How to Communicate Across Languages and Cultures in Daily Life

Communicating across languages and cultures requires more than knowing the right words. People may understand the vocabulary used in a conversation but interpret its meaning, tone, expectations, or intended actions differently.

These differences can arise in classrooms, workplaces, international group projects, online meetings, and everyday community interactions. A polite suggestion may be interpreted as an instruction. Someone may understand a question but need more time to respond. Two colleagues may agree on a task without sharing the same understanding of what needs to happen next.

The difficulty is not necessarily limited language ability or unfamiliarity with another culture. Communication also depends on context, individual preferences, relationships, and assumptions about how people should express themselves.

Effective cross-cultural communication means developing sufficient shared understanding for the purpose of an interaction. This involves speaking clearly, listening attentively, asking respectful questions, and checking important interpretations rather than assuming that a message has been understood.

The aim is not to memorize cultural rules or communicate perfectly in every situation. It is to recognize where meanings may differ, adapt communication appropriately, and use reliable language assistance when ordinary clarification is insufficient.

Answer Summary: To communicate across languages and cultures, begin by identifying a language and communication format that participants can use comfortably. Explain unfamiliar expressions, listen without rushing, and ask questions rather than assuming what someone's behavior means. Confirm important information and agreed actions in both directions. When misunderstandings involve sensitive information, safety, or significant consequences, use qualified language assistance instead of depending on uncertain interpretations or unverified automatic translations.

What Changes When People Communicate Across Languages and Cultures?

Communication across languages and cultures involves differences in linguistic understanding, communication expectations, or both. These differences are related, but they are not interchangeable.

A language difference concerns how people express or understand information. It may involve vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar, technical terminology, or familiarity with a particular language.

A cultural difference may concern the expectations surrounding communication. These include how directly people express disagreement, how they address authority figures, when they consider interruption appropriate, and what they regard as polite or respectful.

For example, two people who speak English fluently may interpret an indirect request differently. Conversely, people with different first languages may share similar expectations about teamwork, decision-making, and professional behavior.

Nationality alone cannot explain either situation. Personality, education, professional background, institutional roles, and personal experience also influence communication.

The Council of Europe's Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) describes mediation as a collaborative process of making meaning and enabling communication across linguistic or cultural barriers. Its model recognizes that meaningful communication involves more than producing and receiving words.

This provides an important distinction: successful communication does not require everyone to express themselves identically. It requires participants to establish enough shared meaning to understand information, exchange views, or complete an agreed task.

Cultural knowledge does not replace understanding the individual

Intercultural communication competence refers to the knowledge, attitudes, and skills involved in communicating appropriately with people whose cultural experiences or expectations may differ.

Understanding cultural differences can help people recognize unfamiliar communication practices. However, knowing a convention associated with a particular community does not establish how every individual within that community behaves.

Someone may be familiar with a cultural practice while choosing a different approach personally.

Queen's University's guidance on intercultural communication in classrooms emphasizes cultural humility, reflection, and observation rather than stereotyping.

Cultural humility involves recognizing that one's own communication habits and assumptions are not universal. It also means remaining open to correction when another person interprets an interaction differently.

The practical principle is straightforward: cultural knowledge can provide context, but individual preferences and responses should guide the interaction.

Identify What Is Causing the Misunderstanding

Before trying to overcome a language or cultural barrier, identify what is preventing shared understanding.

The difficulty may involve unfamiliar words, uncertain intentions, differing expectations, or disagreement about what should happen next.

These problems require different responses.

If someone does not understand a term, an explanation may resolve the issue. If two people understand every word but interpret a request differently, repeating the sentence will not necessarily help.

This distinction helps prevent language barriers from becoming a general explanation for every unsuccessful interaction.

Unfamiliar words, idioms, and technical language

Familiar expressions can become obstacles when the listener has learned a language in a different setting.

Idioms such as "touch base," "keep me in the loop," or "get the ball rolling" may be understandable to some speakers but confusing when interpreted literally.

Professional abbreviations, institutional terminology, and specialized expressions can create similar difficulties.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), through its Clear Communication Index, recommends using words familiar to the intended audience and explaining unfamiliar terminology where it appears.

The guidance concerns audience-facing communication materials, but its underlying principle is also useful when preparing spoken explanations.

For example, instead of saying, "Touch base with me after the session," a speaker can say, "Contact me after the session to discuss the next task."

