1887
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-3711
  • E-ISSN: 2211-372X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper sets out to explore the concept of hegemony in the field of conference interpreting practice. It presents the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) as the hegemon in conference interpreting and examines its power as a policy maker. The paper associates this type of investigation with the sociological turn in conference interpreting research. It takes two large-scale surveys by Feldweg (1996) and Zwischenberger (2013) as its starting point, based on the self-representations of conference interpreter members of AIIC. The examples taken from these two surveys reveal a consistent degree of consensus and highlight the hegemonic power exerted by AIIC. This study’s main focus is on appropriating the hegemony concept for conference interpreting and thereby showing that AIIC governs the entire field of conference interpreting practice. AIIC’s power as a policy maker is based on a large degree of consent, although its hegemonic power is not uncontested.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ts.5.2.03zwi
2016-11-28
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AIIC
    2000a “Practical Guide for Professional Conference Interpreters.”AccessedAugust 3, 2015. aiic.net/page/628/practical-guide-for-professional-conference-interpreters/lang/1.
  2. 2000b “A Practical Guide for Applicants.” AccessedAugust 2, 2015. aiic.net/page/199/cacl-guide-for-applicants/lang/1.
  3. 2002 “Advice to Students Wishing to Become Conference Interpreters.”AccessedAugust 2, 2015. aiic.net/page/56/advice-to-students-wishing-to-become-conference-interpreters/lang/1.
  4. 2005 “Budding Interpreter FAQ.” AccessedAugust 2, 2015. aiic.net/page/1669/budding-interpreter-faq/lang/1.
  5. 2012 “What we do.” AccessedJuly 28, 2015. aiic.net/page/4040/what-we-do/lang/1.
  6. 2013 “Conflict Zone Field Guide for Civilian Translators/Interpreters and Users of Their Services.” AccessedAugust 4, 2015. aiic.net/page/3853/aiic-red-t-and-fit-introduce-the-first-conflict-zone-field-guide/lang/1.
  7. 2015a “AIIC Worldwide.” AccessedJuly 30, 2015. aiic.net/directories/aiic/regions/.
  8. 2015b “Collective Agreements.” AccessedAugust 1, 2015. aiic.net/agreements.
  9. 2015c “What AIIC Does”. AccessedJuly 29, 2015. aiic.net/page/6757/about-aiic/lang/1.
  10. 2015d “AIIC Groups. AIIC Working Groups & Committees. Interpreters in Areas of Conflict.” AccessedAugust 4, 2015. aiic.net/directories/aiic/groups/lang/1.
  11. Angelelli, Claudia
    2004Revisiting 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]
  12. Babels
    2004a “About us/Contacts.” AccessedJuly 27, 2015. www.babels.org/spip.php?article272 .
  13. 2004b “Babels Charter.” AccessedJuly 27, 2015. www.babels.org/spip.php?article1.
  14. Bachmann-Medick, Doris
    2007Cultural Turns: Neuorientierungen in den Kultrwissenschaften. Reinbeck, Hamburg: Rowohlt.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2009 “Introduction: The Translational Turn.” Translation studies2 (1): 2–16. doi: 10.1080/14781700802496118
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700802496118 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bassnett, Susan , and André Lefevere
    1990Translation, History, and Culture. London/New York: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Baudrillard, Jean
    2010The Agony of Power. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Beaton, Morven
    2007 “Interpreted Ideologies in Institutional Discourse. The Case of the European Parliament.” The Translator13 (2): 271–296. doi: 10.1080/13556509.2007.10799241
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2007.10799241 [Google Scholar]
  19. Boéri, Julie
    2008 “A Narrative Account of the Babels vs. Naumann Controversy.” The Translator14 (1): 21–50. doi: 10.1080/13556509.2008.10799248
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2008.10799248 [Google Scholar]
  20. Camilo, Sílvia
    2010 “Interpretation: One Profession, Several Jobs. A Talk with Sílvia Camilo.” AccessedAugust 1, 2015. aiic.net/page/3397/interpretation-one-profession-several-jobs/lang/1.
  21. Diriker, Ebru
    2004De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.53 [Google Scholar]
  22. Durand, Claude
    2003 “AIIC’s 50th Anniversary and Staff Interpreters: From the Origins to the Present Day.” AccessedAugust 5, 2015. aiic.net/page/1175/aiic-s-50th-anniversary-and-staff-interpreters-from-the-origins-to-the-present-day/lang/1.
