Interpreting is interpreting
Why we need to leave behind interpreting settings to discover Comparative Interpreting Studies
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.
- 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
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 september 2021. 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.