The second statement identifies the expected action without requiring the listener to recognize an idiom.

Clear language does not mean removing necessary technical detail. When a particular term is essential, explain its meaning rather than replacing it with wording that changes the information.

Accent is not a measure of knowledge

An unfamiliar accent does not establish that a speaker has limited knowledge, weak reasoning, or unreliable information.

Accent concerns pronunciation patterns. Language proficiency includes a broader range of abilities, while subject knowledge concerns understanding of the topic being discussed.

These qualities should not be confused.

If pronunciation makes a word difficult to recognize, ask for clarification about that word.

For example, "Could you repeat the name of the process?" identifies the communication difficulty without making assumptions about the speaker.

A person who communicates slowly in an additional language may still understand the subject thoroughly. Similarly, fluent speech does not guarantee that the speaker and listener interpret technical information in the same way.

Evaluate what the person communicates rather than treating accent or speaking speed as evidence of expertise or intelligence.

Different expectations about politeness and participation

People can misunderstand each other even when every word is familiar.

Communication expectations may influence whether people:

• Express disagreement directly or indirectly.

• Ask questions during a presentation or afterward.

• Interpret a suggestion as optional or expected.

• Consider silence appropriate during a discussion.

• Expect decisions to be stated explicitly.

• Use formal or informal language in professional settings.

The British Council's guidance on intercultural communication in hybrid workplaces emphasizes that cultural identity extends beyond nationality. Organizational practices, professional communities, education, and individual experience also shape communication preferences.

These differences should be approached as possible explanations, not fixed characteristics of cultural groups.

Suppose someone responds to a proposed schedule by saying, "That may be difficult."

The statement may indicate disagreement, uncertainty about available resources, or a request to reconsider the timeline.

Rather than interpreting the response through a cultural stereotype, ask:

"Is the difficulty related to the deadline, the amount of work, or another concern?"

The question allows the person to explain the issue directly.

Spoken, written, visual, and signed communication

People may understand information differently depending on how it is presented.

Someone who finds rapid spoken conversation difficult may prefer written instructions. Another person may communicate comfortably in conversation but find lengthy written material harder to follow.

The ability to speak a language should not be treated as proof of equivalent reading or writing proficiency.

Communication access also extends beyond spoken and written languages.

Signed languages are distinct natural languages, not universal systems of gestures. The World Federation of the Deaf explains that sign languages differ across countries and regions.

Offering written text does not necessarily meet the language needs of someone who prefers a signed language.

The appropriate response is to ask which language and communication method the individual prefers rather than assuming that one format suits everyone.

Before the Conversation: Agree on Language, Purpose, and Format

Preparation for cross-cultural communication begins with identifying what the interaction needs to accomplish and how participants can understand the information.

A brief discussion about communication preferences may prevent confusion later.

Ask about language and communication preferences

Ask which language or format works for the participants.

Depending on the situation, appropriate questions include:

• "Which language would you prefer for this discussion?"

• "Would a written explanation be useful?"

• "Would you prefer to review the information before the meeting?"

• "How would you like me to address you?"

• "Would language assistance help us discuss this accurately?"

The questions should be proportionate to the setting.

A routine social interaction does not require a formal assessment of someone's language ability. A classroom discussion, institutional meeting, or community-service interaction may require more deliberate arrangements.

It is equally important not to place the entire responsibility on someone communicating in an additional language.

A person who is fluent in the shared working language can still explain unfamiliar expressions, avoid unnecessary jargon, and allow appropriate time for responses.

Effective communication requires adaptation from both sides.

Establish what the conversation should accomplish

Clarifying the purpose helps participants understand what is expected.

A conversation may be intended to exchange information, ask for assistance, consider suggestions, resolve a disagreement, or make a decision.

These purposes require different levels of precision.

A brainstorming discussion permits unfinished ideas and uncertain suggestions. A meeting intended to approve a plan requires a clear distinction between proposals and confirmed decisions.

Before beginning an important discussion, identify what participants should know or decide by the end.

If the interaction concerns responsibilities, deadlines, permissions, or safety requirements, determine which details need explicit confirmation.

This is useful when participants have different expectations about how formally agreements should be expressed or recorded.

Prepare clear language without losing important meaning

Plain language makes information easier to understand without removing essential distinctions.

Use familiar vocabulary where it preserves the intended meaning. Explain abbreviations that participants may not recognize. Separate different instructions rather than combining several actions into one complicated sentence.

For example, an instruction such as "Complete the necessary documentation promptly and coordinate the outstanding requirements with the relevant team" leaves several details unclear.

A more useful explanation would identify which documents are required, who should receive them, and what action is expected afterward.

The second explanation requires those details to be known. Clarity should not be created by inventing missing requirements.

For longer discussions, a short written outline can help participants understand the purpose before the conversation begins.

During the Conversation: Listen, Clarify, and Adapt Together

Effective multilingual communication depends on expressing ideas clearly and checking whether the intended meaning has been understood.

Accurate speech is only part of the process. Listeners also contribute by identifying uncertainty, asking questions, and explaining their interpretations.

Speak at a manageable pace

Use a natural speaking pace that allows participants sufficient time to follow the information.

When explaining several instructions, separate the main points and provide opportunities for clarification.

Speaking louder does not resolve unfamiliar vocabulary. Exaggerating pronunciation can make speech unnatural and may be perceived as condescending.

A more useful adjustment is to restate a difficult idea with familiar words while preserving its meaning.

Pauses also matter.

Someone using an additional language may be considering a response, recalling terminology, or deciding how to express disagreement. The reason cannot be determined from the pause alone.

Allow time for the person to finish before responding or rephrasing.

Listen for the intended meaning

Attentive listening requires understanding the information being communicated, including relevant qualifications, concerns, and uncertainties.

Avoid immediately treating an unfamiliar phrase as an error.

If the intended meaning is unclear, identify the specific point that requires clarification.

For example:

"I understood the first part of your explanation, but I am unsure whether the change applies to everyone or only to our group."

This is more precise than telling the speaker that the entire explanation was confusing.

Listening also requires awareness of one's own assumptions.

A listener who expects direct answers may interpret an indirect response as evasive. Another person may regard a highly direct question as unnecessarily confrontational.

Neither interpretation establishes what the speaker intended.

When the distinction matters, ask about the message rather than the person's cultural identity.

Check understanding without embarrassing someone

A question such as "Do you understand?" may produce an affirmative response without establishing whether both people have interpreted the message in the same way.

A more informative approach is to explain your understanding and invite correction.

For example:

"My understanding is that we will review the proposal before deciding whether to approve it. Is that what you intended?"

This makes clarification a shared responsibility.

For instructions, participants can describe the expected action in their own words.

The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) describes a clinical communication method called teach-back. Healthcare professionals ask patients to explain information in their own words to check whether the explanation was clear.

Teach-back is an established method in a specific healthcare context. Applying the broader idea of reciprocal paraphrasing to everyday communication is a practical adaptation, not evidence that it produces identical results in every setting.

Outside healthcare, the emphasis should remain on mutual verification rather than testing someone's language ability.

The speaker checks whether the explanation was understandable. The listener explains their interpretation. Both correct any important differences before acting.

Distinguish acknowledgment from agreement

Acknowledging a message is not necessarily the same as accepting a proposal.

Responses such as "I see," "Okay," or "Understood" can serve different purposes.

A person may be confirming that they heard a statement, understood its meaning, or agreed with the proposed action.

These possibilities should not be treated as interchangeable.

When making decisions, clarify whether a response represents understanding, agreement, a suggestion, or a request for more information.

For example:

"Are we agreeing to use this schedule, or are we keeping it as an option for further discussion?"

The question addresses the practical uncertainty without requiring anyone to explain their communication style.

Share responsibility for clarification

Communication becomes less equitable when one participant is expected to make every adjustment.

A fluent speaker may assume that someone else should ask whenever they do not understand. Meanwhile, the other participant may be uncertain whether questions are welcome.

A more balanced approach is to make clarification a normal part of the interaction.

Speakers can pause after important information, explain unfamiliar expressions, and invite questions without drawing unnecessary attention to an individual's language ability.

Listeners can identify uncertain details, explain their interpretation, and ask for a different format when appropriate.

Neither participant needs to pretend that an unclear message has been understood.

How Should You Interpret Gestures, Silence, and Body Language?

Nonverbal communication can provide context, but individual gestures should not be treated as reliable indicators of a person's intentions.

Eye contact, facial expressions, posture, pauses, and physical distance can have different meanings depending on the situation and individual.

An absence of eye contact does not establish dishonesty or disrespect. Silence does not prove agreement or confusion.

