Who interprets interpreting?

A study of the social turn in Interpreting Studies

Author: Ruth Pike

Supervisor: Dr Peng

Module: MODL5301M Dissertation

Word count of text: 10,068 (including Appendix A: 236 words)

Word count of Abstract: 218

Mark awarded: 72, distinction

Status: Unpublished

Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of

MA Conference Interpreting and Translation Studies

The University of Leeds

Centre for Translation Studies

August 2011

1

Abstract

The ‘social turn’ describes a trend in Interpreting Studies which arose in the 1990s

and can be largely attributed to the beginning of the process of professionalization of

community interpreting. The interdisciplinary nature of the social turn led to a

re-analysis of interpreting and the role of the interpreter through new theoretical

frameworks, such as sociolinguistics and discourse analysis. Consequently, it

marked a shift in emphasis from communication as monological to communication as

dialogical, and a shift from studying interpreting as a product to studying interpreting

as a process. The former has significant implications for meaning and quality in

interpreting because it implies that the target text (TT) is not intended to be a faithful

copy of the source text (ST), but creates meaning in dialogue with the ST. However,

the social turn has also provided useful insights into the socio-cultural and relational

aspects of communication which could improve quality in interpreting. The social turn

has helped further the process of professionalization of community interpreting, but

further professionalization remains threatened by financial constraints and negative

perceptions of community interpreting. The lack of professionalization of community

interpreting also limits the extent to which the social turn is able to have an impact on

interpreting practice, but greater communication amongst different ‘types’ of

interpreters and scholars could mitigate this.

2

Contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction: The social turn in context ............................................................. 3

1.1 Defining interpreting ................................................................................... 3

1.2 Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies: Parallel disciplines? ...... 4

Figure 1: Model of Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies ......................... 5

1.3 Introducing the ‘social turn’ in Interpreting Studies ................................ 6

2. The social turn and other texts ............................................................................ 8

2.1 Community interpreting and the beginnings of professionalization ...... 8

2.2 Defining community interpreting against other forms of interpreting . 11

2.3 The call for descriptivism ......................................................................... 13

2.4 New theoretical frameworks as texts ...................................................... 14

3. The social turn and the text: Collaboration or servitude? .................................. 17

3.1 From servitude to collaboration? ............................................................ 17

3.2 The death of the speaker .......................................................................... 19

3.3 A new form of illusionism ......................................................................... 20

4. The social turn as a text .................................................................................... 23

4.1 Meaning and quality in interpreting: monological versus dialogical.... 23

4.2 Meaning and quality in interpreting: product versus process .............. 26

5. Conclusions: The impact of the social turn and future prospects ...................... 28

5.1 Impact on meaning and quality in interpreting ....................................... 28

5.2 Impact on the role, status and professionalization of the community

interpreter ............................................................................................................ 29

5.3 Who interprets interpreting and who will interpret the future of

interpreting?........................................................................................................ 30

Appendix A: Comparison of different models of professionalization ......................... 33

Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 34

3

1. Introduction: The social turn in context

1.1 Defining interpreting

The terms ‘translating’ and ‘interpreting’ are often used interchangeably in

Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies. However, most scholars recognize that

there is some distinction between them. Pöchhacker (Pöchhacker 2004. In: Hale

2007 p.5) defines interpreting as ‘a form of Translation in which a first and final

rendition in another language is produced on the basis of a one-time presentation of

an utterance in a source language’. Pöchhacker’s definition accounts for the fact that

many scholars use the term ‘Translation’ to refer to interpreting, although generally

not vice-versa. Hale (2007) sums up the differences between interpreting and

translating as follows:

The first, obvious, difference is that one is expressed in written form

(Translation) and the other in oral form (Interpreting), and for this reason, the

translation process includes a number of steps that are not available to the

interpreter. (2007 p.8)

Echoing this definition, Dam (Dam 1993. In: Kondo 1997 p.159) highlights three main

factors which distinguish interpreting from translating:

1) In interpreting, target-text receivers are normally part of the primary

audience of the sender.

2) There are differences in the medium involved and position of the

communication parties.

3) The interpreter does not have time to adapt the text to follow conventions of

text structuring and structuring of argumentation.

In this dissertation, I will use the term ‘interpreting’ to refer to the oral form of

translation, which, as the above definitions explain, is distinct from the written form of

translation. However, on occasion I will refer to scholars who use the term

‘Translation’ to refer to interpreting.

4

1.2 Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies: Parallel disciplines?

The subject of where Translation Studies is situated in relation to other disciplines

has been a key concern of scholars such as Snell-Hornby who have set out to

present Translation Studies as a discipline within its own right. Snell-Hornby (2006)

declares that:

Up to the mid-1980s (...) the study of translation was widely seen as a

concern of either linguistics or literary studies, and my ‘integrated approach’

set out to overcome the divisions between them and to present Translation

Studies as an independent discipline. (Snell-Hornby 2006 p.IX, Preface)

The term ‘Translation Studies’ is often used as a blanket term for both Translation

Studies and Interpreting Studies. However, Pöchhacker (2008 pp.36-37) observes

that Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies have not always followed parallel

paths. In his analysis of the turns in Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies, in

relation to the work of Snell-Hornby, Pöchhacker (2008 p.36) points out that whilst

Translation Studies took a ‘cultural turn’ in the mid- to late 1980s, Interpreting

Studies called for more objective and scientific empirical research on interpreting.

Pöchhacker (2008 p.37), in contradistinction to Snell-Hornby, argues that there was

no need for an ‘empirical turn’ in interpreting research, because interpreting research

is grounded in experimental psychology rather than linguistic or literary theorising.

Pöchhacker (2008 pp.36-38) designates the 1980s and 1990s as a period of

divergence between Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies. The 1990s was

the period, following the abundance of more empirical studies in Interpreting Studies,

when the so-called ‘social turn’ emerged.

Figure 1 illustrates the basic conceptual shifts in the relation of Interpreting Studies

to Translation Studies. It is based on Snell-Hornby (2006 pp.IX-XI, Preface),

Pöchhacker (2008 pp.35, 37) and Roy’s (2000 p.3) analysis of the turns within

Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies. Influences such as ‘Linguistics’ are

noted around the diagrams. These are intended to show the main disciplinary

framework of Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies, rather than illustrating all

of the complexity of influences on these disciplines. It should also be noted that

whilst Interpreting Studies has begun to be seen as a discipline in its own right, it is

generally not seen in complete isolation of Translation Studies.

5

Figure 1: Model of Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies

Stage 1: Up to mid-1980s

Interpreting Studies as a sub-set of Translation Studies.

Stage 2: 1980s-1990s

Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies as separate disciplines.

Stage 3: 1990s

Community Interpreting as a form of interpreting begins to establish its own identity

within Interpreting Studies. Different theoretical frameworks are used to frame

Interpreting Studies.

Interpreting Studies

Community Interpreting

Sociolinguistics

Discourse analysis

Eth

no

gra

ph

y

Con

ve

rsa

tiona

l

an

aly

sis

Translation Studies

Interpreting Studies

Linguistics

Literary theory

Translation Studies

Interpreting Studies

Cognitive psychology

Psycholinguistics

6

1.3 Introducing the ‘social turn’ in Interpreting Studies

According to Pöchhacker (2008 p.38), the ‘social turn’ may be understood in terms of

the significant impact which the so-called ‘emergence of community-based

interpreting’ had on Interpreting Studies in the 1990s. Mason (2001 p.i) suggests that

a pivotal moment in the development of this movement was The Critical Link –

Interpreters in the Community, a conference which was held in Geneva Park,

Canada, in which different practitioners, trainers and researchers came together with

the common aim of serving the community, viewing themselves as fundamentally

different from conference interpreters. Mason (2001 p.i) remarks that ‘the Geneva

Park conference marked a turning point’. Roberts (2002 p.167) states that ‘it has

really only been since then that the exchange of information on a national and

international basis has begun’. This conference was followed by another conference

three years later in Vancouver, Critical Link II, and then by a number of key

publications by those ‘endeavouring to stake out the discipline and determine

appropriate methods for its systematic study’ (Mason 2001 p.i). Thus, the emergence

of community interpreting and the recognition of this type of interpreting as being

distinct from conference interpreting led to a re-analysis of interpreting.

Scholars writing at this time, firstly, positioned their own analysis and theories in

relation to other discourses, secondly, realigned the interpreter in relation to the text

interpreted, and thirdly, offered a new perspective through which interpreting could

be viewed. In this dissertation, I will analyse this in terms of: 1) the social turn and

other texts, 2) the social turn and the text, and 3) the social turn as a text. In other

words I will look at: 1) Where the social turn stands in relation to other discourses, 2)

Where scholars within the social turn position themselves in relation to the source

text and 3) Metaphorically speaking, the question of how the social turn functions as

a text for reading interpreting, and more specifically for measuring quality in

interpreting. I have chosen to frame this discussion using the term ‘text’ for a number

of reasons. It is true that the scope of Interpreting Studies has now broadened from a

mere discussion of the relation of source text to target text and some scholars such

as Wadensjö (1998 pp.8-9) prefer to think primarily in terms of ‘talk as activity’ rather

than ‘talk as text’. However, such arguments are themselves expressed as texts.

Furthermore, the apparent shift in focus within Interpreting Studies invites a

discussion of where Wadensjö and other scholars stand in relation to the text. As

7

Katan (Katan 2004. In: Sykes 2011 p.1) observes, there has been a shift in the

perception of the role of the interpreter from ‘machine conduit’ to ‘communication

facilitation’, and we are now perhaps heading towards ‘bilingual/bicultural mediation’.

In this dissertation, I will not engage in lengthy debate on the issue of the role of the

interpreter from a relational point of view. However, I will study the position of the

interpreter in relation to the text which sheds light on the degree of intervention by

the interpreter which is deemed acceptable.

The term ‘social turn’ describes a general shift within Interpreting Studies. Evidently,

not all scholars in Interpreting Studies within the 1990s held the same viewpoint.

However, I will examine some of the general trends within their theories, focusing

more specifically on Cecilia Wadensjö, Holly Mikkelson, Ian Mason, Basil Hatim and

Cynthia Roy. I have chosen to focus on these particular scholars because of their

influence within the sphere of Interpreting Studies, without wishing to play down the

significant contribution of other scholars such as Cokeley and Berk-Seligson within

this field. Pöchhacker (2004 p.41) describes Mikkelson and Wadensjö as ‘influential

authorities’ who played a key role in developing initiatives within the mainstream

interpreting research community in the 1990s. Wadensjö’s social-interactionist

perspective on Interpreting Theory has been highly influential. Roy (2000 p.32) notes

that ‘Since Wadensjö, more and more researchers are turning towards an

interactive, discourse-oriented approach to interpreting’. Mason and Roy are also

cited as being amongst those who endeavoured to ‘stake out the discipline’ (Mason

2001 p. i). Furthermore, Pöchhacker (2004 p.37) describes Roy as one of the

‘pioneering US scholars’. Roy (2000 pp.26-27) herself makes reference to Hatim and

Mason’s Discourse and the Translator (1990), as being a key work, establishing a

discourse approach to translation. In this dissertation, I will also refer to Linell’s (1997

pp.49-67) discussion of theories of language, communication, human action and

meaning, as this provides a clear explanation of the ‘new direction for research on

interpretation based on a dialogic, rather than a monologic view on language and

language use’ (Wadensjö 1998 p.7, italics in original). Linell’s work was recognized

by Pöchhacker (2004 p.40), who referred to his contribution at the ‘International

Conference on Interpreting’ in 1994 in Turku, Finland as being a ‘keynote paper’.

8

2. The social turn and other texts

2.1 Community interpreting and the beginnings of professionalization

Pöchhacker (2008 p.38) refers to the ‘emergence of community-based interpreting’

in the 1990s as having a significant impact on Interpreting Studies. However,

perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to this as the beginning of the

professionalization of community-based interpreting. Roberts (2002 p.157) points out

that community interpreting has been practised for a long time, the first recorded

practice of it dating back to 1534 in Canada. However, according to Roberts (2002),

it has been the last of the three types of interpreting to attract attention. Roberts

(2002) states that:

While the professionalization of conference interpreting began in the 1950’s

[sic] and that of court interpreting in the 1970’s [sic], community interpreting

has begun to aspire to professionalization only in the last decade [1990s].

(Roberts 2002 p.157)

First of all, let us begin by considering what is meant by ‘professionalization’ and

what the significance of this was for Interpreting Studies in the 1990s. (For a full

comparison of the main definitions to which I will be referring, see Appendix A) I

would like to start by drawing attention to Roberts’ (Roberts 1994. In: Mikkelson

1996) suggestion that professionalization begins with clarification of terminology and

of the role(s) of the community interpreter. Salaets and Van Gucht (2008 p.273) also

point out that ‘Defining the role and task of interpreters in community settings is an

issue of prime concern and controversy in the drive for professionalization of

interpreter service delivery’. The Geneva Park Conference and the proliferation of

scholarly work at the time focusing on the role of the interpreter clearly correlate with

this notion. Roy (2002 pp.344-353) offers a summary of some of the discussions

which raged throughout the 1990s over the role of the interpreter (although Roy does

not make specific reference to this as being her objective). Roy (2002 pp.344-353)

suggests that there have been different historical portrayals of the role of the

interpreter including the interpreter as helper, as machine or conduit, as

communication facilitator and as a bilingual, bicultural specialist. Mikkelson (1999)

provides a synopsis of the climate of the time, which was filled with debate over the

9

status of different types of interpreting, and whether or not community interpreting,

for example, should be differentiated from other forms of interpreting. As Mikkelson

(1999) highlights, scholars have been divided over whether community interpreting

should be seen as distinct from other forms of interpreting. Consequently, debate

over the role of the interpreter cannot be seen as being exclusive to the domain of

interpreting. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the re-analysis of community

interpreting led to wider discussion about interpreting and the role of interpreters on

the whole.

Another important point associated with the beginning of professionalization is

training. Kearns (2008 pp.2-3) examines the origins of professionalization, tracing it

back to the Industrial Revolution. He suggests that the development of professions

began with the recognition that training was needed. Tseng (Tseng 1992. In:

Mikkelson 1996) suggests that the first stage of professionalization consists of fierce

competition followed by practitioners seeking training to gain a competitive edge and

subsequently the establishment of education programmes to respond to this need.

Roberts (Roberts 1994. In: Mikkelson 1996) suggests that the provision of training

for community interpreters follows the clarification of terminology and role. This is

then followed by provision of training for trainers of community interpreters and for

professionals working with interpreters. Again, the social turn in Interpreting Studies

may be linked to the growth in training. If there are more training courses available,

then more academic research is carried out. Hale (2007 p.172), for instance,

describes the challenges faced by course organizers who are forced to prioritize due

to time constraints, but find this difficult in the absence of research, a factor which is

linked to the lack of courses. Scholars within the social turn provided research which

could improve training for interpreters. Many scholars within the social turn openly

expressed such a desire to influence and build on existing training. Roy (2000

pp.125-126), for instance, includes a section on ‘Implications for Teaching’. Part III of

Triadic Exchanges (Mason 2001 pp.107-171) is entitled ‘Issues in Training’.

