Volume 18, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article applies Comparative Interpreting Studies to research on interpreting in religious contexts and the relevance of this literature to interpreting studies more broadly. Comparative Interpreting Studies is an approach that looks to plot the commonalities of all interpreting practice. It is argued that actual observed interpreter behaviors, rather than assumed professional standards, provide a justifiable unit of comparison. The behavior of interpreters in religious contexts is discussed, alongside the split between prescriptive and descriptive approaches to analyzing this behavior and the importance of spiritual and emotional aspects. Differences in research approaches on interpreting in religious contexts are shown to shadow debates within interpreting studies and thus offer insights that may be cautiously generalized. Such generalizations align with recent research in a variety of interpreting contexts and lead to a call for interpreting researchers to give more attention to the wider social, organizational, and personal contexts of interpreting.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alvarenga, Marcos
    2018 “Church Interpreting: Stakeholders’ Expectations and Attitudes towards the Quality of a Hybrid Interpreting Practice.” Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Surrey, United Kingdom.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. 2004bMedical Interpreting and Cross-Cultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486616
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486616 [Google Scholar]
  4. Angermeyer, Philipp S.
    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]
  5. Antonini, Rachele, Letizia Cirillo, Linda Rossato, and Ira Torresi
    eds. 2017Non-Professional Interpreting and Translation: State of the Art and Future of an Emerging Field of Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.129
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.129 [Google Scholar]
  6. Balcı Tison, Alev
    2016 “The interpreter’s involvement in a translated institution: A case study of sermon interpreting.” Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain.
  7. Beaton, Morven
    2007 “Interpreted ideologies in institutional discourse: The case of the European Parliament.” The Translator13(2): 271–296. 10.1080/13556509.2007.10799241
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2007.10799241 [Google Scholar]
  8. Borrman, Mary
    2004 “Interpreting frozen text in the religious setting: The path toward dynamic equivalence.” Journal of Interpretation, 75–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Buzungu, Hilde Fiva, and Jessica P. B. Hansen
    2020 “Bridging divides in the interpreting profession: Response to Gile and Napier (2020).” International Journal of Interpreter Education12(2): 57–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. Doorslaer, Luc van
    2017 “The relative need for comparative translation studies.” Translation and Interpreting Studies12(2): 213–230. 10.1075/tis.12.2.02van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.12.2.02van [Google Scholar]
  13. Downie, Jonathan
    2014 “Towards a homiletic of sermon interpreting.” Journal of the Evangelical Homiletics Society14(2): 62–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2015 “What every client wants? (Re) mapping the trajectory of client expectations research.” Meta60(1): 18–35. 10.7202/1032398ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1032398ar [Google Scholar]
  15. 2016 “Stakeholder Expectations of Interpreters: A Multi-Site, Multi-Method Approach.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University.
  16. 2021 “Interpreting is interpreting: Why we need to leave behind interpreting settings to discover comparative interpreting studies.” Translation and Interpreting Studies16(3): 325–346. 10.1075/tis.20006.dow
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20006.dow [Google Scholar]
  17. Eraslan, Seyda
    2011 “International Knowledge Transfer in Turkey: The Consecutive Interpreter’s Role in Context.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tarragona, Spain: Rovira i Virgili University.
  18. Giannoutsou, Margarita Zoe
    2014Kirchendolmetschen–Interpretieren Oder Transformieren?Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gile, Daniel, and Jemina Napier
    2019 “Spoken language interpreters and signed language interpreters: Towards cross-fertilization.” International Journal of Interpreter Education12(1): 62–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hale, Sandra
    2007Community Interpreting. Springer. 10.1057/9780230593442
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230593442 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hervais-Adelman, Alexis, Barbara Moser-Mercer, Christoph M. Michel, and Narly Golestani
    2015 “FMRI of simultaneous interpretation reveals the neural basis of extreme language control.” Cerebral Cortex25(12): 4727–39. 10.1093/cercor/bhu158
    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu158 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hild, Adelina
    2017 “The role and self-regulation of non-professional interpreters in religious settings: The VIRS Project.” InNon-Professional Interpreting and Translation, ed. byRachele Antonini, Letizia Cirillo, Linda Rossato, and Ira Torresi, 177–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.129.09hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.129.09hil [Google Scholar]
  23. Hokkanen, Sari
    2012 “Simultaneous church interpreting as service.” The Translator18(2): 291–309. 10.1080/13556509.2012.10799512
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2012.10799512 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2016 “To Serve and to Experience: An Autoethnographic Study of Simultaneous Church Interpreting.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tampere, Finland: Tampere University.
