Domain 3:
Language Skills
This cluster of competencies relates to the use of American Sign Language and English. Click a button below to jump to a different domain.
An outline of a masculine presenting person signs LANGUAGE.
Through engaging with Domain 3, I have come to understand that language development is never incidental — it is intentional. A common assumption is that native language competence requires little attention, as though fluency in one's first language is simply a given. My experience in this program has challenged that assumption. Demonstrating superior proficiency and flexibility in English across a wide range of settings, with speakers of varying ages, backgrounds, and purposes, requires dedicated and ongoing practice. Native language skill is not a starting point one leaves behind; it is a resource that must be actively cultivated.
​
At the same time, my development in ASL has been central to my growth as a practitioner. Near-native communicative competence in a second language demands far more than vocabulary acquisition — it requires cultural fluency, adaptability, and the ability to meet a wide range of signers where they are. Throughout my program, I have worked to build both the linguistic and cultural dimensions of my ASL to enable me to work effectively across the variety of settings I will encounter in practice.
Domain 3 has reinforced for me that bilingual competence is not a threshold one crosses, but a capacity one continues to expand. I approach both my English and my ASL as living, developing tools — each dependent on consistent attention and humility. My goal is not to arrive at fluency, but to remain a practitioner who takes seriously the responsibility that language places on the interpreter. Below is a summary of the domain and artifacts that demonstrate proficiency in language skills.
Domain #3 Essay
In addition to gaining clarity on the feasibility of major plot points in the book, I valued the opportunity to practice speaking with someone in a higher register about a subject within their area of expertise. Quinn and I have had many conversations over the years about the space industry, but I have often asked him to simplify his language. In this video, I aimed to maintain a higher register without sounding stuffy, and I did not want Quinn to accommodate me as he typically does in our conversations.
​
Much of my ability to remain in that register and keep pace with the technical nature of Quinn's discourse came from drawing on vocabulary I knew to be typical of the setting. Some of these terms — such as spacewalk, payload bay, docking, and CAPCOM — were already familiar to me before reading the book. By confidently using them throughout the conversation, I was able to match the tone of the discourse, even in a setting where I am not fully comfortable. Additionally, in keeping with a more professional register, I took the lead in asking questions to keep the conversation structured and moving forward.
​
There are moments throughout the conversation where I make mistakes in lexical choice. The first comes at 6:49, when I incorrectly refer to the tethers used during spacewalks as "umbilical cords." In the moment, I recognized that something felt off and asked for clarification. Quinn offered the correction, and I made a point to use the proper term when the topic came up again shortly after, closing out that section of the conversation with a comment about how I would feel if I were not tethered to the shuttle. A second instance involves a term that was new to me: "shirt-sleeve environment," which Quinn used to describe the environment inside the shuttle cabin. I initially misheard it as "short-sleeve environment," and when I attempted to use it around 11:09, I caught myself and questioned it. Quinn provided the correction, and I was able to incorporate it going forward.
​
There were also moments when I felt genuinely challenged by the discourse. At 7:53, I had the opportunity to ask Quinn what an airlock is. Although I had reviewed a diagram of the shuttle beforehand to better understand its function, I was still unclear on the mechanics. Quinn's explanation helped, but I still found it difficult to picture how the catastrophe in the book occurred. Ultimately, I concluded that the gap in my understanding was likely due to ambiguous writing rather than something I was failing to grasp in the moment.
​
A second challenging moment begins around 24:00, when I question Quinn about how dangerous the one-centimeter gap in the payload bay doors truly was. As he began explaining the aerodynamics of re-entry and thermal protection, I attempted to connect the new information to something more familiar by relating it to his current project. The connection was incorrect, and Quinn pointed that out. I then tried again, this time drawing a parallel to the Apollo lander, which helped me understand why I had made the initial mistake — part of the Apollo lander does re-enter the atmosphere, so the comparison was not entirely unfounded. While the moment was briefly uncomfortable, I was able to recover and continue the discussion without losing the thread of the conversation.
​
Overall, this experience reflects my ability to actively participate in high-level discourse in a setting outside my comfort zone. I was able to adapt my vocabulary, use domain-specific terminology with confidence, and accept corrections gracefully when I made mistakes. Going forward, I recognize that deepening my background knowledge before entering technical conversations would allow me to engage more fluidly and with greater confidence, particularly when unexpected topics arise.
​
As an interpreter, having linguistic flexibility in my native language is essential, as I will be called upon to interpret across a wide variety of topics and settings. With that in mind, I am actively building knowledge and vocabulary in subjects outside my comfort zone and challenging myself to match the register and language use of those around me, even in everyday conversations. This conversation served as a meaningful reminder that growth in this area comes not only from formal study, but from the willingness to engage — and occasionally stumble — in the moment.
