See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/41373508

Interpreting Is Interpreting — Or Is It?

Article · January 1999

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
23 5,837

1 author:

Holly Mikkelson
Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey
38 PUBLICATIONS 719 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

2nd edition of Introduction to Court Interpreting View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Holly Mikkelson on 26 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Interpreting Is Interpreting — Or Is It?
Holly Mikkelson, Monterey Institute of International Studies

1. Introduction

The title of this paper may seem simplistic, but it represents decades of reflection
on the practice of interpreting. As someone trained in a program oriented toward
conference interpretation who went on to practice court interpreting and is now involved
in training community interpreters, I am constantly reminded of the many similarities
between these types of interpreting. Yet I am also constantly hearing practitioners strive
to differentiate their type of interpreting from that of other practitioners. A conference
interpreter about medical interpreting: “I didn’t get all those years of training to be able
to say ‘Where does it hurt?’” A medical interpreter about court interpreters: “They
wouldn’t last five minutes in the emergency room, they’re so used to the plodding pace of
court proceedings.” A court interpreter about conference interpreting: “What could be so
hard when you always get the speech in advance and you only work 30 minutes at a
time?” In California, interpreters certified for criminal court proceedings set themselves
apart from those who are “merely” certified for administrative hearings. Several court
interpreter colleagues, upon hearing that I have established a center on community
interpreting, have expressed the fervent hope that I would not include court interpreting in
that term. “After all our hard work for professional recognition, we don't want to be
lumped together with that lot," was the message I got. A common topic at interpreters’
meetings is the need for client education: “We need to educate our clients so that they
understand how specialized our work is; we’re not like those other so-called interpreters.”

I'm not the only person to ponder this issue, of course. Scholars such as Roberts
(1997) and Gentile (1993, 1997) have also discussed the divisiveness of drawing
distinctions among different types of interpreting. Gentile, in particular, advocates
eliminating the adjectives and simply talking about interpreting. Garber (1998), on the
other hand, points out that there are some profound differences between types of
interpreting, and that labels are helpful for distinguishing them. Perhaps it is naïve to
think that people will discontinue the use of qualifiers, given the human propensity for
classifying things. If we are going to use them, though, they should serve some purpose
other than to divide the profession.

A couple of years ago I came across a thesis written by a conference interpreter in

Taiwan, Joseph Tseng, about the struggles he and his colleagues were enduring to gain
recognition in their country. The parallels between the nascent conference interpreting
profession in Taiwan and the equally inchoate community interpreting profession in the
United States struck me immediately, spurring me to write a paper on the subject
(Mikkelson, 1996a). That paper only raised more questions in my mind, however. Why
does the public, on the one hand, lump all language professionals together—language
teachers, translators, interpreters, and even transcribers and court reporters are all the
same to them—while on the other hand, practitioners make such an effort to differentiate
themselves? Could there be any correlation between the public's confusion and

1
ignorance, and the profession's obsession with drawing ever finer distinctions? Garber
(1998) contends that the labels alleviate confusion, noting that "outside of a small group
of people who share our interest in interpreting, the word 'interpreter' has very little
meaning. In order to give it some practical meaning, we must add some type of
qualifier." Whether the distinctions add to or lessen the confusion remains to be seen.

As I’ve traveled around the world meeting interpreters of myriad languages

working in a vast array of settings, I’ve been struck with another irony: Interpreting is
becoming an increasingly common activity that is now an essential part of human
interaction at all levels; more and more people are employed as interpreters in
government and public agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private industry—
yet the interpreters I talk to are almost unanimous in complaining that they are underpaid,
undertrained, and underappreciated. In a situation that would appear to defy the law of
supply and demand, the demand for interpreters far exceeds the supply (of qualified
interpreters, that is—or in some cases, even unqualified ones), while the pay and working
conditions deteriorate. Although the number of interpreters in the world is not keeping
pace with the need for their services, it is growing in absolute terms. So why do
interpreters have so little clout? I think the answer can be found in the preceding
paragraphs.

In this paper I hope to show that the traditional labels attached to different types of
interpreting are inadequate and may be contributing to the divisiveness we see among
interpreters today. I will attempt to identify not what distinguishes one type of
interpreting from another, but what unifies them, and along the way I hope to dispel some
myths. It is my hypothesis that what actually differs is not what the interpreters do, but
how they are perceived. In other words, whereas the intrinsic nature of interlingual
communication varies little from one interpreted event to the next, powerful external
factors intervene to create major differences in attitudes among the clients and the
practitioners themselves. I will analyze these factors and discuss how they affect the
interpreting profession.

