Dialogue interpreting: A monologising practice in a dialogically organised world

Cecilia Wadensjö
Linköping University, Sweden
Abstract

This paper investigates dialogue interpreting as a monologising social practice, and demonstrates how this can be done within a general theoretical framework of dialogism. Drawing on earlier research on naturally occurring, interpreted face-to-face interaction, the paper argues for treating dialogue interpreting as a separate empirical field within the general field of Translation Studies. The constant overlap between target and source environment is identified as one of its characteristic features. Adding to the current discussion on ethics in Translation Studies, the paper finally highlights the point of distinguishing between interpreters’ professional ideology and lived professional practice.

Keywords:
Table of contents

In a recent thematic volume on ethics in Translation Studies, Pym (2001) identified a return to ethical issues as a trend. This trend could perhaps partly be explained by the close link between studies on translation and translators’ professional development. To my mind, an ongoing discussion among professionals on professional ethics is a goal in itself, linked as it is to the process of developing and sustaining a shared professional ideology. This paper aims at adding to this trend, not by suggesting measures by which to evaluate what translators uniquely do, but by demonstrating ways to understand and explore the nature of a specific branch within Translation Studies, namely dialogue interpreting.

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.

References

Agar, Michael H.
1985 “Institutional discourse”. Text 5. 147–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan
1990 The bilingual courtroom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidsson, Brad
2002 “A model for the construction of conversational common ground in interpreted discourse”. Journal of pragmatics 34. 1273–1300.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul and John Heritage
eds. 1992 Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1981 Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra ans John Gibbons
1999 “Varying realities: Patterned changes in the interpreter’s representation of courtroom and external realities”. Applied linguistics 20:2. 203–220.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heen Wold, Astri
ed. 1992 The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind. Oslo: Scandianvian University Press.Google Scholar
Hermans, Johan and José Lambert
1998 “From translation markets to language management: The implications of translation services”. Target 10:1. 113–132.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, José and Hendrik Van Gorp
1985 “On describing translations”. Theo Hermans, ed. The manipulation of literature: Essays in Translation Studies. London: Croom Helm 1985 42–53.Google Scholar
Linell, Per
2003 “Dialogical tensions: On Rommetveitian themes of mind, meanings, monologues and languages”. Mind, culture, and activity 10.3. 219–229.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Ian
2000 “Models and methods in dialogue interpreting research”. Maeve Olohan, ed. Intercultural faultlines: Research models in Translation Studies I. Textual and cognitive aspects. Manchester: St Jerome 2000 215–232.Google Scholar
[ p. 123 ]
Morris, Ruth
1993 Images of the interpreter: A study of language-switching in the legal process. Department of Law, Lancaster University, U.K. [Dissertation.]Google Scholar
Morson, Gary Saul and Caryl Emerson
eds. 1989 Rethinking Bakhtin: Extensions and challenges. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane
1997 Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
O’Barr, William M. and Bowman K. Atkins
1980 “‘Women’s language’ or ‘powerless language’?” Sally McConnell-Ginet, Rutj Borker and Nelly Furman, eds. Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger 1980 93–110.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
1997 Pour une éthique du traducteur. Arras: Artois Presses Université, Ottawa: Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
1999 “‘Nicole slapped Michelle’: Interpreters and theories of interpreting at the O.J. Simpson trial”. The translator 5:2. 265–283. [Special issue on Dialogue interpreting .]   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “Introduction: The return to ethics in Translation Studies”. The translator 7:2. 129–138.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, Cynthia B.
2000 Interpreting as a discourse process. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
1989 Simultaneous interpretation as a factor in effecting shifts in the position of texts on the oral–literate continuum. Tel Aviv University: Department of Poetics and Comparative Literature. [Master thesis.]Google 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
Snell-Hornby, Mary
1988 Translation Studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Straniero-Sergio, Francesco
1998 “Notes on cultural mediation”. The interpreters’ newsletter 8 151–168.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1992 Interpreting as interaction: On dialogue interpreting in immigration hearings and medical encounters. Linköping: Department of Communication Studies. [Ph.D. Dissertation; Linköping Studies in Arts and Science 83.]Google Scholar
1998 Interpreting as interaction. London and New York: Longman. [Language in Social Life Series.][ p. 124 ]Google Scholar