Interpreting by Setting & the Interpreter’s Roles

Bente Jacobsen (2009) points out that interpreting research for the most part has centered on either conference or community interpreting whereby both areas focused on the “visible interpreter” rather than the more abstract role of interpreting. According to Jacobsen, the research on conference interpreting focuses more on cognitive, neurophysiological, neurolinguistics and performance-related issues with the interpreter while research on community interpreting is more concerned with the “role perceptions and expectations among users of interpreting services and interpreting practitioners” (ibid., p.156). The reason for this categorical preference for certain issues is due to the differing characteristics of conference and community interpreting as summarized in Jacobsen’s table of essential characteristics for each type of communication (Table 1):

Table 1. The essential characteristics of community interpreting and conference interpreting Source: Jacobsen, 2009

Maurizio Viezzi (2013) states that if the “interaction format” of a communication event is adopted as the criterion for classification, then interpreting can be classified as either monologic or dialogic interpreting. Viezzi defines monologic communication as utterances being expressed from one person to many, occurring when “the interaction is not mutual between the audience and the speaker”, and dialogic communication as “face-to-face encounters where the form of communication is conversation” (ibid., p. 377). When applying Jacobsen’s dichotomy and Viezzi’s definitions to the types of communication events that take place within a church setting, one might come to the conclusion that church interpreting is a form of “conference interpreting”, given that sermons are predominantly monologic, pre-planned, and interpreted uni-directionally. Hwa-chin Tseng (2009), however, argues that church interpreting is in fact more akin to “community interpreting”, though it is difficult to see the validity of this claim based on just the aforementioned definitions and criteria.

Viezzi (2013) and Jacobsen (2009) also understand the insufficiency of solely using these criteria in classifying interpreting, as both bring up the significance of setting in the classification of interpreting activities. Viezzi points out that distinguishing interpreting events along the lines of setting gives way to setting-related categorizations, such as court interpreting, media

interpreting, business interpreting, parliamentary interpreting and so on (ibid., p. 377), while Jacobsen brings up Pöchhacker (2016) and his mapping of a conceptual spectrum of interpreting to flesh out interpreting classifications.

2.1.1 Inter-social and Intra-social Interpreting

Pöchhacker (2016) mapped out a variety of interpreting activities along a spectrum from inter- to intra-social spheres of interaction, or what could otherwise be generally referred to as interpreting settings. Pöchhacker explained that the evolution of interpreting activity occurred with the increase in the number of settings requiring interpreting, ranging from inter-social dealings between communities to intra-social relations within a heterolingual and multicultural community.

In Figure 1, settings are grouped under catchwords that encapsulate the general type of interaction and contact through which interpreting is performed (ibid., 2004). Unlike the more fixed settings such as “military”, “public services” and “law and justice”, religious settings such as “missionary work” and “religious services” are placed on both sides of the spectrum, suggesting the varied nature of interpreting in the broader category of “religious settings”.

Figure 1. Interpreting in different spheres of interaction Source: Pöchhacker, 2016

Pöchhacker (2016) points out that this spectrum featuring spheres of social interaction could be further refined by installing the constellations, or formats, of interaction, which can arguably better account for social interactions that extend across spheres of interaction, such as religious services and missionary work. The result is a spectrum that spans from the “international conference interpreting” sphere of interaction to the” intra-social community” interpreting sphere, which incorporates not only the interaction formats (i.e. conference and dialogue) but also features usually found in each type of interpreting (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Conceptual Spectrum of Interpreting Source: Pöchhacker, 2016

In Pöchhacker’s initial mapping of interpreting in different spheres of interaction,

“religious services” and “missionary work” were placed at opposite ends of the spectrum due to the nature of each activity conforming to a certain type of setting. However, Pöchhacker (2016) also acknowledges the fact that categorizing interpreting settings is not always clear cut, and cautions against using a fixed dichotomy when categorizing interpreting interactions (Pöchhacker, 2016). Thus, Pöchhacker’s conceptual spectrum of interpreting in Figure 2 is designed to classify interpreting activities such as church interpreting, which falls somewhere between international and intra-social communication, intersects monologic conference and dialogic community interaction formats, and straddles the line between conference and community interpreting.

2.1.2 Role of the Interpreter by Code of Ethics

Based on Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2 above, it is clear that interpreting can occur and does occur in wide variety of settings. The question now is whether these settings play any part in forming the interpreter’s role, assuming that the interpreter is more than just a “translation machine”. In an attempt to connect the interpreting setting with the interpreter’s role, the researcher first turned to Sandra Hale (2007) and her tabulated compilation of role descriptions taken from professional associations and other programs (e.g. health services). These descriptions highlight the general consensus on what role or roles the community interpreter ought to take on. For the most part, the role descriptions spoke less on the actual role of the interpreter and more on the code of ethics for interpreting, prescribing interpreters to refrain from advocacy, counseling, interjection of personal opinions and actions of the like. However, these do’s and don’ts in these codes of ethics may not always be feasible depending on the various kinds of demands (e.g. social, cultural, physical) imposed on interpreters from the different settings in which they interpret.

Hale (2007) made another compilation of role descriptions provided by various practicing interpreters, and found that despite none openly contradicting the general interpreter’s code of ethics to remain impartial and neutral, “most agreed that the practical application of the role differed due to the limitations or demands of the setting,” with some even suggesting that different settings require different codes of ethics (ibid., p. 129). Rather than focusing on whether the interpreter is able to adhere to a specific code of ethics when interpreting, the focus of this study is placed on the notion that the setting itself plays a part in how interpreters are expected to carry out their duties.

2.1.3 Role of the Interpreter by Setting

Claudia V. Angelelli (2004) further develops this idea of setting-based interpreter roles.

She posits that interpreting does not happen in a social vacuum, and that interpreters are not immune to ever-present social factors, which make maintain neutrality as outlined in interpreter’s codes of ethics virtually impossible. Impartiality and neutrality are valued because such qualities absolve the interpreter from certain responsibilities related to the content of the communication;

however, interpreters do play a role in co-constructing the conversation, especially in dialogic interpreting (Hale, 2007). Thus, if the interpreter has a level of participation in the interaction, then social factors (e.g. race, ethnicity, gender, age, status) may have some bearing on how the interpreter presents information (Hale, 2007).

As seen in Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2, different domains of interpreting tend to be accompanied by certain interaction formats (i.e. monologic or dialogic) and modes of interpreting (i.e. consecutive interpreting, simultaneous interpreting) depending on the context or setting in which interpreting takes place. Angelelli’s Visible Interpreter Model (see Figure 3) pinpoint specific factors that act upon the interpreter. As seen in Figure 3, the entire communication event, interpreting, and the interlocutors are situated in nested spheres, each with its own set of social constraints acting upon the interlocutors and interpreter. In the church context, there may be additional factors not listed by Angelelli that may be acting upon the interpreter, including pressures from the church institution, religious ideology, and faith.

Figure 3. Visible Interpreter Model Source: Angelelli, 2004

Angelelli (2004) designed a tool—the Interpreter’s Interpersonal Role Inventory (IPRI)—

to study the interpersonal role of the interpreter by looking at interpreters’ perceptions of their roles in various settings (e.g. medical, court, conference) in hopes that differences in the competencies involved in each kind of interpreting event could be further clarified. The results of her study presented evidence showing that interpreters perceive themselves as visible to varying degrees that differ from setting to setting. Moreover, their roles are not restricted to bridging communication but may extend to advocacy, cultural mediation, trust-building and other roles not in line with the traditional notion of an invisible and neutral interpreter (Angelelli, 2004). The reason for the variability is due to the variance in setting and interaction formats.

Angelelli’s (2004) study brings to light the reality that interpreters as social creatures cannot possibly operate within a social vacuum, and will rather behave based on their perceptions of themselves, the interlocutors and the situation. Given that interpreters can never fully live up to the expectation of being impartial and invisible, interpreters can only focus on playing their respective roles in accordance to the code of conduct specific to each setting while relying on their

2.1.4 Role of the Interpreter by Quality

How well an interpreter is playing their role is measured by the interpreting “quality”. But what elements constitute “quality” was also found to vary from setting to setting in the following study by Franz Pöchhacker and Cornelia Zwischenberger (2010). In their study, AIIC members were asked to participate in a survey regarding role perceptions. The study, in part, extends the scope of Hildegund Bühler who conducted a study in 1986 on the quality criteria used to assess candidates for AIIC membership, and draws parallels with Claudia Angelelli’s (2004) study on role perceptions among interpreters in various settings. Based on their findings, Pöchhacker and Zwischenberger’s concluded that the interpreter’s function and role is “inherently linked with the issue of quality, since conference interpreters’ perceptions of the nature of their task will ultimately shape their performance” (Pöchhacker and Zwischenberg, 2010). The objective of the survey is stated as follows:

The survey focused exclusively on simultaneous conference interpreting. It sought to find out how AIIC members judge the importance of 11 output-related quality criteria (including fluency of delivery, correct grammar, lively intonation, logical cohesion, completeness, native accent, pleasant voice, and sense consistency with the original) and whether the relative importance of these criteria varied depending on the type of meeting or assignment.

(Pöchhacker and Zwischenberg, 2010)

The results of the study show that interpreters generally focus on language and delivery-related criteria to evaluate the quality of interpreting. However, when particular meeting types or domains are considered, the quality criteria that are generally considered less important are then rated as more important. The level of significance “attributed to various quality criteria thus varies in relation to the meeting (e.g. type of event, degree of formality, duration and size) and the domain (e.g. political, diplomatic, business, legal, medical) in which the event takes place” (Pöchhacker and Zwischenberg, 2010).