Literature DB >> 28855844

Directionality in ASL-English interpreting: Accuracy and articulation quality in L1 and L2.

Brenda Nicodemus1, Karen Emmorey2.   

Abstract

Among spoken language interpreters, a long-standing question regarding directionality is whether interpretations are better when working into one's native language (L1) or into one's 'active' non-native language (L2). In contrast to studies that support working into L1, signed language interpreters report a preference for working into L2. Accordingly, we investigated whether signed language interpreters actually perform better when interpreting into their L2 (American Sign Language) or into their L1 (English). Interpretations by 30 interpreters (15 novice, 15 expert), delivered under experimental conditions, were assessed on accuracy (semantic content) and articulation quality (flow, speed, and prosody). For both measures, novices scored significantly better when interpreting into English (L1); experts were equally accurate, and showed similar articulation quality, in both directions. The results for the novice interpreters support the hypothesis that the difficulty of L2 production drives interpreting performance in relation to directionality. Findings also indicate a disconnect between direction preference and interpreting performance. Novices' perception of their ASL production ability may be distorted because they can default to fingerspelling and transcoding. Weakness in self-monitoring of signing may also lead novices to overrate their ASL skills. Interpreter educators should stress misperceptions of signing proficiency that arise from available, but inappropriate, strategies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  American Sign Language; accuracy; articulation quality; directionality

Year:  2015        PMID: 28855844      PMCID: PMC5573233          DOI: 10.1075/intp.17.2.01nic

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Interpreting (Amst)        ISSN: 1384-6647


  6 in total

1.  Expert and exceptional performance: evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints.

Authors:  K A Ericsson; A C Lehmann
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 24.137

2.  Visual feedback and self-monitoring of sign language.

Authors:  Karen Emmorey; Rain Bosworth; Tanya Kraljic
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 3.059

3.  The use of visual feedback during signing: evidence from signers with impaired vision.

Authors:  Karen Emmorey; Franco Korpics; Karen Petronio
Journal:  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ       Date:  2008-05-20

4.  Directionality effects in simultaneous language interpreting: the case of sign language interpreters in The Netherlands.

Authors:  Rick Van Dijk; Eveline Boers; Ingrid Christoffels; Daan Hermans
Journal:  Am Ann Deaf       Date:  2011

5.  Direction asymmetries in spoken and signed language interpreting.

Authors:  Brenda Nicodemus; Karen Emmorey
Journal:  Biling (Camb Engl)       Date:  2013-07

6.  The influence of visual feedback and register changes on sign language production: A kinematic study with deaf signers.

Authors:  Karen Emmorey; Nelly Gertsberg; Franco Korpics; Charles E Wright
Journal:  Appl Psycholinguist       Date:  2009-01-01
  6 in total
  1 in total

1.  Pre-output Language Monitoring in Sign Production.

Authors:  Stephanie K Riès; Linda Nadalet; Soren Mickelsen; Megan Mott; Katherine J Midgley; Phillip J Holcomb; Karen Emmorey
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2020-02-06       Impact factor: 3.225

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.