Habitus, field and discourse: Interpreting as a socially situated activity

Moira Inghilleri
Goldsmiths College, University of London

Abstract

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.

Keywords:
Table of contents

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.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

[ p. 265 ]References

Adelman, Howard
ed. 1991Refugee policy: Canada and the United States. Toronto: York Lanes Press.Google Scholar
Anker, Deborah
1991aDetermining asylum claims in the United States: An empirical case study. Final report. Immigration Clinical Programs, Harvard Law School.Google Scholar
1991b “Determining asylum claims in the United States: Executive summary of an empirical study of the adjudication of asylum claims before the Immigration Court”. Adelman 1991 . 268–281.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Paul
1985Language, structure and function: An introduction to the sociology of Basil Bernstein. London: Methuen.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Paul, Brian Davies and Sara Delamont
eds. 1994Discourse and reproduction: Essays in honor of Basil Bernstein. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Barsky, Robert F.
1994Constructing the productive other: Discourse theory and the Convention Refugee Hearing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 “The interpreter as intercultural agent in Convention Refugee Hearings”. The translator 1. 45–64.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan
1990The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Basil
1990The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Class, codes and control IV. London: Routledge.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. London: Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
Blackledge, David and Barry Hunt
1985Sociological interpretations of education. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan Katrijn Maryns
2000Stylistic and thematic shifting as a narrative resource: Assessing asylum seekers’ repertoires. Working Papers on Language, Power and Identity. University of Gent.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre
1977Outline of a theory of practice, tr. Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990aThe logic of practice, tr. Richard Nice. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
1990bIn other words: Essays toward a reflexive sociology, tr. Matthew Adamson. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1993Sociology in question, tr. Richard Nice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Craig, Edward LiPuma and Moishe Postore
eds. 1997Bourdieu: Critical perspectives. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Chesterman, Andrew
1997Memes of translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chouliaraki, Lilie and Norman Fairclough
1999Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, James
1993 “Determination and contradiction: An appreciation and critique of the work of Pierre Bourdieu on Language and Education”. Calhoun et al. 1993 116–138.Google Scholar
2000 “Bernstein, Bourdieu and the New Literacy Studies”. Linguistics and education 11:1. 65–78.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 266 ]
Corsellis, Ann
1995Non-English speakers and the English legal system. The Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Davies, Brian
1994 “Durkheim and the sociology of education in Britain”. British journal of sociology of education 15:1. 3–25.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fenton, Sabine
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.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Janet
1996 “Mapping the process of translation”. Meta XLI:1. 84–96.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gee, James Paul
1992The social mind: Language, ideology and social practice. New York: Bergin and Harvey.Google Scholar
1999An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gentile, Adolfo, Uldis Ozolins and Mary Vasilakakos
1996Liaison interpreting: A handbook. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Giroux, Henry A.
1983Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley: Bergin and Garvey.Google Scholar
Gorder, Karen L.
1980 “Understanding school knowledge: A critical appraisal of Basil Bernstein and Pierre Bourdieu”. Educational theory 30. 335–346.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gouanvic, Jean-Marc
1997 “Translation and the shape of things to come”. The translator 3:2. 125–152.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harker, Richard and Stephen A. May
1993 “Code and habitus: Comparing accounts of Bernstein and Bourdieu”. British journal of sociology of education 14:2. 169–178.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Brian
1990 “Norms in interpretation”. Target 2:1. 115–119.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Roy
1998Introduction to integrational linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya
1999 “The disempowerment game: Bourdieu and language in literacy”. Linguistics and education 10:1. 25–87.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo
1996 “Translation as institution”. Mary Snell-Hornby, Zuzana Jettamarovà and Klaus Kaindl, eds. Translation as intercultural communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1996 3–20.Google Scholar
1999Translation in systems: Descriptive and system-oriented approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Holland, Dorothy and Naomi Quinn
1987Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Inghilleri, Moira
2000 “Intersubjectivity: The holy grail of mutual understanding?Language and communication 20. 133–148.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 “Britton and Bernstein on Vygotsky: Divergent views on mind and language in the pedagogic context”. Pedagogy, culture and society 10:3. 471–486.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
LiPuma, Edward
1993 “Culture and the concept of culture in a theory of practice”. Calhoun et al. 1993 14–34.Google Scholar
May, Tim
1996Situating social theory. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 267 ]
Morris, Ruth
1993Images of the interpreter: A study of language-switching in the legal process.Department of Law, Lancaster University. [PhD Thesis]Google Scholar
1995 “The moral dilemmas of court interpreting”. The translator 1:1. 25–46.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Niska, Helge
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.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nord, Christiane
1991 “Skopos, loyalty and translational conventions”. Target 3:1. 91–109.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sadnovik, Alan
ed. 1995Knowledge and pedagogy: The sociology of Basil Bernstein. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Schäffner, Christina
ed. 1999Current issues in language and society: Translation and norms. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Shilling, Chris
1993The body and social theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
1989 “Extending the theory of translation to interpretation: Norms as a case in point”. Target 1:1. 111–115.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Simeoni, Daniel
1998 “The pivotal status of the translator’s habitus”. Target 10:1. 1–39.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charles
1993 “To follow a rule...”. Calhoun et al. 1993 45–60.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M.
2000Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 “The nature and role of norms in translation”. Venuti 2000 . 198–211.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence
1995The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London: Routledge.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ed. 2000The Translation Studies reader. London: Routledge.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, Hans. J.
2000 “Skopos and commission in translational action”. Venuti 2000 . 221–232.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1998Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
White, James
1990Justice as translation: An essay in cultural and legal criticism. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Zucker, Norman and Naomi F. Zucker
1991 “The 1980 Refugee Act: A 1990 perspective”. Adelman 1991 . 224–252.[ p. 268 ]Google Scholar