2. Myths About Interpreting

Interpreters are familiar with the misconceptions the lay public has about their
profession, but they tend to be unaware that each segment of the interpreting profession
has its own myths about other types of interpreting, such as:

a. Only conference interpreters perform simultaneous interpretation.

b. Only court interpreters have to be concerned with ethical considerations such as
confidentiality and impartiality.
c. Community interpreters are always amateurs with limited formal education.
d. Conference interpreters always interpret for trained public speakers, and they always
get the speeches in advance with plenty of time to prepare.
e. Only community interpreters deal with cultural differences.

2
 The following discussion of different types of interpreting should dispel these
myths.

3. Types of Interpreting

Interpreting itself can be described in simple terms: “(T)he interpreter has first to
listen to the speaker, understand and analyze what is being said, and then resynthesize the
speech in the appropriate form in a different language ...” (Jones, 1996: 6). The following
list, though not definitive, contains the subcategories most frequently encountered in the
literature about interpreting. In every one of these subcategories, interpreters perform the
(seemingly) simple task described above. The first three focus on the mode of delivery,
and the remaining categories emphasize the setting or the subject matter of the interpreted
event. The types of interpreting are listed in order of the unofficial hierarchy that prevails
among interpreters, the informal but very real differentiation that places some interpreters
at the pinnacle and others at the “bottom of the heap.”

Simultaneous interpreting: As the name suggests, providing the target-language message

at roughly the same time as the source-language message is being produced. According
to Seleskovitch (1978a),
In simultaneous interpretation the interpreter is isolated in a booth. He speaks at
the same time as the speaker and therefore has no need to memorize or jot down
what is said. Moreover, the processes of analysis-comprehension and of
reconstruction-expression are telescoped. The interpreter works on the message
bit by bit, giving the portion he has understood while analyzing and assimilating
the next idea. (125)

Consecutive interpreting: In this case, the interpreter waits until the speaker has finished
before beginning the interpretation. Again quoting Seleskovitch (1978a),
In consecutive interpretation the interpreter does not start speaking until the
original speaker has stopped. He therefore has time to analyze the message as a
whole, which makes it easier for him to understand its meaning. The fact that he
is there in the room, and that the speaker has stopped talking before he begins,
means that he speaks to his listeners face to face and he actually becomes the
speaker. (123)

Whispered interpreting: Also known as chuchotage. When equipment for simultaneous

interpretation is not available, "one participant speaks and simultaneously an interpreter
whispers into the ear of the one or maximum two people who require interpreting
services" (Jones, 1998: 6).

Conference interpreting: "(E)nables participants in a multinational meeting to

communicate with each other in a seamless fashion, making the language barrier almost
imperceptible" (GSTI, 1998: 6). Some writers equate conference interpreting with
simultaneous interpreting. According to Jones (1998), most conferences are conducted

3
with simultaneous interpreting these days, though interpreters must be prepared to
perform in the consecutive mode as well.

Seminar interpreting: A term used by the U.S. Department of State to designate the
interpreting that takes place in meetings and small conferences. Gonzalez, et al (1991:
28) assert that "the basic difference between conference interpreting and seminar
interpreting is the size of the meeting."

Escort interpreting: Refers to the interpreting services provided for government officials,
business executives, investors, observers, and the like, who are conducting on-site visits.
“Escort interpretation is marked by the spontaneity and the broad spectrum of situations
interpreters may find themselves in, from formal meetings to tours of factories to cocktail
parties. The mode most often used in this type of interpretation is consecutive, and is
usually limited to a few sentences at a time” (Gonzalez, et al, 1991: 28).

Media interpreting: A catch-all term encompassing the interpreting performed at press

conferences, publicity appearances, and interviews, as well as films, videos,
videoconferences, and television and radio programs (GSTI, www1998).

Court interpreting: Also known as legal, judiciary, or forensic interpreting, refers to

interpreting services provided in courts of law and in legal cases of any sort. According
to Gonzalez et al (1991),
Legal interpretation refers to interpretation that takes place in a legal setting
such as a courtroom or an attorney’s office, wherein some proceeding or activity
related to law is conducted. Legal interpretation is subdivided according to the
legal setting into (1) quasi-judicial and (2) judicial interpreting or what is
normally referred to as court interpreting. (25, emphasis in original)

In some jurisdictions, such as the State of California, a further distinction is made

between court interpreters, who work in criminal and civil proceedings in courts of law,
and administrative hearing interpreters, who provide services in hearings conducted by
administrative law judges under the auspices of state government agencies. In the United
States, most interpreting in legal settings is done in the simultaneous mode, although
consecutive is the mode of choice for witness testimony (Gonzalez et al, 1991); but in
other countries, interpreted court proceedings are most likely to use the consecutive mode
(Driesen, 1989; [cite from Japan]).

