Sign Language Interpretation and General Theories of Language, Interpretation and Communication

Abstract

The practice of interpretation of sign languages dates back many, many years, though the practice is just now struggling to achieve the status of a profession — shifting from a more-or-less clinical focus to a more-or-less linguistic one. Research on sign languages, which is itself very recent, has convincingly demonstrated that at least some sign languages are indeed languages in the linguistic sense, thereby forcing us to expand our conceptions of the nature of language and to re-examine our approaches to the study of language. Experiments on the simultaneous interpretation of sign languages are contributing to our knowledge and understanding of language and communication in general as well as to the resolution of problems dealing specifically with sign language interpretation. These are the major points that we have gained from the presentations by Domingue and Ingram, Tweney, and Murphy. The relevance of their discussions of sign language interpretation to the general subject areas of language, interpretation, and communication is largely self-evident. Essentially, we are all saying that the interpretation of sign languages is an integral part of the general study of interpretation and that no description (practical or theoretical) of interpretation which fails to take account of sign language interpretation can be regarded as complete. I have set myself the task of demonstrating this point beyond any doubt. The papers by Domingue and Ingram, Tweney, and Murphy have called attention to a number of problems in interpretation of sign languages. My approach will be to explore some of these problems further in relation to language, interpretation and communication in general.