When Language Alone Is Not Enough

Stephen Ellis-Menton
Aug 7
10 min read

Reflecting on Dr Russell Aldersson’s session on translanguaging and community interpreting

Imagine being asked to explain what has happened inside someone’s shoulder.

The medical professional uses accurate terminology. The interpreter understands the words and signs. The Deaf patient is watching carefully.

Technically, the information could be interpreted from one language into another. But would a signed explanation alone be the clearest way to communicate something that nobody in the room can actually see?

During his presentation at The Together Conference 2026, Dr Russell Aldersson shared an example from a physiotherapy appointment involving a patient with a detached bicep. Russell asked the physiotherapist whether they could bring up an image on the laptop.

Once the internal structure of the arm was visible, the explanation became less abstract. The spoken explanation, the sign language interpretation and the image worked together to support understanding.

This simple example sat at the centre of Russell’s session, Interpreters as Meaning Makers: Community Interpreting Through the Lens of Translanguaging.

It asked us to reconsider a familiar description of interpreting.

Are interpreters mainly transferring messages between two named languages, or are they working with everyone present to create meaning?

More than switching between languages

Translanguaging is often associated with multilingual people drawing on more than one language during communication.

Russell explained that it can also be understood more broadly.

Instead of viewing someone’s languages as completely separate systems, translanguaging considers their full linguistic repertoire. A multilingual person may move between features associated with different named languages according to what helps them communicate.

However, people do not rely on language alone.

We also use:

gesture
pointing
facial expression
enactment
images
objects
drawings
diagrams
written words
touch
positioning
shared knowledge
the physical environment around us

These are sometimes described as semiotic resources, meaning the different resources people use to communicate and create meaning.

From this perspective, communication does not only move between languages. It can also move beyond language.

Learning from the classroom

Russell’s interest in translanguaging developed through his combined work as a BSL interpreter and a teacher of English to Deaf adults.

As part of his doctoral research, he recorded teaching and learning within a classroom of Deaf sign language users.

He initially wanted to explore how BSL and English worked together during the teaching of English. However, the recordings showed that meaning was being created through much more than those two languages.

The classroom included BSL, English, sign-supported English, signed exact English, elements of other signed and written languages, gesture, objects, pictures, pointing, drawing and enactment.

One example involved learners reading an abridged version of Forrest Gump. The text described Jenny as sinking down into her chair with embarrassment.

The phrase caused confusion. How could a person literally sink into a chair?

Rather than continuing with a longer linguistic explanation, Russell physically showed the movement. Meaning was created through language, gesture and enactment working together.

The classroom became what he described as a translanguaging space. Participants were able to draw on all the resources available to them rather than being restricted to one language at a time.

We already do this

For many interpreters attending the session, the idea felt immediately familiar.

When Russell asked whether participants had used resources beyond spoken and signed languages, most said they had done so occasionally or regularly.

The conference discussion quickly produced examples from many areas of practice.

Participants described using anatomical models during healthcare appointments, mouth models at the dentist and models of the eye when discussing a detached retina.

Others had used videos to show medical procedures, photographs of different creams during dermatology appointments and demonstration videos instead of written physiotherapy instructions.

People shared examples involving maps, Lego timelines, toy cars, furniture cut-outs, mobile phones, colour, drawings, role play and objects that could be examined through touch by Deafblind people.

One interpreter had used toy cars to represent the positions of vehicles during a discussion about a road traffic collision. Another had used a map to establish a person’s country of origin when BSL was not their first signed language.

These were not unusual additions to the “real” interpretation. They were part of how understanding was created.

Russell’s session gave a theoretical name to something many professionals had already been doing.

That matters because naming a practice can make it easier to recognise, discuss, teach and reflect upon.

Making the abstract more concrete

Healthcare was a particularly useful setting for this discussion.

Medical communication often includes internal processes, unfamiliar terminology and concepts that are difficult to visualise.

This is not only an issue for Deaf people. Hearing patients may also find a model, picture or diagram easier to understand than a spoken explanation alone.

