1.2: Importance of Fingerspelling in Educational Settings

American Sign Language (ASL) students are often taught to refrain from using fingerspelling in early language acquisition classes. This is an effort to sever the notion there is a sign for every English word, and to encourage students to gesture and use their bodies as opposed to relying on their English/print knowledge. Later, ASL students learn to use fingerspelling for proper nouns, technical vocabulary, abbreviations, acronyms, emphasis, and clarification et cetera. As their vocabulary’s grow and many transition into becoming interpreters, students fingerspell less and less. As an educational interpreter, or truly an interpreter in any educational setting, the importance of fingerspelling cannot be overstated. Deaf learners are expected and often tested on their knowledge of the specific English vocabulary of that education event.

Since English and ASL do not share the same phonology, fingerspelling is only a representation of English and is “an important aspect of becoming bilingual in English and ASL. Even though fingerspelling is based on English orthography” (Haptonstall-Nykaza & Schick, 2007, p. 172). At a very basic level, the ASL sign for TREE has none of the phonological similarities of the English word tree. Thus, Deaf learners with only an ASL sign TREE have no way of recognizing or writing the English print tree. Fingerspelling serves a critical link in word learning, providing alternative cognitive representations of a word and providing an explicit ASL–English link (Haptonstall-Nykaza & Schick, 2007).

Deaf students use fingerspelling in a multitude of ways to decode printed text (Alawad & Musyoka, 2018). To be clear though, fingerspelling on its own is not printed English, Deaf learners must still associate the English letter with the ASL fingerspelling handshape. That coding process is not as easy as one may think – imagine learning the 26-letter alphabet in sequential order without the alphabet song. Fingerspelling is a transitional bridge between ASL and English bilingualism. The bottom line is fingerspelling improves Deaf students’ English literacy and new vocabulary all while helping students decode, read, and write English (Haptonstall-Nykaza & Schick, 2007; Roos, 2013; Stone, Kartheiser, Hauser, Petitto, & Allen, 2015). In fact, the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) research indicates interpreters who can more effectively convey the key vocabulary score significantly higher on the national examination (Cates, 2021; Johnson, Schick, Brown & Bolster, 2018). Thus, interpreters working in an educational setting need to undo all that previous ASL acquisition strategies and fingerspell more – not less.

Deliberate Omissions

Interpreter omissions are a well-studied phenomenon and often result as a consequence of cognitive overload (Barik, 1975; Gile, 2009; Napier, 2004; Kauling, 2015) – our brains can only hold so much information before it starts to decay – and ultimately is not included in the target language interpretation. However, not all omissions degrade the message or are in error. In fact, some omissions consciously strategic or intentional (Napier, 2004).

Since the act of clearly, purposefully fingerspelling items takes time for an interpreter working in an educational setting, invariably means some of the content of what was said by the instructor will be omitted. This is simply a fact of life. However, by emphasizing the importance of clearly fingerspelling key vocabulary in an interpretation ultimately sets the Deaf person further ahead than a content inclusive amount of information the Deaf person cannot ultimately indicate they know on a test.

Clearly – an interpreter cannot omit all the content, but they do not need to include it all if there is no ‘backbone’ to the content. For example, it would benefit a Deaf learner to have the key vocabulary clearly identified via fingerspelling and given two examples from the instructor. This is far more beneficial to learning than three examples interpreted well but not tied to any fingerspelling and thus the Deaf learner has no notion of how to read, write, or identify that vocabulary on a test. Omitting one example would be a strategic, deliberate omission to afford the Deaf learner a better opportunity to learn the material.

Strategic Fingerspelling

This does not mean though that most things should be fingerspelled. As ASL learners know, interpreters should fingerspell proper nouns, technical vocabulary, abbreviations, acronyms, and use fingerspelling for emphasis or clarification. Proper nouns are particularly essential – for example the instructor’s name, the names of people around the Deaf learner, et cetera. Interpreters do a disservice to Deaf learners when they do not frequently fingerspell the names of the relevant parties (over and over) thus preventing the Deaf learner from imprinting that person’s proper name in English.

