Unidad 5: Ejercicio profesional (Consideraciones para intérpretes. Protocolo y etiqueta. Confidencialidad. Ética.

Códigos de las asociaciones a nivel nacional (ADICA) e internacional (AIIC)

Asociación de Intérpretes de Conferencias de la Argentina. Código de ética.

Los miembros están obligados a mantener en forma confidencial toda la información que reciban durante sus tareas o
con anterioridad a las mismas. Los intérpretes serán objetivos en su interpretación. No aceptarán compromisos para los
cuales no sean competentes. Se prepararán de antemano para cada conferencia. Insistirán ante los sonidistas para
poder ver y escuchar a los oradores, y contar con los mínimos requerimientos técnicos. No aceptarán desempeñar otras
tareas. En caso de enfermedad o fuerza mayor, plantearán el problema al coordinador y buscarán a un colega de
experiencia similar para su reemplazo. También podrán solicitar a la Asociación ayuda en este sentido. No aceptarán dos
compromisos para el mismo período ni cancelarán uno confirmado y aceptado porque hayan recibido una oferta mejor.
Antes de aceptar un trabajo, revelarán cualquier interés comercial, financiero o de cualquier otra índole que tuviesen
con el tema que se tratará. Traducirán a los idiomas para los cuales han sido contratados. No se debe buscar o tratar de
atraer clientes de un colega, pero podrá prestar sus servicios cuando le sean requeridos, salvo que ese cliente lo haya
conocido por haber trabajado contratado por el intérprete coordinador. Cuando se desvinculen profesionales que hayan
colaborado mutuamente y alguno de ellos mantenga vinculación con ex–clientes comunes, los restantes profesionales
deben abstenerse de promover la atracción para sí de dichos clientes. Se debe contar con plena conciencia del
sentimiento de solidaridad profesional. No se deben formular ante colegas ni clientes manifestaciones que puedan
significar menoscabo a otro profesional en su idoneidad, prestigio o moralidad.

Obligaciones del intérprete convocado por un colega:

- Su factura deberá contener los datos requeridos por ley pero deberá tacharse o blanquearse el número
telefónico.
- no dará tarjetas o datos personales al cliente de otro colega.
- No entrará en negociaciones respecto de horarios, modalidades de trabajo, honorarios mínimos, adicionales ni
pagos. En todos los casos derivará las consultas al intérprete coordinador.

Deberes del intérprete coordinador:

- Tener el contrato asegurado al convocar a sus colegas o aclarar que no se trata de un trabajo seguro, a fin de
que el colega pueda estar en libertad de acción.
- Arbitrar los medios necesarios (contrato, presupuesto armado, adelanto, etc.) para garantizar el pago.
- Al enviar colegas a realizar un trabajo en el cual no estará presente, proporcionarles un contacto a quien se
puedan dirigir para cualquier consulta.
- Asegurarse de que en todo presupuesto que incluya más de un servicio la interpretación aparezca siempre como
un rubro separado.

International Association of Conference Interpreters. Code of Professional Ethics.

I. Purpose and Scope
a) This Code lays down the standards of integrity, professionalism and confidentiality of interpreters
c) The Disciplinary and Disputes Committee, acting in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes, shall impose
penalties for any breach of the rules of the profession.
II. Code of Honour
Article 2 a) Members shall be bound by the strictest secrecy, which must be observed towards all persons and with
regard to all information disclosed in the practice of the profession at any gathering not open to the public.
2 b) Members shall refrain from deriving any personal gain whatsoever from confidential information they may have
acquired in the exercise of their duties as conference interpreters.
Article 3a) Members shall not accept any assignment for which they are not qualified. Acceptance of an assignment shall
imply a moral undertaking on the member's part to work with all due professionalism.
3b) Any member recruiting other conference interpreters shall give the same undertaking.
3c) Members shall not accept more than one assignment for the same period of time.
Article 4 a) Members shall not accept any job or situation which might detract from the dignity of the profession.
4b) They shall refrain from any act which might bring the profession into disrepute.
Article 5: For any professional purpose, members may publicize the fact that they are conference interpreters and
members, as individuals or as part of any grouping or region to which they belong.
Article 6a) It shall be the duty of members to afford their colleagues moral assistance and collegiality.
6b) Members shall refrain from any utterance or action prejudicial to the interests of the Association or its members.
Any complaint arising out of the conduct of any other member or any disagreement regarding any decision taken by the
Association shall be pursued and settled within the Association.
6c) Any problem pertaining to the profession which arises between two or more members of the Association, including
candidates and precandidates, may be referred to the Disciplinary and Disputes Committee for arbitration, except for
disputes of a commercial nature.
III. Working Conditions
Article 7: With a view to ensuring the best quality interpretation, members:
a) shall endeavor to secure satisfactory conditions of sound, visibility and comfort, having particular regard to the
Professional Standards as adopted by the Association as well as any technical standards drawn up or approved by it;
b) shall not when interpreting simultaneously in a booth, work alone or without the availability of a colleague to relieve
them should the need arise;
c) shall ensure that teams of conference interpreters are formed in such a way as to avoid the systematic use of relay;
d) shall not agree to undertake simultaneous interpretation without a booth or whispered interpretation unless the
circumstances are exceptional and the quality of interpretation work is not thereby impaired;
e) require a direct view of the speaker and the room and will not agree to working from screens except in exceptional
circumstances where a direct view is not possible, provided the arrangements comply with the Association’s appropriate
technical specifications;
f) shall require that working documents and texts to be read out at the conference be sent to them in advance;
g) shall request a briefing session whenever appropriate;
h) shall not perform any other duties except that of conference interpreter at conferences
Article 8: Members shall neither accept nor offer for themselves or for other interpreters recruited through them any
working conditions contrary to those laid down in this Code or in the Professional Standards.
IV. Amendment Procedure
Article 9: This Code may be modified by a decision of the Assembly.

