Sign language interpreting services
A quick fix for inclusion?
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 health care settings, we raise concerns that arise 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 analyzed critically. This includes more scrutiny about how different kinds of “accesses” can be implemented without SLIS, and more awareness of the contextual languaging choices deaf people make beyond the use of interpreters.
- Introduction: Rethinking sign language interpreting services
- Sign language interpreting services as a social institution
- Deaf people, diversity, interpreters, and contextual language choices
- Sign language interpreting in public services
- Educational settings
- Health care settings
- The illusion of inclusion?
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at email@example.com.
Cited by 7 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 may 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.