Often technical vocabulary in any educational setting becomes key vocabulary the learner is expected to learn and apply. This means an interpreter must analyze the incoming message to gauge what information is critical for literacy development and/or testing. Meaning interpreters should prepare materials beforehand but also actively assess ‘what is important’ while interpreting.

Fingerspelling needs to be done strategically not in an effort to cover up a lack of knowledge or sign vocabulary (see Nicodemus & Emmorey, 2015). In other words, fingerspelling is not to be used as a crutch. Arbitrary and random fingerspelling ultimately thrusts the task of interpreting the fingerspelling and related content on the Deaf learner. And of course, anything fingerspelled needs to be didactic and with accuracy and clarity -think accurate, slow, hyperarticulation (see Wager, 2012).

Chaining & Sandwiching

In direct instruction settings – such as with a Teacher of the Deaf – new vocabulary is taught using Chaining in that a connection between the print, fingerspelling, and sign are made. For example: Tree (print English) + T-R-E-E (fingerspelled) + TREE (sign) et cetera. As interpreters in educational settings, we sometimes have the opportunity to chain items. For example, if the printed English text is on a PowerPoint slide, we can index toward that printed word, fingerspell it, and then use the sign.

More often, as interpreters though we should be Sandwiching the key vocabulary. This means we fingerspell the word, sign it, and then fingerspell it again. In other words, the sign is sandwiched between the fingerspelling. For example: T-R-E-E (fingerspelled) + TREE (sign) + T-R-E-E (fingerspelled). The Sandwich approach provides the Deaf learner the opportunity to link the fingerspelling to the sign.

Without implementing these strategies, the Deaf learner is thrown a new sign and has no way of linking it to the English text. For example: SOME TREE (sign) GROW QUICKLY. On a subsequent test or assessment, the Deaf learner is asked in printed English “Do all trees grow quickly?” The Deaf learner, without chaining or sandwiching the new sign, has no idea how to find it in the English sentence. Further without chaining or sandwiching the new sign the remainder of the information that is interpreted has no concrete English term to connect it to. Again, with the same example, the rest of the lesson about trees has nothing to link or connection for the remainder of the lesson. Replace the term tree with organism and the same principles apply.

The challenge for interpreters in educational settings is acknowledging chaining and sandwiching take time away from interpreting content. Interpreters must adapt and accept that strategic omissions to accommodate purposeful fingerspelling is not only necessary but a wise omission.

Compounding

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported “there are an estimated 171,146 words currently in use in the English language, according to the Oxford English Dictionary” (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2018). The top estimate of ASL signs, aka words, sums 10,000. This is a significant difference and most ASL learners quickly realize there is no word – sign equivalent.

Part of this reason is English has had a printed form for hundreds of years thus can document, preserve, and retain words. ASL follows oral traditions and does not have a way to write or record signs/words – until recently – TikTok included.

English is adept at taking words from other languages and adopting them into the lexicon. Words such as porcupine, barbeque, and beef were all stolen from native American languages, indigenous Australian languages, and French. English is full of such words, and we have long since forgotten the roots of this thievery. ASL has some borrowing from original Langue des Signes Française (LSF) – think of ASL signs WITH (avec) and SEARCH (cherchez). And ASL country signs such as JAPAN and CHINA – borrowed from those respective signed languages.

However, much of both English and ASL lexicon are the byproduct of compounding or fusing words in the same language. English frequently creates compound words, for example: note + book = notebook or blue + berry = blueberry, black + board = blackboard. Likewise, ASL has many examples of historical compounding – many ASL students learn of these compounds in their original form as a mnemonic. For example: brother (boy + same), student (learn + person), or breakfast (morning + eat). Ultimately, compounding often creates a new word or sign which is different from the composite parts of those words or signs.