A gesture that seems familiar in one setting may be interpreted differently elsewhere. Yet those differences cannot reliably be reduced to fixed national etiquette rules.

Queen's University encourages educators to distinguish observation from interpretation and to remain aware of cultural stereotyping.

The same caution is useful in everyday interactions.

If someone remains silent after an explanation, an appropriate response may be:

"Would you like more time to consider this, or is there a part you would like me to explain differently?"

The question leaves room for several explanations instead of assigning one.

Respect for personal boundaries matters as well.

If someone expresses discomfort with physical proximity or a particular form of interaction, adjust your behavior without demanding an explanation of their cultural identity.

Nonverbal communication should be interpreted alongside words, context, and individual preferences. It is not an exact method for identifying agreement, character, or truthfulness.

When Should You Use Translation Tools or an Interpreter?

Translation and interpreting support communication when participants cannot establish sufficient understanding through a shared language.

The appropriate assistance depends on the purpose of the exchange, the information involved, and the consequences of misunderstanding.

Understand the difference between translation and interpreting

Translation generally concerns converting written information from one language into another.

Interpreting concerns communicating meaning between languages during spoken or signed interactions.

Both require attention to meaning, terminology, and context.

The ability to communicate conversationally in two languages does not automatically establish competence to interpret specialized information accurately.

In an informal setting, assistance from someone who understands both languages may help people exchange basic information.

More consequential communication may require a qualified interpreter or professionally reviewed translation.

When automatic translation is appropriate

Automatic translation can help readers understand short, ordinary messages or identify the general subject of unfamiliar text.

It may provide provisional assistance when participants have no immediately available shared language.

However, a translation that reads naturally is not necessarily accurate.

Accuracy may vary according to the languages involved, the direction of translation, the text, the system, and the surrounding context.

A study by Kong and colleagues, published in BMJ Quality & Safety in 2026, evaluated machine translation of 50 sets of patient-specific emergency-department discharge instructions from English into Spanish, Chinese, and Russian.

The researchers compared translations produced by two systems and found differences in accuracy across languages and tools.

The study concerned specific healthcare instructions, language pairs, and systems. Its findings do not establish a universal accuracy rate for all translation applications or situations.

The researchers' conclusions support caution and professional oversight for communication where translation errors may have important consequences.

For ordinary messages, automatic translation can serve as an initial aid. Where details matter, important wording should be checked by someone competent in the relevant languages and subject.

When qualified language assistance matters

Informal communication methods become less appropriate when misunderstandings may affect safety, confidentiality, informed decisions, or significant obligations.

Examples include medical information, formal agreements, safety instructions, and sensitive institutional procedures.

A 2012 study led by Glenn Flores examined interpretation errors across 57 pediatric emergency-department encounters in Massachusetts involving Spanish-speaking patients or caregivers.

The researchers found that a lower proportion of recorded interpretation errors had potential clinical consequences when professional interpreters were involved than when informal interpreters or no interpreters were used.

The findings concern a particular healthcare setting. They do not establish identical outcomes across other professions, languages, or countries.

However, they provide relevant evidence for distinguishing trained interpreting from informal language assistance when accurate communication is especially important.

Before arranging assistance, consider whether the person has appropriate language proficiency, knowledge of the subject, and the ability to handle information confidentially.

Avoid assuming that a bilingual acquaintance is qualified to interpret sensitive professional information.

Language-access requirements also differ between countries, institutions, and sectors. Where formal rules apply, consult the responsible organization or authority.

This guidance concerns communication practices and does not replace medical, legal, or other professional advice.

Protect privacy when using language assistance

Communication accuracy is not the sole consideration when choosing a translation method.

Sensitive documents or conversations may contain personal, institutional, or confidential information.

Before entering such information into an online translation service, check whether the service and the intended use are permitted under the relevant privacy arrangements.

For professional interpreting, clarify any applicable confidentiality requirements.

When communication involves sensitive information, access to a convenient translation tool should not override privacy obligations or the need for qualified assistance.

After the Conversation: Confirm What Everyone Agreed To

A conversation may appear successful while participants leave with different understandings of the next action.

A short written follow-up gives participants an opportunity to identify these differences before proceeding.

For a meeting, group discussion, or collaborative task, a useful summary identifies:

1. What information or decision was confirmed.

2. Who is responsible for the next action.

3. When or under what conditions the action is expected.

The record should distinguish agreed decisions from suggestions that remain under discussion.

Participants also need an opportunity to correct an inaccurate summary.

Written confirmation is a practical communication safeguard, not a guarantee that misunderstandings will be eliminated.

Make follow-up information accessible

Sending written information in the working language is useful only when recipients can understand it.

Some participants may prefer a different language, a shorter written explanation, or a discussion of the summary before confirming it.

Avoid treating written confirmation as proof of understanding if the language itself remains inaccessible.

For online collaboration, shared records and agreed communication channels can help participants review responsibilities.

Collegenp's article on remote work and virtual collaboration provides related guidance on organizing communication in distributed teams.

Do not confuse acknowledgment with formal approval

Written records should describe what participants have agreed to.

If someone acknowledges receiving a summary, that does not necessarily mean they accept every statement within it.

Where formal approval or authorization is required, follow the applicable procedure rather than treating an ordinary acknowledgment as sufficient.

This distinction matters particularly when decisions carry significant consequences.

How to Repair a Cross-Cultural Misunderstanding

When a misunderstanding becomes apparent, focus on identifying the different interpretations rather than assigning blame.

The problem may involve unfamiliar wording, incomplete information, conflicting expectations, or genuine disagreement.

Begin by identifying the specific statement or decision that participants understood differently.

A useful opening is:

"I think we interpreted the earlier discussion differently. Can we compare what each of us understood?"

Then explain your understanding and invite the other person to describe theirs.

This gives participants an opportunity to identify where their interpretations separated.

If you communicated something inaccurately, acknowledge the error and provide the corrected information.

If the meaning remains unclear, consider changing the language, communication format, or support available instead of repeating the same explanation.

Recognize when the disagreement is not cultural

Sometimes people understand each other accurately and still disagree.

They may have competing priorities, different assessments of a situation, or incompatible expectations.

Clearer vocabulary will not resolve a genuine disagreement about responsibilities, priorities, or decisions.

In these circumstances, identify the substantive issue and discuss it directly.

Communication differences should not be used to excuse repeated disrespect, coercion, or disregard for reasonable boundaries.

The task is to understand the disagreement accurately, not to require someone to accept inappropriate behavior in the name of cultural sensitivity.

For related guidance, Collegenp's article on communication in real life, boundaries, and conflict addresses constructive responses to interpersonal disagreements.

Applying Cross-Cultural Communication in Different Settings

The same communication principles can support interactions across several settings, but the arrangements should reflect the participants and the consequences involved.

In multilingual classrooms

Classroom communication should make learning expectations understandable without equating language fluency with academic ability.

A student may understand a subject while finding it difficult to respond quickly in the language used for instruction.

Teachers and group facilitators can make instructions explicit, explain unfamiliar terminology, allow questions, and provide accessible material when appropriate.

Queen's University's intercultural classroom guidance encourages educators to examine their assumptions and avoid treating culturally different communication practices as deficiencies.

Student groups can also distinguish between understanding an assignment and agreeing on how the work will be divided.

The first requires clarification of the instructions. The second requires a shared discussion of responsibilities.

For additional practice, Collegenp provides communication exercises for students.

In multicultural workplaces

Workplace communication involves exchanging information, coordinating responsibilities, making decisions, and providing opportunities for participation.

A shared working language does not automatically establish that every employee understands technical terminology or feels equally comfortable contributing during meetings.

Managers and colleagues should consider whether important information is accessible to everyone affected.

Meeting organizers can explain unfamiliar terms, invite questions, clarify decisions, and provide written summaries when useful.

Important decisions should not depend entirely on informal conversations that some participants cannot access.

The British Council emphasizes reflection on personal communication preferences and mutual adaptation in intercultural workplace communication.

These practices address organizational communication without expecting employees to adopt identical personal styles.

In community and everyday interactions

Everyday cross-cultural communication may involve unfamiliar names, social expectations, institutions, or ways of exchanging information.

The appropriate starting point is attention to the individual rather than assumptions about a group.

Learning how someone prefers to be addressed, checking unfamiliar terms, and choosing an accessible communication method may be sufficient for routine interactions.

Community services may need additional arrangements when participants must understand procedures, instructions, or sensitive information.

The response should remain proportionate to the situation. An ordinary conversation does not require a formal cultural assessment.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Several habits can create additional confusion even when participants intend to communicate respectfully.

One is assuming that people from the same country communicate identically.

Cultural background may influence expectations, but it does not determine individual behavior.

