Habitus, field and discourse: Interpreting as a socially situated activity
Goldsmiths College, University of London
Taking Toury’s model of norms as its starting point, this paper examines the macro–micro relationship evident within the context and culture of interpreting activity. The paper theorises this relationship drawing on Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and field and Bernstein’s theory of pedagogic discourse. It proposes a model which directs the analysis of norms to the social dimension of language and cognition, as well as to the sociological and ideological determinants of what counts as a legitimate meaning in a particular context. The paper draws on the analysis of a particular context—the interpreted political asylum interview. However, it suggests the possibility of applying a similar theoretical model across a range of interpreting contexts.
The object of this paper is to explore the notion of translational norms in relation to the context(s) and culture(s) of interpreter training and practice, specifically with respect to political asylum interviews. As a contribution to the theoretical and methodological debates on norms (see Schäffner 1999) drawing on my reading of Toury’s model of translational norms (Toury 1995; 2000), Bourdieu’s notions of field and habitus (Bourdieu 1977; 1990b), and Bernstein’s model of pedagogic discourse (Bernstein 1990; 1996), it proposes a theoretical framework with which to analyse interpreting as a norm-governed translational activity. The framework developed here is intended to generate a language for describing both the empirical relations of a particularised context, in this case, the interpreted political asylum interview, and also to extract and analyse the [ p. 244 ]underlying principles which generate the activities, practices and/or rules associated with interpreting activity in a range of contexts. The model directs the analysis of norms to the social dimension of language and cognition, as well as to the sociological and ideological determinants of what counts as a legitimate meaning in a particular context. It attempts to explicate the generative status of norms, viewing them both as socio-cultural constructions and as constructive of socio-cultural practices.
[ p. 265 ]References
ed.1991Refugee policy: Canada and the United States. Toronto: York Lanes Press.
1997 “The role of the interpreter in the adversarial courtroom”. Silvana E. Carr, Roda Roberts, Aideen Dufour and Dini Steyn, eds. The critical link: Interpreters in the community. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1997 29–34.
2000 “What do real translators do?: Developing the use of TAPs from professional translators”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, eds. Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks of empirical research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 2000 111–120.
1993 “Culture and the concept of culture in a theory of practice”. Calhounet al. 1993 14–34.
1996Situating social theory. Buckingham: Open University Press.
[ p. 267 ]
1993Images of the interpreter: A study of language-switching in the legal process.Department of Law, Lancaster University. [PhD Thesis]
1995 “The moral dilemmas of court interpreting”. The translator 1:1. 25–46.
1995 “Just interpreting: Role conflicts and discourse types in court interpreting”. Marshall Morris, ed. Translation and the law. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1995 293–316.
1991 “Skopos, loyalty and translational conventions”. Target 3:1. 91–109.
ed.1995Knowledge and pedagogy: The sociology of Basil Bernstein. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1916Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. English tr. Wade Baskin. Published as A Course in general linguistics. New York: MacGraw-Hill 1959.
ed.1999Current issues in language and society: Translation and norms. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
1993The body and social theory. London: Sage.
1989 “Extending the theory of translation to interpretation: Norms as a case in point”. Target 1:1. 111–115.
1991 “Interpreter latitude vs. due process: Simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in multilingual trials”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, ed. Empirical research in translation and intercultural studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 1991 147–155.
1998 “The pivotal status of the translator’s habitus”. Target 10:1. 1–39.
1993 “To follow a rule...”. Calhounet al. 1993 45–60.
Tiersma, Peter M.
2000Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1995Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2000 “The nature and role of norms in translation”. Venuti 2000. 198–211.
1995The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London: Routledge.