  23. Eichner, Klaus
    1981Die Entstehung sozialer Normen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑322‑88659‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-88659-0 [Google Scholar]
  24. Feldweg, Erich
    1996Der Konferenzdolmetscher im internationalen Kommunikationsprozess. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gramsci, Antonio
    1999Selection from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hall, Stuart
    1977 “Culture, the Media and the “Ideological Effect.” InMass Communication and Society, edited by James Curran , Michael Gurevitch , and Janet Woollacott , 315–348. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hebdige, Dick
    1979Subculture and Style. London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jacobitz, Robin
    1991 “Antonio Gramsci—Hegemonie, historischer Block und intellektuelle Führung in der internationalen Politik.” AccessedJune 15, 2015. edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2013/4336/pdf/a5.pdf.
  29. Kebir, Sabine
    1991Antonio Gramscis Zivilgesellschaft. Hamburg: VSA-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Keiser, Walter
    2005 “Voluntary Work. Contribution to a Constructive Debate.” AccessedJune 20, 2015. aiic.net/page/1800/babels-and-nomad-observations-on-the-barbarising-of-communication-at-the-2005-world-social-forum/lang/1.
  31. Krotz, Friedrich
    1996 “Parasoziale Interaktion und Identität im elektronisch mediatisierten Kommunikationsraum.” InFernsehen als “Beziehungskiste.” Parasoziale Beziehungen und Interaktionen mit TV-Personen, edited by Peter Vorderer , 73–90. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2012 “Von der Entdeckung der Zentralperspektive zur Augmented Reality: Wie Mediatisierung funktioniert.” InMediatisierte Welten Forschungsfelder und Beschreibungsansätze, edited by Friedrich Krotz and Andreas Hepp , 27–55. Wiesbaden: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑531‑94332‑9_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-94332-9_2 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kuhn, Thomas
    1962The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Martín de León, Celia
    2010 “Metaphorical Models of Translation. Transfer vs. Imitation and Action.” InThinking through Translation with Metaphors, edited by James St. André , 75–108. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Mead, George H
    1934Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Monacelli, Claudia
    2009Self-Preservation in Simultaneous Interpreting. Surviving the Role. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.84
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.84 [Google Scholar]
  37. Naumann, Peter
    2005 “Babels and Nomad—Observations on the Barbarising of Communication at the 2005 World Social Forum.” AccessedJune 20, 2015. aiic.net/page/1800/babels-and-nomad-observations-on-the-barbarising-of-communication-at-the-2005-world-social-forum/lang/1.
  38. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2004Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Prunč, Erich
    2012Entwicklungslinien der Translationswissenschaft. Von den Asymmetrrien der Sprachen zu den Asymmetrien der Macht. Berlin: Frank and Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Roy, Cynthia
    1993 “The Problem with Definitions, Descriptions, and the Role Metaphors of Interpreters.” Journal of Interpretation6 (1): 127–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2000Interpreting as a Discourse Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. SCIC
    2012 “The Conference Interpreter’s Language Combination.” Accessed August 1, 2015. ec.europa.eu/dgs/scic/what-is-conference-interpreting/language-combination/index_en.htm.
  43. 2013 “Code of Professional Ethics.” AccessedAugust 1, 2015. ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/contracts/files/2013s117-198947/code_professional_ethics_en.pdf.
  44. UNOG
    2015 “Interpretation. What is a Conference Interpreter?” AccessedJuly 29, 2015. www.unog.ch/80256EE60057CB67/%28httpPages%29/2C87D748E41A2E3880256EF800496BF2?OpenDocument.
  45. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    1998Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Wolf, Michaela
    2007 “Introduction: The Emergence of a Sociology of Translation.” InConstructing a Sociology of Translation, edited by Michaela Wolf and Alexandra Fukari , 1–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.74.01wol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.74.01wol [Google Scholar]
  47. Zwischenberger, Cornelia
    2013Qualität und Rollenbilder beim simultanen Konferenzdolmetschen. Berlin: Frank and Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2015a “Quality in Simultaneous Conference Interpreting: A Prospective Perspective.” InPerspectives on Translation, edited by Anna Baczkowska , 77–102. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 2015b “Simultaneous Conference Interpreting and a Supernorm That Governs it All.” Meta60 (1): 90–111. doi: 10.7202/1032401ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1032401ar [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ts.5.2.03zwi
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