Cover not available
Part of
Introducing New Hypertexts on Interpreting (Studies): A tribute to Franz Pöchhacker
Edited by Cornelia Zwischenberger, Karin Reithofer and Sylvi Rennert
[Benjamins Translation Library 160] 2023
► pp. 148–167

Who is an interpreter?

Introducing a flexible map of translation and interpreting phenomena

| University of Graz, Austria
Although so-called ‘non-professionals’ are no longer instrumentalised in research solely in order to compare and contrast them with ‘professionals’, this does little to change the lasting perception of two clearly demarcated categories. Such a differentiation may be meaningful in some contexts, but it often over-simplifies and certainly perpetuates a hierarchical order. In my contribution, I will present an alternative, flexible typology in the form of a map that tries to take into account the multifaceted variety of interpreting and translation phenomena that we encounter in social practice. This typology is based on the empirical insight that a binary differentiation between ‘professional’ and ‘non-professional’ translation or interpreting is not always sufficient to capture adequately the complexity of empirical practice.
Keywords: translation, interpreting, categories, categorisation, classification, typology, professional translation/interpreting, non-professional translation/interpreting
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction or: A tendency to categorise
  • 2.The professional translator/interpreter as a core category
  • 3.The trouble with binary oppositions and the social force of categorisation
  • 4.A navigable map of translation and interpreting phenomena
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.160.08grb
References (66)
References
Alonso-Araguás, Icíar. 2016. “Interpreting Practices in the Age of Discovery: The Early Stages of the Spanish Empire in the Americas.” In New Insights in the History of Interpreting, edited by Kayoko Takeda, and Jesús Baigorri-Jalón, 27–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Howard S. 1962/1977. “The Nature of a Profession.” In Sociological Work: Method and Substance, Howard S. Becker, 87–103. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Boéri, Julie. 2008. “A Narrative Account of the Babels vs. Naumann Controversy.” The Translator 14 (1): 21–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borges, Jorge Luis. 1999. Fictions. Translated with an Afterword by Andrew Hurley. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. 2000. Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 2019. “Moving Conceptual Boundaries: So What?” In Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies, edited by Helle V. Dam, Karen Korning Zethsen, and Matilde Nisbeth Brøgger, 12–25. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cohen, Henri, and Claire Lefebvre. 2005. “Bridging the Category Divide.” In Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science, edited by Henri Cohen, and Claire Lefebvre, 2–15. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Evetts, Julia. 2003. “Professionalization and Professionalism: Explaining Professional Performance Initiatives.” In Professionelle Leistung – Professional Performance. Positionen der Professionssoziologie, edited by Harald Mieg, and Michaela Pfadenhauer, 49–69. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1989. “Les flux d’information dans les réunions interlinguistiques et l’interprétation de conférence: Premières observations.” Meta 34 (4): 649–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gouadec, Daniel. 2007. Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grbić, Nadja. 2015. “Profession.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, edited by Franz Pöchhacker (ed.), and Nadja Grbić (assoc. ed.), 321–326. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Fürsorgerinnen – Scharlatane – Profis. Die Geschichte des Gebärdensprachdolmetschens in Österreich und die Konstruktion einer professionellen Welt.” Unpublished postdoctoral diss., University of Graz.
. 2023. Gebärdensprachdolmetschen als Beruf. Professionalisierung als Grenzziehungsarbeit. Eine historische Fallstudie in Österreich. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
Grbić, Nadja, and Pekka Kujamäki. 2019. “Professional vs. Non-Professional? How Boundary Work Shapes Research Agendas in Translation and Interpreting Studies.“ In Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies, edited by Helle V. Dam, Karen Korning Zethsen, and Matilde Nisbeth Brøgger, 113–131. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 1998. “Translation Studies and Representative Corpora: Establishing Links Between Translation Corpora, Theoretical/Descriptive Categories and a Conception of the Object of Study.” Meta 43 (4): 494–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. “Conceptual Work and the ‘Translation’ Concept.” Target 11 (1): 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Reorienting Translation Studies: Cognitive Approaches and the Centrality of the Translator.” In Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach, edited by Juliane House, 116–139. Houndmills, Basingstoke: palgrave macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harnad, Stevan. 2005. “To Cognize is to Categorize: Cognition in Categroization.” In Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science, edited by Henri Cohen, and Claire Lefebvre, 19–43. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodge, Robert, and Gunter Kress. 1993. Language as Ideology. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Holz-Mänttäri, Justa. 1984. Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kade, Otto. 1968. Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Übersetzung. Leipzig: VEB Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Kalina, Sylvia. 2001. “Zur Professionalisierung beim Dolmetschen. Vorschläge für Forschung und Lehre.” In Dolmetschen. Beiträge aus Forschung, Lehre und Praxis, edited by Andreas Kelletat, 51–64. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Katan, David. 2014. “Introduction: Uncertainty in the Translation Professions: Time to Transcreate.” Cultus 7: 10–19.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1990. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara, Sylvie Lambert, Valeria Darò, and Sarah Williams. 1997. “Skill Components in Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research, edited by Yves Gambier, Daniel Gile, and Christopher Taylor, 133–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara, Uli H. Frauenfelder, Beatriz Casado, and Alexander Künzli. 2000. “Searching to Define Expertise in Interpreting.” In Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited by Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, and Kenneth Hyltenstam, 107–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niska, Helge. 2002. “Community Interpreter Training: Past, Present, Future.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities, edited by Giuliana Garzone, and Maurizio Viezzi, 133–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noordegraaf, Mirko. 2007. “From ‘Pure’ to ‘Hybrid’ Professionalism: Present-Day Professionalism in Ambiguous Public Domains.” Administration & Society 39 (6): 761–785. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Hagan, Minako. 2009. “Evolution of User-generated Translation: Fansubs, Translation Hacking and Crowdsourcing.“ The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 1: 94–121.Google Scholar
