Common grounds in Translation and Interpreting (Studies)

Nadja GrbićMichaela Wolf
Table of contents

Historically, the distinct activities of translation and interpreting underwent a fundamentally different development, interpreting being more deeply rooted in history and presumably practised before the invention of writing. Phenomenologically, however, the two activities and their pertinent research domains share an enduring common basis, which is reflected mainly in such research areas as: the sociology of translation and interpreting; cultural issues pertaining to translating and interpreting; perspectives of identity or (in)visibility; didactics and methodology (descriptive or explanatory), amongst many others. Given that these shared grounds were ultimately nourished by common interests in research and research policy, interdisciplinarity has long been the key word with regard to translation and interpreting research, despite critical voices which claim that interdisciplinary work has not thus far led to a general advancement in epistemological and methodological reflection (see e.g. Gambier 2004).

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.


Anderson, R. Bruce W
1976“Perspectives on the role of interpreter.” In Translation. Applications and Research, Richard W. Brislin (ed.), 208–228. New York: Gardner Press.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Angelelli, Claudia V
2004Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere, André
(eds) 1990Translation, History and Culture. London: Pinter.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Clifford, James & Marcus, George E
(eds) 1986Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cronin, Michael
2002“The empire talks back: Orality, heteronomy, and the cultural turn in Interpretation Studies.” In Translation and Power, Maria Tymoczko & Edwin Gentzler (eds), 45–62. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Delisle, Jean & Woodsworth, Judith
(eds) 1995/2012 Translators Through History. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Diriker, Ebru
2008“Exploring conference interpreting as a social practice: An area for intra-disciplinary cooperation.” In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury, Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger & Daniel Simeoni (eds), 209–220. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins  TSB. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara & Gorm Hansen, Inge
2007“Speaking your translation: Exploiting synergies between translation and interpreting.” In Interpreting Studies and Beyond: A Tribute to Miriam Shlesinger, Franz Pöchhhacker, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen & Inger M. Mees (eds), 251–274. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Gambier, Yves
2004“Translation Studies: A succession of paradoxes.” In Christina Schäffner (ed.), 62–70.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
2004“Translation research versus interpreting research: Kinship, differences and prospects for partnership.” In Christina Schäffner (ed.), 1–9.Google Scholar
2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Revised edition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Gouadec, Daniel
2007Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Grbić, Nadja
2010“‘Boundary work’ as a concept for studying professionalization processes in the interpreting field.” TIS 5 (1): 109–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo
1997“Translation as institution.” In Translation as Intercultural Communication. Selected Papers From the EST Congress - Prague 1995, Mary Snell-Hornby, Zuzana Jettmarová & Klaus Kaindl (eds), 3–20. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins  TSB. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, James S
1972/2000 “The name and nature of Translation Studies.” In The Translation Studies Reader, Lawrence Venuti (ed.), 172–185. London/New York: Routledge.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Inghilleri, Moria
2003“Habitus, field and discourse. Interpreting as a socially situated activity.” Target 15 (2): 243–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kade, Otto
1968Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Übersetzung. Leipzig: VEB Enzyklopädie.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Lung, Rachel
2009“Interpreters and the writing of history in China.” Meta 54 (2): 201–217. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
2010“On paradigms and cognitive translatology.” In Gregory M. Shreve & Erik Angelone (eds), 169–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Hagan, Minako & Ashworth, David
2002Translation-mediated Communication in a Digital World. Facing the Challenges of Globalization and Localization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
1995“Simultaneous interpreting. A functionalist perspective.” Hermes 14: 31–53.  TSBGoogle Scholar
2005“From operation to action: Process-orientation in Interpreting Studies.” Meta 50 (2): 682–695. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Riccardi, Alessandra
2002“Translation and interpretation.” In Translation Studies. Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, Alessandra Riccardi (ed.), 75–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna
2012“Cognitive approaches to translation.” In Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Carol A. Chapelle (ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Rudvin, Mette
2006“The cultural turn in community interpreting. A brief analysis of epistemological developments in community interpreting literature in the light of paradigm changes in the humanities.” Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series 5: 21–41.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Salevsky, Heidemarie
1993“The distinctive nature of Interpreting Studies.” Target 5 (2): 149–162. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Schäffner, Christina
(ed.) 2004Translation Research and Interpreting Research. Traditions, Gaps and Synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Schjoldager, Anne
1995“An exploratory study of translational norms in simultaneous interpreting. Methodological reflections.” Hermes 14: 65–87.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
1989“Extending the theory of translation to interpretation: Norms as a case in point.” Target 1 (1): 111–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam & Malkies, Brenda
2005“Comparing modalities: cognates as a case in point.” Across Languages and Cultures 6 (2): 173–193. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M. & Angelone, Erik
2010“Translation and cognition: Recent developments.” In Translation and Cognition, Gregory M. Shreve & Erik Angelone (eds), 1–13. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torikai, Kumiko
2009Voices of the Invisible Presence. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1980In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Turner, Graham H. & Pollitt, Kyra
2002“Community interpreting meets literary translation. English-BSL interpreting in the theatre.” The Translator 8 (1): 25–48. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Turner, Graham H
2006“Re-thinking the sociology of sign language interpreting and translation: Some challenges posed by deaf practitioners.” In Übersetzen - Translating - Traduire: Towards a ‘Social Turn’?, Michaela Wolf (ed.), 285–293. Wien: LIT.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria
2007Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Weber, Orest, Singy, Pascal & Guex, Patrice
2005“Gender and interpreting in the medical sphere: What is at stake?” In Gender, Sex and Translation. The Manipulation of Identities, José Santaemilia (ed.), 137–148. Manchester: St. Jerome.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Michaela
2011“Mapping the field: Sociological perspectives on translation.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 207: 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012Die vielsprachige Seele Kakaniens. Übersetzen und Dolmetschen in der Habsburgermonarchie 1848 bis 1918. Wien: Böhlau.  TSBGoogle Scholar