Role performance in an interpreted discourse process Essay Example for Free

Role performance in an interpreted discourse process Essay From the previous chapter it is clear that an interpreters role is more than that of passing messages back and forth; it is also Ð ° role that manages the communication process of exchanging those messages. In this chapter, І begin with Ð ° discussion of how the role has been and, in many ways, still is conceived. To investigate further the performance of that role and its implications for norms in interpreting, І analyze four examples of interpreter performance. Practicing interpreters are aware of the public and professional expectations of and demands on their practice, most of which are concerned with confidentiality, neutrality, accuracy, and faithfulness to the message. Interpreters often describe their role as the person in the middle by using Ð ° metaphor which conveys the image or impression that they serve as Ð ° bridge or channel through which communication happens. This channel is supposed to relay Ð ° message from one speaker to another faithfully, accurately, and without personal or emotional bias. The performance of this role has been compared to Ð ° machine, Ð ° window, Ð ° bridge, and Ð ° telephone lineamong otherswhen trying to compress the complexity of the role into Ð ° simple, singular analogy or metaphor. This perspective developed, in part, from practitioners, educators, and researchers who have devoted the bulk of their attention to interpreters working within public and monologic contexts. In these public forums interpreters usually are interpreting for speakers who speak one at Ð ° time to typically non-responsive audiences. In these events, an interpreters role appears conduit like, passive, and noninvolved. Another reason for the persistence of this perspective lies in past research on interpreting which has been done largely by cognitive psychologists and psycholinguists who have focused on the phenomena of language processing and transference of information. This research on the complexity of listening, understanding, and speaking simultaneously has produced detailed models of the psycholinguistic stages of transfer based on errors revealed in the target language production (Cokely 1984; Moser-Mercer 1978). Although these models provide better understanding and appreciation of the mental complexity of interpreting, their very nature reinforces the metaphorical image through which interpreting is perceived. Unfortunately, the force of this perspective is such that most training and professional testing still (in 1998) devote their efforts to the details of the interpreted message and its form. Although the conduit metaphors developed partially in response to Ð ° particular situational performance and to the direction of research studies, they are also used because of ordinary perceptions about the nature of language and communication. Lakoff and Johnson (198o) found that although most people think of metaphors as devices of poets and rhetorical style, they are prevalent in our everyday lives because they allow us to present our conceptual systems through language. Metaphors structure how we think about and perceive our everyday lives. Reddy ( 1979) explains how ordinary language use portrays language as Ð ° conduit which passes on Ð ° speakers thoughts and ideas to Ð ° listener whose only task is to unwrap the thoughts and ideas that have been transmitted through Ð ° conduit and thus hides aspects of the communication experience. The words we use to talk about how ideas are shared are indicative of Ð ° conduit notion. For example, І gave you that idea. It seems hard to see Ð ° metaphor here at all. The word give seems ordinary enough until we ask ourselves if ideas have Ð ° concrete substance that can be given to someone else. These ordinary metaphors convey the sense that meaning actually resides in words, phrases, and sentences as Ð ° tangible object to be inserted or taken out. These metaphors also lead us to particular ways of thinking about the originator of the message, the message itself, and the receiver of the message. For example, Try to pack more thoughts into fewer words. This type of expression blames the speaker for failing to put enough meaning in or failing to put the meaning in the right place. Equally, in the logic of Ð ° conduit metaphor, the receiver must unpack the meaning from the words. Let me know if you find any good ideas in the talk. Its as though ideas can be inserted into words and sentences. The conduit metaphor implies Ð ° whole framework of basic assumptions about language, such as language functions like Ð ° conduit transferring thoughts from one person to another, words accomplish Ð ° transfer of ideas by containing the thoughts or feelings in the words and conveying them to others, and people can extract exactly the same idea, thought or feeling by simply receiving the words. These everyday metaphors mold our perceptions about language and communication Conduit metaphors that abound in the fields of communication, psychology, language, and information processing have been naturally brought into the field of interpreting. It is easy to see how Ð ° communication process involving Ð ° supposedly neutral or passive third party accepts Ð ° conduit-type metaphor as Ð ° way of defining itself. Although these metaphors clearly respond to Ð ° need, they also carry double messages. Certainly they convey the idea of transferring messages, but, at the same time, they call to mind images of disengagement and noninvolvement on any other level. Frequently, interpreters are called on by those who use their services to be flexible and in fact are called upon by their own colleagues to be so. Standards of ethical practice extensively, sometimes exhaustively, list what interpreters should not do, but they seldom explain what interpreters can, or should do, or where or how flexibility should be exercised. Consequently, discussions of practice fall back on what interpreters should not do, or what interpreters may do within the guidelines and wind up being discussions of ethics. In addition to creating metaphors to describe role performance, interpreters (and others) tend to idealize conversational behavior even though their experience with interaction violates both their notions of relaying messages and of the way conversations should occur. In private conversations, interpreters confess to breaking the rules while also admitting that their rule-breaking behavior was successful. What interpreters actually know (intuitively or objectively) and do is complex from both the perspective of psycholinguistic processes and also from the perspective of interactive communication systems as Ð ° whole. Interpreters are not simply processing information and passively passing it back and forth. Their task requires knowledge of Ð ° discourse system that includes grammar, language use, organization, participant relationships, contextual knowledge, and socio-cultural knowledge. Interpreters must also have the ability to adapt this knowledge quickly to size up Ð ° situation, anticipate problems, and decide on solutions within seconds which means they operate within an emergent system of adaptability. Because standards of practice have developed before we have described and analyzed what interpreters do as they work, interpreters use the language of ethical behavior to talk about their job performance. one way in which interpreting as Ð ° discourse process can work for interpreters is in providing new ways to describe, name, and discuss the interpreting process. As this study and the work of Wadensjo (1992), Metzger (1995), and others have shown, interpreters interact in multiple ways within the communicative event of interpreting.