Abstract
The Handbook is a comprehensive guide to the field of sign language translation and interpreting (SLTI), with contributors from around the world. It is widely known that typically 75%–80% of SLTI practitioners are women (e.g., Cokely, 1981; Mapson, 2014; Napier & Barker, 2003), but high-profile positions (media or conference interpreting, leadership) see a higher representation of men. The editors of the Handbook consist of one female (25%) and three male (75%) editors, reversing the proportion among practitioners, which reflects the gender disparity in high-status roles. This is offset by the gender identities of authors. Of the 64 authors, there is a slightly higher representation of women: 38 women (60%) and 26 men (40%). Identification of gender was based on the contributor biographies and their use of personal pronouns.
As the editors themselves note in the introduction, gender is not the only characteristic that should be acknowledged:
We are pleased as editors that we are female and male, from the southern and northern hemisphere, from deaf and hearing families, multilingual people raised in English, German, and Portuguese speaking countries, have lived and worked in countries other than the countries we grew up in, and have LGBTQ+ people within the editorial team (p. 1).
Considering the Handbook’s focus on SLTI, it is important to recognise the role of deaf scholars in the field (Haualand et al., 2022). However, it is unclear what proportion of the authors are deaf or hearing. The editors consist of two deaf and two hearing individuals. Only six authors explicitly mention being deaf in their biographies, while others imply it through mention of their teaching focus. I personally know that two editors are deaf, although they did not state it in their biographies. The deaf or hearing status of contributors is relevant, as in translation and interpreting (T&I) studies, it is now acknowledged as important to disclose one’s positionality as a researcher (Mellinger, 2020) and educator (Webb et al., in press). Deaf scholars and interpreters are gaining deserved recognition in the SLTI field, so it was surprising that the Handbook did not explicitly highlight deaf contributors.
The Handbook contains 34 chapters, including the introduction, divided into eight parts. Out of these chapters, 21 focus on sign language interpreting (SLI), while others cover sign language translation (SLT), and some address both. SLT is an emergent professional practice, primarily carried out by deaf practitioners. It involves translating set signed/written texts into recorded form, which undergoes review and editing before publication. In contrast, SLI involves real-time interpretation between spoken language (or automated speech to text) and sign language, or between two sign languages.
Research on SLT is still emerging, which explains the limited number of contributions in Part 2 that consists of only three chapters. However, it is worth noting that two of these chapters actually focus on team interpreting processes, raising questions about the section’s classification as SLT. This ambiguity may arise from the fact that the work of deaf interpreters can be seen as a hybrid process, combining elements of both SLT and SLI (Pöchhacker, 2019). Technological advancements have contributed to blurring the boundaries between traditional translation and interpreting, bringing the two closer together.
The titles of the parts in the Handbook can be confusing, as it is not always clear why certain chapters are included in one part and not another. For instance, there is a section SLI in Part 3, which is separate from the section on public service settings (Part 6), even though both discuss SLI. Nonetheless, all the chapters in the Handbook are engaging to read. Each chapter provides an overview of the topic, discusses key concepts and existing research or documentation, explores emerging debates, and concludes with suggestions for future directions and thought-provoking questions.
In line with the journal’s focus, and the scope of this book review, I will primarily discuss chapters that are most relevant to interpreting. To promote equality, diversity, and inclusion principles in research, I specifically review chapters by less-established scholars in the SLTI field to amplify their “voices.”
In Part 1 (Cognitive processes and theoretical foundations), Chapter 1 by Rafael Treviño, Ricardo Ortiz, and David Quinto-Pozos explores interpreting as a multimodal–multilingual task, focusing on examples from interpreters working between American Sign Language, Mexican Sign Language, English, and Spanish. This chapter is particularly interesting in light of ongoing discussions in applied deaf studies and applied linguistics regarding (trans)languaging practices and a departure from language “boundaries” (see Kusters et al., 2017, for detailed discussion). The authors highlight the emerging debate around developing interpreters’ skills and competencies in multilingual, multi-modal interpreting. Unlike spoken language conference interpreters, who receive training to work across multiple languages, (hearing) sign language interpreters are typically trained to work bilingually–bimodally between one signed and one spoken language.
In Chapter 5 of Part 2 (Sign language translation), Laura Astrada and Gabriel Andrés Claria focus on analysing SLI teamwork practices during TV/media broadcasts in Argentina. They highlight the importance of active involvement of deaf advisers in working with SLI teams to ensure that the sign language output effectively meets the needs of deaf viewers. They suggest the need for greater consideration of the different stages of the interpreting process—before, during and post-production—and recommend the establishment of professional guidelines. This concept of quality assurance in translation and interpreting outputs holds relevance for the wider T&I studies community.
Natasha Parkins-Maliko’s Chapter 8 in Part 3 (SLI) explores the intersectional nature of SLI in Africa and its connection to multilingualism and translanguaging (as discussed in Chapter 1). Maliko emphasised the importance of recognising multiple overlapping identities with a multilingual and multicultural context. She highlights how, historically, SLI constructs have been framed within White, Western discourses and the need for a shift in perspective. Maliko delves into emerging debates around the construction of SLI identity through social media and advocates for the acculturation of SLI practitioners to professional practice that transcends White, Western, middle-class norms. She proposes a new model that integrates elements of translanguaging, identity, and critical reflection into SLI practice. Maliko’s insights can also be applied to spoken language interpreting practices and ideologies, which have also had similar influences.
In Part 4 (SLTI Education), Chapter 11 by Sarah Sheridan and Teresa Lynch discusses the use of translation as a pedagogical tool in training deaf and hearing interpreters. Drawing on sign language learning research and key principles of curriculum development, they demonstrate how translation activities can be utilised for group learning and analysis within a dedicated translation module. They conclude by advocating for educators to collaborate in sharing resources and engaging in international discussions about translation pedagogy.
In Chapter 19 of Part 5 (Politics of translation, interpreting and service delivery), Tiago Coimbra Nogueira examines conference interpreting teamwork in Brazil. The chapter focuses on collaborative practices among (hearing) interpreting teams. Seven multimodal strategies are identified, which interpreters employ to provide support during the interpreting process, including signing, fingerspelling, or whispering. SLI practitioners have the advantage of being able to support “silently” through signed prompts, whereas spoken language interpreters’ support is more likely to be through written notes.
Robert Skinner and Eloísa Monteoliva in Chapter 22 (Part 6, Public service settings) combine forces as signed language and spoken language interpreter researchers to discuss police interpreting in Scotland. Drawing on their respective research, they map out concerns regarding the challenges of interpreter-mediated interactions in this context from the perspective of deaf people, interpreters, and police officers and how the role of interpreters in policing needs to be problematised. It is gratifying to see two signed and spoken language interpreter researchers co-authoring a chapter as we need to move away from a siloed approach in T&I studies treating signed and spoken language interpreting as distinct practices to recognising the commonalities and the synergies in our practices.
In Chapter 25 (Part 7, Diverse linguistic-cultural deaf communities), Ingela Holmström and Nina Sivunen (based in Sweden and Finland, respectively) discuss the experiences of deaf people who have migrated to Nordic countries (as refugees/asylum seekers) and, on arrival, do not necessarily know the written or signed languages of those countries. As such, their intersectional experience of being both deaf and from another country impacts their capacity to access support services or asylum hearings that are typically provided through local sign language interpreters who usually only work between the spoken and signed language of the country they have arrived in. They highlight the need for not only more research to understand the languaging needs of deaf migrants but also the ethics of doing research with them. Interpreting with refugees and asylum seekers is becoming an increasing topic of interest in T&I studies and one to which SLI researchers can clearly contribute.
Finally, in Part 8 (Current status of interpreting and translation), Bonnie Busingye and Proscovia Suubi Nantoko discuss the current SLTI status in East Africa (Chapter 31). Through survey-based findings, they reflect on the variable provision of SLI across the region as well as the fact that many countries still have no formal SLI training in place. This overview is symptomatic of many other countries worldwide, for example, in Eastern Europe and the former USSR, where deaf communities still do not have basic human rights to access information in sign language. An acute reminder for us in the T&I studies field is that although the profession, training, accreditation, and research may be well established, there is still much work to be done to develop the field worldwide.
In summary, I recommend this Handbook for any SLTI practitioners, researchers, educators, and students who are looking for a snapshot of topical issues in SLTI, with insights from all over the world, scholars at different stages of their careers, and varied disciplinary perspectives on SLTI. I also encourage a broader range of stakeholders from T&I studies to engage with this text. As mentioned earlier, we need more interactions, discussions, and critical engagement across the traditional “boundaries” of signed and spoken language translation and interpreting to inform our theoretical debates and practical applications.
