1887
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1598-7647
  • E-ISSN: 2451-909X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The interpreter’s role and performance in interpreting-facilitated interactions have attracted considerable scholarly attention since the 1970s. Seminal field research on interpreting in courtrooms, in hospitals, and in war zones describe interpreters as active participants. Nevertheless, Hale (2006) and Pöchhacker (2006) critique that much data-driven research in the area suffers from a lack of theoretical conceptualisations, and is short of diversified sociocultural and linguistic contexts for investigation. To strengthen the theoretical background to research on the interpreters’ role, this study draws on social psychology theories of social identity and optimal distinctiveness, and the sociolinguistic notion of face, to develop an interdisciplinary framework for conceptualising how identity claims may influence interpreters’ choice of linguistic strategies in delivery. The English-Mandarin political press conference interpreting context is examined to illustrate how the proposed framework may shed light on our understanding of interpreters’ behaviour in action.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/forum.20012.yua
2021-06-11
2021-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexieva, B.
    1997 A typology of interpreter-mediated events. The Translator3 (2), 153–174. 10.1080/13556509.1997.10798996
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1997.10798996 [Google Scholar]
  2. Angelelli, C. V.
    2004Medical interpreting and cross-cultural communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486616
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486616 [Google Scholar]
  3. Angermeyer, P. S.
    2005 Who is “you”? Polite forms of address and ambiguous participant roles in court interpreting. Target17 (2), 203–226. 10.1075/target.17.2.02ang
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17.2.02ang [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, M.
    1997 Non-cognitive constraints and interpreter strategies in political interviews. InK. Simms (Ed.), Translating sensitive texts: Linguistic aspects (pp.111–129). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2006Translation and conflict: A narrative account. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203099919
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203099919 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barsky, R. F.
    1996 The interpreter as intercultural agent in Convention refugee hearings. The Translator2 (1), 45–63. 10.1080/13556509.1996.10798963
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1996.10798963 [Google Scholar]
  7. Berk-Seligson, S.
    1990The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolden, G.
    2000 Toward understanding practices of medical interpreting: Interpreters’ involvement in history taking. Discourse Studies2 (4), 387–419. 10.1177/1461445600002004001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445600002004001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bourdieu, P.
    1990The logic of practice (Trans. Richard Nice). London: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brewer, M. B.
    1991 The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 17, 475–482. 10.1177/0146167291175001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brewer, M. B., & Silver, M. D.
    2000 Group distinctiveness, social identification, and collective mobilization. InS. Stryker, T. J. Owens, & R. W. White (Eds.), Social movements, protest, and contention (pp.153–171). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
    1987Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Originally published as Universals in language usage: politeness phenomenon. InE. N. Goody (Ed.) 1978 Questions and politeness: strategies in social interaction (pp.56–311). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown, L.
    2008The role of the political interpreter in bilateral relations: An overview. Tampere: University of Tampere.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Brown, R. J.
    2000 Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30,745–778. 10.1002/1099‑0992(200011/12)30:6<745::AID‑EJSP24>3.0.CO;2‑O
    https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6<745::AID-EJSP24>3.0.CO;2-O [Google Scholar]
  15. French, J. R. P. Jr., & Raven, B.
    1959 The bases of social power. InD. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp.150–167). University of Michigan.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Footitt, H., & Kelly, M.
    (Eds.) 2012Languages and the military: Alliances, occupation and peace building. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137033086
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137033086 [Google Scholar]
  17. Giddens, A.
    1984The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Grainger, K.
    2011 ‘First order’ and ‘second order’ politeness: Institutional and intercultural contexts. InLinguistic Politeness Research Group (Eds.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp.167–188). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110238679.167
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238679.167 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hale, S.
    2006 Themes and methodological issues in Court Interpreting research. Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 5, 205–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Haugh, M.
    2007 The discursive challenge to politeness theory: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3 (2), 295–317. 10.1515/PR.2007.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.013 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2009 Face and interaction. InF. Bargiela-Chiappini, & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp.1–30). London, United Kingdom: Equinox Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hu, K. & Tao, Q.
    2012 Syntactic operational norms of press conference interpreting (Chinese-English). Foreign Language Teaching and Research44 (5), 738–750.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Inghilleri, M.
    2003 Habitus, field and discourse: Interpreting as a socially situated activity. Target15 (2), 243–268. 10.1075/target.15.2.03ing
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15.2.03ing [Google Scholar]
  24. Jacobsen, B.
    2008a Interactional pragmatics and court interpreting: An analysis of face. Interpreting10 (1), 128–158. 10.1075/intp.10.1.08jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.10.1.08jac [Google Scholar]
  25. Kádár, D. Z.
    2017 Politeness in pragmatics. InThe Oxford research encyclopedias: Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.218
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.218 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kaufert, J. M. & Koolage, W. W.
    1984 Role conflict among ‘culture brokers’: The experience of native Canadian medical interpreters. Social Science & Medicine, 18 (3), 283–286. 10.1016/0277‑9536(84)90092‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(84)90092-3 [Google Scholar]
  27. Knapp-Potthoff, A. & Knapp, K.
    1986 Interweaving two discourses: The difficult task of the non-professional interpreter. InJ. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication (pp.151–168). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Leonardelli, G. J., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B.
    2010 Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 63–113. 10.1016/S0065‑2601(10)43002‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43002-6 [Google Scholar]
  29. Magnifico, C. & Defrancq, B.
    2016 Impoliteness in interpreting: A question of gender?Translation & Interpreting8 (2), 26–45. 10.12807/ti.108202.2016.a03
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.108202.2016.a03 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mason, I.
    1999a Introduction. The Translator5 (2), 147–160. 10.1080/13556509.1999.10799038
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1999.10799038 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mason, I. & Stewart, M.
    2001 Interactional pragmatics, face and the dialogue interpreter. InI. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting (pp.51–70). Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mason, I.
    2009b Role, positioning and discourse in face-to-face interpreting. InR. P. Ricoy, I. Perez & C. Wilson (Eds.), Interpreting and Translating in Public Service Settings: Policy, Practice, Pedagogy (pp.52–73). Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mao, L. R.
    1994 Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 451–86. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90025‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6 [Google Scholar]
  34. Nakane, I.
    2008 Politeness and gender in interpreted police interviews. Monash University Linguistics Papers, 6 (1), 29–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. O’Driscoll, J.
    2007 Brown & Levinson’s face: How it can – and can’t – help us to understand interaction across cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 463–492. 10.1515/IP.2007.024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.024 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ozolins, U.
    2004Survey of Interpreting Practitioners. Melbourne: VITS Language Link.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Pan, F.
    2020 Norms and norm-taking in interpreting for Chinese government press conferences: A case study of hedges. InK. Hu & K. Kim (Eds.), Corpus-based translation and interpreting studies in Chinese contexts (pp.89–111). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑21440‑1_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21440-1_4 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pöchhacker, F.
    1992 The role of theory in simultaneous interpreting. InC. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience (pp.211–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.56.33poc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.56.33poc [Google Scholar]
  39. 2011c Researching TV interpreting: Selected studies of US presidential material. The Interpreters’ Newsletter16, 21–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2006 Research and methodology in healthcare interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 5, 135–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Pöllabauer, S.
    2004 Interpreting in asylum hearings: Issues of role, responsibility and power. Interpreting6 (2), 143–180. 10.1075/intp.6.2.03pol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.2.03pol [Google Scholar]
  42. Roy, C.
    1993/2002 The problem with definitions, descriptions and the role metaphors of interpreters. InF. Pöchhacker, & M. Shlesinger (Eds), The Interpreting Studies Reader (pp.345–353). London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Savvalidou, F.
    2011 Interpreting (im)politeness strategies in a media political setting: A case study from the Greek prime ministerial TV debate as interpreted into Greek Sign Language. InL. Leeson, S. Wurm & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), Signed Language Interpreting: Preparation, Practice and Performance (pp.87–109). Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Shlesinger, M.
    1991 Interpreter latitude vs. due process: Simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in multilingual trials. InS. Tirkkonen-Condit (Ed.) Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies (147–155). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Simon, B.
    2004Identity in modern society: A social psychology perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470773437
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773437 [Google Scholar]
  46. Stapel, D. A., & Marx, D. M.
    2007 Distinctiveness is key: How different types of self-other similarity moderate social comparison effects. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 33, 439–448. 10.1177/0146167206296105
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206296105 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tajfel, H.
    1978a The achievement of inter-group differentiation. InH. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp.77–100). London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Thiéry, C.
    2015 Diplomatic interpreting. InF. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies (pp.155–156). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Tipton, R.
    2008 Reflexivity and the social construction of identity in interpreter-mediated asylum interviews. The Translator14 (1), 1–19. 10.1080/13556509.2008.10799247
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2008.10799247 [Google Scholar]
  50. Tong, J.
    2017 The taming of critical journalism in China. Journalism Studies, 18, 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wadensjö, C.
    1998Interpreting as interaction. Pearson Education ESL.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 2002 Dialogue interpreting – A new branch of translation studies. InStromqvist, S. (Ed.), The diversity of languages and language learning: Lund lecutures in languages and literature (pp.73–81). Lund: Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Wang, B. & Mu, L.
    2009 Interpreter training and research in mainland China: Recent developments. Interpreting11 (2), 267–283. 10.1075/intp.11.2.08wan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.2.08wan [Google Scholar]
  54. Wang, B.
    2012 A descriptive study of norms in interpreting: Based on the Chinese-English consecutive interpreting corpus of Chinese Premier press conferences. Meta57 (1), 198–212. 10.7202/1012749ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1012749ar [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/forum.20012.yua
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/forum.20012.yua
Loading

Data & Media 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