While the professional training of (conference) interpreters has long focused on the latters’ capacity to manage their cognitive efforts in translating speech from one language to another somehow independently on the context in which interpreting takes place (Gile 1995), the variety of communicative situations in which interpreters are increasingly involved as a consequence of the expansion of contacts across different regions of the world, has raised the issue of whether cognitive ability to find textual equivalents quickly was actually enough to: a. explain and b. inform interpreted rendition choices convincingly enough. While on the one hand the “conduit” model (Roy 1993) is still alive and thriving in most interpreter training programs, on the other field-work in doctor-patient talk (Englund-Dimitrova 1997), asylum hearings (Keselman et al. 2010) or from and into sign language (Metzger 1999, Turner 2009) has shown cases in point about what it means to provide effective interpreting in situations of high inequality. Rethinking interpreters’ role in a communicative perspective has thus become a central issue in interpreting literature (Pöchhacker and Shlesinger 2002: part 7). In dialogue interpreting, in particular, analysis of interpreter-mediated occurrences of interaction has shown that some activities which are fundamental characteristics of talk, like repair, could not be dealt with, with no involvement of interpreters as “participants” (Wadensjö 1998). An interpreters’ “more active” role has thus been acknowledged as fundamental to achieve reciprocal understanding (Davidson 2002), solve underdeterminacy of interlocutors’ assumptions (Mason 2006) and ultimately address the goals of the interaction effectively (Davitti 2013, Straniero Sergio 2012). Today, while the debate on interpreters’ role is still burning and the need of clear orientations in interpreting conduct most wanted (Hale 2007, Tebble 2012, Angelelli 2007), there seems to be a consensus that since no rendition can be provided without understanding the communication process and interpreting it, interpreters ‘cannot not participate’ in talk (Pöchhacker 2012: 50). The concept of interpreters’ role can thus possibly be viewed along two main axes. The first is that of interpreters as participants. In this respect, one dimension of interpreters’ role consists in identifying forms of participation in communicative events ranging from coordinating implicitly and explicitly (Wadensjö 1998), to negotiating authority and responsibility (Gavioli 2015). The second is that of interpreters as transformative agents, going from explications of implicit (cultural?) assumptions (Mason 2006) to advocacy (Leanza 2005), to more overt forms of activism (Inghilleri 2005, 2010; Boéri 2008) or empowerment (Baraldi 2012). My contribution provides an overview of the development of the notion of interpreter’s role and of the changes brought to it from theoretical perspectives that look at participation and agency as fundamental to communication processes.
Role / Gavioli, L.. - (2019), pp. 499-504.
|Data di pubblicazione:||2019|
|Titolo del libro:||Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies|
|A cura di:||Baker, M. and Saldanha, G.|
|Nazione editore:||REGNO UNITO DI GRAN BRETAGNA|
|Citazione:||Role / Gavioli, L.. - (2019), pp. 499-504.|
|Tipologia||Voce in Dizionario o Enciclopedia|
I documenti presenti in Iris Unimore sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia, salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris