Interpreting Research and the ‘Manipulation School’ of Translation Studies

Anne Schjoldager
The Århus School of Business

With a special view to applying it to interpreting research, this article examines, explains and puts into perspective what others have dubbed the 'Manipulation School'. This group of scholars see themselves as working within descriptive translation studies (DTS), as defined by James S Holmes, and their main methodological tool is a search for translational norms, first proposed by Gideon Toury. The article then looks at interpreting research—especially Daniel Gile 's work—and explores how the ideas of the 'Manipulation School ' relate to current research in this particular field.

Table of contents

In July 1993, two colleagues from Århus and I participated in the summer programme of the CERA Chair for Translation, Communication and Cultures at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium). As PhD students of interpreting, our special reason for choosing to participate in the programme was that this year its temporary Chair was held by an interpreting scholar, Daniel Gile. Though we expected mostly to be interested in what the CERA Professor [ p. 30 ]sor himself had to say about interpreting research, we soon discovered that the programme offered other interesting ideas concerning theory and research methodology.

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. 43 ]References

Aarup, Hanne
1993 “Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Interpreting”. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. 2. 167–174.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baaring, Inge
1984Om omsætningsprocessen ved simultantolkning med tysk som udgangssproget. [= ARK, 21.]Google Scholar
Barik, Henri Charles
1969A Study of Simultaneous Interpretation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. [PhD Dissertation.]Google Scholar
1972 “Interpreters Talk a Lot, Among Other Things”. Babel 18:1. 3–10.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bros-Brann, Eliane
1975 “Critical Comments on H.C. Barik’s Article ‘Interpreters Talk a Lot, Among Other Things’ ...”. Babel 21:2. 93–94.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déjean Le Féal, Karla
1990 “Some Thoughts on the Evaluation of Simultaneous Interpretation”. David Bowen and Margareta Bowen, eds. Interpreting—Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Binghamton: SUNY (State University of New York) 1990 154–160. [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, IV.]   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delabastita, Dirk
1989 “Translation and Mass-Communication: Film and T.V. Translation as Evidence of Cultural Dynamics”. Babel 35:4. 193–218.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 “A False Opposition in Translation Studies: Theoretical versus/ and Historical Approaches”. Target 3:2. 137–152.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denissenko, Jurij
1989 “Communicative and Interpretative Linguistics”. Gran and Dodds 1989 : 155–157.Google Scholar
Dillinger, Michael L.
1989Component Processes of Simultaneous Interpreting. Montreal: McGill University. [PhD Dissertation.]Google Scholar
1990 “Comprehension during Interpreting: What Do Interpreters Know that Bilinguals Don’t?”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 3. 41–58.Google Scholar
Dodds, John M.
1989 “Linguistic Theory Construction as a Premise to a Methodology of Teaching Interpretation”. Gran and Dodds 1989 : 17–20.Google Scholar
Dubslaff, Friedel
1993 “Die Funktionen anaphorischer Proformen beim Simultan-dolmetschen aus dem Deutschen”. Hermes 11. 107–115.Google Scholar
Gerver, David
1976 “Empirical Studies of Simultaneous Interpretation: A Review and a Model”. Richard W. Brislin, ed. Translation: Applications and Research. New York: Gardner Press 1976 165–207.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1988 “An Overview of Conference Interpretation Research and Theory”. Deanna L. Hammond, ed. Languages at Crossroads: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the American Translators’ Association. Medford, NJ: Learned Information 1988 363–371.Google Scholar
1990aBasic Concepts and Models for Conference Interpretation Training—First Version. Paris: INALCO & CEEI (ISIT).Google Scholar
1990b “Scientific Research vs. Personal Theories in the Investigation of Interpretation”. Laura Gran and Christopher Taylor, eds. Aspects of Applied and Experimental Research on Conference Interpretation. Udine: Campanotto 1990 28–41.Google Scholar
1991a “Methodological Aspects of Interpretation (and Translation) Research”. Target 3:2. 153–174.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 44 ]
1991b “The Processing Capacity Issue in Conference Interpretation”. Babel 37:1. 15–27.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 “Opening Up in Interpretation Studies”. Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl, eds. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1994 149–158.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gran, Laura and John Dodds
eds. 1989The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation. Udine: Campanotto.Google Scholar
Haas, W.
1968 “The Theory of Translation”. G.H.R. Parkinson, ed. The Theory of Meaning. Oxford University Press 1968 86–108.Google Scholar
Harris, Brian
1990 “Norms in Interpretation”. Target 2:1. 115–119.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbert, Jean
1952The Interpreters Handbook: How to Become a Conference Interpreter. Genève: Libraire de l’université, Georg & Cie S.A.Google Scholar
Hermans, Theo
ed. 1985The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1991 “Translational Norms and Correct Translations”. van Leuven-Zwart and Naaijkens 1991 : 155–169.Google Scholar
Holmes, James S.
1975 “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”. [mimeo.] rep. in Holmes 1988 : 67–80.Google Scholar
1988Translated!: Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. [Approaches to Translation Studies, 7.]Google Scholar
Leuven-Zwart, Kitty van and Ton Naaijkens
eds. 1991Translational Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. [Approaches to Translation Studies, 9.]Google Scholar
Moser, Barbara
1978 “Simultaneous Interpretation: A Hypothetical Model and Its Practical Application”. David Gerver and H. Wallace Sinaiko, eds. Language Interpretation and Communication. New York, London: Plenum Press 1978 353–368.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara
1991a “Neue Einsichten zur Verstehensphase beim Simultan-dolmetschen” [Review of Dillinger 1989 ]. FEM (Fremdsprachen Eurokommunikation/Management) 1. 43–44.Google Scholar
1991b “Research Committee Paradigms Gained, or the Art of Productive Disagreement”. AIIC Bulletin XIX:2. 11–15.Google Scholar
Schjoldager, Anne
1994 “Interpreting Research and the ‘Manipulation School’ of Translation Studies”. Hermes 12. 65–89.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica
1975Langage, langues et mémoire. Paris: Minard.Google Scholar
1978Interpreting for International Conferences. Washington D.C.: Pen and Booth.Google 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
Snell-Hornby, Mary
1988Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1978 “The Nature and Role of Norms in Literary Translation”. rep. in Toury 1980a : 51–62.Google Scholar
1980aIn Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University. [Meaning & Art, 2.]Google Scholar
1980b “The Translator as a Nonconformist-To-Be, or: How to Train Translators So As to Violate Translational Norms”. Sven-Olaf Poulsen and Wolfram Wilss, eds. Angewandte Übersetzungswissenschaft: Internationales übersetzungs-wissenschaftliches Kolloquium an der Wirtschaftsuniversität Århus, Dänemark, 19.-21. Juni 1980. Århus, 1980. 180–195.Google Scholar
[ p. 45 ]
1985 “A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies”. Hermans 1985 : 16–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 “What are Descriptive Studies into Translation Likely to Yield apart from Isolated Descriptions?”. van Leuven-Zwart and Naaijkens 1991 : 179–192.Google Scholar