Entry | Signed language interpreting

INTERNATIONAL SIGN Video version SPA Interpretación de lengua de signos

Introduction

To those outside of this field, the term sign language interpreter is a commonly used phrase. However, over the past twenty years there has been a shift in the research and practice of interpreting to use the phrase signed language as it is the grammatical equivalent of spoken language and to use sign language when referring to a specific language, such as American Sign Language or Colombian Sign Language (Janzen 2005). Professional signed language interpreting emerged relatively recently in the history of interpreting. The first professional training programs were established in the 1960s (Ball 2013) in the United States and since that time countries around the world have implemented training at the post-secondary level, including master and doctoral level programs. While the provision of signed language interpreting is often framed as a disability issue, it is a human right and as such is identified in various international conventions such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and in specific human rights legislations of many countries. It is not uncommon now to see signed language interpreters working in a variety of multilingual events, alongside their spoken language interpreter colleagues.

Like spoken language interpreting, the cognitive demands are intense for signed language interpreters. Signed language interpreters not only interpret between two languages but two language modalities, a spoken language and a signed language. For example, spoken Spanish and Peruvian Sign Language, or English and New Zealand Sign Language. Signed language interpreters work in a variety of settings, from community or public service appointments, conferences, medical and mental health contexts, legal and courtroom settings, government proceedings such as parliamentary debates, and media, to name but a few. They also employ both modes of interpreting, simultaneous and consecutive, depending on the nature of the assignment.

Another consequence of the cognitive fatigue shared with spoken language interpreters is that for many assignments, they work within interpreting teams, to ensure the work is of the highest quality and accuracy. Signed language interpreters may experience physical injuries based on the musculoskeletal demands of moving the hands, arms, and torso in creating the signs. Hence working conditions must allow for sufficient rest between shifts of interpreting, and working in teams is one aspect of an effective working environment that can also prevent injuries.

Signed language interpreters work with the content that they are hearing and seeing, in order to produce a meaningful interpretation product, capturing the content, context, purpose, style and tone of the interlocutors. Interpreters prepare for assignments and are trained in strategies and techniques to manage the complexity, pace, and interaction demands of a setting and the parties involved in the interaction.

Signed language interpreters are sometimes referred to as translators although interpreting and translation are two distinct areas of practice. Translation usually refers to producing a written target language form from a written source language form, and translation allows for the translator to prepare, edit, and revise; hence the product is not one that is produced immediately like in the case of interpreting. Signed language translation is also an increased area of demand as consumers seek to have signed language translations of government documents, websites and standard content such as national anthems, introductions to jury service, museum exhibits, or literary works such as poetry. The final product is a digital permanent translation, similar to a final written translation.

Isn’t sign language universal?

Wilkenson & Morford's (2024) textbook Understanding Signed Languages

Signed language interpreting requires fluency in one or more spoken and signed languages. There are over 200 distinct and documented sign languages recognized worldwide. These are natural languages used by Deaf and Deafblind communities and are constructed using visual phonological parameters—including handshape, location, palm orientation, and movement—that function as the building blocks of meaning (Stokoe, Casterline & Cronberg 1965). They possess their own grammar, syntax, and lexicon, and are not merely signed versions of spoken languages (Stokoe, Casterline & Cronberg 1965; Sutton-Spence & Woll 1999). For instance, while many spoken languages follow a subject–object–verb order, some signed languages function as topic–comment languages. Moreover, like spoken languages, signed languages exhibit regional variations in lexicon—often influenced by geographic, cultural, or age-related factors—and continue to evolve as communities incorporate new knowledge. It is important to note that interpreting for Deafblind individuals involves unique challenges, as it requires a deep understanding of both tactile communication methods and visual adjustments. These interpreters must adapt their skills and environment to accommodate the varying needs of individuals with different degrees of vision loss (Petronio 2010).

