Article published in:
Target
Vol. 11:2 (1999) ► pp. 329–356

Interpreter Mediated TV Events

| St.KI. Ohridski University of Sofia, Bulgaria
The major claims made here pertain to: (1) The dominant role of the Participants paremeter, where distinction is made between the "on-screen" and the "off-screen" casts, with the Interpreter acting as Mediator in two communicative channels; (2) The specificity of the TV product as a Polysemiotic Text, consisting of a variety of Language and Non-Language components, and the way it affects the Interpreter's performance; (3) The communicative goals of the two casts of Primary Participants and the strategies employed to attain them in a situation highly marked from a kinesthetic and proxemic point of view, which often leads to shifts in the Interpreter's output, and (4) The factors determining the choice of the optimum mode of Interpreting.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1.The Problem
    • 1.2.The Approach
  • 2.The Participants
    • 2.1.The Dialogue Type of TV IMEs
      • 2.1.1.Two Casts of Primary Participants
      • 2.1.2.The Distance-Proximity and the Formality-Privacy Scales
      • 2.1.3.Status and Role
    • 2.2.The Monologue Type
  • 3.The Nature of the Polysemiotic Text in TV IMEs: The Orality/Literacy Scale
    • 3.1.The Role of Language and Non-Language Codes in TV IMEs
      • 3.1.1.The PST in the Dialogue TV IMEs
      • 3.1.2.The PST in the Monologue Type
    • 3.2.Planning
      • 3.2.1.The Dialogue Type
      • 3.2.2.The Monologue Type
    • 3.3.Lexis
    • 3.4.Topics of the Texts in TV IMEs: Intertextuality
      • 3.4.1.Nature of the Textual World
      • 3.4.2.Diversity of Topics
      • 3.4.3.Intertextuality
  • 4.Goals and Negotiation Strategies: Mode of Interpreting
    • 4.1.The Goals of the Participants
      • 4.1.1.The Monologue Type
      • 4.1.2.The Dialogue Type
        • Panel Discussions with the Participation of Foreigners
        • Live TV Interviews
    • 4.2.Negotiation Strategies: Grice's Maxims
    • 4.3.Manner of Delivery of the SL Text and Production of the RL Text
      • 4.3.1.The Monologue Type
      • 4.3.2.The Dialogue Type
  • 5.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 24 March 2000
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.11.2.08ale
References