Wadensjö (1998 p.286) suggests that training may not only be a part of the process

of professionalization, but may also help in defining professionalism itself. She

suggests that programmes for interpreter training should include criteria on defining

professionalism, for instance, criteria for inclusion among professionals and criteria

for evaluating interpreters’ professional skill.

10

Kearns (2008 p.3) and Tseng (Tseng 1992. In: Mikkelson 1996) suggest that the

creation of professional associations occurs after training has been established.

Wadensjö (1998 p.49) also notes the importance of both training programmes and

professional associations in the professionalization process: ‘The professionalization

process manifests itself in the emergence of interpreters’ associations, educational

programmes and certification examinations’. At the time of the social turn, there were

few professional associations established. Roberts (2002 p.167) observes that whilst

some countries such as the UK and Australia have organizations which set and

maintain standards, elsewhere there is often only ‘a more or less official consortium

of groups involved in community-based interpreting’. In the UK, there is the Institute

of Linguists, which was founded in 1910, whilst in Australia there is the National

Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters, founded in 1977. Neither of

these however is exclusive to community interpreting. Roberts (2002 p.168) also

writes that ‘The authority that a standard-establishing group has to impose and

assess the standards depends on how official its status is’. Hence, less official

bodies in countries will have little control over the practice of community interpreting.

A further problem, according to Roberts (2002 p.174), is that many conference

interpreters and court interpreters are reluctant to integrate community-based

interpreters into their associations for fear of having their own status diminished.

The lack of professionalization of community interpreting in comparison to

conference interpreting in the 1990s and, according to many, in the twenty first

century, inevitably had and continues to have a negative impact on the status of the

profession. In Hale’s (2007 p.33) fairly recent analysis of community interpreting, she

writes that community interpreters ‘receive much lower pay and have little status as

professionals’. However, conversely, the proliferation of scholarly work on

interpreting within the social turn and the nature of that work might well be attributed

to this very lack of professionalization. Kearns (2008 p.1) states that ‘Attitudes to

intervention themselves are intimately tied to notions of professional behaviour’. The

degree of intervention is often determined by professional associations who

prescribe the degree of intervention which should be equated with ‘professional

behaviour’. Wadensjö (1998 p.285) states that ‘The single member either belongs to

the association of professionals and accepts its norms, or is excluded and will be

grouped among the non-serious performers or the amateurs’. By way of example, if

11

professionalism in conference interpreting were to be closely aligned with the notion

of abiding by the transfer model of communication then that would be the ‘text’ to

which the interpreter would have to swear allegiance, in order to be considered a

professional. If, however, as in the case of community interpreting, a process of

professionalization is still taking place, the degree of intervention permitted by the

interpreter has not yet been dictated by a text and the interpreter has greater

freedom over her role. Hence, the social turn was able to reassess the role of the

interpreter and the degree of intervention permitted. Scholars within this period had

the freedom to realign Interpreting Studies in relation to other discourses and to form

their own ‘text’ for interpreting. They hoped that their efforts would contribute to the

professionalization of the community interpreter. Wadensjö (1998), for instance,

declares that:

explorations of authentic, transcribed interpreter-mediated interaction is a way

to provide insights into the task of interpreting, knowledge which in my mind is

necessary in order to accomplish professionalism in the field. (Wadensjö 1998

p.286)

2.2 Defining community interpreting against other forms of interpreting

In the First International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health, and Social

Service Settings in 1994, ‘community interpreting’ was defined as follows:

Community interpreting enables people who are not fluent speakers of the

official language(s) of the country to communicate with the providers of public

services, so as to facilitate full and equal access to legal, health, education,

government, and social services. (Roberts 2002 p.158)

However, during the social turn there was not a complete consensus over the

classification of community interpreting. Roberts (2002 p.157) classifies interpreting

into three types: conference interpreting, court interpreting and community

interpreting. However, Mikkelson (1996) classifies community interpreting and court

interpreting into one category, stating that ‘Community interpreting, which includes

court and medical interpreting, is following the typical pattern of a profession in its

infancy’. There are a number of terms which are sometimes used interchangeably

with ‘community interpreting’. Roberts (2002 p.158) lists terms such as ‘public

12

service interpreting’, ‘cultural interpreting’, ‘dialogue interpreting’ and ‘liaison

interpreting’, then going on to coin her own term, ‘community-based interpreting’

(Roberts 2002 p.161). Whilst these terms are often used to refer to the same domain

of interpreting, they are not entirely synonymous. ‘Liaison interpreting’, for instance,

is a broader definition which also includes interpreting in business and tourism

settings (Roberts 2002 p.160).

However, it appears that categorizing different ‘types’ of interpreting is often more

about political reasons than distinctive features. Mikkelson (1999) discusses the

‘divisiveness of drawing distinctions among different types of interpreting’. She

begins by quoting different interpreters who seem to wish to differentiate themselves

from other ‘types’ of interpreters because they feel the need to assert their own

identity, superiority or professionalism over others. Similarly, Roberts (2002 p.173)

argues that there are more similarities than differences between different ‘types’ of

interpreting. She notes that all ‘types’ of interpreting require the same basic skills,

ethical principles, high standards and adaptation of technique. Consequently, in her

view there is no need to make distinctions from a logical, practical and theoretical

point of view. However, insightfully, Roberts notes that:

Arguments against consideration of community-based interpreting as a

distinct profession and in favour of grouping all types of interpreting into one

single profession do not take into account the fact that conference

interpreting, court interpreting and community interpreting are at very different

stages of professionalization, which could lead practitioners of one to reject

those of another. (Roberts 2002 p.173)

The purpose of this dissertation is not to differentiate between different types of

interpreting or to attempt to redefine either community interpreting or interpreting. I

will therefore primarily refer simply to ‘interpreting’, on occasion making reference

specifically to ‘community interpreting’ when this is contextually appropriate.

However, I believe it is important to note that the social turn arose within the context

of the beginning of the professionalization of community interpreting. I therefore

believe that the work of scholars from this period is best understood with reference to

community interpreting, but should not be looked at in isolation from the broader

context of interpreting, given that, as many scholars point out, there are more

similarities than differences between different types of interpreting.

13

2.3 The call for descriptivism

Toury (1995 p.1) advocates a shift towards a more prescriptive approach, stating

that ‘there is a need for a descriptive branch’. Toury (1995 p.2) suggests that those

who are application-oriented within Translation Studies tend to shun ‘research within

its own terms of reference’ particularly if such studies are ‘properly descriptive’, that

is:

if they refrain from value judgements in selecting subject matter or in

presenting findings, and/or refuse to draw any conclusions in the form of

recommendations for ‘proper’ behaviour. (1995 p.2)

From the latter statement we can deduce that Toury perceives a truly descriptive

approach to implicate suspending judgement and refusing to offer recommendations.

So where do scholars from the social turn stand in relation to this?

Roy (2000) and Wadensjö (1998) openly purport to be descriptive and situate their

work in opposition to previous prescriptive studies. Roy, for instance, states that:

the aim of this work is to describe the linguistic and sociolinguistic activities of

one interpreter involved in an authentic interpreted event, rather than

prescribe certain ideals or norms about interpreters or interpreting. (Roy 2000

p.21, italics in original)

Wadensjö (1998 pp.4-5), under the sub-heading ‘Description before prescription’

situates herself in opposition to traditional studies on translation and interpreting,

which she describes as ‘normative in character, either providing directives for correct

translation, or building upon (implicit or explicit) ideas of correct language use’.

