1887
Volume 63, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Given the lack of sensitization to the multi-dimensional concept of , and given the versatility of the concept of , the present investigation attempts to examine the premise that Relevance Theory (RT) can function as a standard or a benchmark for maximizing and/or optimizing quality in CI. Whilst the theoretical part relies heavily on Ernst-August Gutt’s seminal work (2000), the practical part draws on some empirical data obtained from trainee-interpreters’ recorded sessions at the Hashemite University (Jordan) in order to provide a relevance-driven account for some semantic, syntactic, and cultural difficulties and problems in CI. The study arrives at the main conclusion that the degree of quality in CI largely depends on the degree of relevance achieved by the interpreter’s TL version, i.e., quality in CI would rise exponentially with the degree of relevance achieved by the interpreter’s TL version. The study also concludes that the pragmatic RT can be considered a reliable instrument, a reliable frame of reference, or a reliable screening system that can ensure both relevance-building and a correspondingly concomitant quality-building in CI, i.e., RT can possibly fine-tune the interpreters’ performance in the booth.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/babel.63.1.03alk
2017-06-29
2018-09-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Angelelli, C.
    2003 “The Interpersonal Role of the Interpreter in Cross-Cultural Communication: A Survey of Conference, Court, and Medical Interpreters in the US, Canada, and Mexico”. InThe Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community, eds. by Brunette, L. , 15–26. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/btl.46.06ang
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.46.06ang [Google Scholar]
  2. Avery, M.
    2003 “Creating a High-Standard, Inclusive and Authentic Certification Process”. InThe Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community, eds. by Brunette, L. , 99–112. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/btl.46.14bel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.46.14bel [Google Scholar]
  3. Bell, S.
    1997 “The Challenges of Setting and Monitoring the Standards of Community Interpreting: An Australian Perspective”. InThe Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community, eds. by S.E. Carr , 93–108. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/btl.19.12bel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.19.12bel [Google Scholar]
  4. Blakemore, D.
    1987Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1992Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Carston, R.
    1999 “The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction: A View from Relevance Theory”. InThe Semantics/Pragmatic Interface From Different Points of View, 85–124. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chesterman, A.
    2000 “Teaching Strategies for Mancipatory Translation”. InDeveloping Translation Competence, ed. by Schäffner, C. and Adab, B. , 77–89. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/btl.38.09che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.38.09che [Google Scholar]
  8. Derrida, J.
    2001 “What is a ‘Relevant’ Translation”, transl. by Venuti, L. Critical Inquiry Winter27 (2): 174–200. doi: 10.1086/449005
    https://doi.org/10.1086/449005 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fauconnier, G.
    1985Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge (Mass.) -London: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gile, D.
    1995Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/btl.8(1st)
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8(1st) [Google Scholar]
  11. Gutt, E.-A.
    1988 “From Translation to Effective Communication”. Notes on Translation2, (1): 24–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1990 “A Theoretical Account of Translation – Without a Translation Theory”. Target2 (2): 135–164. doi: 10.1075/target.2.2.02gut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.2.2.02gut [Google Scholar]
  13. 1991Translation and Relevance. Cognition and Context. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1992Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation. Dallas and New York: Summer Institute of Linguistics, United Bible Societies.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 1998 “Pragmatic Aspects of Translation: Some Relevance-Theory Observations”. InPragmatics of Translation, ed. by Hickey, L. , 41–53. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2000Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. House, J.
    1981A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kaufert, J. and Bowen, S.
    2003 “Assessing the ‘Costs’ of Health Interpreter Programs: The Risks and the Promise”. InThe Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community, ed. by Brunette, L. , 261–272. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Mikkelson, H.
    1996 “The Professionalization of Community Interpreting”. InGlobal Vision. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, ed. by Jerome-O’Keefe, M. , and Alexandra, V.A. , 77–89. American Translators Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Oda, M. , and Diana, A.
    2000 “The Cultural/Community Interpreter in the Domestic Violence Court- A Pilot Project”. InThe Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, ed. by Roberts, R. , 165–189. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ozolins, U.
    2000 “Communication Needs and Interpreting in Multilingual Settings: The International Spectrum of Response”. InThe Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, ed. by Roberts, R. , 21–33. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/btl.31.04ozo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.31.04ozo [Google Scholar]
  22. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2004Introducing Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Reboul, A.
    1989 “Relevance and Argumentation: How Bald Can You Get?” Argumentation3 (3): 285–302. doi: 10.1007/BF00128942
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128942 [Google Scholar]
  24. Roberts, R.
    2000 “Interpreter Assessment Tools for Different Settings”. InThe Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, ed. by Roberts, R. , 103–120. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/btl.31.13rob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.31.13rob [Google Scholar]
  25. Setton, R.
    1999Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  26. Shlesinger, M.
    1997 “Quality in Simultaneous Interpreting”. InConference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research, ed. by Gambier, Y. ; Gile, D. , and Taylor, C. , 123–131. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/btl.23.08shl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.23.08shl [Google Scholar]
  27. Snelling, D.
    1989 “A Typology of Interpretation for Teaching Purposes”. InThe Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation, ed. by Gran, L. and Dodds J. , 141–142. Udine: Campanotto.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D.
    1985, 1986 “Loose Talk”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian SocietyLXXXVI: 153–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1987 “Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition”. Behavioural and Brain Sciences10: 697–710. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00055345
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00055345 [Google Scholar]
  31. 1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1997 “Remarks on Relevance Theory and the Social Sciences”. Multilingua16: 145–151. doi: 10.1515/mult.1997.16.2‑3.145
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1997.16.2-3.145 [Google Scholar]
  33. Watts, H. and Straker, J.
    2003 “Fit for Purpose? Interpreter Training for Students from Refugee Backgrounds”. InThe Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community, ed. by Brunette, L. , 163–176. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wiegand, C.
    2000 “Role of the Interpreter in the Healing of a Nation: An Emotional View”. InThe Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, ed. by Roberts, R. , 207–218. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/btl.31.21wie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.31.21wie [Google Scholar]
  35. Wilson, D. and Sperber, D.
    1988 “Representations and Relevance.” InMental Representations: The Interface Between Language and Reality, ed. by Kempson, R. , 133–153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 1993 “Pragmatics and Time.” InUCL Working Papers in Linguistics 5, ed. by Harris, J. , 277–298. London: University College London (Dept. of Phonetics and Linguistics).
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2004 “Relevance Theory”. InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Horn, L. and Ward, G. , 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Vianna, B.
    2005 “Simultaneous Interpreting: A Relevance-theoretic Approach”. Intercultural Pragmatics2 (2): 169–190. doi: 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.2.169
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.2.169 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/babel.63.1.03alk
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error