References

Alexieva, Bistra
1983 “Compression as a Means of Realisation of the Communicative Act in Simultaneous Interpretation”. Fremdsprachen 41. 233–238.Google Scholar
1985 “Semantic Analysis of the Text in Simultaneous Interpreting”. Hildegund Bühler, ed. Proceedings of the Xth World Congress of FIT. Vienna: Braumüller 1985 195–198.Google Scholar
1988a “On the Translation of Written Dialogue”. Übersetzungswissenschaftliche Beitrage 111: Semantik, Kognition und Äquivalenz. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie 1988 158–164.Google Scholar
1988b “Analysis of the Simultaneous Interpreter's Output”. Nekeman 1988 : 484–488.Google Scholar
1988c “The Notion of Equivalence in Simultaneous Interpreting”. Proceedings, An International Conference on Translation and Interpreting Theory, Berlin, May, 1988. Berlin: Humboldt University 1988.Google Scholar
1990 “Creativity in Simultaneous Interpreting”. Babel 36:1. 1–6.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 “Types of Texts and Intertextuality in Simultaneous Interpreting”. Mary Snell-Hornby, ed. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1994 179–187.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997a “A Typology of Interpreter-Mediated Events”. The Translator 3:2. 153–174.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997b “Interpreting Mediated TV Events”. Kinga Klaudy and János Kohn, eds. Transferre Necesse Est: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting, 5-7 September, 1996, Budapest, Hungary. Budapest: Scholastica 1997 171–174.Google Scholar
1997c “The Polysemiotic Text in Multimedia Communication and Its Translation and Interpreting”. A paper given at the Multimedia Translation Conference, Rimini, Italy 1997 [ms.]Google Scholar
1998 “Consecutive Interpreting as a Decision Process”. Ann Beylard-Ozeroff, Jana Králová and Barbara Moser-Mercer, eds. Translators' Strategies and Creativity: Selected Papers from the 9th International Conference on Translation and Interpreting, Prague, September 1995, in honor of Jiří Levý and Anton Popovič.Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1998 181–188.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona
1997 “Non-Cognitive Constraints and Interpreter Strategies in Political Interviews”. Karl Simms, ed. Translating Sensitive Texts: Linguistic Aspects. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi 1997 113–131.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
1986 “Shifts in Cohesion and Coherence in Translation”. Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, eds. Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 1986 17–35.Google Scholar
Chernov, G.V.
1978 Teoria i praktika sinhronnovo perevoda [Theory and Practice of Simultaneous Interpreting]. Moskva: Mezhdunarodnie Otnoshenia.Google Scholar
Delabastita, Dirk
1989 “Translation and Mass-Communication: Film and T.V. Translation as Evidence of Cultural Dynamics”. Babel 35:4. 193–218.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dollerup, Cay and Annette Lindegaard
eds. 1994 Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aims, Visions. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gambier, Yves
1994 “Audio-Visual Communication: Typological Detour”. Dollerup and Lindegaard 1994 : 275–283.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1990 Basic Concepts and Models for Conference Interpretation Training. Paris: INALCO & CEEI (ISIT).Google Scholar
Gottlieb, Henrik
1994 “Subtitling: People Translating People”. Dollerup and Lindegaard 1994 : 261–274.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H.P.
1975 “Logic and Conversation”. P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, eds. Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press 1975 41–58.Google Scholar
Hall, Edward T.
1972 “Silent Assumptions in Social Communication”. John Laver and Sandy Hutcheson, eds. Communication in Face to Face Interaction. Harmondsworth: Penguin 1972 274–288.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan
1976 Cohesion in English. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter
1988 “The Role of Knowledge in Discourse Comprehension: A Construction-Integration Model”. Psychological Review 95:2. 163–182.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid
1990 “Overcoming Language Barriers in European Television”. David Bowen and Margareta Bowen, eds. Interpreting—Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Binghamton, NY: SUNY 1990 168–175.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid and Liese Katschinka
1988 “Live Subtitling—a First Experiment on Austrian TV”. Nekeman 1988 : 479–483.Google Scholar
Laine, Marsa
1988 “Training Them: The Subtitlers of Today and the 'Converters' of Tomorrow. Will Quality Ever Catch Up with Demand?” Nekeman 1988 : 392–394.Google Scholar
Luyken, Georg-Michael
1988 “The Future Importance of Translation/Interpretation in European Broadcasting”. Nekeman 1988 : 397–399.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Marcia
1996 “Asking to Ask: The Strategic Function of Indirect Requests for Information in Interviews”. Pragmatics 6:4. 491–509.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mulholland, Joan
1991 The Language of Negotiation. London & New York: Routledge.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nekeman, Paul
ed. 1988 Translation, Our Future: Proceedings of the Xlth World Congress of FIT. Maastricht: Euroterm.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber
1969 The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Philo, Greg
1990 Seeing and Believing: The Influence of Television. London & New York: Routledge.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Helene
1988 “The Short History of Europe-TV”. Nekeman 1988 : 395–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation”. Language 50:4. 696–735.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salevsky, Heidemarie
1982 “Teoreticheskie problemi klassifikatzii vidov perevoda” [Theoretical Problems of the Classification of Types of Translation]. Fremdsprachen 21. 80–86.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
1989 Simultaneous Interpretation as a Factor in Effecting Shifts in the Position of Texts on the Oral-Literate Continuum. Tel Aviv University. [Unpublished MA Thesis.]Google Scholar
1995 “Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting”. The Translator 1:2. 193–214.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary
1988 Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strolz, Birgit
1997 “Quality of Media Interpreting—a Case Study”. Yves Gambier, Daniel Gile and Christopher Taylor, eds. Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1997 194–197.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Castillo Ortiz, Pedro Jesús
2022. Media stakeholders’ perceptions of interpreting in multilingual TV/Radio production: Inter-professional collaboration in context. Interpreting and Society ► pp. 275238102210900 ff. Crossref logo
Cheung, Andrew Kay-fan
2012. Omission in Simultaneous Interpreting. FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 10:2 ► pp. 19 ff. Crossref logo
Gambier, Yves
2006. Orientations de la recherche en traduction audiovisuelle. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 18:2 ► pp. 261 ff. Crossref logo
Pavlović, Nataša
2004. Addressing Power and Solidarity in TV Subtitling. Across Languages and Cultures 5:2 ► pp. 211 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2022. 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.