Advertisement

Translation and Interpreting

  • Claudia V. Angelelli

Abstract

Advances in technology, increase in communicative needs, evolving conceptualizations of the role of translators and interpreters, more attention paid to processes (rather than products), increasingly nuanced approaches to abilities and quality as well as a diversity of lenses and perspectives used to study phenomena have resulted in more interdisciplinary types of studies in both translation and interpreting. This diversity requires a more direct engagement with related disciplines. Evidence of the growth in translation and interpreting studies (TIS) is the number of scholarly journals, the interest of publishing companies in this area of study, and the appearance of new doctoral and master’s programs in TIS. Scholars in TIS have also developed their own methodological approaches to researching TIS-related issues as they also borrowed freely from related disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. This chapter provides an overview of the most salient issues in T&I and the qualitative and quantitative methods most commonly used to investigate phenomena in TIS.

Keywords

Interdisciplinary Professional Communication Research Ethics 

References

  1. Angelelli, C. V. (2004a). Medical interpreting and cross-cultural communication. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelelli, C. V. (2004b). Re-visiting the interpreter’s role. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angelelli, C. V. (2007). Validating professional standards and codes: Challenges and opportunities. INTERPRETING: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, 8, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angelelli, C. V. (Guest Ed.). (2011). Translators and interpreters: Geographic displacement and linguistic consequences. Special issue of The International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 207.Google Scholar
  5. Angelelli, C. V. (2012). The sociological turn in translation and interpreting studies. Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association, 7, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angelelli, C. V. (2015). Justice for all? Issues faced by linguistic minorities and border patrol agents during interpreted arraignment interviews. MonTi: Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación, 7, 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Angelelli, C. V. (2016). Looking back: A study of (ad-hoc) family interpreters. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Angelelli, C. V., Agger-Gupta, N., Green, C. E., & Okahara, L. (2007). The California standards for healthcare interpreters: Ethical principles, protocols and guidance on roles and intervention. In C. Wadensjö, B. E. Dimitrova, & A.-L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4 (pp. 167–177). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Angelelli, C. V., & Jacobson, H. E. (2009). Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies: A call for dialogue between research and practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Antonini, R. (2011). Natural translator and interpreter. In Y. Gambier & L. Van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 2, pp. 102–104). Amsterdam, Netherland: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baker, M. (2006). Translation and conflict. A narrative account. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bandía, P. (2008). Translation as reparation: Writing and translation in postcolonial Africa. St. Jerome: Manchester.Google Scholar
  13. Bastin, G. (1998). Traducir o Adaptar. Estudio de la adaptación puntual y global de obras didácticas. Univesidad Central de Venezuela. Consejo de Desarrollo Científico y Humanístico.Google Scholar
  14. Berk-Seligson, S. (2002). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bolden, G. (2000). Towards understanding practices of medical interpreting: Interpreters’ involvement in history taking. Discourse Studies, 2, 387–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chan, A. (2009). Perceived benefits of translator certification to stakeholders in the translation profession. A survey of vendor managers. Across Languages and Cultures, 11, 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. CHIA. (2002). California standards for healthcare interpreters. Retrieved July 2016, from www.chiaonline.org
  18. Colina, S., & Angelelli, C. V. (2015). Translation and interpreting pedagogy. In C. V. Angelelli & B. J. Baer (Eds.), Researching translation and interpreting studies (pp. 108–117). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Davidson, B. (2000). The interpreter as an institutional gatekeeper: The sociolinguistic role of interpreters in Spanish-English medical discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 379–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dimitrova, B. (2005). Expertise and explicitation in the translation process. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company (Benjamins Translation Library, 64).Google Scholar
  21. Ervin, F., & Meyer, B. (Guest Eds.). (2016). Non-professional interpreting and translation: translational cultures in focus. Special issue of European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4.Google Scholar
  22. Gavioli, L. (2012). Minimal responses in interpreter mediated medical talk. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting (pp. 201–228). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gile, D. (2002). Conference and simultaneous interpreting. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 40–45). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Hale, S. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hammond, D. L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional issues for translators and interpreters (Vol. VII, American Translators Association Monograph Series). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  27. Hsieh, E. (2016). Bilingual health communication: Working with interpreters in cross-cultural care. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Inghilleri, M. (Guest Ed.). (2005). Bourdieu and the sociology of translation and interpreting. Special issue of The Translator, 11.Google Scholar
  29. Jimenez-Crespo, M. (2015). Collaborative and volunteer translation and interpreting. In C. V. Angelelli & B. J. Baer (Eds.), Researching translation and interpreting studies (pp. 58–70). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Karoly, A. (2014). Translation in foreign language teaching: A case study from a functional perspective. Linguistics and Education, 25, 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuo, S., & Nakamura, M. (2005). Translation or transformation? A case study of language and ideology in the Taiwanese press. Discourse and Society, 16, 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Li, D. (2000). Tailoring translation programs to social needs: A survey of professional translators. Target. International. Journal of Translation Studies, 12, 127–149.Google Scholar
  33. Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1991). Translation skills and metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals. In E. Byalistock (Ed.), Language and processing in bilingual children (pp. 141–166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mellinger, C. D. (2014). Computer-assisted translation: An empirical investigation of cognitive effort. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, OH. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1ybBY7W
  35. Metzger, M. (1999). Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Meyer, B. (2012). Ad-hoc interpreting for Partially-Language-Proficient patients: Participation in multilingual constellations. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting (pp. 99–114). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meylaerts, R. (2010). Habitus and self-image of native literary author-translators in diglossic societies. Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association, 5, 1–19.Google Scholar
  38. Monzó, E. (2009). Legal and translational occupations in Spain. Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association, 4, 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morris, R. (2010). Images of the court interpreter: Professional identity, role definition and self-image. Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association, 5, 20–40.Google Scholar
  40. Muñoz Martin, R. (2013). More than a way with words: The interface between cognitive linguistics and cognitive translatology. In A. Rojo & I. Ibrarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models and applications (pp. 75–96). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  41. Nicodemus, B., & Swabey, L. (2015). Action research. In C. V. Angelelli & B. J. Baer (Eds.), Researching translation and interpreting studies (pp. 157–167). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
  43. Roy, C. (2002). The problem with definitions, descriptions and the role of metaphors of interpreters. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 344–353). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Sela-Sheffy, R., & Shlesinger, M. (Eds.). (2011). Identity and status in the translational professions (Vol. 32). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Shreve, G. M. (1997). Cognition and the evolution of translation competence. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreeve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 120–136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Tipton, R. (2010). On trust: Relationships of trust in interpreter-mediated social work encounters. In M. Baker, M. Olohan, & M. C. Pérez (Eds.), Text and context: Essays on translation and interpreting in Honour of Ian Mason (pp. 188–208). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
  47. Tonkin, H., & Frank, M. E. (Eds.). (2010). The translator as mediator of cultures (Vol. 3). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. Tyulenev, S. (2015). Agency and role. In C. V. Angelelli & B. J. Baer (Eds.), Researching translation and interpreting studies (pp. 17–31). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Valdés, G., & Angelelli, C. V. (2003). Interpreters, interpreting and the study of bilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Valdés, G., Chavez, C., & Angelelli, C. V. (2000). Bilingualism from another perspective: The case of young interpreters from immigrant communities. In A. Roca (Ed.), Research on Spanish in the United States: Linguistic issues and challenges (pp. 42–81). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  51. Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case for bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  52. Venuti, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility- A history of translation. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.Google Scholar
  54. Wolf, M., & Fukari, A. (Eds.). (2007). Constructing a sociology of translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Languages & Intercultural Studies, School of Management & LanguagesHeriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations