Sign language interpreting services: a quick fix for inclusion?

Maartje De Meulder, Hilde Haualand

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article rethinks the impact of sign language interpreting services (SLIS) as a social institution. It starts from the observation that ‘access’ for deaf people is tantamount to availability of sign language interpreters, and the often uncritically proposed and largely accepted solution at the institutional level to lack of access seems to be increasing the number of interpreters. Using documented examples from education and healthcare settings, we raise concerns that rise when SLIS become a prerequisite for public service provision. In doing so, we problematize SLIS as replacing or concealing the need for language-concordant education and public services. We argue that like any social institution, SLIS should be studied and analysed critically. This includes more scrutiny about how different kinds of ‘accesses’ can be implemented without SLIS, and more awareness of contextual languaging choices deaf people make beyond the use of interpreters.
Original languageEnglish
JournalTranslation and Interpreting Studies
Publication statusPublished - 6 Sep 2019

Fingerprint

inclusion
interpreter
language
social institution
public service
language education
Inclusion
Sign Language Interpreting
lack
Interpreter
education
Deaf People
Public Services
Social Institutions

Keywords

  • sign language interpreting
  • public services
  • deaf
  • access
  • inclusion

Cite this

@article{b1f5a26c4adb4bc48db4bb96ab68426b,
title = "Sign language interpreting services: a quick fix for inclusion?",
abstract = "This article rethinks the impact of sign language interpreting services (SLIS) as a social institution. It starts from the observation that ‘access’ for deaf people is tantamount to availability of sign language interpreters, and the often uncritically proposed and largely accepted solution at the institutional level to lack of access seems to be increasing the number of interpreters. Using documented examples from education and healthcare settings, we raise concerns that rise when SLIS become a prerequisite for public service provision. In doing so, we problematize SLIS as replacing or concealing the need for language-concordant education and public services. We argue that like any social institution, SLIS should be studied and analysed critically. This includes more scrutiny about how different kinds of ‘accesses’ can be implemented without SLIS, and more awareness of contextual languaging choices deaf people make beyond the use of interpreters.",
keywords = "sign language interpreting, public services, deaf, access, inclusion",
author = "{De Meulder}, Maartje and Hilde Haualand",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "6",
language = "English",
journal = "Translation and Interpreting Studies",
issn = "1932-2798",
publisher = "John Benjamins Publishing Company",

}

Sign language interpreting services : a quick fix for inclusion? / De Meulder, Maartje; Haualand, Hilde.

In: Translation and Interpreting Studies, 06.09.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sign language interpreting services

T2 - a quick fix for inclusion?

AU - De Meulder, Maartje

AU - Haualand, Hilde

PY - 2019/9/6

Y1 - 2019/9/6

N2 - This article rethinks the impact of sign language interpreting services (SLIS) as a social institution. It starts from the observation that ‘access’ for deaf people is tantamount to availability of sign language interpreters, and the often uncritically proposed and largely accepted solution at the institutional level to lack of access seems to be increasing the number of interpreters. Using documented examples from education and healthcare settings, we raise concerns that rise when SLIS become a prerequisite for public service provision. In doing so, we problematize SLIS as replacing or concealing the need for language-concordant education and public services. We argue that like any social institution, SLIS should be studied and analysed critically. This includes more scrutiny about how different kinds of ‘accesses’ can be implemented without SLIS, and more awareness of contextual languaging choices deaf people make beyond the use of interpreters.

AB - This article rethinks the impact of sign language interpreting services (SLIS) as a social institution. It starts from the observation that ‘access’ for deaf people is tantamount to availability of sign language interpreters, and the often uncritically proposed and largely accepted solution at the institutional level to lack of access seems to be increasing the number of interpreters. Using documented examples from education and healthcare settings, we raise concerns that rise when SLIS become a prerequisite for public service provision. In doing so, we problematize SLIS as replacing or concealing the need for language-concordant education and public services. We argue that like any social institution, SLIS should be studied and analysed critically. This includes more scrutiny about how different kinds of ‘accesses’ can be implemented without SLIS, and more awareness of contextual languaging choices deaf people make beyond the use of interpreters.

KW - sign language interpreting

KW - public services

KW - deaf

KW - access

KW - inclusion

M3 - Article

JO - Translation and Interpreting Studies

JF - Translation and Interpreting Studies

SN - 1932-2798

ER -