Indeed, neither Roy nor Wadensjö formulate lists of rules which should be followed

by the interpreter. However, they clearly cannot and do not refrain from making value

judgements. The very notion of language carrying social meaning (Roy 2000 pp.14-

15) implies that value judgements are implicit within any text, whether in written or

oral form. Furthermore, Roy (2000 p.15) makes reference to Gumperz’s notion of

‘contextualization cues’ and states that ‘when a listener does not react to a cue or is

unaware of its function, interpretations vary, misunderstandings occur, and

judgments are made’. Applying this principle to a reading of Roy’s text, her theories

could be correctly understood or misunderstood according to whether judgements

are in line with her own or not. Moreover, whilst rules may not be overtly prescribed,

14

is not the vary act of designating the discourse of the social turn as superior to

previous discourses and as the ‘correct’ view of language and communication

ironically somewhat prescriptive in nature?

Baker (2006 pp.106-107) refers to ‘framing narratives in translation’, arguing that

framing is an active strategy implying agency, which we use to construct reality. She

notes that in translating and interpreting:

participants can be repositioned in relation to each other and to the reader or

hearer through the linguistic management of time, space, deixis, dialect,

register, use of epithets, and various means of self-and other identification.

(Baker 2006. In: Sykes 2011 pp.2-3)

Given that this view of translating and interpreting stems from a view of language

and the process of communication, an analysis of scholars within the social turn

should not be undertaken without giving due consideration to the framing narratives

and social meaning present within their own texts.

2.4 New theoretical frameworks as texts

Snell-Hornby (2006 pp.69-114) refers to the ‘interdiscipline’ of the 1990s.

Pöchhacker (2004 p.44) points out that ‘Interpreting practices in community-based

settings have proved an attractive topic to non-interpreter specialists in fields like

linguistics, sociology and discourse studies’. Pöchhacker (2004 p.37) also notes that

‘pioneering US scholars like Dennis Cokeley and Cynthia B. Roy’ lacked an

academic infrastructure of their own and consequently ‘turned to sociolinguistics as a

disciplinary framework, while endeavouring also to take account of research findings

from the field of spoken-language conference interpreting’. Roy (2000) provides a

very useful overview of some of the different disciplines which influenced her and

other scholars of the time, which included interactional sociolinguistics (pp.12-18),

conversation analysis (pp.18-19), ethnography of communication (pp.19-21),

sociolinguistics and discourse studies (pp.26-35).

These new disciplines brought their own theories of language, communication, and

human action and meaning which formed new frameworks for understanding

interpreting. Linell (1997 pp.49-67) contrasts two sets of such theories, illustrating

the shift brought about in Interpreting Studies by the adoption of new theoretical

15

frameworks. Linell (1997) opposes the structuralist, transfer and monological to the

functionalist, social-interactionist and dialogical. He correlates these theories in a

table which I have reproduced below (Linell 1997 p.54):

Correlated set (A) Correlated set (B)

Theories of:

1. Language Structuralist (formalist) Functionalist

2. Communication Transfer (conduit) Social-interactionist

3. Action and meaning Monological Dialogical

For Linell (2007 p.52), the transfer or conduit model of communication is

monological, meaning that the speaker is most important and the listener is merely a

recipient of what the speaker creates. This is based on a structuralist understanding

of language which finds its roots in code theory, according to which language

consists of signs with fixed meanings which can be understood, shared and

transferred. The social-interactionist model of communication, developed by Bakhtin

(Bakhtin 1979/1986. In: Wadensjö 1998 p.38) on the other hand is dialogical,

meaning that ‘messages are co-produced in dialogue’ (Linell 2007 p.52). This is

based on a functionalist view of language, whereby meanings are constructed and

reconstructed through communication (Linell 2007 p.51).

Scholars within the social turn generally align themselves with the latter set of

theories. Wadensjö (1998 p.8), for instance, states that she is working with the

dialogical model, Hatim and Mason (1990 p.2) state that they are looking at

translation/interpreting as a ‘communicative transaction taking place within a social

framework’. Roy also refers to the theories of Wadensjö, Hatim and Mason, situating

her own work within the context of a discourse framework (Roy 2000 p.3), influenced

by interactional sociolinguistics (Roy 2000 p.12).

Thus, it appears that there is a general trend within the social turn of a shift from the

structuralist, transfer and monological to the functionalist, social-interactionist and

dialogical, although this is a matter which will be examined in more detail in due

course (see 4.1 Meaning and quality in interpreting: monological versus dialogical).

16

Interestingly, in Hale’s (2007 p.10) more recent analysis of Community Interpreting,

she makes a distinction between on the one hand, monologic interpreting which in

her view includes simultaneous interpreting and long consecutive interpreting, and

on the other hand, dialogic interpreting, under which she classifies dialogue

interpreting (short consecutive, interviews, consultation and courtroom). However,

Hale’s (2007 p.10) classification of different types of interpreting as monologic or

dialogic does not appear to reflect the majority of scholars from earlier on in the

social turn. Wadensjö (1998 p.41), for instance, clearly views monologism and

dialogism as completely different units of analysis: ‘The different epistemologies,

monologism and dialogism, imply different units of analysis’. She makes no

distinction between different types of interpreting in this sense, but only contrasts the

conduit model and the interactionist model: ‘In contrast to the monological conduit

model […], the Bakhtinian interactionist model is dialogical’ (Wadensjö 1998 p.41,

italics in original).

So how do these new theoretical frameworks and a dialogic understanding of

language, communication and meaning affect the relationship between the

interpreter and the text?

17

3. The social turn and the text: Collaboration or

servitude?

3.1 From servitude to collaboration?

Kelly (1979 pp.206-207) contrasts personal authority structure (collaboration with

text) with positional authority structure (servitude to text), arguing that ‘depending on

the type of authority his text exercises over the translator, fidelity will mean either

collaboration or servitude’. Kelly (1979 p.218) notes that ‘Each age in cases of doubt

sees the balance of personal versus positional differently’. Similarly, Hatim and

Mason (1990 p.16) argue that ‘The distinction between author-centred and text-

centred has to do with the status of the source text’. So how does the social turn

view the balance between personal and positional? Does the interpreter work in

collaboration with the source text or in servitude to it? What status does the source

text have?

On a surface level, it appears that the social turn reflects a shift from servitude to the

text to collaboration with the text. Wadensjö, for instance, suggests that meaning is

produced in dialogue with all participants potentially having equal status. She states

that ‘Sense is made in and by a common activity’ (Wadensjö 1998 p.8) and quotes

Simmel who argues that ‘among three elements, each one operates as an

intermediary between the other two’ (Simmel 1964. In: Wadensjö 1998 p.11). Yet

can this really be understood in terms of collaboration? Do all participants in the

dialogue have equal status, for instance? Is the interpreter more or less powerful

than other participants? Is the interpreter more or less involved? Kearns (2008)

highlights that:

The degree to which these actors [translators and interpreters] intervene in

the process [translation and interpretation], the nature of that intervention, and

the perspective from which that intervention is seen, lie at the heart of what is

taught in training courses and what is published in scholarly journals. (Kearns

2008 p.1)

Kearns therefore suggests that intervention in practice is bound up with intervention

in theory. Whilst the work of scholars does not necessarily influence interpreting

practice in all cases, it is worth noting that there is a two-way interplay between

practice and theory, with each to some extent influencing the other. Kearns (2008

18

p.2) suggests that intervention in particular has become more of a central issue with

the shift in focus in Translation Studies from translation as an object to translation as

a process to translators as subjects.