Paloposki, Outi. 2016. “Translating and Translators Before the Professional Project.“ JoSTrans, The Journal of Specialised Translation 25: 15–31, [URL]
Perez, Isabelle A., and Christine W. L. Wilson. 2007. “Interpreter-Mediated Police Interviews: Working as a Professionals Team.” In The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of Interpreting in the Community. Selected Papers from the 4th International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Stockholm, Sweden, 20–23 May 2004, edited by Cecilia Wadensjö, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, and Anna-Lena Nilsson, 79–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 1992. “The Role of Theory in Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience, edited by Cay Dollerup, and Anne Loddegaard, 211–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Simultaneous Interpreting. A Functionalist Perspective.” Hermes 14: 31–53.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Unity in Diversity: The Case of Interpreting Studies.” In Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies, edited by Lynne Bowker, Michael Cronin, Dorothy Kenny, and Jennifer Pearson, 169–176. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 2000. Dolmetschen: Konzeptuelle Grundlagen und deskriptive Untersuchungen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting.” Meta 46 (2): 410–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Dolmetschtheorie: Kognition, Interaktion, Institution.” In Translationskultur – ein innovatives und produktives Konzept, edited By Larisa Schippel, 43–69. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Media Interpreting: From User Expectations to Audience Comprehension.” In Reception Studies and Audiovisual Translation, edited by Elena Di Giovanni, and Yves Gambier, 253–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz, and Mira Kadrić. 1999. “The Hospital Cleaner as Healthcare Interpreter.“ The Translator 5 (2): 161–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prunč, Erich. 2004. “Zum Objektbereich der Translationswissenschaft.” In Und sie bewegt sich doch... Translationswissenschaft in Ost und West. Festschrift für Heidemarie Salevsky zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Ina Müller, 263–285. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2012. Entwicklungslinien der Translationswissenschaft. Von den Asymmetrien der Sprachen zu den Asymmetrien der Macht. 3rd edition. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1998. Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 2000. Negotiating the Frontier: Translators and Intercultures in Hispanic History. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Reiß, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rogl, Regina. 2016. “No Work and all Play – The Intersections Between Labour, Fun and Exploitation in Online Translation Communities.” European Journal of Applied Linguistics 4 (1): 117–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, Cynthia B. 1993. “The Problem with Definitions, Descriptions, and the Role Metaphors of Interpreters.” Journal of Interpretation 6: 127–154.Google Scholar
Schjoldager, Anne, Henrik Gottlieb, and Ida Klitgård. 2008. Understanding Translation. Aarhus: Academica.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Michael. 2006. “A Prototypical Model of Translation Types.“ In Text und Translation. Theory and Methodology of Translation, edited by Carmen Heine, Klaus Schubert, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 382–390. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Sela-Sheffy, Rakefet. 2010. “’Stars’ or ‘Professionals’: The Imagined Vocation and Exclusive Knowledge of Translators in Israel.” MonTI 2: 131–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seyfert, Robert. 2011. Das Leben der Institutionen. Zu einer allgemeinen Theorie der Institutionalisierung. Weilerswist: Velbrück.Google Scholar
Simon, Sherry. 2013. “Translation Zone.” In Handbook of Translation Studies. Volume 4, edited by Yves Gambier, and Luc van Doorslaer, 181–185. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988/1995. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Rebecca F. 2004. “Extending Conceptual Boundaries: Work, Voluntary Work and Employment.” Work, Employment & Society 18 (1): 29–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tipton, Rebecca, and Olgierda Furmanek. 2016. Dialogue Interpreting: A Guide to Interpreting in Public Services and the Community. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tseng, Joseph. 1992. “Interpreting as an Emerging Profession in Taiwan – A Sociological Model.” Master’s thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan.
Van den Bogaerde, Beppie. 2007. “Interpreter Training from Scratch.” In The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of Interpreting in the Community. Selected Papers from the 4th International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Stockholm, Sweden, 20–23 May 2004, edited by Cecilia Wadensjö, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, and Anna-Lena Nilsson, 283–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viaggio, Sergio. 1992. “Translators and Interpreters. Professionals or Shoemakers?” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience: Papers from the First Language International Conference. Elsinore, Denmark, 31 May – 2 June 1991, edited by Cay Dollerup, and Anne Loddegaard, 307–312. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 1994. “Theory and Professional Development: Or Admonishing Translators to Be Good.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aims, Visions. Papers from the Second Language International Conference. Elsinore, Denmark, 4 – 6 June 1993, edited by Cay Dollerup, and Anne Loddegaard, 97–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1993. The Fine Line: Making Distinctions in Everyday Life. 2nd edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. “The Rigid, the Fuzzy, and the Flexible: Notes on the Mental Sculpting of Academic Identity.” Social Research 62 (4): 1093–1106.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Lumping and Splitting: Notes on Social Classification.“ Sociological Forum 11 (3): 421–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar