Translation Research and Interpreting Research

Traditions, Gaps and Synergies

By Christina Schäffner

Multilingual Matters

Copyright © 2004 Christina Schaffner and the authors of individual chapters
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-85359-734-3

Contents

The Contributors, vii,
Researching Translation and Interpreting Christina Schaffner, 1,
1 Translation Research versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership Daniel Gile, 10,
2 The Debate, 35,
3 Public Service Interpreting: Practice and Scope for Research Jan Cambridge, 49,
4 Paradigm Problems? Andrew Chesterman, 52,
5 Translation Research and Interpreting Research – Pure, Applied, Action or Pedagogic? Janet Fraser, 57,
6 Translation Studies: A Succession of Paradoxes Yves Gambier, 62,
7 Aligning Macro- and Micro-Dimensions in Interpreting Research Moira Inghilleri, 71,
8 A Way to Methodology: The Institutional Role in TS Research Training and Development Zuzana Jettmarova, 77,
9 Conduits, Mediators, Spokespersons: Investigating Translator/Interpreter Behaviour Ian Mason, 89,
10 The Clue to Common Research in Translation and Interpreting: Methodology Mariana Orozco, 98,
11 I in TS: On Partnership in Translation Studies Franz Pochhacker, 104,
12 Doorstep Inter-subdisciplinarity and Beyond Miriam Shlesinger, 116,
13 Response to the Invited Papers Daniel Gile, 124,

CHAPTER 1

Translation Research versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership

DANIEL GILE

Translation research (TR) and interpretation research (IR) have different histories (TR is much older), differently hierarchised foci (traditionally, TR has focused on ideological, cultural and sociological issues and IR on the interpreting process), different academic environments (TR has been conducted mostly within the humanities and IR within interpreter-training programmes), and differently trained and motivated scholars (academics versus professional interpreters). However, phenomenologically, they share a deep common basis and recent developments have also narrowed the gap between their environments and foci. As research disciplines, they also share epistemological, methodological, institutional and wider sociological concerns and do not seem to be in territorial competition. It, therefore, makes much sense for both disciplines to work together in spite of the differences.

Introduction

The study of translation has a history as long as history itself (see, for instance, Steiner [1975] and Bassnett [1980], who start their historical overview of the literature on translation studies with the Romans). Proper academic research into translation, however, is only several decades old. Interpreting has a longer history than translation, since it was presumably practised before texts were actually written. Academic research into interpreting is slightly younger than its counterpart in translation but also started in the 1960s (see Pöchhacker & Shlesinger, 2002).

Initially, the two academic disciplines evolved with little contact between scholars and institutions. In the past two decades, institutional and personal factors have led to greater mutual awareness and even to some cooperative work. In particular, some scholars have been researching and publishing in both disciplines, translators and interpreters are active in international learned societies such as EST, the European Society for Translation Studies, teach in the same doctoral seminars such as the CETRA programme and are posing an increasing number of epistemological and methodological questions of a similar nature.

This position chapter is a humble attempt by an analyst, whose research interests lie mainly in conference-interpreting research and in translator-training issues, to initiate a discussion within a wider circle of interpreting and translation scholars in order to gain a broader insight into the differences, similarities and effective and potential interactions in the wider field of Translation Studies (TS), as it is sometimes called. It reviews a number of fundamental differences between translation and several forms of interpreting and their implications for research in these two fields, as well as developments over the past decades. The territory covered is wide and I can only claim reasonably good knowledge of a small area within it. I will, therefore, start this analysis from the point of view of conference interpreting, which I assume to be less well known to most readers of this collection and hope that input from partners in this exchange with better knowledge of other types of interpretation research (IR) and translation research (TR) will fill gaps, correct misperceptions and give a better balance to this collective analysis.

Translation and Interpreting: Shared Features and Differences

By way of a reminder, a few definitions and a brief review of the fundamental shared features and differences between translation and interpreting may help prepare the ground for a discussion of research into these two disciplines. Since these aspects are explained elsewhere in the literature, and are only mentioned here by way of introduction to an analysis of research into translation and interpreting, the following review will remain fairly general, with a few pointers to the literature for further information and views.

Definitions

For the purposes of this chapter, I shall use the word translation for a written target-language reformulation of a written source text and the words interpretation or interpreting for a non-written re-expression of a non-written source text. Most of the discussion will focus on interpretation from a spoken language into another spoken language, but much of it also applies to interpretation from a spoken language into a sign language and vice versa. Within interpreting, I shall refer mostly to conference interpreting, the type of interpreting which enjoys the highest prestige and the highest remuneration. Conference interpreters work mostly at meetings organised by international organisations, by large industrial corporations, by government bodies at a high level and for radio and television. Court interpreters work essentially at court proceedings. Sign-language interpreters work in all environments where deaf people need to communicate with hearing people. Community interpreters (also called dialogue interpreters, public service interpreters, etc.) work mostly in environments where individuals from minority groups or foreigners, interact with the public authorities and medical authorities in a host-country (see Roberts et al., 2000). This 'social' classification of interpreting has implications for the development of research, as is explained later.

Besides 'pure translation' and 'pure interpreting', there are also 'intermediate' types, such as sight translation, where the source text is written and the target text is spoken but this distinction is not relevant to the present discussion.

'Simultaneous interpreting' is a mode in which the interpreter reformulates the source speech as it unfolds, generally with a lag of a few seconds at most. In 'consecutive interpreting', the speaker makes a statement, which generally lasts up to a few minutes, while the interpreter takes notes; then the speaker stops and the interpreter reformulates the statement. This is repeated until the speaker has finished his/her intervention. Conference...