Interpreting has probably existed ever since human beings from diff erent groups fi rst encountered each other and attempted to communicate. Long before the invention of writing it was human speech that needed to be interpreted so that groups from separate locations that had developed diff erent languages could begin to communicate and engage with one another. One can only imagine that at a period when language itself was still in its infancy the fi rst individuals to encounter and begin to relate to another group that spoke a diff erent language might become familiar with some of their key words or expressions, and then act as mediators or “interpreters” when larger numbers of the diff erent groups began to interact on a more established basis. Th e activity of interpreting, diachronically summarised in Baigorri- Jalón (2015) is practically as old as speech itself and its fun damental diffi culty has never diminished. Of all the languages that have existed no two have ever developed in precisely the same way or matched each other perfectly in terms of the units they use or the way in which they are structured to produce meaning. Th e essential problem of interpreting, and translation for that matter, always was and still is, how to transmit faithfully the meaning of something said in one language into another language. In recent years, a growing body of reports, books and academic papers published throughout the world have researched and continue to explore and attempt to explain the bewilderingly complex and ultimately indefi nable process of interpreting between two languages. Th is volume is yet a further contribution, an update on the state of one particular branch of interpreting, Public Service Interpreting (PSI). It refers mainly to the UK but also provides some insight into the development of the profession in other parts of Europe. It aims to provide a refl ection on the current state of PSI, together with the industry that surrounds it and the individuals involved in it. Termed as liaison (Gentile et al., 1996 ), community (Hale, 2007 ) and public service (Corsellis, 2008 ), interpreting within social services con texts has been defi ned over the years in terms of how it diff ers from conference interpreting. Taking into account that remote interpreting and cross-border legislation means that some legal interpreting is now international, Corselli’s defi nition still applies: “communication between people of diff erent languages and cultures within national borders and concerned with the events of people’s everyday lives” (2008:1) and it is every bit as important and relevant to the future of the interpreting pro fession as conference interpreting in international settings.
