Interpreting - Volume 6, Issue 2, 2004

This paper discusses findings of a study conducted on Australian Sign Language (Auslan)/English interpreters in a university lecture, with consideration given to factors that influenced the interpreters’ omissions. The hypothesis of the study was that interpreters would make recourse to omissions both consciously and unconsciously, depending on their familiarity with the discourse environment and the subject matter. Through exploration of theoretical perspectives of interpreting and discourse studies, it is argued that interpreters use omissions as linguistic strategies for coping with the discourse environment. The findings of the study present interpreters with a new perspective on omissions in interpreting, which can be applied to both signed- and spoken-language interpreting.

This paper focuses on interpreting in asylum hearings, a field of research thus far largely neglected in Translation Studies. Specifically, it is based on a discourse analytical study of authentic asylum hearings recorded at the Federal Asylum Office in Graz (Austria). Some aspects of the role and responsibilities of interpreters are discussed. The results clearly suggest that interpreters in asylum hearings frequently assume discrepant roles which may at times be determined by the perceived expectations of the officers in charge, and that these roles are not clear-cut. Interpreters are found to shorten and paraphrase statements, volunteer explanations, try to save their own — and if possible, also the other participants’ — face, and intervene if they deem it necessary.

This paper presents the findings of cross-sectional national surveys on how Swiss hospitals address the problem of language barriers in health care and how they respond to the high number of allophone patients (i.e. patients who do not speak the local language). Half of the 244 hospital services responding to the questionnaire estimated the proportion of allophone patients to the total number of patients at 1–5%. Only 14% ‘often’ use paid interpreters, 79% rely mostly on relatives, 75% primarily on health staff, and 43% ‘often’ on non-health staff. Only 11% of the hospital services studied have a budget for interpreters, and 17% have access to an interpreter service. Forty-eight percent express the need to have access to interpreter services. The communication management of hospitals dealing with patients speaking one of the most frequent foreign languages is described; these languages are Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, South-Slavic, Albanian, Russian, Kurdish, Turkish, Arabic and Tamil. The discussion addresses quality of care issues for allophone patients, the risk of poor health care outcomes in the absence of interpreters and the potential benefits of using qualified interpreters.