Simultaneous Conference Interpreting and a Supernorm That Governs It All

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.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 tie...

Interpreter ideology

“…These product-oriented studies resonate with survey-based studies (e.g. Diriker 2004;Zwischenberger 2015); the 'super-norm' of impartiality and loyalty to the speaker (Zwischenberger 2015)-promoted by the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC), probably the most influential norm-setting authority in the field-is empirically challenged, if not subverted. In the words of Hatim and Mason (1997: 147), interpreters 'intervene…, feeding their own knowledge and beliefs' into their processing of spoken texts; hence, interpreters are not a mere 'conduit' positioned 'in-between' (Tymoczko 2003), but may work 'within' a particular ideology (Pöchhacker 2005).…”

From inward to outward: the need for translation studies to become outward-going

“…A second outward turn, towards the field of practice, needs to be takenmost probably before the outward turn towards other disciplines is initiated. TS needs to close the current gap between itself and translation practice, which centres on the misconstrued image of translators and interpreters as 'conduits' (Zwischenberger 2015) whose job it is to channel the sense inherent to the original. This image is particularly damaging to the discipline because it perpetuates perceptions of 'translation proper' and consequently also of TS as outdated.…”

Interpreting is Interpreting: Why we need to leave behind interpreting settings to discover Comparative Interpreting Studies

“…The problem for this argument is that there is precious little data to verify such a hypothesis, and the data that is available actually points to similarities across settings, not differences, as has been seen most clearly in the surprising similarity between the interpreters studied by Diriker (2004) and Angermeyer (2015). While there are indeed some differences in interpreter self-perception (e.g., Angelelli 2004a; Mellinger and Hanson 2018), some work on this area (e.g., Zwischenberger 2015) has argued that the continued existence of setting-specific professional norms -most notably those related to the figure of the interpreter as a neutral, distant mediator -are under threat, precisely because of the growth in research showing interpreters to be active participants across settings. Indeed, there seems to be growing evidence that there is a great difference between interpreter self-perception and their actual behavior (Diriker 2004;Martínez-Gómez 2015).…”