Bridging Divides in the Interpreting Profession: Response to Gile and Napier (2020)

This commentary continues the discussion raised by Daniel Gile and Jemina Napier (2020) and aims to examine further the interconnectedness of signed and spoken language interpreting. Whereas Gile and Napier have drawn attention to some dimensions of complexity, we suggest that there are more to be explored. Focusing on the situated nature of interpreting, and including a broader range of practices of spoken language interpreting, we argue that complexities in interpreting are not inherently more present in signed language interpreting than in spoken language interpreting, and that there are situated and local contexts that must be taken more fully into account. As interpreters of signed (Hansen) and spoken (Buzungu) languages, we eagerly anticipate the rapidly approaching unification of the interpreting profession and the academic communities