Cover not available
Article published In:
FORUM
Vol. 19:1 (2021) ► pp.83–103

Reconceptualising the interpreter’s role

A perspective from social identity theories

| University of Birmingham
The interpreter’s role and performance in interpreting-facilitated interactions have attracted considerable scholarly attention since the 1970s. Seminal field research on interpreting in courtrooms, in hospitals, and in war zones describe interpreters as active participants. Nevertheless, Hale (2006) and Pöchhacker (2006) critique that much data-driven research in the area suffers from a lack of theoretical conceptualisations, and is short of diversified sociocultural and linguistic contexts for investigation. To strengthen the theoretical background to research on the interpreters’ role, this study draws on social psychology theories of social identity and optimal distinctiveness, and the sociolinguistic notion of face, to develop an interdisciplinary framework for conceptualising how identity claims may influence interpreters’ choice of linguistic strategies in delivery. The English-Mandarin political press conference interpreting context is examined to illustrate how the proposed framework may shed light on our understanding of interpreters’ behaviour in action.
Keywords: social identity, optimal distinctiveness, face, interpreter’s role
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Social identity, optimal distinctiveness and interpreters’ role
  • 3.Political press conference interpreting as a case study
    • 3.1Interpretation for Chinese journalists
    • 3.2Interpretation for non-Chinese journalists
    • 3.3Interpretation for the Premier
  • 4.Discussions and conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.20012.yua
References (54)
References
Alexieva, B. 1997. A typology of interpreter-mediated events. The Translator 3 (2), 153–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angelelli, C. V. 2004. Medical interpreting and cross-cultural communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 1997. Non-cognitive constraints and interpreter strategies in political interviews. In K. Simms (Ed.), Translating sensitive texts: Linguistic aspects (pp.111–129). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2006. Translation and conflict: A narrative account. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsky, R. F. 1996. The interpreter as intercultural agent in Convention refugee hearings. The Translator 2 (1), 45–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S. 1990. The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bolden, G. 2000. Toward understanding practices of medical interpreting: Interpreters’ involvement in history taking. Discourse Studies 2 (4), 387–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1990. The logic of practice (Trans. Richard Nice). London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. 1991. The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 171, 475–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M. B., & Silver, M. D. 2000. Group distinctiveness, social identification, and collective mobilization. In S. Stryker, T. J. Owens, & R. W. White (Eds.), Social movements, protest, and contention (pp. 153–171). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Originally published as Universals in language usage: politeness phenomenon. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), 1978. Questions and politeness: strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–311). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, L. 2008. The role of the political interpreter in bilateral relations: An overview. Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Brown, R. J. 2000. Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 301,745–778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
French, J. R. P. Jr., & Raven, B. 1959. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Footitt, H., & Kelly, M. (Eds.), 2012. Languages and the military: Alliances, occupation and peace building. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Grainger, K. 2011. ‘First order’ and ‘second order’ politeness: Institutional and intercultural contexts. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Eds.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 167–188). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, S. 2006. Themes and methodological issues in Court Interpreting research. Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 51, 205–228.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. 2007. The discursive challenge to politeness theory: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3 (2), 295–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Face and interaction. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini, & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 1–30). London, United Kingdom: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Hu, K. & Tao, Q. 2012. Syntactic operational norms of press conference interpreting (Chinese-English). Foreign Language Teaching and Research 44 (5), 738–750.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, B. 2008a. Interactional pragmatics and court interpreting: An analysis of face. Interpreting 10 (1), 128–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. 2017. Politeness in pragmatics. In The Oxford research encyclopedias: Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufert, J. M. & Koolage, W. W. 1984. Role conflict among ‘culture brokers’: The experience of native Canadian medical interpreters. Social Science & Medicine, 18 (3), 283–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knapp-Potthoff, A. & Knapp, K. 1986. Interweaving two discourses: The difficult task of the non-professional interpreter. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication (pp. 151–168). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Leonardelli, G. J., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. 2010. Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 431, 63–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magnifico, C. & Defrancq, B. 2016. Impoliteness in interpreting: A question of gender? Translation & Interpreting 8 (2), 26–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. 1999a. Introduction. The Translator 5 (2), 147–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. & Stewart, M. 2001. Interactional pragmatics, face and the dialogue interpreter. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting (pp. 51–70). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Mason, I. 2009b. Role, positioning and discourse in face-to-face interpreting. In R. P. Ricoy, I. Perez & C. Wilson (Eds.), Interpreting and Translating in Public Service Settings: Policy, Practice, Pedagogy (pp. 52–73). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Mao, L. R. 1994. Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 451–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakane, I. 2008. Politeness and gender in interpreted police interviews. Monash University Linguistics Papers, 6 (1), 29–40.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. 2007. Brown & Levinson’s face: How it can – and can’t – help us to understand interaction across cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics, 41, 463–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozolins, U. 2004. Survey of Interpreting Practitioners. Melbourne: VITS Language Link.Google Scholar
Pan, F. 2020. Norms and norm-taking in interpreting for Chinese government press conferences: A case study of hedges. In K. Hu & K. Kim (Eds.), Corpus-based translation and interpreting studies in Chinese contexts (pp. 89–111). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. 1992. The role of theory in simultaneous interpreting. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience (pp. 211–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011c. Researching TV interpreting: Selected studies of US presidential material. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 161, 21–36.Google Scholar
2006. Research and methodology in healthcare interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 51, 135–159.Google Scholar
Pöllabauer, S. 2004. Interpreting in asylum hearings: Issues of role, responsibility and power. Interpreting 6 (2), 143–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, C. 1993/2002. The problem with definitions, descriptions and the role metaphors of interpreters. In F. Pöchhacker, & M. Shlesinger (Eds), The Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 345–353). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Savvalidou, F. 2011. Interpreting (im)politeness strategies in a media political setting: A case study from the Greek prime ministerial TV debate as interpreted into Greek Sign Language. In L. Leeson, S. Wurm & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), Signed Language Interpreting: Preparation, Practice and Performance (pp. 87–109). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, M. 1991. Interpreter latitude vs. due process: Simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in multilingual trials. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit (Ed.) Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies (147–155). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Simon, B. 2004. Identity in modern society: A social psychology perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stapel, D. A., & Marx, D. M. 2007. Distinctiveness is key: How different types of self-other similarity moderate social comparison effects. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 331, 439–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H. 1978a. The achievement of inter-group differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp.77–100). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thiéry, C. 2015. Diplomatic interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies (pp. 155–156). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tipton, R. 2008. Reflexivity and the social construction of identity in interpreter-mediated asylum interviews. The Translator 14 (1), 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tong, J. 2017. The taming of critical journalism in China. Journalism Studies, 181, 1–18.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C. 1998. Interpreting as interaction. Pearson Education ESL.Google Scholar
2002. Dialogue interpreting – A new branch of translation studies. In Stromqvist, S. (Ed.), The diversity of languages and language learning: Lund lecutures in languages and literature (pp. 73–81). Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Wang, B. & Mu, L. 2009. Interpreter training and research in mainland China: Recent developments. Interpreting 11 (2), 267–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, B. 2012. A descriptive study of norms in interpreting: Based on the Chinese-English consecutive interpreting corpus of Chinese Premier press conferences. Meta 57 (1), 198–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar