Abstracts
Abstract
The integration of the concept of “social norm” into research on conference interpreting dates back to the late 1980s (Shlesinger 1989). This paper will show that conference interpreting is governed by role-related normative expectations which ultimately can all be traced back to the metaphoric concept of interpreters as conduits. This metaphoric concept that can be found in so many of the extratextual (re)sources on conference interpreting (Toury 1995) is extremely binding for conference interpreters and can therefore be regarded as an omnipotent norm – a supernorm that governs it all. Not only professional bodies such as the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC), probably the most influential and powerful norm-setting authority in the field, but also individual authoritative personalities play a key role in promoting this supernorm. It is only in recent years that this supernorm, which demands that interpreters passively channel a message from one side or party to the other and thus tries to prevent an interpreter’s agency, has been challenged by empirical research (Angelelli 2004; Diriker 2004; Zwischenberger 2013). The discussion on norms in simultaneous conference interpreting will be enhanced by some selected findings of a web-based survey which was conducted among AIIC members. The survey’s main objective was to find out whether and to what degree professional conference interpreters adhere to the supernorm so strongly advocated by their professional body.
Keywords:
- conference interpreting,
- AIIC,
- social norm,
- supernorm,
- web-based survey
Résumé
L’intégration du concept de « norme sociale » dans la recherche sur l’interprétation de conférence date de la fin des années 1980 (Shlesinger 1989). Cet article montrera que l’interprétation de conférence est régie par des attentes normatives de stéréotypes qui remontent, en fait, au concept métaphorique de l’interprète comme simple « conduit ». Ce concept métaphorique, si fréquent dans les (res)sources extratextuelles en matière d’interprétation de conférence (Toury 1995), est un impératif pour les interprètes de conférence et peut donc être considéré comme une norme omnipotente – comme une supernorme qui gouverne tout. Les associations professionnelles telles que l’Association internationale des interprètes de conférence (AIIC), probablement l’autorité exerçant l’influence la plus grande sur les normes dans ce domaine, mais aussi des personnalités jouissant d’une certaine autorité, jouent un rôle clé dans la promotion de cette supernorme. Or, ces dernières années, cette supernorme qui demande aux interprètes de transmettre « passivement » un message et qui tente d’empêcher l’interprète de s’impliquer activement est contestée par la recherche empirique (Angelelli 2004 ; Diriker 2004 ; Zwischenberger 2013). La discussion sur les normes dans le domaine de l’interprétation de conférence simultanée sera enrichie par quelques résultats sélectionnés d’un sondage en ligne, réalisé parmi des membres de l’AIIC. L’objectif principal de ce sondage a été de découvrir si et dans quelle mesure les interprètes de conférence professionnels s’en tiennent à cette supernorme si ardemment défendue par leur association professionnelle.
Mots-clés :
- interprétation de conférence,
- AIIC,
- norme sociale,
- supernorme,
- sondage en ligne
Appendices
Bibliography
- Andronikof, Constantin (1968): Introduction. In: Danica Seleskovitch. L’interprète dans les conférences internationales, problèmes de langage et de communication. Paris: Lettres modernes Minard: 3-20.
- Angelelli, Claudia V. (2004): Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A study of conference, court, and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico and the United States. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Bendazzoli, Claudio and Sandrelli, Annalisa (2005): An Approach to Corpus-based interpreting studies: Developing EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus). Visited on 11 February 2014, http://www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2005_Proceedings/2005_Bendazzoli_Sandrelli.pdf.
- Bühler, Hildegund (1986): Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua. 5(4):231-235.
- Chesterman, Andrew (1993): From “Is” to “Ought”: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies. Target (1):1-20.
- Chesterman, Andrew (1999): Description, Explanation, Prediction: A Response to Gideon Toury and Theo Hermans. In: Christina Schäffner, ed. Translation and Norms. Clevedon/Philadelphia/Toronto/Sydney/Johannesburg: Multilingual Matters, 90-97.
- Déjean Le Féal, Carla (1990): Some thoughts on the evaluation of simultaneous interpretation. In: David Bowen and Margareta Bowen, eds. Interpreting – Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Binghampton (NY): Suny, 154-160.
- Diriker, Ebru (1999): Problematizing the discourse on interpreting – A quest for norms in simultaneous interpreting. TextconText. 13(3):73-90.
- Diriker, Ebru (2003): Simultaneous Conference Interpreting in the Turkish printed and electronic media. The Interpreters’ Newsletter. 12:231-243.
- Diriker, Ebru (2004): De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Diriker, Ebru (2011): Agency in Conference Interpreting: Still a Myth? Gramma. 19:27-36.
- Duflou, Veerle (2007): Norm research in conference interpreting: Some methodological aspects. In: Peter A. Schmitt and Heike E. Jüngst, eds. Translationsqualität. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag, 91-99.
- Eichner, Klaus (1981): Die Entstehung sozialer Normen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
- Gile, Daniel (1990): Scientific theories vs. Personal theories in the investigation of interpretation. In: Laura Gran and Christopher Taylor, eds. Aspects of Applied and Experimental Research on Conference Interpretation. Udine: Campanotto Editore, 28-41.
- Gile, Daniel (1999): Norms in Research on Conference Interpreting: A Response to Theo Hermans and Gideon Toury. In: Christina Schäffner, ed. Translation and Norms. Clevedon/Philadelphia/Toronto/Sydney/Johannesburg: Multilingual Matters, 98-105.
- Harris, Brian (1990): Norms in Interpretation. Target. 2(1):115-119.
- Hermans, Theo (1997): Translation as institution. In: Mary Snell-Hornb, Zuzana JettmaRová and Klaus Kaindl, eds. Translation as Intercultural Communication. Selected Papers from the EST Congress – Prague 1995. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3-20.
- Marzocchi, Carlo (2005): On Norms and Ethics in the Discourse on Interpreting. The Interpreters’ Newsletter. 13:87-107.
- Moser-Mercer, Barbara, Künzli, Alexander and Korac, Marina (1998): Prolonged turns in interpreting. Interpreting. 3(1):47-64.
- Neff, Jacquy (2008): A statistical portrait of AIIC:2005-06. Visited on 11 February 2014, http://aiic.net/page/2887.
- Pöchhacker, Franz (1994): Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.
- Pöchhacker, Franz and Zwischenberger, Cornelia (2010): Survey on Quality and Role: conference interpreters expectations and self-perceptions. Visited on 14 February 2014, http://aiic.net/page/3405/survey-on-quality-and-role-conference-interpreters-expectations-and-self-perceptions/lang/1.
- Popitz, Heinrich (2006): Soziale Normen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
- Reddy, Michael J. (1993): The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In: Andrew Ortony, ed. Metaphor andThought. 2nd ed. Cambridge: University Press, 164-201.
- Roy, Cynthia B. (1993): The Problem with Definitions, Descriptions, and the Role Metaphors of Interpreters. Journal of Interpretation. 6(1):127-154.
- Schjoldager, Anne (1995/2002): An exploratory study of translational norms in simultaneous interpreting. Methodological reflections. In: Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, eds. The Interpreting Studies Reader. London/New York: Routledge, 301-311.
- Seleskovitch, Danica (1968): L’interprète dans les conférences internationales, problèmes de langage et de communication. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes.
- Seleskovitch, Danica and Lederer, Marianne (1989): Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Collection Traductologie 4. Luxemburg/Paris: OPOCE and Didier Érudition.
- Shannon, Claude E. and Weaver, Warren (1963): The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
- Shlesinger, Miriam (1989): Extending the Theory of Translation to Interpretation: Norms as a Case in point. Target. 1(1):111-115.
- Shlesinger, Miriam (1999): Norms, Strategies and Constraints. How do we tell them apart? In: Alberto Álvarez Lugrís and Anxo Fernández Ocampo, eds. Anovar/Anosar estudios de traducción e interpretación. Vigo: Servicio de Publicacións da Universidade de Vigo, 65-77.
- Toury, Gideon (1980): In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute of Poetics and Semiotics.
- Toury, Gideon (1995): Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Toury, Gideon (1999): A Handful of Paragraphs on “Translation” and “Norms.” In: Christina Schäffner, ed. Translation and Norms. Clevedon/Philadelphia/Toronto/Sydney/Johannesburg: Multilingual Matters, 9-31.
- Zwischenberger, Cornelia (2010): Quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: an international vs. a national view. The Interpreters’ Newsletter. 15:127-142.
- Zwischenberger, Cornelia (2011): Conference interpreters and their self-representation: A worldwide web-based survey. In: Rakefet Sela-Sheffy and Miriam Shlesinger, eds. Identity and Status in the Translational Professions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 119-134.
- Zwischenberger, Cornelia (2013): Qualität und Rollenbilder beim simultanen Konferenzdolmetschen. Berlin: Frank & Timme Verlag.