Volume 16, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alexieva, Bistra
    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. Al-Zahran, Aladdin
    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 Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Salford, UK. usir.salford.ac.uk/2060/
  3. Angelelli, Claudia
    2004aRevisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference, Court, and Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.55
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.55 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2004bMedical Interpreting and Cross-Cultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486616
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486616 [Google Scholar]
  5. Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian
    2015Speak English or What?: Codeswitching and Interpreter Use in New York City Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337569.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337569.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Antonini, Rachele
    2016 “Caught in the middle: Child language brokering as a form of unrecognised language service.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development37 (7): 710–725. 10.1080/01434632.2015.1127931
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1127931 [Google Scholar]
  7. Apter, Emily
    2003 “Global translatio: The ‘invention’ of comparative literature, Istanbul, 1933.” Critical Inquiry29 (2): 253–281. 10.1086/374027
    https://doi.org/10.1086/374027 [Google Scholar]
  8. Beaton, Morven
    2007 “Intertextuality and ideology in interpreter-mediated communication: The case of the European Parliament.” Unpublished PhD Thesis, Heriot-Watt University. www.ros.hw.ac.uk/handle/10399/2028
  9. Bendazzoli, Claudio, and Annalisa Sandrelli
    2009 “Corpus-based interpreting studies: Early work and future prospects.” Revista tradumàtica7. www.fti.uab.cat/tradumatica/revista/num7/articles/08/08.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Berk-Seligson, Susan
    2002 “The Miranda warnings and linguistic coercion: The role of footing in the interrogation of a limited-English speaking murder suspect.” InLanguage in the Legal Process, ed. byJanett Cotterill, 127–143. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230522770_8
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522770_8 [Google Scholar]
  11. Braun, Sabine, and Judith Taylor
    2012 “Video-mediated interpreting: An overview of current practice and research.” InVideoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. bySabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 33–68. Antwerp: Intersential.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chesterman, A.
    2008 “The status of interpretive hypotheses.” InEfforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research, ed. byGyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Clifford, Andrew
    2004 “Is fidelity ethical? The social role of the healthcare interpreter.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction17 (2): 89–114. 10.7202/013273ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/013273ar [Google Scholar]
  14. Collard, Camille and Bart Defrancq
    2019 “Predictors of ear-voice span: A corpus-based study with special reference to sex.” Perspectives27 (3): 431–454. 10.1080/0907676X.2018.1553199
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1553199 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dean, Robyn K. and Robert Q. Pollard
    2006 “From best practice to best practice process: Shifting ethical thinking and teaching.” InA 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. byElisa M. Maroney, 119–32. San Diego.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2009 “‘I don’t think we’re supposed to be talking about this”: Case conferencing and supervision for interpreters.” VIEWS26(4).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Diriker, Ebru
    2004De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower?Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.53 [Google Scholar]
  18. Downie, Jonathan
    2014 “Towards a homiletic of sermon interpreting.” Journal of the Evangelical Homiletics Society14 (2): 62–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Eraslan, Seyda
    2011 “International knowledge transfer in Turkey: The consecutive interpreter’s role in context.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Tarragona, Spain: Rovira i Virgili University.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ghignoli, Alessandro and María Gracia Torres Díaz
    2015 “Interpreting performed by professionals of other fields: The case of sports commentators.” InNon-Professional Interpreting and Translating in the Media, ed. byRachele Antonini and Chiara Bucaria, 193–208. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gile, D.
    1989 “Les flux d’information dans les réunions interlinguistiques et l’interprétation de conférence : Premières observations.” Meta34 (4): 649–660. 10.7202/002900ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/002900ar [Google Scholar]
  22. Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason
    1997The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. He, He, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Hal Daumé III
    2016 “Interpretese vs. translationese: The uniqueness of human strategies in simultaneous interpretation.” InProceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, ed. byKevin Knight, Ani Nenkova, and Owen Rambow, 971–976. ACL. 10.18653/v1/N16‑1111
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N16-1111 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hlavac, Jim
    2012 “Sociolinguistic profiles of users and providers of lay and professional interpreting services: The experiences of a recently-arrived Iraqi language community in Melbourne.” Translation & Interpreting3 (2): 1–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hokkanen, Sari
    2012 “Simultaneous church interpreting as service.” The Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication18 (2): 291–309. 10.1080/13556509.2012.10799512
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2012.10799512 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2016 “To serve and to experience: An autoethnographic study of simultaneous church interpreting.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Tampere, Finland.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Karlik, Jill
    2010 “Interpreter-mediated scriptures: Expectation and performance.” Interpreting12 (2): 160–85. doi:  10.1075/intp.12.2.03kar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.2.03kar [Google Scholar]
  28. Kaufmann, Francine
    2005 “Contribution à l’histoire de l’interprétation consécutive : Le metourguemane dans les synagogues de l’Antiquité.” Meta50 (3): 972–86. 10.7202/011608ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011608ar [Google Scholar]
  29. Killman, Jeffrey
    2020 “Interpreting for asylum seekers and their attorneys: The challenge of agency.” Perspectives28 (1): 73–89. doi:  10.1080/0907676X.2019.1615518
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1615518 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kurz, Ingrid
    1993 “Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter5: 13–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1994 “What do different user groups expect from a conference interpreter?” The Jerome Quarterly9 (2): 3–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Luchner, Carmen Delgado, and Leïla Kherbiche
    2018 “Without fear or favour?: The positionality of ICRC and UNHCR interpreters in the humanitarian field.” Target30 (3): 408–29. doi:  10.1075/target.17108.del
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17108.del [Google Scholar]
  33. Martínez-Gómez, Aída
    2015 “Invisible, visible or everywhere in between? Perceptions and actual behaviours of non-professional interpreters and interpreting users.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter20: 175–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mason, Ian
    (ed) 2001Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Mathews, Elizabeth S.
