RECENT PUBLICATIONS

June 2007

 

Translation Watch Quarterly 2 :2 (June 2006)

 

Darwish, Ali. Standards of Simultaneous Interpreting in Live Satellite Broadcasts. 55-88.

* See the review in the CIRIN Bulletin n°34, June 2007.

 

Kaur, Kulwindr a/p Gudrial Singh. Scientific and Technical Translation Problems and Ways to Overcome Them (English to Malay). 28-43.

* A study of translation in Malaysia. The paper starts with citations and information elements suggesting that scientific and technical translation in Malaysia is unsatisfactory, both in terms of actual translation performance and in terms of working conditions and social recognition. An empirical study with 52 part-time translators (questionnaires, interviews and TAP, the latter with 5 translators) is then reported (with hardly any details on the TAP part). The problems reported by these translators (terminology, scientific LSP, use of cohesive devices, acronyms, symbols and formulas, tenses (!), passive form (!), spelling (!) etc. suggest that they may lack basic technical translation expertise. (Summary and comments by DG)

 

Ko, Leong. A Critical Analysis of the NAATI Interpreter Test in Australia. 9-27.

* Interesting information about the accreditation system of the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters in Australia as regards interpreting.

 

Raddawi, Rana. A Web-Based Bilingual Communication Process to Facilitate Patient-Healthcare Provider Dialog in UAE and US Hospitals. 44-53.

* At this stage, this web-based (?) process consists essentially of a set of 300 medical statements in Arabic and English with switching between the languages and playback possibilities using the computer.

 

*     *     *

 

Linguistica Antverpiensia 5(2006). Special Issue: Taking Stock: Research and Methodology in Community Interpreting. Edited by Erik Hertog & Bart van der Veer.

* A particularly rich special issue of the journal, which shows considerable development in research into community interpreting over the past few years.

 

 

Rudvin, Mette. University of Bologna. The cultural turn in Community Interpreting. A brief analysis of epistemological developments in Community Interpreting literatures in the light of paradigm changes in the humanities. 11-41.

*dg: Rudvin seems to consider community interpreting to be mainstream IS, while conference interpreting is marginal. This may well come true in the future, and one could argue that in view of the social importance of community interpreting, this would be a good thing. Rudvin also tends to adopt the view, based on cultural anthropology, that the “confident stand of the 19th century scientist-observer’s rational analysis” (p.36) is not appropriate for interpreting. There is certainly a lot to be said for a humble attitude in research, and interference from the researcher’s biases should certainly be taken on board. And yet, the scientist’s observer’s rational analysis still offers much, including tools likely to limit some of these biases.

 

Vermeiren, Hildegard. 2006. L’interprétation sociale, une interdiscipline face à ses theories. 43-55.

* The author tries to show how sociology, communications, linguistics have interacted. She claims that they have ‘evolved towards interpreting’. IS, she claims, is a sub-discipline of TS, which is a sub-discipline of communications. She also claims that Kirchoff’s 1976 communication model of interpreting has been widely accepted by the international interpreting community (p.48). Perhaps she would be interested in looking more closely at IS literature?

 

Inghilleri, Moira. 2006. Macro social theory, linguistic ethnography and interpreting research. 57-68.

* This paper by a genuine sociologist offers a sociological analysis of the (community) interpreting context, mostly on the basis of Bourdieu’s theories and on Toury’s ideas about norms in translation. An interesting idea in this paper is that “what happens at the surface level of interactions is more often than not a micro drama through which a larger social and political reality is acted out in refracted form”.

 

Mizuno, Makiko. 2006. The history of Community Interpreting studies in Japan. 69-80.

* An interesting account of the development of community interpreting studies in Japan, initiated (recently, in the 1990s) not by interpreters, but by the local authorities and civil society, including doctors, nurses and social workers for health interpreting, researchers working for a telephone company, judges and lawyers. There is intense collaborative activity, including training activities for medical interpreting and legal interpreting.

 

Valero Garcés, Carmen. 2006. Community Interpreting and linguistics: A fruitful alliance? 83-101.

* From the viewpoint of Applied Linguistics: based on the series Critical Link and on the 2005 IATIS yearbook.

 

Mason, Ian. 2006. Ostension, inference and response: analysing participant moves in Community Interpreting Dialogues. 103-120.

* A plea for empirical research into community interpreting and for the mobilization of contemporary linguistic tools in such investigation, mostly around pragmatics.

 

Hertog, Erik, Jan Van Gucht & Leen de Bontridder. Musings on methodology. 121-132.

* The authors defend empirical research. They offer a classification and illustration of several types and examples of empirical research methodologies. Interesting, with food for thought, but some debatable statements such as one qualifying exploratory research methods as typically unstructured (in order to be in line with scientific norms, exploratory research needs to be well structured) and another one assessing corroborative research (for instance in hypothesis testing) as the most scientifically straightforward and rigorous type of research design (in my view, they are often scientifically less straightforward than exploratory research methods, and they are just as rigorous as their design and implementation by the relevant researchers, meaning that very often, they are not rigorous at all).

 

Pöchhacker, Franz. 2006. Research and methodology in healthcare interpreting. 135-159.

* An interesting review of actual methods and findings in research on healthcare interpreting.

 

Bot, Hanneke. 2006. Community Interpreting in mental health: research issues. 161-176.

* Another interesting look at the specific features of community interpreting in mental healthcare provision, which shows that interpreters play an active role which may change significantly treatment parameters, hence the need for training, both for interpreters and for therapist who work through interpreters.

 

Bischoff, Alexander. 2006. Measuring quality and patient satisfaction in healthcare communication with foreign-language speakers. 176-187.

* This paper includes information on the actual influence of interpreting on the outcome of medical treatment in Switzerland. Research referred to here can be helpful in convincing public authorities to devote some resources to interpreter training and quality issues.

 

Abraham, Diana & Marco Fiola. 2006. Making the case for Community Interpreting in health care: from needs assessment to risk management. 189-202.

* A survey-based study in Canada on the attitudes of members of the community of the primary healthcare sector towards medical interpreting. Results show that there are still barriers to optimum use of interpreters for a variety of reasons, but that public authorities seem to look at risk assessment as a factor in developing healthcare policies for populations who do not speak enough English.

 

Hale, Sandra. 2006. Themes and methodological issues in Court Interpreting research. 205-228.

* A critical overview of research into legal interpreting.

 

Pöllabauer, Sonja. 2006. “During the interview, the interpreter will provide a faithful translation”. The potentials and pitfalls of research interpreting in immigration, asylum, and police settings: methodology and research paradigms. 229-244.

* A bibliometrical survey of literature on interpreting for Immigration, Asylum, Police hearings

 

Grbić, Nadja & Sonja Pöllabauer. 2006. Community Interpreting: signed or spoken? Types, modes and methods. 247-261.

* The authors start with a description of various taxonomies developed in the literature for the spectrum of interpreting activities. They offer a few observations on the comparative history of community interpreting vs. sign-language interpreting. They point out in particular that empirical research into SL interpreting started earlier than empirical research, and that 7 doctoral dissertations on the subject were defended in the 1970s, mostly exploring the impact of the interpreter’s output in educational settings. They believe that the Critical Link conference series provided a vital impulse for more contact between the two branches. They quote Ozolins & Bridge who say that SL interpreting plays a significant role in the standardization of SLs, as interpreters themselves have a major influence on the use of SL, for instance in classroom interpreting where deaf students emulate the interpreters’ use of SL. This is an interesting difference between SL interpreting and spoken language interpreting. Their paper ends with a typological discussion of research methods.

 

Metzger, Melanie. 2006. Salient studies of Signed Language Interpreting in the Context of Community Interpreting Scholarship. 263-291.

* A particularly informative paper specifically devoted to empirical research into SL interpreting since 1970 on a corpus of 97 studies which were read and analyzed by the author.

10 studies from the 1970s are covered, all from the USA. In all of them, interpreter effectiveness and/or characteristics are addressed. Cognitive issues were also addressed, and it was found that SL interpreters work best in stretches of 20 to 30 minutes. All of them were quantitative and 80% were experimental. Seleskovitch’s Interpretive theory was not represented in this work because it was thought to be particularly designed for conference interpreting and because of its ‘reflective nature’, but the author says the SL interpreters have drawn greatly from this paradigm. Numerous cognitive models, inspired by Gerver’s and Gile’s models, were developed by SL interpreting theorists.

            The author goes on to analyze empirical research into SL interpreting decade by decade and into the years 2000 and 2005, showing that there has been increasing diversification of the paradigms and methods used, with more qualitative and survey-based studies, a larger number of countries involved and a larger number of topics addressed. There is also a clear convergence of relevant research from SL interpreting and spoken-language community interpreting where issues are similar. Of particular interest is a reference to a 1989 case study by Roy in which she shows that the interpreter’s active role in turn-taking management (rather than that of a neutral conduit) can be necessary for the success of communication (also see regarding this topic several contributions in Janzen, Terry (ed). 2005. Topics in Signed Language Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins).

            At the end of the paper, which was influenced by Pöchhacker’s analysis of interpreting paradigms, Metzger says that the distinction between spoken language interpreters, generally associated with conference interpreting, and SL interpreters, who work more often in community settings, is no longer true because “today spoken language interpreters frequently work in a variety of community settings, and conversely, SL interpreters often work at conferences.” (p.287). With respect to spoken language interpreters, to my knowledge this is (still?) not true: there is an increasing number of spoken language community interpreters, but very few conference interpreters work in community settings. (D. Gile)

 

Van Herreweghe, Mieke & Myriam Vermeerbergen. Deaf signers in Flanders and 25 years of Community Interpreting. 293-308.

* Another informative paper on the evolution of SL and on the gradual evolution of its status, education and interpreting in Flanders. Not much about research, except for research into SL, which shows the relevance of such research on practical issues such as communication between deaf signer and interpreting.

 

Connell, Tim. The application of new technologies to remote interpreting. 311-324.

* Fairly general, with an emphasis on professional issues.

 

Ko, Leong. The need for long-term empirical studies in remote interpreting research: a case study of telephone interpreting. 325-338.

* An experimental study with 6 interpreters conducting simulated interpreting over the phone in eight sessions over a total of 24 hours, plus a discussion of the author’s personal experience with telephone interpreting. There was triangulation of the author’s observations, the participants’ diaries, questionnaires and interviews at the end of the study. Two observations by the author deserve particular attention.

     Firstly, he finds that while in the beginnings, interpreters find it difficult to interpret for stretches of over 15 minutes, after some practice (18 hours in this case), all but one of the interpreters found they could interpret comfortably over the phone for 45 to 60 minutes. In other words, the initial reaction to the use of a new technology in interpreting may not be the same as the one which would follow a period of adaptation.

     Secondly, regarding the fact that audio-phone provides no visual input: the author considers that even though it is a drawback because of the lack of visual information, it is an advantage in terms of ‘freedom’ and lack of stress associated with face to face contact. This comment echoes the feelings of conference interpreters working in consecutive (and exposed) vs. simultaneous (in the booth).

 

Corsellis, Ann. Making sense of reality. 341-350.

* The author calls for more research and more interaction between the relevant players, and in particular between practitioners of public service interpreting and academics.

 

*     *     *

 

Research from Graz

 

I have been aware for some time of research done bei Nadja Grbc and Sonja Pöllabauer. A recent visit to Graz combined with Heike-Lamberger’s initiative to provide us with this information make it possible to offer the following list, which should be of particular interest to colleagues interested in community interpreting and in sign-language interpreting.

 

Selected Publications

Sonja Pöllabauer

2000

„Nema problema, alles paletti ...? Community Interpreting aus der Sicht von NGOs – einige Überlegungen zum Thema Community Interpreting“, in: TEXTconTEXT 14=NF4, 181–210.

2002

„Community Interpreting als Arbeitsfeld – Vom Missionarsgeist und von moralischen Dilemmata“, in: Best, Joanna/Kalina, Sylvia (Hrsg.) Übersetzen und Dolmetschen. Eine Orientierungshilfe. Tübingen: Francke, 283–295.

2003

Translatorisches Handeln bei Asylanhörungen. Eine diskursanalytische Untersuchung. Graz: Unveröffentliche Dissertation.

2003

Brücken bauen statt Barrieren. Sprach- und Kulturmittlung im sozialen, medizinischen und therapeutischen Bereich. Herausgegeben von Pöllabauer Sonja und Prunč Erich. Graz: Institut für Translationswissenschaft (GTS – Graz Translation Studies 7).

2004

(Gemeinsam mit Sebastian Schumacher) „Kommunikationsprobleme und Neuerungsverbot“, in: Migralex 01 (Jg. 2), 20–28.

2004

„Interpreting in asylum hearings. Issues of role, responsibility and power“, in: Interpreting 6/2, 143–180.

2005

„’Ich hatte Angst dem Dolmetscher zu widersprechen.’ Eine Inhaltsanalyse von Berufungsentscheidungen der zweiten Instanz im Asylverfahren“, in: Pokorn-Kocijančič, Nike/Prunč, Erich/Riccardi, Alessandra (Hrsg.) Beyond Equivalence. Jenseits der Äquivalenz. Oltre l’ equivalenza. Onkraj ekvivalence. Graz: Institut für Translationswissenschaft (GTS – Graz Translation Studies 9), 209-232.

2005

 “I don’t understand your English, Miss“. Dolmetschen bei Asylanhörungen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr (Reihe Translationswissenschaft 2).

2006

(gemeinsam mit Nadja Grbić) (Hrsg.) „Ich habe mich ganz peinlich gefühlt.“ Forschung zum Kommunaldolmetschen in Österreich: Problemstellungen, Perspektiven und Potenziale. Graz: Institut für Theoretische und Angewandte Translationswissenschaft (GTS – Graz Translation Studies 10)

2006

(gemeinsam mit Nadja Grbić) „Forschung zum Community Interpreting im deutschsprachigen Raum: Entwicklung, Themen, Trends“, in: Grbić, Nadja/Pöllabauer, Sonja (Hrsg.) „Ich habe mich ganz peinlich gefühlt.“ Forschung zum Kommunaldolmetschen in Österreich: Problemstellungen, Perspektiven und Potenziale. Graz: Institut für Theoretische und Angewandte Translationswissenschaft (GTS – Graz Translation Studies 10), 11-36.

2006

„’Translation culture’ in interpreted asylum hearings”, in: Pym, Anthony/Shlesinger, Miriam/Jettmarová, Zuzana (eds.) Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 151-162.

2006

(gemeinsam mit Nadja Grbić) „Community Interpreting: Signed or spoken? Types, modes, and methods“, in: Linguistica Antverpiensia NS5/2006, 248-261.

2006

„’During the interview, the interpreter will provide a faithful translation.’ The potentials and pitfalls of researching interpreting in immigration, asylum, and police settings: methodology and research paradigms“, in: Linguistica Antverpiensia NS5/2006, 229-244.

[in press]

„Interpreting in Asylum Hearings – Issues of Saving Face: ‚I don’t know what you talk. I don’t understand your English, Miss.’“, in: Wadensjö, Cecilia/Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta/Nilsson, Anna-Lena (eds.) Selected Papers from the Critical Link 4 Conference. 4th International Conference on Interpreting in the Community. Professionalisation of Interpreting in the Community. May 20-23, 2004, Stockholm, Sweden. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 

Selected Publications

Nadja Grbic

2001

„"Nein, nein, hier hab´ ich offenbar Recht!" Zur Übersetzungstätigkeit der Therese Albertine Luise von Jakob.“ In: Hebenstreit, Gernot (Hg.) Grenzen erfahren - sichtbar machen - überschreiten. Festschrift für Erich Prunc zum 60. Geburtstag. Frankfurt am Main [u.a.]: Peter Lang, 141-164.

2001

„Freiheit & Gefangenschaft im Exil. Kroatische Autorinnen im deutschsprachigen Raum.“. In: Messner, Sabine/Wolf, Michaela (Hg.) Übersetzen aus aller Frauen Länder. Graz: Styria, 143-151.

