Knowing a language and speaking on behalf of the people who use it are not the same thing.
A Deaf person is signing. A BSL interpreter is voicing.
Someone becomes curious about the language.
“How does BSL work?”
“Is that the correct sign?”
“Can you teach me some signs?”
But instead of directing the conversation towards the Deaf signer, the questions are addressed to the interpreter.
The Deaf person is still there.
So why has the focus shifted?
Through my own experiences and wider observations, I've noticed how interpreters can sometimes become the people others turn to for explanations about BSL, even when Deaf signers are present and able to contribute their own knowledge.
It may begin with genuine curiosity.
But the interaction raises a wider question about whose expertise is recognised.
I've experienced different approaches to this.
During a GP appointment, the doctor asked my interpreter how to sign goodbye, and the interpreter demonstrated the sign.
On another occasion, a hearing person directed a question towards my interpreter. Rather than answering on my behalf, the interpreter relayed the question to me, allowing me to respond.
Neither situation automatically indicates inappropriate behaviour.
An interpreter may reasonably answer a straightforward question about a sign. But when a question concerns the Deaf person's own knowledge, experiences or views, that person should have the opportunity to answer.
The distinction matters.
Interpreters are skilled language professionals. Many have extensive linguistic knowledge, professional training and experience working across different communication settings.
Their expertise deserves recognition.
But interpreting a language and representing the experiences of a community are not necessarily the same thing.
A Deaf person who uses BSL may bring linguistic knowledge, cultural experiences and perspectives that cannot simply be replaced by someone else's explanation.
Yet the person voicing the conversation can sometimes become the person others instinctively treat as the authority.
Why?
Is it because the interpreter is speaking English? Because hearing people feel more comfortable addressing another hearing person? Or because professional qualifications are more readily recognised than lived linguistic and cultural knowledge?
These possibilities deserve examination rather than assumption.
There is a difference between asking an interpreter about their professional work and expecting them to speak on behalf of Deaf people.
An interpreter may be well placed to explain aspects of interpreting, linguistic structure or professional practice.
But questions about a Deaf person's signing, identity or experiences should not automatically be redirected to someone else.
If the Deaf person's words are being interpreted, whose perspective is being expressed?
And does the person listening recognise that the answer comes from the Deaf signer rather than the interpreter voicing it?
This is not about suggesting that every Deaf person is automatically an expert in BSL linguistics or responsible for teaching others.
BSL has regional variations, different language experiences and a diverse community of signers. No individual represents every Deaf person's perspective.
Nor should Deaf people be expected to provide explanations simply because someone is curious.
The issue is who is given the opportunity to respond, whose knowledge is recognised and who is assumed to hold authority.
Interpreters can play an important role in maintaining that distinction by recognising when questions should be directed towards the Deaf person rather than answering on their behalf.
But responsibility does not rest with interpreters alone.
Hearing participants should also examine whom they instinctively address, listen to and recognise as knowledgeable.
Because communication access is not only about making someone's words understandable.
It is also about ensuring their perspective remains their own.
An interpreter can voice someone's signed language without becoming the authority over that person's language, identity or experience.
The question is not whether interpreters have expertise.
It is why Deaf expertise can sometimes become less visible when another person is doing the speaking.
THE QUESTION
What influences whose knowledge is recognised as authoritative when Deaf signers and BSL interpreters are present in the same conversation?