Business interpreting: Sometimes known as commercial or trade interpreting. Gentile et

al (1996) define the term broadly:
In the narrowest sense, the term denotes two or more business people discussing
business matters through an interpreter. ... However, we take interpreting in
business settings in its broadest possible sense, to include all [liaison] interpreting
situations which are outside the welfare/medical/legal rubric. We do not include
relationships characterized by a marked differential in power or status within a
given society. Examples of these interpreting settings range from arts, sport,

4
 tourism and recreation to patent negotiations or government-to-government
meetings and delegations. (116)

Another setting where interpreting takes place with increasing frequency is the
workplace, where the employer or supervisor speaks the official language of the country
and employees speak a minority language; this could also be considered business
interpreting, and it does involve a differential in power. Frishberg (1986) reports that
sign-language interpreters are called upon to interpret with increasing frequency in
commercial settings, whether for employers and employees or for interlocutors who are
on a more equal footing. Business interpreting may entail either consecutive or
simultaneous interpreting.

Medical interpreting: Alternative terms are health care interpreting and hospital
interpreting. According to Frishberg (1986: 115), “Interpreting in medical settings
encompasses a variety of situations, from routine consultation with a physician to
emergency procedures, from prepared childbirth classes to support for complex laboratory
testing.” Many experts include mental health interpreting as a subcategory of medical
interpreting. The State of California has designed another subcategory, medical-legal
interpreting, to refer to services provided for physicians conducting medical exams for
purposes of evidence-gathering in legal cases such as industrial injury claims and
personal injury lawsuits. Significantly, the certification exam for medical-legal
interpreters includes a test of simultaneous interpretation skills (CPS, 1998), although
consecutive interpreting is considered the norm in the medical setting. The Standards of
Practice developed by the Massachusetts Medical Interpreters Association (MMIA)
(1995: 14) state, "If the interpreter is competent in the simultaneous mode, [he/she] uses
it when it is important that the speaker not be interrupted (e.g., psyhiatric interview,
periods of high emotion)."

Educational interpreting: Often included under community interpreting, this is a rapidly

growing field of specialization, especially among sign-language interpreters (Frishberg,
1986; Aguirre et al, 1997). It involves interpreting in the classroom for students who
cannot understand the language of instruction, as well as interpreting between teachers
and parents and at school board meetings and disciplinary hearings. Either consecutive or
simultaneous interpreting may be required, depending on the circumstances.

Over-the-Phone Interpreting (OPI): Also known as remote interpreting, this term refers
to interpreting services provided via telephonic links (occasionally with video links as
well), in which neither the interpreter nor the parties are in the same physical location.
(Heh and Qian, 1997). OPI interpreters tend to work in medical, social service, business,
and legal cases. At present, most OPI interpreting is done consecutively, but as
telecommunications technology develops further, simultaneous interpreting will become
more prevalent (Mintz, 1998).

Community interpreting: Perhaps the most controversial of the terms used to

differentiate between types of interpreting (see Mikkelson, 1996a & b; Roberts, 1994), it

5
refers to interpreting that “enables people who are not fluent speakers of the official
language(s) of the country to communicate with the providers of public services so as to
facilitate full and equal access to legal, health, education, government, and social
services” (Carr et al, 1997). This type of interpreting is also known as liaison, ad hoc,
three-cornered, dialogue, contact, public service, and cultural interpreting; there is very
little consensus about the definitions of these terms and whether or not they are
synonymous (Gentile et al, 1996; Carr et al, 1997).

Community interpreters used to be considered amateurs and well-meaning but

misguided “do-gooders” (Gonzalez et al, 1991: 29), but nowadays they are increasingly
recognized as specialists in their own right. Some writers consider community
interpreting an umbrella term that includes court and medical interpreting (Mikkelson,
1996b), while others (mainly court interpreters) regard it as a separate category. Some
sources contend that community interpreting is by definition performed in the consecutive
mode (Gentile, 1997), but in fact simultaneous interpreting is often used when the
interpreter is capable of it and the situation is conducive to it (Gentile et al, 1996;
Hornberger et al, 1996). Gentile (1997) has expressed frustration at the imprecision of the
term "community interpreting" and expresses a preference for "liaison interpreting"
because it better describes the process. He goes on to say that the continued use of the
label " will have an adverse effect on the profession, perpetuating the "cinderella image"
that attaches to it.
It will continue to be regarded as a second rate form of interpreting which
is not worthy of specific attention in terms of status, training, remuneration and
research. …This is basically because it does not describe an environment which is
easily recognizable as an area of interpreting nor does it use terms which are
devoid of ambiguity; the term community can be applied to a community
attending a conference, a community living in one area, a community of people
interested in a single issue, or a community of speakers of a certain language.
(117-118)

Nevertheless, "community interpreting" appears to be pushing aside the other

terms in worldwide usage.

