Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 19:2 (2017) ► pp.159–185

The interpreter’s visibility in the European Parliament

| University of Silesia in Katowice |
This ethnographic study aims to shed light on how the services of simultaneous interpreters working during plenary sessions of the European Parliament are perceived and evaluated by the users, i.e. mainly Members of the European Parliament and other European Union officials. The corpus analysed covers all the plenaries in the eight-year period 2005–2012. The aim was to examine references to interpreters and/or their output made by the speakers. A total of 230 relevant excerpts were identified, varying in length. Thematic analysis established that speakers’ comments addressed to, or concerning, interpreters were associated with six topics. The most frequent was appreciation of interpreters (almost a third of all items), after which doubts regarding interpretations were only marginally ahead of reminders to speakers about the practical constraints imposed by interpreting (each accounting for almost 20%). Three far less frequent items (about 5–10% each) were criticism, difficulty (of interpreting specific items) and apologies. The study discusses representative occurrences of each topic, also providing an overall breakdown of quantitative trends.
Keywords: simultaneous interpreting, visibility, ethnography, users, European Parliament
Article outline
  • 0.Introduction
  • 1.The interpreter’s (in)visibility: Background
    • 1.1Problems with defining visibility and invisibility
    • 1.2The interpreter’s visibility in various interpreting modes
    • 1.3The interpreter’s visibility in the European Parliament
    • 1.4Examples of the interpreter’s visibility from existing research
  • 2.The observational study
    • 2.1Material
    • 2.2Method
      • 2.2.1Delimiting the data set within the corpus
      • 2.2.2Delimiting units of analysis
      • 2.2.3Thematic analysis
    • 2.3Qualitative analysis
      • 2.3.1Reminders
      • 2.3.2Criticism
      • 2.3.3Appreciation
      • 2.3.4Difficulty
      • 2.3.5Apologies
      • 2.3.6Expressions of doubt
    • 2.4Quantitative analysis
  • 3.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.2.01bar
References (40)
References
AIIC. (2005). Budding interpreter FAQ. Available at: [URL] (accessed 5 March 2017).
Beaton, M. (2007). Interpreted ideologies in institutional discourse: The case of the European Parliament. Translator 13 (2), 271–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bendazzoli, C., Sandrelli, A. & Russo, M. (2011). Disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based analysis. In A. Kruger, K. Wallmach & J. Munday (Eds.), Corpus-based translation studies: Research and applications. London/New York: Continuum, 282–306.Google Scholar
Biel, Ł. (2006). Translation of multilingual EU legislation as a sub-genre of legal translation. In D. Kierzkowska (Ed.), Court interpreting and legal translation in the Enlarged Europe. Warszawa: Translegis, 144–163.Google Scholar
Bot, H. (2005). Dialogue interpreting as a specific case of reported speech. Interpreting 7 (2), 237–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 31, 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cosmidou, O. (2013). The European Parliament: A temple of multilingualism, a pioneer in interpreting ‘exploits’. Gramma 191, 129–132.Google Scholar
Duflou, V. (2012). The ‘first person norm’ in conference interpreting (CI) – some reflections on findings from the field. In M. A. Jimenez Ivars & M. J. Blasco Mayor (Eds.), Interpreting Brian Harris: Recent developments in translatology. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 145–160.Google Scholar
Emmerich, K. R. (2013). Visibility (and invisibility). In Y. Gambier & L. Van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies, Vol. 41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 200–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
European Parliament. (2013). Towards more efficient and cost effective interpretation in the European Parliament. Available at: [URL] (accessed 4 January 2015).Google Scholar
Gerver, D. (1969/2002). The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 53–66.Google Scholar
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Revised ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, S. & Napier, J. (2013). Research methods in interpreting. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Jones, R. (1998). Conference interpreting explained. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Kajzer-Wietrzny, M. (2013). Idiosyncratic features of interpreting style. New Voices in Translation Studies 91, 38–52.Google Scholar
Katan, D. & Straniero Sergio, F. (2001). ‘Look who’s talking’: The ethics of entertainment and talk show interpreting. Translator 7 (2), 213–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kent, S. J. (2009). A discourse of danger and loss: Interpreters on interpreting for the European Parliament. In L. Stern, U. Ozolins & S. B. Hale (Eds.), The Critical Link 5: Quality in interpreting: A shared responsibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 55–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Interpreting. Doctoral thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Kopczyński, A. (B. Moser-Mercer). (1994). Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. In S. Lambert & (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 87–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metzger, M. (1999). Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Monacelli, C. (2009). Self-preservation in simultaneous interpreting: Surviving the role. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monti, C., Bendazzoli, C., Sandrelli, A. & Russo, M. (2005). Studying directionality in simultaneous interpreting through an electronic corpus: EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus). Meta 50 (4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mossop, B. (1990). Translating institutions and “idiomatic” translation. Meta 35 (2), 342–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozolins, U. (2016). The myth of the myth of invisibility? Interpreting 18 (2), 273–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Conference interpreting: Surveying the profession. In R. Sela-Sheffy & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), Identity and status in the translational professions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, A. (2011). Translation research terms: A tentative glossary for moments of perplexity and dispute. In A. Pym (Ed.), Translation research projects 3. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 75–110.Google Scholar
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Straniero Sergio, F. (1999). The interpreter on the (talk) show: Interaction and participation frameworks. Translator 5 (2), 303–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van De Mieroop, D., Bevilacqua, G. & Van Hove, L. (2012). Negotiating discursive norms: Community interpreting in a Belgian rest home. Interpreting 14 (2), 23–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venuti, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vuorikoski, A.-R. (2004). A voice of its citizens or a modern Tower of Babel? The quality of interpreting as a function of political rhetoric in the European Parliament. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
(2008). In and off the show: Co-constructing “invisibility” in an interpreter-mediated talk-show interview. Meta 53 (1), 184–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwischenberger, C. (2011). Conference interpreters and their self-representation: A worldwide web-based survey. In R. Sela-Sheffy & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), Identity and status in the translational professions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 119–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Li, Ruitian, Kanglong Liu & Andrew K. F. Cheung
2023. Interpreter visibility in press conferences: a multimodal conversation analysis of speaker–interpreter interactions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1 DOI logo
Ren, Wen & Lu Wang
2023. A corpus-based study of metadiscourse features in Chinese-English simultaneous interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Wu, Yinyin
2023. Phrasal verbs in European Parliament conference English: a corpus-based pedagogical list. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 17:2 ► pp. 301 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Yinyin
2024. Multiword constructions in European Parliament conference English: a corpus-driven pedagogical list. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 18:3 ► pp. 423 ff. DOI logo
Gumul, Ewa & Magdalena Bartłomiejczyk
2022. Interpreters’ explicitating styles. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:2 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020. Translation and Interpreting Assessment Research. In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
2020. How much noise can you make through an interpreter?. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 22:2 ► pp. 238 ff. DOI logo
Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
2024. Can you amuse the audience through an interpreter?. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 36:1 ► pp. 26 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.