Ozolins, U. Ethics and the Role of the Interpreter.

Community interpreting has arisen from 3 post-war historical developments: migration, the growth in assertiveness of
deaf communities and changes in attitudes towards indigenous populations. Two factors are essential to meet ethical
challenges: the profession needs to bring a diverse group of practitioners to see themselves as having a certain role and
identifiable professional commitment; externally, there has to be a role perception among non-interpreters.

From code of honor to detailed codes of practice: In the code of AIIC, it is possible to identify the view of role and
understanding of ethics that characterized this field as it evolved from 1940s: conference interpreting was for an
international elite, with presumed equality among participants. The Code’s subsection is “Code of Honour”, an antique
appellation and there is only one item that can be recognized as an ethical principle - that of “absolutely secrecy”. The
AIIC code serves as an enunciation of excellence, a guarantee of discretion, and an affirmation of professional solidarity
and privilege. European codes reflect the AIIC approach, giving no details on role or practice, and confining ethical
principles to confidentiality and maintaining the dignity of the profession. Yet the more codes refer to community
settings, the more they detail ethical practice and role. Interpreting in community settings can be characterized as
having the contextual features: social difference between parties, situations could be adversarial or therapeutic,
educational or informative, the interpreter comes from the minority group.

Ethics outside of codes: conflict situations; business interpreting: Involvement of conference interpreters in situations
of conflict, and the use of local interpreters during foreign military interventions, has given a sharp edge to ethical
issues. There’s the contingent nature of interpreter’s position when they are not offered protection when they
relinquish their roles, and the discrepancies in pay, conditions and protection for the military interpreters that come
with the occupying force, compared with locally employed interpreters. Conference interpreters are involved in business
interpreting: interpreters may be asked to perform a variety of functions other than interpreting. Business meetings will
have multiple participants, of varying hierarchy and with different degrees of knowledge of the other L, leading to
manifold issues in turn-taking, in-team and cross-team communication and who to interpret for. Participants in business
encounters are concerned with the building of rapport and interpreters are involved in this. Coping with frustration
places the interpreter in a sensitive area: anticipating or managing conflict becomes paramount.

Interpreting ethics, theory and translation ethics: Codes of ethics favoring impartiality and neutrality were criticized.
Some of the critiques of codes focus on their inapplicability to particular areas, e.g. health. Another critique focused on
the dominant model of interpreting as that of the “machine” kind/conduit model. “Interpreters are forced to make their
discretionary choices covertly, with the result that individual interpreters find themselves resolving in isolation the
inevitable role conflicts of their job.” Three alternative ways of conceptualizing codes of ethics and role:
1. the approach of virtue ethics in translation: Chesterman’s oath is based on the translator having an idea of how a
good translator behaves, wanting to be a good translator, and striving for excellence. He characterized this as an
ethics of commitment. This is a rarity among codes of ethics, which more commonly take a rule-based deontological
approach.
2. the different forms of developmental ethics: Dean and Pollard argue that interpreting is a “practice profession”
rather than a technical one, as interaction with other participants is central to its exercise, and for such professions
context and the ability to respond to changing contexts are crucial. The methodology they provide is for practitioners
to get through “it depends” situations, and situations where interpreters fear departure from prescribed norms. Their
work raises the question of to what extent codes can respond to the contextual varieties of the situations
encountered by interpreters. They argue that codes that emphasize values associated with optimal practice
outcomes (rather than dictating/prohibiting specific behaviors) are the preferred means for evaluating interpreting
decisions. Clifford observes that interpreters go through a developmental process as they learn their craft and learn
more about the institutional context in which they work; it takes place in interaction with other health professionals.
First, the interpreter is a stranger and the clinician wants full control. Second, the clinician sees the interpreter’s
worth, and third: the interpreter is accepted as a member of a team who can see and comment on aspects of the
communication. For Clifford, this takes us out of an ethics about linguistic form to an ethics of cooperative
performance.
3. the defense of current codes as allowing for ethical but non-mechanical practices: a code constitutes an ideology
that can guide professional practice. The purpose of an encounter needs always be understood. Where there are
particular purposes that have implications for the style of interpreting demanded, codes can be supplemented by
shorter institution-specific guidelines.

Conclusion: The degree of common understanding of ethics may be difficult to identify because of the substantial detail
that is included in many codes. Codes of ethics remain the only document for learning about the role some interpreters
will have, or end users will have; they play a vital education role.
Unidad 6: Estudios de interpretación (Enfoques, paradigmas y modelos. Ramas de estudio: el proceso, el producto, la
práctica y la pedagogía de la interpretación. Relación con los estudios de traducción)

Arencibia Rodríguez, L. La investigación sobre la interpretación. Lo hecho y lo por hacer.

¿Cuándo surge la investigación sobre la interpretación? Comienza en el período que media entre dos guerras
mundiales. Tiene un origen eurocéntrico. Sale de la práctica y avanza a golpes de intuiciones con una dinámica de
individuos de fuerte impronta profesional que dieron nombre y escuela a sus propuestas, lo que trajo una falta de
integración y de evolución de los resultados parciales en una adquisición global.

¿Cuáles fueron sus grandes líneas temáticas? Sigue dos tendencias fundamentales:
- Las que priorizan el proceso.
- Las que estudian la capacidad de reaccionar profesionalmente ante la situación comunicativa.
- Ahora se añade una tercera que tiene que ver con el carácter pactado de la prestación.
Los pioneros centraron su atención en el primer tema en los años 60. Esta corriente era liderada por profesionales que
no eran intérpretes. En los 70 tiene lugar un encuentro que pretendió conciliar las corrientes investigativas que
lideraban los intérpretes. Este entendimiento abrió una brecha entre ambas comunidades, que parecieron ignorarse
durante 10 años.
En los años 80, Seleskovitch crea el primer programa doctoral sobre traducción. Sus propuestas y aportes marcaron el
período ulterior. Nuevas escuelas se sumaron en Europa y se aspiró a pasar de la reflexión especulativa a la investigación
empírica. En la investigación sobre la formación saltan a la vista rasgos comunes: la repetitividad de temas y enfoques, el
carácter reflexivo y normativo y la voluntad común de los centros de enseñanza. La mayoría de estos aportes no han
sido sometidos a mecanismos de comprobación que les permita convertirse en premisas válidas. Una buena parte de los
trabajos son resultado de investigaciones realizadas por los estudiantes. Algunas de las motivaciones que debe superar
el investigador en su tarea:
- el sujeto de investigación no resulta accesible
- la prestación se desarrolla en un periodo corto
- no suele disponer de financiamiento que le permita medir los resultados.
La investigación en interpretación no ha encontrado un terreno muy favorable ni en los medios académicos ni entre los
profesionales en ejercicio, y carece de marco institucional. Hace algunas décadas se esboza una transformación en el
mercado de la interpretación con una dinámica distinta: la aparición de nuevas modalidades y otra conformación de la
demanda determinada por la proliferación de organismos internacionales con una programación nutrida de
conferencias anuales y la incorporación de nuevas lenguas de trabajo - también la interpretación en las Cortes o en
países con conflictos fronterizos, y nuevos perfiles de la profesión vinculados a los soportes técnicos que se han
introducido en la comunicación (por ejemplo, videoconferencias).
A consecuencia de esa neta visibilidad de la demanda, aparecen con perfiles más delineados no solo los problemas que
se derivan de la intervención de dos lenguas y polisistemas, sino de las incidencias de las 3 instancias: el enunciador, el
mediador y el destinatario, lo que saca a relucir el carácter pactado de la prestación. La interpretación es un acto
pactado, una negociación en la que el enunciador sabe que va a ser re-enunciado, y acepta someterse a restricciones
formales en un contrato enunciativo previo al acto de la enunciación y de la interpretación misma. Los resultados de la
investigación aplicables en la formación no cubren ni dan respuesta a los requerimientos de la demanda actual. Ante
esto, muchas agencias de contratación de intérpretes han organizado sus propios programas de investigación. El futuro
de la investigación está asociado a la existencia de un mercado local de la interpretación que propicie la observación
sobre el terreno de las diferentes situaciones comunicativas y la verificación de las hipótesis.
Fraser, J. Translation Research and Interpreting Research. Pure, Applied, Action or Pedagogic?
The classic translation research (TR) paradigm remains that of literary translation, perpetuating the notion of the
subservient translator in an inferior position to the author. Yet empirical work shows that the model of the subservient,
non-assertive translator is not applicable to the profession as it operates in the 21st century. By contrast, the paradigm
of interpreting research (IR) is practice in the booth - more in the ‘here and now’. This contribution argues that TR and IR
do have much in common.

