Volume 17, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Sign language interpreters onstage at public and political events have recently become more visible in the linguistic landscapes of many countries. Accessibility principles and policy measures have gained traction internationally, and Deaf communities have also recently achieved formal recognition of a national sign language in many countries, including in New Zealand and Norway. Resulting discourses of language planning and of access are now converging to position sign language interpreters as simultaneously agents of language planning (specifically, prestige and image planning) and as instruments of accessibility. This article interrogates the ideological context (motives, beliefs, practices) and perceived effects of increasing interpreter presence in public arenas in New Zealand and Norway, based on interview data from interpreters, interpreting service users and providers, and Deaf informants.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adam, Robert, Christopher Stone, Steven D. Collins, and Melanie Metzger
    eds. 2014Deaf Interpreters at Work: International Insights. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2t5xgm8
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2t5xgm8 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ager, Dennis
    2005 “Image and prestige planning.” Current Issues in Language Planning6(1): 1–43. 10.1080/14664200508668271
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200508668271 [Google Scholar]
  3. Albury, Nathan John
    2014 “Your language or ours? Inclusion and exclusion of non-indigenous majorities in Māori and Sámi language revitalization policy.” Current Issues in Language Planning16(3): 315–334. 10.1080/14664208.2015.984581
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2015.984581 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bell, Allan
    1984 “Language style as audience design.” Language in Society13(2): 145–204. 10.1017/S004740450001037X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001037X [Google Scholar]
  5. Best, Brett A.
    2016 “E-professionalism and signed language interpreters: Considering social media, online disclosure, and small world ethics.” Journal of Interpretation25(1): Article 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Berezkina, Maimu
    2018 “‘Language is a costly and complicating factor’: A diachronic study of language policy in the virtual public sector.” Language Policy17(1): 55–75. 10.1007/s10993‑016‑9422‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-016-9422-2 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brunson, Jeremy L.
    2008 “Your case will now be heard: Sign language interpreters as problematic accommodations in legal interactions.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education13(1): 77–91. 10.1093/deafed/enm032
    https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enm032 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brunson, Jeremy
    2015 “A sociology of interpreting.” InSigned Language Interpretation and Translation Research, ed. byBrenda Nicodemus and Keith Cagle, 130–149. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rh2b69.9
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh2b69.9 [Google Scholar]
  9. Debevc, Matjaž, Danijela Milošević, and Ines Kožuh
    2015 “A comparison of comprehension processes in sign language interpreter videos with or without captions.” PLoS ONE10(5): e0127577. 10.1371/journal.pone.0127577
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127577 [Google Scholar]
  10. De Bres, Julia
    2008 “Planning for tolerability in New Zealand, Wales and Catalonia.” Current Issues in Language Planning9(4): 464–482. 10.1080/14664200802354435
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200802354435 [Google Scholar]
  11. De Meulder, Maartje
    2017 “The influence of deaf people’s dual category status on sign language planning: The British Sign Language (Scotland) Act (2015).” Current Issues in Language Planning18(2): 215–32. 10.1080/14664208.2016.1248139
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2016.1248139 [Google Scholar]
  12. De Meulder, Maartje, and Joseph J. Murray
    2017 “Buttering their bread on both sides?” Language Problems & Language Planning41(2): 136–58. 10.1075/lplp.41.2.04dem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.41.2.04dem [Google Scholar]
  13. De Meulder, Maartje, and Hilde Haualand
    2021 “Sign language interpreting services: A quick fix for inclusion?” Translation and Interpreting Studies16(1): 19–40. 10.1075/tis.18008.dem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.18008.dem [Google Scholar]
  14. De Meulder, Maartje, and Isabelle Heyerick
    2013 “(Deaf) interpreters on television: Challenging power and responsibility.” InSign Language Research, Uses and Practices, ed. byLaurence Meurant , 111–136. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614511472.111
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511472.111 [Google Scholar]
  15. De Meulder, Maartje, Joseph J. Murray, and Rachel McKee
    2019 “Epilogue. Claiming multiple positionalities: Lessons from the first two decades of sign language recognition.” InLegal Recognition of Sign Languages: Advocacy and Outcomes around the World, ed. byMaartje De Meulder, Joseph J. Murray, and Rachel McKee, 301–312. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781788924016‑021
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788924016-021 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellcessor, Elizabeth
    2015 “Is there a sign for that? Media, American Sign Language interpretation, and the paradox of visibility.” Perspectives. Studies in Translatology23(4): 586–598. 10.1080/0907676X.2015.1056814
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2015.1056814 [Google Scholar]
  17. Frishberg, Nancy
    1990Interpreting: An Introduction. Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gras, Victòria
    2008 “Can signed language be planned? Implications for interpretation in Spain.” InSign Bilingualism: Language Development, Interaction, and Maintenance in Sign Language Contact Situations, ed. byCarolina Plaza-Pust and Esperanza Morales-López, 165–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.38.09gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.38.09gra [Google Scholar]
  19. Grin, François
    2017 “Translation and language policy in the dynamics of multilingualism.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2017(243): 155–181. 10.1515/ijsl‑2016‑0051
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2016-0051 [Google Scholar]
  20. Haualand, Hilde, and Ingela Holmström
    2019 “When language recognition and language shaming go hand in hand – sign language ideologies in Sweden and Norway.” Deafness and Education International21(2–3): 99–115. 10.1080/14643154.2018.1562636
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14643154.2018.1562636 [Google Scholar]
  21. Haualand, Hilde, and Anna-Lena Nilsson
    . (under review). Sign language interpreting: Education and professionalization in Norway. InInternational Perspectives on Interpreter Education ed. by Jemina Napier, Stacey Webb, and Robert Adam. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hodge, Gabrielle, and Della Goswell
    2021 “Deaf signing diversity and signed language translations.” Applied Linguistics Review. 10.1515/applirev‑2020‑0034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2020-0034 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hou, Lynn, and Octavian Robinson
    2020 “Sign languages as disaster entertainment.” Anthropology News. 10.1111/AN.1444
    https://doi.org/10.1111/AN.1444 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hult, Francis M.
