1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interpreting
  4. Volume 19, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This ethnographic study aims to shed light on how the services of simultaneous interpreters working during plenary sessions of the European Parliament are perceived and evaluated by the users, i.e. mainly Members of the European Parliament and other European Union officials. The corpus analysed covers all the plenaries in the eight-year period 2005–2012. The aim was to examine references to interpreters and/or their output made by the speakers. A total of 230 relevant excerpts were identified, varying in length. Thematic analysis established that speakers’ comments addressed to, or concerning, interpreters were associated with six topics. The most frequent was appreciation of interpreters (almost a third of all items), after which doubts regarding interpretations were only marginally ahead of reminders to speakers about the practical constraints imposed by interpreting (each accounting for almost 20%). Three far less frequent items (about 5–10% each) were criticism, difficulty (of interpreting specific items) and apologies. The study discusses representative occurrences of each topic, also providing an overall breakdown of quantitative trends.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.19.2.01bar
2017-12-04
2024-10-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/intp.19.2.01bar
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AIIC
    (2005) Budding interpreter FAQ. Available at: https://aiic.net/page/1669/budding-interpreter-faq/lang/1 (accessed5 March 2017).
  2. Angelelli, C. V.
    (2004) Revisiting the interpreter’s role: A study of conference, court and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.55
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.55 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beaton, M.
    (2007) Interpreted ideologies in institutional discourse: The case of the European Parliament. Translator13 (2), 271–296. doi: 10.1080/13556509.2007.10799241
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2007.10799241 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bendazzoli, C. , Sandrelli, A. & Russo, M.
    (2011) Disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based analysis. In A. Kruger , K. Wallmach & J. Munday (Eds.), Corpus-based translation studies: Research and applications. London/New York: Continuum, 282–306.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Biel, Ł.
    (2006) Translation of multilingual EU legislation as a sub-genre of legal translation. In D. Kierzkowska (Ed.), Court interpreting and legal translation in the Enlarged Europe. Warszawa: Translegis, 144–163.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bot, H.
    (2005) Dialogue interpreting as a specific case of reported speech. Interpreting7 (2), 237–261. doi: 10.1075/intp.7.2.06bot
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.2.06bot [Google Scholar]
  7. Braun, V. & Clarke, V.
    (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar]
  8. Cosmidou, O.
    (2013) The European Parliament: A temple of multilingualism, a pioneer in interpreting ‘exploits’. Gramma19, 129–132.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Dam, H. V & Zethsen, K. K.
    (2013) Conference interpreters – the stars of the translation profession? A study of the occupational status of Danish EU interpreters as compared to Danish EU translators. Interpreting15 (2), 229–259. doi: 10.1075/intp.15.2.04dam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.04dam [Google Scholar]
  10. Diriker, E.
    (2004) De-/Re-contextualising simultaneous interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower?Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.53
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.53 [Google Scholar]
  11. Duflou, V.
    (2012) The ‘first person norm’ in conference interpreting (CI) – some reflections on findings from the field. In M. A. Jimenez Ivars & M. J. Blasco Mayor (Eds.), Interpreting Brian Harris: Recent developments in translatology. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 145–160.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (2016) Be(com)ing a conference interpreter: An ethnography of EU interpreters as a professional community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.124
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.124 [Google Scholar]
  13. Emmerich, K. R.
    (2013) Visibility (and invisibility). In Y. Gambier & L. Van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies, Vol. 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 200–206. doi: 10.1075/hts.4.vis1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.4.vis1 [Google Scholar]
  14. European Parliament
    (2013) Towards more efficient and cost effective interpretation in the European Parliament. Available at: www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2013-0233+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN (accessed4 January 2015).
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gerver, D.
    (1969/2002) The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 53–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gile, D.
    (2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Revised ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hale, S. & Napier, J.
    (2013) Research methods in interpreting. London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Jones, R.
    (1998) Conference interpreting explained. Manchester: St Jerome.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Kajzer-Wietrzny, M.
