the gift of tounges is also about interpreting.
27] If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
How does a person interpret is a more important question
Interpretation of languages ("tongues") is simply the rendering of language X to language Y - interpretation and translation are essentially identical; however, there is a subtle difference: the written word is typically
translated, the spoken word is typically
interpreted.
It’s one thing to speak another language but another thing altogether to interpret/translate.
If my native language is English and I learn German enough to be able to speak it to get by, it does not necessarily mean I can adequately translate; I may be able to get across the gist of what I’m trying to say, but to express the nuances, particularly with things like prayer, is actually quite a difficult task. From the experience of translating a few meal graces into various First Nations' languages, I can tell you that it seems maddeningly simple, but to get the nuance and feeling right is extremely difficult.
Given then the difficulties faced in translation/interpretation, it is not at all unreasonable for a person in a multi-lingual church situation to ask God for help so that the rest of the church can be edified through their participation.
"Interpretation" of modern tongues-speech however, is a whole other animal...
“Interpretation of tongues”, which goes hand-in-hand with ‘speaking in tongues’, may also be said to be a self-created phenomenon. Interpretation is a ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs.
Interpretations are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance, rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll typically get ten different (typically unrelated) “interpretations”. In ‘tongues’, ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also be ‘The small white cat is quick’. These latter two characteristics (‘generic-ness’ and multiple interpretations) do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself.
A common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As one writer put it rather succinctly, “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying what is an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place”.
Interestingly, there have been, I hesitate to use the word "studies", but for lack of a better word, that have been done where a (planted) speaker will stand, deliver a rousing paragraph in "tongues" (which was actually a real, rational language - I've heard it having been done using Medieval Welsh, Old English and a very broad Doric (Scots), and sure enough, in every instance someone stood up and offered an 'interpretation' of their 'tongues'.