Cover not available

Article published In: Babel
Vol. 64:1 (2018) ► pp.1–32

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Between invisibility and over-visibility

Self-perception and user expectations of liaison interpreters in business settings

 | Durham University
 | Ningbo University
Published online: 9 July 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00023.zhe
Abstract
Recent research on liaison interpreting shows that the interpreters’ role in communicative events includes language facilitator and intercultural mediator. Being empowered with more coordinating functions rather than regarded as invisible conduits, however, how do interpreters with different professional experiences perceive their own role in business settings? And what are the actual expectations on them from their clients? This paper tries to answer the questions through a questionnaire-based survey of three groups of respondents: professional interpreters, student interpreters and clients, with each group including 30 respondents. 2001. “Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath”. The Translator 7 (2): 139–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar four models of ethics, together with the hypothetical no ethics model, were designed as answers to the questionnaire (17 closed questions) and translation versions to two interpreting samples. The frequencies of responses to the questions and the evaluation scores of the translation versions are collected and analyzed, revealing the following findings: All three groups acknowledge the constraints translation ethics place on the freedom of action; and all three groups agree that interpreters simultaneously shoulder the tasks of translating and coordinating, with the “ethics of communication” being the most widely acknowledged one. However, there are discrepancies between and within the groups, and even attitudinal inconsistencies and contradictions in individual participants. These findings, by re-describing the interpreter’s power in interlingual and intercultural interactions, will help improve professional standards and interpreting training.
Résumé
De récentes études sur l’interprétation de liaison montrent le rôle des interprètes dans les événements de communication incluant un animateur linguistique et un médiateur interculturel. Cependant, étant donné qu’ils se voient confier des fonctions davantage axées sur la coordination et qu’ils ne sont pas considérés comme des conduits invisibles, comment les interprètes, dont les expériences professionnelles diffèrent, perçoivent-ils leur propre rôle dans les milieux d’affaires ? Et quelles sont les attentes réelles de leurs clients à leur égard ? Cet article tente de répondre aux questions en menant une étude basée sur un questionnaire auprès de trois groupes de répondants – interprètes professionnels, étudiants en interprétation et clients –, chaque groupe comprenant trente répondants. Quatre modèles d’éthique de 2001. “Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath”. The Translator 7 (2): 139–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, ainsi que le modèle non éthique hypothétique, ont été conçus comme réponses au questionnaire (17 questions fermées) et comme versions de traduction pour deux échantillons d’interprétation. Les fréquences des réponses aux questions et les scores d’évaluation des versions des traductions ont été collectés et analysés, révélant les résultats suivants : les trois groupes reconnaissent les contraintes qu’une éthique de la traduction fait peser sur la liberté d’action ; et les trois groupes conviennent que les interprètes assument simultanément les tâches de traduction et de coordination, « l’éthique de la communication » étant la plus largement reconnue. Cependant, il y a des divergences entre les groupes et en leur sein, et même des incohérences d’attitude et des contradictions chez les participants individuels. En redécrivant le pouvoir de l’interprète dans les interactions interlinguistiques et interculturelles, ces résultats contribueront à améliorer les normes professionnelles et la formation en interprétation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Code of ethics for interpreting and translation
  • 4.Research design
    • 4.1Questionnaire
    • 4.2Respondents
  • 5.Data collection and analysis
    • 5.1The responses to the closed-ended questions
      • 5.1.1Overall and classified results of the answers to the closed-ended questions
      • 5.1.2Within- and between-group comparisons
    • 5.2The interpreting sample evaluation
  • 6.Conclusion
    • 6.1The consensus reached by all respondents
    • 6.2The differences between the three groups
    • 6.3Pedagogical applications and future research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (54)
References
Anderson, B. 1976, 2002. “Perspectives on the Role of the Interpreter”. In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by F. Pöchhacker and M. Shlesinger, 209–217. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Angelelli, C. 2003. “The Interpersonal Role of the Interpreter in Cross-cultural Communication: A Survey of Conference, Court and Medical Interpreters in the US, Canada and Mexico”. In The Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community, ed. by L. Brunette, G. Bastin, I. Hemlin and H. Clarke, 15–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. “The Role of the Interpreter in the Healthcare Setting: A Plea for a Dialogue between Research and Practice”. In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas, ed. by C. Valero-Garcés and A. Martin, 147–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bancroft, M. 2005. The Interpreter’s World Tour: An Environmental Scan of Standards of Practice for Interpreters. Menlo Park, California: The California Endowment.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S. 2002. The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. “Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath”. The Translator 7 (2): 139–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clifford, A. 2004. “Is Fidelity Ethical? The Social Role of the Healthcare Interpreter”. TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 17 (2): 89–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davison, B. 2000. “The Interpreter as Institutional Gatekeeper: The Social-linguistic Role of Interpreters in Spanish-English Medical Course”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (3): 379–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dodds, J. M. 2011. “Business Culture versus Interpreting Culture”. In Interpretazionee mediazione, ed. by M. J. Medina and S. Winteringham, 1–32. Rome: ARACNE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drugan, J. 2011. “Translation Ethics Wikified: How Far Do Professional Codes of Ethics and Practice Apply to Non-Professionally Produced Translation?” Linguistic Antverpiensia 10: Community Translation 2.0, ed. by M. O’Hagan, 111–127.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. “Ethics and Social Responsibility in Practice: Interpreters and Translators Engaging with and beyond the Professions”. The Translator 23 (2): 126–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fishman, J. et al. 2003. Introduction to Test Construction in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Practical Guide. Maryland: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garzone, G. 2002. “Quality and Norms in Interpretation”. In Interpreting in 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities, ed. by G. Garzone and M. Viezzi, 107–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gavioli, L. and Maxwell, N. 2007. “Interpreter Intervention in Mediated Business Talk”. In Conversation Analysis and Language for Specific Purposes, ed. by H. Bowles and P. Seedhouse, 141–182. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentile, A. et al. 1996. Liaison Interpreting: A Handbook. Victoria: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentile, A. 2012. “Interpreting as a Human Right – Institutional Responses: The Australian Refugee Review Tribunal”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter (171): 157–172.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gulliver, P. H. 1979. Disputes and Negotiations: A Cross-cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, S. 2007. Community Interpreting. Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. “Controversies over the Role of the Court Interpreter”. In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas, ed. by C. Valero-Garcés and A. Martin, 99–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hadziabdic, E. and Hjelm, K. 2016. “Perspective of Professional Interpreters Regarding Their Role and Attitude in the Healthcare Encounter”. Diversity and Equality in Health and Care 13 (3): 221–229.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hsieh, E. 2003. “The Importance of Liaison Interpreting in the Theoretical Development of Translation Studies”. Studies of Translation and Interpretation [Fan Yi Xue Yan Jiu Ji Kan] (81): 283–322.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kadric, M. 2001. Dolmetschen bei Gericht: Erwartungen, anforderungen, kompetenzen. Wien: WUV-Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kalina, S. 2015. “Ethical Challenges in Different Interpreting Settings”. MonTI Special Issue 2. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelly, A. 2000. “Cultural Parameters for Interpreters in the Courtroom”. In The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, ed. by R. P. Robert et al., 131–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knapp-Potthoff, A. and Knapp, K. 1986. “Interweaving Two Discourses: The Difficult Task of the Non-professional Interpreter”. In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, ed. by J. House and S. Blum-Kulka, 151–168. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ko, L. 1996. “Business Settings”. In Liaison Interpreting: A Handbook, ed. by A. Gentile et al., ch.91. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, A. and Martí, I. A. 2008. “Community Interpreter Self Perception: A Spanish Case Study”. In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas, ed. by C. Valero-Garcés and A. Martin, 203–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, I. 2004. “Conduits, Mediators, Spokespersons: Investigating Translator /Interpreter Behavior”; In Translation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies, ed. by C. Schäffner, 88–97. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mesa, A. M. 2000. “The Cultural Interpreter: An Appreciated Professional”. In The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, ed. by R. P. Robert et al., 67–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikkelson, H. 2008. “Evolving Views on the Court Interpreter’s Role”. In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas, ed. by C. Valero-Garcés and A. Martin, 81–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ozolins, U. 2014. “Descriptions of Interpreting and Their Ethical Consequences”. FITISPOs International Journal 1 (1): 23–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. “Ethics and the Role of the Interpreter”. In The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by H. Mikkelson and R. Jourdenais, 319–336. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. 2000. “The Community Interpreter’s Task: Self-perception and Provider Views”. In The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, ed. by R. P. Robert et al., 49–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. “Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting”. Meta 46 (2): 410–425. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. “Interpreting as Mediation”. In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas, ed. by C. Valero-Garcés and A. Martin, 9–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pym, A. 2001. “Introduction: The Return to Ethics in Translation Studies”. The Translator 7 (2): 129–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ren, W. 2010. The Liaison Interpreter’s Subjectivity Consciousness. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenburg, B. A. 2002. “A Quantitative Discourse Analysis of Community Interpreting”. In Translation: New Ideas for a New Century, Proceedings of the XVI FIT Congress, 222–226. Vancouver: FIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roy, C. 1989. A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Interpreter’s Role in the Turn Exchanges of an Interpreted Event. PhD dissertation. Georgetown University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. Interpreting as a Discourse Process. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slatyer, H. and Chesher, T. 2007. “Talking about Accuracy: Interpreters’ Understanding of a Key Principle of Professional Ethics”. In Interpreting Studies and Beyond, ed. by F. Pöchhacker, A. L. Jakobsen and I. M. Mees, 139–152. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Soriano, A.O. 2015. “Impartiality in police interpreting”. In MonTI 71 trans. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stanislav, S. 1997. “An Overview of Liaison Interpreting”. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 5 (2): 211–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schweda-Nicholson, N. 1994. “Professional Ethics for Court and Community Interpreters”. In Professional Issues for Translators and Interpreters, ed. by D. H. Hammond, 79–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Takimoto, M. 2006. “Interpreters’ Role Perceptions in Business Dialogue Interpreting Situations”. Monash University Linguistic Papers 5 (1): 47–57.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tate, G. and Turner, G. H. 1997, 2002. “The Code and the Culture: Sign Language Interpreting – in Search of the New Breed’s Ethics”. In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by F. Pöchhacker and M. Shlesinger, 372–383. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xiao, X. and Yang, L. 2006. Asia Link: Interpreting Asia Interpreting Europe. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Education Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Wang, Hairuo
2025. Analysis of Studies on Interpreter’s Role on International Journals by Citespace (2000-2022) . International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation 11:1 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Torrella Gutiérrez, Carmen & Francisco Javier Vigier-Moreno
2023. Ethically Challenging Issues in Business Interpreting: Learning How to Face Cultural Quandaries Through Practice and Reflection. Vertimo studijos 16 ► pp. 186 ff. DOI logo
Xiang, Xia, Binghan Zheng & Dezheng Feng
2020. Interpreting impoliteness and over-politeness: An investigation into interpreters' cognitive effort, coping strategies and their effects. Journal of Pragmatics 169 ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue