|Exceeds expectations; creative techniques successfully employed; exemplary result
|Meets expectations; successful result
|Adequate use of techniques; some minor adjustments needed; result is intelligible
|Below expectations; result is confused
|Result is distorted
Target mode rendering matched the source mode message
Dynamic equivalent met, very few errors.
Dynamic equivalent met – meaning is present. Any errors are isolated and do not represent a pattern
Meaning is present. Equivalent, but not dynamically equivalent
Meaning is distorted – some correct concepts remain, but they are confused, juxtaposed, or otherwise garbled.
Meaning not present, completely incorrect
|English Word order
Produces signs in English word order
Prescriptive grammar used, but not to the point where it distracts from the message – descriptive grammar used properly for affect, formulaic English – dynamic equivalent to spoken English utterance.
Signs produced in a visually accessible manner.
Large percentage of interpretation includes prescriptive English grammar in a visually accessible manner. A smaller percentage includes successful descriptive grammar.
Grammar mistakes are present to the point of occasional distraction, and are made by interpreter, not speaker.
Grammatical errors present to the point of confusion of message
Errors garble the interpretation to the point of changing the message to make it incorrect
Target mode produced using ASL features paralinguistically to make signed English more visually accessible and conceptual on the sign selection, and phrasal level.
| Concepts clearly produced using NMMs, spatialization,referencing, and other visual supports while still using English word order and mouthing English.
Chooses signs that are more visually friendly with the same meaning even if it is not exactly how the speaker is saying it.
Technical jargon used taking the audience and speaker’s level of expertise into account, words are pronounced correctly, phrased correctly, and the interpretation accurately depicts the signer’s level of knowledge on subject matter. If the signer shows lack of knowledge, the interpreter does not “make up for it” in the interpretation.
| Concepts produced using NMMs, spatialization,referencing, and other visual supports while still using English word order and mouthing English.
Technical jargon used taking the audience and speaker’s level of expertise into account. Any non-jargon or lay-person language is integrated smoothly into the interpretation without hesitation or verbal stumbling. Any “stumbling” by the signer is matched by the interpreter
|Language used is understandable, however the audience has to mentally translate the verbiage used; an obvious effort on the part of the interpreter to “find the words” is present that is not present in the signed utterance.
| Using signs exactly as the speakers say it whether or not this is visually accessible.
Lack of understanding of content and/or comprehension of signs results in inappropriate verbiage.
| Using signs exactly as the speakers say it whether or not this is visually accessible.
Lack of understanding of content and/or comprehension of signs results in distortion of message.
Rendering Formulaic English
The source mode tones, emphases, cultural cues, and unique usage of words (humor, in-group uses, etc.) are dynamically equivalent in the target mode.
| Tone of voice and all facial expression and body language are successfully rendered from the source mode. Uses NMMs appropriately, employed to express the meaning of “hearing culture” phrases. Exact signs for words are not used unless the literal translation is also idiomatic.
Expansion used when the point depends on auditory cues.
|Tone of voice and all facial expression and body language are successfully rendered from the source mode. Uses NMMs appropriately, employed to express the meaning of “hearing culture” phrases.
|Interpretation uses some glossing and although the equivalent is there it is not dynamic
|Heavy use of glossing, paralinguistics of source mode speaker not taken into account. Any clarity is serendipitous.
|Heavy use of glossing, result is completely incorrect.
Linguistic and paralinguistic features that communicate meaning including head nods, facial expressions, blinks, eye gaze, use of space, speed/length of sign, and body language.
|Interpreter is occupying appropriate signing space, Non-manual markers are used efficiently at an advanced level, parameters are produced crisply and at a fluent level, signing is fluid.
|Interpreter is occupying appropriate signing space most of the time, Non-manual markers are present but sometimes interpreter uses a sign when a NMM would be more appropriate. Parameters are clear, signing is not choppy.
| Interpreter’s signing space is mostly appropriate although sometimes hands/arms stray outside or pulls too tightly inside grammatically correct space. NMMs are used rarely although the signs used instead are understandable if not the most appropriate choice.
Some parameters are odd. Sign production is sometimes choppy.
|Interpreter’s signing space is inappropriate resulting in incorrect parameter production some of the time. Few if any NMMs, or used incorrectly. Sign production is often choppy.
|Interpreter’s signing space is used incorrectly – leading to parameter shifts that change overall meaning of utterance. Few or no NMMs or used incorrectly. Sign production is choppy leading to misunderstandings.
Time elapsed between SL utterance and TL interpretation
|CI: Waited until the SL message was completely uttered before beginning TL interpretation – activities such as notetaking, and other augmenting activities used.
SI: Waited until an entire unit of meaning is uttered in SL before beginning interpretation in TL. Continuously adjusts time to compensate for linguistic and situational needs.
| CI: Waited until the SL message was completely uttered before beginning TL interpretation
SI: Waited until an entire unit of meaning is uttered in SL before beginning interpretation in TL.. Generally maintains time to the point that other features are able to be used.
| CI: Waited until the SL message was uttered before beginning TL interpretation, however may have mistook a pause for an ending.