2001

„First Steps on Firmer Ground. A Project for the Further Training of Sign Language Interpreters in Austria“. In: Mason, Ian (ed.) Triadic Exchanges. Studies in Dialogue Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome, 149-171.

2002

(Hg. mit Michaela Wolf) Grenzgängerinnen. Zur Geschlechterdifferenz in der Übersetzung. Graz: ITAT (GTS 4)

2002

„Kein Fall für Notfälle. Gebärdensprachdolmetschen.“ In: Kurz, Ingrid/Moisl, Angela (Hg.) Berufsbilder für Übersetzer und Dolmetscher. Perspektiven nach dem Studium. 2., erw. und überarb. Aufl. Wien: WUV, 181-189.

2004

„Krieg als Kapital? Übersetzungen aus dem Bosnischen, Kroatischen und Serbischen ins Deutsche.“ In: IASL 29/2 (Themenheft: Soziologie der literarischen Übersetzung, hg. von Norbert Bachleitner und Michaela Wolf), 153-189.

2004

„Zur Qualität der Fachkommunikation Gehörloser im IT-Bereich.“ In: Göpferich, Susanne/Engberg, Jan (Hg.) Qualität fachsprachlicher Kommunikation. Tübingen: Narr, 199-217.

2004

„Von der individuellen Dolmetschleistung zur gemeinschaftlichen Qualitätssicherung. Ein kooperatives Modell.“ In: Das Zeichen 18/68, 429-435.

2004

(gem. mit Sherry Shaw und Kathryn Franklin) “Applying Language Skills to Interpretation: Student Perspectives from Signed and Spoken Language Programs.” In: Interpreting 6/1, 69-100.

2004

(gem. mit Barbara Andree und Sylvia Grünbichler) Zeichen setzen. Gebärdensprache als wissenschaftliche und gesellschaftspolitische Herausforderung. Graz: ITAT (Graz Translation Studies 8)

2006

(gem. mit Sonja Pöllabauer) “Community Interpreting: signed or spoken? Types, modes and methods.” In: Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series 5, 247-261.

2006

“From 10-minute wedding ceremonies to three-week spa treatment programmes: Reconstructing the system of sign language interpreting in Styria.” In: Pym, Anthony/Shlesinger, Miriam/Jettmarova, Zuzana (Hg.) Translation and Interpreting: Socio-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 205-218.

2006

(gem. mit Sonja Pöllabauer) „Forschung zum Community Interpreting im deutschsprachigen Raum: Entwicklung, Themen und Trends.“ In: Grbic, Nadja/Pöllabauer, Sonja (Hg.) „Ich habe mich ganz peinlich gefühlt.“ Forschung zum Kommunaldolmetschen in Österreich: Problemstellungen, Perspektiven und Potenziale. Graz: ITAT (GTS – Graz Translation Studies 10), 11-36.

2006

„Professionelles Gebärdensprachdolmetschen - Chance für eine verbesserte Bildung Gehörloser?“ In: Prettenthaler-Ziegerhofer, Anita (Hg.) Menschen mit Behinderung. Leben wie andere auch? Graz: Leykam, 106-112.

2006

„Selbst blaue Augen haben ihren Preis. Eine Dolmetscherin zwischen den Kulturen. Suki Kims The Interpreter“, in: Kurz, Ingrid/Kaindl, Klaus (Hg.) Wortklauber, Sinnverdreher, Brückenbauer? DolmetscherInnen und ÜbersetzerInnen als literarische Geschöpfe. Wien: LIT (Im Spiegel der Literatur 1), 49-58.

2006

(Hg. mit Sonja Pöllabauer) „Ich habe mich ganz peinlich gefühlt.“ Forschung zum Kommunaldolmetschen in Österreich: Problemstellungen, Perspektiven und Potenziale. Graz: ITAT (Graz Translation Studies 10)

2007

“Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? A Bibliometrical Analysis of Writings and Research on Sign Language Interpreting.” In: The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 1/1, 15-51.