Historical research began in the 1960s with studies documenting unique features of sign languages such as American Sign Language, British Sign Language, and LIBRAS (the sign language used in Brazil). Yet, there is ample evidence that sign languages have been in use long before modern research emerged; for example, the Tang Dynasty in China identified the documented “hand language” for words (Yang 2008). In some countries, multiple signed languages coexist, reflecting the rich linguistic diversity within a nation. For example, Switzerland recognizes four signed languages corresponding to its different spoken language regions—German, Italian, French, and Swiss forms of sign language. In Canada, three signed languages are in use: Inuit Sign Language; Langue des Signes Québécois (LSQ) for Francophone signers and American Sign Language (ASL) for Anglophone signers. Globally, indigenous signed languages are gaining increased attention from linguists and local communities through language revitalization efforts and comprehensive documentation projects (Johnston 2003). Prior to the dominance of English, Plains Indian Sign Language (PISL) served as the lingua franca among diverse Plains Native American groups, providing vital communication for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Revitalization efforts are underway in tribal communities with growing interest across North America (Davies 2016). Likewise, language documentation initiatives in regions such as the Amazon and Australia highlight the importance of capturing grammatical constructions alongside ethnographic, historical, and archaeological data to deepen our understanding of cultural heritage (Epps & Michael 2017).

Finally, the concept of International Sign (IS) merits attention. IS is a contact form of communication that has evolved among Deaf people who do not share a common sign language. Despite the widespread myth of a universal sign language, national sign languages have evolved independently, often with minimal contact between them. Historical accounts from 19th-century Europe show that Deaf individuals already used international gestural communication. Today, although IS varies significantly across contexts, it has become somewhat standardized in formal settings—such as international meetings of the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD), Deaflympics, United Nations conferences, and sessions of the UN Committee on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). IS incorporates many grammatical features common to signed languages—such as the use of space, directionality, personification, and expressive, mimed hand movements—which supports the view that it represents a translanguaging approach to communication rather than a fully independent language.

History of sign language interpreting

Mutus: “tongueless” (dilsiz) messenger in the Ottoman Empire. [Source]

Signed language interpreting existed in ancient times, as Bauman (2008) points out, citing the earliest written mentions of sign language in Plato’s Cratylus from the fifth century BC. In this dialogue, Socrates refers to "dumb people" as those who lack a voice and communicate through signs. While there is no direct evidence of sign language interpreters during this period, it is plausible that individuals acted as intermediaries between deaf and hearing people (Russell & Nicholson 2022). Early examples, such as the Ottoman Empire’s use of deaf interpreters during the 1300-1800s, illustrate the long-standing role of signed languages in facilitating access and understanding (Stone & West 2012).

Throughout the 1800s to present times the language brokering model existed where deaf people raised in deaf families and educated in traditional deaf schools would often share their linguistic abilities with other deaf community members, brokering understanding for letters, bills, or legal documents that would be taken to a trusted member of the community for them to be explained (Adam, Carty & Stone 2011). While language brokering still exists informally in the community, the profession of signed language interpreting has evolved reflecting the growing need for equitable communication between deaf and hearing individuals. Interpreters may be deaf and non-deaf, and for the purposes of this entry, interpreters refer to all interpreters regardless of hearing status (Russell & Shaw 2016).

This shift from informal language brokering to professional signed language interpreting during the 1960s highlights not only the evolving role of interpreters but also the broader societal and legal changes that have contributed to the growing demand for such services (Ball 2013). Prior to the 1960s there were few centres training signed language interpreters. However, coinciding with the emerging signed language research that identified signed languages as distinct languages came the desire for signed language interpreters to be formally taught to sign and take training that could prepare them to interpret in professional roles including post-secondary education, public service and legal settings, and conferences. Ball (2013) cites the earliest program in North America was created in 1948 by Lottie Reikehof at the Central Bible Institute in Missouri, United States (US). As colleges and organizations began offering “the language of the deaf” for credit, there was also recognition of the need for interpreter training as more Deaf people were entering the workforce. In part the US credits the creation of interpreter training programs with vocational rehabilitation legislation that supported the right of Deaf people to access education and training.

In 1963 the first national meeting of interpreter trainers was convened at Ball State University, where the parameters of interpreter programs were proposed and federal funding was awarded to the National Technical Institute for the Deaf at Rochester, NY to create the second interpreter program. From this point forward, interpreter training was launched through the United States and many countries followed suit.

Several authors have pointed to 2004 as a pivotal year for both spoken and signed language interpreters, with a marked change in the diversity of published studies about translation and interpreting around the world. At that time scholars and interpreter practitioners were publishing from disciplines such as cognitive studies, linguistics, social sciences, psychology, social theory and anthropology (Nicodemus & Swabey 2011; Pöchhacker 2004; 2022).

The current global demand for signed language interpreters is increasing, in part due to human rights and linguistic rights frameworks, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and national laws supporting access to information via interpreting services. New Zealand is one of the few countries that has recognized their national signed language in the constitution, leading to increased language revitalization efforts, services provided in New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) and providing formal interpreter education at the university level. However there is also a critical shortage of trained and qualified interpreters so that in countries such as China with a population of deaf citizens estimated to be 20 million, there are just 600 interpreters. This shortage highlights the crucial need for quality interpreter education throughout the world in order to have sufficient interpreters to meet the demand.

International conventions shaping signed language interpreting

Logo of the meetings of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The profession of signed language interpreting has also been shaped in international events, including the creation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The convention was developed to promote the rights of persons with disabilities and has been ratified by 182 out of 193 UN member states. The UNCRPD is a result of the lobbying and leadership of the World Federation of the Deaf, and it specifies the situations in which a “professional interpreter” should be provided. This was a significant change in UN ideology about deaf people and interpreters and has had a positive impact globally. De Meulder & Murray (2017) discuss the UNCRPD as a human rights instrument designed to ensure that deaf citizens have access to public, political and other forms of information at the same time as non-deaf citizens receive it. There are several articles within the UNCRPD that are specific to sign languages, and this tool has been effectively used by deaf communities to lobby for the training of professional interpreters, recognition of national signed languages and access to bilingual education that includes educators that are fluent in sign language. While there are numerous other conventions that are important for deaf citizens, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN conventions related to humanitarian aid in times of natural disasters, the UNCRPD underscores the importance of professional interpreters across all contexts that involve communication.

However, countries that are signatories to the UNCRPD have also not taken steps to recognize their national signed language(s) and thus have not implemented the steps necessary to achieve the inclusion first envisioned. Less than fifty countries have officially recognized their national signed language. Other countries have recognized the national signed language on paper but have taken no tangible steps to implement the other tenets surrounding bilingual education, access to government communication, and interpreter training. Each country can produce a shadow report that is shared with the UNCRPD during the five-year review period required for all signatory countries. The shadow report is often produced by cross-disability organizations, analyzing a government’s progress and lack thereof and offering recommendations for UNCRPD for that country to follow over the next five-year cycle. However, it is also clear that the agenda of deaf organizations may not rise to the top of these cross-disability reports. Constant monitoring, lobbying and diplomatic efforts are needed from deaf organizations and their allies. This is even more difficult for many countries where there is a lack of awareness of one’s human and linguistic rights or where resources are lacking to support the work of disabled and deaf associations. In such cases, it can often fall to passionate volunteers to continue to hold their governments accountable for full implementation, and without access to qualified interpreters, it can be very difficult to get an audience with government officials, let alone educate politicians and officials about sign languages and rights.

WASLI's mission and objectives. [Source]

International standards

Just as international conventions have had a role in shaping signed language interpreting, so too has the International Standards Association (ISO). ISO exists to create meaningful requirement standards across many industries, including having a Technical Committee (TC37) that focuses on standards related to interpreting, translation and the equipment used to provide interpreting services. While historically these standards have focused on spoken language interpreters, since 2018, signed language interpreters have actively participated. This has meant that the standards apply equally to spoken and signed language interpreting, reflecting the common competences and requirements among interpreting and translation professionals. Both the World Association of Sign Language Interpreters and the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) have experts that have participated in the development and brought the experiences of signed and spoken language interpreters to bear across many of the published standards. Some of the published standards that have supported the profession of signed language interpreting include community interpreting, general requirements for interpreting, healthcare interpreting, conference interpreting, court and legal interpreting and the equipment necessary for simultaneous interpreting.

In 2024, ISO initiated the development of a new standard that specifically identifies the requirements and recommendations for the signed language interpreters work environment. The standard is meant to articulate the unique requirements necessary for the simultaneous interpreting performed by signed language interpreters. This will be the first standard that specifically addresses signed language interpreters, and its acceptance will have global reach.

As well, ISO published a technical standard on interpreter education (ISO:TS 6253:2024), outlining the skills and education required for community interpreters, and it also reviews the foundational content that is viewed as common across countries. The standard applies to spoken and signed language interpreter education and may be useful for countries that are just beginning to develop a pathway of formal education for signed language interpreters. The standard does not apply to colleges and universities that have existing programs. During the development of the standard it became evident that many countries lack training for spoken language community interpreters whereas signed language programs have traditionally focused on training for community interpreting. This work is ongoing with plans to improve upon and revise the technical standard into a full standard which can identify the curriculum building blocks that are necessary for interpreters and the qualifications needed by those who teach in such programs.

Current interpreter education perspectives

While the earliest history of training interpreters is grounded in the United States, it is useful to examine the current context of interpreter training from a global lens. Napier (2009) and Napier, Webb & Adam (2025) edited two volumes that brought forward examples of the state interpreter education in some 31 countries. Scott Gibson (2009) suggests that we see a constant theme in the first volume of countries striving to do more and do it better, and she cautions interpreters and educators to avoid identical training structures or allowing more experienced countries to impose their knowledge on those that are just beginning the path of providing training. Russell (2019) describes that this philosophy is firmly embedded in a WASLI release of Educational Guidelines (2011/2017). Those guidelines stress the importance of working with national leaders from the deaf and interpreter communities in developing any training and ensuring the country's sign language is used without interference from a more dominant signed language such as American Sign Language or British Sign Language.

Beginnings of the sign language interpreter training program in Kosovo (in KSL). [Source]

Countries that have well-established histories of human rights legislation and universities that offer degrees in linguistics, translation and/or spoken language interpreting, have often led the way in introducing programs where students can aspire to learn the national signed language and if they are linguistically competent, move into an interpreter education program. These programs have often been hosted by colleges in the format of diploma programs and over the past twenty years there has been a push to move the interpreter education programs to bachelor-level degree programs, although in some country’s interpreter education is still delivered outside of university programs. One challenge that emerged in the 1980-90s is that many programs mirrored their approach to pedagogy and interpreter curriculum on conference interpreting, which was not reflective of the nature of community interpreting. However, as the research and scholarship within signed language interpreting grew, so did the attention paid to curriculum approaches that could produce interpreters that possessed the linguistic, interpreting, cross-cultural, and ethical skill sets necessary for effective professional practice at the generalist, community interpreting level.

In contrast, countries that may be less resourced, both economically and politically, may have different pathways to training interpreters. Russell (2019) describes the work of Hoti & Emerson (2009) with the initiation of training in Kosovo, where the local deaf association and an international partner identified potential students who were selected for their ability to use Kosovo Sign Language (KSL) and were trusted by the Deaf community. These students were then taught by international guests who worked with the local deaf community to deliver the programme via short-term modules. The model was also built on a foundation where the country first documented the national signed language, and ensured human rights training for deaf people was firmly in place prior to moving to train interpreters. Kosovo has moved from a country with no access to interpreter training to having training delivered by the deaf community, to government recognition of KSL and the development of interpreting services and now having a robust interpreter education program delivered in collaboration with a local university.

One notable change over the past few years has been how training is delivered. While some countries have maintained the traditional delivery mode requiring face-to-face learning, other countries have implemented hybrid or blended programs where some classes require physical attendance and other classes are delivered virtually. This shift has been possible as the technology supporting online learning has grown substantially. This has allowed for training to occur at local, national, regional and international levels, while reducing the financial barriers of traveling to take an interpreter program. Another significant benefit is that it has also allowed countries to access educators from outside their geographical area, who may bring particular expertise and experience not found in local educators. However there are drawbacks to virtual learning, especially for signed language learning, where it can be challenging to view the parameters of the signs with a flat, two-dimensional screen. It can also be challenging to ensure the interpreting technique classes, designed to provide real world experience, are constructed in such a way as to provide meaningful experience and gain feedback. For countries that are under-resourced, bandwidth, internet connectivity and costs are additional barriers. As well, some Deaf communities have expressed concern about the quality of graduates, noting that the language and interpreting skills are not as robust as when programming was offered in a face-to-face program.

