Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:45:25.758Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direction asymmetries in spoken and signed language interpreting*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

BRENDA NICODEMUS  and
KAREN EMMOREY
BRENDA NICODEMUS*
Affiliation:
Department of Interpretation, Gallaudet University
KAREN EMMOREY
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Language and Cognitive Neuroscience, San Diego State University
*
Address for correspondence: Brenda Nicodemus, Department of Interpretation, Gallaudet University, 800 Florida Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002, USAbrenda.nicodemus@gallaudet.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Spoken language (unimodal) interpreters often prefer to interpret from their non-dominant language (L2) into their native language (L1). Anecdotally, signed language (bimodal) interpreters express the opposite bias, preferring to interpret from L1 (spoken language) into L2 (signed language). We conducted a large survey study (N = 1,359) of both unimodal and bimodal interpreters that confirmed these preferences. The L1 to L2 direction preference was stronger for novice than expert bimodal interpreters, while novice and expert unimodal interpreters did not differ from each other. The results indicated that the different direction preferences for bimodal and unimodal interpreters cannot be explained by language production–comprehension asymmetries or by work or training experiences. We suggest that modality and language-specific features of signed languages drive the directionality preferences of bimodal interpreters. Specifically, we propose that fingerspelling, transcoding (literal word-for-word translation), self-monitoring, and consumers’ linguistic variation influence the preference of bimodal interpreters for working into their L2.

Keywords

interpretingsigned languagebimodal bilingualsAmerican Sign Language
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 624 - 636
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Health (R01 HD047736) awarded to Karen Emmorey and San Diego State University. We thank the following individuals for their assistance with the survey distribution: Robert Alec-Yelin, Katherine Allen, Rachel Coppelli, Elena Galvao, Orlando Garcia-Valverde, Daniel Gile, Julie Johnson, Holly Mikkelson, Ellen Moerman, Barbara Moser-Mercer, Barry Olsen, Carol Patrie, Franz Pöchhacker, Anthony Pym, Olivia Reinshagen-Hernandez, David Sawyer, Kayoko Takeda, Cecilia Wadensjö, and Xioang Xi. Thanks are due to Shannon Casey for her assistance with the data compilation and Jennifer Petrich for help with statistical analyses. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This study would not have been possible without the unimodal and bimodal interpreters who responded to the survey and we extend our gratitude to them.

References

AIIC. (1991). Conseils aux etudiants souhaitant devenir interprete de conference. Geneva: AIIC.Google Scholar
Al-Salman, S., & Al-Khanji, R. (2002). The native language factor in simultaneous interpretation in an Arabic/English context. Meta, 47 (4), 605–625.Google Scholar
Battison, R. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Burtonsville, MD: Sign Media.Google Scholar
Baus, C., Carreiras, M., & Emmorey, K. (in press). When does iconicity in sign language matter? Language and Cognitive Processes, doi:10.1080/01690965.2011.620374. Published online by Taylor & Francis, February 23, 2012.Google Scholar
Chang, C., & Schallert, D. L. (2007). The impact of directionality on Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 9 (2), 137–176.Google Scholar
Christoffels, I. K., & de Groot, A. M. B. (2005). Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive perspective. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 454–479. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V., & Hecht, B. F. (1983). Comprehension, production, and language acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 325–349.Google Scholar
Crasborn, O. (2006). Why is it hard to ‘voice interpret’? Presented at Magdeburg University of Applied Sciences, Germany.Google Scholar
Donovan, C. (2003). Teaching simultaneous interpretation into B. In Kelly, D., Martin, A., Nobs, M.-L., Sanchez, D., & Way, C. (eds.), La direccionalidad en traducción e interpretación: Perspectivas teóricas, profesionales y didácticas, pp. 367–380. Granada: Atrio.Google Scholar
Donovan, C. (2004). European Masters Project Group: Teaching simultaneous interpretation into a B language. Preliminary findings. Interpreting, 6 (2), 205–216.Google Scholar
Donovan, C. (2005). Teaching simultaneous interpretation into B: A challenge for responsible interpreter training. In Godijns & Hinderdael (eds.), pp. 147–166.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Bosworth, R., & Kraljic, T. (2009). Visual feedback and self-monitoring of sign language. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 398–411.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Gersberg, N., Korpics, F., & Wright, C. E. (2009). The influence of visual feedback on sign language production: A kinematic study with deaf signers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 187–203.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Korpics, F., & Petronio, K. (2009). The use of visual feedback during signing: Evidence from signers with impaired vision. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14 (1), 99–104.Google Scholar
Forestal, L. (2009). Attitudes of American deaf leaders toward signed language interpreters. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In Briskin, R. W. (ed.), Translation: Applications and research, pp. 165–207. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Gile, D. (2005). Directionality in conference interpreting: A cognitive view. In Godijns & Hinderdael (eds.), pp. 9–26.Google Scholar
Godijns, R., & Hinderdael, M. (2005a). Introduction. In Godijns & Hinderdael (eds.), pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
Godijns, R., & Hinderdael, M. (eds.) (2005b). Directionality in interpreting: The ‘retour’ or the native? Ghent: Communication and Cognition.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24 (2), 168–196.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.Google Scholar
Kalina, S. (2005). Quality in the interpreting process: What can be measured and how? In Godijns & Hinderdael (eds.), pp. 27–46.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33 (2), 149–174.Google Scholar
Lee, Y.-H. (2003). Comparison of error frequency in simultaneous interpretation A to B and B to A (Korean–English). Pre-doctoral thesis, Ecole de Traduction et d'Interprétation, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Lucas, C., & Valli, C. (1989). Language contact in the American Deaf community. In Lucas, C. (ed.), The sociolinguistics of the Deaf community, pp. 11–40. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, A. S. S. (1996). Directionality in translation: Processes and practices. Target, 8 (1), 49–73.Google Scholar
Martin, A. (2005). Interpreting from A to B: A Spanish case study. In Godijns & Hinedael (eds.), pp. 83–100.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I., & Eichen, E. B. (1991). The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 486–512.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. E., & Karchmer, M. A. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4 (2), 138–163.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, B., Frauenfelder, U. H., Casado, B., & Künzli, A. (2000). Searching to define expertise in interpreting. In Hyllenstam, K. & Dimitrova-Englund, B. (eds.), Language processing and interpreting, pp. 1–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Napier, J., Rohan, M., & Slatyer, H. (2005). Perceptions of bilingual competence and preferred language direction in Auslan/English interpreters. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2 (2), 185–218.Google Scholar
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nicodemus, B. (2008). Directionality in signed language interpreting. Presented at the Conference of Interpreter Trainers, San Juan, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in America: Voices from a culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Padilla, P., Bajo, M. T., Cañas, J. J., & Padilla, F. (1995). Cognitive processes of memory in simultaneous interpretation. In Tommola, J. (ed.), Topics in interpreting research, pp. 61–72. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Pavlović, N. (2007). Directionality in translation and interpreting practice. Report on a questionnaire survey in Croatia. Forum, 5 (2), 79–99.Google Scholar
Pokorn, N. K. (2005). Challenging the traditional axioms: Translation into a non-mother tongue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, D. (1978). Interpreting for international conferences. Washington, DC: Pen and Booth.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, D. (1999). The teaching of conference interpretation in the course of the last 50 years. Interpreting, 4 (1), 55–66.Google Scholar
Swabey, L., & Nicodemus, B. (2011). Bimodal bilingual interpreting in the U.S. healthcare system: A critical linguistic activity in need of investigation. In Nicodemus, B. & Swabey, L., , L. (eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action, pp. 241–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). The link between form and meaning in British Sign Language: Effects of iconicity for phonological decisions. Journal of experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36 (4), 1017–1027.Google Scholar
Tommola, J., & Helevä, M. (1998). Language direction and source text complexity: Effects on trainee performance in simultaneous interpreting. In Bowker, L., Cronin, M., Kenny, D. & Pearson, J. (eds.), Unity in diversity? Current trends in translation studies, pp. 177–186. Manchester: St Jerome Press.Google Scholar
Van den Bogaerde, B. (2010). Voicing barriers. Presented at the European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters (efsli) Conference, Glasgow, Scotland.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, R., Boers, E., Christoffels, I., & Hermans, D. (2011). Directionality effects in simultaneous language interpreting: The case of sign language interpreters in the Netherlands. American Annals of the Deaf, 156 (1), 47–55.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. (1992). The phonetics of fingerspelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar