Interpreting Studies Issues PDF

⌘Introduction The position of interpreting studies within the broader discipline of translation studies is curiously ambiguous. Often referred to as a ‘(sub)discipline’, it is both an increasingly autonomous and diversified field of academic pursuit, on a par with translation studies, and a domain w...

⌘Introduction The position of interpreting studies within the broader discipline of translation studies is curiously ambiguous. Often referred to as a ‘(sub)discipline’, it is both an increasingly autonomous and diversified field of academic pursuit, on a par with translation studies, and a domain within the latter, alongside such specialized fields as audiovisual translation. Though subject to fundamental principles and insights concerning translation in general, interpreting studies is clearly distinguished by its unique object of study, that is, ‘real-time’ human translation in an essentially shared communicative context. (Interpreting is commonly referred to as ‘oral’ as opposed to ‘written’ translation, i.e. as the activity of rendering spoken messages in another language, but this simple definition fails to accommodate a number of important phenomena, as explained in section 8.2). Interpreting studies function as both a sub-discipline of translation studies and an independent academic field. Interpreting focuses on real-time spoken or signed language translation in shared communicative contexts. Unlike written translation, interpreting is performed under time constraints, without opportunities for review or correction. It demands advanced cognitive skills, including attention management and short-term memory. ⌘ 8.1 EVOLUTION AND STATE OF THE ART 8.1.1 Beginnings Ancient Practice: Interpreting has existed since ancient times but wasn’t recognized as an academic field until the 20th century. Rise of Simultaneous Interpreting: It gained prominence during the Nuremberg Trials, where simultaneous interpreting was extensively used. Early psychological studies focused on the mental processes involved in interpreting, particularly the simultaneous mode. 8.1.2 Academic Foundations Founding Figures: In the 1960s, several personalities with a professional background in interpreting worked towards establishing the study of interpreting (and translation) as a subject in academia. One of them was Otto Kade provided a foundational definition of interpreting and its unique characteristics. Seleskovitch played a pioneering role both in the profession (more specifically, in the International Association of Conference Interpreters – AIIC) and in the university-level training of conference interpreters at the École Supérieure d’Interprètes et de Traducteurs (ESIT) in Paris. Well into the 1980s, the Paris School paradigm held sway in matters of research on interpreting as well as the training of conference interpreters, and the monograph by Seleskovitch and Lederer (1989) describing the ESIT teaching approach remains highly influential to this day. The Paris School, led by Danica Seleskovitch, emphasized understanding meaning (théorie du sens- The theory of meaning) rather than focusing only on linguistic elements. 8.1.3 Increasing Depth and Breadth The théorie du sens (The theory of meaning,), which goes back to the early 1960s, essentially holds that interpreting is not linguistic transcoding but a process based on knowledge- based comprehension. Research expanded from conference interpreting to community interpreting, addressing new professional contexts. Interdisciplinary collaboration, such as sociolinguistics, enriched the field. 8.1.4 Unity in Diversity Multiple theoretical paradigms coexist in interpreting studies, including: 1. Interpretive Theory (focused on meaning comprehension). 2. Cognitive Processing (focused on memory and multitasking). 3. Social Interaction (focused on the interpreter's role in communication). ⌘ 8.2 Memes and Models 8.2.1 INTERPRETING (DEFINED) AS TRANSLATION As early as the 1960s, Otto Kade (1968) defined interpreting as a form of translation (in the wider sense) in which (a) the source-language text is presented only once and thus cannot be reviewed or replayed, and (b) the target-language text is produced under time pressure, with little chance for correction and revision. This definition encompasses spoken and signed language interpreting, as well as sight translation. 8.2.2 COGNITIVE PROCESSING The most popular perspective on interpreting by far, at least for international conference interpreting, has been the view from cognition (see also Chapter 4). Charged with the comprehension and production of verbal messages, the interpreter has been conceived of as an information processing system relying on memory structures (working memory, long-term memory) and a number of cognitive subskills, such as anticipation, inferencing and macro-processing. 8.2.3 INTERCULTURAL MEDIATION Rather than as a set of mental structures and processes, interpreting is also conceptualized, most evidently, as mediated interaction between two or more communicating parties with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, foregrounding issues of communicative purpose, role, trust, status and power (e.g. Anderson 1976). Viewed from a social rather than a cognitive- psychological perspective, the interpreter is seen as a mediator not only between languages but also ‘between’ cultures and value systems. ⌘ 8.3 MAJOR ISSUES 8.3.1 COGNITIVE PROCESSING Challenges: Listening, processing, and speaking simultaneously. Managing limited cognitive resources, such as attention and memory. Given the limitations of human working memory, a crucial concern is the high cognitive task load generated by the simultaneity of the main processing operations – concurrent source-text comprehension and target-text production in the simultaneous mode, but also source-text comprehension, memorizing and note taking in consecutive interpreting.  