Competency 3.1
To show my current abilities in this competency, I decided to record a spontaneous conversation in English. As a native English speaker, I am quite comfortable conversing in a wide range of settings. To demonstrate this competency, I wanted to challenge myself by engaging in a conversation on a topic outside my comfort zone.​
I realized I had a great opportunity to talk with my husband, Quinn Kupec, who is quickly becoming an expert in aerospace engineering. While I have learned a great deal about his work over the years, the more technical aspects can still be difficult to grasp.
​
To help guide the conversation, I recalled the plot of a book I had recently read: Atmosphere by Taylor Jenkins Reid. While the book is fiction, it is set in the 1980s NASA Space Shuttle Program. As I was reading, I found myself wondering how accurate the technical details were, so I took the opportunity to ask Quinn how feasible some of the plot points are.
The conversation challenged me to maintain a more professional register, having agreed beforehand to maintain a more formal tone, and to communicate my questions clearly while fully understanding the responses I received. In doing so, I remained fully engaged in the interaction.
​
Please see our conversation below. It did go longer than anticipated, so a summary can be found here as well to provide context to our full conversation. I will reflect further on specific moments with timestamps below.
​Demonstrate superior proficiency and flexibility in one’s native language (L1) by effectively communicating in a wide range of situations, with speakers of various ages and backgrounds.
Video Language: English with Captions. Video Visual Description: The recording is a split-screen video call featuring two participants. On the left is Quinn Kupec, a young man with short brown hair wearing a light blue button-up shirt, seated in a softly blurred home office setting. On the right is Megan Kupec, a young woman with shoulder-length, curly, dark hair with bangs and dark-framed glasses, wearing a dark cardigan over a purple top, seated against a neutral gray background. Both participants face the camera directly, with their names displayed in the lower-left corners of their respective frames.
Competency 3.2
To reflect my current conversational ASL skills, I reached out to Kristen Suiter, a Deaf professional I have crossed paths with on another professional endeavor. I decided to contact her for this competency because I knew she would challenge me and not adjust her language use to be overly accommodating, as one of my Deaf friends might. I have met her before, but I am not intimately familiar with her signing style, which reflects how I communicate with someone I don't know well, providing a realistic representation of the kind of communicative flexibility this competency asks me to demonstrate.
​
Through the conversation, we discussed her recent move to Arizona and the contrast between the weather there and in Seattle, including random spring Seattle snow, my upcoming graduation, internship, and subsequent plans. Related to my internship, she provided helpful information about what to expect in Texas, both culturally and linguistically. We discussed topics related to school interpreting and what the school environment is like these days, and ended the conversation with her wishing me well in my future endeavors, as I expressed gratitude for her time.
​
This conversation is not a demonstration of a language I have finished learning. It is a snapshot of one that is still expanding, that is shaped by every interaction, every correction accepted, and every moment I choose to stay curious rather than comfortable. Going into the conversation, I felt a little nervous, because I do not like misunderstandings. However, spontaneous language use can lead to misunderstandings, especially when someone is using their second language. I knew it would be important for me to use effective strategies to navigate those moments rather than let them disrupt the flow of communication.​​
Video Language: ASL. Video Visual Description: The recording is a split-screen video call featuring two participants. On the left is Kristen Suiter, a young woman with long brown hair in a ponytail, wearing a white-and-brown checkered sweater, seated in front of a plain white wall. On the right is Megan Kupec, a young woman with shoulder-length, curly, dark hair with bangs and dark-framed glasses, wearing a light green cardigan over a black top with a scalloped neckline, seated against a neutral gray background. Both participants face the camera directly, with their names displayed in the lower-left corners of their respective frames.
One of the most important strategies I demonstrated in this conversation was asking for clarification when needed rather than smiling and nodding. That was something I used to do early in my language development. I now understand how imperative it is to ask for clarification when I miss something. It is not a sign of weakness or lack of skill; I view it as a sign of care and diligence. This was evident at 10:37, when Kristen fingerspelled "square root." She had been signing for a few seconds, but I was not expecting the fingerspelling. By asking her to repeat herself, I ensured I did not miss anything, and our communication continued clearly.
​
At around 6:38, Kristen asked me where my internship was. When I told her I was going to Houston, I fingerspelled it and then attempted to sign it, but felt one of the parameters was off. I made a quizzical face to let her know I was not confident in the sign I was using, and she offered me the correct sign, as the initial sign I had used had the incorrect palm orientation. I thanked her and corrected the sign. This was a quick and easy way to accept the correction and to thank her not only for her patience but also for her help. I did not need to over-apologize or dwell on the mistake. We moved on seamlessly.
