1,721,024 research outputs found
Written words speak as loud. On the cognitive differences between translation and interpreting
No full textSeveral factors contribute to the traditional divide between translation and interpreting tasks. However, from the perspective of Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies (CTIS), it is a consequence of depicting them with a broad brush. While previously a convenient strategy to accommodate disciplinary approaches within Translation and Interpreting Studies, this approach is not optimal within CTIS. Once understood as monolithic modes, translation and interpreting increasingly appear to be variable clusters of features, and cognitive approaches need to take account of this new paradigm. The shared traits of these tasks can be reconsidered as multilectal mediated communication (MMC), including translation, localization, oral and signed interpreting, post-editing, transcreating, and transediting. This reconceptualization requires examining the foundations of theories about these tasks. This chapter explores modularity, memory, and mental lexicon as examples demonstrating the need to update referential frameworks and find common ground for MMC tasks within CTIS. Seeking higher granularity in the MMC tasks, and skeptical of the referential constructs and assumptions involved in data interpretation, the chapter includes a research review and suggests emerging trends
Commonalities of and differences between interpreting strands
No full textReferences:
- Albl-Mikasa, Michaela 2020. Interpreters’ roles and responsibilities. In E. Angelone, M. Ehrensberger-Dow & G. Massey (eds) The Bloomsbury Companion to Language Industry Studies. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 91–114.
- Downie, Jonathan 2020. Interpreting is interpreting: Why we need to leave behind interpreting settings to discover Comparative Interpreting Studies. Translation and Interpreting Studies. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20006.dow
- Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta & Tiselius, Elisabet 2016. Cognitive aspects of community interpreting: Toward a process model. In R. Muñoz Martín (ed) Reembedding Translation Process Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 195–214.
- Mikkelson, Holly 1999. Interpreting is interpreting – Or is it?. Originally presented at the GSTI 30th Anniversary Conference. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 41373508_Interpreting_Is_Interpreting_-_Or_Is_It (Accessed January 10 2021)
- Pöchhacker, Franz 2018. Moving Boundaries in Interpreting. In H. V. Dam, M. N. Brøgger & K. K. Zethsen (eds) Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 45–63.Interpreting, regardless of type or strand, shares a common core in terms of skills, knowledge and cognitive resources needed to perform the task. The same modes and techniques are also used across all types. Yet, the performer of interpreting is labelled (and remunerated) according to other, external, factors, such as the setting they work in (conference, community, court), or one of their working languages (signed language), some are even labelled as not being interpreters (ad-hoc, non-professional). Prunč (2011: 22) claims that these labels are rooted in the historical development of interpreting and he also argues that they are outdated in a multicultural and polycentric world. Since Mikkelson’s call in 1999, there has been a growing trend to argue for treating interpreting as the same regardless of interpreting type or strand. Advantages of this would be, among other things, that researchers can interpret results in the light of other types and strands, and that professionals regarded as one group can create a bigger critical mass for push and pull effects on working conditions, remunerations etc. To date, publications about both commonalities and differences, and calls to treat the strands as one have been theoretical and argumentative (Albl-Mikasa 2020; Downie 2020; Pöchhacker 2018) rather than empirical. The commonalities and differences across different interpreting types and strands (conference interpreting, community interpreting, signed language interpreting...) can be investigated from different perspectives (cognitive, sociological, discursive, procedural and so forth). This panel invites contributors to explore commonalities of and differences between the different strands of interpreting empirically. We invite papers with a (socio-) cognitive approach, with the aim to argue and highlight reasons for stressing either commonalities of or differences between different strands. Papers are welcome to contrast several interpreting strands, but can also discuss their results of the specificities of one with a view to whether or not they point to commonalities rather than differences or vice versa
Commonalities of and differences between interpreting strands
No full textReferences:
- Albl-Mikasa, Michaela 2020. Interpreters’ roles and responsibilities. In E. Angelone, M. Ehrensberger-Dow & G. Massey (eds) The Bloomsbury Companion to Language Industry Studies. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 91–114.
- Downie, Jonathan 2020. Interpreting is interpreting: Why we need to leave behind interpreting settings to discover Comparative Interpreting Studies. Translation and Interpreting Studies. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20006.dow
- Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta & Tiselius, Elisabet 2016. Cognitive aspects of community interpreting: Toward a process model. In R. Muñoz Martín (ed) Reembedding Translation Process Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 195–214.