    (2013) Idiosyncratic features of interpreting style. New Voices in Translation Studies9, 38–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Katan, D. & Straniero Sergio, F.
    (2001) ‘Look who’s talking’: The ethics of entertainment and talk show interpreting. Translator7 (2), 213–238. doi: 10.1080/13556509.2001.10799102
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2001.10799102 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kent, S. J.
    (2009) A discourse of danger and loss: Interpreters on interpreting for the European Parliament. In L. Stern , U. Ozolins & S. B. Hale (Eds.), The Critical Link 5: Quality in interpreting: A shared responsibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 55–70. doi: 10.1075/btl.87.05ken
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.87.05ken [Google Scholar]
  22. (2014) Interpreting. Doctoral thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kopczyński, A. ( B. Moser-Mercer )
    (1994) Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. In S. Lambert & (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 87–99. doi: 10.1075/btl.3.09kop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.09kop [Google Scholar]
  24. Metzger, M.
    (1999) Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Monacelli, C.
    (2009) Self-preservation in simultaneous interpreting: Surviving the role. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.84
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.84 [Google Scholar]
  26. Monti, C. , Bendazzoli, C. , Sandrelli, A. & Russo, M.
    (2005) Studying directionality in simultaneous interpreting through an electronic corpus: EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus). Meta50 (4). doi: 10.7202/019850ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/019850ar [Google Scholar]
  27. Mossop, B.
    (1990) Translating institutions and “idiomatic” translation. Meta35 (2), 342–355. doi: 10.7202/003675ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/003675ar [Google Scholar]
  28. Ozolins, U.
    (2016) The myth of the myth of invisibility?Interpreting18 (2), 273–284. doi: 10.1075/intp.18.2.06ozo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.18.2.06ozo [Google Scholar]
  29. Pöchhacker, F.
    (2004) Introducing interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203504802
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203504802 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2011) Conference interpreting: Surveying the profession. In R. Sela-Sheffy & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), Identity and status in the translational professions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49–63. doi: 10.1075/bct.32.05poc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.32.05poc [Google Scholar]
  31. Pym, A.
    (2011) Translation research terms: A tentative glossary for moments of perplexity and dispute. In A. Pym (Ed.), Translation research projects 3. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 75–110.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Silverman, D.
    (2006) Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Straniero Sergio, F.
    (1999) The interpreter on the (talk) show: Interaction and participation frameworks. Translator5 (2), 303–326. doi: 10.1080/13556509.1999.10799046
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1999.10799046 [Google Scholar]
  34. Van De Mieroop, D. , Bevilacqua, G. & Van Hove, L.
    (2012) Negotiating discursive norms: Community interpreting in a Belgian rest home. Interpreting14 (2), 23–54. doi: 10.1075/intp.14.1.02mie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.14.1.02mie [Google Scholar]
  35. Venuti, L.
    (1995) The translator’s invisibility. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203360064
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203360064 [Google Scholar]
  36. Vuorikoski, A.-R.
    (2004) A voice of its citizens or a modern Tower of Babel? The quality of interpreting as a function of political rhetoric in the European Parliament. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Wadensjö, C.
    (1998) Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. (2008) In and off the show: Co-constructing “invisibility” in an interpreter-mediated talk-show interview. Meta53 (1), 184–203. doi: 10.7202/017982ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/017982ar [Google Scholar]
  39. Wierzbicka, A.
    (2003) Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110220964
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220964 [Google Scholar]
  40. Zwischenberger, C.
    (2011) Conference interpreters and their self-representation: A worldwide web-based survey. In R. Sela-Sheffy & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), Identity and status in the translational professions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 119–133. doi: 10.1075/bct.32.08zwi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.32.08zwi [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.19.2.01bar
Loading
The interpreter’s visibility in the European Parliament
Interpreting 19, 159 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.2.01bar
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.19.2.01bar
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.19.2.01bar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ethnography; European Parliament; simultaneous interpreting; users; visibility

Most Cited

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