1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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?

6. Questions addressed by research study  When can interlingual transfer between ASL and English be considered code-switching, code- mixing, or lexical borrowing?

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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)

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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)

16. 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.

17. 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)

18. 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)

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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.