Article published In:
InterpretingVol. 18:1 (2016) ► pp.34–56
Lexical decisions and related cognitive issues in spoken and signed language interpreting
A case study of Obama’s inaugural address
This study examined omissions, errors, and variability in lexical selection across simultaneous interpretations of President Obama’s 2009 inaugural address, in three spoken languages (French, German, Japanese) and in American Sign Language (ASL). Microanalysis of how information conveyed by 39 source speech lexical items was transferred into the target languages assessed to what extent omissions and errors reflected differences in lexical structure (relative frequency of ready lexical correspondents and of shared cognates between the source and target languages; and, for ASL in particular, size of lexicon compared to English). The highest number of errors and omissions was found in ASL, which has the smallest documented vocabulary, fewest lexical correspondents, and no shared cognates with English. If omission/error rates in interpretation of lexical units are taken as a rough indicator of interpreting difficulty, results suggest that it is more difficult to interpret the speech into Japanese than into French or German and, by the same token, more difficult to interpret it into ASL than into the three spoken languages. These findings are consistent with the idea that language structures impact cognitive load during interpreting, and that interpreting effort increases in relation to the degree of difference between the source and target languages.
References (33)
Al-Fityani, K. & Padden, C. (2010). Sign languages in the arab world. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 433–450. 
Baker, C. & Cokely, D. (1980). American Sign Language: A teacher’s resource text on grammar and culture. Silver Spring, MD: TJ Publishers.
Battison, R. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
Brentari, D. & Padden, C.A. (2001). Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: A lexicon with multiple origins. In D. Bentari (Ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages: A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 87–120.
Brueck, P., Rode, J., Hessman, J., Meinicke, B., Unruh, D. & Bergmann, A. (2014). Diagnosing healthcare assignments: A year of medical interpreting for deaf people in Austria and Germany. In B. Nicodemus & M. Metzger (Eds.), Investigations in healthcare interpreting. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 128–184.
Canadian Association of the Deaf (2012). Statistics on Deaf Canadians. [URL] (accessed 2 July 2014).
Dudis, P. (2007). Types of depiction in ASL.
Unpublished manuscript
. Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.
Fan, C. (Damien) (2013). Sentence comprehension in expert and novice interpreters: An ERP study. PhD dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2011). Errors, omissions and infelicities in broadcast interpreting: Preliminary findings from a case study. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 201–218.
Hessman, J., Salmi, E., Turner, G.H. & Wurm, S. (2011). Developing and transmitting a shared interpreting research ethos: EUMASLI – a case study. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 177–198.
Janzen, T. (2005). Topics in sign language interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Johnston, T. (2003). Language standardization and signed language dictionaries. Sign Language Studies 3 (4), 431–468. Doi:
. (2012). Lexical frequency in sign languages. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 17 (2), 163–193. Doi:
Lederer, M. (1981). La pédagogie de la traduction simultanée. In J. Delisle (Ed.), L’enseignement de la traduction et de l’interprétation. Ottawa: Editions de l’université d’Ottawa, 47–74.
Leeson, L. (2011). ‘Mark my words’: The linguistic, social, and political significance of the assessment of signed language interpreters. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 185–232.
Liddell, S. (2003). Grammar, gesture and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Major, G. (2014). ‘Sorry could you explain that?’ Clarification requests in interpreted healthcare interaction. In B. Nicodemus & M. Metzger (Eds.), Investigations in healthcare interpreting. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 32–69.
McKee, D. & Kennedy, G. (2000). Lexical comparison of signs from American, Australian, British, and New Zealand Sign languages. In K. Emmorey & H. Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 43–73.
Metzger, M. (1995). Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf communities. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 255–271.
Mitchell, R.E. (2004). How many people use ASL? And other good questions without good answers. Paper given at Gallaudet University 7 April 2004. [URL] (accessed 15 October 2012).
Mitchell, R.E., Young, T.A., Bachleda, B. & Karchmer, M.A. (2006). How many people use sign language in the United States? Why estimates need updating. Sign Language Studies 6 (3), 306–335.
Nicodemus, B. & Swabey, L. (2014). Conveying medication prescriptions in American Sign Language. Translation & Interpreting 6 (1), 1–21.
Padden, C.A. (1988). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.
. (1998). The ASL lexicon. Sign Language and Linguistics 1 (1), 39–60.
Pointurier-Pournin, S. (2014). L’interprétation en Langue des Signes Française : contraintes, tactiques, efforts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and non-linearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris.
Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Seeber, K.G. & Kerzel, D. (2012). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data. International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (2), 228–242. Doi:
Seleskovitch, D. (1981). L’enseignement de l’interprétation. In J. Delisle (Ed.), L’enseignement de la traduction et de l’interprétation. Ottawa: Editions de l’université d’Ottawa, 23–46.
Stokoe, W.C., Casterline, D.C. & Croneberg, C.G. (1965). A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Woodward, J. (1973). Some observations on sociolinguistic variation and American Sign Language. Kansas Journal of Sociology 9 (2), 191–199.
Van den Bogaerde, B. & de Lange, R. (2014). Healthcare accessibility and the role of sign language interpreters. In B. Nicodemus & M. Metzger (Eds.), Investigations in healthcare interpreting. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 326–358.
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
Gabarró-López, Sílvia
2024. Towards a description of palm-up in bidirectional signed language interpreting. Lingua 300 ► pp. 103646 ff. 
Xu, Han & Kanglong Liu
2023. Syntactic simplification in interpreted English: Dependency distance and direction measures. Lingua 294 ► pp. 103607 ff.
Carrasco-Farré, Carlos
2022. The fingerprints of misinformation: how deceptive content differs from reliable sources in terms of cognitive effort and appeal to emotions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9:1
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020. Translation/Interpreting Product Research. In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 111 ff.
Jia, Haibo & Junying Liang
2020. Lexical category bias across interpreting types: Implications for synergy between cognitive constraints and language representations. Lingua 239 ► pp. 102809 ff.
Pöchhacker, Franz
2018. Media interpreting. In Reception Studies and Audiovisual Translation [Benjamins Translation Library, 141], ► pp. 253 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.