Simultaneous and Sequential Language Acquisition: A Comparison Study of American Sign Language-English Interpreters

              Utah Valley University
Simultaneous and Sequential Language Acquisition:
A Comparison Study of American Sign Language-English Interpreters
A project submitted in partial satisfaction
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Education
in
Curriculum and Instruction
English as a Second Language Emphasis
by
Katie Lynn Maxwell
March 2013
ii
Utah Valley University
Graduate Committee Approval
of a research project submitted by
Katie Maxwell
This project has been read by each member of the following graduate
committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory.
_______________________ ________________________
Date Dr. Bryan Waite, chair
_______________________ ________________________
Date Dr. Mike Patch
iii
Acknowledgements
When I was a little girl, my mother and father would tell me I could do anything I put my
mind to. I have recalled this small token of encouragement on many occasions as I have
worked on this master’s research project and would like to begin by expressing sincere
gratitude to my mother and father, who have always believed in me–Thank you, mom and
dad for your love, support, and encouragement, it has never gone unnoticed. I am also
thankful for Ryan–Thank you, sweetheart, for helping me smile and laugh throughout
these last two years. To all my other family and friends, who have been instrumental in
my life–Thank you. I am blessed to have love and support from each one of you.
In addition, this project would not have been possible without the support and guidance
from my Committee Chair, Dr. Bryan Waite; from the project’s inception, to its final
revisions, Thank you, Dr. Waite, for sharing your time, wisdom, and humor with me. Dr.
Mike Patch, my committee member, was another key figure in the development of this
project–Thank you, Dr. Patch, for your insightful opinions and alternative perspectives
that always left me with more to ponder. I would like to acknowledge Nikki Wolfe, Pam
Warkentin, and Suzanne Conway for providing some of the research material and
working with me from afar–Thank you, ladies. I am also grateful to my editor, Julie
Rodriguez–Thank you for the hours you spent reading and re-reading my thesis, you do
amazing work. To the other faculty and students at Utah Valley University, Thank you for
providing input for this project, as well. Finally, a very special Thank you to the Deaf and
Interpreting communities of Utah who participated in my research study, I could not have
done this without you.
iv
Abstract
The emergence of the ASL-English Interpreting profession over the past 50 years has
given Deaf people across the United States access to interpreting services in almost every
viable situation. This being the case, it is the responsibility of ASL-English interpreters to
facilitate effective communication of ASL and English between Deaf and hearing persons.
This process is highly demanding and requires each interpreter to possess the ability to
produce native-like language use of both languages, particularly ASL. Often, Coda/coda
interpreters (child of a Deaf adult) are perceived to have more native-like command of
ASL due to acquiring ASL and English naturally from birth, in comparison to A.T.
interpreters, who have acquired ASL as adults through formal education. To investigate
this phenomenon, the second language acquisition periods of Coda/coda and A.T.
interpreters were compared in order to determine the impacts on their ability to obtain
native-like prowess of ASL. Furthermore, some Deaf individuals have expressed a
preference for a Coda/coda rather than an A.T. interpreter. Such a request may lead many
to believe Codas/codas make better interpreters. Thus, the second phenomenon addressed
in this study explored the perceived preference of Deaf individuals for a Coda/coda
interpreter. At the conclusion of the study, it was found that the majority of Deaf
participants did not have a preference for a Coda/coda interpreter; rather, they expressed
a preference for an interpreter who illustrated superb ASL skills as well as a “Deaf heart”
and a vested interest in the interpreting process.
v
Contents
Utah Valley University ..................................................................................................... ii
Graduate Committee Approval ....................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. iv
Contents ............................................................................................................................. v
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
The Problem .................................................................................................................... 2
The Purpose .................................................................................................................... 3
Professional Significance ................................................................................................ 4
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 5
Methodology Overview .................................................................................................. 6
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................... 8
Beginnings of Bilingualism ............................................................................................ 9
Bimodal Language Acquisition .................................................................................10
Critical Hypothesis Period ............................................................................................ 11
Simultaneous Language Acquisition ............................................................................ 13
Language Discrimination ………………………………………………………… 13
Native–like Characteristics ……………………………………………………….. 14
Lateralization ………………………………………………………………………14
Linguistic Competence ……………………………………………………………. 15
vi
Sequential Language Acquisition ................................................................................. 16
Motivation ………………………………………………………………………… 16
The Silent Period ………………………………………………………………….. 17
Fossilization ………………………………………………………………………. 18
Meaningful Learning ……………………………………………………………… 20
Language Socialization …………………………………………………………… 21
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 3: Methodology................................................................................................. 24
Research Design ............................................................................................................ 25
Research Site and Materials .......................................................................................... 25
Participants .................................................................................................................... 26
Deaf Participants' Demographics ………………………………………………… 27
A.T. and Coda/coda Participants' Demographics ……………………………....... 28
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................... 31
Questionnaires ……………………………………………………………………. 31
Interpreter Observations ………………………………………………………….. 34
Interviews …………………………………………………………………………. 35
Data Collection Matrix ................................................................................................. 35
Analysis Procedures ...................................................................................................... 36
Questionnaires ……………………………………………………………………. 38
Interpreter Observations ………………………………………………………….. 38
Interviews …………………………………………………………………………. 39
Researcher's Bias ……………………………………………………………………. 40
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 40
vii
Chapter 4: Results........................................................................................................... 42
Research Question 1: Linguistic Preferences ............................................................... 43
Deaf Individuals' Interpreter Preferences………………………………………… 43
Deaf Individuals' Perceptions of an Interpreter's ASL Production Skills ……….. 45
Deaf Individuals' Perceptions of an Interpreter's ASL Receptive Skills ………….. 54
Research Question 2: Non-Linguistic Preferences ....................................................... 55
Cultural Awareness ……………………………………………………………….. 55
Personal Attributes ……………………………………………………………….. 58
Deaf Instinct ………………………………………………………………………. 60
Vested Interest …………………………………………………………………….. 61
Research Question 3: Second Language Acquisition of Codas/codas and A.T.
Interpreters .................................................................................................................... 63
Second Language Acquisition: Simultaneous vs. Sequential ……………………... 63
Language Acquisition ………………………………………………………….. 64
Language Models ………………………………………………………………. 65
Language Fluency ……………………………………………………………… 67
Language Challenges …………………………………………………………... 70
Language Advantages ………………………………………………………….. 71
Chapter 5: Professional Implications ............................................................................ 77
Current Practice: Interpreter Perceptions of Advantages & Challenges ....................... 77
Becoming an Interpreter ………………………………………………………….. 77
Advantages in Interpreting ……………………………………………………….. 79
Challenges in Interpreting ………………………………………………………... 85
Language in Action: Perceptions of Effective Interpreting .......................................... 88
viii
Looking Forward: The Future of Interpreting .............................................................. 91
A Relationship with the Deaf Community ………………………………………… 92
Professional Development ………………………………………………………... 96
Future Improvements ……………………………………………………………. 100
Chapter 6: Summary and Discussion .......................................................................... 103
Methodology ............................................................................................................... 104
Results Summary ........................................................................................................ 104
Implications for Practice ............................................................................................. 105
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 108
Recommendations for Further Research ..................................................................... 109
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 110
References ...................................................................................................................... 111
Appendix A: Consent Form ......................................................................................... 114
Appendix B: Interpreter Observation Protocol ......................................................... 116
Appendix C: Interview Protocol .................................................................................. 117
Appendix D: ASL-English Interpreter Preference Questionnaire ........................... 119
Appendix E: Coda/coda Interpreter Perspective Questionnaire.............................. 121
Appendix F: A.T. Interpreter Perspective Questionnaire ........................................ 123
Appendix G: IRB Approval Letter ............................................................................. 125
ix
List of Tables
Table Page
1. Utah Interpreter Demographics………………………………………. 29
2. Data Collection Matrix……………………………………………….. 37
3. Interpreter Preference………………………………………………… 44
4. Perceptions of using a Coda/coda……………………………………. 45
1
“Language is the blood of the soul into which thoughts run and out of which they grow.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Chapter 1
Introduction
As I approach this research project, I reflect on the community of people I serve. I
work for Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals throughout the northern Utah region as an
ASL-English interpreter. The unique role of an ASL-English interpreter is to remove the
language barrier between the Deaf and hearing populations and provide equal access to
communication for both parties, an avenue for thoughts to be articulated. The heart of the
Deaf community is American Sign Language, which “embodies the thoughts and
experiences of its users” (Baker-Shenk & Cokely, 1980, p. 58), and is the “blood of the
soul into which [their] thoughts run and out of which they grow”
(http://www.quotes.net/quote/4037).
The emergence of the ASL-English Interpreting profession over the past 50 years
has given Deaf people across the United States access to interpreting services in almost
every viable situation. Woodcock, Rohan, and Campbell (2007), Deaf faculty members
who work at three different mainstream universities, explain, “Language interpreters who
translate between sign languages and spoken languages are an indispensable part of Deaf
students’ and Deaf professionals’ lives” (p. 362). Creating an avenue for language and
communication requires an ASL-English interpreter to exhibit adroitness in language,
culture, language register, idiosyncrasies, social norms and rules, specific vernacular, and
cultural history.
2
The Problem
Each ASL-English interpreter has a unique background and has become a
professional through his or her distinct experiences. Specifically, individuals who are
born to Deaf parents have typically acquired ASL and English simultaneously from the
time they were born, in a natural environment. These individuals are referred to as
Codas/codas or a child of a deaf adult. Conversely, interpreters who acquire ASL as
adults may pursue a formal education at a college or university. Most often, these
individuals will enter Interpreter Preparation Programs (IPP). Basic ASL courses
commence the program, followed by theory and application, with a final practicum
required for completion. In this circumstance, the interpreter learns English and ASL
sequentially, with ASL acquired academically. For the purposes of this project, these
interpreters will be classified as A.T. interpreters or academically trained.
