Interpreting as Intervention

7/31/2019 Interpreting as Intervention

1/34

33

Interpreting as intervention:norms, beliefs and strategies

David KatanUniversit del Salento (Lecce)

ABSTRACT According to academics, the interpreting profes-

sion has moved on from its traditional impartial black-box role

to that of intervention. The first part of this paper will describe

what intervention means in practice, and the various levels of

intervention open to interpreters. It will be shown through the

use of the Logical Levels model how the interpreters habitus

both allows and constrains some levels of intervention accord-

ing to professional norms and beliefs about interpreter identity.

The second part of the paper reports an online survey of some

300 interpreters to gauge their own beliefs about invisibility, in-

tervention and responsibility. The respondents replies show a

clear resistance to anything more than a strategic intervention,

following that favoured by the Paris School, and little interest

in more ideological or reflexive types of intervention. Finally, it

will be suggested that openness to change may well come from

those interpreters working in other capacities, rather than fromthose working within the interpreting habitus itself.

1. Introduction

Scholars over the last decade or so have begun to question the tradi-tional dogma of interpreting as a passive, impartial, black box event.As Pchhacker (2006) puts it, interpreters appear to have gone so-

cial (c.f. Wolf, 2007: 5), and interpretation is now mediation(Pchhacker 2008), interaction (e.g. Wadensj, 1998), and also in-tervention (Angelelli, 2003; Munday, 2007; Gavioli and Maxwell,2007). It is not always clear, though, what intervention actuallymeans nor what the interpreters themselves believe about this rela-tively new label. As Maier (2007: 4) quoting Hale notes, there is ageneral professional identity crisis regarding the question. Indeed,


2/34

David Katan34

as Mikkelson (2008: 87) points out, the whole area of interpreter re-sponsibility, what interpreters can and should account for lies atthe crux of the interpreters dilemma, and more light needs to be shed

upon it. There is also, as Maier (2007: 5) points out, an insuffi-ciency of raw material and need for more data regarding profes-sional trajectories, self-perception and how interpreters and transla-tors ply their trade.

This aim of this paper is to address both main points. In part one,the focus is on what intervention for an interpreter entails, while parttwo reports on a questionnaire survey which will provide data regard-ing full time1 practicing interpreters and their beliefs with regard toreadiness to intervene.

2. Levels of intervention

Intervention, as Baker (2008: 16) notes is inherent in the act oftranslation and interpreting. So, this paper will discuss the subject,not in terms of intervention/non-intervention, but in terms of levels ofintervention. I will suggest that for intervention to be fully accepted asthe new dogma, fundamental changes will need to be made in thehabitus, i.e., in the interpreters shared world of subjective aspira-tions the dispositions durably inculcated by the possibilities andimpossibilities, freedoms and necessities, opportunities and prohibi-tions inscribed in the objective conditions (Bourdieu, 1990: 54).

The disposition, I will suggest, can be usefully discussed in termsof a Logical Levels system, a concept borrowed from NeuroLinguisticProgramming (Dilts,1990; Katan, 2004). In this system, any behaviour(such as an individual intervention) in a particular environment, will

be logically the result of a set of interpreter enacted strategies, sup-ported by a wider frame of accepted professional or socially acceptednorms. The norms themselves will be based on further unstated moregeneral beliefs about appropriacy and ethics, which, again logically,

1 The full time interpreters are a sub-group taken from a survey conducted in 2008 ofaround 1000 translators and interpreters, reported in Katan 2009a and 2009b.


3/34

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies 35

will depend on the role status, and ultimately identity of the inter-preter.

The outline for this system of logical levels is as follows:

Environment

(where, when)e.g. SME meeting room, table; proximity ofbuyer/seller and interpreter

e.g. Courtroom, defense/prosecution positions;(non) proximity of interpreter

Behaviour(what)

Interpreting, speaking, listening, gesticulating, nod-ding, standing/sitting,

Technical

Type of in-

terventionArea of focus Example points

Strategies (how) Semantic Textexplication/omission

translating, adding,glossing, framing,downtoning, shifting,disassociating,

Formal Norms (how)

Fromvisible

to

invisib

le

O

ut-of-

aw

areness

Beliefs (why)

PragmaticCultural

Professionality;Illocutionaryforce;Genreconventions;Orientation;(Re)Alignment

Neutrality; Fidelity;effectivecommunication;Skopos; Loyalty,Visibility;Importance of thetext.

Identity/role(who)

Interpreter as (relayer/coordinator/...);Intervenient being;Footing roles (author,editor)

Purpose/Spirituality (for

whom or forwhat). Overrid-ing raisondetre; sense ofself).

IdeologicalReflexive

Cultural gaps;Power relations

Missionary v. artisan;Mediator v.technician;

Activist v.professional.

Figure 1: The Logical Levels of Intervention


4/34

David Katan36

According to this hierarchy of levels, the strategies employed by aninterpreter will be enabled or constrained according to prevailingnorms and beliefs concerning the profession and those concerning

the role or identity of the interpreter.Importantly, following the popular iceberg theory (Hall,1959/1990) only the behaviour is fully visible (in our case, listeningand speaking the language, the kinesics, proxemics and other visibleforms of communicative behaviour). The visible behaviour, though, islogically fostered or inhibited within wider frames. The highestlevel, sometimes termed spiritual, mission or purpose, answersthe existential question Why am I here?, How do I see myself inrelation to society? and What effect will my work have? Answers

to these questions will be logically linked to the subordinate levels ofbeliefs and professional norms. These levels together will then estab-lish the possibilities and impossibilities, freedoms and necessities,opportunities and prohibitions of particular interpreter behaviour inthe objective world (Bordieu, 1990: 54).

Hence, any change in strategy will first need to be sanctionedwithin the higher levels of the habitus of the interpreting world. AsJenkins (1992/2002: 78) states, habitus disposes actors to do certainthings, it provides a basis for the generation of practices. So, by con-flating habitus and the iceberg theory of culture we can see how thedisposition of the habitus itself to do intervention is directly relatedto the level that is involved.

One fundamental level difference is that between the visible, whichHall termed Technical and the other two levels. Technical is whatwe can see the interpreter doing, and focuses on the individual differ-ences between the source and the target text. The next level is strate-gic, meaning that the interpreters production of a target text will fol-

low a pattern, which will be less obviously visible. Also, this patternwill no longer necessarily be strictly related to features of the originaltext, but more to the habitus of the interpreter. In fact, the interpretersright to intervene on the form of the language, to add a metalinguisticcomment, or to advise the listener that the interpreted comment doesnot mean what it might seem to mean, takes us to the heart of the thirdlevel of the Logical Levels model, the unquestioned core values and


5/34


beliefs, or stories about self and the world which then both guidesand constrains ones orientation in the real world (Katan, 2008: 72).

2.1. Strategic intervention

This first level of intervention is where language signs have a clearWYSIWYG (What-you-See-Is-What-You-Get) referential function,and any associated hidden values are universal (Katan, 2008: 70).The focus of the interpreter here is to transfer the terms and conceptsin the source text abroad with minimum loss. It is the sense that mustbe made clear, which, as Salama-Carr (2008: 145) explains, is com-

posed of an explicit part (which is actually written or spoken) and animplicit part (what is unsaid but nevertheless meant by the author andunderstood by the reader/listener.

This type of intervention may be likened to NeuroLinguistic Pro-gramming metamodel work, which originally was used to help thera-pists understand their clients limited view or model of the world(Bandler and Grinder, 1975). The most important aspect of a meta-model analysis is to transform client Surface Structures, the ill-formed language used to describe their world, into well-formed utter-ances to create the complete representation of the logical relations(ibid. 1975: 28), inherent in their model of the world. Clearly, ill-formed surface structures, faithfully interpreted, allow for incompleteor mis-interpretations by the listener. Intervention at this level meansdisambiguating and clarifying the linguistic dragons, warning signsof potential miscommunication (Katan and Trickey, 1997: 115).These, as Bandler and Grinder (ibid) point out can usually be detectedwhen information regarding the subject, predicate or their attributes

are missing. Ill-formed sentences will not satisfy challenges such as:Who, what or how, exactly?An example below, taken from an interpreted interview on a TV

show (Katan and Straniero-Sergio, 2001: 226), gives a good exampleof how the interpreter instinctively filled the sense of what was im-plicit in the original surface structure:


6/34

David Katan38

Guest: (laughs) Ive been adopted by Sioux and I danced the sundance

This is an example of an ill-formed sentence, as we do not know withwhom exactly the guest danced. Note how the interpreter intuitivelysupplied the missing information (in italics):

Interpreter: e ho anche ballato la danza del sole con loroand I also danced the sun dance with them

The guest continues with a further ill-formed sentence, as we do notknow how, in what way the piercing took place. The interpreter,once again fills in the sense gaps:

Guest: and they pierced me on the backInterpreter: e han- ehm hanno anche ehm praticato delle delle dei segnirituali sulla schiena (.) dei fori/and they ehm they also ehm practicedsome some ritual signson my back (.) some perforations

2.2. Norms

Strategies are a direct outcome of norms, which form the bedrock of

the dispositions in the interpreters habitus. Interpreting norms are tobe found explicitly in professional association guidelines. For exam-ple, the National Standard Guide for Community Interpreting Ser-vices Canada, published online in 2007 states: there should be nodistortion of the original message through additions, omissions, or ex-planation. The idiom, register, style and tone of the speaker is pre-served. Once fidelity to the original text norm is taken as part of thehabitus, it is logical to then read that the Standards of Practice donot endorse cultural brokering and advocacy.

In academia too, interpreting course programmes, text books andresearch papers were until recently original message oriented, and fo-cused on invisibility (fostered by the emphasis on training for confer-ence interpreting). Intervention, though, at the Formal Level was en-couraged. It was known as la thorie du sens or the interpret(at)iveapproach. The focus is clearly surface message bound, with the aimof re-producing the sens.


7/34


As Pchhacker (2004: 71) notes, interpreting courses worldwidewere directed influenced by the established certainties and truthsforged at the first School for Interpreters and Translators in Paris. It

was professional interpreters who dominated the I/T teaching profes-sion both in Paris and elsewhere. The authority and drive of theseprofessionalizing programmes, based on conference interpreting in-visibility and impartiality ensured that any other school of theory orpractice largely remained in the shadow (ibid: 36). It should beadded that the Interpreters School, Trieste, followed faithfully in theParis school footsteps.

Much conference interpreting work is transactional (Brown & Yule1983), so la thorie du sens approach is often sufficient to ensure ef-

fective communication. However, where the communication is clearlyinteractional, where connotations, pragmatic meaning and face, aswe will see, all come into play, the inculcation of university trainingand professional norms make it difficult for an interpreter to feel pro-fessional about further intervention which would compensate for anymiscommunication.

2.3. Cultural and Pragmatic intervention

There are two separate Levels here, pragmatic and cultural, thoughinterlinguistic pragmatics cannot really be discussed without the widerframe of the cultural, so the two levels will be to all intents and pur-poses conflated. In general, at this more out-of-awareness LogicalLevel, the focus is no longer on making the sense apparent in the sur-face structure, because the text is now viewed as discourse, and as in-volving meaningful exchange. Hence, quality of the uptake and the

pragmatic effects dominate. At this level there are a number of areas,all focussing on the hearer and the effectiveness of the uptake.

RegisterAudiences intraculturally have an out-of-awareness understanding

for the type of discourse appropriate within a particular genre. Hence,at this level of intervention, the interpreter is aware that the pragmaticsof communication is influenced by the culture filter (c.f. Katan,


8/34

David Katan40

2009c). Discourse viewed at this level, allows an interpreter to judgeto what extent normal communication style may be valued differentlyinter-culturally and to intervene accordingly. Katan and Sergio-

Straniero (2001: 227), for example, give the following cultural inter-vention example of a talk-show interpreted guest, a Maori doctor whospoke very basic English:

Guest/Interpreter Back-translated Italian interpretation:

expert talk

G: a woman can create the possibilityI: e una donna pu in effetti con ci

creare una possibilitA woman can in fact through this createa possibility

G: and the sex of the twins

I: anche possibile stabilire a secondadel tipo di alimentazione ehm una mag-

giore probabilit di avere un maschio

piuttosto che una femmina

It is also possible to establish ehm de-pending on the form of alimentation agreater probability of having a malerather than a female

The language of the doctor in the interpreted Italian example is longer,more complex, and employs a more formal and specialized lexis. Italso includes background information, implicit from the immediatecontext, conforming to Italian KILCy2 expert-talk norms. The result is

that the Italian audience now correctly hears an expert giving medicaladvice according to Italian generic norms