Strategies: Anticipation, compression of information, and syntactic restructuring. A related focus of interest is the strategies used by interpreters to cope with such processing constraints as high source-text presentation rate (speed), high information density, scripted style and unusual accents. They include online strategies such as anticipation, compression and syntactic restructuring as well as off-line strategies preceding the real-time task (e.g. background research, study of documents, preparation of glossaries). Most of the latter are designed to enhance the interpreter’s thematic and contextual knowledge and thus to aid ‘top-down’ (knowledge-driven) processing of linguistic input. 8.3.2 QUALITY: Producing an interpretation that fulfils the communicative needs and expectations of the intended addressee is arguably the interpreter’s primary task – and the principal yardstick for measuring the quality of an interpreter’s product and performance. For conference settings, survey research among users has yielded a rather stable pattern of quality criteria, in which fidelity to the source, cohesion, fluency and correct terminological usage rank above delivery-related features such as pleasant voice and native accent. Nevertheless, experimental studies have shown such non-verbal components of the interpreter’s output to have a significant impact on the quality judgements of interpretation users, who are by definition unable to check the target text reliably against its source. Establishing such source– target correspondence, often in terms of omissions, additions and translation errors (e.g. Barik 1975), has rather been left to researchers and examiners, although tempered by the recognition that quality implies not (only) equivalence on the linguistic level but an equivalent effect of the interpretation on the listeners. 8.3.3 TRAINING Given the high demands on interpreters’ performance and professional responsibility, training has been an overriding concern in the literature of interpreting studies ever since Herbert’s (1952) pioneering Handbook. Fuelled by the growth of international conference interpreting, the demand for professional interpreters led to the creation of university- level training institutions as early as the 1940s (Geneva, Heidelberg, Vienna). And with organizations such as the United Nations and the European institutions, as well as the interpreting profession (AIIC) taking an active interest, the training of conference interpreters, at postgraduate level, has long been consolidated and institutionalized, most recently in the form of a European model curriculum. Its core includes: consecutive interpreting with the aid of (more or less systematic) note taking; simultaneous interpreting in the booth, for which various preliminary exercises have been suggested ; and a variable dose of sight translation, either as a simultaneous mode of its own or in the booth (‘simultaneous with text’). In either modality, the education of community interpreters is often significantly different from that of international conference interpreters. Rather than text-processing skills, the focus is on managing the dynamics of interpersonal interaction, including issues of culture and unequal status, and the interpreter’s fraught position ‘in-between’. 8.3.4 ETHICS AND ROLE In any profession, having clear rules for ethical behaviour is essential. These rules guide professionals in how they should act while serving society. For interpreters, the AIIC (International Association of Conference Interpreters) created a Code of Professional Ethics in 1957. One of its main principles was professional secrecy, ensuring interpreters do not share confidential information. In 1965, the RID (Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf) developed a more detailed code that included ideas like impartiality and faithfulness to the source message. These principles helped define the interpreter's role in different settings. Over time, the concept of the interpreter's role has evolved, especially in signed-language interpreting. Initially, interpreters were seen as neutral "conduits," meaning they simply passed messages without influencing the communication. However, this shifted to a more active role, where interpreters are viewed as facilitators of communication or bilingual, bicultural specialists who navigate between two languages and cultures. In spoken-language community interpreting, particularly in healthcare, interpreters often take on multiple roles. The pyramid model explains these roles: 1. Message Converter: The basic role of accurately translating messages. 2. Message Clarifier: Helping clarify information when needed. 3. Cultural Broker: Addressing cultural misunderstandings. 4. Advocate: Speaking on behalf of a client when necessary. In court interpreting, however, interpreters are expected to follow stricter rules. The legal system often requires a "verbatim" translation, meaning word-for-word accuracy, even if this is not always realistic or effective. Judges and lawyers may hesitate to give interpreters more freedom to adapt messages, keeping their role limited to strict translation. This creates tension between the interpreter’s need to ensure communication flows smoothly and the legal system's demand for neutrality and accuracy. Ultimately, the interpreter's role and ethical boundaries are influenced not just by interpreters themselves but also by the expectations of the institutions and fields in which they work. 8.3.5 TECHNOLOGY Technology has always influenced interpreting. Since the 1920s, electro-acoustic systems made simultaneous interpreting possible. Though conference interpreters initially disliked being moved to booths at the back of rooms, this equipment became essential for seamless conference communication. 8.3.6 History Interpreting gained broader recognition as a profession only in the 20th century, but its history remains incomplete. Notable studies include Baigorri- Jalón's research on the origins of simultaneous interpreting, Gaiba's work on the Nuremberg Trials, and Wilss's account of interpreting in Germany. Despite these contributions, there is significant room for further research in diverse institutional and cultural contexts.