Sign language interpreter aptitude: The trials and tribulations of a longitudinal study

Abstract

This paper discusses the process of undertaking an exploratory longitudinal study of language learning and interpreter aptitude. It discusses the context of aptitude testing, the test selection for a test battery, the recruitment of subjects within the small-scale study (n=22) and the administration of that battery within the context of whether longitudinal studies are feasible with small cohorts of sign language interpreters. Sign languages continue to be languages of limited diffusion in Europe. Even with gradually increasing numbers of 'hearing' sign language users, typically those wishing to become sign language interpreters do not have high levels of sign language fluency prior to enrolling in sign language interpreter training. As such, these students need to gain fluency in sign language, whilst also beginning to engage in interpreter education and interpreting-skills development. To date there is little understanding of how best to screen sign language interpreter program applicants to ensure the effective use of resources, i.e. to educate those who will both learn sign language to C1 fluency (Pro-signs, 2016) during the BA and also be able to learn how to interpret. Longitudinal studies enable us to take a longer view of learning and the professionalisation of skills and knowledge. They do, however, require significant time and this in itself can prove to be an obstacle when university researchers are required to produce tangible research outputs for career goals such as promotion or tenure.

Language aptitude in the visuospatial modality: L2 British Sign Language acquisition and cognitive skills in British Sign Language-English interpreting students

“…For English reading comprehension, we did not see the same improvement over time as in Stone (2017), where Kirklees scores 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.932370 were significantly better by the end of the third year versus the start of the first year. Due to time constraints during testing, we could not repeat this task at our final third-year testing session.…”

“…Both MR and visuospatial WM are likely implicated in this task, where increasingly complex grammatical constructions in BSL must be reproduced. Furthermore, the BSL-SRT, like the copy-sign task and nonsense sign repetition tasks which were predictive of sign language performance in previous studies (López Gómez et al, 2007;Stone, 2017), involves phonological encoding and perceptuo-motor skills (see also Martinez and Singleton, 2018, who found that visuospatial short-term memory was predictive of sign learning, concluding that perceptuo-motor processes play a big role in individual sign learning). However, we did not replicate the result seen by Stone (2017), whereby initial performance on the phonological encoding task (MLAT Number Learning) was predictive of early BSL module grades.…”

“…However, there is minimal research into whether a cognitive aptitude profile exists for L2 SLI students embarking on the study to reach professional fluency. Here, we follow López Gómez et al (2007), who found that perceptual-motor skills and cognitive verbal abilities played a greater role than personality in predicting SLI students' sign language proficiency, suggesting that greater focus should be placed on cognitive predictors of signing and interpreting outcomes, as does Stone (2017). While a lot of research on cognitive aptitude for spoken interpreters exists, some of this is modality-specific and only applicable to the spoken-language aspects of SLI.…”

“…Another important difference is that spoken language interpreters work primarily from their L2 into their L1, whereas most signed language interpreters work primarily from spoken L1 into signed L2 ( Nicodemus and Emmorey, 2013 ). Assessing linguistic and cognitive aptitude for SLI prior to entry into interpreter training programs could help reduce drop-out rates, minimize the rehousing of struggling SLI degree students into Deaf Studies programs ( Stone, 2017 ), and would ultimately save a lot of time, both for instructors and students. According to Grbić (2009) , beginner SLI students are often motivated by “social goodwill” but are less aware of the cognitive, social, and emotional demands of SLI, which initial pre-screening may help to highlight.…”

Individual differences in lexical learning across two language modalities: Sign learning, word learning, and their relationship in hearing non-signing adults

“…Importantly, however, the vast majority of individual differences research on lexical learning in adults has been conducted with spoken languages (e.g., Hundal & Horn, 1977;Kyllonen, Tirre, & Christal, 1991;Underwood, Boruch, & Malmi, 1978) and has largely overlooked lexical learning in signed languages (cf., Martinez & Singleton, 2018;Stone, 2017; T. Williams, Darcy, & Newman, 2016a). As a consequence, we know very little about the cognitive factors engaged while learning signs and whether they are similar and relied upon to the same degree as those employed during word learning.…”