Informants of Research: Gile argues that research in the two fields is done by differently trained scholars but he says
little about the informants of such research or the need for differing constituencies for different kinds of research. Pure
research and some aspects of pedagogic research benefit from the insights of the work of literary translators. But that
paradigm will not always be the most appropriate. For applied research, a different constituency needs to be found and
a new paradigm needs to be formulated. Maybe, we need to start from practice and work back from it to theory.

From Practice to Theory: And this is how IR proceeds. Gile comments that IR focused on process since the performance
in the booth is the only real criterion for assessing how effective a practitioner is. TR, by contrast, focused on the bigger
moral, cultural and philosophical issues. IR is more focused on the real world. There is an issue around the message
being conveyed from the research that is being done. Fraser argues that the paradigm of the literary translator does a
disservice to the translators who do not work in that field. Among these practitioners, there is evidence that translators’
calls for autonomy are being heeded or that autonomy is being appropriated by assertive professionals. Yet the myth of
subservience is perpetuated in research.

Gile, D. The History of Research into Conference Interpreting: a Scientometric Approach.

Pöchhacker measured the productivity of individual authors, and analyzed the production by L, types of interpreting,
topics, categories of texts, with a diachronic part showing changes between production until 1988 and in the 1988–1994
period. The present article discusses a similar approach.

The Corpus: CIR (conference interpreting research) texts are diversified, and include descriptions of working conditions,
discussions of professional issues, handbooks, essays, and texts which do not qualify as ‘research texts’ in a strict sense.

The Growth of CIR: CIR production has grown from the fifties to the nineties:
Period 1: In the 50s, a pre-research reflection on the principles and processes underlying interpreting by practicing
interpreters, but little research.
Period 2: In the 60s, an “Experimental Psychology Period”, as most of the production is of the same kind as in the pre-
research period.
Period 3: From the 70s, a “Practitioners’ Period”, with interpreter researchers taking over and the virtual disappearance
of contributions from adjacent disciplines. The leap in the mid-70s corresponds to the practitioners taking over, and is
associated with the extension of the authors’ pool to a larger number of interpretation instructors in major training
programs
Period 4: From the late 80s on, a “Renewal Period” with a quest for a more scientific, interdisciplinary investigation of
conference interpreting. The second leap, in the mid-80s, corresponds to the new impetus of the “Renewal Period”, with
the arrival of new authors attracted by the new paradigm, as well as with institutional developments such as the
creation of many new academic T&I training programs and the ensuing production of publications.

The Themes of CIR: Most CIR texts are not focused studies, and address more than one theme.
a. Training
b. Professional Issues: access to the profession, working conditions and working environments.
c. Language Issues: many interpreters do not feel that interpretation is language independent.
d. Consecutive Interpreting: associated with training.
e. Cognitive Issues: an explanation could be found in the lack of research training among interpreter-researchers, in
practical problems such as difficult access to subjects and material and in the weakness of motivation.
f. Quality Issues: it accommodates empirical research without a complex theoretical underpinning.
g. Other Issues: – Neurophysiological studies of interpreting
– Studies on interpreting for the media should follow a different curve: increasing internationalization is raising demand
for media translation, including interpreting, hence an increase in the involvement of researchers in the field.

Pöchhacker, F. I in TS. On Partnership in Translation Studies.

IR or IS? Gile leaves unclear the conceptual status of the labels he uses for what he presents as ‘the two disciplines’
under study. Gile speaks of ‘Translation Research (TR)’ and ‘Interpretation Research (IR)’ and positions these within
‘Translation Studies’ (TS). Unless Gile’s avoidance of ‘Interpreting Studies’ is coincidental, we might ask what is wrong
with that disciplinary label. Gile is credited as the author who first used ‘interpretation studies’ as a distinct disciplinary
label. So, if the problem is not with the label, it might lie with the claim to disciplinary status symbolized by ‘IS’, i.e. the
assertion by scholars of a sense of academic identity that goes beyond the fact that research is being done on
interpreting.

Theory: Bearing in mind that Gile’s acronym ‘IRT’ (Interpretation Research and Theory) was changed to ‘IR’ on the
grounds that ‘Theory is part of research, and talking about Research and Theory does not make sense’, we know that
‘theory’ is there alright. Gile reminds us of the ‘fundamental distinction’ between ‘theoretical research’ as the
‘intellectual processing of ideas’ and ‘empirical research, which centers around the collection and processing of data’.
We should not be that concerned with such a distinction and instead appreciate the variety of ideas (‘theories’) within
an overall evolution toward a better understanding and explanation of translational phenomena. Gile is right to say that
‘IR’ does not have as long a theoretical heritage as ‘TR’. Far from being a liability, however, this is an asset in the attempt
to trace its theoretical development.

The Missing Link

Gile found Holmes’ map ‘no longer sufficient as a basis for development of the field’. General theories were envisaged in
Holmes’ map as covering all translational phenomena, including interpreting. And this component of the discipline
seems like the logical candidate for the ‘missing link’ sought to reaffirm the kinship between TS and IS. Kade’s coinage of
the German hyperonym ‘Translation’ to cover ‘T’ and ‘I’ is difficult to recreate in English, and this creates ambiguity and
confuses the issue addressed in this volume. Bearing in mind that our goal is to highlight the potential for partnership
between TS and IS within the wider field of translation studies, it seems unhelpful to disqualify two general theoretical
approaches which foregrounded the disciplinary linkage between T and I since the 1970s.
Gile’s ultimate vision for the discipline of translation studies is modeled on the ‘natural science paradigm’ well
established in IS. I do not believe that holding an empiricist mirror to the face of translation scholars can achieve what
Gile expects. A keen awareness of research approaches and their implications in terms of paradigms can provide
guidance to our efforts at forging closer partnerships between IS and TS as well as other disciplines. What about IS
holding hands with TS? The two are ‘natural partners’ and should focus on theirs as the principal relationship. Individual
paradigms within TS and IS may draw great benefit from research paradigms in other disciplines and rely on ‘importing
interdisciplinarity’ to strengthen the given research model as such and the (sub)discipline as a whole.

Pöchhacker. Interpreting in Translation Studies; Approaches; Paradigms; Models; Selected Topics and Research.
APPROACHES: interpreting studies was shaped by conceptual and methodological approaches from other disciplines.
 1. Psycho/linguistic approaches: These approaches were used in the study of (simultaneous) conference
interpreting. Research on aspects relating to interpreting has been linked to different subfields of psychology,
which are interdisciplinary. In subsequent decades, the linguistics community sprouted subdomains, all of which
informed the study of interpreting. Discourse analysis goes further in extending the focus to situated interaction
in society. Given their interest in face-to-face conversational exchanges, these approaches served as foundations
for studies of liaison or dialogue interpreting since 1980s.
2. Socio/cultural approaches: Approaches to communication from disciplines like sociology and cultural
anthropology, can be viewed as distinct by virtue of their foregrounding of the interactional and cultural
dimensions. All these disciplinary perspectives contributed to research on interpreting, by specialists in these
fields taking interest in the subject or by supplying conceptual and methodological tools for use by scholars of
interpreting.

Memes of interpreting: These approaches can be seen in terms of “memes”. ‘Memes’ refers to ideas, practices,
creations and inventions that spread, like genes, in the cultural evolution of mankind. Applying this theoretical
framework to the evolution of thinking about translation, Chesterman highlights memes as metaphors elucidating the
concept of ‘translation’, as particular ways of ‘seeing’ and theorizing about the phenomenon.

‘Ways of seeing’: The first step in research is to see a phenomenon and perceive it as an object of inquiry. In the case of
translation and interpreting, some ideas about the phenomenon are so broad and pervasive as to constitute
“supermemes”.

Interpreting as Translation: Interpreting can be viewed as Translation. The 5 ideas which Chesterman elevates to the
status of supermemes of translation are: the source–target metaphor, the idea of equivalence, the myth of
untranslatability, the free-vs-literal dichotomy, and the idea that all writing is a kind of translating. The last item reflects
Chesterman’s focus on translation rather than Translation as a hyperonym. The remaining four supermemes of
translation are present, though not always made explicit, in theoretical approaches to interpreting as well.

Process(ing) vs communicative activity: the interpreting process has been conceptualized as a process acting on ‘verbal
material’, as a transfer of words and structures from a SL to a TL. As psychologists turned from observing verbal behavior
to speculating about the mental operations taking place, researchers’ attention shifted from the verbal input–output
relation to the mental process as such. A supermeme of interpreting which is complementary to the idea of process(ing)
is the notion of interpreting as a communicative activity performed by a human being in a situation of interaction. The
communicative-activity supermeme gave rise to two more (sub)memes of the communicative-activity supermeme,
which are related: text/discourse production and mediation.
1. Verbal transfer: A speech made up of words in one L would be reassembled by the interpreter using TL words
with corresponding meanings. The idea of interpreting as a L-switching operation performed naturally by any
bilingual would enable the interpreter to perform the task as an automatic reflex rather than an act of volition. It
emerged in the late 1960s that the (simultaneous) interpreting process could not be explained as a direct
linguistic transfer of lexical units and syntactic structures but was mediated by some form of cognitive
representation or memory.
2. Cognitive information processing skills: Cognitive psychologists hypothesized various mental structures and
procedures responsible for the processing of verbal data, by drawing on analogies with digital data processing
(computing) as a metaphor of the human information processing system.
3. Making sense: The interpreter’s task within a communicative situation was characterized as combining the
activities of a listener and a speaker. Understanding what had been expressed in a SL, and expressing the ideas
in another L so that they would ‘make sense’ to the target audience, are the main pillars of the interpreter’s
 work. The idea of interpreting as ‘making sense’ does not capture an aspect unique to the interpreter’s task;
rather, its innovative force lies in the prominent role attributed to (prior) knowledge. The interpretive theory of
Translation ventured further into the cognitive dimension of L understanding. Seleskovitch argued that
interpreting involved the activation of previous knowledge which combined with perceptual input to form a
conceptual mental representation. There is now agreement on the crucial role of prior knowledge of various
types in comprehension processes. If the interpreter’s mission is to enable understanding, he must adapt the
message to the audience’s prior knowledge or “cultural frames of reference”, to ensure that it will make sense;
that is, that the TT will fulfill its function in the target-cultural environment. One can speak of a target-oriented
version of the sense-making meme. The interpreter may have to paraphrase, explain or simplify to achieve the
communicative effect desired by the speaker.
4. Text/discourse production: interpreting is a production-oriented activity. The question is how the output
produced by the interpreter can be characterized in analytical terms. The idea of text processing reflects a
monologic bias; that is, a view of discourse in which a text is produced by an active speaker and received by an
audience. This view is less suitable for the analysis of communicative settings where the adoption of speaker and
listener roles is more dynamic and the immediate co-presence of the interlocutor favors an interactive flow of
discourse.
5. Mediation: the interpreter is an intermediary. Simultaneous or overlapping talk requires the interpreter to
impose priorities on the primary parties’ turn-taking behavior and to structure the flow of discourse in a
gatekeeping capacity. The discussion of role issues was associated with dialogue interpreting in community-
based settings, where the constellation of interaction is characterized by unequal power relations and
discrepant socio-cultural backgrounds between which the interpreter mediate. On the assumption that the
interpreter’s output must be adapted to the communicative needs of the target-cultural audience, the
interpreter is a cultural mediator. The fact that interpreters represent two cultural systems can be used to view
them as points of cultural interface. In this sense, interpreters bring together different cultures and represent
“the culturally hybrid societies of the future”.
The five memes relate to the concepts of L, cognition, interaction and culture.

‘Ways of knowing’: If the aim of research is to gain knowledge about the ‘true’ nature of some aspect of the ‘real’ world,
the scientific (i.e. knowledge-creating) endeavor depends on assumptions regarding notions as ‘truth’, ‘facts’, and
‘reality’.

‘Doing science’: Since there are different ‘ways of doing science’, the traditional model of science is based on a deductive
movement from theory to data. An alternative route is to construct a theory through the inductive method. Depending
on a purpose and object of study, the researcher will adopt an overall methodological strategy for dealing with empirical
data. Observational research refers to studying a phenomenon as it occurs, ‘naturally’, as it were, ‘in the field’;
experimental research makes a phenomenon occur for the purpose of studying it. What is lacking in this bipolar
distinction is the research approach which consists of (inter)actively taking data by eliciting them from informants, by
way of interviews. It may be helpful to adopt a threefold distinction of basic research strategies: fieldwork (collecting
data on people or occurrences in their real-life context (case study); survey research (collecting data in standardized
form from a group of people); and experimental research (measuring the effects of manipulating a particular
‘independent’ variable on one or more ‘dependent’ variables). Although the research strategies tend to be associated
with a certain purpose of inquiry, each of the basic approaches may serve any purpose.

Summary: Underneath the overriding ideas, or supermemes, of interpreting as Translation, processing, and
communicative activity, five memes were introduced to characterize the evolution of thinking about interpreting in
various periods and disciplinary contexts. All of these have been mapped along basic conceptual dimensions within the
coordinates of L, cognition, interaction and culture.

PARADIGMS
Forging a paradigm: Seleskovitch supplied her interpretive theory of Translation as the theoretical core of the research
model at ESIT. This paradigm of the Paris School may be referred to as the IT paradigm. This school was informed by the
meme of making sense, which highlighted the conceptual result of the interpreter’s comprehension process (sense) as
the crucial stage in the translation. It was first applied to the study of note-taking consecutive by Seleskovitch and then
to simultaneous by Lederer. This paradigm reaffirmed interpreting as a knowledge-based process of making sense rather
than operating between L. The IT paradigm did not envisage scientific experimentation as a necessary or valid approach
to inquiry into interpreting. It focused on the ideal process -interpreting at its best. It was successful as a bootstrap
paradigm: it was a first effort to lift the study of interpreting to scientific status. It came into its own in the 1970s.

Aspiring to science
Scientific standards
In the 1980s, conference interpreters such as Gile voiced the need to move beyond the certainties and ‘truths’
established by the Paris School and to take a more descriptive, empirical approach to research on interpreting. Gile
labeled Seleskovitch’s work “unscientific”. Gile recommended “giving priority to observational research”. His charge
against the Paris School was seconded by Barbara Moser-Mercer, who described the community as divided into: a group
which prefers explorations which require precision of logical processes and where members are interested in the natural
sciences/quantification, and a second group which prefers a less logically rigorous manner where members are
interested in general theorizing. Rather than the research model of natural science, what united those challenging the IT
paradigm was an aspiration to more stringent standards of scientific research and an openness toward other theoretical
and methodological approaches. This new paradigm was guided by the meme of interpreting as a “cognitive information
processing skill” best studied from the perspective of the cognitive sciences. This paradigm shares the broad agenda of
cognitive scientists to explain the interplay of L and cognition, which takes into account linguistic, motivational,
situational (human) factors.

Broadening the view

Given their focus on the interpreter’s mental processing activity, the paradigms described left a broad range of socio-
communicative issues unaccounted for. An approach to remedy this emerged from translation-theoretical frameworks
in the 1980s. Hans Vermeer formulated his skopos theory on the premise that the skopos for which a TT was
commissioned constitutes the controlling principle of translational activity. The skopos is determined by the
communicative needs and expectations of the target audience and its situational contexts and socio-cultural
environments. This approach is inspired by the memes of making sense, text production and mediation. Little empirical
research on interpreting has been carried out within this functionalist school of thought -hardly enough to speak of a
paradigm in interpreting studies. A principal implication of this TT-oriented translation-theoretical approach, or TT
paradigm, is an analytical interest in the textual product, with regard to its structural and pragmatic dimensions. The
fact that the TT paradigm was not as linked to the conference interpreting profession as the IT and CP paradigms
facilitated its extension to the study of liaison interpreting in various cross-cultural settings.

Focusing on interaction
During 1980s, sign L interpreting attracted attention as an object of research. In 1989, Roy provided evidence that “an
interpreter’s role is more than to just translate or interpret” and highlighted the interpreter’s active involvement in the
interaction. Cecilia Wadensjö showed that the interpreter’s performance went beyond the ‘ideal interpreting’ norm of
‘just translating’ and included the function of ‘coordinating’ the primary parties’ utterances. The congenial work of Roy
and Wadensjö supplied a coherent conceptual approach to dialogue interpreting and a base of discourse-analytical
methodology, thus launching a new paradigm for the study of interpreting as dialogic discourse-based interaction (DI
paradigm), which gained momentum in 1990s. The success of the DI paradigm was associated with the recognition of
community interpreting as a significant field of professional practice and a fruitful area of research. The DI paradigm
shares with the TT paradigm the functionalist concern of interaction and mediation, and the interest in norms of actual
discourse and extra-textual sources such as codes of ethics.

MODELS
A model is some form of representation of an object or phenomenon; it indicates the components which form part of
the object or phenomenon and reflect the way in which they fit together and relate to one another. Most models of
interpreting are of the descriptive kind.

Levels of modeling: Modeling implies a choice of one or more conceptual levels to be foregrounded in the
representation:
a) anthropological model of interpreting and its role in the history of human civilization.
b) socio-professional model, interpreting as a profession in society.
c) institutional model, particular social institutions like international organizations, parliaments or courts.
d) interactional model, interpreting as an activity taking place in and shaping a situation.
e) textual or discursive model, concentrating on the text as the material instrument in the communicative process.
f) cognitive model, with an interest in the mental processes underlying language use.
g) neural model of cerebral organization and brain activity.
These levels, meant as variable focal points rather than separable categories, can be visualized as a set of concentric
circles. Interaction models represent the social, situational and communicative relations obtaining between the various
parties involved in the process of interaction. Constellation models seek to represent the interactants and the relations
holding between them in the communicative event, other models focus on the nature and flow of communicative
signals, whereas others foreground the role of knowledge and text in communicative interaction. Models focusing on
cognitive processes are aimed at a holistic representation of processing phases or at a detailed breakdown of
psycholinguistic operations in terms of hypothesized mental structures and procedures. Processing models were
designed for the simultaneous mode. An exception is early models of the interpreting process whose focus is on the
nature of the translational process.
Gile’s Effort model: assuming 3 basic efforts -“listening and analysis”, “production”, and “memory”- he originally used his
effort model of simultaneous interpreting to express the basic tenet that there is only a limited amount of mental
“energy” (or processing capacity) available for the interpreter’s processing effort, and that the sum of the 3 efforts must
not exceed the interpreter’s processing capacity. In subsequent refinements of the model, a “coordination effort” was
added. No single model could hope to be validated as an account for the phenomenon as a whole.

Pöchhacker. Evolution of Interpreting Research.

EVOLUTION OF INTERPRETING RESEARCH
Interpreters became an object of scientific study when interpreting began to be appreciated as a professional function in
multilingual meetings of diplomats. The negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles after World War I prepared the ground
for the institutionalization of this professional function.

Simultaneous processing: Following its use at the Nuremberg Trial and its adoption by the UN, simultaneous
interpreting (SI) piqued the curiosity of psychologists, some of whom held the assumption that it was not possible to
carry out two demanding mental tasks at the same time.
New paradigm: Seleskovitch succeeded in forging a disciplinary framework in its own right, and after a decade of
unquestioned dominance, it gave those with dissenting views and new ideas something to challenge and replace with a
new paradigm.

Paris School: The theory by Seleskovitch had implications for the training approach established at ESIT. This gave priority
to the process over L, and regarded the consecutive mode as the foundation of the technique. The approach to research
by Seleskovitch constituted the founding paradigm of interpreting studies. The Paris School community was not inclined
to adopt concepts and methods developed in other fields. Research-minded interpreters, including Gile and Moser-
Mercer, pursued their interdisciplinary interests outside the established paradigm, and their efforts prepared the ground
for a new phase in the evolution of the field. The institutional framework for that new beginning was provided by an
international conference held in late 1986 at the University of Trieste.

Extending foundations: In the transition from the Paris School paradigm to the new, interdisciplinary outlook, the lead
discipline was cognitive psychology. While discourse analysis is rooted in linguistics, it has been sourced by linguistic
anthropology and interactional sociolinguistics and includes sociological approaches to the study of interaction.
Wadensjö has done much to establish a new paradigm in interpreting research, centered on the descriptive analysis of
discourse in interaction (DI). The shift of emphasis from studying cognitive processes in the interpreter to studying
interpreting processes in social institutions was associated with a greater use of social science methods such as
qualitative interviews. Interpreting scholars widened their focus in the 1990s to include the most diverse manifestations
of the object of study in their purview.

Major topics: there was an evolution in the study of different concepts related to interpreting.
Memory: With focus on the simultaneous mode, the type of memory under study has been working memory (WM)
which provides temporary storage and executive control functions. The study of WM in (simultaneous) interpreting
evolved from a concern with storage functions and memory capacity to a view in which WM appears as an attention
management center controlling the execution of various processing tasks.

Performance: used in relation to the process and the product of interpreting, as well as to the interpreter’s behavior in
interaction. Strategic performance has been discussed in terms of coping with difficult input. Such coping strategies in SI
include chunking, stalling, anticipation and compression. The quality of an interpreting performance is broken down into
output variables, such as cohesion, fluency and correct terminology.

Aptitude: Aptitude for interpreting has been the subject of research, whether the assumption was that “interpreters are
born, not made” or that they were “made, not born”. There is agreement on a list of criteria that applicants should
fulfill, from high levels of proficiency in their working L and broad general knowledge, to the mental abilities involved in
comprehension and expression under time pressure. Cognitive abilities do not give a complete picture of aptitude, and a
wide range of soft skills, from motivation and learning styles to emotional stability and anxiety, must be taken into
account.

Teaching: Helping interpreting students become reflective practitioners is a main goal of interpreter education across
domains and modalities. Training practices followed the apprenticeship model, which implies a move toward student-
centered learning, underpinned by a social constructivist approach to education. Students should be introduced to
interpreting in the consecutive mode, initially based on memory, before the gradual incorporation of note-taking.

Role: The emergence of “role” as a research topic in interpreting studies was associated with the increasing
acknowledgment of interpreting practices in community-based domains. For example, interpreters in healthcare settings
may also be expected to provide guidance and assistance to patients not familiar with the system, or in highly discrepant
cultural backgrounds, interpreters have been attributed the function of a cultural mediator.

Shlesinger, M. Doorstep Inter-subdisciplinary and Beyond.

Collaboration between theoreticians and practitioners, i.e. between TS/IS and T/I: Gile advocates reliance on the work
of practicing interpreters with dual training. The profile of the interpreting scholar most likely to make a contribution to
IS would be that of an individual who combines a practicing interpreter’s insights, an interpreting researcher’s
experience in IS and a solid background in the paradigms and methodologies of adjacent fields.

Collaboration between IS and neighboring disciplines: Gile emphasized the importance of expanding the common
ground between IS and empirical work done in other disciplines (neurophysiology, cognitive psychology and linguistics).

Collaboration between TS and IS: When it comes to their paradigms, questions, hypotheses, methodologies and
variables, IS is seen as distinct from TS. This is reinforced by the frequent choice of discipline- as opposed to
subdiscipline- to describe IS. The study of interpreting would be better served by being regarded as a subdiscipline of TS,
on a par with the study of written translation -both of them drawing upon the parent discipline and feeding into it.

The contribution of graduate students: Two trends predominate IS dynamics: professionalization and academisation.
The latter implies a growing demand for academic credentials. The potential for change lies with students who are given
the knowledge and opportunity to venture beyond doorstep inter-subdisciplinarity -by drawing the analogies and
reinforcing the links between TS and IS. Specialization is not conducive to the discovery of unsuspected interrelations.
When each subdiscipline is pursued separately, shared ground is obscured by differences in terminology or in the
formulation of issues explored. Translation and interpreting scholars should be encouraged to examine their
subdiscipline in the context of the parent discipline.

Terminological and conceptual alignment: By extending the scope of research beyond each other’s doorstep, the two
modality-specific subdisciplines may reduce the confusion and promote a better understanding of conceptual overlaps
and differences between seemingly unrelated notions such as visibility/role definitions, self-editing/monitoring, etc.