Linguistic Transference and

Interference: Interpreting Between

English and ASL

Jeffrey Davis

Davis, Jeffrey E. 1990. Linguistic transference and

interference: Interpreting between English and ASL. In C.
Lucas (Ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues.
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
 Bilingualism
 The prolonged and intensive contact
between ASL and English has resulted in
linguistic outcomes similar to those found
in other bilingual communities.
 Interpreting between ASL and English has
significant implications for sign language
interpreters, who function at the point of
interface of both languages and cultures.
 Bilingualism
 At societal level, US deaf
community described as
multilingual (ASL, English, English-
based signing, and contact sign are
used in varying degrees).
 Deaf people are likely to be bilingual
– most members of the community
use signed, written, or even spoken
English in addition to ASL.
 Particular challenges with English to
ASL interpreting

 Involves two structurally divergent

languages
 Involves different linguistic modalities
(aural/oral vs. visual/gestural)
 Exacerbated by the fact that English is the
dominant language (greater status and
wider use)
 English – deaf ed./primary
language/upper mobility
 ASL – informal setting/intragroup
activities
 Questions addressed by research
study

 How do interpreters visually or

manually represent source language
forms (English) in the target
language output (ASL)?
 What is the nature and structure of
the interpreters’ representations of
English forms in the visual-manual
modality of ASL?
 Questions addressed by research
study

 When can interlingual transfer

between ASL and English be
considered code-switching, code-
mixing, or lexical borrowing?
 Definitions
 Transference:
 Happens when interpreters encode
English forms in the ASL output, as
opposed to interpreting them.
 They mark them in very systematic
ways.
 This disambiguates and elucidates
discontinuities between ASL and
English.
 Definitions
 Code-switching
 Broad term used to refer to any stretch
or portion of discourse where there is
alternation between two language
(Complete switch to another language)
 In ASL, code-switching often refers to
switches from ASL signing to English-
based signing – switching within
modality.
 Definitions
 Code-mixing
 Pieces of one language are used while a
speaker is basically using another
language.
 In this paper, code-mixing describes
the interpreters’ simultaneous
mouthing of English words while
signing ASL.
 Definitions
 Lexical Borrowing
 Words from one language are used
repeatedly in another language until
they eventually become
indistinguishable from the native
vocabulary. (assimilation)
 The borrowed form gets used
longitudinally across speakers until it
takes on the phonological and
morphological characteristics of the
borrowing language.
 Definitions
 Interference:
 Transfer of rules from one language to
another
 Occurs when the encoding of English
forms in the ASL output interferes with
the propositional content of the
message.
 Encoded English forms that are
sporadic and unsignaled appear to be a
form of interference.
 Definitions
 Interference, examples while
interpreting
 The inappropriate use of English
mouthing during an ASL interpretation.
 Glossing of ASL signs during an ASL to
English interpretation. (Ex. GO,GO,GO)
 Definitions
 Most ASL/English interpretation
happens simultaneously –
interpreting between two
structurally different languages,
some interference can be expected.
 Hard to determine factors that
contribute to this – topic difficulty,
lack of language proficiency,
simultaneous vs. consecutive, etc.
The Study
 Two CODA interpreters –
interpreting into their native
language (ASL).
 Three sets of transcriptions; the
spoken English and both ASL
interpretations.
 Analyzed ASL grammatical features
– nonmanual behaviors, use of
space, indexing and mouthing.
Code-mixing? Code-switching? Lexical
borrowing?

 Three major ways English words or

phrases are represented in the visual
modality during interpreting:
 Pronounced mouthing of English words while
signing ASL
 Prefacing or following an ASL sign with
fingerspelled word
 Marking or flagging a fingerspelled word or the
signed representation of an English word or
phrase with ASL lexical items (index marker,
the demonstrative, quotation markers, etc)
 Mouthing English while Signing ASL

 The mouth is sometimes used to visually

represent certain English words.
 A type of simultaneous code-switching
occurs rather than sequential switching
from one language to another.
 Over time, many of the mouthed English
words are no longer recognizable as
English.
Mouthing English while Signing ASL

 A range of mouthing is evident

 English words are sometimes clearly
visible on the mouth (ex. Nouns,
question words, numbers, lists, and
fingerspelled words)
 Use of reduced English mouthing
where it is no longer seen as
representing English (LATE, HAVE,
FINISH)
 Fingerspelling
 Fingerspelling used primarily to represent
proper nouns and English terms that do
not have ASL lexical equivalents.
 Fingerspelling forms an integral part of
ASL, as opposed to being a part of
English.
 Represents the orthography of English
through the phonology of ASL.
 A fingerspelled word may be used
repeatedly and become lexicalized into
ASL. (#WHAT, #CAR, #BUSY)
 Fingerspelling in this Study
 The interpreters in this study
 Sometimes represent an English word
or phrase through fingerspelling
because there is no translation
equivalent for that word in ASL.
 A multimeaning ASL sign is tagged or
prefaced with a fingerspelled English
word. The word is flagged by
mouthing, eye gaze, indexing, labeling,
quotation markers, palm orientation,
etc.
 Fingerspelling in this Study
 When a fingerspelled word gets
used repeatedly in a single context,
it begins to be lexicalized in ASL
according to patterns similar to
those found with lexicalized
fingerspelling signs.
 Deletion and/or assimilation of the
number of handshape letters involved
during the production
Conclusion
 A need for modification of the terms
traditionally used to characterize
language contact phenomena. A definition
must be extended to include a switch
from ASL to English-based signing
(modality switch).
 The use of fingerspelling appears to follow
a pattern toward lexification into ASL.
 Incorporation of English into ASL
interpreting is not sporadic or unsignaled,
rather, patterned and rule governed.