4. Qualities of Interpreters

A survey of the literature reveals a great deal of overlap in the descriptions of the
ideal interpreter, regardless of whether the subject of discussion is a court, medical, or
conference interpreter. The following qualities are identified by various authors as
essential for good interpreting:

Language skills: Even laypersons recognize that interpreters need to have a good
command of their working languages to interpret accurately, though they underestimate
the extent of that command. Writers about all types of interpreting, from conference
(Seleskovitch, 1978a; Jones, 1998) to court (Gonzalez et al, 1991) to community
(Frishberg, 1986; Gentile et al, 1996) emphasize the breadth and depth of linguistic

6
proficiency required. They are also unanimous in making the point that language is just a
prerequisite for mastering the techniques of interpreting.

Analytical skills: Gonzalez et al (1991: 363) declare that analysis is “foremost” among
the strategies employed by court interpreters, “so essential to [simultaneous interpreting]
that it can be considered an intrinsic part of the process rather than an ancillary tactic.”
Writing about conference interpreting, Jones (1998) also stresses how important it is to
analyze a speech before interpreting it. The standards of practice for medical interpreters
(MMIA, 1995) also cite analysis as a key element in interpreting proficiency.

Listening and recall: As Gentile et al (1996: 44) note, “Effective interpreting requires
effective listening skills.” Many authors define the specific kind of listening that
interpreters perform as “active listening,” and further point out that “[t]his active,
attentive listening is quite different from other forms of listening, and has to be learned by
the interpreter” (Jones, 1998: 14). Memory or recall is also identified as essential by
virtually all experts on interpreting, regardless of the type: Seleskovitch (1978a: 34) goes
as far as asserting that “in interpretation, memory and understanding are inseparable; the
one is a function of the other.” Having a good memory is especially important for a
judiciary interpreter, who must retain and include in the target language message even
paralinguistic elements: “What makes the court interpreter’s job much more difficult
than that of the conference interpreter is that the court interpreter cannot entirely discard
non-semantic information such as pauses and hedges because they must be included in
the [target-language] version in order to provide a legal equivalent of the [source-
language] message” (Gonzalez et al, 1991: 384).

Interpersonal and skills: One might expect heavy emphasis on this quality among
medical and social service interpreters, who are in more direct personal contact with their
clients than conference interpreters (Roberts, 1994). But even conference interpreters are
encouraged to develop these skills, as they may have a great deal of personal contact with
delegates (Jones, 1998; Seleskovitch, 1978a). Despite the stereotype of the conference
interpreter who spends all day in the booth addressing faceless bureaucrats in a
disembodied voice, many conferences involve direct contact between interpreters and
delegates. Moreover, the conference attendees are not necessarily international civil
servants or businessmen; they may come from all walks of life, and range from factory
workers to housewives to farmers to refugees.

Ethical behavior: Although legal settings are probably where the code of ethics has the
greatest impact on the interpreter’s work (which is why Gonzalez et al devote an entire
42-page chapter to the subject), ethics are a major consideration for all interpreters
(Frishberg, 1996; Sussman and Johnson, 1996). Jones (1996) describes the delicate
situations that can arise in international conferences, requiring that interpreters thoroughly
understand their role and exercise good judgment. Medical interpreters must be
particularly attuned to the importance of patient privacy issues (MMIA, 1995).

7
Speaking skills: Most people associate speaking skills with appearances before large
audiences at public events such as congresses, assemblies, or press conferences, and
public speaking is indeed a key component in the training of all types of interpreters
(Weber, 1984; Frishberg, 1986; Gonzalez et al, 1991). Gentile et al (1996: 47) point out,
however, that even liaison or community interpreters, who generally interpret in more
intimate settings, need to be able to express ideas well: “Effective speaking skills range
from quality of voice to choice of idiom, vocabulary, phrasing etc. So both what comes
out of the mouth of the interpreter and the way it comes out are important in the overall
effectiveness of the interpretation.”

Cultural knowledge: It is almost universally acknowledged that interpreters working in

medical and social service settings need to be acutely aware of cultural differences (hence
the term “cultural interpreter” that is so prevalent in Canada), although there is
widespread disagreement about what they should do with that knowledge (Carr et al,
1997). Court interpreters are also expected to take culture into account, although they are
much more restricted in their ability to educate their clients about cultural differences
(Gonzalez et al, 1991). What many of these interpreters may not recognize is that
conference interpreters, too, consider themselves not just linguistic but also cultural
intermediaries. Seleskovitch (1978a&b, Seleskovitch and Lederer, 1984) has written
extensively about the link between language and culture. Perhaps Jones (1996: 4) sums it
up best when he says that “in all of their work, (conference) interpreters must bridge the
cultural and conceptual gaps separating the participants in a meeting.”