So what do scholars have to say on this matter? Metzger (Metzger 1995. In: Roy

2000 p.33) argues that interpreters function as participants, but are ‘far more

constrained in their participation than any other participants’. However, Anderson

(2002 p.212) describes the interpreter as having relative power compared to his

clients. Wadensjö (1998 p.105) also notes that interpreters have ‘a unique position

from which to exercise a certain control’. Perhaps this is not so much a question of

status, but rather of role. There are boundaries to the degree of participation deemed

acceptable for the interpreter, so interpreters are in a sense ‘more constrained in

their participation’. However, at the same time, the interpreter has a significant

impact on the dialogue. The ‘unique position’ of the interpreter signifies that her

impact on communication is not identical to that of the other participants, yet the

interpreter perhaps has a choice (or may be forced to make a choice) over the

degree to which she works in collaboration with the other participants and over

whether she works in their interests. Navarro (Navarro 2006. In: Sykes 2011 p.1), for

instance, describes how interpreters at an Immigration Detention Centre were paid

by the Spanish Institute for Employment and therefore had to comply with its

communication requirements, which signified that they were constrained to work

more in the interest of the authorities than the immigrants. This could be understood

in terms of unbalanced levels of servitude to the texts of the participants. However,

Wadensjö’s notion of sense being made as a common activity points more to the

idea of collaboration. Thus, from this perspective, perhaps interpreted

communication could be understood as signifying a certain degree of collaboration

between all participants and the text, whereby all participants are not necessarily on

an equal footing and have varying levels of control over that text. It must be noted of

course that Wadensjö does not just perceive talk as text, but also perceives it as an

activity, yet she nonetheless recognizes that communication may be analysed from

the perspective of ‘talk as text’ (Wadensjö 1998 p.21).

19

3.2 The death of the speaker

In Hale’s (2007 p.5) analysis of definitions of interpreting, she notes that Wadensjö

and Pöchhacker avoid making reference to fidelity and suggests that Wadensjö’s

understanding of interpreting implies that there is no need to remain faithful to the

original as the translator creates his or her own version of the message. Similarly,

Linell (1997 p.55) states that ‘speakers are not the only authors, but instead

interlocutors are often co-responsible’. This suggests a loss of the original, the term

‘original’ suggesting that one thing precedes another rather than emerging

simultaneously. It also resonates strongly with Roland Barthes’ 1967 theory of the

‘Death of the author’ (Barthes 1967. In: Finkelstein and Glaser 2002 pp.221-224). In

fact, similar parallels were already being drawn in Translation Studies in the 1980s

when it diverged from Interpreting Studies. Snell-Hornby (2006) describes the

discussion in the 1980s on the tension between the authority of the original and the

autonomy of the translation which arose in the context of colonialist works:

The ‘cannibalistic’ interpretation of the text aims at creating a new reading of

colonialism, which in translation produces a variety of discourses, challenging

the hierarchy of power between the ‘original’ and translation. (Snell-Hornby

2006 p.60)

Arrojo (Arrojo 1997. In: Snell-Hornby 2006 pp.60-62) applied the deconstructionist

approach of Jacques Derrida to Translation Studies, suggesting that the translator

takes on the role of author, and deconstructing concepts such as the ‘sacred

original’, the attempt to reproduce the intentions of the author and the notion of

‘faithfulness’ to the source text. Arrojo (Arrojo 1997. In: Snell-Hornby 2006 p.61)

argued that ‘translation, like reading, is no longer an activity that preserves the

‘original’ meanings of an author, but one which sees its task in producing meanings’.

Arrojo (Arrojo 1997. In: Snell-Hornby 2006 p.62, italics in original) also made

reference to Barthes’ notion of the death of the author and the birth of the reader.

Linell’s (1997 p.55) statement that ‘speakers are not the only authors’ clearly echoes

Arrojo’s argument that the translator takes on the role of author and points to the

notion of the death of the speaker. If Wadensjö’s logic is followed through it also

implies a disregard for the speaker and the original. However, Wadensjö clearly

20

wishes to impose some limitations on the freedom of the interpreter to interpret the

speaker in any way she chooses, as Wadensjö (Wadensjö 1998. In: Hale 2007 p.5)

indeed defines the role of the interpreter as that of mediator, speaking or writing on

behalf of another author. Similarly, Roy (2000 p.22) states that ‘an interpreter’s

primary concern while interpreting is to make sense of what any one person means

when saying something and to convey that same sense to another person’. Thus,

whilst some scholars within the social turn claim to have an understanding of

language and meaning which resonates strongly with a deconstructionist view, in

reality they actually do have some belief in the responsibility of the interpreter to

convey an original meaning uttered by a speaker.

3.3 A new form of illusionism

In the 1970s, Levý (Levý 1969. In: Snell-Hornby 2006 pp.22-23) divided translation

method into two groups, the ‘illusionist’ and the ‘anti-illusionist’. Levý (Levý 1969. In:

Snell-Hornby 2006 pp.22-23) argued that the translation was a copy, and the

translator could either create the illusion that his translation was an original text

(illusionist) or could refrain from imitating the source text and make it clear that his

text was a translation (anti-illusionist). There has been much debate on this matter.

Venuti (2008 pp.1-34) attacks the illusionist approach of scholars such as Shapiro.

Shapiro (Shapiro [n.d.]. In: Venuti 2008 p.1) states: ‘I see translation as the attempt

to produce a text so transparent that it does not seem to be translated’. Venuti (2008

pp.12-13) contends that ‘the translator’s invisibility at once enacts and masks an

insidious domestication of foreign texts’. By ‘domestication’ he means a bias towards

the target culture and language. Venuti (2008 p.34) argues, not so much for a strict

anti-illusionist approach or emphasis on foreignness, but rather for ‘a less

homogenous approach to translation’.

In interpreting, this issue of an illusionist versus an anti-illusionist approach to

translation appears to be resolved to some degree when we turn to the concept of a

triadic exchange, developed by scholars such as Wadensjö (1998) and Mason

(2001). Interpreting is no longer seen as a two-fold process, but rather as a three

party interaction. Thus, the interpreter is not so much in the business of imitation or

concealment of an original, but rather is concerned with shaping dialogue. From this

21

stance, quality of interpretation is judged not so much in terms of fidelity to an

original, but rather in terms of successful communication and satisfaction of the

participants concerned. Pym (2004 p.176) states that there are multiple

‘understandings’ and that the aim of translation is cooperation, not ‘static meaning’.

However, this raises the question of whether the participants share this expectation

of cooperation and understanding of meaning.

Wadensjö (1998) states that she works on:

the assumption that interpreters tend to lean on a textual model, and typically

strive to translate primary parties’ original utterances as ‘closely’ as possible.

At least, this is how we often explain to non-interpreters what we are doing.

(Wadensjö 1998 p.103)

This would seem to suggest that non-interpreters and many interpreters do not in

fact understand interpreting as being about cooperation and multiple

‘understandings’, but rather would assume that the interpreter is seeking to

accurately translate original utterances.

Kurz (2002 pp.313-314) refers to a number of scholars who advocate judging quality

in interpreting from the perspective of the audience, a trend which appears to be

prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s. Déjean le Féal (Déjean le Féal 1990. In: Kurz

2002 p.313), for instance, states that ‘our ultimate goal must be to satisfy our

audience’. Yet, if the audience or listeners are unaware that an interpreter values her

own perception of successful cooperation above fidelity to their message are they

really being satisfied? Perhaps, they are only being satisfied on the basis of an

illusion that meaning has been transferred from the original speaker.