Finally, as the profession of signed language interpreting has evolved the nature of practice is changing and that there are more and more opportunities in some countries to not only have a foundation of general training, but also an area of specialization. For example, in some countries both spoken and signed language interpreters can access advanced training in healthcare interpreting, conference interpreting and/or legal interpreting and achieve accreditation to reflect those competencies. There are also interpreters that work as designated interpreters for deaf professionals, be they academics, engineers, medical doctors, and so on.

Interpreter associations

Maya de Wit, the first signed language interpreter admitted to AIIC (in 2014) introduces her PhD research on international sign interpreting. [Source]

The education of signed language interpreters and the provision of continuing professional development for interpreters is often a result of the work of professional interpreter associations. The earliest documented interpreter association was formed in 1967 in the United States, emerging out of the need for a way to determine the qualifications of interpreters and to maintain a registry of those same interpreters. The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) still exists today and represents the interests of some 16,000 interpreters. RID paved the way for many countries to follow suit, and depending on their stage of development, some countries established associations in the early 1970s, for example, Canada, the UK, Japan and Australia while other countries have formed associations since the inception of WASLI in 2005. Part of WASLI’s agenda has been to support the development of interpreter associations as a vehicle to lobby for increased educational opportunities for interpreters, and to develop ethical guidelines for the profession within a cultural context reflective of the individual country.

At the current time, WASLI has some 70 countries as national members and 3 regional associations, bringing the number of signed-language interpreters represented to approximately 30,000. As well, WASLI has been intentional in supporting the need for deaf interpreters to have training and employment opportunities and to create networks of support within interpreter associations. While there are 182 countries that have ratified the UNCRPD which addresses the need for trained, professional interpreters, there are still countries that struggle to create interpreter associations or maintain them. The Latin American region has been successful in creating twelve interpreter associations since 2007, while the African continent has struggled to create professional bodies that can support interpreters. Some of the struggles are financial barriers, and/or access to technology that can allow for more regular contact among interpreters, especially in rural or remote areas. Other barriers can include systemic barriers, such as government policies. For example, in China, deaf citizens must be subsumed within disability organizations, and they are not allowed to form their own independent bodies. This then impacts interpreters who may wish to create an independent association.

In recent years, AIIC has also broadened its membership categories to include signed language interpreters, building a network of interpreters that specialize in conference-related interpreting. Maya de Wit was the first signed language interpreter admitted to AIIC in 2014. Since that time several signed language interpreters have joined the AIIC from Europe, Latin America and Australia.

The interpreter associations at local, national and international levels offer significant value to the profession as they lobby for increased standards, safer working conditions, create codes of ethics and guidelines for professional conduct, and encourage continuous professional development.

Interpreters and technology

With the advent of the internet and technological advancements, society has shifted its communication methods. As noted by Napier, Skinner & Braun (2018), Western countries, in particular, now use technology for various forms of communication, including point-to-point audio and video calls, conference calls, and live streaming. Digital telecommunication has transformed how individuals conduct both personal and professional business in a single language and is equally effective for communication between two languages (Napier, Skinner & Braun 2018). With the shift in telecommunication, technology has greatly transformed the field of signed language interpreting. New tools and platforms, such as video remote interpreting (VRI) and video relay services (VRS), have expanded the reach and efficiency of interpreters, allowing them to work in diverse local, national and international settings. These digital innovations have significantly enhanced communication and accessibility. Since the global pandemic, the demand for remote interpreting has surged, and many signed language interpreters work from their home offices. Virtual platforms became essential, requiring interpreters and organizations to swiftly adapt, and many interpreters had little or no prior experience with interpreting remote meetings (Russell & Nicholson 2022). In contrast, technology has been leveraged in environments like Video Relay Services (VRS), where deaf people can access and make telephone calls using internet and cell-phone-based technologies. VRS callers are connected with a signed language interpreter who provides real-time interpretation for telephone calls. While both rely on broadband to connect hearing and deaf individuals with interpreters, VRS and VRI differ in their operational challenges.

Visually experiencing a phone call: The calculated consumer labor deaf people perform to gain access through video relay service. [Source]

A significant challenge globally is that services are regulated in different ways. In the USA, VRS is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), while in Canada, it's overseen by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Another potential limitation is that each country that has VRS has different sign-up requirements, regulations and fees. Some countries started using VRS for the workplace only but have recognised the benefit to everyday life and are expanding services. Other countries started VRS with limited hours of operations and, noticing the benefit, expanded to 24 hours per day. Unfortunately, this is not a service that is offered by every country worldwide. In 2025 there were VRS services provided in a small number of countries, including Canada, China, Colombia, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. In Europe, all audio-video interpreting is categorized as VRI, without distinguishing between VRS and VRI services (Napier, Skinner & Braun 2018).

However, one of the major challenges interpreters have with the growth of technological platforms is that the familiarity that community interpreters typically have with their local deaf community cannot be leveraged. As noted by Russell & Nicholson (2022), community interpreters typically work onsite, interacting with the local deaf community, which helps them become familiar with regional discourse, lexicon, and contextual cues. They may also build familiarity with specific deaf consumers, allowing them to switch between consecutive and simultaneous interpreting modes smoothly. In contrast, interpreters in VRS/VRI settings work with deaf and non-deaf callers from across the country or continent, often encountering new regional language use while facing pressure to provide quick, simultaneous interpretation. Additionally, settings that are typically better suited for in-person interpreting, such as medical and mental health environments, are now being handled by remote interpreters. The use of VRI in medical settings has sparked mixed reactions within the Deaf community, with some members now pursuing human rights complaints over its implementation (Russell & Nicholson 2022). This also has implications in legal settings, where there has been an increase in the use of simultaneous interpretation during witness testimonies given the availability of technology (Braun 2015; Valero 2015; Russell & Takeda 2015 as cited in Russell & Nicholson 2022).

Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) could further streamline interpreting services, but they also introduce challenges around accuracy, ethics, and the vital human connection that interpreters provide. The introduction of “sign language avatars” brings digital representations into virtual environments, where they take the form of animated characters that gesture in a signed language. These avatars are specifically designed to communicate using signed languages. According to Zante, de Winde & Berthier (2024), there has been criticism of the avatars dating back to 2018, when both the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) and WASLI raised concerns. They argued that computer-generated translations lack the quality of human interpreters, particularly in conveying sociolinguistic and sociocultural nuances. Furthermore, in emergencies, where accuracy is critical, avatars are deemed unsuitable due to the high risk of error and the inability to facilitate two-way communication, preventing deaf individuals from seeking clarification or engaging in dialogue (Zante, de Winde & Berthier 2024).

Finally, machine translation is an emerging area of interest for signed language interpreters as advancements are made in the areas of sign to text and text to sign recognition, and as Leeson, Morriesy, Stein et al. (2024) highlight, many of these advancements have occurred without Deaf community consultations, rendering products that are not suited to natural signed languages. However, as more deaf engineers work in this area of specialization, the experiences of end users who are deaf will be included in more significant ways.

Deaf Interpreters—A critical role in sign language interpreting

An emerging practice in many countries is the inclusion of Deaf interpreters (DIs) as a critical aspect of service delivery. DIs are professional sign language interpreters who are deaf, distinguished by their lived experiences and deep cultural insights within the deaf community. Their work extends far beyond linguistic translation, incorporating cultural mediation to ensure communication is both nuanced and culturally appropriate. This critical role is increasingly recognized as essential in fostering equitable interactions between deaf and non-deaf individuals across various settings, including legal, healthcare, social services, and international events (Adam, Carty & Stone 2010; McDermid 2010). Unfortunately, common misconceptions persist—some believe Deaf interpreters are only for individuals with limited signed language skills or for specialized contexts like DeafBlind communication. However, Deaf interpreters provide significant benefits across various settings. For example, in educational environments, Deaf interpreters can work alongside hearing interpreters to present content more clearly, enabling Deaf students to grasp complex material without undue cognitive effort. In medical and legal contexts, their ability to capture subtle expressions and adjust communication in real time helps prevent misunderstandings and errors (Sheneman 2020). Importantly, Deaf interpreters bring unique extralinguistic knowledge—what some refer to as Deaf Extra Linguistic Knowledge or DELK—which reflects the lived experience of navigating systemic barriers. This expertise allows them to effectively translate by not simply converting words but by conveying the meaning and cultural nuance behind the message. Their skill in using classifiers, depiction, and spatial grammar enables them to deliver a message in a way that resonates with a Deaf person’s understanding, ultimately enhancing the clarity and precision of the communication (Sheneman 2020).