Russell gave the example of a physiotherapist who used a model of the knee to explain a ligament injury. The physical model showed where the ligaments were placed and how the injury had occurred.

Later, when Russell was interpreting for someone with a detached bicep, he applied the same principle by asking the professional to display an image.

The image did not replace the interpretation. It supported it.

The professional still provided the medical explanation. Russell continued to interpret between English and BSL. The Deaf patient could also see the structure being discussed.

The three resources worked together, making the information more concrete and giving Russell and the patient greater confidence in their shared understanding.

Is that still interpreting?

For some practitioners, this approach may raise questions about the interpreter’s role.

Should an interpreter ask a professional to find a picture?

Can they point towards an object, suggest using a model or demonstrate how something works?

Does this move too far from a traditional idea of an interpreter as a conduit between two languages?

Russell suggested that some interpreters may feel constrained by the belief that everything must be achieved through signed and spoken language alone.

Newer practitioners may recognise that a visual resource would help, but lack the confidence to interrupt and suggest using it.

Experience can bring a stronger sense of professional position. The interpreter begins to see themselves as a visible co-participant within the interaction rather than someone who must minimise their presence at all times.

This does not mean taking control of the appointment or making decisions for the participants.

It means recognising when communication is not working well and considering what resources are already available to support it.

The key questions remain professional ones:

Will this resource support understanding?
Is this an appropriate moment to introduce it?
Who should explain or use the resource?
Does everyone understand why it is being introduced?
Am I supporting communication or taking over the interaction?

Russell described confidence and timing as important. The existence of a useful resource does not mean it must always be used. The interpreter still needs to consider the context and make a reasoned decision.

The environment is part of the interaction

One practical point from the session was the value of noticing what is already in the room.

A healthcare department may have anatomical models, diagrams, screens or medical equipment.

A driving lesson has the car itself.

A mobile phone appointment may allow someone to demonstrate how to open an app rather than describe each step.

A discussion about a location may be supported by a map.

A physiotherapist can physically demonstrate an exercise.

When entering an assignment, interpreters often scan the room for positioning, lighting, seating and sightlines.

Russell encouraged us to extend that scan.

What resources are available here?

Is there something in this environment that could make the information easier to understand?

Could the professional show, demonstrate or point to the thing they are discussing?

This changes the room from being merely the place where interpreting happens. The environment itself becomes part of the communication.

Drawing on the person’s full repertoire

One of Russell’s examples involved a Lithuanian Deaf person being asked whether they had any allergies.

The English word and the signs Russell initially used did not lead to clear understanding. Allergy can also be difficult to explain because allergic reactions can appear in many different ways.

Russell eventually used Google Translate to display the Lithuanian word. The person immediately understood and answered the question.

Russell asked whether this was “cheating”.

The conference response was clear. He had drawn on another resource within the person’s linguistic repertoire to reach understanding.

However, this example also requires professional care.

Digital translation tools are not always reliable and should not be treated as replacements for qualified language professionals. Their use needs to be considered in relation to the complexity and risk of the information.

In this example, the translated word supported a short clarification after other approaches had not worked. It did not replace the wider interpreted medical conversation.

The important point was not that Google Translate should become a standard solution. It was that understanding sometimes requires us to move beyond the two languages we expected to use.

What does this mean for translators?

Russell’s session focused mainly on community interpreting, particularly situations where a consecutive approach gives participants more opportunity to pause, check and draw on additional resources.

However, the idea of meaning being created through more than language is equally relevant to translation.

A sign language translation may include:

the position of the signer
diagrams or images
text displayed on screen
maps
objects
visual examples
animation
the structure and timing of the video
links to further information

A translator may need to consider whether a direct signed version of a written text is the clearest way to communicate its meaning.

For example, written instructions describing how to complete an online process may be easier to understand if the signed translation is accompanied by a screen demonstration.

Health information may require diagrams or models.

A public information video may benefit from visual examples rather than a signer presenting continuously beside a block of text.

The translator is still working between languages, but the finished translation may draw on a wider set of resources to communicate effectively.

This raises important questions about commissioning and design. Translators should be involved early enough to consider how information will work visually, rather than being handed a finished English text and expected to reproduce it in another language without considering the wider format.

Accuracy and understanding

Russell’s session did not suggest that accuracy is unimportant or that interpreters should freely add information.

It asked us to consider what accuracy is for.

A linguistically accurate interpretation that leaves participants without a clear understanding of the subject may not have achieved the intended communication.

At the same time, the interpreter cannot take sole responsibility for ensuring that every person fully understands everything.

Communication is a shared process.

Professionals have responsibility for explaining their specialist information clearly.

Service users have their own knowledge, questions and communication preferences.

Interpreters bring linguistic and interactional knowledge.

Objects, images and demonstrations may support all three parties, but they do not remove anyone’s responsibility.

The interpreter’s role includes noticing, checking and making professional judgements about how meaning is being created, repaired and carried forward.

What are we passing on?

The idea of the interpreter as an invisible conduit has been passed through many generations of training and professional discussion.

For some practitioners, it continues to shape what they believe they are permitted to do.

They may avoid asking for a diagram, hesitate to suggest using an object or continue with a complicated explanation when a simple image would communicate the idea more clearly.

Russell’s session invited us to reconsider whether this narrow view still serves the people involved.

This does not mean replacing it with the idea that interpreters should control communication.

Instead, we might pass on a more thoughtful understanding of the interpreter as a professional who notices how meaning is being made.

We can encourage newer practitioners to ask:

What resources are available?
What does this person already know?
Which part of this explanation remains unclear?
Could the professional show this rather than only describe it?
How can I justify the choice I am making?

Giving the practice a name may also help.

A trainee who asks to use a diagram is not necessarily stepping outside their role. They may be drawing consciously on the semiotic resources available within a translanguaging space.

The professional responsibility lies in knowing why they are doing it and considering whether it is appropriate.

New insights from everyday practice

The theme for The Together Conference 2027 is New Insights, Shared Purpose.

Russell’s presentation showed how new insight can emerge when someone looks closely at an everyday part of practice.

Many interpreters were already using pictures, objects, maps and demonstrations. Translanguaging offered a framework for understanding what they were doing and why it might work.

There are likely to be many other areas of interpreting and translation where practitioners have developed useful approaches without yet having the language, research or professional space to discuss them.

Perhaps you have noticed a pattern in how people use visual materials.

You may have developed a resource for a particular setting.

You might have experience of multilingual interactions where the expected language pair did not reflect the people’s real communication.

You may be researching the use of gesture, technology, objects, diagrams or enactment.

These experiences could form the basis of a proposal for The Together Conference 2027.

The Call for Papers opens on Monday 5 October 2026. We welcome proposals from interpreters, translators, Deaf professionals, trainees, educators, researchers, supervisors, service providers and others connected to sign language interpreting and translation.

You do not need to decide whether your proposal belongs in the live programme or the extended conference. Submit your idea and the review panel will consider where accepted contributions fit best.

Poster submissions will also be welcomed for developing research, professional resources, early findings and practice-based reflections.

Russell’s session began with the question of how meaning is really made.

Perhaps your own practice contains an insight that could help the wider profession think about that question differently.

Using this article for unstructured CPD

You may wish to reflect on one or more of the following questions:

When have you used something other than spoken or signed language to support communication?
What resources were available within that setting?
How did you decide whether using them was appropriate?
Did the resource replace part of the interpretation or work alongside it?
How did the other participants respond?
Are there situations where you have hesitated to suggest using an image, object or demonstration?
How does the idea of the interpreter as a meaning maker fit with your understanding of professional boundaries?
What could translators consider when combining signed language with visual resources?
What might you do differently in a future assignment or translation?
Is there an example from your practice that could be shared through a 2027 conference proposal or poster?