Interpreting is interpreting
Why we need to leave behind interpreting settings to discover Comparative Interpreting Studies
This article argues that the use of interpreting settings as theoretical categories is no longer empirically sound. Instead, research should focus on the commonalities of all interpreting practice. This move is viewed as an enabling shift for the creation of Comparative Interpreting Studies, a strand dedicated to considering interpreting as a global practice. After discussing the rationale for the current use of interpreting settings as analytical categories, evidence from a variety of existing settings is used to illustrate the commonalities between all instances of interpreting and the fuzziness of the boundaries between these settings. It is argued that using interpreting settings leads to silo thinking, where researchers focus on research in the setting in which they are working, even when findings from other settings can be applied. The article ends with a discussion of the theoretical and practical potential of this move including the power of a comparative approach.
Keywords: interpreting studies, interpreting settings, comparative interpreting studies, categorization, interpreting theory, interpreting research methods
Published online: 06 July 2020
2007 “The consecutive conference interpreter as intercultural mediator: A cognitive-pragmatic approach to the interpreter’s role.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Salford, UK. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/2060/
Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian
2007 “Intertextuality and ideology in interpreter-mediated communication: The case of the European Parliament.” Unpublished PhD Thesis, Heriot-Watt University. http://www.ros.hw.ac.uk/handle/10399/2028
Bendazzoli, Claudio, and Annalisa Sandrelli
2009 “Corpus-based interpreting studies: Early work and future prospects.” Revista tradumàtica 7. www.fti.uab.cat/tradumatica/revista/num7/articles/08/08.pdf
Braun, Sabine, and Judith Taylor
Collard, Camille and Bart Defrancq
Dean, Robyn K. and Robert Q. Pollard
2006 “From best practice to best practice process: Shifting ethical thinking and teaching.” In A New Chapter in Interpreter Education: Accreditation, Research and Technology: Proceedings of the 16th National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers, Monmouth, OR: CIT, ed. by Elisa M. Maroney, 119–32. San Diego.
Ghignoli, Alessandro and María Gracia Torres Díaz
He, He, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Hal Daumé III
2016 “Interpretese vs. translationese: The uniqueness of human strategies in simultaneous interpretation.” In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, ed. by Kevin Knight, Ani Nenkova, and Owen Rambow, 971–976. ACL.
Luchner, Carmen Delgado, and Leïla Kherbiche
Mathews, Elizabeth S.
Mellinger, Christopher D. and Thomas A. Hanson
Merlini, Raffaela and Roberta Favaron
1999 “Interpreting is interpreting – Or is it?” Presented at the GSTI 30th Anniversary Conference .
2017 “Not just child’s play: Exploring bilingualism and language brokering as a precursor to the development of expertise as a professional sign language interpreter.” In Non-Professional Interpreting and Translation: State of the Art and Future of an Emerging Field of Research, ed. by Rachele Antonini et al., 381–410. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Phelan, Mary and Mayte Martín
Pokorn, Nike K. and Tamara Mikolič Južnič
Rothman, E. Natalie
Roy, Cynthia B.
Turner, Graham H.
Tyulenev, Sergey and Binghan Zheng
Vigouroux, C. B.
Vuorikoski, A. R.
Wilcox, Sherman and Barbara Shaffer
2010 “Translation across modalities: The practice of translating written text into recorded signed language: An ethnographic case study.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland. www.ros.hw.ac.uk/handle/10399/2407