​
There were also smaller moments of self-correction throughout the conversation, such as at about 5:32, when I signed the agent marker at the end of INTERNSHIP, inadvertently producing the sign INTERN instead. I caught the error, self-corrected, and continued on. These smaller mistakes were not as big a hurdle as I had been anxious about before our conversation. I had the awareness to catch them, correct them, and move forward.
​
One strategy I often use when conversing with Deaf signers is to observe their language use and adopt the signs they use, both to ensure clarity and to show respect. With so many regional and generational differences in ASL, mirroring the signs used by the people I am communicating with demonstrates linguistic flexibility and shows that I am truly present with them in the moment. In this conversation, I was not fully confident in the parameters of the sign for Arizona, so I waited until Kristen used it and made a mental note in case I needed to use it later.
​
The portion of our conversation where we discussed regional differences was particularly valuable, not only because it happened right before I left for my internship in Texas, but also because I gained knowledge from Kristen's expertise as a native-language user who has lived in many regions across the country. When these regional signs came up during my internship, I was more prepared because of what she had shared with me. This is exactly the kind of expansion I cannot plan for because it happens in relationships, in real conversations, in the willingness to keep showing up as a learner. This part of our conversation reminded me that I am always learning from the Deaf community around me, especially those who have a heart for supporting new interpreters.
​
Throughout the conversation, I utilized more overt backchanneling strategies than I typically do when conversing with hearing people. After spending time in the Deaf community and engaging with Deaf culture, I learned that these behaviors are important for showing that you are understanding and engaged. In this conversation, I used a lot of nodding, the "OH-I-SEE" sign, and the phrases UNDERSTAND and INTERESTING, along with facial expressions and comments to show engagement. These were well received by Kristen, and she backchanneled to me when it was my turn to lead the discourse.
​
Another moment that reflected cultural competence came at about the 15-minute mark. Prior to the recording, I had told Kristen I only needed about 10 minutes captured. Once we hit 15 minutes, I was about to signal that we could wrap up, out of respect for her time. At the same moment, she began asking me a few more questions. Rather than cut her off, I continued the conversation. This was a choice that felt reminiscent of what has been coined in the Deaf community as "the Deaf goodbye," where Deaf people like to take their time wrapping up conversations. Knowing this, I wanted to be respectful, and I was enjoying our chat, so I let go of the initial instinct to wrap up. We didn't carry on much longer, and eventually I thanked her for her time, signaling to her that we could stop the recording. It wasn't difficult to navigate, but it was an important reminder to remain culturally competent even in casual conversation to avoid unintentionally offending.
​
One thing that has emerged in my second-language use is that sometimes my processing time is longer, and I take unnatural pauses. When I was building fluency in ASL, a turning point came when I noticed these pauses and, upon reflection, realized they were present in my English use as well. Although they were less noticeable, they were still there. I believe this is connected to my ADHD and how it affects processing. Upon recognizing this feature of my language use in both languages, I have worked to smooth out those pauses, and I have seen improvement.
​
However, these pauses still pop up in my language use. One instance of this became apparent at about 18 minutes into the conversation. I remember not being sure how I wanted to express what I was thinking. I noticed the unnatural pauses affecting the clarity of my message, so I took a moment to collect my thoughts and restructure them. After doing so, I was better able to articulate my response. This showed me that when unnatural pauses begin to accumulate, it can be helpful to pause intentionally before continuing. This is a strategy I will carry forward as I continue to develop in both languages.
​
This conversation with Kristen demonstrated my ability to communicate effectively in ASL with a native signer who did not accommodate my language use. By asking for clarification, accepting and offering corrections, mirroring regional signs, applying Deaf cultural norms, and employing self-monitoring strategies, I maintained clear, meaningful communication across a range of topics. While there are areas I continue to develop, particularly around processing and pacing, I have the self-awareness and the tools to navigate those moments effectively.
​
What this conversation reflects most, though, is not a destination reached but a capacity still expanding. My ASL is a living, developing skill and one that grows through consistent attention, humility, and time spent in authentic relationships with the Deaf community. I do not approach this language as something I have arrived at. I approach it as something that is still becoming.​​​​​​​​​
Demonstrate near-native like communicative competence and flexibility in one’s second language (L2) by effectively communicating in a variety of routine personal and professional situations with native and non-native speakers of varying ages, race, gender, education, socio-economic status, and ethnicity.
References
Witter‑Merithew, A., & Johnson, L. J. (2005). Toward competent practice: Conversations with stakeholders. Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.
​
Note: AI was used to check grammar and clarity, but the ideas and writing are my own.