Interpreter Mediated TV Events
Bistra Alexieva | 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
- 2.1.The Dialogue Type of TV IMEs
- 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
- 3.1.The Role of Language and Non-Language Codes in TV IMEs
- 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
- 4.1.The Goals of the Participants
- 5.Conclusions
-
References
Published online: 24 March 2000
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.11.2.08ale
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.11.2.08ale
References
References
Alexieva, Bistra
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. 

Baker, Mona
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
Chernov, G.V.
Delabastita, Dirk
Dollerup, Cay and Annette Lindegaard
Gambier, Yves
Gile, Daniel
Gottlieb, Henrik
Grice, H.P.
Hall, Edward T.
Kintsch, Walter
Kurz, Ingrid
Kurz, Ingrid and Liese Katschinka
Laine, Marsa
Luyken, Georg-Michael
Macaulay, Marcia
Nekeman, Paul
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson
Salevsky, Heidemarie
Shlesinger, Miriam
Snell-Hornby, Mary
Cited by
Cited by 4 other publications
Castillo Ortiz, Pedro Jesús
Cheung, Andrew Kay-fan
Gambier, Yves
Pavlović, Nataša
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.