    2011 “‘No sign language if you want to get him talking’: Power, transgression/resistance, and discourses of d/Deafness in the Republic of Ireland.” Population Space & Place17 (4): 361. 10.1002/psp.611
    https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.611 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mellinger, Christopher D. and Thomas A. Hanson
    2018 “Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility.” Translation and Interpreting Studies13 (3): 366–392. doi:  10.1075/tis.00021.mel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00021.mel [Google Scholar]
  37. Merlini, Raffaela and Roberta Favaron
    2003 “Community interpreting: Re-conciliation through power management.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter12: 205–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mikkelson, Holly
    1999 “Interpreting is interpreting – Or is it?” Presented at theGSTI 30th Anniversary Conference.
  39. Mizuno, Makiko
    2006 “The history of community interpreting studies in Japan.” Linguistica Antverpiensia5.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Moretti, Franco
    2000 “Conjectures on world literature.” New Left Review1: 54–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Napier, Jemina
    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.” InNon-Professional Interpreting and Translation: State of the Art and Future of an Emerging Field of Research, ed. byRachele Antonini , 381–410. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.129.19nap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.129.19nap [Google Scholar]
  42. Ozolins, Uldis
    2016 “The myth of the myth of invisibility?” Interpreting18 (2): 273–84. doi:  10.1075/intp.18.2.06ozo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.18.2.06ozo [Google Scholar]
  43. Phelan, Mary and Mayte Martín
    2010 “Interpreters and cultural mediators – Different but complementary roles.” Translocations6 (1).
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Pöchhacker, Franz
    1995 “Simultaneous interpreting: A functionalist perspective.” Hermes, Journal of Linguistics14: 31–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2004Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203504802
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203504802 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2009 “Conference interpreting surveying the profession.” Translation and Interpreting Studies4 (2): 172–86. doi:  10.1075/tis.4.2.02poc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.4.2.02poc [Google Scholar]
  47. Pokorn, Nike K. and Tamara Mikolič Južnič
    2020 “Community interpreters versus intercultural mediators. Is it really all about ethics?” Translation and Interpreting Studies15 (1): 81–108. doi:  10.1075/tis.20027.koc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20027.koc [Google Scholar]
  48. Pym, Anthony
    1999 “‘Nicole slapped Michelle.’” The Translator5 (2): 265–83. doi:  10.1080/13556509.1999.10799044
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1999.10799044 [Google Scholar]
  49. Rayman, Jennifer
    2007 “Visions of equality: Translating power in a deaf sermonette.” The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter1 (1): 73–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Rothman, E. Natalie
    2009 “Interpreting dragomans: Boundaries and crossings in the early modern Mediterranean.” Comparative Studies in Society and History51 (4): 771–800. 10.1017/S0010417509990132
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417509990132 [Google Scholar]
  51. Roy, Cynthia B.
    1992 “A sociolinguistic analysis of the interpreter’s role in simultaneous talk in a face-to-face interpreted dialogue.” Sign Language Studies74: 21–61. 10.1353/sls.1992.0018
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1992.0018 [Google Scholar]
  52. 1999Interpreting as a Discourse Process. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Shlesinger, Miriam
    1995 “Shifts in cohesion in simultaneous interpreting.” The Translator1 (2): 193–214. 10.1080/13556509.1995.10798957
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1995.10798957 [Google Scholar]
  54. 1998 “Corpus-based interpreting studies as an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies.” Meta43 (4): 486–493. 10.7202/004136ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/004136ar [Google Scholar]
  55. Turner, Graham H.
    2005 “Towards real interpreting.” InSign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directions for Research and Practice, ed. byMarc Marschark, Rico Peterson, and Elizabeth A. Winston, 253–65. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof/9780195176940.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof/9780195176940.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  56. Tyulenev, Sergey and Binghan Zheng
    2017 “Introduction: Toward comparative translation and interpreting studies.” Translation and Interpreting Studies12 (2): 197–212. doi:  10.1075/tis.12.2.01tyu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.12.2.01tyu [Google Scholar]
  57. Verrept, Hans
    2008 “Intercultural mediation at Belgian hospitals.” InCrossing Borders in Community Interpreting. Definitions and Dilemmas, ed. byCarmen Valero Garcés and Anne Martin, 187–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.76.10ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.76.10ver [Google Scholar]
  58. Vigouroux, C. B.
    2010 “Double-mouthed discourse: Interpreting, framing, and participant roles.” Journal of Sociolinguistics14 (3): 341–369. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2010.00448.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.00448.x [Google Scholar]
  59. Vuorikoski, A. R.
    1998 “User responses to simultaneous interpreting.” InUnity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies, ed. byLynne Bowker, , 184–197. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    1992Interpreting as Interaction: On Dialogue-Interpreting in Immigration Hearings and Medical Encounters. Linköping University.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Wilcox, Sherman and Barbara Shaffer
    2005 “Towards a cognitive model of interpreting.” InTopics in Signed Languages Interpreting: Theory and Practice, ed. byTerry Janzen, 27–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.63.06wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.06wil [Google Scholar]
  62. Wurm, Svenja
    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
  63. Zwischenberger, Cornelia
    2015 “Simultaneous conference interpreting and a supernorm that governs it all.” Meta60 (1): 90–111. 10.7202/1032401ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1032401ar [Google Scholar]
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