Perception Swap:

Analyzing the audiences perception of a voice interpretation

Lauren Jacoby and Sydney Barker
INTR 2000: Research

Jacoby, Barker
Introduction
Have you ever felt as though your words were not your own? Have you ever heard a
story that did not seem realistic? Typically, when a presenter stands on stage, all eyes are on
him. People take in the information and believe it as truth. However, when a Deaf presenter
presents in front of an audience, there is a language barrier requiring an interpreter to breach that
obstacle. How does the interpreter, or second hand presenter, influence the audiences
perception of the Deaf presenter?
Purpose of our study. The audiences perception of a Deaf presenter may be skewed by
the interpreters work. Our research hopes to illuminate the reason for this change of opinion
and why it occurred. When interpreting, an interpreter attempts to remain neutral; however,
ones own experience and schema always influence an interpretation. Each interpreters output
and production of a topic will differ. We wanted to determine the specific qualities of an
interpreter that alters the audiences view of the presenter. This study builds awareness about
voice interpreting skills that interpreters should focus on in order to produce a fluid, coherent
message. By analyzing these behaviors, interpreters can be more cognizant of certain
characteristics of a speech, such as pauses or use of filler words, that influence an audiences
assessment of a presenter.
Hypothesis. Our original hypothesis focused on the interpreters perspectives of their
own delivery, stating that interpreters will be more cognizant of their deliverys effect on the
audience. However, after initially analyzing our research, we altered our research question to
include what we thought would be an interesting fact which turned out to be the main focus of
our research. We found that the audiences perception proved increasingly important so we

Jacoby, Barker
changed the research focus to be how the audiences perceives the signer even though the
interpreter is speaking.
Literature Review
Initially, we formed our hypothesis after reading an article about a study conducted at
Northeastern University. Their graduate students researched spoken English formality by
analyzing various interpreters Sign to Voice samples. They focused on behaviors that they
deemed informal such as the use of conjunctions at the beginning or end of a sentence, filler
words, contractions, and vague language. Northeasterns research examined five interpreters
between the ages of 25-35 with a maximum of ten years of experience interpreting. The students
evaluated the interpreters recordings and counted the errors in each segment. Originally, we
found Northeasterns study of English formality intriguing. However, after thinking about the
topic in relation to the Deaf Community, we became fascinated by the audiences opinion of the
interpreters representation of a signer. We hoped to review the ways an interpreters skills and
fluidity reflect on the signer, rather than the interpreter. We thought that the audience would be
harsh on the presenter even though the fault may lie with the interpreters skill level.
Once we began reading and deciding on our own research, we found we were more
interested in the audiences perception than the formality of language used. We hoped to use a
sample audience to inform us about an interpreters voicing skills. We wanted to research this
specific topic, Sign to Voice interpreting, because often interpreters do not use their voicing
skills so it is hard to develop these abilities. Interpreters typically feel more comfortable signing
because as hearing people, it is uncomfortable to make a mistake that one can hear versus a
signed mistake.

Jacoby, Barker
Methodology
We followed our plan by using four interpreters, two males and two females with a
minimum of ten years of interpreting experience, all currently working in Utah. The interpreters
had various backgrounds including completion of an ITP or growing up with Deaf parents. We
adhered to our timeline by contacting the interpreters and having them complete the voice
interpretations by November 7th. Upon completion of the interpretation, we had the interpreters
fill out a short survey asking about their backgrounds, years of interpreting experience, and
degrees (see Appendix B for the Interpreter Survey). After submitting their interpretations to
YouTube, we decided upon four public speaking classes at Salt Lake Community College to
whom we presented the interpretations the week of November 14th. The public speaking classes
listened to the voiced presentations and filled out surveys (see Appendix A for the Student
Survey) giving their opinions about the interpreters talents. Our survey consisted of questions
about the interpreters fluidity when speaking and if the story was enjoyable. We did not inform
the classes that the speakers were interpreting a story so our final question asked if their
perceptions changed when we enlightened them that the speech was interpreted.
Analysis Plan. After we collected the survey from the four public speaking classes, we
realized we needed a strategy to analyze the information as a whole. Therefore, we decided to
input the information into Google Forms to better examine the results. From our results we
recognized that our alpha level error rate is moderately affecting our results at statistical rate of
0.3, because of our many variables at play. For example, the diversity of the classrooms.
Validity and reliability. Our tests which consisted of surveys handed out to the class
were valid, yet not very reliable. We relied on opinion based research which can alter depending

Jacoby, Barker
on the sample group. Our scope was very limited in that we only received four interpretation
samples and only conducted survey analyses in four public speaking classes. A bigger pool of
interpreters and people analyzing the interpreters work would have provided a better idea of a
large populations thoughts about interpreted presentations. Also, our survey sample consisted of
mostly college age students. Had we surveyed a more diverse population, our results may have
differed.
Assumptions. When we handed out the surveys we did not alert the classes that the story
was interpreted. After reviewing the data, many people said the pauses affected their ability to
enjoy the story. The students reported that discovering it was an interpreted story changed their
opinions because the pauses had meaning. If we had disclosed the fact that the story was
interpreted in the beginning, many students would have taken the pauses into account instead of
thinking that the speaker struggled to tell the story. An interpreter needs time to process and
most people understand that concept; however, the student believed the pauses sounded
unnatural and affected their opinion of the storyteller until we told them the segment was
interpreted giving meaning to the longer than normal pauses. We know this to be true because
the majority of students stated in their surveys that the results (their opinions) after learning the
story was interpreted would have been very different.
Results
After collecting all the surveys, we sat down to read the student's responses. It was
interesting to read the perspectives of people who are uninformed about the interpreting process
and interpreters. Some of the students believed the interpreter should have disclosed that the
story was not theirs and that they were interpreting. Since our goal was to determine the

Jacoby, Barker
audiences perception of the signer, we had one student respond in a very telling way. He said,
I wondered about the Deaf persons educational background and abilities with grammar because
the interpreter struggled with grammar and had many pauses. This shows that the interpreters
speaking abilities reflected heavily on the audience. When interpreting, interpreters need to be
careful to match the signers level of signing, expressions, and tone so they do not portray the
wrong image to the audience. We found that the interpretation does affect the audiences
perception of the Deaf storyteller.
Conclusions
In summary, we had the four interpreters interpret a video stimulus of a Deaf storyteller.
We shared the samples with four public speaking classes. As they listened, their perceptions
were skewed because many of the students assumed that the stimulus they were listening to was
someone sharing their own personal experience. We had each student fill out a survey
evaluating grammatical errors, fluidity, and naturalness of the speaker. We collected the data,
analyzed it, and made our final conclusions of the audiences perception of the video.
After we collected our data from the public speaking classes we recognized that voice
interpretations do reflect upon the Deaf presenter. This research project has helped us be more
self analytic and aware of our formality when we are voice interpreting. Looking at the collected
data, we recognized that our interpretations have a big impact upon the person we represent. If
we speak incoherently, use many filler words, and/or join our sentences with conjunctions, the
audience believes that these are traits the Deaf presenter uses. Interpreters reading this study
should recognize that their errors reflect on the signer and to be aware of their weaknesses. If
interpreters practice voice interpreting more and learn to analyze their work in the moment, they

Jacoby, Barker
can avoid and/or repair many of the errors mentioned to produce a clearer message for the
audience.
Recommendations. During our discussions about our research, we decided this study is
heuristic, meaning more research needs to be done. As mentioned above, we did not disclose
that the story was interpreted; however, if we had revealed that, we may have received different
results and come to various conclusions. The majority of the students said their perceptions
changed when learning that the story was interpreted. It would have been interesting to see the
students opinions if they had known the whole time that the story was interpreted.

If one were

to continue this research, we would also recommend using a more diverse audience. Our
audiences were comprised of students in public speaking classes, but gaining more insight from a
variety of people from different walks of life may have proved valuable.
Moving forward, we want to use our research study to motivate us to improve our voice
interpreting abilities. In the program, we focus on advancing our ASL skills; however, this
project emphasizes the importance of developing all of our skills so that we can interpret in any
situation that may arise in our future careers. As ITP students, we should approach our friends,
peers, and interpreters to analyze our work. With feedback from a diverse group of people we
can see the effect we have on an audience. By continuing to self analyse our work, we can build
our skills which allow us to repair errors while interpreting. This is an important skill because
we want the audience to get a clear, correct picture of the signer and not be influenced greatly by
the interpreters errors. Though no interpretation is perfect, we strive to portray the most accurate
image of the client possible.

Jacoby, Barker

References

Meghan K. McCombs (2015). Patterns of Informality in Spoken English Interpretation, 1-15.

Appendix A
Student Survey
Your age: ____________
Gender: Male

Female

1: Strongly Disagree

2: Disagree 3: Somewhat

4: Agree

5: Strongly Agree

Speaker is articulate; enunciates clearly

1

Speaker speaks fluently without distracting behaviors (awkward pauses, filler words, etc.)
1

Speaker uses a wide range of vocabulary that matches the setting of the story
1

Speaks grammatically correct English

1

The speaker delivers an understandable story

1

Do you think this person is telling their own story or another persons story? Yes
No
Why? ______________________________________________________________________

Would you enjoy listening to this person present another story?

1

Jacoby, Barker
Why? ______________________________________________________________________

Appendix B
Interpreter Survey
Level of Education: (circle one)
HS

AA/AAS

Bachelors degree

Masters degree

What was your major? ________________________________

What is your level of certification? _______________________
Did you complete an ITP?

Yes

No

Years of experience interpreting: ________

Are you a CODA or have Deaf family members?

Yes

Did you serve an ASL mission for the LDS church? Yes

No
No

Did you feel confident in your message delivery?

___________________________________________________________________

Jacoby, Barker
Appendix C
Interpreter #1 Results

Jacoby, Barker

Jacoby, Barker

Jacoby, Barker
Appendix D
Interpreter #2 Results

Jacoby, Barker

Jacoby, Barker

Jacoby, Barker

Appendix E
Interpreter #3 Results

Jacoby, Barker

Jacoby, Barker

Jacoby, Barker
Appendix F
Interpreter #4 Results

Jacoby, Barker

Jacoby, Barker