Brunette, L., Bastin, G., Hemlin, I., and H. Clarke (eds.). (2003): The Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.

Every three years from 1995, an international conference on interpreting in legal, health and social service settings has been held in Canada to explore the world of “Interpreters in the Community.” The first of these conferences was held in Geneva Park in 1995, the second was held in 1998 in Vancouver, and the latest conference was held in 2001 in Montreal. “The Critical Link” series provides insight into each of the conferences through a select number of papers representative of the full range of presentations made at the conferences. Part I “From Theory to Practice” could – in my personal view – just as well be entitled the “Interpreter’s Invisibility.” The oft-discussed issue of invisibility is revisited by the three papers in this section, where the authors raise questions regarding the conventional demands for the interpreter to be neutral and invisible, and thus call for interpreters and interpreters’ roles to be examined within a wider spectrum. In the first paper, Claudia Angelelli asks whether the interpreter is truly invisible or whether s/he is an essential partner in the ongoing interaction. Angelelli claims that the notion of an invisible interpreter is merely an illusion, and describes interpreters as being opaque, not transparent. To test this theory, 293 interpreters working in various fields in Canada, the United States and Mexico were surveyed on the visibility of the interpreter. According to the survey, how interpreters define their roles is to some degree influenced by the social and cultural environment and the field of service (e.g. the degree of visibility felt was higher for interpreters working in the medical field than for those working in courts). However, most interpreters described themselves as being an active participant in the communication process – not an “invisible” being. Thus, the “myth of the invisible interpreter” is definitely being challenged. The second paper by Hanneke Bot discusses neutrality within the context of invisibility. By introducing readers to detailed examples of “interpreter-mediated psychotherapeutic dialogue” in which the interpreter acts as a mediator between therapists and patients during psychotherapy sessions, Bot points out that it is quite impossible for the interpreter to remain objective and neutral. In real life, interpreters need to be able to transgress – not violate – boundaries in order to enhance the effectiveness of treatment. Once again, “neutrality” in the face of real-life situations may only be a myth. Lynne Eighinger and Ben Karlin examine sign language interpretation in the United States, and present a new definition of successful communication. By describing situations in which sign language interpretation is used, Eighinger and Karlin explain that feminist values discussed in the field of psychology are extremely meaningful when determining “success” in interpretation. Part II focuses on “The Interpreter and Others: Compromise and Collaboration.” This section explores the many aspects of collaboration that occur between the interpreter and other communication participants, and looks for ways to increase the efficiency of the collaboration. By providing a description of a unique study on sign language interpretation that was carried out in Quebec, Danielle-Claude Bélanger shows that the existing linear communication model that incorporates only the speaker and the receiver fails to sufficiently explain the complex communication situation in which an interpreter participates. Bélanger then goes on to present a more comprehensive communication model for interpretation situations. The next paper by Bernd Meyer, Birgit Apfelbaum, Franz Pöchhacker and Alexandre Bischoff illuminates the interdisciplinary nature of interpreting studies. The four authors come from three different countries (Switzerland, Germany and Austria) and have different fields of expertise. Together, they have applied tools of analysis from functional pragmatics, conversation analysis, interpreting studies …