SI: Waited until most of a unit of meaning is uttered in SL before beginning interpretation in TL, however, any success isn’t maintained consistently and other features sound distracting because of it.
|CI: Interpreter is often confused about where the utterance ends so is unable to find a complete chunk of meaning in SL before beginning interpretation into TL
SI: Not enough time allowed to gather an entire concept before attempting interpretation and/or successful time lag not maintained.
| CI: Apparent confusion about the difference between CI and SI, manifests as jumping in to interpret at every perceived pause.
SI: Not enough time allowed between SL utterance and TL interpretation to let the interpreting process work, nor any of the other features take hold.
Level of environmental, linguistic, and paralinguistic formality
|Intent, language, and other features quickly and correctly analyzed and applied. Successful and continuous adjustments made for register shifts.
|Intent, language, and other features quickly and correctly analyzed and applied. Adjustments present, but not continuous
|Intent, language, and other features analyzed and applied. One or two areas not present – e.g. environmental register successful but linguistic not, or vice versa. Adjustments rare or not present.
|Register is only rarely correct, Adjustments not present
|Register is incorrect, Adjustments not present
display of intent of speaker including emotions, innuendos, eFingertc.
|Interpretation successfully includes SL utterance intent, emotions, knowledge of the content, register, dynamically-equivalent paralinguistics, etc. Interpreter’s “acting” skills renders interpretation sounding as if it is coming directly from the speaker.
|TL interpretation represents the intent and dynamic-equivalent of the SL
|Interpretation represents the linguistic and emotions of speaker, however some of the interpreter’s personality/emotions, interpreting struggle, etc. “bleeds through” to the point of slight distraction
|More of the interpretation represents the interpreter’s personality/emotions, interpreting struggle, etc.than the speaker’s. The signs/words may seem to match on the surface, but the intent is not rendered.
|The speaker’s message is garbled/misunderstood due to incorrect rendering of emotions, intent, and/or the personality/emotions, interpreting struggle, etc.of the interpreter.
| Fingerspelling & Numbers
Rendering necessary spelled words and numeric utterances in a clear manner.
|Numerical and lexical-level signs are produced using the proper grammatical rules of ASL. Letters are not produced singly – rather as a part of a whole word unless producing an initialism, numbers are produced according to appropriate category, and there is a clear differentiation between lexicalized fingerspelled words and plain fingerspelling
|Numeric and lexical-level signs are produced clearly and adhere to grammatical rules the majority of the time. Context provides clarity despite the few errors.
|Numeric and lexical-level signs are sometimes produced according to ASL rules. Context helps to clear up mistakes but there is still some confusion.
|Signs are produced with sporadic attention to ASL grammar rules. Context helps a bit but the overall interpretation is unclear.
|Signs are produced without attention to ASL grammar rules and are produced sloppily. Context does not help clarity.
Fixing message due to interpreter error, omission, or misunderstanding
|Repair is smooth, message is now correct, and words and/or phrases employed are in keeping with proper register and don’t call any undue attention to the interpreter
|Repair is smooth, message is now correct, no undue attention to the interpreter
|. Repair doesn’t necessarily completely fix the sentence, subsequent repairs may now be necessary due to time taken in repairing, words and phrases used to make the repair sound stilted and may bring a little too much attention to the interpreter
|Repair is choppy and does not correct the message. Words or phrases employed are unclear and can be easily misunderstood by listener as part of the message. Undue attention called to the interpreter
|Repair is non-existent, choppy and/or incorrect – making the message worse than the original mistake. Any words or phrases call undue attention to the interpreter
how other features combine to make a cohesive product
|All other features “very effective” and meld together smoothly
|Interpretation makes sense to the eye and contextually.
|There is overall sense, however a few errors or glitches appear and are distracting to the eye
|Meaning is confused due to one or more feature usage (i.e. “operator error”)
|Meaning is completely off – usually due to clash between comprehension and at least one other feature
|“Poker face” throughout. Interpreter is able to maintain a professional demeanor in appearance, vocal quality, eyes, and body language even if the interpretation and/or environment becomes distressing. If any help is needed, the interpreter asks for it calmly.
|Interpreter maintains professional demeanor throughout the interpretation. If any help is needed the interpreter asks for it calmly.
|The interpreter is able to maintain professional demeanor through voice or appearance, but not consistently and/or not both. Voice may sound appropriate while face looks distressed. During SL message intake the interpreter my let “sighs” go, or extremities may shake. Any help is asked for with obvious nervousness.
|Interpreter is not able to maintain a professional demeanor. The face, voice, eyes, body, and style of asking for help all betray nervousness and/or the interpreter’s feelings about the content/participants.
|Interpreter breaks-down and p