Circling back to why this is key – often there are no commonly used ASL signs for much of English’s lexicon. Thus, many times there is no one-sign equivalent for an English word. In such cases ASL relies heavily on compounding. Interpreters who struggle with not knowing a particular sign – does not necessarily mean a vocabulary deficiency – it often means the concept needs to be conveyed by ASL compounding. Sadly, many interpreters abandon compounding and instead fingerspell words they do not know the sign for. Such fingerspelling is not strategic.

Sandwich with Compounds

Once an interpreter in educational settings recognizes a key vocabulary term, they need to sandwich that term with fingerspelling. The meat of the ‘sandwich’ includes the ASL signs – or compound of ASL signs – the interpreter chooses to represent that concept.

A simple example offered earlier with the English word tree. And tree has a single ASL sign TREE. But what about a more complex example that must use an ASL compound? For example, mitosis or when a cell divides resulting in two cells. Interpreters recognize the term mitosis is key vocabulary as learners will need to recognize that on a test and/or fully internalize the concept. Using the sandwich approach an interpreter fingerspells M-I-T-O-S-I-S and may sign BALL-SEPARATE 2-handed O, and fingerspell M-I-T-O-S-I-S again. The compound in the middle of this sandwich is really just showing the concept of a cell dividing. And pairing that conceptual compound with the fingerspelled English term. Another interpreter may use a different conceptual compound of signs – and that is okay. There is not one sign for mitosis – the key is for the learner to understand the concept as well as the English word.

Again, compounds need to clearly represent the concept. Before jumping to fingerspelling, the word, consider: What does this item do? What is its purpose? How can you describe it? And it is vital the new compound sign be used exactly the same each and every time.

Repetition

Too often interpreters will quickly fingerspell a concept or word a single time and then move on with the intention of including everything in the interpretation. The new vocabulary is often fingerspelled too quickly or sloppily (many interpreters do not like to fingerspell) making the single exposure unlikely to be understood, much less processed, and remembered.

We know repetition or multiple exposures to new vocabulary is vital. In fact, evidence indicates a student needs at least 12 or more exposures to a new word before a student can learn it (McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Pople, 1985; Reutzel & Cooter, 2004). The amount of repetition needed for a deaf student to remember new vocabulary is significantly more than that because of the phonological and coding differences of auditory language and signed language.

As such, interpreters in educational settings must sandwich or chain new vocabulary items each and every time they are used in a lesson (and even long after that lesson is over). One suggested heuristic is if the deaf learner can use the fingerspelled term and the sign or signed compound – suggests they have coded and remembered it.

Identifying the New Vocabulary

One significant challenge for any interpreter in education settings is knowing what the deaf learner knows or does not know. Of course, we cannot climb into another person’s brain, but over time interpreters in education settings begin to intuit what the deaf learner knows.

It is important to remember much of what non-deaf people know is acquired through overhearing information (Akhtar, Jipson & Callanan, 2001). For example, although we may not have actually been arrested most Americans know their Miranda Rights or the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. How we learned that be it from television shows et cetera was likely not from someone directly teaching us those rights (at least not initially). Deaf learners do not always have that advantage and often must learn most everything from direct instruction. This matters in that interpreters in education settings generally operate from a stance that much of what happens in a learning environment – particularly technical terms- are likely new to the deaf learner. Even things we sometimes take for granted.

Identifying those key vocabulary items can be as simple as looking at the teacher lesson plan, previewing the educator’s PowerPoint (a compounded word) slides, or skimming the textbook seeking out bold or italicized print. More challenging is recognizing key vocabulary while interpreters are actively interpreting. While some educators will occasionally write a key term on the whiteboard (note another compounded word) often interpreters in education settings must rely on prosodic speech cues from the educator. This can include a pitch shift, volume change, pace change (slowed down) et cetera to provide emphasis on this word or term.

Finally, some key vocabulary words are assumed to be known but may not be – thus there is no extra emphasis placed on these terms in spoken languages. This occurrence circles back to proper nouns and technical terms but also to developing an understanding of what the deaf learner’s background knowledge includes. When in doubt though, always sandwich or chain those key items – more is sometimes better.

In Sum

Fingerspelling of key words greatly assists Deaf learners in developing or enhancing their literacy skills in English and also does not set Deaf learners at a disadvantage when tested on such items. Interpreters also acknowledge that each interpretation will have some omissions and an effective interpretation makes such omissions deliberate to allow for strategic fingerspelling and additional time to either sandwich or chain key vocabulary. One challenging aspect of this skill set is identifying what vocabulary is vital – often prosodic cues are the only indication. The other challenge is letting go of notions of ‘what’s the sign for?’ and embracing compounding as the ASL linguistic strategy to convey concepts. And of course, repetition is important – fingerspelling an item one time is not going to be even remembered, much less learned. In all, the importance of fingerspelling well in any educational setting be it from elementary school to college classrooms and business meetings cannot be overstated.

Activities

Practice Suggestions

With a better understanding of why and how to present key vocabulary through fingerspelling – to hone identification skills – interpreters can practice using intralingual strategies (one language). For example, listen to a piece of stimulus materials in English and simply write down key vocabulary terms as you hear them. This looks like taking notes for a class. Once the text is completed, practice saying those items by spelling them, using a compound (not the English word), and spelling them again. All interlingually. It may sound like: S-K-U-N-K, a small black mammal with a white stripe that emits a bad odor, S-K-U-N-K. While it may seem odd to do, it will help hone an interpreter’s ability to employ compounding.

Next, begin interlingually consecutively interpreting a text from English to ASL stopping the stimulus when you encounter a key word, sandwiching that term, restart the stimulus and continue to consecutively interpret the material until the next key vocabulary item is noticed. Naturally, interpreters will want to video record this practice work to review after-the fact – to confirm what the interpreter thought they signed versus what they actually signed.

Lastly, begin interpreting simultaneously: identify the key vocabulary, sandwiching those items and continuing to interpret. This step will take some time to not only identify the terms while actively interpreting, but to also putting special emphasis on the sandwich. It takes significant practice to get accustomed to finding those key vocabulary items and to accept letting go of the incoming stimulus content until that sandwich process is completed. It is worth it though.

References

Akhtar, N., Jipson, J., & Callanan, M. A. (2001). Learning Words Through Overhearing. Child Development, 72(2), 416–430.

Alawad, H. & Musyoka, M. (2018). Examining the effectiveness of fingerspelling in improving the vocabulary and literacy skills of deaf students. Creative Education, (9), 456-468.

Barik, H. C. (1975). Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language and Speech, 18(3), 272–297.

British Broadcasting Corporation. (2018). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44569277

Cates, D. (2021). Patterns in EIPA test scores and implications for interpreter education. Journal of Interpretation, 29(1).

Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Revised edition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Haptonstall-Nykaza, T. & Schick B. (2007). The transition from fingerspelling to English print: Facilitating English decoding. Journal of Deaf Studies, 12(2), 172-183.

Kauling, E. (2015). From omission to mission. The influence of preparation and background knowledge on omissions in the sign language interpretation of a university lecture. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Heriot Watt University.

Johnson, L. J., Taylor, M. M., Schick, B., Brown, S., & Bolster, L. (2018). Complexities in educational interpreting: An investigation into patterns of practice. Interpreting Consolidated.

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 522–535.

Napier, J. (2004). Interpreting omissions: A new perspective. Interpreting, 6(2), 117-142.

Nicodemus, B., & Emmorey, K. (2015). Directionality in ASL-English interpreting: Accuracy and articulation quality in L1 and L2. Interpreting, 17(2), 145-166.

Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2004). Teaching Children to Read: Putting the Pieces Together. Fourth Edition. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice- Hall Publishing Company.

Roos, C. (2013). Young deaf children’s fingerspelling in learning to read and write: an ethnographic study in a signing setting. deafness & education international, 15(3), 149-178.

Stone, A., Kartheiser, G., Hauser, P. C., Petitto, L., & Allen, T. E. (2015). Fingerspelling as a novel gateway into reading fluency in deaf bilinguals. PLoS ONE, 10.

Wager, D. S. (2012). Fingerspelling in American Sign Language: A case study of styles and reduction. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Utah.