Extra Linguistic Knowledge and Deaf Extra Linguistic Knowledge. [Source]

The linguistic competencies of DIs may encompass multiple signed languages, gestural communication, and adaptive strategies to accommodate diverse communication styles and needs. As cultural brokers, DIs mediate between deaf and hearing communities, ensuring accurate understanding particularly in high-stakes scenarios such as legal and medical environments (Adam, Carty & Stone 2010; McDermid 2010). They work with a non-deaf interpreter, pivoting from the non-deaf interpreter’s rendition to adjust the target language for the consumer. Their role often transcends the conduit model of interpreting by leveraging their cultural and linguistic expertise to navigate complex interactions. One of the very real challenges for professional DIs is to navigate their role as both Deaf community members and that of the ethical obligation to remain impartial and not offer advice.

For many deaf interpreters, their national signed language is their L1 or A language. A deaf interpreter’s linguistic and interpreting strategies often surpasses those of non-deaf interpreters working into their B language (Russell & Nicholson 2023). Furthermore, Stone (2009) found that deaf interpreters tend to produce higher-quality interpretations by adopting a participant perspective, utilizing techniques like constructed action and dialogue, in contrast to the more detached observer perspective commonly used by others. Additionally, some studies suggest that deaf interpreters often exhibit greater cohesion, more effective use of eye gaze, affirmation, negation, and prosody, and better leverage the shared cognitive environment (Stone 2009), though individual performance varies across both deaf and non-deaf interpreters. However, as Russell, Nicholson & Howard (2024) found in their study, DIs are not universally accepted by Deaf consumers and Deaf communities. There are very effective DIs and there are very effective non-deaf interpreters, so each assignment requires a careful assessment of what the assignment requires, and which service provider is best suited and/or preferred.

One huge challenge in many countries is that DIs have limited access to formal training opportunities. As well, there can be a lack of professional recognition distinct from hearing interpreters. The absence of standardized pathways for training and accreditation often constrains their career advancement (Adam, Aro, Druetta et al. 2014; McDermid 2010). Despite these obstacles, their contributions are invaluable, reducing communication anxiety, and validating the cultural identity of deaf individuals, while providing accurate and effective interpreting services. A study on deaf sign language interpreters (D-SLIs) revealed that about one-third experienced clinical levels of secondary traumatic stress (STS). D-SLIs reported comparable levels of STS and compassion satisfaction but less burnout than non-deaf interpreters. The study highlights the need for STS-specific training and support, emphasizing coping strategies like debriefing, self-care, and ethical decision-making to maintain mental health and effectiveness in their critical role (Chovaz, Russell, Nicholson et al. 2023).

International Sign translation of pre-recorded announcement displayed at Toronto Airport. [Source: Debra Russell]

Deaf Translators—Guardians of cultural representation

In addition to deaf interpreters there are also deaf translators, fluent in a signed language and a written language. These translators play a pivotal role in preserving and conveying the cultural and linguistic richness of the deaf community. Their work often involves translating written texts into a signed language and vice versa, ensuring that cultural nuances and context are accurately represented. Their work is often captured in a digital format, for example, translation of government websites in the national signed language(s). This task is vital for cultural transmission and empowerment, particularly in bridging communication gaps between deaf and hearing individuals (Adam Carty & Stone 2011).

Emerging research, such as Chan’s (2020) study of deaf translators in Hong Kong, reveals how translators adapt to the absence of a standardized lexicon in Hong Kong Sign Language (HKSL). By leveraging their linguistic flexibility and cultural knowledge, deaf translators develop innovative strategies to convey meaning effectively. Their work highlights the necessity of engaging deaf individuals in all stages of translation research and practice to ensure cultural competence and accuracy (Chan 2020). Further studies by Stone & West (2012) and Forestal & Cole (2018) emphasize the complexities of translation in this field, advocating for strategies that maintain the integrity of source languages. These efforts highlight the growing recognition of deaf translators as indispensable contributors to linguistic and cultural representation.

