K. (2000). Transliteration: The consumer’s perspective. Journal of Interpretation, 11, 83–100. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3h0GbabTGqqUWFaZUg5bUQzc1E

Weisenberg, J. (2009). Audience effects in American Sign Language interpretation (Order No. 3401735) [Doctoral dissertation, Stony Brook University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Winston, E. (1989). Transliteration: What’s the message? In C. Lucas (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of the Deaf community (pp. 147–164). Academic Press.

Winston, E. (2004). Educational interpreting: How it can succeed. Gallaudet University Press.

Woodward, J. C. (1972). Implications for sociolinguistic research among the deaf. Sign Language Studies, 1(1), 1–7. https://www.doi.org/10.1353/sls.1972.0004

Woodward, J. C. (1973). Some characteristics of pidgin sign English. Sign Language Studies, 3(1), 39–46. https://www.doi.org/10.1353/sls.1973.0006

Appendix 1

Comprehension Test #1

1.What was one reason W. E. B. Du Bois was such a central figure in African American history?

A.African Americans from his era only could identify with his struggles

B.His life was an example of many themes throughout African American history

C.He felt all struggle was essential for change

D.No public figure prior to him fought for equal rights

2.What were his views of himself?

A.He felt that by affiliating with the Socialist Party, he would help African Americans attain equal rights

B.He felt his goals and dreams were his alone and did not relate to the bigger issues facing African Americans

C.He did not understand the appeal of his ideas to other African Americans

D.He revolutionized the attitude of African Americans toward themselves and gave them confidence in their abilities

3.Which of these is NOT an example of why Du Bois was the most influential American intellectual of the 20th century?

A.His book written in 1903, The Souls of Black Folk, still outsells many modern books on this topic

B.People are still interested in his perspective on race in America

C.Subsequent African American scholarship has built upon the knowledge and work of Du Bois

D.He was a devoted family man and loved to read

4.What is one issue Booker T. Washington and Du Bois argued about that continues to be debated to this day?

A.There was no debate

B.The importance of liberal arts education as opposed to vocational education for African Americans

C.Political party affiliation and voting practices

D.The official slogan of the NAACP

5.What was the Niagara Movement of 1905?

A.The first Civil Rights Protest organization formed by African Americans

B.An agreement between the NAACP and Southern white leaders

C.A white supremacist rally led by B. T. Washington

D.A violent protest led by Du Bois and Washington to unify African Americans against whites

Appendix 2

Comprehension Test #2

1.In 1929, after the Great Depression, why does Du Bois want to change the vision of the NAACP?

A.He felt it should try and assist all races rather than focusing on supporting African Americans, instead addressing economic issues that affect all Americans

B.He wanted the NAACP to reach out to the working class individuals and deal with the economic issues of the Depression

C.He wanted them to become more like the Socialist movement he identified with and help African Americans

D.He felt the black community no longer needed the support of the NAACP and it should be shut down

2.What book did Du Bois write during the 1930s that is often thought of as the most important work of history of that time?

A.Parting the Waters

B.At Canaan’s Edge

C.Black Reconstruction

D.Why We Can’t Wait

3.What was the dominant historical perspective of Black involvement during the Reconstruction before Du Bois challenged this perspective with his book?

A.Ignorant Black people gained political power only to be overwhelmed, thus needing to be “rescued” by white people to reestablish good government in the South

B.White people slowly surrendered their control over government and invited Black people into government

C.Blacks had always had a secret controlling interest in government and only after the Reconstruction were their contributions recognized

D.They were not involved, Reconstruction happened independently from racial issues or conflict

4.Which of these is a contribution of Du Bois during the 1940s?

A.He personally led several Civil Rights protests

B.He retired and supported younger leaders in the Civil Rights movement

C.He left the NAACP and started making alliances with other organizations

D.He supported the Pan African movement and independence of the Third World

5.When Martin Luther King Jr. became the predominant leader of the Civil Rights Movement, what group played an important role in making the movement successful?

A.Whites who sympathized with blacks and their desire for equality

B.Upper class Black Americans

C.Women who organized Civil Rights demonstrations

D.Black Americans living in the North

Appendix 3

Semistructured Interview Prompts

Demographics

Age:
Gender:
Current college student? Y/N
Identity:
Deaf
Hard of hearing
Hearing
Person with hearing loss
Prefer not to say
Audiological status/Hearing loss:
Use of aids:
None
Hearing aids
Cochlear implant
Comments on effectiveness of aids:

Language/Education

What is your first language?
Tell me about your experiences learning to sign.
What is your preferred language for best communication?
What language(s) do you prefer to use to communicate in the classroom? At home?
With friends?
Tell me about your educational background, what languages did you use?
Elementary
Middle school
High school
College
Mainstreamed oral
Mainstreamed with an interpreter
Cued speech
Deaf program
Deaf institute
Tell me about your experiences working with interpreters in academic settings.
When you work with interpreters, do you have any specific requests or instructions for them?
If interpreters ask you about your language preferences, what do you tell them?
When you use an interpreter in the classroom, do you only rely on the interpreter/signing for information, or do you also lipread or listen to the spoken English?
If you don’t understand an interpreter, what do you do?
Tell me about a time an interpreter was very clear and you understood them well. What was different about them?
Tell me about any prior knowledge or background you have on the topic of Black history.