Over the course of my career, I have witnessed a high regard for Coda/coda
interpreters because of their perceived native-like prowess of ASL. Even as an interpreter
educator at a local community college, I have heard many of my interpreting students
express, “I wish I were a Coda,” as they trudge through the struggles and challenges of
acquiring a second language. During those moments, the acquisition period of a
Coda/coda may seem a much easier and more ideal route; through first-hand experience
Codas/codas learn ASL naturally and achieve proficiency at a younger age. Therefore,
the first problem addressed in this research study is the divergent second language
acquisition periods for Coda/coda and A.T. interpreters and the impacts of obtaining
native-like language use of ASL. To understand the process of second language
acquisition for Coda/coda and A.T. interpreters, literature on simultaneous and sequential
language acquisition periods will be examined. Such literature will be used to illustrate
3
the possibility of both language learners obtaining native-like fluency in their second
language.
In addition, I have observed Deaf individuals who perceive Coda/coda
interpreters to be most native-like in their ASL production and consequently have
expressed a preference for Coda/coda interpreters rather than A.T interpreters. Such a
request can lead many to believe Codas/codas make better interpreters. Thus, the second
problem addressed in this study is the preference for Codas/codas over A.T. interpreters.
This is a problem because preference for Coda/coda interpreters can put the A.T.
interpreters at a career disadvantage in the community. At the conclusion of this project,
if no difference is evident between these two types of interpreters, then the Deaf and
interpreting communities would benefit from that knowledge.
The Purpose
The second language acquisition periods for Coda/coda and A.T. interpreters are
substantially different. Exposure, time, and practice are facets necessary for an interpreter
to attain native-like command of ASL. Coda/coda interpreters are often perceived to
possess more native-like skills of ASL than other interpreters because of learning ASL as
children. Furthermore, Deaf individuals have often perceived Coda/coda interpreters to
be more native-like, and they consequently develop a preference for those interpreters. A
myriad of reasons may encircle this preference; particularly, the perceived native-like
language proficiency from a lifetime of exposure and use. Therefore the purpose of this
study is twofold: (1) to investigate why Deaf people tend to request a Coda/coda more
often than an A.T. interpreter, and (2) to investigate the impact of second language
acquisition on Coda/coda and A.T. interpreters in their quest to obtain native-like use of
ASL.
4
Professional Significance
I first started learning ASL during my second semester of college. Within
moments of meeting my Deaf instructor, the beauty of a signed language captivated me.
Shortly thereafter, I began to pursue an education to become an interpreter. With two
years of course work and a 150-hour practicum, I graduated with an ASL-English
Interpreting degree. Looking back upon the past 10 years, acquiring a second language
has been a challenge. The interpreting process involves comprehending the complexities
encompassing both languages, the intricate grammatical features of English and ASL,
figurative language, colloquialisms, culture, context, and content. Needless to say, the
interpreting profession demands competent individuals with impeccable use of both ASL
and English.
Over time, as the Deaf community expands, the demand for competent ASL-English
interpreters will grow also. Such growth implies increased enrollment in IPPs,
which in turn emphasizes the need to provide quality training for future interpreters. As
Coda/coda and A.T. interpreters work professionally, both should have equal
opportunities to find work without regard to when ASL was learned. Thus, the outcomes
to this study may benefit the interpreting profession by providing answers to possible
misperceptions about interpreters’ abilities in relation to relevant second language
acquisition periods. Moreover, the research will educate both interpreters and the Deaf
community about how second language acquisition periods may not be the influential
factor leading to or detracting from an interpreter’s native-like ability. Finally, research of
ASL-English interpreters and their related language acquisition periods is sparse, thus
lending to the possibility of future studies following this investigation.
5
Research Questions
In order to address the problems of this study, various questions were considered.
The purpose of these questions is to further investigate the phenomenon of a Coda/coda
interpreter being preferred to an A.T. interpreter. Further, there is no doubt that the
responsibility placed on an ASL-English interpreter is highly demanding; interpreters
must possess adroitness in the manipulation of ASL and English in order to effectively
interpret. Thus, the second phenomenon to investigate is the effects of second language
acquisition on ASL-English interpreters and whether they can obtain the ability to
produce native-like skills in ASL. To understand more about the language acquisition
periods of ASL-English interpreters, as well as the specific qualities Deaf individuals
look for when requesting an interpreter, the following questions will be addressed:
 How does the assumed language acquisition period of an ASL-English
interpreter influence a Deaf individual to choose one interpreter over another
(Coda/coda vs. A.T.)?
 What qualities beyond an interpreter’s language competency lead a Deaf
individual to prefer a Coda/coda interpreter rather than an A.T. interpreter?
 How does the language acquisition period of an ASL-English interpreter
affect his/her ability to obtain native-like or near-native-like skills of ASL?
Answers to these questions will provide further insight into the interpreter preferences of
the Deaf community as well as the effects of second language acquisition on ASL-English
interpreters. Research on both simultaneous and sequential language acquisition
periods will be discussed in Chapter 2.
6
Methodology Overview
A qualitative method will be used to gather data for this phenomenological study.
The sample population will be comprised of Deaf individuals, Coda/coda interpreters,
and A.T. interpreters. Three different questionnaires will be designed for each
corresponding sample group to gather data related to qualities of an ASL-English
interpreter and second language acquisition experiences. Afterward, Deaf participants
will be involved in an interpreter observation; they will be asked to watch recordings of
two interpreters, one a Coda/coda and the other an A.T. interpreter. The participants will
be asked to identify each interpreter based on the language skills she used during the
recordings. Finally, a follow-up interview will take place with these participants,
collecting any additional information regarding interpreter preferences. Responses will
then be collected and analyzed, followed by a discussion of the results in Chapter 4.
Definition of Terms
Reoccurring terminology specific to this subject will be used throughout the
course of this paper. Please see the following list for terms and definitions:
 Coda/coda: “The acronym for Children of Deaf Adults and refers to hearing
people who have deaf parents” (Bishop & Hicks, 2005).
 A.T. Interpreter: Academically trained interpreter. An interpreter who acquired
ASL in an academic setting. Most often these interpreters complete Interpreter
Preparation Programs (IPP). This is not an officially used term; however, it was
created specifically for the purposes of this paper.
 Deaf vs. deaf: “Capital ‘D’ represents the political, linguistic, and cultural aspects
of being deaf, whereas the lowercase ‘d’ refers to the audiological state of not
being able to hear” (Bishop & Hicks, 2005).
7
 Production skills: This refers to the output of the language; the ability to produce
language
 Receptive skills: The ability to understand another person using a language
 L1: A language learner’s first or native language. In the education field, this is
often referred to as Language 1.
 L2: A language learner’s second language. In the education field, this is often
referred to as Language 2.
 ASL: American Sign Language, the language of the Deaf community
 ASL-English Interpreter: “ASL to English interpreter” is the pronunciation for
this term. An ASL-English interpreter acts as a language facilitator between Deaf
and hearing individuals.
 IPP: Interpreter Preparation Program
 Simultaneous Language Acquisition: ASL and English acquired around the
same time. For the purposes of this project, Coda/coda interpreters represent this
language acquisition period.
 Sequential Language Acquisition: ASL and English acquired at distinctly
separate periods. For the purposes of this project, A.T. interpreters represent this
period of language acquisition.
 ASL Gloss: A word chosen to represent an ASL sign in written English
8
Chapter 2
Literature Review
There is no doubt that the responsibility placed on an ASL-English interpreter
during an interpretation is highly demanding. As stated in the National Association of the
Deaf-Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf Professional Code of Conduct (2005), “the
American Deaf community represents a cultural and linguistic group having the
inalienable right to full and equal communication and to participation in all aspects of
society. Members of the American Deaf community have the right to informed choice
and the highest quality interpreting services” (p. 1). Once interpreters begin working as
professionals, each assumes the responsibility of providing full and equal access to
communication in both English and ASL for Deaf and hearing communities. Thus,
achieving mastery of English and ASL is essential for an ASL-English interpreter.
Flexibility to maneuver efficiently between two languages as well as comprehend
grammatical rules, semantics, pragmatics, and appropriate use of cultural colloquialisms
are examples of interpreter prowess. The road to such prowess varies from one interpreter
to the next. Some have acquired ASL from Deaf family members, others in an academic
setting, and even some from pure association with the Deaf community. For the purposes
of this study, the second language acquisition experiences of Coda/coda and A.T.
interpreters were the focus as they represent simultaneous and sequential language
acquisition periods. These two groups of individuals were chosen in order to better
understand what their language learning experiences were like and discover whether both
periods of acquisition could lead an individual to possess native-like language skills in
ASL.
9
Among some of my A.T. colleagues, I have observed a common perception
regarding Codas/codas. Often, Codas/codas are perceived as the elite in the field of
interpreting due to their assumed native-like command of ASL. Because of this, I pose
the following questions: (1) is one language acquisition period more advantageous than
another and (2) can interpreters who have learned ASL during adulthood attain native-like
status comparable to their Coda/coda peers? Research on simultaneous and
sequential language acquisition will be reviewed over the course of the ensuing literature
review in order to illustrate the potential for both Coda/coda and A.T. interpreters to
obtain native-like fluency in ASL.
Beginnings of Bilingualism
Within moments of a baby’s first breath, the journey towards learning a language
begins. Some children are born to bilingual families; others may learn the dominant
language where they live and years later acquire a second; and still others immigrate to a
new land, speaking only their home language and upon arrival begin to learn the
presiding language. One theme akin to each of these circumstances is the acquisition of
one or multiple languages. Even more, language becomes a specific system representing
groups of individuals, used for communication to operate within one’s community as a
representation of one’s culture, and the way in which thoughts, ideas, and opinions are
expressed (Brown, 2007). It is no surprise that language personifies an individual’s
identity and is linked to every aspect of his or her life.