Subject knowledge: Although professional interpreters often complain that their clients
do not understand their need to prepare ahead of time and gain some understanding of the
subjects to be discussed in order to interpret accurately (“You don’t need to understand it,
just translate it!”), all experts on interpreting recognize the need to acquire technical
terminology and content knowledge in relevant fields (Seleskovitch, 1978a; Gonzalez et
al, 1991; Frishberg, 1986; Gentile et al, 1996; MMIA, 1995).

Thus, it is clear that to some degree or another, all interpreters must demonstrate
the qualities listed above, regardless of where and for whom they interpret. The fact that
many individuals who are called upon to interpret in certain settings lack these qualities
does not mean they are not needed; it simply means that the client requesting interpreting
services does not appreciate their importance. So if all interpreters are really performing
the same task, why is there such disparity in the formal training, pay, and prestige of
interpreters?

The differences may be the result of confusion between the practice and the
practitioner. Conference interpreting is a well established, highly competitive field in
which practitioners must undergo extensive training and demonstrate a high level of skill
to be able to work for very selective international organizations, government institutions,
and private clients. As a result, conference interpreters can command high fees and are
treated with respect by their clients and colleagues.

8
 In contrast, hospital interpreters, for example, are hired (in the best of cases) by
public hospitals with limited budgets to provide services, on the one hand, for
overworked, underpaid medical professionals who may never have worked with
interpreters and do not know what to expect, and on the other hand, for immigrants who
have limited resources, often lack a formal education, are unfamiliar with the workings of
the health care system in their adopted country, and are not in a position to impose high
standards on interpreters. Rarely are the interpreters required to show proof of any formal
education in their languages or training in medical interpreting; the only criterion for their
selection is purported knowledge of the required languages (or, in the worst of cases,
physical presence, a foreign name or appearance, and accented speech). The
remuneration and status accorded these interpreters are commensurate with the low
standards for their selection.

The tables would be turned if the conference organizers approached the janitor on
the day of the conference, asked him if he spoke the languages in question, and dragooned
him into service, while the hospital administrators contacted a physician in the patient’s
home country who had also graduated from an interpreting school and set up a date for
her to fly in to the hospital for the patient’s appointment. The interpreting that each of
these clients needs would not change, but their attitude toward the interpreter certainly
would.

5. Another Approach to Categorizing Interpreting

The interpreting categories listed in Section 3 above tend to focus on the setting,
the mode of interpreting, or the subject matter of the interpreter-mediated event.
Individual interpreters may wear a variety of hats, working one day in a conference, the
next in an escort situation, and the next in a court proceeding. Thus, when someone
identifies himself as a conference interpreter, that does not necessarily mean that he
interprets only in conferences. The interpreter's working languages are a major factor
influencing the type of interpreting he performs; hence, an interpreter of French and
German has a wide variety of options to choose from, depending on education and
training, aptitudes, and the local job market, whereas an interpreter of Somali, no matter
how skilled, will not have many opportunities to interpret conferences or business
negotiations. In other words, the categories are not very helpful for describing the job of
a particular interpreter.

Not only do these labels create confusion among potential users of interpreting
services, but they also cause strife among practitioners. As Gentile (1997: 111) points out
in reference to the term "community interpreting,"

In the professional context, there are obviously tensions created in the

establishment of another "form" of interpreting within a scenario which is
evolving rapidly and which will, by definition, upset the accepted order of things
as well as alter the hitherto perceived skill requirements of practitioners engaged
in the field in general.

9
 Alexieva (1997) also rejects the traditional categories of interpreting on the
grounds that they are based on “single parameters,” and thus are too limiting. She
advocates a “multiparameter approach” (which, incidentally, would also eliminate the
hierarchical perception noted above).

The additional parameters that I would like to see included concern (a) the various
elements of the communicative situation: Who speaks, to Whom, about What,
Where, When and Why (and for what purpose ...), rather than simply the temporal
characteristics of delivery and the spatial coordinates of communicants, and (b)
the nature of the texts involved in the event, not just in terms of topic (in answer
to What above) or the ‘whole’ vs. ‘segment’ distinction proposed by Salevsky, but
also in terms of the way the text is built, whether it is more oral-like or written-
like, and the intertextual relationships obtaining between the individual texts
which constitute the macro-text of an interpreter-mediated event. (156)

