March 2006


Baker, Mona.
2006. Contextualization in translator- and interpreter-mediated events. Journal of Pragmatics 38:3. 321-337.
Abstract. The notion of context has been extensively invoked but rarely critiqued and elaborated in the study of translation and interpreting. This paper first explores recent thinking on the notions of context and contextualization in pragmatics and linguistic anthropology and examines the extent to which these notions have explicitly or implicitly informed current thinking on translation and interpreting. It then argues that closer attention to processes of contextualization in both the production and reception of translated texts and interpreted utterances can tell us much more about the goals and ideological positioning of participants than any static listing of contextual variables, however detailed and comprehensive. The discussion is supported by various examples of the way in which translators and interpreters frame their interaction with others.  

 

Cho, Sangeun. 2005. A study on translation competence of professionals and students: Quality analysis of TAP results. (in Korean). Conference Interpretation and Translation 7:2. 173-194.

*A TAP study with professional translators, translation students and language learners translating from Japanese into Korean.

 

House, Juliane. 2006. Text and context in translation. Journal of Pragmatics 38:3. 338-358.

Abstract. While research on texts as units larger than sentences has a rich tradition in translation studies, the notion of context, its relation to text, and the role it plays in translation has received much less attention. In this paper, I make an attempt at rethinking the relationship between context and text for translation. I first review several conceptions of context and the relationship between text and context in a number of different disciplines. Secondly, I present a theory of translation which is to be understood as a theory of re-contextualization that explicates the relationship between context and text in its design and categorial scheme. Finally, I sketch a recent development in translation and multilingual text production, which may limit the scope of re-contextualization in translation.

 

Kim, Haeyoung. 2005. In the shoes of the translator, proofreader, and reader: refining translation skills through text analysis (in Korean). Conference Interpretation and Translation 7:2. 121-137.

* Suggestions for text analysis in a didactic setting for undergraduate students on the basis of Hallidayan field, mode and tenor concepts with an example taken from translation work of an economics text.

 

Marins, Katrijn. 2006. The Asylum Speaker. Language in the Belgian Asylum Procedure. Manchester: StJerome.

* Drawing on first-hand ethnographic data, field interviews with interpreters, interviewers and decision-makers, observations and off-record comments, The Asylum Speaker examines discursive processes in the asylum procedure and the impact these processes may have on the determination of refugee status. The book starts from the assumption that far-reaching legal decisions often have to be made on very limited grounds. Unable to submit any evidence to substantiate their case, the only chance that many asylum seekers have is to argue their case during the oral hearings with public officials at the different asylum agencies. Maryns investigates the performance of the asylum seeker during these interviews and analyzes the relationship between narrative structuring and gradations of linguistic competence. She explores a number of related questions: first, how the interaction between applicants and public officials proceeds; second, how this interaction forms the discursive input into long and complicated textual trajectories, and third, how the outcome of these discursive processes affects the assessment of asylum applications.

Maryns demonstrates how propositional aspects play a crucial role in the asylum procedure whereas little attention is paid to narrative-linguistic diversity and multilingual speaker repertoires. Her analysis reveals how insufficient insight into the linguistic structure and narrative features of the asylum account often results in a deficient processing of important details.

Mason, Ian. 2006. On mutual accessibility of contextual assumptions in dialogue interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics 38:3. 359-373.
Abstract. The fundamental determinacy of linguistically encoded meaning has remained as a tacit assumption underlying much work in the study of interlingual interpreting and interpreter behaviour. When confronted with the real-time, on-line nature of interpreter-mediated crosscultural encounters, however, such a view rapidly becomes untenable and an alternative model of the retrieval and representation of meanings becomes necessary. Adopting a relevance theoretic account of interpreter-mediated communication but also drawing on some insights from conversation analysis, this article examines evidence of participant moves – and particularly interpreter moves – to show inferencing at work and the evolving, intra-interactional nature of context. Indeed, a central contention is that interpreters’ performance can provide explicit evidence of take-up, of the sense they make of others’ talk and how they respond to it, in a process of joint negotiation of contextual assumptions. However, whereas mutual accessibility of such assumptions would seem to be a precondition for establishing relevance, the evidence presented here suggests that divergent contexts may emerge among participants, even though the ‘speech-exchange system’ (Schegloff, 1999) of interpreter mediation appears to proceed in an unproblematic way.

 

Pérez González, Luis. 2006. Interpreting strategic recontextualization cues in the courtroom: Corpus-based insights into the pragmatic force of non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Pragmatics 38:3. 390-417.

Abstract. In recent decades, studies of the pragmatics of institutional interaction have enhanced our awareness of the ongoingly negotiated nature of context. In this paper, key concepts of the contextualization paradigm, adopted from socio-pragmatics, are outlined and subsequently discussed in the context of courtroom interpreting. Of particular interest here is the fact that interpreters are ethically constrained not to alter the pragmatics of the ongoing interaction, which ultimately presupposes their capacity to identify the contextualization cues with which different participants realign themselves as required. The paper focuses on the notion of ‘strategic’ or ‘covert recontextualization cues’, as illustrated by lawyers’ use of non-restrictive relative clauses. Data from two different corpora provide some evidence of the use of these structures as pragmatically consequential devices, thus challenging the commonly held assumption that non-restrictive relative clauses are only used to ‘add information’. I argue that the evaluative role of such covert cues enables lawyers to step out of the interrogator/interrogated frame in order to secure certain alignments on the part of the defendant or witness; the success or failure of this strategy depends on the interpreter recognizing the pragmatic force of these cues and rendering it accurately into the target language.