    2018 “Language policy and planning and linguistic landscapes.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning, ed. byJames W. Tollefson and Miguel Pérez-Milans, 1–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190458898.013.35
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190458898.013.35 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kaufmann, Judith
    2012 “The darkened glass of bilingualism? Translation and interpreting in Welsh language planning” Translation Studies5(3): 327–344. 10.1080/14781700.2012.701942
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2012.701942 [Google Scholar]
  26. Leeson, Lorraine
    2019 “Ophelia, Emma, and the beast from the east effortful engaging and the provision of sign language interpreting in emergencies.” Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal29(2): 187–199. 10.1108/DPM‑01‑2019‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-01-2019-0007 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lenihan, Aoife
    2018 “Language policy and new media: An age of convergence culture.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning, ed. byJames W. Tollefson and Miguel Pérez-Milans, 654–674. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190458898.013.33
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190458898.013.33 [Google Scholar]
  28. May, Stephen
    2001 “Uncommon languages: The challenges and possibilities of minority language rights.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development21(5): 366–385. 10.1080/01434630008666411
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630008666411 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mellinger, Christopher D.
    2020 “Positionality in public service interpreting research.” FITISPos International Journal7(1): 92–109. 10.37536/FITISPos‑IJ.2020.7.1.250
    https://doi.org/10.37536/FITISPos-IJ.2020.7.1.250 [Google Scholar]
  30. McKee, Rachel
    2011 “Action pending: Four years on from the NZSL Act 2006.” VUW Law Review42(2): 277–97. 10.26686/vuwlr.v42i2.5133
    https://doi.org/10.26686/vuwlr.v42i2.5133 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2014 “Breaking news: Sign Language interpreters on television during natural disasters.” Interpreting16(1): 107–130. 10.1075/intp.16.1.06kee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.1.06kee [Google Scholar]
  32. McKee, Rachel, and Kirsten Smiler
    2017 “Family language policy for deaf children and the vitality of New Zealand Sign Language.” InFamily Language Policies in a Multilingual World: Opportunities, Challenges, and Consequences, ed. byJohn Macalister and Seyed Hadi Mirvahedi, 30–55. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Office for Disability Issues
    Office for Disability Issues 2016 “New Zealand Disability Strategy 2016–2026.” https://www.odi.govt.nz/nz-disability-strategy/
  34. Office for Disability Issues
    Office for Disability Issues 2018 “NZSL Strategy 2018–2023.”
    [Google Scholar]
  35. QSR International
  36. Reffell, Hayley, and Rachel McKee
    2009 “Motives and outcomes of New Zealand Sign Language legislation: A comparative study between New Zealand and Finland.” Current Issues in Language Planning10(3): 272–292. 10.1080/14664200903116295
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200903116295 [Google Scholar]
  37. Remael, Aline
    2012 “Media accessibility.” InHandbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 3, ed. byYves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 95–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hts.3.med3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.3.med3 [Google Scholar]
  38. Russell, Debra
    2007 “Inclusion or the illusion of inclusion: A study of interpreters working with deaf students in inclusive education settings.” Critical Link 5: Interpreters in the Community Conference. Sydney, Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Schluter, Jessica, Philippa Seaton, and Wendy Chaboyer
    2008 “Critical incident technique: A user’s guide for nurse researchers.” Journal of Advanced Nursing61(1): 107–14. 10.1111/j.1365‑2648.2007.04490.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04490.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Schmitt, Pierre
    2017 “Representations of sign language, deaf people, and interpreters in the arts and the media.” Sign Language Studies18(1): 130–47. 10.1353/sls.2017.0023
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2017.0023 [Google Scholar]
  41. Spolsky, Bernard
    2011 “Language academies and other language management agencies.” Language Policy10(4): 285–87. 10.1007/s10993‑011‑9218‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-011-9218-3 [Google Scholar]
  42. Stortinget
    Stortinget 2021 Vedtak til lov om språk (språklova) [Decision on Language Act]. https://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Vedtak/Beslutninger/Lovvedtak/2020-2021/vedtak-202021-089/
  43. Straniero Sergio, Francesco
    2003 “Norms and quality in media interpreting: The case of Formula One press conferences.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter121: 135–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Vonen, Arnfinn Muruvik, and Paal Richard Peterson
    2019 “Sign language legislation in Norway.” InLegal Recognition of Sign Languages: Advocacy and Outcomes around the World, ed. byMaartje De Meulder, Joseph J. Murray, and Rachel McKee, 191–205. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781788924016‑014
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788924016-014 [Google Scholar]
  45. World Federation of the Deaf
    World Federation of the Deaf 2019 “Complementary or diametrically opposed: Situating deaf communities within ‘disability’ vs ‘cultural and linguistic minority’ constructs: Position Paper.” Retrieved5 February 2022at: https://wfdeaf.org/news/resources/wfd-position-paper-complementary-diametrically-opposed-situating-Deaf-communities-within-disability-vs-cultural-linguistic-minority-constructs/

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error