Alexieva goes on to note that in real life, interpreter-mediated events are so

complex that it is impossible to establish clear-cut categories. She advocates approaching
the events as “‘families,’ with central members (prototypes) and peripheral members
(blend-forms) being identified on the basis of their position on a scale or continuum...”
(156). She then specifies the parameters that should shape the definition of interpreting:
1) mode of delivery and production, 2) participants in interpreter-mediated events, 3) the
topic of an interpreter-mediated event, 4) text type and text building strategies, 5) spatial
and temporal constraints, and 6) the goal of an interpreter-mediated event. In this way,
interpreter-mediated events can be placed along a “continuum of ‘universality’ vs.
‘culture-specificity’ using a number of scales”:
• ‘distance’ vs. ‘proximity’ (between speaker, addressee and interpreter);
• ‘non-involvement’ vs. ‘involvement’ (of the speaker as text entity);
• ‘equality/solidarity’ vs. ‘non-equality/power’ (related to status, role and
gender of speaker and addressee, as well as the interpreter in some cases);
• ‘formal setting’ vs. ‘informal setting’ (related to number of participants,
degree of privacy, and distance from home country);
• ‘literacy’ vs. ‘orality’;
• ‘cooperativeness/directness’ vs. ‘non-cooperativeness/indirectness’ (relevant
to negotiation strategies);
• ‘shared goals’ vs. ‘conflicting goals’. (169)

This approach allows for a more precise analysis of interpreting in real-life

situations. Thus, a broad term like “media interpreting” does little to inform the
uninitiated about what the interpreter actually does, but using Alexieva’s model, we find
that an interpreter working at a press conference at the Olympic Games is performing the
tasks traditionally associated with conference interpreting, whereas the interpreter
assigned to a magazine interview with a movie star is not. Similarly, the court intepreter
working at a mass arraignment, in which a judge, sitting high on a bench, addresses a
group of defendants listening to a whispered interpretation, performs a very different task

10
than when interpreting at an attorney-client conference in a jail cell, or the cross-
examination of a witness during a jury trial. Parameters such as distance/proximity,
formal/informal setting, shared goals/conflicting goals contribute a great deal to
elucidating the nature of the communication that is taking place.

The way the multiparameter model is applied to different interpreter-mediated

events depends, of course, on the researcher’s purpose. To answer the questions I posed
above, I would like to carry Alexieva’s approach a little further by adding some external
factors to the mix. I believe that it is extrinsic, not intrinsic, factors that account for the
vast differences in interpreters’ pay, working conditions, and status. In that context, I
would like to examine the following factors: 1) the status of the languages involved in an
interpreter-mediated event, 2) the multilingual or bilingual environment of an interpreter-
mediated event, and whether the interpreter is expected to interpret bidirectionally or
unidirectionally; 3) the degree of interpreter preparation required and allowed for an
interpreter-mediated event, 4) the criteria for being selected as an interpreter for a given
interpreter-mediated event, and 5) the job market for interpreters in the location of the
interpreter-mediated event, and 6) the degree to which interpreters are organized and
regulated in the location of the interpreter-mediated event.

Status of languages. The status of the languages being interpreted affects the status of the
interpreter. This factor is related to the non-equality/power parameter identified by
Alexieva (1997). Consider, for example, that the interpreters working at the United
Nations General Assembly, are interpreting for some of the most powerful people in the
world, and the official languages of the United Nations are those of the most powerful
countries in the world. UN interpreters enjoy excellent working conditions and are highly
respected professionals. In contrast, Tseng (1992: 132) reports that conference
interpreters in Taiwan, interpreting between two UN languages (English and Mandarin),
have relatively low status, partly because English is “a symbol of prestige and good
education” and meeting participants would rather “use what little English they have” than
rely on interpreters, “to show off to their peers or to avoid losing face by using
[simultaneous interpretation] receivers.” Therefore, it is important to look at attitudes
toward the languages involved in an interpreter-mediated event in the location of that
event.

The vast majority of the languages interpreted in community settings (hospitals,

social service agencies, refugee centers, etc.) are relatively low-status languages of
limited diffusion (Gentile et al, 1996), and interpreters in these venues work under very
poor conditions. Ironically, some of the most advanced research and scholarship on
interpreting in the United States is being done by interpreters of American Sign Language
(Patrie, 19-; Roy, 1993; Cokely, 19-), yet sign-language interpreting has not yet received
the recognition that some types of spoken-language interpreting are beginning to enjoy.
The various sign languages used by deaf people all over the world are low-status
languages; in fact, many linguists only recently accorded them the rank of full-fledged
languages, and the lay public is generally unaware of how sophisticated these languages
are (Frishberg, 1986). Thus, the work performed by interpreters for the deaf, regardless

11
of the setting and the complexity of the communication, is undervalued just as much as
that of spoken-language interpreters of minority languages.