The phenomenon of acquiring competency in a native language, as well as
acquisition of a second language, has been of interest to researchers for years. In fact,
bimodal language acquisition, the study of a signed and a spoken language, has been a
recent focal point (Pettito et al., 2001). Such diversity of language learning conditions has
10
led to the development of theories for first and second language acquisition in hopes of
further understanding the complex process language learners undertake (Brown, 2007).
Bimodal language acquisition. Theorists have spent years developing constructs
to explicate the complex process of second language acquisition (Marinova-Todd,
Marshall, & Snow, 2000; Bialystok & Miller, 1999; Brown, 2007; Grosjean & Miller,
1994). More recently, research has focused on bimodal language acquisition, which
occurs when an individual simultaneously acquires both a signed and spoken language.
Bonvillian, Orlansky, and Novak (1983) studied the acquisition of sign language among
children of Deaf parents and found “the acquisition process bears a close structural
resemblance to the development of spoken language skills in hearing children whose
parents have normal hearing” (p. 1437). They also noted some parents from the study
“supplemented their sign language input by speaking to their children often,” which
provided their hearing children access to both spoken and signed modalities
simultaneously (p. 1437). Furthermore, if parents were not supplementing sign language
with spoken language, their children were exposed to spoken English by way of
“listening to the television, and through interaction with hearing relatives, friends, and
babysitters” (p. 1437). Regardless of the circumstance, hearing children of Deaf parents
had ample access to both spoken and signed languages.
Almost 30 years later, Michele Bishop (2010), an adjunct professor of linguistics
in Santa Rosa, California, reaffirms potential success in the process of bimodal language
acquisition. She states:
In spite of these typological differences between [English and ASL], hearing
children of Deaf parents acquire sign language in the same way that hearing
children of hearing parents (or deaf children of deaf parents) acquire spoken
11
language because both sets of children have full access to the linguistic signal
regardless of modality. (p. 210)
Past and present research embraces the notion of language acquisition occurring in
differing modalities and elucidates the process Coda/coda interpreters undergo to become
bimodal bilinguals. Because research on bimodal language acquisition is fairly new to the
field of linguistics, research on bimodal acquisition in adults is limited. However,
research on simultaneous language acquisition will be discussed later in this literature
review, which will illustrate other aspects Codas/codas may have experienced while
learning ASL and English as children.
Critical Hypothesis Period
Before research on simultaneous and sequential language acquisition can be
explored, the time frames of these acquisition periods must be defined. Theorists have
attempted to classify discrete phases of language acquisition, which is often referred to as
the Critical Period Hypothesis (Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003). The conception of
this critical period was an attempt to explicitly define the biological time frame
representing automatic language learning in a natural environment with natural exposure.
Lenneberg proposes, “It is this biologically based critical period . . . that is responsible
for the fact that ‘automatic acquisition from mere exposure to a given language seems to
disappear after this age (puberty)’ and ‘foreign accents cannot be overcome easily after
puberty’ (as cited in Krashen, 1973, p. 63).” It can be assumed “the accent” described by
theorists represents the attainment of fluent, native-like spoken language skills. Wood
describes individuals who demonstrate native-like language fluency as those with
“peripheral, automatic attention-processing of the bits and pieces of language” (as cited
in Brown, 2007, p. 302). Attaining language fluency not only depends on appropriately
12
using the fundamental language rules, but also successfully processing the subtle nuances,
which are found in all languages.
Despite past and present research clearly defining the critical period of spoken
language acquisition, research fails to indicate if this critical period encompasses the
native-like accent of signed languages. Akin to spoken language, sign language is
governed by its own grammar, semantics, colloquialisms, and accents. Baker (2006)
explains the validity of sign language in comparison to spoken language:
Sign language is a fully developed, authentic language which allows its users to
communicate the same, complete meaning as a spoken language. . . . Signing is a
very extensive, structurally complex, rule-bound, complete means of
communication. Sign language can perform the same range of functions as a
spoken language. (p. 375)
As Baker illustrates the parallels of sign and spoken language, the critical period
hypothesis for spoken language accents can be just as applicable to a signed language.
For these reasons, previous research must be used to define a “cut-off” period of
language acquisition amongst ASL users.
In order to determine a specific time frame, the “cut-off” age separating
individuals who learn ASL and English simultaneously and those who learn English and
ASL sequentially must be agreed upon. No one theory on the Critical Period Hypothesis
agrees on a specific “cut-off” age separating simultaneous language learners from
sequential language learners. According to Brown (2007), “an adult [language learner] is
considered to be one who has reached the age of puberty” (p. 56). However, Hakuta,
Bialystok, and Wiley (2003) share conflicting opinions of several theorists, “Researchers
have variously claimed, for example, that the age at which the critical period terminates is
13
5 years (Krashen, 1973), 6 years (Pinker, 1994), 12 years (Lenneberg, 1967), or 15 years
(Johnson & Newport, 1989)” (p. 31).
For the purposes of this research project, a “cut-off” period must be used to
distinguish between Coda/coda and A.T. interpreters. As children, Codas/codas typically
learn ASL and English simultaneously, whereas A.T. interpreters learn English as
children and ASL as adults. This being the case, research from Lenneberg (1967) will be
used to define the “cut-off” between simultaneous and sequential language learners;
simultaneous acquisition refers to individuals who acquired both languages before the
age of 12, and sequential acquisition refers to individuals who acquired ASL at the age of
12 or older. In the following two sections, past and present research, outlining the
characteristics of each language acquisition period, will be presented.
Simultaneous Language Acquisition
Bilingualism attained simultaneously is commonly found amongst the Deaf
population, where hearing children are born to Deaf parents. From birth, Codas/codas are
exposed to both ASL and English, allowing them to obtain bilingual proficiency as
children. Often, they use their language skills and become ASL-English interpreters as
adults. Coda/coda interpreters are often perceived as the more native-like users of ASL
because Deaf parents raised them. Current and former research studies have analyzed the
processes behind the language learning experience unique to Codas/codas. Literature on
simultaneous language acquisition details far more processes than can be discussed in this
review. However, the following four processes were selected, as they resemble some
aspects of a Coda/coda interpreter’s language acquisition experience: language
discrimination, native-like characteristics, lateralization, and linguistic competence.
Language discrimination. Babies are born with the innate capacity to learn two
14
languages simultaneously just as they could acquire one (Genesee, 2002). For success to
occur, two critical components are required: “the ability to discriminate important
language-related differences in the auditory input and the ability to remember such
information” (Genesse, 2002, p. 207). If a child is unable to discriminate differences in
language-related information, the acquisition of one language may not come to fruition.
Discrimination ability of language 1 (L1) and language 2 (L2) require a child to
be in an environment in which he or she can be exposed to both languages concurrently.
If this is the case, one may suppose the parents or family members of the child are the
language models for both L1 and L2, lending to the overwhelming responsibility of the
parent(s) to be proficiently bilingual. Lee (1996) emphasizes that learning a language
“takes place with considerable access to speakers of the language being learned” (p. 5).
Therefore, if a Deaf parent is modeling ASL and another family member is modeling
English, the child must have comparable access to both languages in order to discriminate
the languages accurately.
Native-like characteristics. Simultaneous exposure to both L1 and L2 will also
equate to more native-like characteristics in the child’s language use. Oyama studied
pronunciation and sentence structure in order to compare the length of exposure to
specific structures of language. Her findings showed “the younger age groups were more
native-like” than were the older age groups (as cited in Hakuta, 1984, pp. 146–147). The
results of this study can be applied to simultaneous language learners; the more exposure
to L1 and L2 may suggest the likelihood of a Coda/coda obtaining native-like fluency in
both languages.
Lateralization. Another feature of simultaneous acquisition is the relationship
between lateralization, the assigning of functions to specific parts of the brain, and the
15
time during which acquisition occurred (Brown, 2007). Scovel noted the state of a child’s
brain is malleable before the stage of puberty, which facilitates the acquisition process of
both languages to occur simultaneously (as cited in Brown, 2007). He continues on to say,
The plasticity of the brain prior to puberty enables children to acquire not only
their first language but also a second language, and that possibly it is the very
accomplishment of lateralization that makes it difficult for people to be able ever
again to easily acquire fluent control of a second language. (as cited in Brown,
2007)
Moreover the theory of Genesse (2002) can be incorporated; he believed timing and
acquiring language were closely related as the plasticity of a child’s brain insinuates a
time limit for language learning. Specifically regarding timing, he (2002) wrote, “Timing
is important . . . for the human mind to analyze and make sense of dual language input,
[therefore] learning must begin early” (p. 209). From these theories one can surmise the
earlier a child begins to learn a language(s), the greater the possibility he or she will
become fluent at a young age.
Linguistic competence. Acquiring two languages during childhood enables an
individual with linguistic competence via two modes of communication. A key
component to language competence is the knowledge and understanding of the divergent
linguistic processes. Acquiring linguistic flexibility in both languages can be referred to
as interdependent development (Genesse, 2002). This construct is defined in terms of the
“systematic influence of the grammar of one language on the grammar of the other
language during acquisition” (p. 220). A language learner may use previously acquired
knowledge of one language to aid in the development of the other.
16
Some researchers believe simultaneous acquisition can actually hinder an
individual’s grammar development; however, other studies show the contrary (Genesse,
2002). Simultaneous language acquisition has shown a language learner to “accelerate
[in] language development in cases where two languages share certain structural
properties” (p. 220). Either way, the result of simultaneous language acquisition provides
the language learner with a plethora of options for communication in his or her first or
second language (Wong-Fillmore, 1991).
Simultaneous acquisition of ASL and English can be beneficial for Codas/codas
as their exposure occurs in a natural environment, at a young age, and with their Deaf and
hearing family members using both languages. The culmination of a childhood
encompassed in this atmosphere may suggest Codas/codas have access to attaining two
separate modes of communication, understanding the divergent grammatical and cultural
rules of ASL and English, and ultimately achieving fluent linguistic competency.