  25. 2017 “Experiencing the interpreter’s role: Emotions of involvement and detachment in simultaneous church interpreting.” Translation Spaces6(1): 62–78. 10.1075/ts.6.1.04hok
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.6.1.04hok [Google Scholar]
  26. Hokkanen, Sari, and Kaisa Koskinen
    2016 “Affect as a hinge.” Translation Spaces5(1): 78–96. 10.1075/ts.5.1.05hok
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.5.1.05hok [Google Scholar]
  27. Hvelplund, Kristian T.
    2017 “Eye tracking in translation process research.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. byJohn W. Schweiter and Aline Ferreira, 248–64. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch14
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch14 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoza, Jack
    2010 “Achieving successful partnerships: Deaf professionals and designated interpreters.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education15(2): 205–205. 10.1093/deafed/enp020
    https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enp020 [Google Scholar]
  29. Karanasiou, Panagiota-Penny
    2017 “Fulfilling the interpreting mandate in business negotiation meetings. The perspectives of interpreters and clients.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Heriot-Watt University. https://www.ros.hw.ac.uk/handle/10399/3373
  30. Karlik, Jill
    2010 “Interpreter-mediated scriptures: Expectation and performance.” Interpreting12(2): 160–85. 10.1075/intp.12.2.03kar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.2.03kar [Google Scholar]
  31. Kaufmann, Francine
    2005 “Contribution à l’histoire de l’interprétation Consécutive : Le Metourguemane Dans Les Synagogues de l’Antiquité.” Meta50(3): 972–986. 10.7202/011608ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011608ar [Google Scholar]
  32. Kinnamon, Jennifer
    2018 “Called to service and finding a purpose: A mixed-method study of signed language interpreters volunteering in church and religious settings.” Unpublished MA thesis, Western Oregon University.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Korpal, Paweł
    2016 “Interpreting as a stressful activity: Physiological measures of stress in simultaneous interpreting.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics52(2): 297–316. 10.1515/psicl‑2016‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0011 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kurz, Ingrid
    1994 “A look into the ‘black box’–EEG probability mapping during mental simultaneous interpreting.” InTranslation Studies: An Interdiscipline, ed. byMary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker, and Klaus Kaindl, 199–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins10.1075/btl.2.25kur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.2.25kur [Google Scholar]
  35. Lee, June
    2019 “Communication Style of Intercultural Mediators: A Comparative Analysis of Two Sermon Interpreters.” Unpublished MA thesis, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mason, Ian
    ed. 2001Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Matthews, John
    2006 “Review of: Ebru Diriker (2004). De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower?” JoSTrans: Journal of Specialized Translation51: 151–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mellinger, Christopher D.
    2020 “Positionality in public service interpreting research.” FITISPos International Journal7(1): 92–109. 10.37536/FITISPos‑IJ.2020.7.1.250
    https://doi.org/10.37536/FITISPos-IJ.2020.7.1.250 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson
    2018 “Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility.” Translation and Interpreting Studies13(3): 366–392. 10.1075/tis.00021.mel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00021.mel [Google Scholar]
  40. Metzger, Melanie
    1999Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Mikkelson, Holly
    1999 “Interpreting is interpreting-Or is it?” Originally Presented at the GSTI 30th Anniversary Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Musyoka, Eunice Nthenya, and Peter N. Karanja
    2014 “Problems of interpreting as a means of communication: A study on interpretation of Kamba to English Pentecostal church sermon in Machakos Town, Kenya.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science4(5): 196–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Napier, Jemina
    2004 “Interpreting omissions: A new perspective.” Interpreting6(2): 117–42. 10.1075/intp.6.2.02nap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.2.02nap [Google Scholar]
  44. Odhiambo, Kenneth, Eunice Nthenya Musyoka, and Peter M. Matu
    2013 “The impact of consecutive interpreting on church sermons: A study of English to Kamba interpretation in Machakos Town, Kenya.” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences3(8): 189–204. 10.6007/IJARBSS/v3‑i8/136
    https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v3-i8/136 [Google Scholar]
  45. Owen, Andrew
    2014“One Among a Thousand” Interpreting in Christian Settings. London: The Wakeman Trust.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ozolins, Uldis
    2016 “The myth of the myth of invisibility?” Interpreting18(2): 273–84. 10.1075/intp.18.2.06ozo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.18.2.06ozo [Google Scholar]
  47. Pöchhacker, Franz
    1995 “Simultaneous interpreting: A functionalist perspective.” Hermes, Journal of Linguistics141: 31–53. 10.7146/hjlcb.v8i14.25094
    https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v8i14.25094 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2007 “Coping with culture in media interpreting.” Perspectives15(2): 123–42. 10.1080/13670050802153798
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050802153798 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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. 10.1075/tis.20027.koc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20027.koc [Google Scholar]
  50. Pym, Anthony
    2011 “The translator as non-author, and I am sorry about that.” InThe Translator as Author: Perspectives on Literary Translation, ed. byClaudia Buffagni and Beatrice Garzelli, 31–43. Universita Per Stranieri of Siena: LIT Verlag Münster.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Ray, James
    1998 “Me, a religious interpreter? No way!” Views: A Monthly Publication of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Rayman, Jennifer
    2007 “Visions of equality: Translating power in a deaf sermonette.” The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter1(1): 73–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Roy, Cynthia B.
    1999Interpreting As a Discourse Process. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195119480.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195119480.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Salawu, Adewuni
    2009 “A mufasssir: Not just an interpreter.” Translation Today6(1): 115–124. 10.46623/tt/2009.6.1n2.ar9
    https://doi.org/10.46623/tt/2009.6.1n2.ar9 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2010 “Evaluation of interpretation during congregational services and public religious retreats in South-West Nigeria.” Babel56(2): 129–138. 10.1075/babel.56.2.03sal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.56.2.03sal [Google Scholar]
  56. Seeber, Kilian G.
    2011 “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories – New models.” Interpreting13(2): 176–204. 10.1075/intp.13.2.02see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see [Google Scholar]
  57. 2017 “Multimodal processing in simultaneous interpreting.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. byJohn W. Schweiter and Aline Ferreira, 461–75. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch25
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch25 [Google Scholar]
  58. Seleskovitch, Danica
    1986 “Comment: Who should assess an interpreter’s performance.” Multilingua5(4): 236.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Seeber, Kilian G. and Dirk Kerzel
    2011 “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data.” International Journal of Bilingualism16(2): 228–242. 10.1177/1367006911402982
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911402982 [Google Scholar]
  60. St. André, James
    2010 “Lessons from Chinese history: Translation as a collaborative and multi-stage process.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction23(1): 71–94. 10.7202/044929ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/044929ar [Google Scholar]
  61. Tekgül, Duygu
    2020 “Faith-related interpreting as emotional labour: A case study at a Protestant Armenian Church in Istanbul.” Perspectives28(1): 43–57. 10.1080/0907676X.2019.1641527
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1641527 [Google Scholar]
  62. Tiselius, Elisabet
    2019 “The (un-) ethical interpreting researcher: Ethics, voice and discretionary power in interpreting research.” Perspectives27(5): 747–760. 10.1080/0907676X.2018.1544263
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1544263 [Google Scholar]
  63. 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, 253–265. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof/9780195176940.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof/9780195176940.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  64. Tiselius, Elisabet and Gard B. Jenset
    2011 “Process and product in simultaneous interpreting: What they tell us about experience and expertise.” InMethods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, ed. byCecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 269–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.94.20tis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.20tis [Google Scholar]
  65. Tiselius, Elisabet and Kayle Sneed
    2020 “Gaze and eye movement in dialogue interpreting: An eye-tracking study.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition23(4): 780–787. 10.1017/S1366728920000309
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000309 [Google Scholar]
  66. Tyulenev, Sergey, and Binghan Zheng
    2017 “Introduction: Toward comparative translation and interpreting studies.” Translation and Interpreting Studies12(2): 197–212. 10.1075/tis.12.2.01tyu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.12.2.01tyu [Google Scholar]
  67. Uher, Jana
    2016 “What is behaviour? And (when) is language behaviour? A metatheoretical definition.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour46(4): 475–501. 10.1111/jtsb.12104
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12104 [Google Scholar]
  68. Vigouroux, Cécile B.
    2010 “Double-mouthed discourse: Interpreting, framing, and participant roles.” Journal of Sociolinguistics14(3): 341–69. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2010.00448.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.00448.x [Google Scholar]
  69. Wenger, Etienne
    1999Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803932
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932 [Google Scholar]
  70. Zimányi, Krisztina
    2009 “A diagrammatic approach to redefining the role of the interpreter based on a case study in forensic psychology.” Translation & Interpreting1(2): 55–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 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