Multilingual environment, direction of interpreting: Whether interpreters are expected to

know multiple languages and work unidirectionally within a language pair is another
factor that differentiates high-prestige interpreting assignments from less desirable ones.
Staff interpreters at international organizations such as the European Union and the
Organization of American States must demonstrate proficiency in interpreting from two
or more languages, but they generally interpret into just one language, their “mother
tongue.” In other conference interpreting markets, however, meetings generally involve
only two working languages and the interpreters are expected to work into and out of both
(Jones, 1998). Interpreters who work bidirectionally do not necessarily suffer from a loss
of prestige — Japanese conference interpreters being a case in point — but the more
specialized the interpreter is perceived to be, the more respect he or she commands. --
(1998) reports that court interpreters in South Africa routinely interpret multiple
languages, but in a given case they will be interpreting bidirectionally between just two
languages. She also points out that the interpreters are not tested for competence, since
the languages, the defendants needing interpreters, and the interpreters themselves are
held in low esteem.

Preparation for assignments: How much an interpreter is expected and allowed to

prepare for an assignment is related to the client’s perception of the importance of
interpretation. The General Conditions of Work adopted by the International Association
of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) state, “For their technical and terminological
preparation the organizer shall send the interpreters a complete set of documents
(programme, agenda, minutes of the previous meeting, reports, etc.) in each of the
working languages of the conference as early as possible, but not later than 15 days before
the beginning of the conference.” Of course this obligation is not always fulfilled at
every conference, but it is accepted as standard procedure at international conferences.
Conference organizers and delegates attending conferences are accustomed to this
requirement, and generally they comply because they value accurate interpretation. In
contrast, Tseng (1992) reports that conference interpreters in Taiwan often meet
resistance when they try to obtain documentation in advance. Court interpreters also
complain of the problems they have preparing adequately for their assignments (Gonzalez
et al, 1991; Gentile et al, 1996). Lawyers and doctors are particularly reluctant to allow
interpreters to see their files, citing confidentiality considerations, but in courts and health
care facilities where interpreters are respected as professionals, their requests for
documentation are more likely to be honored.

Selection of interpreters: In interpreting markets where clients are accustomed to

working with interpreters and have high standards for their services, the profession is very
competitive. To be selected for interpreting assignments, practitioners must demonstrate
their competence by taking exams, in the case of organizations with interpreting staffs, or
through membership in professional associations such as AIIC that require references
from experienced interpreters for admittance. Graduates of recognized schools of

12
interpreting are also considered to be members of this elite group. The status interpreters
enjoy in such markets reflects the selectiveness of the employment process.

Clients who are not used to working with interpreters, on the other hand, are not
selective at all because they do not know what questions to ask and have no standard to
go by such as a license or degree. Tseng (1992) identifies this as a major problem in
Taiwan, and many other scholars decry the lack of standards in the selection of
interpreters in the markets they write about (Roberts, 1997; Nicholson and Martinsen,
1997; [Czech cite]). Tseng (1992: 100-101) also reports that out of 24 conference
interpreters interviewed in Taiwan, only six had received two or more years of formal
training in interpreting; 11 had received less than six months of training, and five had
received no training at all.

In the absence of universally imposed academic standards for practitioners,

certification programs in which interpreters are required to pass proficiency exams have
been developed in many areas as a means of providing potential clients with a pool of
competent interpreters to choose from. The lack of training programs to help candidates
prepare for these exams results in high failure rates, however (Gonzalez et al, 1991;
Lascar, 1997). A vicious circle is created, as the low pay and poor working conditions of
interpreting work give prospective practitioners little incentive to invest in long training
courses, and thus colleges and universities have little impetus for establishing such
programs.

Local job market: Factors such as the economy, demographics, politics, and culture of
the country or region where an interpreter works have a major impact on the professional
opportunities available to him or her. An conference interpreter with a
French/German/English combination, for example, may find plenty of work in Europe,
but not in the United States. The demand for Hmong/English interpreters soared in the
late 1970s when refugees of this Laotian minority group settled in the state of Minnesota,
but as these immigrants grow older and new generations emerge with English-speaking
ability, the need for interpreters will diminish (Interpreter Standards Advisory Committee,
1998). The passage of a law or an international conflict may generate a tremendous
demand for interpreting in a certain language and a certain venue, as was the case when
Guatemalan refugees in the United States were suddenly subject to deportation or when
the United States sent troops to Somalia; whereas the severance of diplomatic relations
between two countries may cause the interpreting market in a given language
combination to evaporate. When work is scarce, interpreters must find other means of
earning a living, which detracts from their ability to maintain their skills and maintain
contact with potential clients (Tseng, 1992; Roberts, 1997). All of these circumstances
affect the demand for interpreters, the terms under which they are hired, and the status
they are accorded.