Photo credit Debra Russell - Toronto Airport showing International Sign translation of pre-recorded announcement

International Sign Interpreting—Bridging global communication

One of the unique aspects of the deaf community and signed languages is the ability to find linguistic strategies to communicate across signed languages. While the literature is divided on whether this phenomenon is an actual language or if it is more aptly described as International Sign (IS), there is no question that deaf communities have had global interaction over centuries and have had ways to communicate while using different signed languages. For example, the 1900 ParisWorld Fair was one such event that showcased the global connections among deaf individuals. International Sign serves as a unifying mode of communication for the global deaf community, integrating elements of various sign languages with iconic and simplified grammar to accommodate diverse linguistic backgrounds. IS interpreters began to emerge in the 1970s at international deaf events such as the World Games for the Deaf, now known as the Deaflympics, and the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) congresses. These interpreters played a critical role in facilitating communication at international events, but the non-standardized nature of IS presents unique challenges (Whynot 2016). Research explores IS linguistic characteristics and practical applications, emphasizing the importance of shared cultural and linguistic knowledge. Challenges faced by IS interpreters include limited formal training opportunities, lack of standardization, and the need for extensive preparation (Rosenstock & Napier 2016). De Wit, Crasborn & Napier (2023) offered recommendations including developing specialized training programs and enhancing quality assurance measures.

The accreditation system established by the WFD and the World Association of Sign Language Interpreters (WASLI) in 2015 represents progress in professionalizing IS interpreting. However, it faces limitations, such as inadequate regional representation and a lack of financial, educational, and other resources to support interpreters who wish to become IS interpreters (Turner, Grbić, Stone et al. 2021). Addressing these gaps through research, training, and institutional support will be critical in ensuring effective communication within the global deaf community. To address these gaps, The Rochester Institute for the Deaf (RIT) offers an international on-line program for deaf and non-deaf interpreters focused on acquiring international sign interpreting strategies. The program has the identified goal of preparing its learners for accreditation by the WFD and the WASLI. The eight-month Certificate in International Sign Interpreting (CISI) program focuses on developing essential competencies, including interpreting between International Sign and English or a national signed language. It is hoped this program will help meet the growing demand for such interpreters in international institutions. It is important to note that International Sign is used only where there is no common sign language, and the preference is always for full access via a national signed language.

Research potential

The scholarship and research methods applied to conducting research in the field of signed language interpreting is evolving, and like spoken language interpreting, there are diverse methodologies being used to address the pressing questions, including arts-based interview techniques, longitudinal studies, auto-ethnographic approaches, intervention studies and historical studies. Challenges exist for researchers gathering data that may rely on transcript analysis of signed data as opposed to creating a transcript based on spoken language input. Technology has allowed signed language researchers to recruit participants from multiple time zones across large geographic areas, broadening participant pools. It also allows us to connect as teams of researchers, reducing the costs of travel to meet, and to collaborate as research communities. Increasingly the divide between spoken language and signed language interpreting research is closing, with researchers collaborating, learning from each other in terms of methods and pressing issues in our field.

There is considerable research potential to explore the ways in which technologies can be used to support interpreting, and where technology has limits in enhancing interpreting services. The application of artificial intelligence to signed languages is gaining attention from deaf and non-deaf researchers, and while the quality of signing images is improving, the next questions will need to address where and when signing avatars are appropriate for use in communication equity. For example, some countries have had success using signing avatars for pre-recorded short information at train stations to advise of a change to schedule. What is unclear is whether the advancements in signing avatars and sign to speech recognition will ever have the capacity to replace human signed language interpreters, and if so, in what contexts?

In terms of examining research questions about interpreter education, increasingly programs are being delivered in blended or fully on-line delivery platforms. However, questions about what content and educational experience can be effectively offered in blended programs and how curriculum needs to be adapted remains unanswered. As programs draw learners from across geo-political zones there are opportunities to examine how best to support access to education when there may not be a common signed language among the learners - do dominant signed languages such as British Sign Language or American Sign Language become the lingua franca? While traditionally, publishing takes place in a written form, some countries are exploring digital publishing in signed languages. This is an area of complexity given that anonymous peer review processes are not possible when reviewing a signed language text, in that the author is visible to the reviewers.

Finally, as each of the areas of specialized practice continues to grow and as deaf professionals take on roles in many professions, the role of the interpreter may shift and the level of education of training may shift. The nature of working as a dedicated interpreter for an elected politician, versus a medical doctor, versus an AI engineer may look very different and this co-defined sphere of practice will be an area to examine.