- Mikkelson, Holly 1999. Interpreting is interpreting – Or is it?. Originally presented at the GSTI 30th Anniversary Conference. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 41373508_Interpreting_Is_Interpreting_-_Or_Is_It (Accessed January 10 2021)
- Pöchhacker, Franz 2018. Moving Boundaries in Interpreting. In H. V. Dam, M. N. Brøgger & K. K. Zethsen (eds) Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 45–63.Interpreting, regardless of type or strand, shares a common core in terms of skills, knowledge and cognitive resources needed to perform the task. The same modes and techniques are also used across all types. Yet, the performer of interpreting is labelled (and remunerated) according to other, external, factors, such as the setting they work in (conference, community, court), or one of their working languages (signed language), some are even labelled as not being interpreters (ad-hoc, non-professional). Prunč (2011: 22) claims that these labels are rooted in the historical development of interpreting and he also argues that they are outdated in a multicultural and polycentric world. Since Mikkelson’s call in 1999, there has been a growing trend to argue for treating interpreting as the same regardless of interpreting type or strand. Advantages of this would be, among other things, that researchers can interpret results in the light of other types and strands, and that professionals regarded as one group can create a bigger critical mass for push and pull effects on working conditions, remunerations etc. To date, publications about both commonalities and differences, and calls to treat the strands as one have been theoretical and argumentative (Albl-Mikasa 2020; Downie 2020; Pöchhacker 2018) rather than empirical. The commonalities and differences across different interpreting types and strands (conference interpreting, community interpreting, signed language interpreting...) can be investigated from different perspectives (cognitive, sociological, discursive, procedural and so forth). This panel invites contributors to explore commonalities of and differences between the different strands of interpreting empirically. We invite papers with a (socio-) cognitive approach, with the aim to argue and highlight reasons for stressing either commonalities of or differences between different strands. Papers are welcome to contrast several interpreting strands, but can also discuss their results of the specificities of one with a view to whether or not they point to commonalities rather than differences or vice versa
Informed Consent : an overlooked part of ethical research in Interpreting Studies
No full textThis article discusses the concept of informed consent in interpreting studies. Informed consent implies that a person must be given enough information to be able to consent to participate voluntarily in a research project. The article first gives an overview and background of the origins of informed consent, and its place in ethical research. The article then points to different areas where informed consent in interpreting studies may be delicate, and what to think about in order to obtain truly informed consent; examples are given from different research studies. The article also discusses the research participants’ right to their data and what happens when informed consent is revoked. I argue in the article that research students should be taught and trained in truly informed consent, and that the informed consent process should be piloted before the initiation of a study.I artikeln diskuteras informerat samtycke i tolkstudier. Informerat samtycke innebär att en person som rekryteras som deltagare i en forskningsstudie måste ges tillräckligt med information för att ha möjlighet att samtycka till att frivilligt delta i ett forskningsprojekt. Artikeln ger först en översikt av och bakgrund till informerat samtycke, dess ursprunget och dess plats i etisk forskning. Artikeln pekar sedan på olika områden där informerat samtycke i tolkstudier kan vara känsligt, och vad forskaren bör tänka på för att erhålla verkligt informerat samtycke, exempel ges också från andra forskningsstudier. Artikeln diskuterar vidare forskningsdeltagarnas rätt till sina data och vad som händer när ett informerat samtycke återkallas. Jag argumenterar för att forskningsstudenter ska undervisas i och öva på verkligt informerat samtycke, att informerat samtycke ska ses som en process samt att processen för att inhämta informerat samtycke ska göras som pilot innan en studie påbörjas
Sign language conference interpreting
Get PDFThis is an accepted manuscript of a chapter published by Routledge in The Routledge Handbook of Conference Interpreting on 30/11/2021, available online: https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Conference-Interpreting/Albl-Mikasa-Tiselius/p/book/9780367277895 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Interpreting between signed and spoken languages has become steadily more visible to the general public around the world in recent decades. The chapter summarises the nature and development of signed language conference interpreting, defining key terms and concepts with attention to distinctive aspects of service provision. These are rooted in the visual-gestural forms that encode signed meaning, and the physical and social features of communication and cultural expression associated with the lived experiences of participants in Deaf communities. The work undertaken by these interpreters in conference settings is described with reference to a number of diversifications, including the demand for ‘International Sign’ provision intended to be accessible to the multinational audiences arising as a result of increasing global mobility. We review the particular experiences and practices of interpreters who may be either deaf or hearing and address the combination of their skills in the delivery of appropriate services. Future challenges highlighted include the need for enhancement of professionalization through codification of norms and standards, and important questions about relationships among professionals and between human and non-human agents in the field
Sex and gender in conference interpreting
No full textThis chapter aims at embedding the scant literature on gender and sex in conference interpreting in a broader perspective of sex and gender studies, in particular, with reference to cognitive skills and socialisation processes. It focuses on potential sex or gender-related factors in interpreters’ output and perceptions, and, given the sensitivity of the subject at hand, advocates research based on a firm conceptual framework and sound methods
On interpreting as collaboration: “There must be a will from the whole society to create access to interpreters” /