Organization and regulation: Finally, the degree to which interpreters are organized and
regulated in a given location affects their status. Tseng (1992: 148) points out that the
situation of conference interpreters in Taiwan would be much better if they formed a

13
professional association, since “interpreters working in international conferences [as
opposed to those organized by Taiwanese] are able to work under better conditions,
thanks to negotiations initiated by professional associations in the past.” In his discussion
of professionalization in general, he notes that occupations attain the status of professions
by gaining control over the market in which they work. One way of establishing this
control is by forging “alliances with the state,” including lobbying for government
regulation of the profession. This has proven true in the case of court interpreters in the
United States, where legislation requiring that interpreters working in the federal courts
pass a proficiency exam brought about an immediate increase in the pay and prestige of
interpreters in that jurisdiction, in stark contrast to their counterparts in the state courts
(Gonzalez et al, 1991).

6. Conclusion

This analysis of the different types of interpreting has shown that regardless of the
adjective preceding the word “interpreter,” practitioners of this profession the world over
perform the same service and should meet the same standards of competence. What
accounts for the tremendous disparity in working conditions and status is not the nature of
the interpreting itself, but certain external factors that affect the market in which
interpreters render their services. The way to lessen this disparity is to recognize the
commonalities in interpreters’ work and to form strong professional associations and
alliances that will unite practitioners striving to achieve common goals.

14
 Bibliography

Aguirre, B., Barthelemy, R., David, B., Fequiere, A., and Fitzpatrick, J. (1997).
“Translating/Interpreting for the Schools: A Buregeoning Field” in Jerome-
O’Keefe (ed.) Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the American
Translators Association. Alexandria, VA: American Translators Association.
Alexieva, B. (1997). “A Typology of Interpreter-Mediated Events,” in The Translator,
Vol. 3, No. 2, 153-174.
Carr, S., Roberts, R., Dufour, A. and Steyn, D. (1997). The Critical Link: Interpreters in
the Community. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cokely, D.
Cooperative Personnel Services (CPS)
Driesen, C.
Frishberg, N. (1986). Interpreting: An Introduction. Silver Spring, MD: Rigestry of
Interpreters for the Deaf.
Garber, N. (1998). “Comunity Interpretation: A Personal View,” paper presented at the
Critical Link ...
Gentile, A., Ozolins, U. and Vasilakakos, M. (1996). Liaison Interpreting, A Handbook.
Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Gentile, A. (1997) “Community Interpreting or Not? Practices, Standards and
Accreditation” in S. Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour, and D. Steyn (eds.) The Critical
Link: Interpreters in the Community. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company,109-118.
Gonzalez, R., Vasquez, V. and Mikkelson, H. (1991). Fundamentals of Court
Interpretation: Theory, Policy and Practice. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic
Press.
Graduate School of Translation and Interpretation (GSTI)
Heh, Y. and Quian, H. (1997). “Over-the-Phone Interpretation: A New Way of
Communication Between Speech Communities” in M. Jerome-O’Keefe (ed.)
Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the American Translators
Association. Alexandria, VA: American Translators Association, 51-62.
Interpreter Standards Advisory Committee (1998). Bridging the Language Gap: Final
Report. www1.umn.edu/ccch/gap.index.html
Jones, R. (1998). Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome
Publishing.
Lascar, E. (1997). “Accreditation in Australia: An Alternative Means” in S. Carr, R.
Roberts, A. Dufour, and D. Steyn (eds.) The Critical Link: Interpreters in the
Community. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,
119-130.
Massachusetts Medical Interpreters Association (MMIA)
Mikkelson, H. (1996a). “The Professionalization of Community Interpreting” in
Mikkelson, H. (1996b). “Community Interpreting: An Emerging Profession” in
Interpreting

15
 Mintz, D. “Hold the Phone: Telephone Interpreting Scrutinized” in Proteus, Vol. VII,
No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Patrie, C.
Roberts, R. (1994). “Community Interpreting Today and Tomorrow.” in P. Krawutschke
(ed.). Vistas: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the American
Translators Association, 1994. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, 127-138.
Roberts, R. (1997). “Overview of Community Interpreting” in S. Carr, R. Roberts, A.
Dufour, and D. Steyn (eds.) The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 7-28.
Roy, C.
Seleskovitch, D. (1978a). Interpreting for International Conferences. Washington, DC:
Pen & Booth.
Seleskovitch, D. (1978b). “Language and Cognition” in D. Gerver and H. Sinaiko (eds.).
Language Interpretation and Communication. New York: Plenum, 333-342.
Seleskovitch, D. and Lederer, M. (1984). Interpréter pour traduire. Paris: Didier.
Sussman, L. and Johnson, D. (1996). Dynamics of the Interpreter’s Role: Implications
for International Executives” in The Journal of Language for International
Business, Vol. VII, No. 2, 1-14.
Tseng, J. (1992). Interpreting as an Emerging Profession in Taiwan — A Sociological
Model: Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan.
Weber, W. (1984). Training Translators and Conference Interpreters. Orlando, FL:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

16

View publication stats