Cover not available
Article published In:
Culture and Society
[Translation Spaces 5:2] 2016
► pp. 200–221

The policy maker in conference interpreting and its hegemonic power

| University of Vienna, Austria
This paper sets out to explore the concept of hegemony in the field of conference interpreting practice. It presents the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) as the hegemon in conference interpreting and examines its power as a policy maker. The paper associates this type of investigation with the sociological turn in conference interpreting research. It takes two large-scale surveys by Feldweg (1996) and Zwischenberger (2013) as its starting point, based on the self-representations of conference interpreter members of AIIC. The examples taken from these two surveys reveal a consistent degree of consensus and highlight the hegemonic power exerted by AIIC. This study’s main focus is on appropriating the hegemony concept for conference interpreting and thereby showing that AIIC governs the entire field of conference interpreting practice. AIIC’s power as a policy maker is based on a large degree of consent, although its hegemonic power is not uncontested.
Keywords: International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC), conference interpreting, (alternative) meta-metaphor, counter-hegemony, policy maker, hegemony
Published online: 6 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.5.2.03zwi
References (49)
AIIC. 2000a. “Practical Guide for Professional Conference Interpreters.” Accessed August 3, 2015. [URL].
. 2000b. “A Practical Guide for Applicants.” Accessed August 2, 2015. [URL].
. 2002. “Advice to Students Wishing to Become Conference Interpreters.” Accessed August 2, 2015. [URL].
. 2005. “Budding Interpreter FAQ.” Accessed August 2, 2015. [URL].
. 2012. “What we do.” Accessed July 28, 2015. [URL].
. 2013. “Conflict Zone Field Guide for Civilian Translators/Interpreters and Users of Their Services.” Accessed August 4, 2015. [URL].
. 2015a. “AIIC Worldwide.” Accessed July 30, 2015. [URL].
. 2015b. “Collective Agreements.” Accessed August 1, 2015. [URL].
. 2015c. “What AIIC Does”. Accessed July 29, 2015. [URL].
. 2015d. “AIIC Groups. AIIC Working Groups & Committees. Interpreters in Areas of Conflict.” Accessed August 4, 2015. [URL].
Babels. 2004a. “About us/Contacts.” Accessed July 27, 2015. [URL].
. 2004b. “Babels Charter.” Accessed July 27, 2015. [URL].
Bachmann-Medick, Doris. 2007. Cultural Turns: Neuorientierungen in den Kultrwissenschaften. Reinbeck, Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Introduction: The Translational Turn.” Translation studies 2 (1): 2–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bassnett, Susan, and André Lefevere. 1990. Translation, History, and Culture. London/New York: Pinter.Google Scholar
Baudrillard, Jean. 2010. The Agony of Power. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
Beaton, Morven. 2007. “Interpreted Ideologies in Institutional Discourse. The Case of the European Parliament.” The Translator 13 (2): 271–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boéri, Julie. 2008. “A Narrative Account of the Babels vs. Naumann Controversy.” The Translator 14 (1): 21–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camilo, Sílvia. 2010. “Interpretation: One Profession, Several Jobs. A Talk with Sílvia Camilo.” Accessed August 1, 2015. [URL].
Durand, Claude. 2003. “AIIC’s 50th Anniversary and Staff Interpreters: From the Origins to the Present Day.” Accessed August 5, 2015. [URL].
Eichner, Klaus. 1981. Die Entstehung sozialer Normen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldweg, Erich. 1996. Der Konferenzdolmetscher im internationalen Kommunikationsprozess. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar
Gramsci, Antonio.1999. Selection from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
Hall, Stuart. 1977. “Culture, the Media and the “Ideological Effect.” In Mass Communication and Society, edited by James Curran, Michael Gurevitch, and Janet Woollacott, 315–348. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture and Style. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Jacobitz, Robin. 1991. “Antonio Gramsci—Hegemonie, historischer Block und intellektuelle Führung in der internationalen Politik.” Accessed June 15, 2015. [URL].
Kebir, Sabine. 1991. Antonio Gramscis Zivilgesellschaft. Hamburg: VSA-Verlag.Google Scholar
Keiser, Walter. 2005. “Voluntary Work. Contribution to a Constructive Debate.” Accessed June 20, 2015. [URL].
Krotz, Friedrich. 1996. “Parasoziale Interaktion und Identität im elektronisch mediatisierten Kommunikationsraum.” In Fernsehen als “Beziehungskiste.” Parasoziale Beziehungen und Interaktionen mit TV-Personen, edited by Peter Vorderer, 73–90. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Von der Entdeckung der Zentralperspektive zur Augmented Reality: Wie Mediatisierung funktioniert.” In Mediatisierte Welten Forschungsfelder und Beschreibungsansätze, edited by Friedrich Krotz and Andreas Hepp, 27–55. Wiesbaden: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Martín de León, Celia. 2010. “Metaphorical Models of Translation. Transfer vs. Imitation and Action.” In Thinking through Translation with Metaphors, edited by James St. André, 75–108. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Monacelli, Claudia. 2009. Self-Preservation in Simultaneous Interpreting. Surviving the Role. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naumann, Peter. 2005. “Babels and Nomad—Observations on the Barbarising of Communication at the 2005 World Social Forum.” Accessed June 20, 2015. [URL].
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prunč, Erich. 2012. Entwicklungslinien der Translationswissenschaft. Von den Asymmetrrien der Sprachen zu den Asymmetrien der Macht. Berlin: Frank and Timme.Google Scholar
Roy, Cynthia. 1993. “The Problem with Definitions, Descriptions, and the Role Metaphors of Interpreters.” Journal of Interpretation 6 (1): 127–154.Google Scholar
. 2000. Interpreting as a Discourse Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
SCIC. 2012. “The Conference Interpreter’s Language Combination.” Accessed August 1, 2015. [URL].
. 2013. “Code of Professional Ethics.” Accessed August 1, 2015. [URL].
UNOG. 2015. “Interpretation. What is a Conference Interpreter?” Accessed July 29, 2015. [URL].
Wadensjö, Cecilia.1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wolf, Michaela. 2007. “Introduction: The Emergence of a Sociology of Translation.” In Constructing a Sociology of Translation, edited by Michaela Wolf and Alexandra Fukari, 1–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2013. Qualität und Rollenbilder beim simultanen Konferenzdolmetschen. Berlin: Frank and Timme.Google Scholar
. 2015a. “Quality in Simultaneous Conference Interpreting: A Prospective Perspective.” In Perspectives on Translation, edited by Anna Baczkowska, 77–102. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2015b. “Simultaneous Conference Interpreting and a Supernorm That Governs it All.” Meta 60 (1): 90–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Dai, Yun-fang
2022.  Yinbian yanyu in twentieth-century China. Translation and Interpreting Studies 17:2 ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Pym, Anthony
2022. Who says who interprets? On the possible existence of an interpreter system. The Translator 28:2 ► pp. 162 ff. DOI logo
Zwischenberger, Cornelia
2017. Translation as a metaphoric traveller across disciplines. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 3:3 ► pp. 388 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.