In fact, if we look more closely at the ideas of Wadensjö, we see that there is not a

total departure from the idea of the copy and the original, but rather a redefining of

what constitutes a copy, based on Wadensjö’s understanding of language and

meaning. Wadensjö (2002 p.356) poses the question of what the minimum

requirements are for arguing that a copy is a copy, given that a copy does not equal

an original. She refers to Bakhtin’s theory of 1986 that the nature of language is such

that it is always open to further interpretation, arguing that the way to get beyond this

is to apply a descriptive approach (Wadensjö 2002 p.356). Wadensjö then proceeds

to discuss the two-fold role of the dialogue interpreter as relayer of utterances

22

between two people and as coordinator of communication between them (Wadensjö

2002 pp.356-357). Wadensjö’s discussion reveals that even in a ‘triadic exchange’,

the issue of where the interpreter stands in relation to the original is still very much

pertinent. Wadensjö (2002 p. 358) suggests that renditions may close, expand,

reduce or substitute information expressed in the original utterance. For example,

the interpretation may contain less explicitly verbalized information (reduction) or

more explicitly verbalized information (expansion). She argues that the interpreter’s

relaying activity can result in deviations from originals in two directions, either in

specification or in despecification of the original utterances, that is to say, terms used

and explanations given may be more specific or more general in nature (Wadensjö

2002 p. 364).

On the basis of her understanding of language and meaning, Wadensjö thus

problematizes the notion of the interpreter’s role as consisting of providing ‘close’

translations to the original, appearing to argue that this is an impossible feat. In light

of this, I would suggest that her ideas give rise to the possibility of a second new

form of illusionism: the illusion that participants within a communicative situation are

working on the same premises because assumptions about meaning and language

have not necessarily been openly discussed. In other words, an interpreter may hold

to the view that her role consists of enabling cooperation rather than reflecting the

meaning of the speaker, whilst other participants may assume that the interpreter is

relaying the original message accurately. These different understandings of the role

of the interpreter are based on assumptions about meaning and language, which we

will now turn to examine in more detail.

23

4. The social turn as a text

4.1 Meaning and quality in interpreting: monological versus dialogical

Firstly, I believe it would be helpful to look at what is understood by the term

‘meaning’. I will present four possible definitions of this term (by no means intended

to be exhaustive) and I will then proceed to examine how scholars within the social

turn understand ‘meaning’ in relation to these four definitions of ‘meaning’.

Definitions of ‘meaning’:

1) ‘Meaning’ as the message conveyed through an utterance.

2) ‘Meaning’ as the interpreted or reframed message.

3) ‘Meaning’ as common understandings reached through verbal exchanges.

4) ‘Meaning’ as misunderstandings reached through verbal exchanges.

The transfer or conduit model which preceded the social turn focused on the process

of 1 to 2, and on ensuring that 2 was as close as possible to 1, to the exclusion

perhaps of 3 and 4. Ingram’s model (Ingram 1974. In: Roy 2000 p.26) simply

represented the interpreter as a channel in a communication-binding context with a

source and text receiver.

Hatim and Mason (1990 p.4) present a more complex view of the relation of 1 to 2,

arguing that ‘the ST is itself an end-product and again should be treated as evidence

of a writer’s intended meaning rather than the embodiment of the meaning itself’. If

the ST itself is viewed as a copy, then the TT is at best an inexact copy of a copy – it

provides evidence of what the message was, but it cannot be treated as though it

were identical to the speaker’s intended meaning, and should equally be viewed as a

product within its own right. This view correlates with the postmodernist, Jean

Baudrillard’s (1994) notion of simulacra and copies of copies. Baudrillard (1994)

refers to the ‘successive phases of the image’:

[1] it is the reflection of a profound reality;

[2] it masks and denatures a profound reality;

[3] it masks the absence of a profound reality;

[4] it has no relation to any reality whatsoever: it is its own pure simulacrum.

(Baudrillard 1994 p.6, italics in original)

24

According to the first phase, the image successfully represents the original, whilst

according to the second phase, the image is a poor representation of the original.

Thus, interpretation (an ‘image’) may be judged more positively or negatively in

terms of its ability to represent original utterances (‘profound realities’). The third

stage suggests that the image reveals the absence of the original. According to this,

an interpretation would show that there is no original, or if we look at Hatim and

Mason (1990 p.4) again, that the ST is only ‘evidence’ or a copy rather than the

‘embodiment of the meaning’ or the original itself. Finally, if Baudrillard’s last stage

were applied to Hatim and Mason’s theory, then even the ‘speaker’s intended

meaning’ would have to be classed as a copy or simulacrum. This matter can only

be speculated on as Hatim and Mason do not explicitly state their view of the

‘speaker’s intended meaning’. However, I would suggest that their views correlate

with either stage 3 or stage 4 of Baudrillard’s description of the ‘successive phases

of the image’.

Linell (1997 p.54) suggests an opposition between on the one hand, definitions 1

and 2 (‘monological’, ‘structuralist’, ‘transfer’), and on the other hand, definitions 3

and 4 (‘functionalist’, ‘social-interactionist’ and ‘dialogical’). In line with Linell,

Wadensjö, Roy and other scholars from the social turn appear to focus on definitions

3 and 4, when referring to meaning, but this is not exclusively the case. Wadensjö

(1998) states that:

The dialogical model, in contrast [to the monological model], implies that

meaning conveyed in and by talk is a joint product. Sense is made in and by a

common activity. Communication, as well as mis-communication,

presupposes a certain reciprocity between the people involved. (Wadensjö

1998 p.8, italics in original)

Thus, her argument is that meaning can be equated with communication (definition

3: ‘common understandings’) and miscommunication (definition 4:

‘misunderstandings’). However, according to Roy’s (2000 p.30) analysis of her work,

she does study the interpreter as ‘relayer’ and ‘coordinator’. The idea of relaying a

message strikes a chord with the relation between definitions 1 and 2.

25

Roy (2000 p.16) like Wadensjö equates meaning with definitions 3 and 4, that is with

common understandings (‘mutual conventions’) and misunderstandings. Roy (2000)

states her conclusions drawn from Gumperz:

[1] Meanings are jointly constructed between speakers as they talk

[2] Conversations contain internal evidence of their outcomes, that is, the

ways in which participants share, partially share, or do not share, mutual

conventions for meaning and how they succeed in achieving their

communicative ends. (Roy 2000 p.16)

However, importantly, Roy (2000 p.22) also notes that ‘an interpreter’s primary

concern while interpreting is making sense of what any one person means when

saying something and to convey that same sense to another person’. Although Roy

does not openly acknowledge the transfer model, she clearly works on the basis that

the interpreter should transfer the sense of what one person says to the other –

again the process of definition 1 to definition 2 of meaning. Furthermore, in reference

to Goffman, Roy (Roy 2000 p.17) also states that the conditions required during

interaction ‘mirror the structural versus functional perspectives of discourse’,

appearing to affirm the validity of both perspectives on discourse. This suggests that

she may not abide by Linell’s view of a strict dichotomy between the structuralist and

the functionalist.

Gile (1995 p.40) links understanding of the interpreter’s role in communication to

assessment of quality. He points out that whether the interpreter is seen to be

aligned with the speaker or seen as a facilitator determines how quality is assessed:

criteria of quality and actual quality assessment by the various participants in

communication may depend to a significant extent on the definition of the

Translator’s role as the Sender’s alter ego, or as a facilitator of communication

working for the Receiver or the Client. (Gile 1995 p.40)

Although this is not necessarily the case, the definition of the Translator’s role as the

Sender’s alter ego tends to be associated with the transfer model (primarily

definitions 1 and 2 of meaning) whilst the definition of the Translator’s role as

facilitator of communication tends to be associated with the social-interactionist

model of communication (primarily definitions 3 and 4 of meaning). In light of this, it

26

therefore seems that there are two extremes in assessing quality in interpreting

based on these understandings of meaning:

1) Quality = close linguistic translation of original

One danger is an over-emphasis on the linguistic transfer (definitions 1 and 2) which

takes place in interpreting to the exclusion of understanding of socio-cultural context,

communicative and power relations and other important factors.

2) Quality = cooperation and successful communication

Another danger is an over-emphasis on the end result of communication (definitions

3 and 4), such that the means of getting there or the original intentions of speakers

are deemed irrelevant.

It seems that in attempting to move away from the limited understanding of

interpreting as being purely a linguistic transfer, theorists from the social turn would

tend to lean more towards the latter assessment of quality. However, according to

Gile (1995 p.40, italics in original), it would appear that there remains a general

consensus in practice ‘that Translation should be a faithful image of the original

discourse, and that the Translator should strive to represent fully the Senders and

their interests’. This is essential because if a complete break from the notion of

linguistic transfer were made this would evidently be highly problematic for quality in

interpreting. In my view, the ideal is an integrated approach, an acknowledgement

that linguistic transfers do indeed occur, but a recognition that they are not

exclusively linguistic and that the original intentions of a speaker cannot be

successfully communicated unless the socio-cultural context and communicative

relations are taken into account.

4.2 Meaning and quality in interpreting: product versus process

The social turn, however, might be understood not so much as a shift in emphasis

from the ST or original to the TT or end-product, but rather as a shift in emphasis

from the product to the process. Hatim and Mason (1990 pp.2-3) declare that they

will look at translation and interpreting as a ‘communicative transaction taking place

within a social framework’, viewing translation as a ‘process’ rather than a ‘product’.

Such a definition of interpreting gives rise to a third assessment of quality:

27

3) Quality = successful process

At this point, I think it is worth referring again to Kearn’s suggestion (2008 p. 2) that

there has been a shift in focus in Translation Studies from translation as an object to

translation as a process to translators as subjects. Hatim and Mason (1990 p.3) state

that they will look at translation as a process, rather than as a product, which is

clearly their emphasis. However, they situate their discussion within the context of a

‘social framework’. Thus, I would argue that they also focus on translators as

subjects. Consequently, assessing quality as a process from this perspective would

involve not just looking at the linguistic process, but also considering how

successfully the interpreter manages the communicative situation and performs her

role during the process of interpreting.

Evidently, neither the product nor the process can be looked at in isolation of each

other, otherwise we may just be perceiving an illusion of quality. Equally, linguistic

information cannot be separated from the behaviour of the interpreter. For instance,

an interpreter may appear to be interpreting well, from a mere analysis of her

behaviour and her ability to manage turn taking (see Wadensjö 1998 pp.152-196),

but a closer examination of the linguistic content in the communicative instance may

reveal otherwise. Similarly, an examination of linguistic content in isolation of social

context might suggest a successful interpretation, yet if both participants

misunderstand each other, the successfulness of the interpretation may well be

queried (not that the interpreter is necessarily responsible for any misunderstanding).

Conversely, the end-product or ST may be rated highly by the listener. However,

analysis of the process might highlight significant omissions or distortions.

28

5. Conclusions: The impact of the social turn and

future prospects

5.1 Impact on meaning and quality in interpreting

Some of the theories within the social turn could potentially be detrimental to quality

in interpreting if followed through to their logical extreme. As mentioned previously,

Hale (2007 p.5), for instance, notes that Wadensjö (1998) and Pöchhacker (2004)

avoid making reference to fidelity. Pym’s statement (2004 p.176) that there are

multiple ‘understandings’ and that the aim of translation is cooperation, not static

meaning, is highly problematic for assessing quality. What if the two participants

have no desire to cooperate? Or what if their cooperation is based on a total

misunderstanding of each others’ viewpoints? Pym’s understanding of meaning as

fluid implies that there are no rigorous objective criteria for assessing interpreting

and that interpretation is entirely down to subjective individual interpretation.

Evidently, cooperation is important, but it should not be viewed as the sole purpose

of interpretation and should not be used as the only measure of quality in

interpreting.

However, it is clearly beneficial for assessment of quality not to be purely limited to

analysis of linguistic transfer either. The contributions made by scholars within the

social turn, highlighting the socio-cultural and relational elements of discourse are of

great value. The fact that, according to Gile (1990 p.40), there is a general

consensus on seeking to represent the speaker and his or her intentions, suggests

that whilst scholars may choose to focus on the relational aspects of communication,

they would not advocate interpretations which bear little resemblance to the original

utterance. Thus, on the whole it appears that progress has been made in the

domain of assessing meaning and quality in interpreting. However, just as adhering

purely to the transfer model has its pitfalls, adhering purely to a model of the

interpreter as mediator also presents significant risks.

29

5.2 Impact on the role, status and professionalization of the community

interpreter

Debate within the social turn on the role of the interpreter and the position of the

interpreter in relation to the text has furthered understanding of how interpreters

perceive themselves, how others perceive them and how they act in practice. Hale

(2007) suggests that:

The low status of Community Interpreting as a profession leads to a poor

sense of professional identity. When interpreters are insecure about their

professional status and competence they tend to undermine their work as

interpreters and attempt to take on roles they consider to be more important,

such as acting as pseudo-welfare workers, health workers or para-legals.

(Hale 2007 p.167)

This suggests that status, professional identity and role are intrinsically linked to one

another.

Scholars within the social turn have made significant contributions in defining the

nature of community interpreting and the role of interpreters. However, there remains

much work to be done in the area of training which is crucial to the development of

the status and professional identity of community interpreters, and to the defining of

their role, both in theory and practice. Recent studies suggest that whilst progress

has been made, community interpreting is far from being fully fledged as a

profession. Hale (2005 p.166) underlines that ‘Compulsory pre-service training in

Community Interpreting is far from being a reality anywhere in the world’ due to:

a lack of recognition for the need for training and a lack of financial support

and incentives. This situation has led to a lack of uniformity in interpreters’

backgrounds and consequent deficiencies in their practice. (Hale 2005 p.166)

Kearns also suggests that:

The professionalization of dialogue or community interpreting is in part

constrained by the limited levels of training offered in educational institutions

and in part by the low level of formal training required by employers. (Kearns

2008 p.3)

30

5.3 Who interprets interpreting and who will interpret the future of

interpreting?

The social turn has drawn attention to the status of community interpreters, the need

for further progress to be made in the professionalization of community interpreting

and the similarities between the role of community interpreters and the role of other

so-called ‘types’ of interpreters. However, the real test of the social turn is its impact

on interpreting. To what extent may it be classified as a ‘text’ for reading

interpreting? I believe that there are two main ways in which the understanding of

meaning, quality and the role of the interpreter held by scholars such as Wadensjö,

Mikkelson, Mason, Hatim and Roy could have an impact on interpreting. Firstly, if the

ideas of such scholars were to be applied as the theoretical framework for training of

interpreters (and of their trainers). Hale (2007 p.173), for instance, notes that

‘different theoretical understandings of the meaning of terms such as accuracy or

equivalence will impinge on the way educators teach and assess students’.

Secondly, if existing professional associations were to adopt the values of scholars

from the social turn, or if professional organizations were to be created which based

their understanding of interpreting on this theoretical framework.

In light of this, I believe that it is essential for more rigorous analysis to be carried out

of the implications of theories from the social turn for quality and meaning in

interpreting, in order that their value may be assessed and may more directly inform

interpreting practice. Pöchhacker (2004 p.30) suggests that the lack of training

offered at an academic level for interpreters working in community settings ‘is one of

the crucial differences between conference and community interpreting, and has

profound implications for the development of research’. Thus, the two-way

relationship which should exist between research/scholarly work and training is

constrained by the lack of professionalization of community interpreting. Without

training, interpreting is left to the subjective interpretation of individuals.

So what is the future of community interpreting? Is it likely to continue on the road

towards greater professionalization or conversely, are we likely to witness a process

of de-professionalization, with community interpreting reverting to its state prior to

the social turn? The work of the social turn in defining community interpreting cannot

31

be undone, but training opportunities will not necessarily improve nor is the creation

of professional associations with legal status and real impact guaranteed. In my

view, the two main obstacles to further professionalization of community interpreting

and to the dialogue between theory and practice are financial constraints and the

perception of community interpreting, on an internal and external level. Pöchhacker

(Pöchhacker 2004. In: Hale p.165) states that ‘With public-sector institutions often

unable, or unwilling, to pay for professional interpreting services, there are few

incentives for engaging or investing in higher-level training’. Given the current

economic climate and public sector cuts, particularly felt in Europe, the likelihood of

public-sector institutions having more funding for professional interpreting services in

the near future seems slim. Privatization of professional interpreting services is not

out of the question though. On the level of internal perception within the world of

interpreting, as I mentioned previously, many conference interpreters and court

interpreters are reluctant to integrate community-based interpreters into their own

associations (Roberts 2002 p.174). Roberts (2002 p.174) states that the result of this

is that community-based interpreters are ‘trying to forge ahead on their own’. Salaets

and Van Gucht (2008) carried out an empirical study of how community interpreters

within Flanders perceive their profession, finding that:

The interpreters perceive themselves as having an important role in society

and also as being perceived as such by others. But as yet that reality is not

translated into due respect and appreciation, proper remuneration and legal

recognition of the profession. (Van Gucht 2008 pp.267-287)

This study was based on a small sample of 19 active community interpreters and

therefore does not necessarily represent the profession as a whole. However, it is

evident from this study that a certain degree of appreciation of the work of

community interpreters does not constitute equality of status with conference

interpreters.

To end on a more positive note, the work of scholars such as Mikkelson and Roberts

in highlighting the similarities between different ‘types’ of interpreting and the need

for more dialogue, paints a brighter picture for the future. In the current climate there

may be little funding for higher-education courses exclusively in community

interpreting or little incentive to study given pay conditions and the fact that training is

generally not compulsory. However, if a more global approach is taken to training,

32

whereby courses are offered which equip or qualify interpreters to work in more than

one field, this may help in raising the status of community interpreters and in

improving their training. More dialogue between different types of interpreters and

interpreting scholars would also contribute to this end, enabling Interpreting Studies

and interpreters to interpret interpreting rather than financial conditions and

perceptions of status.

33

Appendix A: Comparison of different models of

professionalization

Stages of professionalization

Tseng (in Mikkelson 1996) Roberts (in Mikkelson 1996)

Kearns (2008 p.3)

1. i. Strong competition among practitioners of a given occupation, many of whom are unqualified. Clients rate price over quality of service. ii. Training viewed by practitioners as a means of gaining a competitive edge. iii. Education programmes set up to respond to needs.

1. Clarification of terminology (i.e. settling on a clear definition and a universally recognized name for the occupation)

1. Recognition that training is needed.

2. Consolidation of profession, development of some consensus about practitioners’ aspirations and emphasis on quality of service.

2. Clarification of the role(s) of the community interpreter.

2. The migration of training to universities.

3. Emergence of professional associations, in which practitioners can work collectively to improve their working conditions, formulate standards, control admission to the profession, and appeal to clients and the public for recognition of the profession.

3. Provision of training for community interpreters.

3. The creation of professional associations

4. i. Recognition by clients and the public of the professional nature of the work of the practitioners. ii. Legislative recognition of the profession.

4. Provision of training for trainers of community interpreters.

4. An explicit attempt to separate competent practitioners from the incompetent

5. Provision of training for professionals working with interpreters.

5. Codes of ethics

6. Accreditation of community interpreters.

6. Legal recognition

34

Bibliography

ANDERSON, B. 2002. Perspectives on the role of interpreter. In: PÖCHHACKER, F

AND M. SHLESINGER. eds. The interpreting studies reader. London: Routledge,

pp.208-217.

BAKER, M. 2006. Translation and conflict: A narrative account. London: Routledge.

BARTHES, R. 2002. The death of the author. In: D. FINKELSTEIN AND S.F.

GLASER, eds. The book history reader. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.221-224.

BAUDRILLARD, J. 1994. Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press.

GILE, D. 1995. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

HALE, S.B. 2007. Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

HATIM, B. AND I. MASON. 1990. Discourse and the translator. London: Longman.

KEARNS, J. ed. 2008. Translator and interpreter training: Issues, methods and

debates. London: Continuum.

KELLY, L. 1979. The true interpreter: A history of translation theory and practice in

the West. Oxford: Blackwell.

KONDO, M. et al. 1997. Intercultural communication, negotiation and interpreting. In:

Y. GAMBIER et al. Conference interpreting: Current trends in research: Proceedings

35

of the international conference on ‘Interpreting - what do we know and how?’, 25/27

August 1994, Turku. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Company, pp.49-67.

KURZ, I. 2002. Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups. In:

PÖCHHACKER, F AND M. SHLESINGER. eds. The interpreting studies reader.

London: Routledge, pp.312-325.

LINELL, P. 1997. Interpreting as communication. In: Y. GAMBIER et al. Conference

interpreting: Current trends in research: Proceedings of the international conference

on ‘Interpreting - what do we know and how?’, 25/27 August 1994, Turku.

Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.49-67.

MASON, I. ed. 2001. Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting.

Manchester: St. Jerome.

MIKKELSON, H. 1999. Interpreting is interpreting – or is it? In: GSTI 30th

anniversary conference [online]. [Accessed 2nd August 2011]. Available from:

<http://www.acebo.com./papers/INTERP1.HTM>.

MIKKELSON, H. 1996. The professionalization of community interpreting. In: M.M.

JEROME-O’KEEFE. Global vision: Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the

American Translators Association. [n. p.]: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

[Accessed 2nd August 2011]. Available from:

<http://www.acebo.com./papers/PROFSLZN.HTM>.

PÖCHHACKER, F. 2004. Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge.

36

PÖCHHACKER, F. 2008. The turns of interpreting studies. In: G. HANSEN et al,

eds. Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel

Gile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 25-46.

PYM, A. 2004. The moving text: Localization, translation, and distribution.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

ROBERTS, R.P. 2002. Community interpreting: A profession in search of its identity.

In: E. HUNG, ed. Teaching translation and interpreting 4: Building bridges.

Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.157-175.

ROY, C.B. 2000. Interpreting as a discourse process. New York and Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

ROY, C. 2002. The problem with definitions, descriptions, and the role metaphors of

interpreters. In: PÖCHHACKER, F AND M. SHLESINGER. eds. The interpreting

studies reader. London: Routledge, pp.344-353.

SALAETS, H. AND J. VAN GUCHT. 2008. Perceptions of a profession. In: VALERO-

GARCÉ, C. AND A. MARIN. eds. Crossing borders in community interpreting:

Definitions and dilemmas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company,

pp.267-287.

SNELL-HORNBY, M. 2006. The turns of translation studies: New paradigms or

shifting viewpoints? Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Company.

SYKES. R. 2011. Who does the interpreter work for – the speaker, listener, his/her

employer, colleagues working on relay etc.? Is the ‘audience’ relevant? Unpublished.

37

TOURY, G. 1995. Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam and

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

VENUTI, L. 2008. The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. 2nd ed. London

and New York: Routledge.

WADENSJÖ, C. 1998. Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.

WADENSJÖ, C. 2002. The double role of a dialogue interpreter. In: PÖCHHACKER,

F AND M. SHLESINGER. eds. The interpreting studies reader. London: Routledge,

pp.354-371.