Speech ActIn transactional communication, interpreters intervene to maintain

appropriate register. In interactional communication, it is the illocu-tionary force that requires intervention if the message is to be success-fully carried across cultures. As Hatim & Mason (1997: 81) them-selves underline:

Crucially, it should be added that the seriousness of an FTA [face threat-ening act] is a cultural variable; it cannot be assumed that that the same actwould carry the same weight in different socio-cultural settings

Mason (1999: 156) gives an example of an Italian entrepreneur refus-ing an offer from a potential buyer. He explains how an untrained in-

2 For KISS/KILC (Keep it Long and Complete) (see Katan, 2004: 261-2)


9/34


terpreter (the entrepreneurs daughter) showed not only biculturalawareness but also the instinct to save everyones face:

Entrepreneur: Digli che un imbecille!/Tell him hes an imbecileInterpreter: My father wont accept your offer

This interpreter here is doing more than just making the sense explicit.Indeed, almost the opposite strategy is being employed. The reason, asKatan (2004: 316) suggests, is that in an Italian exchange emotionallanguage is much more acceptable than in a British, and that languagein general is rarely taken at face value. Hence the interpreters inter-vention, in producing a more acceptable message, was a successfulinterpretation of the illocutionary intent.

For an interpreter to be able to decide how the force of a speech actwill be received in this exchange, she needs take a variety of percep-tual positions:

The first position would be that of the black-box interpreter or anima-tor (in Goffmans sense): attention is paid exclusively to the words, and ide-alised meaning. In the 2nd position, the interpreter is translating for the cli-ent, and is aware of the pragmatic effect of each translated turn. In the 3rd

perceptual position, the interpreter can disassociate from the interactants onstage and gauge the effect of the dynamic negotiation of meaning (Katan

and Sergio-Straniero, 2001: 221)

Conversational maximsAt this strategic level we could also mention the need to manage

conversational maxim differences. Kondo (1990) (see also Katan,2004: 304) talk of the problem of intervention and cultural variationwith regard to how implicature functions in diplomatic talk; and howthis strategically affects uptake particularly when the negotiation isdelicate. The case in point regarded a Japanese interpreter and the

faithful translation of his prime ministers positive sounding words,zensho shimasu/I will deal with the matter in a forward lookingway. This utterance, though, actually flouted the Maxim of Quality:do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence or ratherdont lie the flouting of which is an accepted Japanese way to re-duce the weight of the face-threatening act. President Nixon was un-able to access the implicature, and hence did not hear the diplomatic


10/34

David Katan42

lie. After 12 months of subsequent Japanese silence regarding thematter, Nixon felt betrayed and thought all Japanese politicians liarsand utterly untrustworthy (Kondo, 1990: 59). The interpreter had

been bound, as Kondo states, at the lower level of strategic interven-tion due to constraints of the professional norm: interpreters canwork essentially only with what has been expressed (1990: 63).

Had the interpreter been able to extend his habitus of possibilities,he would have been able to intervene culturally, aware that the accep-tance of conversation maxims is culture specific. In Anglo culturesQuantity (make your contribution as informative as required) ratherthan Quality is the more diplomatically acceptable floutable maxim.Hence, the interpreter could have introduced, for example, a non-

sequitur, such as we would not wish to spoil your stay here (Katan,2004: 304), or perhaps signal closure, such as The Prime Minister issuggesting that this is a delicate matter.

Cultural practiceOther aspects of intervention at this level are to do with differing

cultural signifying practices. When, for example, in the middle of anItalian business meeting, the Italian member says Vogliamo uncaff?/What about some coffee, this may well signify Lets have abreak from the business in hand, and not Lets have some coffeebrought into the room while we work.

We have now left the intervention levels of linguistic compensationor manipulation, and are now suggesting that the interpreter should in-tervene as author (Goffman 1981). With regard to the above exam-ple, the interpreter could decide either to work on the text itself andsay Shall we go and get some coffee? or intervene as primary par-ticipant, framing the words of the original text, What about some cof-

fee?, with her own addition, such as: I think he is suggesting fromthe coffee bar downstairs.

BeliefsApart from adapting or adding to the surface message, there are

many cases of intervention that actually require withholding the mes-sage. Under the heading Dont tell the patient, Blignault et al (2007:229) recount the vital importance of not interpreting what the plain-


11/34


speaking Australian doctor might report, for example, to patients ofVietnamese origin. This is due to the fact that it is even more taboo todiscuss illness and death in Vietnam than it is in the West.

Yet, when it comes to religious talk, however, it is the West that ismore reticent. Herrero (cited in Vidal Claramonte, 2005: 270) reportshow the faithful interpretation of the culturally normal frequent invo-cation of God practiced by a Moroccan citizen accused of drug traf-ficking offended those in authority, the belief being that only thegood should invoke Gods name and even then only in exceptionalcircumstances.

2.4. Ideological

This term is used by Wing-Kwong Leung (2006: 139) as a neutralrather than derogative term in translation studies. In his words, ideo-logical is sociopoliticized, and it means being oriented towards ac-tion it is proactive, not just reactive. This ideological level fo-cuses on defining who is acting or intervening. If we define thewho as a professional interpreter rather than friend, colleague oremployee then we will logically expect different norms, strategiesand behaviours regarding the type of intervention. The professionalwill feel constricted in her ability to intervene by the norms of herhabitus, while the amateurs will be much freer to interpret, and with aclear sense of loyalty based not on sense but on meaning, uptake andrelationship. On the other hand, if the person defines herself as a cul-tural broker (Gay, 1993: 293) then loyalty will be towards fair playand to ensuring effective communication for all. This will then resultin the interpreter deciding not only to intervene on the text, but at a

meta-level to intervene on the interpreting event itself. In business,Gavioli and Maxwell (2007) discuss how the interpreter can anddoes initiate un-elicited talks.

It is at this level, also, that power relations and the possibility to re-dress the asymmetries in the communication process becomes the ob-ject of focus. Asymmetry is a natural result of the fact that the com-missioner will usually be, or will represent, one of the clients only.The interpreter herself, too, will usually be closer to one of the clients


12/34

David Katan44

linguistically, culturally or affectively. In a number of countries, par-ticularly those more ascription oriented (c.f. Katan, 2004: 239-240)the business interpreter is expected to take sides, according to who is

paying: [her] role is to support [her] own team and possibly even toprotect them from confrontational conduct by the western negotiators(Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1997: 110).

