Discussion published In: Interpreting
Vol. 19:2 (2017) ► pp.260–270
Discussion
Finding and critiquing the invisible interpreter – a response to Uldis Ozolins
Published online: 4 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.2.05dow
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.2.05dow
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Seeking and defining invisibility in the literature
- 3.Does using “impartiality” improve anything?
- 4.Interpreter self-definition and empirical results
- 5.From “impartiality” to agency
- 6.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (37)
AIIC. (1999). Practical guide for professional conference interpreters. [URL] (accessed 27 April 2017).
Angelelli, C. V. (2004a). Medical interpreting and cross-cultural communication. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
(2004b). Revisiting the interpreter’s role: A study of conference, court, and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Angermeyer, P. S. (2015). Speak English or what?: Codeswitching and interpreter use in New York City courts. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Balcı, A. (2008). Interpreter involvement in sermon interpreting. Minor Dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
Beaton, M. (2007). Interpreted ideologies in institutional discourse: The case of the European Parliament. The Translator 13 (2), 271–296.
Dean, R. K. & Pollard, R. Q., Jr. (2011). Context-based ethical reasoning in interpreting: A demand control schema perspective. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 5 (1), 155–182.
. (2012). Beyond ‘interesting’: Using demand control schema to structure experiential learning. In K. Malcolm & L. Swabey (Eds.), In our hands: Educating healthcare interpreters. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 77–104.
Dillinger, M. (1994). Comprehension during interpreting: What do interpreters know that bilinguals don’t? In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 155–189.
Diriker, E. (2004). De-/re-contextualizing conference interpreting: Interpreters in the ivory tower? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2011). Agency in conference interpreting: Still a myth? Gramma: Journal of Theory and Criticism 191, 27–36.
Downie, J. (2015). What every client wants? (Re)mapping the trajectory of client expectations research. Meta 60 (1), 18–35.
Eraslan, S. (2008). ‘Cultural mediator’ or ‘scrupulous translator’? Revisiting role, context and culture in consecutive conference interpreting. In P. Boulogne (Ed.), Translation and its Others: Selected papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007. [URL] (accessed 27 April 2017).
(2011). International knowledge transfer in Turkey: The consecutive interpreter’s role in context. PhD thesis, Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
Gile, D. (1990). Scientific research vs. personal theories in the investigation of interpretation. In L. Gran & C. Taylor (Eds.), Aspects of applied and experimental research on conference interpretation. Udine: Campanotto, 28–41.
(2001). Consecutive vs. simultaneous: Which is more accurate? Tsuuyakukenkyuu [Interpretation Studies] 1 (1), 8–20.
(2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Revised ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
ITI. (2013). Institute of Translation and Interpreting: Code of Professional Conduct. [URL] (accessed 27 April 2017).
Karlik, J. (2010). Interpreter-mediated scriptures: Expectation and performance. Interpreting 12 (2), 160–185.
Llewellyn-Jones, P. & Lee, R. G. (2013). Getting to the core of role: Defining interpreters’ role-space. International Journal of Interpreter Education 5 (2), 54–72.
Mack, G. & Cattaruzza, L. (1995). User surveys in SI: A means of learning about quality and/or raising some reasonable doubts. In J. Tommola (Ed.), Topics in interpreting research. Turku: University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting, 37–51.
Napier, J. (2004). Interpreting omissions: A new perspective. Interpreting 6 (2), 117–142.
Napier, J. & Barker, R. (2004). Sign language interpreting: The relationship between metalinguistic awareness and the production of interpreting omissions. Sign Language Studies 4 (4), 369–393.
Ozolins, U. (2016). The myth of the myth of invisibility? Interpreting 18 (2), 273–284.
Poger-Guichot de Fortis, J. (2016). The business of interpreting: FAQ 2 - What is the cornerstone of a marketing plan? [URL] (accessed 27 April 2017).
Pym, A. (2008). On omission in simultaneous interpreting: Risk analysis of a hidden effort. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 83–105.
Rayman, J. (2007). Visions of equality: Translating power in a deaf sermonette. The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 1 (1), 73–114.
TED. (2016). How interpreters juggle two languages at once. [URL] (accessed 27 April 2017).
Toury, G. (2012). Descriptive translation studies – and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vigouroux, C. B. (2010). Double-mouthed discourse: Interpreting, framing, and participant roles. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14 (3), 341–369.
(2001). Interpreting in crisis: The interpreter’s position in therapeutic encounters. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St Jerome, 71–85.
Cited by (12)
Cited by 12 other publications
Ginsberg-Jaeckle, Matt, Edna M. Babbitt, Yina M. Quique, Elissa Larkin, Sylvia Escárcega & Leora R. Cherney
2025. Promoting collaboration between interpreters and speech-language pathologists. Translation and Interpreting Studies 20:1 ► pp. 78 ff.
Sarıgül, Semih
Boéri, Julie
Downie, Jonathan
2023. Where is it all going? Technology, economic pressures and the future
of interpreting. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 277 ff.
Haualand, Hilde
Li, Ruitian, Kanglong Liu & Andrew K. F. Cheung
Sullivan, Claire, Karen Block, Linda Murray, Deborah Warr, Jasmin Chen, Erin Davis, Adele Murdolo & Cathy Vaughan
Li, Ruitian, Andrew K. F. Cheung & Kanglong Liu
Killman, Jeffrey
Martínez-Gómez, Aída
Pokorn, Nike K. & Tamara Mikolič Južnič
2020. Community interpreters versus intercultural mediators. Translation and Interpreting Studies 15:1 ► pp. 80 ff.
Mellinger, Christopher D. & Thomas A. Hanson
2018. Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility. Translation and Interpreting Studies 13:3 ► pp. 366 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 march 2026. 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.