Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page81

Hermans1999;Tymoczko2000a,2003;Baker2006a;Brownlie2007.

SIOBHANBROWNLIE

DialogueInterpreting

Amongthemanydesignationsofvariouskindsofinterpreting,dialogue

interpreting(DI)isatermthatseekstoencompassagroupofactivitiesseenas

sharinganoverallmodeofinteractionratherthanaparticularsetting.Thus,

whereasprofessionallyrecognizedtermssuchasCONFERENCE

INTERPRETING,COMMUNITYINTERPRETING,‘publicservice

interpreting’andCOURTINTERPRETINGreflectdefinedareasofsocial

activityaswellasactualprofessionalcategories,DItranscendsthese

boundariesbyfocusingonthecharacteristicsofaparticularmodeofinteraction,

sharedinmany,quitediversesocioprofessionalcontexts.

Fouressentialcharacteristicsmaybeidentifiedindefiningdialogueinterpreting

andarereviewedingreaterdetailbelow.First,DIinvolvesdialogue,thetwo

orthreewayexchangeofutterancesandmeaningsthatarethebasisof

conversation,ratherthanmonologue,themostfrequentmodeofconference

interpretingandofsomesignlanguageinterpreting.Thisfactinturninvolvesthe

interpreterinbidirectionaltranslation,requiringactivecommunicativeskillsin

bothlanguagesandafacilityforconstantcodeswitching.Second,whatis

translatedis,innearlyallcases,spontaneousspeechandonlyoccasionallythe

speakingofwhathasbeenwritten.Typicallytoo,DIisconductedfaceto

face,requiringofinterpretersthattheymanagetheexchangeand‘co

ordinate’(Wadensjö1998)interactionbetweenparticipants.Lastly,themode

ofinterpretingismostlyconsecutive,exposingtheinterpretertogreater

prominenceandscrutinythanisthecaseforsimultaneousinterpreting.

Itfollowsfromthisperspective,then,thatawiderangeofinstitutionallydiverse

interpretingeventsqualifiesasinstancesofdialogueinterpreting.Forexample,

interpretermediatedbusinessencounters,althoughnotinstitutionallywithinthe

domainofCOMMUNITYINTERPRETING,belongtoasimilarinteractional

frameworkandareamenabletothesamemethodsandtechniquesof

investigation.Indeed,conferenceinterpreters,whentheyleavetheboothto

facilitatefacetofaceadhocmeetings,findthemselvesfacingmanyofthe

interactionalissuesthatarefamiliarwithinDI:theytemporarilybecomedialogue

interpreters.

BecauseDIisadenominationthatseeksoutinteractionalsimilaritiesbetween

differentfieldsofinterpreting,whatfollowsisnotdividedintothewell

recognizeddomainsofhealthcareinterpreting,ASYLUMinterpreting,court

INTERPRETING,mediainterpretingandsoon.Rather,thisentrydescribes

thefactorsthatcharacterizeDIasawholeandpresentsaspectsofDI

behaviouraswellasavenuesofinvestigationwithinthisfield.

Dialogueandparticipation

Inthesimplestconfiguration–assumedbymostoutsidersandsomeusersof

interpretingservicestoapplytointerpretingingeneral–theinterpreteractsasa

neutralintermediarybetweentwointerlocutorsofequalstatus.Heorsheco

ordinatesaturntakingroutine(Participant1–Interpreter–Participant2–

Interpreter–Participant1–Interpreter–Participant2,etc.),thatmaybeonly

temporarilyinterruptedforpurposesofclarification,repetitionandsoon.Itis

assumedthatallof–andonly–whatissaidisinterpreted.Suchasituationis,

however,rare.Participantsmayprovidetheirowninterpreters,openingup

perceptionsofingroupallegiance.Evenwhereinterpretersareprovidedby

thirdparties,ingroup/outgroupdistinctionsmaybemaintainedonaccountof

ethnicidentitiesorsimplybecausetheinterpreterisperceivedasworkingfor–

andthereforeactingintheinterestsof–aserviceprovider.Usually,participants

donotenjoyequalstatusintheexchange,asaresultofdisparitiesofpower

(e.g.policeinterviews)and/orknowledgeandexpertise(e.g.doctor/patient

consultations).

Frequently,theeventinvolvesmorethanthethreeparticipantsoftheidealized

situationdescribedabove,andavarietyofconfigurationsamongthem.For

example,inacourtroomcrossexamination,anattorney(addresser)may

Page82

beputtingquestionstoawitness(addressee)inordertoconvinceajudgeand

jury(whoare‘auditors’,thatis,ratifiedparticipantsintheeventbutnotatthis

timebeingdirectlyaddressed;seeGoffman1981).Inthepublicgalleryare

‘overhearers’,thatis,peoplewhoarenotratifiedparticipantsintheexchange

butwhowitnessitandwho,bytheirbehaviour(e.g.laughter),mayexert

influenceontheunfoldingoftheevent.Allthesecategoriesofparticipantare

relevantto–indeed,exertpressureinonewayoranotheron–theinterpreter’s

behaviour.AwhollydifferentparticipationframeworkisapparentintheTV

chatshow(StranieroSergio1999;KatanandStranieroSergio2001;Seferlis

2006).Inthisconfiguration,ahostmayaddressquestions,viaaninterpreter,to

aguest(addressee)butmayequallyturntocameraandaddresscommentsto

thetelevisionaudiencewho,inthisinstance,shiftfromthecategoryof

overhearerstothatofaddressees.Theinterpreterwilltheneitherrelaythese

commentsforthebenefitoftheguestorsimplyomitthem,thusrelegatingthe

guesttoexcludedstatus.Moreover,thehostfrequentlyaddressesremarks

directlytotheinterpreter(compliments,admonitions,etc.)thatarenotintended

tobetranslatedatall.

Now,whereasinthislattersetting,theinterpreter’sopportunitiesforgate

keepingandturnmanagementmaybecircumscribed–thesebeingpartlyceded

tothechatshowhost–inothersituationstheinterpreteradoptsthepivotalrole

ofcoordinatorofothers’talk(Wadensjö1998).Animportantaspectofthis

scenarioisthechangesof‘footing’(Goffman1981)oralignmentthateach

participantadoptstowardstheothers.Thereisfirsttheinterpreter’schoiceto

representanother’sspeechinthefirstperson(e.g.‘Iwantyoutotellme…’)or

thethirdperson(‘hewantsyoutotellhim…’).Thechoicehowevermaybe

influencedbythequestioner,whooftenpreferstoaddresstheinterpreter

directlyandrefertotheintendedrecipientofthequestioninthethirdperson:

‘Tellherto…Askherwhether…’.Thisdirectcommunicationbetween,say,a

doctorandaninterpreteroftenleadstoanextendeddyadicexchangebetween

thesetwoparticipantsinwhichtheinterpreterispositionedasamedicalexpert

discussingapatient’ssymptomsbut,forawhile,excludingthepatientfromthe

exchange(seeBolden2000).Alternatively,theinterpretermaystrivetosustain

agenuinelytriadicexchangeinwhicheachparticipantisfullyrecognizedand

everythingsaidismadeavailabletoeveryparticipant.Evenhere,though,the

coordinatingrolecomestotheforewheninterpretersfeeltheneedtoexplain

theirmovestootherparticipants(e.g.‘I’mjustaskingherwhatshemeansby

…’).

Spontaneousspeech

Anotherdistinctivefeatureofdialogueinterpretingisthatitinvariablyinvolves

spontaneousspeech(andonlyoccasionallythetranslationofprepared

statements).Therepresentationinanotherlanguageofspontaneousspeech

requirestheinterpretertomakearangeofjudgementsanddecisions.Thereis,

forexample,thequestionofhowtotreatutterancesthatare,tovaryingdegrees,

incoherent.Barsky(1996:53)providesatellingexampleofaninarticulate

utteranceinFrench,spokenbyaPakistaniasylumseeker,butrepresentedin

coherentstandardEnglishbyhisPakistaniinterpreter,clearlyactinginwhathe

sawasthebestinterestsofhisclient.Hale(1997)providesevidenceof

interpreters’accommodationtothespeechstyleoftheiraddressees,raisingthe

levelofformalityininterpretingforthecourtbutloweringitwheninterpretingfor

Spanishspeakingwitnesses.Thehandlingofinterruptions,interjections,back

channellingandotherfeaturesofspontaneousspeechalsoinvolvesthe

interpreterinimmediatedecisionmakingthatcandeterminethedirectionan

exchangewillfollow.Frequently,backchannellingmarkersandutteranceinitial

itemssuchas‘okay’,‘alright’and‘yeah’functionassignalsofuptakeofwhat

hasbeensaidandthusconstituteaformoffeedback.Theymayalsohowever

simplyserveasanindicationthataspeakeristaking(orwishestotake)the

floor.Adecisiontotranslatethemmayhavetheconsequenceofmakingthem

moreprominentintheexchangethantheywereintendedtobe;conversely,

ignoringaninterjectionthatwasintendedasaturnattalkmayclosedownlines

ofcommunicationbetweentheparticipants(otherthantheinterpreter).Inways

suchasthese,thegatekeepingroleoftheinterpreteriscrucialtothe

establishmentofcommonground(Davidson2002)inthreewaycommunication

orinseparatedyadicexchanges(e.g.interpreter+patientinlanguageA;

interpreter+doctorin