Sequential Language Acquisition
Differentiation between simultaneous and sequential acquisition hinges on the
time when the two languages are learned. As seen in the discussion of simultaneous
language acquisition, an individual learns L1 and L2 concurrently. The reverse is true for
sequential language acquisition, which indicates acquisition of L1 and L2 occurs at two
distinctly separate periods in an individual’s life. Once an A.T. interpreter makes the
decision to learn a second language, several characteristics are indicative of his or her
language learning experience: motivation, a silent period, fossilization, meaningful
learning, and language socialization. In conjunction, these attributes are equally
influential as an A.T. interpreter strives to attain native-like fluency of ASL.
Motivation. When an adult decides to learn a second language, motivational
17
factors are prominently involved and undoubtedly can be coined the contributing force to
the success or failure of the complex task. Brown (2007) reviewed many previous second
language acquisition studies from around the world, all focused on human learning, and
the main ingredient channeling a favorable outcome within each of those studies was
motivation. The premise that motivation causes success relies heavily upon an
individual’s personal choices, self-determination, and the need for knowledge, to name a
few (Brown, 2007). These motivational factors can be likened to children learning how to
read: “[Children] are motivated because they perceive the value (reward) of reading, they
meet the needs of exploration, stimulation, knowledge, self-esteem, and autonomy”
(Brown, 2007, p. 169).
While A.T. interpreters undergo the process of learning a second language, they
too must understand their perceived value of acquiring ASL, the choices they have made
to commence learning, and their intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Brown (2007) detailed
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in second language learners: “Intrinsically motivated
activities are ones for which there is no apparent reward except the activity itself,”
juxtaposed with extrinsic motivation, which is “fueled by the anticipation of a reward
from outside and beyond the self” (p. 172). An adult learner may be motivated for a
myriad of reasons, such as for leisure (intrinsic) or for employment purposes (extrinsic).
Both circumstances, however, are possible factors motivating a sequential language
learner.
The silent period. Prudence must be given to the development of receptive skills
prior to requiring an adult to produce any output of language, which is referred to as the
silent period. Krashen introduces a construct known as the Input Hypothesis theory, in
which the adult learner should not be required to speak early on in the language
18
classroom (as cited by Brown, 2007). The learner must experience a silent period, after
which he or she will eventually begin to speak, but only once enough comprehensible
input has been established. Additionally, as a learner hones his or her receptive skills, it is
plausible he or she “may be able to understand much of a second language without being
able to translate this ability into production” (Wald, 1974, p. 302).
Knowledge of the input level of language will carry the learner through the initial
stages of acquisition as he or she continues to try and make sense of the new grammatical
signals and linguistic features found in L2 (Wald, 1974). Thus, exposure to L2 without
requiring output is a valuable tool to use while the adult language learner becomes
acclimated to his or her second language. Even more, when an adult is acquiring a second
language, the Input Hypothesis (Brown, 2007) further illustrates the condition needed for
second language learners to increase L2 competency:
The language that learners are exposed to should be just far enough beyond their
current competence that they can understand most of it but still be challenged to
make progress. The corollary to this is that input should neither be so far beyond
their reach that they are overwhelmed . . . nor so close to their current stage that
they are not challenged at all. (p. 295)
Akin to a baby observing his parent’s language use for multiple months until he begins to
experiment with his own language, the process is paralleled for adult language learners.
During the beginning stages of acquiring ASL, A.T. interpreters must be given adequate
time to observe ASL in use by its native users, prior to their own attempts to use the
language.
Fossilization. Fossilization occurs when permanent, incorrect linguistic forms,
such as syntactic and lexical features of the first language, become incorporated into the
19
second language (Brown, 2007). Although research has shown fossilization to be a
natural part of the language learning process, Vigil and Oller studied the concept of
fossilization and outlined a theory of its origination (as cited in Brown, 2007, p. 271).
During second language acquisition, adults depend on the confirmation of positive and
negative affective and cognitive feedback from native users. By receiving specific
feedback, they can determine whether their language output is being received and
understood. Vigil and Oller’s model resolves that
a positive affective response is imperative to the learner’s desire to continue
attempts to communicate. Cognitive feedback then determines the degree of
internalization. Negative or neutral feedback in the cognitive dimension will, with
the prerequisite positive affective feedback, encourage learners to try again, to
restate, to reformulate, or to draw a different hypothesis about a rule. (as cited in
Brown, 2007, p. 271)
In turn, if language learners receive positive feedback on an incorrect utterance, they may
internalize the error and continue to produce as such. However, Selinker and Lamendella
criticized this theory and stated, “Vigil and Oller’s model relied on the notion of extrinsic
feedback and that other factors internal to the learner affect fossilization” (as cited in
Brown, 2007, p. 272). Instead, if language learners desire success, they must “take charge
of their own attainment, proactively seeking means for acquisition” (Brown, 2007, p.
272). No definite cause of fossilization has been agreed upon. Although across all
disciplines, especially language acquisition, learners are found to advance unevenly.
“Especially in advanced stages of learning, those lines can flatten out for a considerable
period of time. Sometimes those plateaus are rooted in motivational factors, either
intrinsic or extrinsic or both, and sometimes by other variables: age, aptitude, input,
20
attention, and social context” (Brown, 2007, p. 272).
Regardless of how fossilization occurs, A.T. interpreters may be subject to
potential plateaus from permanent incorporation of incorrect linguistic forms during
second language acquisition. Although these language learners may seem “more
cognitively secure, [and] appear to operate from the solid foundation of the first
language,” interferences of incorrect linguistic forms are often manifested (Brown, 2007,
p. 73). The presence of English words, phrases, or idioms within an ASL sentence is an
example of an interference of incorrect linguistic form. Achieving competence in ASL
may require an increased cognitive effort and continual exposure to ASL in its correct
form if an A.T. interpreter is to decrease the presence of permanent erroneous features in
their ASL skills.
Meaningful learning. Another theory of sequential language acquisition suggests
meaningful learning, which occurs when the language learner uses the new information
from L2 and makes connections to knowledge already attained from his or her L1 (Brown,
2007). Often referred to as scaffolding, this term is used to describe adults using L1
attributes as a supplement in the learning process of L2. If successful, he or she will be
able to acquire a deeper comprehension of the second language by establishing
meaningful connections from the first language.
Furthermore, meaningful learning can occur in the form of contextual-related
information (Cummins, 1981). Communication that includes context embedded
throughout discourse is the most classic way the world communicates outside of the
educational setting. Rather than devoting class time to reviewing a long list of vocabulary
words students should know, vocabulary should be used in context; students can
participate in numerous games, which elicit responses in their L2. Lessons can be
21
contrived from topics students find relevant. In order to effectively learn ASL, A.T
interpreters need to use their previous knowledge and experiences as a starting point to
make connections with new information learned.
Language socialization. The culminating point of discussion in the context of
sequential language acquisition is language socialization. Just as the term implies,
language socialization is the second language being used in a social setting, typically
outside of the classroom. Yli-Renko details language socialization further: “The learner
[of a language] has to know, besides the denotation of the words, also their connotations
and their social context in a foreign language” (as cited in Waite, 2006, p. 2). Learning a
second language in a formal setting does not provide enough exposure to the social
intricacies of language. Therefore, the language learner must associate with native
language users and communicate during their everyday activities.
As a language learner becomes more adept at communicating within his or her
second language, this communicative competence lends to the introduction of the second
language culture (Agar, 1991). Throughout the acquisition process, precedence is placed
on grammar and linguistic rules of language; however, equal effort must be allotted to
study the “everyday life [of native language users] in L2 environments” (Agar, 1991, p.
168). Circumstance will affect how language is used; a group of friends eating lunch
together, two professors discussing a student’s grade, and a mother speaking to her son
will all produce variance in language production.
Observance of native ASL speakers will further support A.T. interpreters in
achieving fluency. Interplay amongst fellow language learners, teachers, and native
speakers will create more diversified language exposure for learning individuals as the
output of language occurs in its natural environment (Brown, 2007). Even more, a second
22
language cannot be acquired without cultural awareness. Because language and culture
are deeply intertwined facets of the Deaf community, it would behoove A.T. interpreters
to associate with native ASL users. Establishing and maintaining relationships with
members of the Deaf community is a conduit for increased knowledge and skills, as
language and culture are best learned in a natural milieu, not within the bounds of a
classroom.
Conclusion
The journey towards obtaining native-like L2 skills includes understanding the
systems of social, linguistic, and pragmatic rules (Wong-Fillmore, 1991). An individual’s
task is to incorporate those three systems and apply the rules governing the second
language into everyday use. Developing fluency in a second language is no easy feat;
diligence, motivation, drive, and determination are required to stay focused. Wong-
Fillmore (1991) states it best:
Despite the complexity of the task most individuals can handle it. People,
irrespective of background, do not come to the language learning task empty
handed: in their efforts to figure out how the new language is used by its speakers,
they are guided by prior social, linguistic and general world knowledge . . . [and]
will be looking for ways to express the thoughts and sentiments they need to
express, and to achieve the communicative goals they customarily accomplish in
their primary speech community. (p. 52)
Over the years, research has been orchestrated to discover further insight into the
complexity of simultaneous and sequential language acquisition. Theories from seminal
researchers (Brown, 2007; Genesse, 2002; Hakuta, 1984; Wong-Fillmore, 1991;
Cummins, 1981; Agar, 1991; Wald, 1974) have been shared here in order to explore the
23
multiple facets circumscribing the language acquisition periods of ASL-English
interpreters. While the research may suggest simultaneous language acquisition lends to
more native-like fluency (Brown, 2007), adults learning a second language are able to
achieve native-like language use as well (Wong-Fillmore, 1991). This review of literature
is beneficial to this study as it helps us understand the potential of both language learners
obtaining native-like fluency in two languages. Where age was once thought to be the
defining factor separating language learners, research shows this is not the case. The road
to proficient, native-like language skills will be reflected through the individual pursuing
the journey.
24
Chapter 3
Methodology
In this study I investigated the language acquisition periods of ASL-English
interpreters in order to determine their perceived ability to interpret. Competency in ASL
and English is expected of all interpreters, as their role is to be “linguistic and cultural
facilitators of communication” (NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct, 2005, p. 2). As
mentioned in Chapter 1, I have often observed members of the Deaf community request
an interpreter who was raised by Deaf parents (Coda/coda) over an academically trained
interpreter (A.T.). Several plausible reasons could be assumed for this request: familiarity
of deafness, trust in being understood, awareness of Deaf culture, and proficient, native-like
use of ASL. This preference for Coda/coda interpreters could put other A.T.
interpreters at a career disadvantage. Interpreters who do not have Deaf parents typically
attend Interpreter Preparation Programs (IPP). Here they learn ASL, as well as Deaf
culture history and norms, interpreting theory, and application of the interpretation
process, which in turn could make them comparable interpreters to their Coda/coda
colleagues.
These two distinct second language acquisition periods may cause variance in an
interpreter’s ability to achieve native-like use of ASL. However, even though
Codas/codas may be the preferred interpreters because of their perceived proficiency of
ASL, A.T. interpreters still have the potential to attain similar native-like fluency. To
further explain a Deaf individual’s preference of interpreters and the second language
acquisition periods of ASL-English interpreters, the following research questions guided
this study:
25
 How does the assumed language acquisition period of an ASL-English
interpreter influence a Deaf individual to choose one interpreter over another
(Coda/coda vs. A.T.)?
 What qualities beyond an interpreter’s language competency lead a Deaf
individual to prefer a Coda/coda interpreter rather than an academically
trained interpreter?
 How does the language acquisition period of an ASL-English interpreter
affect his/her ability to obtain native-like or near-native-like skills of ASL?
Research Design
Exploration of the research questions for this project required a qualitative
method to be used for data collection. According to Creswell (1998), qualitative research
can be conducted through five different methods: ethnographies, grounded theory, case
studies, phenomenological studies, and biographies (p. 27). This research project was
grounded through a phenomenological study. A phenomenology approaches a problem
by “entering the field of perception of participants; seeing how they experience, live, and
display the phenomenon; and looking for the meaning of the participants’ experiences”
(Creswell, 1998, p. 31). As the Deaf community has articulated a preference for
Coda/coda interpreters, I often contemplate this rationale. Thus, I studied the
phenomenon of preference for Coda/coda interpreters as well as the effects of second
language acquisition on Coda/coda and A.T. interpreters for my research project.
Research Site and Materials
This study took place in the northern region of Utah. This area was chosen based
on convenience. Creswell (1998) details the importance of finding “people or places to
study and to gain access and establish rapport so that participants will provide good data”
26
(p. 110). Because I currently work in the northern region of Utah and have ample access
to the Deaf and interpreting communities needed for this study, I chose this area to
conduct my research.
For the purposes of creating material for specific segments of the study, ASL-English
interpreters from the central valley of California were used for the interpreter
observations. Because the Deaf and interpreter communities in Utah are small, Utah
interpreters would have been easily recognized if they had been recruited to create the
material for the interview. Therefore, ASL-English interpreters from California were
selected in order to ensure anonymity and a more random avenue to obtain data.
Participants
The participants were purposefully chosen from three separate sample groups:
Deaf community members, Coda/coda interpreters, and A.T. interpreters. Having a good
rapport with the participants is one key element to qualitative data collection, in addition
to “determining a strategy for the purposeful sampling of individuals or sites . . . so that
one can best study the problem under examination” (Creswell, 1998, pp. 110–111).
Therefore, 10 adult members of the local Deaf community were purposefully chosen
varying by age, language ability, and education levels for the purpose of gathering a
diverse quantity of data to analyze. Similar sample sizes were used for the Coda/coda and
A.T. interpreters. For these two sample groups, however, participants selected were
randomly chosen from the current record of certified interpreters listed on the state
website. After all participants were selected, demographic data was gathered in order to
better understand the characteristics of each sample group and was eventually used to
draw conclusions at the end of the study. These findings are presented in the following
two sections.
27
Deaf participants’ demographics. Demographic data of this population was
collected through a questionnaire (Appendix D). Questions were directed towards each
participant’s age, educational background, language preference, and family dynamics.
Together, there were 10 participants whose ages ranged from 25 to 67. Deaf participants
also brought an assortment of educational background to the study; their educational
experience consisted of high school and some college, including associate’s, bachelor’s,
and master’s degrees. In addition to their cumulative educational history, I also inquired
about their elementary and secondary years. Participants had either attended a public
school and later mainstreamed, a school for the Deaf, a school for the Deaf and later
mainstreamed, or an oral school and later mainstreamed.
Several divergent methods of language preference were expressed among these
participants and are listed in order from highest to lowest: Pidgin Signed English (5),
ASL (3), and a combination of ASL and Spoken English (2). When asked whether they
modify their language based on the company they are with, most stated they would make
adjustments in their own language to match the communicative needs of the people
present. When interacting with individuals not fluent in ASL, they would use an English
word order signing style instead. Even more, others commented on using spoken English
if a serious communication breakdown occurred.
Lastly, participants were asked to describe their families and communication
methods at home. Of the ten Deaf individuals, seven were the only Deaf members in their
families. The other three had either Deaf siblings or extended family members who were
Deaf. However, one of those three participants was a third generation Deaf person,
preceded by his parents and grandparents, as well as other extended family members. All
ten participants stated they communicated with their family members through spoken
28
English while growing up, and some still do so today. Initially, seven of the ten
individuals were taught to speak English and later made the decision to learn ASL.
Similar to their responses regarding language preference, all shared a common
willingness to adapt to their family members’ language abilities in order to achieve
effective communication.
A.T. and Coda/coda participants’ demographics. Participants from the
interpreter sample groups were chosen randomly from the Utah Interpreter Program’s
published list of interpreters. Interpreters were divided into four categories based on
when their language acquisition of ASL initially occurred. Categories were labeled as
follows: Academically Trained, Coda/coda, Returned Missionary1, and Community
Learner. In order to determine the specific category an interpreter indentified with, I
retrieved interpreters’ e-mail addresses from the state website and proceeded to contact
all 298 interpreters2, asking the five following questions:
1. Are you a Coda/coda?
2. Did you attend an interpreting program?
3. Did you serve an LDS mission?
4. Did you learn ASL from the Deaf community?
5. Did you learn ASL through any other method?
Table 1 (p. 35) summarizes the interpreter demographics of Utah.
1 A “returned missionary” is a missionary from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has
completed 18 months to 2 years of missionary service. Many interpreters in the state of Utah have served
missions for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in areas where they learned and used American
Sign Language. After they return home, many then use the ASL skills they acquired from their mission to
pursue an interpreting career. The number of interpreters who fit this description is significant and therefore
a category was created pertaining to that demographic.
2 This information was obtained from the Utah Interpreter Program website September 2012. Often, this
information is updated as new interpreters become certified. The number of interpreters (298) was
determined based on the date the information was gathered.
29
Of the 298 interpreters I contacted, 110 indicated they were graduates of an
interpreting program, 41 were Codas/codas, 51 were returned missionaries, and 40
learned directly from the Deaf community. Of the 298 interpreters I contacted, 50 did not
respond to my e-mail and another 6 had incorrect contact information listed.
Table 1
Utah Interpreter Demographics
Once I had gathered and categorized the data for the interpreter demographics, I
chose 12 A.T. interpreters by random selection for the first sample group. I went through
the same process to select 12 Coda/coda interpreters for the second sample group of
interpreters; however, only 11 individuals responded when the questionnaires were
dispersed. Participants were then contacted via e-mail and asked to participate in this
research study. Upon consent, I collected specific demographic data in order to better
understand the makeup of each sample group. Participants were asked questions
regarding how many years of work experience they had, their primary places of
employment, how their interpreting careers began, and their language acquisition. Then,
they were sent the questionnaire to complete regarding their language acquisition history
and experiences (Appendix E).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
A.T. Coda/coda R.M. Community No
Response
Unable to
contact
30
The first sample group was comprised of A.T. interpreters whose years of
working experience ranged from 3 months to 15 years; Codas/codas from the second
sample group ranged from 4 to 33 years of interpreting experience. When asked to
identify their primary place of work, A.T. interpreters responded most frequently with
post secondary and video relay employment. Codas/codas, however, were found to work
mostly in the freelance industry, followed closely by video relay.
All participants were then questioned about their language acquisition background.
A.T. interpreters were asked to share when they started learning ASL and their
motivation to do so. The participants’ ages when they began learning ASL ranged from
13 to 22, with the most frequent age of learning occurring around the late high school and
early college years. As they described their various reasons for embarking on their
language-learning journey, the following responses appeared most often:
 I loved the language.
 I was a student in the ITP and had to learn it.
 It was a foreign language requirement.
 I was curious and thought it would be fun to learn.
 I observed an interpreter in one of my classes and became interested.
Codas/codas were given a similar question; they were asked to identify their first and
second languages. Because most Codas/codas learned ASL and English simultaneously, I
wanted to know how they personally identified their first and second language. The most
common response was the identification of ASL as the primary and native language. Next
were participants who indicated both ASL and English as their first language. Only two
individuals identified differently; one stated English was his first language and the other
said English was his native language and ASL was his first language.
31
Data Collection Procedures
Throughout this study, I used three methods to collect data pertaining to
interpreter preference and the second language acquisition experiences of Coda/coda and
A.T. interpreters. The qualitative data was collected through open-ended questionnaires;
Deaf participants were given a questionnaire connected to their interpreter preferences
(Appendix D), followed by interpreter observations (Appendix B), and lastly an interview
to discuss their observations (Appendix C). Coda/coda and A.T. participants answered
separate questionnaires on the subject of second language acquisition (Appendices E &
F). These collection strategies were instrumental in accomplishing the purpose of the
study and finding answers to the research questions.
In addition, guaranteeing the confidentiality of all participants was the utmost
priority at every stage of the research project. Electronic data, including responses to
questionnaires, stimuli, and interview recordings, was stored on a flash drive devoted
solely to the purposes of this project. Any printed documentation was also stored within a
locked file, where only the researcher had access to it. On completion of the research
project, all data will be archived for five years and then destroyed.
Questionnaires. The first sample population was comprised of 10 Deaf
participants from the Deaf community in northern Utah. However, before research could
begin, the sample population was asked to volunteer for this study. The participants
agreed and were asked to give “written permission to be studied” (Creswell, 1998, p.
117) (Appendix A). Once official permission was obtained, a questionnaire was
administered to each participant in order to collect information regarding preferences of
ASL-English interpreters. Questionnaires were used in this qualitative study because as
Creswell (1998) notes, “The important point is to describe the meaning of a small number
32
of individuals who have experienced the phenomenon” (p. 122). I created all the
questionnaires3, which were intended to gather the data explaining the phenomenon and
ultimately, answer the research questions. The questions posed were non-leading,
allowing the participants to answer as unguided as possible. In addition, the questionnaire
was piloted on individuals who were not in the official study to prove its validity. The
participants received and returned the questionnaires via e-mail or recorded video. Once
the responses were returned, all data was analyzed and coded. The following are a few
sample questions from the Deaf participants’ questionnaire (Appendix D):
 When requesting an interpreter, do you prefer to use a Coda/coda? Why or
why not?
 Think of an interpreter you prefer to work with. Please describe his or her
specific qualities (not including language use) that place him or her above
other interpreters you have used.
 Please explain the importance of interpreters being actively involved within
the Deaf community.
 Please describe a situation when you requested to use the same interpreter for
a follow-up appointment.
The second sample population was 12 Coda/coda interpreters from the
interpreting community in northern Utah. These participants were asked to volunteer for
this study as well as provide written consent (Appendix A). Once consent was established,
a questionnaire was e-mailed to the participants. The purpose of this questionnaire was to
collect information related to personal experiences from being raised by Deaf parents,
motives for working with the Deaf community, familiarity of Deaf culture, and
3 Consent Forms and Questionnaires were provided in the participants’ native language.
33
proficiency of ASL. Once the responses were returned, the data was printed, analyzed,
and coded. The following questions are a select few from the questionnaire (Appendix
D):
 What is your native language?
 When did you acquire your second language?
 Do you remember any challenges in learning English and ASL
simultaneously?
 What advantages do you feel you have as an interpreter because of your
upbringing?
 Currently, what challenges do you face as a professional interpreter?
The third sample population was 12 A.T. interpreters, also from the interpreting
community in northern Utah. These participants were asked to volunteer for this research
study as well as provide written permission. After receiving their consent, a questionnaire
was sent to the individuals in order to collect data entailing personal experiences of
learning ASL as an adult, motives for working with the Deaf community, understanding
of Deaf culture, and proficiency of ASL. The A.T. interpreter participants received the
questionnaire through e-mail. Once the responses were returned, the data was printed,
analyzed, and coded. The subsequent questions are a handful selected from the
questionnaire (Appendix F):
 Describe how you learned ASL.
 Describe the time when you finally felt fluent in ASL.
 Describe the challenges you faced while acquiring ASL.
 Describe the advantages/disadvantages you have as an interpreter because of
when you learned ASL.
34
Interpreter observations. Following their responses to the questionnaire, the
Deaf sample group was asked to participate in an interpreter observation. The purpose of
the observation was to further investigate the phenomenon of interpreter preference,
based on the perceived language competency of an interpreter (Appendix B). I created
this method for data collection because I wanted to know what specific linguistic traits
Deaf people already perceive Codas/codas to have and whether after completing their
observations, if their perceptions and actual identification process aligned. In addition, I
wanted Deaf participants to take part in the interpreter observations in hopes that the
resulting data would show they were unable to make a unanimous distinction, which
would prove that both Coda/coda and A.T. interpreters have the potential to achieve
native-like ASL skills.
A purposefully chosen video stimulus, previously used for the Utah state
certification test, was sent to two interpreters in California—one a Coda and the other an
A.T. Each interpreter was asked to record herself interpreting the video from English to
ASL. The video content was chosen with purpose; although potentially challenging, the
content was such that a certified ASL-English interpreter should be competent enough to
interpret.
The stimulus was sent to the participants via e-mail. Deaf participants were
instructed to observe two interpreters (A.T.: Interpreter #1, Coda: Interpreter #2) and
distinguish the Coda interpreter from the A.T. interpreter without prior knowledge of the
interpreter’s identities. Observation results were collected and analyzed to determine if
participants could clearly identify the two interpreters based strictly on their language
proficiency. Creswell’s (1998) protocol for observations in Qualitative Inquiry and
Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions (pp. 123–125) was used to guide the
35
observation and its subsequent questions. Listed below are some of the interpreter
observation questions extracted from the Interpreter Observation Protocol (Appendix B):
 After viewing the recordings, which interpreter do you perceive to be
Interpreter #1?
 After viewing the recordings, which interpreter do you perceive to be
Interpreter #2?
 What were your initial reactions during your observations?
Interviews. After the interpreter observations were administered and responses
collected, Deaf participants were then asked to participate in a follow-up interview,
which inquired about their decision-making process of identifying the two interpreters.
All interviews were conducted and recorded either in person, via e-mail, or over an
internet video connection. Creswell’s (1998) protocol for interviews in Qualitative
Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions (pp. 123–125) was the
foundation for conducting the interviews. As interviews were performed, the interview
procedures were upheld. The next several questions are pulled from the complete set of
interview questions (Appendix C):
 Do you prefer to use a Coda/coda interpreter? Why or why not?
 After observing the interpreters, what language skills demonstrated led you
towards identifying the Coda/coda interpreter?
 After observing the interpreters, what language skills demonstrated led you
towards identifying the A.T. interpreter?
Data Collection Matrix
All data collection for this project was done according to suggestions made by
Creswell. He (1998) proposes, “To collect this information, the researcher develops
36
protocols or written forms for recording the information [and] must decide how he or she
will store data to find them easily and to protect them from damage or loss” (p. 111). A
data collection matrix was used to document and code all responses appropriately
(Table 2, p. 37).
Analysis Procedures
Data collected for this study was obtained through the use of questionnaires,
interpreter observations, and interviews. All responses were organized and then arranged
as they related to the research questions in the data collection matrix (Table 2, p. 37).
Once the data was organized, it was analyzed through “the methodology of reduction, the
analysis of specific statements and themes, and a search for all possible meanings”
(Creswell, 1998, p. 52). Each segment of data had to be analyzed in order to accomplish
the overarching goals of the study to determine whether Deaf persons do indeed have a
preference for a Coda/coda interpreter and that no difference in perceived language
competency between Coda/coda and A.T. interpreters exists.
Table 2
Data Collection Matrix
QUALITATIVE DATA
Research Questions Supporting Literature Data Collection Methods
 How does the language acquisition
period of an ASL-English
interpreter affect his/her ability to
obtain native-like or near native-like
skills of ASL?
 Critical Period
Hypothesis
(Hakuta, Bialystok,
& Wiley, 2003)
 Bimodal acquisition
(Bonvillian, et al.,
1983)
Questionnaires:
Coda/coda
Questionnaire
(Appendix E)
A.T. Questionnaire
(Appendix F)
Observations:
N/A
Interviews:
N/A
 How does the assumed language
acquisition period of an ASL-English
interpreter influence a
Deaf individual to choose one
interpreter over another
(Coda/coda vs. A.T.)?
 Native-like
characteristics
(Hakuta, 1984)
 Linguistic
competence
(Genesse, 2002)
Questionnaires:
Interpreter Preference
Questionnaire
(Appendix D)
Observations:
Deaf participants will
observe two interpreters
and identify the
Coda/coda and A.T.
based on their perceived
language competency.
(Appendix B)
Interviews:
Interviews of Deaf
participants, expounding
their decisions related to
interpreter observations.
(Interview Protocol;
Appendix C)
 What qualities beyond an
interpreter’s language competency
lead a Deaf individual to prefer a
Coda/coda interpreter rather than
an academically trained
interpreter?
N/A
Questionnaires:
Interpreter Preference
Questionnaire
(Appendix D)
Observations:
N/A
Interviews:
N/A
38
Questionnaires. Data from the Deaf participants was first collected, and all
questionnaires conducted in ASL were transcribed into English. Once transcription was
complete, all other data was added to the compilation, printed, and finally analyzed and
coded. I looked for themes explaining the preferences Deaf individuals have for ASL-English
interpreters; I wanted to pinpoint preferences pertinent to both linguistic and non-linguistic
features of interpreters. As I analyzed, I looked for specific statements repeated
by multiple participants; when this occurred their statements were coded, as they
represented a theme supporting the research questions. Studying this phenomenon
through the eyes of the Deaf will enable the ASL-English interpreting field to better
understand interpreter preference amongst the Deaf community and institute any changes
needed to improve the quality of service provided.
Responses to the questionnaires compiled from the Coda/coda and A.T.
interpreters were also analyzed. Questions were divided into categories and then the
responses were coded by common themes. I compared their respective responses to
determine their perceptions of second language acquisition. Some information collected
from these two sample groups did not directly pertain to the research questions. This
information will be presented in a separate chapter, as the findings are relevant to the
field of interpreting. The responses correlating with the research questions, however,
provided personal insight into the differing periods of second language acquisition faced
by ASL-English interpreters, adding validity to second language acquisition research.
Results pertaining to each sample group and their respective themes will be discussed in
Chapter 4.
Interpreter observations. The instructions given for the interpreter observations
told Deaf participants to identify both Interpreter #1 and Interpreter #2 as either a Coda
39
interpreter or an A.T. interpreter. Deaf participants were only privy to the knowledge that
one interpreter was a Coda and the other an A.T. Based on the language skills they
perceived, they differentiated the interpreters. Data from the observations was collected,
and all interpreter observations conducted in ASL were transcribed into English. After
transcription, any additional data was incorporated and then compiled, printed, analyzed,
and coded. In this segment of analysis, I made note of specific linguistic features the Deaf
participants mentioned as they identified the interpreters. As I analyzed their responses, I
highlighted similar responses, which appeared to mention particular linguistic features
they had observed and that ultimately answered the research questions. Finally, I
compared their observation comments to the data collected from the questionnaire
regarding their linguistic preferences of interpreters in order to further identify themes
pertaining to interpreter preference.
Interviews. After the observations were conducted, I proceeded to conduct
interviews for the purpose of collecting any additional remarks regarding interpreter
preference and their observations of Interpreters #1 and #2. Responses to the interview
questions were transcribed from ASL to English and then printed and coded. Then, data
was analyzed to indentify common themes delineating the Deaf participants’ preferences
for or against using a Coda/coda interpreter. I looked for particular phrases or key words
mentioned by multiple participants and when those reoccurrences happened, I would
create a new theme. I repeated this process until the process of analysis for the interviews
was complete. The results compiled from the interpreter observations and interviews
were informative; data collected contributed to the purpose of the study as well as
assisted in uncovering answers to the research questions regarding interpreter preference.
40
Researcher’s Bias
Over the course of my career, I have worked with interpreters of varying prowess;
some have been adroit Codas/codas and others less proficient A.T. interpreters. There
have also been, however, multiple occasions when the reverse was such that an A.T.
interpreter left me awestruck. The range of abilities encompassing the interpreting
profession is far from homogenous.
Although I was not born to Deaf parents, I acquired ASL in the most viable way I
knew, as an adult second language learner. During the fundamentals of my academic
training, I remember feeling inadequate in comparison to the highly esteemed Coda/coda
interpreters; even more so, when I achieved professional interpreter status. The driving
force to this study is in part instigated by my own past experiences as an adult second
language learner and later, as a professional colleague to a myriad of very talented ASL-English
interpreters. Thus, at the commencement of this research study, I had to
recognize and be aware of the personal biases I inherently contributed and throughout the
study, remain focused towards accomplishing the goals of the project as a whole.
Conclusion
American Sign Language is the trademark of Deaf communities across the United
States, enabling individuals to “interact with each other, to communicate their ideas,
emotions, and intentions, and to transmit their culture from generation to generation”
(Baker-Shenk & Cokely, 1980, p. 31). Deaf and hearing communities are able to
communicate their thoughts, opinions, and feelings in classrooms, phone calls, business
meetings, and more through using ASL-English interpreters.
During the interpretation process, an interpreter will be “constantly moving
between languages, ASL and English” (as cited in Parasnis, 1996). Undertaking such a
41
task requires command of both languages being interpreted. Carol Padden, a Deaf
Professor of Communication at UC San Diego, underlines the challenges of attaining
competency in two languages:
More often than not, individuals who have acquired and use two languages do so
under different social and cultural contexts. Their skill in one language may not
be matched in the other. The unevenness of their acquisition and skill is not due to
lapses in language ability, but is the result of a natural consequence of
circumstances in which they are language users. (as cited in Parasnis, p. 100)
Padden’s viewpoint describes the circumstantial effect of learning two languages,
as well as the impact of timing. Coda/coda and A.T. interpreters not only learn ASL at
distinctly separate periods in life, but are also influenced through the social and cultural
contexts in which the language is acquired. Regardless, the timing of second language
acquisition, either as a child or as an adult, does not predetermine an interpreter’s ability
to achieve native-like language use of ASL.
Differences in second language acquisition between Coda/coda and A.T.
interpreters will be examined in this research project. This relationship will be studied by
comparing the time at which ASL acquisition occurred and the interpreters’ perceived
native-like command of ASL. Because Deaf individuals have often expressed a
preference for Coda/coda interpreters, it can be assumed they may feel Codas/codas have
more native-like prowess of ASL. Such a phenomenon marks the inspiration behind this
project as I seek to further understand this perceived preference existing within the Deaf
community.
42
Chapter 4
Results
The purpose of this research study was to investigate the phenomenon of Deaf
individuals preferring a Coda/coda more often than an academically trained (A.T.)
interpreter. To research this phenomenon, I collected and analyzed data gathered from
members of the local Deaf community, Coda/coda interpreters, and A.T. interpreters.
Deaf participants shared their perceptions of interpreter preferences as it related to both
linguistic and non-linguistic features. Coda/coda and A.T. interpreters also participated;
these participants expounded on their respective second language learning experiences
and the subsequent impacts on their career as an ASL-English interpreter. In this chapter,
the findings of the research study are presented in three sections, each coinciding with
one of the three research questions:
 How does the assumed language acquisition period of an ASL-English
interpreter influence a Deaf individual to choose one interpreter over another
(Coda/coda vs. A.T.)?
 What qualities beyond an interpreter’s language competency lead a Deaf
individual to prefer a Coda/coda interpreter rather than an A.T. interpreter?
 How does the language acquisition period of an ASL-English interpreter
affect his/her ability to obtain native-like or near-native-like skills of ASL?
As data was analyzed, multiple themes were found in each of the research questions.
These themes emerged from three data collection strategies: (1) questionnaires, (2)
interpreter observations, and (3) interviews, which were described in Chapter 3. In what
follows, I will discuss how each data collection strategy answered the above mentioned
research questions. Three themes emerged within the first research question and will be
43
presented first, followed by the second and third research questions and their respective
themes. The results corresponding with the first research question will be divided into the
following three sections: Deaf Individuals’ Interpreter Preferences, Deaf Individuals’
Perceptions of an Interpreter’s ASL Production Skills, and Deaf Individuals’ Perceptions
of an Interpreter’s ASL Receptive Skills.
Research Question 1: Linguistic Preferences
Deaf individuals’ interpreter preferences. To begin exploring interpreter
preferences amongst Deaf individuals and address the first research question, I collected
the following data through a questionnaire (see Appendix D). After I analyzed and coded
the responses relating to this research question, the first theme surfaced: Deaf individuals
prefer to use any interpreter rather than specifically requesting a Coda/coda. Deaf
participants were asked to indicate their preference for an interpreter, specifically a
Coda/coda or an A.T. interpreter. The data gathered showed the majority of Deaf
participants having no preference for either a Coda/coda or A.T. interpreter. However,
while only one of the participants expressed a preference for using a Coda/coda as an
interpreter, all other participants seemed to generally enjoy experiences using both
Coda/coda and non-Coda interpreters alike.
Questionnaires. Deaf participants were asked to complete open-ended questions
outlining their specific preferences for an ASL-English interpreter. Table 3 illustrates the
responses of the 10 Deaf individuals and their indicated interpreter preferences.
44
Table 3
Interpreter Preference
After declaring a preference for or against using a Coda/coda, participants were
then asked to further elucidate their positions. The individual who expressed preference
for a Coda/coda interpreter stated Codas/codas are often more familiar with the language
patterns and structures used by native ASL users than are those who are trained
academically. The other participant who responded with, “it depends,” contrasted
different locations of residence in the United States and how these areas can influence
whether a Coda/coda is or is not requested. The remaining eight participants who
conveyed no preference for an interpreter each shared similar views:
 I just want an interpreter that can sign and understand me.
 I am fine with whatever interpreter I get as long as I understand their signs
clearly.
 I prefer an interpreter who is SKILLED in ASL.
 I prefer an interpreter who has a specific level of certification.
Another few Deaf participants’ comments expressed indifference to a Coda/coda or an
A.T. interpreter, rather they had specific preference towards requesting an interpreter
1
8
1
Interpreter Preference
Prefers a Coda/coda
Does not prefer a Coda/coda
It depends
45
based on gender. Even more, others reflected on past perceptions of Codas/codas they
had used; the responses included both positive and negative experiences (see Table 4).
Table 4
Perceptions of using a Coda/coda
Positive Experiences Negative Experiences
It is always a benefit to have a Coda/coda
for an interpreter.
I had one Coda/coda and could not
understand them; I had to ask several times
for them to repeat their interpretation.
There are Codas/codas I have used who
have superb skill.
Requesting a Coda/coda does not guarantee
anything.
The remarks here show that Deaf individuals may not carry a preference for a Coda/coda
interpreter; however, if they were to have a Coda/coda interpreter who was competent,
the experience would most likely be an enjoyable one.
Deaf individuals’ perceptions of an interpreter’s ASL production skills. Once
the Deaf participants indicated their preference for or against using a Coda/coda
interpreter, they then had to respond to several questions regarding the language
production skills of interpreters. In addition to the questionnaire, Deaf participants were
also asked to observe two interpreters and comment on their language production skills.
Following the observation, I interviewed these participants to gather their comments and
any other pertinent information relating to the observations (Appendix B). The detailed
results for the observations and interviews will be discussed below.
After I analyzed the responses relating to the first research question, a common
theme emerged: Deaf individuals place strong value on an interpreter’s ASL fluency.
Deaf participants were asked to indicate why ASL fluency is crucial for an interpreter to
obtain. The data collected showed a majority of individuals strongly advocating for their
46
interpreters to be fluent users of ASL. A plethora of reasons surrounded their statements,
but the most reoccurring sentiment expressed was the importance of receiving all
communicated information without hindrance.
Questionnaires. The purpose of this section of the questionnaire was to clearly
distinguish the significance of an interpreter’s ASL linguistic competence. Participants
were asked to explain if an interpreter’s fluency in ASL receives parity to other non-linguistic
features. Eight individuals claimed a resounding, “YES!” After further review
of their explanations, most confirmed the necessity of having an interpreter who can
accurately portray the concepts being communicated. One individual declared, “If they
can’t sign the right concepts and are not willing to work with the Deaf person’s skills and
abilities, they should not be an interpreter.” The others who did not share similar
responses, however, described their own ability to fill in the gaps left out during the
interpretation.
Language production skills were also claimed to be a necessity for interpreters
because Deaf individuals want to comprehend the interpreted message the first time it is
conveyed. Some of the participants explained:
 I want an interpreter who is an excellent one. What I mean by excellent is one
who can accurately express the situation without me having to “interpret the
interpreter.”
 ASL fluency is very important because I don’t want to misunderstand
important information.
 The language translation is the message, and ASL skills must be able to
accurately convey the language.
Of all the responses exclaiming ASL fluency is a must, there were two that claimed an
47
interpreter’s ASL fluency only carries a portion of the weight. These responses stated that
interpreters with attitude problems and superb ASL skill were less preferred to
interpreters with a positive attitude and subpar ASL skill.
Interpreter observations. Deaf participants were asked to observe recordings of
two interpreters and identify each interpreter as either a Coda/coda or an AT interpreter.
The A.T. interpreter will be referred to as Interpreter 1 and the Coda/coda interpreter as
Interpreter 2. The purpose of this observation was to further investigate the phenomenon
of interpreter preference based on the interpreter’s perceived language competency.
Observation results were collected and analyzed in order to determine if participants
could clearly identify the two interpreters. After the Deaf participants made their
observations, data showed only 50% made the correct distinction between the Coda and
the A.T. interpreter.
Interviews. Once Deaf participants made their observations, they were
interviewed (Appendix C) to further unveil insight into their interpreter preferences.
Although many of their responses were similar to their answers given on the
questionnaire, data obtained from the interviews served to gather any additional
perceptions and preferences as it related to a Coda/coda or A.T. interpreter. Data
collected from the participants who correctly identified the interpreters will be presented
first, followed by the data from the participants who incorrectly identified the interpreters.
Group 1 Decision: Interpreter 1—A.T, Interpreter 2—Coda. The purpose of this
interview was to understand the decision-making process of the participants as they
observed and identified the interpreters. Initially, comments made by Deaf participants
described the difficulty in identifying the interpreters because they appeared virtually
similar. Most of the participants perceived the interpreters to have outstanding language
48
production and were it possible, would request them as interpreters for their personal
business affairs.
After the participants identified the A.T and Coda interpreters, they were asked to
define specific language characteristics that led them to choose the A.T. interpreter. A
few of their responses are listed below:
 The interpreter used ASL mouthing appropriately.
 I noticed this interpreter’s sign for DO-DO-DO looked more non-native.
 This interpreter’s hands moved in sharp movements, it was too much.
 Interpreter 1 had more facial expressions.
 She seemed awkward with some of her signs like DO-DO-DO or
husband/wife.
After defining the language characteristics perceived as indicative of an A.T. interpreter,
participants then discussed other attributes contributing to their decision. Some
participants perceived A.T. interpreters to have a strong foundation and use of ASL
because of their formal training in an interpreting program. This perception influenced
their observations and led them to choose the A.T. interpreter. A few examples of their
responses are as follows:
 I picked her as the A.T. interpreter because those interpreters seem to know
more ASL since they were formally taught.
 The A.T. interpreters I have worked with typically use more ASL than
Codas/codas do, partially because they have been through school and have
had formal training that includes proper ASL grammar.
 I feel that Interpreter #1 is the academically trained interpreter as she looks
like she has received specific training and practice on being an interpreter.
49
One participant, however, perceived A.T. interpreters in a different light. His comments
were as follows:
This interpreter used signs that may not have been as clear to certain Deaf clients.
Choosing to use certain signs often indicates an interpreter who has been
academically trained because they are unable to expand certain concepts, making
the interpretation less clear for the Deaf audience.
The comments made by this participant mirrored his responses on the questionnaire, as he
stated his preference for a Coda/coda interpreter. Reasons for his preference included
interpreters’ sign choices, expanding on certain concepts, repetition, and language
flexibility. Many of these qualities he mentioned were not present in his observation of
the A.T. interpreter’s interpretation.
Next, the participants discussed their choices for the Coda interpreter. Of the
responses collected, these participants observed specific grammatical features of ASL,
which led them to identify this interpreter as the Coda. The most frequently mentioned
linguistic feature noticeable to the Deaf participants was her Deaf-like mouth movements.
A variety of responses are listed below to illustrate the participants’ observations of the
Coda’s linguistic features:
 I liked this interpreter because she signed more smoothly and had better ASL
parameters. Her interpretation seemed natural.
 This interpreter had a lot more Deaf-mouthing, indicative of Coda habits.
 The Coda wasn’t using pronunciation for every word; she would close her
mouth at times while signing some words like a Deaf person would. This
interpreter didn’t mouth a lot of the English words in her interpretation.
 She had natural Deaf-mouthing; the words she chose to mouth were
50
appropriate and echoed words Deaf people mouth while using ASL.
One participant observed the Coda interpreter to have “more animated lips,” but did not
expound any further on the definition of this statement.
In addition to Deaf-like mouth movements, participants pinpointed other
grammatical features in the Coda’s interpretation, such as fluidity, confidence, and use of
facial expressions. One participant thoroughly specified the facets of the Coda’s
interpretation that made her identifiable as a Coda:
One feature particular to Codas is fingerspelling, producing the sign, and
fingerspelling again in order to ensure a clear understanding from the client. She
did this. Also, she used repetition in her interpretation, this skill is Deaf-like; Deaf
people often repeat themselves so all who are receiving the message are sure to
understand. She used a variety of signs for one English word or concept. Non-manual
markers and facial expressions that looked natural were also very
prevalent in her interpretation. Nothing was overdone.
Just as participants had preconceived ideas about A.T. interpreters, their responses
were no different for Codas/codas. One person had a history of working with
Codas/codas who tended to sign English-word-order and consequently, developed a
philosophy for this specific language pattern. Often, Codas/codas grew up using English-word-
order with their Deaf parents and because their parents understood them, they never
had to use correct ASL grammar. Another participant shared a similar perspective
regarding Coda/coda interpreters: “I know that a Coda’s signs are affected by the parents
who are Deaf. This does not mean that the parents signed fluent ASL since many older
generation Deaf in this area use Signing Exact English/Total Communication more than
ASL.” While these participants expressed views regarding the language influence of Deaf
51
parents as it pertains to a more English-word-order, the following participant’s
experience declared the contrary:
Codas/codas often have the innate language capabilities because of their lifelong
exposure. They can modify their language use to match whatever mode their
consumer may need. I chose this interpreter to be the Coda/coda because I
understood her interpretation most. From the observation, I would guess this
interpreter to either be Deaf or actively involved in the Deaf community from a
very young age.
Overall, this group of participants shared a variety of perceptions of both Coda/coda and
A.T. interpreters, each varying to some degree. Ultimately after making their
observations of the two interpreters, they were able to identify the Coda from the A.T.
interpreter correctly.
Group 2 Decision: Interpreter 1—Coda, Interpreter 2—A.T. Akin to Group 1, the
second group of Deaf participants was asked to identify the Coda as well as the A.T.
interpreter. Based on their observations, these participants chose incorrectly. However,
each justified his or her position for the choices made and in the ensuing section, their
justifications will be presented.
Data collected from the interviews showed these participants perceiving the A.T.
interpreter actually as the Coda. Similar to group 1, specific linguistic features stood out
during their observations, which led them to believe this interpreter was the Coda. A few
of their responses include the following:
 I could tell she was a Coda/coda by her facial expressions and body
movement.
 I perceived her to be more Coda-like because of her mouthing.
52
 You can see her emotions in her face, especially in her eyes. She also uses her
whole body in accordance with different moods such as “shrugs,” looks up to
express a possible idea or feeling, more use of hand motions for “uummm,”
trying to get an idea to process faster, etc.
 She does not articulate a lot of English words, instead she used more nuances
or “deaf speak” i.e. “bored” with exhaled lips, and used puckered lips when
expressing a possible idea or feeling. She would use English words for the
subject but then used deaf speak during the concept behind the subject.
One participant observed this interpreter and perceived her to be the Coda because of her
signing style. It appeared as though she signed in an English-word-order rather than
strictly following ASL grammar rules. While she felt the interpretation was good, her
explanation for identifying this interpreter as the Coda was as follows:
I felt like she was more English than the other one. I feel like most Codas don’t
really know how to expand the concept unless they are passionately involved in
interpreting. Her interpreting was good; she signed a lot more English than the
other one.
However, while this participant observed the interpreter to produce a stronger English
signing style, another participant perceived the reverse, referring to her language use as
more flexible:
Her use of information was “less clean” in terms of more flexibility in choosing a
particular word to use. For example, if someone was to voice interpret interpreter
#1, he/she would have the flexibility to use whatever word he/she wants to use.
Whoever watches interpreter #1 would take in and understand the concept
immediately.
53
Regardless of differing opinions, all participants seemed to agree her interpretation was
clear and easy to understand.
Afterward, participants were asked to illustrate their observations of the
interpreter they perceived to be academically trained. A few perceived her as an adroit
interpreter, exhibiting a strong command of ASL and well versed in portraying multiple
concepts. Some of their responses recorded are as follows:
 She knew how to sign the concept, which is good. She could expand it so it’s
easier to understand what is being said. She used more ASL structure than the
other one.
 This interpreter’s use of ASL was more structured.
 This interpreter used Deaf-like mouthing.
One participant, however, did not observe this interpreter to have command of ASL.
Rather, he perceived her to have many English undertones as well as a lack of body
movement in her interpretation. His explanation is given below:
This interpreter uses emotions systematically. Her facial expressions are
appropriate for a given situation but it didn’t include her eyes. She also had
limited body language, which made her seem more factual and reserved. Her
concepts are presented very orderly and with her sign choices she uses English
undertones. For example, when she uses the sign “that,” it was Signed Exact
English.
In the end, group 2 was of one accord with group 1; both interpreters had comparable
skill and presented a comprehendible interpretation, causing some difficultly when
attempting to distinguish a Coda from an A.T. interpreter.
Deaf individuals’ perceptions of an interpreter’s ASL receptive skills. In