Palmer (2007: 20) points to further problems regarding neutrality inmore extreme situations. In Iraq, western journalists and soldiers haveto depend on local interpreters and fixers, resulting in the possibilityof false information; or alternatively, as a result of a journalists ex-cessive dependence over time on the local informer, the interpretermay not just inform, but actually form the journalists view of the

situation. From the point of view of the interpreter, she will find her-self in an uneasy position, especially when her ethics are not coherentwith those of their commissioner (c.f. Inghilleri and Harding, 2010).

In fact, western interpreters are in reality not as neutral as theirhabitus would have it. Moeketsi (2007: 107), for example, notes howSouth African interpreters are required to interpret private discus-sions between prosecution and/or defense lawyers and their clients,which may create the impression that the interpreter colludes or con-spire with the opposing parties in litigation. Whatever the interpret-ing situation, whether war, legal or business, issues of trust are exactlythe same.

2.5. Reflexive

Though collusion is considered unprofessional by all western writtenand unwritten interpreter professional codes of conduct, there are now

more, academic led, calls for interpreters to be identified as activist(Baker, 2008), committed to redressing current power imbalances, andin particular, to give more voice to the less powerful in society.

At this meta-level, the interpreter is very much more self-aware ofwho she is and of her position in society; and, importantly, does nottake the status quo (e.g. power relations in society or professionalrules of conduct for interpreters) as given. At this level, all interpret-ing means intervention; and that not only will the quality of ones


13/34


work be visible, but so too will ones own ideology, beliefs and work-ing norms. Taken to its extreme, the interpreter consciously decideshow to consciously manipulate the original stance taken by a client to

redress the asymmetries of power. Professional associations, and mostlay people, would certainly call this type of intervention sabotage(see also Palmer, 2007), Activists on the other hand, will tend to seenon-intervention as condoning, and hence strengthening the asym-metries of power.

Baker (2008: 18), herself, stops short of completely endorsing thetype of intervention which would visibly contravene professionalnorms. At the same time, though, she makes it clear that there are anumber of situations where an interpreter should be entitled to

autonomously decide to actively influence the reception of the mes-sage away from the intention of the original speaker.

A further possible reflexive intervention is that of whistle-blowing.One case which received a great deal of media attention was that of auniversity lecturer in interpreting, who is also a court interpreter with23 years experience. Writing in theNew York Times, Camayd-Freixas(2008) recounts how the American Immigration and Customs En-forcement trumped up charges on immigrant Guatemalan workers,which he began to feel very uncomfortable about. He notes that thenorm as laid out in his professional contract was clear, and in theorydoes provide for an interpreters reflexive response, which is to refusethe assignment. As he tells us:

Standards for Performance and Professional Responsibility for ContractCourt Interpreters in the Federal Courts, where it states: Interpreters shalldisclose any real or perceived conflict of interest and shall not serve in anymatter in which they have a conflict of interest.

However,

The question was did I have one. Well, at that point there was notenough evidence to make that determination.

Hence, he remained faithful to what had been expressed during thetrial, but afterwards did blow the whistle, reporting the trumped upcharges.


14/34

David Katan46

2.6. Changing intervention level

There are two main motivating drives for suggesting that the inter-

preter take on more intervention. First, as we have noted, there are anumber of academics who see intervention as political, and that the in-terpreters presence as gatekeeper will either further dominant powerrelations, or if empowered may help safeguard the less powerful.

That said, Mikkelson (ibid) herself is convinced that belief in activ-ism is still a minority position taken in academic quarters. It isprobably also true that in general the last thing a business client wantsis a reflexive interpreter, as Masons interpreted father makes clear:Perch non gli hai detto quello che ti ho detto di dirgli?/Why didnt

you tell him what I told you to tell him? Here, the client (and commis-sioner) echo the interpreters traditional professional norm, that whatis stated in the text should be restated, whatever the effect.

Second, it is now accepted (by academics at least) that meaning isco-constructed rather than innate in the text (c.f. Ondarra, 1997), andthat therefore interpreters themselves are active intermediaries(Mikkelson, 2008:86) added to the fact that their very presence in-fluences the co-construction of meaning.

So, what about the interpreters themselves? According to Angelelli(2004:1), there is evidence of a shift in the interpreters dispositions.She opens her volume on healthcare interpreting suggesting that inthis first decade of the 21st century, the interpreters are beginning toask: What can I do to help, what is my role? And, it is to the inter-preters that we now turn.

3. The interpreter

A survey of over around 10003 translators (T), interpreters (I) and as-piring T/Is conducted in 2008 via the internet was designed to gaugesubjective aspirations and the dispositions durably inculcated, ormore simply, the T/I beliefs about their world(s). One set of major be-liefs investigated concerned T/I operational norms. As Toury (1999:

3 1223 began the questionnaire. 901 answered all the questions


15/34


14) states, these norms are the translation of general values or ideasshared by a group as to what is conventionally right and wrong, ade-quate and inadequate into performance instructions appropriate for

and applicable to particular situations. Importantly, as Simeonipointed out (1998: 26) A habitus-governed account emphasizesthe extent to which translators themselves play a role in the mainte-nance and perhaps the creation of norms.

3.1. Norms vs. habits

Before analyzing the results, it should be made clear that a discussion

ofhabitus, the model of the world, does not in itself tell us how inter-preters actually behave in a particular environment. As Korzybski(1958: 58-60), among others, tells us, the model or the map of theworld, is just that. Like any other map, it is necessarily a simplifica-tion and distortion of the reality. Amit-Kochavi, for example, insistedthat she never intervened during her translation of the ArabianNights from Arabic into Hebrew. Yet, when Pym (2009) probed fur-ther, she realized that she had not only made strategic interventions onthe text but she had also made a number of autonomous editorial deci-sions, which included deciding which of the Nights to translate intoHebrew.

Closer to home, Eraslan Gerek (2008: 25) reports on a survey ofconference interpreters, which shows how interpreter replies did notcoincide with reality: Through the analysis of these interpreted inter-actions, it was found that the actual behaviour of interpreters in real-life situations, or their role performance in Goffmans terms, differsconsiderably from their normative role defined both by interpreters

and users as neutral and uninvolved in the interaction and faithfulnessto the original speech. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997: 32)also note that performance might not mirror declared values, simplybecause there will be other over-riding values, which may well not bedeclared. With this in mind we will now investigate the interpretershabitus.


16/34

David Katan48

3.2. The Survey Corpus

The questionnaire was posted to colleagues (T/I teachers, profession-

als and MA/PhD students) around the world, using surveymonkey4

.Overall results can be found in previous publications (Katan, 2009a,2009b). With regard to interpreters, 304 out of the 870 who work inT/I ticked interpreting as a first, second or at times role, and havean average of 12 years experience (23% with 21+ years). Of these,158, roughly half (57%), interpret and also translate as their main areaof work, with the majority (122) on a freelance basis. The vast major-ity have some form of I/T university education (85 have either a de-gree or MA in interpreting, and a further 40 have a degree in transla-

tion).The targeted nature of the survey meant that the respondents them-

selves regarded themselves as professional, committed, and fromthe comments it was clear that they distanced themselves from thecowboy competition (see Katan, 2009b).

Yet only 75 classified themselves as interpreters only. Clearly,the survey results cannot tell us if this reflects the market, but intuitionwould lead us to suspect that there are relatively few interpreters whocan live comfortably by interpreting alone.

The breakdown by country of response is as follows:

Figure 2: Country

As can be seen, though the survey was global, the results are verymuch skewed to certain countries (for more details see 2009a).

4 http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PJ5HCWN


17/34


Respondents were given a wide array of choices regarding fields ofwork, as can be seen in figure 3 below, as well as the opportunity totick more than one of ten main areas plus anything and everything

as well as add their own other main area. Those who had ticked bothtranslating (T) and interpreting (I) as main role were classified aspart timers and hence were not included in the chart below. Almostevery interpreting respondent ticked 2 main areas resulting in 229main area ticks from a sample of 1255 respondents. They were alsoallowed to apportion the fields of work into up to three levels of im-portance: 1st job/main area, also and at times.

Figure 3: Area of Interpreter Specialisation (actual numbers)

The radar chart above compares the relative specialisation in eachfield, represented by the relative position of main area, also and attimes on each ray. As can be seen, the principal outliers on the outerring (main area) are business interpreting (18%), followed by tech-nical (16%) legal (15%) and then anything and everything (14%).The also, middle ring, as can be seen, is almost as large, but showsmore communality, favouring legal, once again, marketing and tour-ism. The at times, inner ring, is almost perfectly undifferentiated,

5 It will be seen that the number of replies is never constant, as respondents wereallowed to skip individual questions at will.


18/34

David Katan50

though there is a slight hesitancy to dabble in business. In fact, busi-ness interpreting appears to be the most specializing, with most dis-tance between the three rings.

However, an analysis of the entire group of all T and I businessmain area respondents (209) from the main survey showed that onlysix did not have a 2nd area of work (2 interpreters and 4 translators).Clearly, also the fact that we have some literary responses in thechart above shows just how variegated a further 1st, 2nd or 3rd area ofwork might be not forgetting the 60% of the interpreters who alsoor at times will interpret anything and everything.

3.3 Visibility

The first question regarding habitus asked the respondents to statehow much they agreed that the T/I should be invisible, meaning towhat extent should one noticeably intervene in the flow of proceed-ings between the clients.

Figure 4: T/I should be invisible (%) according to main role


19/34


Actual numbers Translator Interpreter Part-timer TotalDefinitely agree 73 17 9 99Mainly agree 166 51 71 288It depends 110 32 64 206

Mainly no 27 9 25 61Definitely not 24 8 19 51Total 400 117 188 705

The previous graph shows how similar the 117 interpreters6 were tothe translators and to the mixed group of those who said their mainarea was both T and I.

As can be seen, there is remarkable conformity between the threegroups, with the interpreters more of less midway between the transla-

tors and the part-timers. The majority of the 705 respondents, here,cluster around the mainly agree that the T or I should remain invisi-ble whatever the situation. Specifically regarding the interpreters, ifwe merge the mainly with the definitely agree we find that 58%(68) of interpreters basically agree that invisibility is an ideal to bepreserved, while only 15% (17) basically disagree.

The it depends category was designed to gauge the readiness ofinterpreters to change strategy, regardless of their norms. It wasworded as follows: It depends: meaning yourself, i.e. your own

choices, which may oscillate between all the above [original words,listener, commissioner] at any given moment. Positive replies to itdepends were designed to reveal those who have a much more ideo-logical and reflexive approach to the job in hand, and should give usan idea of the proportion of interpreters who consider intervention notso much as a fixed norm but as a series of options with all Levelsavailable. Of the 3 groups, the interpreters are the most norm-bound:only 27% felt that it was the interpreters role to make their own deci-sions regarding appropriate visibility. This was only one percentagebehind the translators it depends, but a good seven points behind thepart-timers (34%).

Breaking down the main area freelance interpreter group into themore popular specialist areas results in a very low number of inter-

6 These groups are mutually exclusive, meaning that these interpreters do not translateand the translators do not interpret. As mentioned earlier, though, the vast majority do haveanother, second job (such as in teaching). For further details see Katan 2009a/b.


20/34

David Katan52

preters per group. Yet, it may show us if there is a likelihood of anypattern differentiation, which might then show some differing viewson visibility. The numbers are as follows:

Immigration/Public service: 10Medical: 10Legal: 23Technology: 25Business: 47

As can be seen from the chart below, even with very small numberstaken from over 20 different countries around the world, there is re-markable conformity in mainly agreeing that the interpreter should

be invisible with one exception:

Figure 5: The interpreter should be invisible (%) according to job area

The medical interpreters are clearly the only group slightly more open

to visibility; while, surprisingly, the cultural mediatorpar excellence,the immigration and public service interpreter, appears to be the leastopen. Yet, of course, the numbers are so small, that all we can say isthat there is little to differentiate the various areas of the profession.

If we look at the main area of work for the whole group of allthose who work (and study) in medical (96 responses), community(immigration, public service) (86), legal (160) and business (209),


21/34


which now specifically includes translators, we can see the sametrends:

Figure 6: Translator/Interpreter should be invisible (%)

As can be seen, there is again remarkable agreement between the vari-ous groups. If anything, it would seem that that the medical interpret-ers are most in agreement with invisibility (6% more than the average

of the other 3 groups), though there is a fairly sharp drop of 14%mainly agreeing to invisibility. We should though always rememberthat with such small numbers we can only talk about the generaltrends, and not the handful of medical interpreters who did not tickmainly agree.

MedicalAverage other

groupsDifference between Medicaland Average other groups

Definitely agree 18% 12% + 6%Mainly agree 32% 47% -14%

It depends 28% 22% + 6%Mainly no 11% 10% + 1%Definitely not 11% 10% + 1%

Overall, there is not really (yet) enough evidence to corroborate Ange-lellis (2004:1) assertion that health-care interpreters (or communityinterpreters for that matter) are consciously questioning the traditionalhabitus.


22/34

David Katan54

Of those who mentioned it depends, 22 added comments. Asstated earlier, the it depends category was designed to highlightthose who might have a more interventionist disposition. However, it

was clear that, for most, visibility was perceived as intervention as astrategy, and not as a norm; and would be dictated, not by interpreterbeliefs, identity or purpose, but by a lower Logical Level, the Envi-ronment, referred to as the situation or context. Also, where thecomments specifically mention higher Logical Levels of visibility, itis usually done so cautiously, gingerly moving away from the sanc-tioned habitus with an array of hedging devices, conditionals, modalsand do on. The example comments below regarding when an inter-preter should intervene have been organized according to five types of

situation mentioned:

A. ClarificationIf it is business interpreting the main aim is to make sure that the two

business partners are getting their point across and that they understand eachother. It can be necessary to become more visible. (Italy, degree T/I; T/Ifreelance, marketing assistant; business; 13 years)

B. Type of interpreting event:An interpreter should not always be invisible in liaison interpreting,

where the personality is important to the client. (Italy, Master T/I; T/I free-lance; -; 5 years)

Cooperative encounters (eg: medical and social services: visibility andnegotiation are often appropriate). Adversarial encounters (eg: US legal set-tings): invisibility. (Argentina, degree/T; freelance/I; legal; 8 years)

Depends on the assignment - sometimes a high degree of visible inter-cultural operation is required and desirable.... a true "invisibility" is practi-cally impossible to achieve. (Finland; degree in languages, Master T/I;Freelance/I; legal, technical, community; 10 years)

C. Issues of responsibility:It could depend on the politics of the situation where someone could

blame the interpreter for interpreting something in a certain way (even if cor-rect). Then the interpreters life could be in jeopardy! (Germany; Master inScience-Arts/Languages; PhD student/freelance I/T; marketing, business,technical, tourism; 21+ years)

D. Physical/Psychological presence and audience expectation/wants....in community interpreting settings the interpreter should not be invisi-

ble, he/she contributes to the whole atmosphere of the setting which is for ex-


23/34


ample very important in psychological/psychotherapeutic settings (the mainfield Im working in). (Austria; Master/T; permanent/I; medical; 7 years)

I have experienced many situations where customers deliberately use theinterpreter as buffer, mediator or even strategic tool (e.g. to buy time).

All this of course refers to consecutive interpreting! (Germany; Master T/I;permanent/I ; technical/legal; 10 years)

E. AcknowledgementHe/she should be invisible only during the interpretation, but he/she

should be very visible after or before it, especially if the interpretation wasgood (Croatia; degree/I; I/freelance; business/technical/tourism; 6 years)

3.4 Loyalty

The interpreters were given four choices as to where they put first, ormost loyalty. As the figure below shows, it is the original words thatmust be adhered to rather than the listeners needs:

Figure 7: Interpreter main focus/loyalty (actual numbers)

Though the listener is in second place, with 26 replies, this is still 50%less important than the original words, which scored 56. In lowly

third place was it depends, meaning that only 22 out of a total of113 interpreters demonstrated a disposition to take active control oftheir objective reality.

Furthermore, compared to the other groups in the survey (transla-tors, the T/I part timers, academics and T/I students) it is the inter-preter group whose insistence on loyalty to the text shows itself to bethe most durably inculcated by the impossibilities, the necessities and


24/34

David Katan56

prohibitions which they feel to be inscribed in the objective conditionsof their work. The graph below shows the relative emphasis accordingto each group:

Figure 8: T/I and academic main focus/loyalty (%)

Hardly surprisingly, while the interpreters might be the most conser-

vative, it is the T/I teachers who are the most open to focussing on thepossibilities, freedoms and opportunities provided in the objectiveconditions, with 41% replying that loyalty would depend on the in-terpreters own decisions. However, this did not stop, over a quarter(28%) of the T/I teachers affirming primary importance to the originalwords. We might also note that the students, tomorrows interpreters,are clearly influenced by the skopos theory, with nearly a third (31%)believing that loyalty lies with the quality of listener uptake. The stu-dents also believe slightly more in their own freedom to act but, evenfor them, the it depends, meaning yourself, is still hardly a prior-ity at only 28%.


25/34


3.5. Responsibility for Listener Reaction

Surprisingly, perhaps, replies to the following question appeared to

contradict the interpreters invisibility. The question was: Given thatthe interpretation is linguistically correct, to what extent should the in-terpreter be responsible for listener reaction ideally and in reality:

Figure 9: Responsibility for Listener Reaction (Actual numbers)

As can be seen, the vast majority felt that, ideally, it was the inter-preters job to intervene always on behalf of the listener. The vastmajority also agreed, that in practice, the interpreter did intervenevery much of the time on behalf of the client.

The 13 who replied it depends explained, in the main that con-text (as before) would affect the level of responsibility. There was anexception:

A) Professional ethics:It depends on the interpreter... some just dont care about this. I think it

is a very important part of the job (Brazil, degree in Sciences, freelance T/I;anything and everything, 6 years)


26/34

David Katan58

The other replies have been grouped as follows:

B) Client dispositionon the purposes of the author: if they mean to cause indignation, be ob-

noxious, be aggressive, an interpreter must not change these individual au-thorial goals and purposes...(but has to be invisible)

(Hungary, Hu-En, degree in T/I, PhD in Arts, freelance I & I/PhD; tour-ism/immigration/business, 7 years)

C) Physical proximitywhether he has a chance to have contact with his listener(Slovenia, PhD in I, freelance I/lecturer; anything and everything, 15

years)

Comments regarding client disposition show once again the belief ininvisibility, and fidelity to the original regardless of how listeners up-take the message, exactly as outlined in Gentile et als authoritativeLiaison Interpreting: A Handbook: The formulation of the messageis the responsibility of the other parties; the interpreters responsibilityis to interpret (Gentile, Ozolinis and Vasilakakos, 1996: 48).

And this is the key to the apparent paradox. There is quite simplyan implicit belief that loyalty to the original words is the best way tobe loyal to the listener, as explained by one respondent (in reply to the

question on loyalty to the (1) the original words, (2) the listener,(3) :

I do not think that there is a conflict of interests between the 1st and 2ndoption (Germany, degree in I, freelance I/lecturer; technical/immigration, 7years)

3.6. Who is the interpreter

At the beginning I mentioned that the logical levels within the habitusare governed by beliefs about self and purpose. In an attempt to ascer-tain who the interpreter believes she is, respondents were asked tocompare their work with that of another profession. There were 115interpreter replies to this question, and each respondent could tick upto three boxes which most did. The percentage results among the 12


27/34


options were as follows (popularity of reply clockwise from most toleast):

Figure 10: The Interpreter can be compared to a ... (%)

The first point to note is that that the two shapes are not dissimilar.Hence, practice, in the main follows theory, but falls short of the in-terpreters ideals, except for a surprising agreement on the most popu-lar comparison of all, that of mediator (23% ideal and 22% in prac-tice). Given what has been said before, perhaps there are 2 caveats tobe made. First, the results are necessarily skewed, in terms of the per-sonalised form of targeted respondents. Many of the 66 respondents(57% of the group) who ticked mediator will have been directly orindirectly influenced by this authors particular habitus, and publica-

tion, subtitled an introduction for translators, interpreters and media-tors (Katan, 2004).This volume emphasized the unrecognized intervenient nature of

the profession. Probably more relevant here, though, is the fact thatmediator, as Baker (2008: 15) points out, is a vague term. She notesthat from a semiotic perspective, mediation implies a person speak-ing on behalf of another person, and hence mediation would be the


28/34

David Katan60

same as reporting what someone else has said or written, in the sameor in another language.

So, more than probably, given the interpreters loyalty to the origi-

nal language, the group see mediator, not as a cultural mediator, butin line with the next most popular set of comparisons (linguist, artisan,wordsmith), i.e. as relayers, and guardians of the surface text as aproduct.

The relayer respondents were, of course, also allowed to tick moreintervenient being (Maier 2007) roles. As the chart shows, examplessuch as agent of social change, educator, missionary, or broker,rate as more or less the least popular, each garnering less than 10% ofthe total proportion of preferences which goes to confirm the text re-

layer hypothesis,Yet, it must also be said that there is an important minority who do

feel that interpreting has a stronger sense of mission, for 25 respon-dents (20% of the total cohort) did also tick agent of social change asone of their choices. An analysis of this group, though, shows littlepatterning. They come from 11 different countries, have more or lessequally a degree in languages or in I/T, and are more or less equallydistributed amongst the professional areas whitin the group:

Figure 11: Main areas of work: All interpreters v Agents of socialchange


29/34


What is of interest is that a number of the agent of social changegroup added significant other main fields of work:

military (Hungary; degree in T/I; freelance I; + legal, also immigrationand medical; 8 years)

international humanitarian org. (Georgia; degree in I; freelance T/I; +immigration, medical, tourism & legal; 7 years)

human rights (Finland; Master in T; freelance I; + anything and every-thing; 21+ years)

third sector NGOs, CSOs (Brazil, degree in sciences; freelance T/I; +anything and everything; 6 years)

We may presume that the Hungarian freelance interpreters militaryrole refers not to active duty but to something more humanitarian,

which is what would link it to the other respondents. In these cases,then, the belief that an interpreter is an agent of social change is re-lated to their wider field of action.

4. Conclusion

Interpreter intervention can be considered at a number of Logical Lev-els, organized in terms of beliefs about role and norm possibilities andconstraints. These will determine the Level and type of interventionbelieved to be appropriate. The interpreters habitus, its model of real-ity, and the field in which it operates would appear still to be bound atthe first Level of intervention: explicitation of the sens. It is a strategyto be employed when needs must. Though academics have begun tohighlight the limitations and the distorted reality of the interpretersobjective conditions there also appears to be strong indisposition tochange from within the profession. Indeed, as we have already seen,

Simeone (1998: 26) hinted that it is the translators themselves [who]play a role in the maintenance and perhaps the creation of norms.At the outset we noted that any change in strategy will first need to

be sanctioned within the higher levels of the habitus of the interpret-ing world, but it may well be that for interventionist strategies to besanctioned, there will need to be more cross fertilization from fields,like those above, all of which come from outside the profession.


30/34

David Katan62

And, as a final word, I can only concur with this comment:

We as professional T/Is need to stand up to our social status, there is stilla lot to be done regarding visibility and ethical responsibility (Spain, Masterin T/I + Master in Arts + painting at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna;freelance T/I; anything and everything; 21+ years)

Bibliography

Angelelli, C. The Visible Collaborator: Interpreter Intervention inDoctor/Patient Encounters, in Metzger, M., Collins, S., Dively,S., Shaw R., eds. FromTopic Boundaries to Omission: New Re-search on Interpretation (Washington DC: Gallaudet UniversityPress, 2003): 3-25.

Angelelli, C. (2004) Medical Interpreting and CrossCultural Com-munication (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Baker, M. Resisting State Terror: Theorising Communities of Activ-ist Translators and Interpreters, in Bielsa Mialet, E., Hughes, C.,eds. Globalisation, Political Violence and Translation (PalgraveMacmillan 2010): 222-42.

Baker, M. (2008) Ethics of Renarration: Mona Baker is Interviewedby Andrew Chesterman, Cultus 1: 10-33.

Bandler, R., Grinder, J. The Structure of Magic I(Palo Alto, CA: Sci-ence and Behavior Books, 1975).

Blignault, I, Stephanou, I, Barrett, C. Achieving Quality in HealthCare Interpreting: Insights from interpreters, in Hale, S. B.,Ozolins, U., Stern, L., eds The Critical Link 5. Quality in Inter-preting: a shared responsibility (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benja-mins, 2007): 221-234.

Bourdieu, P. The Logic of Practice (Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress, 1990).Brown, G., Yule, G.Discourse Analysis (Cambridge, Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, 1983)Camayd-Freixas, E. Interpreting after the Largest ICE Raid in US

History: A Personal Account. (2008) http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/14/opinion/14ed-camayd.pdf. Accessed 17/01/11.


31/34


Dilts, R. Changing Belief Systems with NLP (Capitola, CA: Meta Pub-lications, 1990).

Eraslan Gerek, . Cultural Mediator or Scrupulous Translator?

Revisiting Role, Context and Culture in Conference Interpreting,in Boulogne, P., ed. Translation and Its Others. Selected Papers ofthe CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007. (2008)http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.htm, 1-33. Accessed23/12/10.

Gavioli, L., Maxwell, N. Interpreter Intervention in Mediated Busi-ness Talk, in Bowles, H., Seedhouse, P., Gotti, M., eds., Conver-sation Analysis and Language for Specific Purposes (Frankfurt:Peter Lang, 2007): 141-182.

Gay, G. Building Cultural Bridges: A bold proposal for teacher edu-cation,Education and Urban Society, 2:5 (1993): 285-299.

Gentile, A, Ozolins, U, Vasilakakos, M.Liason Interpreting: A Hand-book(Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, 1996).

Goffman, E. Forms of Talk(Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 1981).

Hall, E.T. The Silent Language (New York: Garden City, Doubleday& Co., 1959/1990).

Hatim, B., Mason, I. The Translator as Communicator (London:Routledge, 1997).

Inghilleri, M., Harding, S-A., eds. The Translator. Special Issue:Translation and Violent Conflict, 16:2 (2010): 165-173.

Jenkins, R. Pierre Bourdieu (London/New York: Routledge,1992/2002).

Katan, D. Translation Theory and Professional Practice: A GlobalSurvey of the Great Divide,Hermes, 42 (2009a): 111-153.

Katan, D. Occupation or Profession: A survey of the translators

world, in Sela-Sheffy, R.,Shlesinger, M., eds. Profession, Identityand Status: Translators and Interpreters as an OcupationalGroup. Special Issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies(2009b): 187-209.

Katan, D. Translation as Intercultural Communication, in Munday,J. ed. The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies (Oxford:Routledge, 2009c): 74-92.


32/34

David Katan64

Katan, D. Culture, in Baker, M., Sladanha, G., eds.Routledge Ency-clopedia of Translation (London/New York: Routledge, 2008):70-73.

Katan, D. Translating Cultures: an introduction for translators, inter-preters and mediators (Manchester: St. Jerome, 2004): 70-73.

Katan, D., Straniero-Sergio, F. Look Whos Talking: the Ethics ofEntertainment and Talk Show Interpreting, The Translator, 7: 2,(2001): 213-238.

Katan, D., Trickey, D. Negotiating Meaning across Cultures: usingthe Meta Model in NLP as an International Business Communica-tion Tool, in Evans, D., ed. Communicative Ability and CulturalAwareness: A Key to International Corporate Success, VIII EN-

CoDe International Conference, Groupe EDHEC, Nice, (1997):114-119.

Kondo, M. What Conference Interpreters Should Not Be Expected toDo, The Interpreters Newsletter3 (1990): 59-65.

Korzybski, A. Science and Sanity, 4th ed., The International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company (1958).

Maier, C. The Translator as an Intervenient Being, in Munday, J.,ed. Translation as Intervention (London/New York: Continuum,2007): 1-18.

Mason, I. Introduction, The Translator. Special Issue: Dialogue In-terpreting, 5 (2) (1999): 152-8.

Mikkelson, H. Evolving Views of the Court Interpreters Role: Be-tween Scylla and Charybdis, in Valero-Garcs, C., Martin, A.,eds. Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions andDilemmas (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2008): 81-97.

Moeketsi, R. M. H. Intervention in court interpreting: South Africa,in Munday, J., ed. Translation as Intervention (London/New York:

Continuum, 2007): 118-137.Munday, J. (ed) Translation as Intervention (London/New York, Con-tinuum: 2007).

National Standard Guide for Community Interpreting Services Canada(2007/www.multilanguages.com/.../National_Standard_Guide_for_Community_Interpreting_Services.pdf. Accessed 29/12/2010.

Ondarra, J. K. Collaborative Negotiation of Meaning: a longitudinalapproach (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997).


33/34


Palmer, J. Interpreting and Translation for Western Media in Iraq, inSalama-Carr, M., ed. Translating and Interpreting Conflict (Am-sterdam/New York, Rodopi, 2007): 13-28.

Pchhacker, F. Introducing Interpreting Studies (London/New York:Routledge, 2004).Pchhacker, F. Interpreters and Ideology: From Between to

Within, TRANS. Internet-Zeitschrift fr Kulturwissenschaften,16. (2005) www.inst.at/trans/16Nr/09_4/poechhacker16.htm.Accessed 23/12/2010.

Pchhacker, F. Interpreting as mediation, in Valero-Garcs, C.; A.Martn, eds. Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting. Defini-tions and Dilemmas (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2008)

9-26.Pchhacker, F. Going Social? On Pathways and paradigms in In-

terpreting Studies, in Pym, A., Shlesinger, M., Jettmarov, eds.Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting (Amster-dam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2006): 215-232.

Pym, A. On the Ethics of Translators Interventions (2009)http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Ch1XiM1rCvg.Accessed 17/01/2011

Salama-Carr, M. The Interpretive Approach, The Routledge Ency-clopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge,2008): 145-147.

Simeoni, D. The Pivotal Status of the Translators Habitus, Target10:1 (1998): 1-39.

Toury, G. A Handful of Paragraphs on Translation and Norms, inSchffner, C., ed. Translation and Norms (Philadelphia: Multilin-gual Matters, 1999): 9-31.

Trompenaars, F., Hampden-Turner, C. Riding the Waves of Culture

(London: Nicholas Brearley, 1997).Vidal Claramonte, M.C.. Re-presenting the Real: Pierre Bourdieuand Legal Translation, The Translator, 11:2 (2005): 259-276.

Wadensj, C.Interpreting as Interaction (London: Longman, 1998).Wing-Kwong Leung, M. The Ideological Turn in Translation Stud-

ies, in Ferreira Duarte, J., Assis Rosaand, A., Seruya, T., eds.Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines (Amster-dam/Philadelphia: Benjamin, 2006): 129144.


34/34

David Katan66

Wolf, M. The Emergence of a Sociology of Translation, in Wolf,M., Fukari, A. Constructing a Sociology of Translation (Amster-dam/Philadelphia: Benjamin, 2007): 1-38.

Interpreting as Intervention

Documents

Transcript of Interpreting as Intervention