Another mistake is treating fluent speech as proof of understanding.

A person may speak confidently while interpreting a technical instruction differently from the speaker.

The reverse assumption is equally problematic. Slower speech or a noticeable accent does not establish limited knowledge.

Repeating an unclear explanation without changing its wording can leave the underlying problem unresolved.

Other difficulties arise when people interpret silence as agreement, rely on automatic translation without checking consequential details, or expect someone using an additional language to make every adjustment.

An effective alternative is reciprocal adaptation.

Each participant contributes to clarity by explaining important details, identifying uncertainty, and remaining willing to correct an interpretation.

A Practical Check Before Your Next Conversation

Before an important multilingual or cross-cultural interaction, consider the following questions.

• Purpose: Is the conversation intended to exchange information, make a decision, or agree on an action?

• Language: Can everyone understand the working language sufficiently for the task?

• Format: Would spoken, written, visual, signed, or interpreted communication be more accessible?

• Clarity: Are unfamiliar terms, expressions, and expectations explained?

• Understanding: Have important interpretations been checked in both directions?

• Agreement: Are decisions, responsibilities, and any confirmed deadlines clear?

• Support: Does the sensitivity or consequence of the message require qualified language assistance?

These questions are a practical preparation aid, not a scientifically validated assessment instrument.

An ordinary conversation may require only a few considerations. A complicated or consequential exchange may need more structured preparation.

Developing Intercultural Communication Skills Over Time

Intercultural communication skills can be developed through reflection, practice, feedback, and experience with different communication situations.

The aim is not to memorize assumptions about cultural groups. It is to become more attentive to how meaning is expressed and understood.

After a conversation, consider whether any confusion involved unfamiliar vocabulary, differing expectations, an unsuitable communication format, or incomplete confirmation of a decision.

When appropriate, ask participants whether the explanation was understandable and what could be made clearer.

Such feedback should inform adjustments to future communication rather than establish that one participant communicated incorrectly.

Learning an additional language may broaden communication opportunities, but language study and effective cross-cultural communication are not identical.

Someone can improve vocabulary and grammar while still needing to develop listening, clarification, and context-sensitive communication skills.

The Council of Europe's CEFR approach recognizes that communication involves combining linguistic knowledge with interaction and collaborative meaning-making.

This perspective encourages flexible use of existing language abilities while acknowledging that competence varies according to the situation.

Conclusion

Communicating across languages and cultures is a shared process of establishing meaning, not a test of whether everyone follows the same linguistic or social conventions.

Language barriers, differing communication expectations, unfamiliar terminology, and unsuitable formats can create distinct problems. Identifying the actual source of confusion helps people respond appropriately instead of relying on cultural assumptions.

The most useful habits are to ask about individual preferences, communicate clearly, listen attentively, verify important interpretations, and confirm agreed actions.

When routine clarification is insufficient, changing the communication format or arranging qualified language assistance may be necessary.

Effective intercultural communication does not require certainty about another person's background. It requires enough openness to ask, enough care to explain, and enough precision to establish what everyone understands.

References

1. Council of Europe. Mediation — Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Guidance on collaborative meaning-making and communication across linguistic and cultural barriers.

2. Queen's University, Centre for Teaching and Learning. Intercultural Communication in Classrooms. Guidance on cultural humility, reflection, communication awareness, and avoiding stereotypes.

3. British Council. Developing Intercultural Communication Skills for the Hybrid Workplace. 2022. Workplace communication, cultural identity, and mutual adaptation.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Does the Material Always Use Words the Primary Audience Uses?. Clear Communication Index guidance on familiar vocabulary, jargon, and abbreviations.

5. World Federation of the Deaf. Frequently Asked Questions. Information on signed languages and their diversity across regions.

6. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Guide to Improving Patient Safety in Primary Care Settings: Teach-Back. Guidance on checking whether information has been explained and understood clearly in healthcare settings.

7. Flores, G., Abreu, M., Barone, C. P., Bachur, R., and Lin, H. (2012). Errors of Medical Interpretation and Their Potential Clinical Consequences: A Comparison of Professional Versus Ad Hoc Versus No Interpreters. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 60(5), 545–553.

8. Kong, M., et al. (2026). Evaluation of the Accuracy and Safety of Machine Translation of Patient-Specific Discharge Instructions: A Comparative Analysis. BMJ Quality & Safety, 35(3), 150–158.