Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation and Interpreting Studies
Vol. 16:3 (2021) ► pp.325–346

Interpreting is interpreting

Why we need to leave behind interpreting settings to discover Comparative Interpreting Studies

ORCID logo
This article argues that the use of interpreting settings as theoretical categories is no longer empirically sound. Instead, research should focus on the commonalities of all interpreting practice. This move is viewed as an enabling shift for the creation of Comparative Interpreting Studies, a strand dedicated to considering interpreting as a global practice. After discussing the rationale for the current use of interpreting settings as analytical categories, evidence from a variety of existing settings is used to illustrate the commonalities between all instances of interpreting and the fuzziness of the boundaries between these settings. It is argued that using interpreting settings leads to silo thinking, where researchers focus on research in the setting in which they are working, even when findings from other settings can be applied. The article ends with a discussion of the theoretical and practical potential of this move including the power of a comparative approach.
Keywords: interpreting studies, interpreting settings, comparative interpreting studies, categorization, interpreting theory, interpreting research methods
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Dividing up interpreting studies
  • The evidence against interpreting settings
  • What do categories and divisions hide?
  • What does it mean that interpreting is interpreting?
  • Toward Comparative Interpreting Studies
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 6 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20006.dow
References (63)
References
Alexieva, Bistra. 1997. “A typology of interpreter-mediated events.” The Translator 3 (2): 153–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Zahran, Aladdin. 2007. “The consecutive conference interpreter as intercultural mediator: A cognitive-pragmatic approach to the interpreter’s role.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Salford, UK. [URL]
. 2004b. Medical Interpreting and Cross-Cultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian. 2015. Speak English or What?: Codeswitching and Interpreter Use in New York City Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antonini, Rachele. 2016. “Caught in the middle: Child language brokering as a form of unrecognised language service.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37 (7): 710–725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apter, Emily. 2003. “Global translatio: The ‘invention’ of comparative literature, Istanbul, 1933.” Critical Inquiry 29 (2): 253–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaton, Morven. 2007. “Intertextuality and ideology in interpreter-mediated communication: The case of the European Parliament.” Unpublished PhD Thesis, Heriot-Watt University. [URL]
Bendazzoli, Claudio, and Annalisa Sandrelli. 2009. “Corpus-based interpreting studies: Early work and future prospects.” Revista tradumàtica 71. [URL]
Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2002. “The Miranda warnings and linguistic coercion: The role of footing in the interrogation of a limited-English speaking murder suspect.” In Language in the Legal Process, ed. by Janett Cotterill, 127–143. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Sabine, and Judith Taylor. 2012. “Video-mediated interpreting: An overview of current practice and research.” In Videoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 33–68. Antwerp: Intersential.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A. 2008. “The status of interpretive hypotheses.” In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research, ed. by Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clifford, Andrew. 2004. “Is fidelity ethical? The social role of the healthcare interpreter.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 17 (2): 89–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collard, Camille and Bart Defrancq. 2019. “Predictors of ear-voice span: A corpus-based study with special reference to sex.” Perspectives 27 (3): 431–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dean, Robyn K. and Robert Q. Pollard. 2006. “From best practice to best practice process: Shifting ethical thinking and teaching.” In A New Chapter in Interpreter Education: Accreditation, Research and Technology: Proceedings of the 16th National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers, Monmouth, OR: CIT, ed. by Elisa M. Maroney, 119–32. San Diego.Google Scholar
. 2009. “‘I don’t think we’re supposed to be talking about this”: Case conferencing and supervision for interpreters.” VIEWS 26(4).Google Scholar
Downie, Jonathan. 2014. “Towards a homiletic of sermon interpreting.” Journal of the Evangelical Homiletics Society 14 (2): 62–69.Google Scholar
Eraslan, Seyda. 2011. “International knowledge transfer in Turkey: The consecutive interpreter’s role in context.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Tarragona, Spain: Rovira i Virgili University.Google Scholar
Ghignoli, Alessandro and María Gracia Torres Díaz. 2015. “Interpreting performed by professionals of other fields: The case of sports commentators.” In Non-Professional Interpreting and Translating in the Media, ed. by Rachele Antonini and Chiara Bucaria, 193–208. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gile, D. 1989. “Les flux d’information dans les réunions interlinguistiques et l’interprétation de conférence : Premières observations.” Meta 34 (4): 649–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
He, He, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Hal Daumé III. 2016. “Interpretese vs. translationese: The uniqueness of human strategies in simultaneous interpretation.” In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, ed. by Kevin Knight, Ani Nenkova, and Owen Rambow, 971–976. ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hlavac, Jim. 2012. “Sociolinguistic profiles of users and providers of lay and professional interpreting services: The experiences of a recently-arrived Iraqi language community in Melbourne.” Translation & Interpreting 3 (2): 1–32.Google Scholar
Hokkanen, Sari. 2012. “Simultaneous church interpreting as service.” The Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication 18 (2): 291–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “To serve and to experience: An autoethnographic study of simultaneous church interpreting.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Tampere, Finland.Google Scholar
Karlik, Jill. 2010. “Interpreter-mediated scriptures: Expectation and performance.” Interpreting 12 (2): 160–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Francine. 2005. “Contribution à l’histoire de l’interprétation consécutive : Le metourguemane dans les synagogues de l’Antiquité.” Meta 50 (3): 972–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Killman, Jeffrey. 2020. “Interpreting for asylum seekers and their attorneys: The challenge of agency.” Perspectives 28 (1): 73–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid. 1993. “Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 51: 13–21.Google Scholar
. 1994. “What do different user groups expect from a conference interpreter?” The Jerome Quarterly 9 (2): 3–7.Google Scholar
Luchner, Carmen Delgado, and Leïla Kherbiche. 2018. “Without fear or favour?: The positionality of ICRC and UNHCR interpreters in the humanitarian field.” Target 30 (3): 408–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Gómez, Aída. 2015. “Invisible, visible or everywhere in between? Perceptions and actual behaviours of non-professional interpreters and interpreting users.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 201: 175–94.Google Scholar
Mason, Ian (ed). 2001. Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Mathews, Elizabeth S. 2011. “‘No sign language if you want to get him talking’: Power, transgression/resistance, and discourses of d/Deafness in the Republic of Ireland.” Population Space & Place 17 (4): 361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D. and Thomas A. Hanson. 2018. “Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 13 (3): 366–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlini, Raffaela and Roberta Favaron. 2003. “Community interpreting: Re-conciliation through power management.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 121: 205–29.Google Scholar
Mikkelson, Holly. 1999. “Interpreting is interpreting – Or is it?” Presented at the GSTI 30th Anniversary Conference .
Mizuno, Makiko. 2006. “The history of community interpreting studies in Japan.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 51.Google Scholar
Moretti, Franco. 2000. “Conjectures on world literature.” New Left Review 11: 54–68.Google Scholar
Napier, Jemina. 2017. “Not just child’s play: Exploring bilingualism and language brokering as a precursor to the development of expertise as a professional sign language interpreter.” In Non-Professional Interpreting and Translation: State of the Art and Future of an Emerging Field of Research, ed. by Rachele Antonini et al., 381–410. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozolins, Uldis. 2016. “The myth of the myth of invisibility?” Interpreting 18 (2): 273–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phelan, Mary and Mayte Martín. 2010. “Interpreters and cultural mediators – Different but complementary roles.” Translocations 6 (1).Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 1995. “Simultaneous interpreting: A functionalist perspective.” Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 141: 31–53.Google Scholar
. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Conference interpreting surveying the profession.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 4 (2): 172–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pokorn, Nike K. and Tamara Mikolič Južnič. 2020. “Community interpreters versus intercultural mediators. Is it really all about ethics?” Translation and Interpreting Studies 15 (1): 81–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1999. “‘Nicole slapped Michelle.’” The Translator 5 (2): 265–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayman, Jennifer. 2007. “Visions of equality: Translating power in a deaf sermonette.” The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 1 (1): 73–114.Google Scholar
Rothman, E. Natalie. 2009. “Interpreting dragomans: Boundaries and crossings in the early modern Mediterranean.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 51 (4): 771–800. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, Cynthia B. 1992. “A sociolinguistic analysis of the interpreter’s role in simultaneous talk in a face-to-face interpreted dialogue.” Sign Language Studies 741: 21–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Interpreting as a Discourse Process. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 1995. “Shifts in cohesion in simultaneous interpreting.” The Translator 1 (2): 193–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “Corpus-based interpreting studies as an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies.” Meta 43 (4): 486–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Graham H. 2005. “Towards real interpreting.” In Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directions for Research and Practice, ed. by Marc Marschark, Rico Peterson, and Elizabeth A. Winston, 253–65. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyulenev, Sergey and Binghan Zheng. 2017. “Introduction: Toward comparative translation and interpreting studies.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 12 (2): 197–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verrept, Hans. 2008. “Intercultural mediation at Belgian hospitals.” In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting. Definitions and Dilemmas, ed. by Carmen Valero Garcés and Anne Martin, 187–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vigouroux, C. B. 2010. “Double-mouthed discourse: Interpreting, framing, and participant roles.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 14 (3): 341–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vuorikoski, A. R. 1998. “User responses to simultaneous interpreting.” In Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies, ed. by Lynne Bowker, et al., 184–197. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1992. Interpreting as Interaction: On Dialogue-Interpreting in Immigration Hearings and Medical Encounters. Linköping University.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman and Barbara Shaffer. 2005. “Towards a cognitive model of interpreting.” In Topics in Signed Languages Interpreting: Theory and Practice, ed. by Terry Janzen, 27–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurm, Svenja. 2010. “Translation across modalities: The practice of translating written text into recorded signed language: An ethnographic case study.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland. [URL]
Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2015. “Simultaneous conference interpreting and a supernorm that governs it all.” Meta 60 (1): 90–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Klabal, Ondřej
2024. Review of Ruiz Rosendo & Todorova (2022): Interpreter Training in Conflict and Post-Conflict Scenarios. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation / Revista Internacional de Traducción 70:3 ► pp. 442 ff. DOI logo
Downie, Jonathan
2023. Chapter 11. Where is it all going? Technology, economic pressures and the future of interpreting. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo
Downie, Jonathan
2023. A comparative interpreting studies view of interpreting in religious contexts. Translation and Interpreting Studies 18:3 ► pp. 448 ff. DOI logo
Downie, Jonathan
2024. A critical review of church interpreting research. Interpreting and Society 4:1 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Haualand, Hilde
2023. Licence to inform: Norwegian sign language interpreters in a bureaucratic organisation. Interpreting and Society 3:1 ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo
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
Li, Ruitian, Andrew K. F. Cheung & Kanglong Liu
2022. A Corpus-Based Investigation of Extra-Textual, Connective, and Emphasizing Additions in English-Chinese Conference Interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D. & Thomas A. Hanson
2022. Considerations of ecological validity in cognitive translation and interpreting studies. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Napier, Jemina
2021. Signing Deaf Communities and Language Brokering. In Sign Language Brokering in Deaf-Hearing Families, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.