Interpreting by Setting

Interpreting, according to Pöchhacker (2004), takes place when people with different background in language and culture communicate for certain goal in

inter-social or international settings. Interpreter-mediated communication also occurs in intra-social settings where diverse ethnic groups of people live within one country.

Pöchhacker analyzes the features of interactions in inter- and intra-social settings and categorizes these features into different types of interpreting: conference and

community interpreting, which as Hale (2007) said is the major classification in the field of interpreting.

Conference interpreting service has been applied to international meetings after World War II the Nuremberg war crimes trials, in which technology development enabled interpreters to work in sound-proof booths and conduct simultaneous interpreting with ancillary equipment (Gentile et al., 1996). On the other hand, community interpreting has only become the center of focus after 1980s when the interpreting service demand rises in public-sector institutions under the background of immigration (Pöchhacker, 2004). It often takes place “at police departments,

immigration departments, social welfare centers, medical and mental health offices, schools and other institutions” (Wadensjö, 2009, p.43). The goals of conference and community interpreting are as follows: Conference interpreting aims to facilitate addressees of a communicative activity to comprehend a speaker whereas community interpreters help people obtain social services in public institutions (Kelly, 2008).

13

Apart from differences in places and goals, Gentile et al. (1996) also mentioned factors that distinguish community interpreting from conference interpreting, such as that a community interpreter renders into both language directions, works by

him/herself rather than with a partner in a dialogue with participants often having different social status. The status difference can also be manifested in different

linguistic varieties and registers. Moreover, Hale (2007) highlighted the importance of accurate rendition and negative consequences of inaccuracy. Differences of

community and conference interpreting are compiled as Table 2.1.

Since medical interpreting is one of the major domains under community interpreting (Pöchhacker, 2004), more elaboration of community interpreting will be given. Community interpreting is a three-party interaction, with the bilingual

interpreter being the secondary party (Alexieva, 1997/2002) to mediate communication between two monolingual primary parties speaking different languages (Pöchhacker, 2004). Each primary party may consist of an individual or more people (Gentile et al., 1996). According to Alexieva (1997/2002),

communication in community interpreting is composed of instinctive, extemporized utterances and personal issues, the intensity of direct interaction between three

parties – speaker, addressee and interpreter – is therefore high. In addition, the roles of speaker and addressee are adopted by different primary parties in turn (Gentile et al., 1996). As a result, each party pays close attention to the content and manner of speech of other participants, such as facial and body language (Alexieva, 1997/2002). To work on the message instead of language, the interpreter needs to empathize with the primary parties in turn at each exchange (Gentile et al., 1996).

14

Table 2.1 Differences between Community and Conference Interpreting

Community Interpreting Conference Interpreting Language

Output Language Equal amount of work into both languages

Most of the work into one language (interpreter’s A language, generally) Linguistic Varieties Maximum potential for

linguistic varieties of the Register Maximum potential for

different registers

Less likely to control the speaker

Number of Interpreters

One (working alone) Two (working as a team) Social Status of

Source: compiled by this study from Gentile et al. (1996), Angelelli (2000), Hale (2007), Pöchhacker (2004), Wadensjö (2009)

The size of the participants and the dialogic form of communication make community interpreters have opportunities to ask the speaker to repeat a segment that

15

they have not heard clearly or understood comprehensively (Gentile et al., 1996).

They may also ask for explanation and clarification (Angelelli, 2000) or point out when they think there has been a misunderstanding (Hale, 2007). As a mediator who shares cultural background with at least one of the primary parties, community

interpreter is more likely to discover how differences between primary parties, such as social status and background as listed in Table 2.1, affect the communication

(Angelelli, 2000). A great amount of studies therefore suggest that community interpreters should assume broader roles with greater involvement in the

communication, comparing to the role of conference interpreter as a conduit, which is only responsible for linguistic transformation (Pöchhacker, 2004).

However, community interpreters are demanded to perform “a high level of neutrality and detachment” (Wadensjö, 2009, p.44). While studies show that

community interpreters should adopt broader roles, it is also interpreter’s duty not to involve to the extent that may weaken professional performance (Gentile et al., 1996).

Professional community interpreters and trainers of community interpreting have diverse opinions about the roles and proper level of involvement of community interpreters; therefore, debate about interpreters’ neutrality and detachment has been one of the major issues of the field (Wadensjö, 2009). More exploration of issues related to roles and neutrality is given in the following sections.

Within studies of community interpreting, medical interpreting and legal interpreting are the two major domains (Pöchhacker, 2004). Features of community interpreting mentioned in the previous section are consequently applicable to both.

Issues of neutrality and detachment are also the center of debate.

Although there is much in common between medical and legal interpreting, such as principles of impartiality, fidelity and confidentiality are emphasized and the consequences of communication in these settings affect clients’ lives, there are also

16

significant differences in the practice of medical and legal interpreters (Hale, 2007).

According to Hale (2007), medical interpreting takes place in “private practice, hospital settings and consultations with other health care professionals” (p.36) and is participated by healthcare provides, patients and an interpreter. On the other hand, compiled by Gamal (2009), legal interpreting takes place mainly in courtrooms, sometimes in police sections, attorneys’ chambers, customs and immigration offices with legal professionals, clients and interpreter(s) as participants. Hale (2007) also mentioned that although the expressions used in these settings are important to both medical and legal interpreting because they may impact the result, the intentions behind the expressions in both settings are different. Medical consultations are not adversarial so physicians ask questions to gain information that facilitates them to help the patient. However, the courtroom is adversarial and lawyers tend to ask

questions to draw forth the answers they want to support the case. In addition, patients are allowed to ask questions at any time in medical encounters while only lawyers can initiate questions in the courtroom. Finally, since medical consultation is a private and informal setting, rather than a public setting that is governed by strict rules of

evidence as in the courtroom, the demand for neutrality is less apparent. However, there is yet consensus on this point.

The private and informal setting of medical encounters where the healthcare provider’s goal of communication is to express clearly and be understood by the patient makes it possible for medical interpreters to assume tasks taken by non-conduit roles (Hale, 2007). Kaufert & Putsch (1997) argued that unlike legal interpreting, major disparities in cultural background often occur in medical interpreting. In order to enhance mutual understanding between primary parties, medical interpreters are required to “engage in explanations, culture brokerage and mediation when these actions are necessary” (P.75). Hsieh (2006) also observed that

17

medical interpreters take actions intending to manage interactions between healthcare provider and patient. Roles of interpreters are therefore important issues in studies of medical interpreting.

In addition, empathy has been found to be relevant to successful medical encounters. Hale (2007) said that successful communication in medical setting is relevant to attentive and empathetic listening to the patient, not only to his/her verbal expressions but also to the non-verbal responses (Vasquez & Javier, 1991). Harres (1998) also observed that providers use tag questions to express empathy with the patient. Reynolds and Scott (1999) found that research evidence supports empathy being crucial to a helping relationship and thus argued for applying empathy to clinical nursing. They offer operational definition of empathy in the setting which is to accurately perceive patient’s world and communicate this understanding to the patient. Moreover, since the outcome of the medical consultation depends highly on the rapport between physician and patient (Tebble, 1999) while empathy produces supportive communication and develop relationship (Redmond, 1989), it can be argued that empathy is vital to successful medical communication. However, there have been no in depth discussions about how to demonstrate empathy in medical interpreting yet. One of the goals of this study is therefore about the ways of incorporating the concept and skills of empathy into medical interpreting.