No full textInterview with Elisabet Tiselius, Stockholm University
L’interprète de secteur public en Suède
No full textLe rôle de l’interprète du secteur public est compris différemment dans les pays nordiques et par exemple en France. Dans les pays nordiques, la tâche de l’interprète est vue comme bi-partiale c’est à dire que l’interprète se tient à égale distance des parties en présence (Skaaden, 2016). Dans cet article, le rôle, la formation, le marché et la législation concernant l’interprète de secteur public en Suède sont présentés. Nous partons de l’idée lancée par Wadensjö (1998) que tous les locuteurs, l’interprète inclus, co-construisent la signification du message via l’interaction. La législation qui gouverne les services de l’interprétation part du principe de base que les deux parties en présence doivent se comprendre lors de leur rencontre, le fonctionnaire a autant besoin d’un interprète que l’immigré s’ils ne maîtrisent pas la même langue. L’auteure souligne aussi qu’il n’y pas de contradiction entre le recours à un interprète et l’apprentissage de la langue.The role of the interpreter is understood differently in the Nordic countries compared to, for instance, France. In the Nordic countries, the interpreter’s task is seen as bi-partial, that is, the interpreter should keep equal distance to the two parties present in the conversation (Skaaden, 2016). This article discusses the Swedish public service interpreter’s role, education, requirements and legislation. We start from Wadensjö’s (1998) principle that all participants, including the interpreter, co-construct the meaning of the message through interaction. The legislation surrounding interpreting services in Sweden is founded on the principle that the two parties present in the encounter must understand each other, the public servant and the immigrant have equal needs for an interpreter if they do not share the same language. The author also underlines that there is no contradiction between having access to interpreting services and language learning.Tolkens roll uppfattas annorlunda i de nordiska länderna jämfört med exempelvis Frankrike. I de nordiska länderna ses tolkens uppgift som tvåpartisk, tolken ska företräda bägge parterna i mötet (Skaaden, 2016). I denna artikel diskuteras roll, utbildning, krav och lagstiftning som styr tolkar i offentlig sektor i Sverige. Vi utgår från Wadensjös (1998) princip att alla deltagare, även tolken samskapar betydelse genom interaktion. Den rättsliga grunden för tolkservice i Sverige vilar på principen att bägge parter i det tolkade mötet, såväl tjänstemannen som invandraren har jämförbara behov av tolk om de inte talar samma språk. Författaren understryker också att det inte finns någon motsättning mellan tillgång till tolk och språkinlärning.</p
L’interprète de secteur public en Suède
No full textLe rôle de l’interprète du secteur public est compris différemment dans les pays nordiques et par exemple en France. Dans les pays nordiques, la tâche de l’interprète est vue comme bi-partiale c’est à dire que l’interprète se tient à égale distance des parties en présence (Skaaden, 2016). Dans cet article, le rôle, la formation, le marché et la législation concernant l’interprète de secteur public en Suède sont présentés. Nous partons de l’idée lancée par Wadensjö (1998) que tous les locuteurs, l’interprète inclus, co-construisent la signification du message via l’interaction. La législation qui gouverne les services de l’interprétation part du principe de base que les deux parties en présence doivent se comprendre lors de leur rencontre, le fonctionnaire a autant besoin d’un interprète que l’immigré s’ils ne maîtrisent pas la même langue. L’auteure souligne aussi qu’il n’y pas de contradiction entre le recours à un interprète et l’apprentissage de la langue.The role of the interpreter is understood differently in the Nordic countries compared to, for instance, France. In the Nordic countries, the interpreter’s task is seen as bi-partial, that is, the interpreter should keep equal distance to the two parties present in the conversation (Skaaden, 2016). This article discusses the Swedish public service interpreter’s role, education, requirements and legislation. We start from Wadensjö’s (1998) principle that all participants, including the interpreter, co-construct the meaning of the message through interaction. The legislation surrounding interpreting services in Sweden is founded on the principle that the two parties present in the encounter must understand each other, the public servant and the immigrant have equal needs for an interpreter if they do not share the same language. The author also underlines that there is no contradiction between having access to interpreting services and language learning.Tolkens roll uppfattas annorlunda i de nordiska länderna jämfört med exempelvis Frankrike. I de nordiska länderna ses tolkens uppgift som tvåpartisk, tolken ska företräda bägge parterna i mötet (Skaaden, 2016). I denna artikel diskuteras roll, utbildning, krav och lagstiftning som styr tolkar i offentlig sektor i Sverige. Vi utgår från Wadensjös (1998) princip att alla deltagare, även tolken samskapar betydelse genom interaktion. Den rättsliga grunden för tolkservice i Sverige vilar på principen att bägge parter i det tolkade mötet, såväl tjänstemannen som invandraren har jämförbara behov av tolk om de inte talar samma språk. Författaren understryker också att det inte finns någon motsättning mellan tillgång till tolk och språkinlärning
"Can you ask her about chronic illnesses, diabetes and all that?"
No full textConversations about chronic illnesses, diseases running in the patient’s family, as well as specific medical record questions are frequent in medical encounters. In the United States, as in most countries, these conversations frequently occur between culturally and linguistically diverse patients and providers, and many times they are brokered by an interpreter. In this study I present a transcript that captures a typical healthcare-provider-patient conversation about chronic illnesses and medical history and run it through the lens of critical discourse analysis. I examine the power differentials between interlocutors and the role the interpreter plays in mitigating or reinforcing such power. I look at the co-construction of the meaning of “chronic” among the interlocutors, and the way in which the three orchestrate team efforts to de-construct and re-construct the notion of chronic illnesses exploring a life in-between countries and medical traditions. The data is part of a larger ethnographic study (Angelelli 2001 and 2004a) conducted in a public hospital. Interpreters work for Spanish-speaking patients and English-speaking healthcare providers in face-to-face and over-the-speakerphone interpreted communicative events (ICEs)
- …
