Category: Visual and Media Accessibility

Sign Language Interpretation

Also known as: Sign Language Interpreting, ASL Interpreting, ASL/English Interpreting

Simply put

Sign language interpretation is the process of converting spoken language into sign language and sign language back into spoken language so that deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing people can communicate. A sign language interpreter conveys messages effectively, accurately, and impartially in both directions. It is one way to provide communication access, though the specific approach used may vary depending on the situation and the people involved.

Formal definition

Sign language interpretation is the real-time conversion of messages between two distinct languages, such as American Sign Language (ASL) and English, performed both receptively and expressively. Practitioners interpret spoken language into signed language and signed language into spoken language while maintaining accuracy, effectiveness, and impartiality. Delivery models include working solo or in interpreting teams, and may involve a Deaf interpreter (DI), an individual who is deaf or hard of hearing with strong communication skills in both ASL and English, often paired with a hearing interpreter to support certain interpreting contexts. Note that this entry describes the practice generally and does not address the specific legal obligations to provide interpreters under authorities such as the ADA; consult qualified legal counsel for compliance questions.

Why it matters

Sign language interpretation is a primary means of enabling communication between deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing people who do not share a common language. Because languages such as American Sign Language (ASL) and English are distinct languages rather than direct word-for-word equivalents, interpretation bridges a genuine linguistic gap. Without effective, accurate, and impartial interpretation, deaf and hard of hearing individuals may be excluded from conversations, services, and information that hearing participants access as a matter of course.

Effective communication access depends on matching the interpreting approach to the situation and the people involved. A single solo interpreter may be appropriate in some contexts, while other settings call for interpreting teams or the involvement of a Deaf interpreter working alongside a hearing interpreter. Choosing an approach that does not fit the participants or the complexity of the exchange can compromise the accuracy and effectiveness of communication, even when an interpreter is present.

This entry describes the practice of sign language interpretation generally and does not address the specific legal obligations to provide interpreters under authorities such as the ADA or other federal or state law. Whether, when, and how an entity must provide interpreters depends on the applicable legal framework and the facts of a given situation; organizations should consult qualified legal counsel for compliance questions.

Who it's relevant to

Deaf and hard of hearing individuals

People who use sign language rely on interpretation to communicate accurately with hearing participants and to access conversations, services, and information. The suitability of a given interpreting approach can depend on the individual's communication preferences and the setting.

Accessibility and communication access coordinators

Those responsible for arranging communication access need to understand that interpreting is the real-time conversion between two distinct languages and that the appropriate approach, solo interpreter, interpreting team, or the involvement of a Deaf interpreter, may vary with the situation and the people involved.

Organizations serving the public and their staff

Businesses, service providers, and their front-line staff may interact with deaf and hard of hearing individuals and should understand what sign language interpretation involves. This entry does not address specific legal obligations to provide interpreters; organizations should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their responsibilities under applicable authorities.

Event planners and meeting organizers

People coordinating meetings, events, or presentations that include deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing participants benefit from understanding interpreting delivery models, including when teams or a Deaf interpreter paired with a hearing interpreter may be appropriate to support effective communication.

Inside Sign Language Interpretation

Qualified Interpreter

An interpreter who can interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary. Title II and Title III of the ADA reference the concept of a qualified interpreter when auxiliary aids and services are needed for effective communication.

Sign Language Varieties

Sign language is not universal; distinct languages such as American Sign Language (ASL) have their own grammar and syntax, and other regions and communities use different sign languages. The appropriate variety depends on the individual's language and communication needs.

Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)

A service delivering interpretation through a live video connection rather than an on-site interpreter. VRI can be an option where an on-site interpreter is not readily available, but it depends on adequate video quality, connection speed, and appropriate positioning to be effective.

On-Site (In-Person) Interpreting

Interpretation provided by an interpreter physically present. This may be more appropriate than VRI in certain settings, such as complex, high-stakes, or physically dynamic situations where a remote connection may not support effective communication.

Effective Communication

The standard under which covered entities may need to provide auxiliary aids and services, which can include interpreters, so that communication with people who are deaf or hard of hearing is as effective as communication with others. The specific aid or service depends on context.

Captioning as a Related but Distinct Service

Captions render spoken audio as text and serve some users, but they are not a substitute for sign language interpretation for individuals whose primary or preferred language is a sign language. The two address different needs.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about Sign Language Interpretation.

Does providing captions eliminate the need for sign language interpretation?

Not necessarily. Captions and sign language interpretation serve overlapping but distinct needs. Many Deaf individuals who use a signed language as their primary language may find interpretation more accessible than reading captions, particularly because signed languages have their own grammar and structure that differs from written English. The appropriate accommodation depends on the individual's preferences and the context, and the two are often treated as complementary rather than interchangeable. This is general information and not legal advice; consult qualified counsel regarding specific obligations.

Is sign language universal, so that one interpreter can serve any Deaf audience?

No. Sign languages are not universal. Different regions and countries use distinct signed languages, and an interpreter fluent in one may not be able to interpret another. Selecting an interpreter generally requires matching the specific signed language used by the individuals being served, and additional considerations such as subject-matter familiarity may also apply. This entry does not identify which specific language applies in any given situation; that depends on the audience.

When should sign language interpretation be considered for digital or live content?

Sign language interpretation is commonly considered for live events, meetings, webinars, and video content where Deaf or hard-of-hearing participants may rely on a signed language for effective communication. The specific choice of accommodation generally depends on the audience, the nature of the interaction, and applicable requirements. Because obligations vary by context and jurisdiction, organizations should assess needs on a case-by-case basis and, where legal duties may apply, consult qualified counsel.

What is the difference between on-site and remote (video) sign language interpretation?

On-site interpretation involves an interpreter physically present, while remote interpretation is delivered through a video connection, sometimes referred to as Video Remote Interpreting. Remote options can offer flexibility and availability, but their effectiveness may depend on factors such as connection quality, camera framing, lighting, and the complexity of the interaction. The suitability of each approach generally depends on the setting and the needs of the participants.

How can sign language interpretation be integrated into video content?

For recorded or streamed video, interpretation is commonly presented as an interpreter visible within or alongside the main video frame. Key implementation considerations often include ensuring the interpreter is clearly visible and adequately sized, maintaining sufficient contrast and lighting, and avoiding visual obstruction of the interpreter. Interpretation is frequently offered in addition to captions rather than as a replacement for them.

Does adding sign language interpretation guarantee accessibility or legal compliance?

No. Providing interpretation may support accessibility for individuals who use a signed language, but it does not by itself guarantee an accessible experience for all users or immunity from legal claims. Effectiveness generally depends on factors such as interpreter qualification, appropriate language matching, and quality of delivery, and other accommodations may also be needed. Requirements evolve through regulation and case law, so organizations should consult qualified legal counsel for guidance specific to their situation.

Common misconceptions

Sign language is universal, so any interpreter can serve any deaf person.

Sign languages differ by region and community and have their own grammar; for example, ASL differs from other sign languages. The interpreter and the sign language used should match the individual's language and communication needs.

Providing captions is always an adequate alternative to a sign language interpreter.

Captions may help some users but are not equivalent to interpretation for those whose preferred language is a sign language. The appropriate auxiliary aid or service depends on the individual and the context of the communication.

Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) can always replace an on-site interpreter.

VRI may be suitable in some situations but depends on factors like video quality, connection reliability, and positioning. In complex or dynamic settings, an on-site interpreter may be needed to achieve effective communication.

Best practices

Assess the individual's language and communication needs, including which sign language they use, rather than assuming a single universal approach.

Engage qualified interpreters who can interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially for the specific setting and subject matter.

When using VRI, verify adequate video quality, connection reliability, and interpreter positioning, and have a plan for switching to an on-site interpreter when remote delivery cannot support effective communication.

Do not rely on captions alone as a substitute for interpretation for users whose preferred language is a sign language; treat them as complementary services addressing different needs.

Consider the complexity and stakes of the interaction when choosing between on-site and remote interpreting, favoring in-person support for high-stakes or physically dynamic situations.

Consult qualified legal counsel and current agency guidance regarding effective communication obligations, as requirements vary by jurisdiction and setting and evolve through regulation and case law; this guidance is not legal advice.