Dialogue Interpreting: Description & Major Research Foci

The type of interpreting described by Mason (2001) and Roy (2000) in the quotations that begin this dissertation is referred to by a number of names, including liaison interpreting, ad hoc interpreting, community interpreting, public service interpreting, medical/legal interpreting, and dialogue interpreting. The label employed by a given individual tends to reflect the type of interaction being described, geographical preferences, and the focus of the person doing the

labeling (see Mikkelson, 1999; Hale, 2007; and Tipton & Furmanek, 2016 for further discussion of labels). In this dissertation I employ the label ‘dialogue interpreting’ because it is broader, and thus more inclusive, than other possible labels, and because it emphasizes the

interaction-coordinating aspects of dialogue interpreting, which are of central importance to task performance.

Dialogue interpreters are usually called upon to provide their services in situations in which a person with limited proficiency in a majority language and a fluent speaker¹ of the majority language need to communicate with each other. These interactions are typically goal-oriented and often, although not always, involve situations in which the individual with limited

proficiency in the majority language is seeking something—for example, information, authorization for benefits, medical care, or a legal decision—from a person who has a higher status, whether real or perceived, or is in a position of authority. Such situations often deal with very sensitive subject matter, are characterized by inherent power imbalances between the parties, and are rife with potential for misunderstanding or conflict (Mason, 1999; Roy, 2000;

Fontes, 2008; Mason and Ren, 2012). In addition to the need to communicate across language barriers, individuals involved in interpreted interactions must communicate across different ways of understanding and approaching the world, which, in many cases, may not be immediately mutually intelligible, or may even be in conflict (Wilcox & Shaffer, 2005; Rudvin, 2006). While in some cases all parties may be working toward the same end, divergent or conflicting goals are also typical features of this type of interaction (Mason, 1999; Fontes, 2008). Consider, for example, the tensions, power imbalances, and cultural differences that may come into play in settings such as courts, medical interactions, educational settings, social welfare agencies, and immigration proceedings.

Wadensjö (2011) provides a concise overview of several key features of dialogue interpreting, contrasting them with simultaneous conference interpreting:

• Dialogue is generally spontaneous and arises from the situation at hand, while conference presentations are generally pre-planned (and often written out in advance of delivery);

• Dialogue interpreters work in two directions, switching source and target languages (SL and TL, respectively) with every change of speaker, while conference interpreters generally work into only one language and are not generally required to switch back and forth between SL and TL frequently.²

1 While I use terms such as ‘speaking’, ‘hearing’, and ‘listening’ throughout this dissertation, I do so advisedly, without intent to exclude signed languages or bimodal (i.e., between signed and spoken languages) interpreting.

2 There are some notable exceptions to this trend; for example, retour (i.e., simul into the B, or second, language, rather than into the A, or first, language) is routinely provided by interpreters of some languages, such as Chinese or Arabic, and may be provided by interpreters of other languages as well. Wadensjö’s (2011) point that simultaneous

• Dialogue interpreters are generally in close physical proximity to the parties for whom they are interpreting,³ while conference interpreters are generally (although not always) in a separate booth at a remove from the proceedings;

• The dialogue interpreter is often the only person in the room who understands both languages.⁴

The influence of setting- and situation-specific factors on the interpreter’s performance is central to understanding the complexities of the dialogue-interpreting task, as Mason

(1999:148/149) stresses:

“A glance at the issues listed below [in Mason's article], as they emerge from studies carried out over the past two decades, shows quite conclusively the centrality of face-to-face dialogue in the interpreters' dilemmas, role-adopting, and decision-making

processes” . . . “In general, wherever a particular outcome is of vital importance to one or both parties, pressures on the interpreter increase and go well beyond those

experienced in routine conference simultaneous situations.”

Dialogue interpreting performance thus requires not only a high level of proficiency in at least two languages and competence in the cognitive skills of interpreting, but also a broad array of auxiliary skills and knowledge, including the following:

• communication and interpersonal skills (including nonverbal/paralinguistic communication)

• discourse analysis skills

• turn-taking and interaction management skills

• knowledge & skill related to intercultural communication (e.g., awareness of potential differences in education/background/cultural assumptions between speakers and the effects of the same on communication)

• knowledge of professional codes of ethics and standards of practice, and the ability to put them into practice in a high-stakes, rapidly-changing environment

• understanding of concepts and knowledge of technical vocabulary related to specific settings

conference involves less switching of target language and source language nevertheless holds, as simultaneous conference interpreting generally does not involve frequent changes of speaker of the sort that characterize dialogue interpreting.

3 In some circumstances, the interlocutors are in a room together and the interpreter is present via telephone or videoconference.

4 Wadensjö (2011) states that members of audiences for conference interpreting are often multi-lingual and are thus more likely to contain individuals who understand both the original and the interpretation.

• understanding of setting-specific differences in communication goals, expectations, and practices

• the ability to maintain professional composure and competent performance in situations that may cause personal distress

A great deal has been said in the Interpreting Studies literature about dialogue interpreting, its features, and its dynamic nature. Issues of interlingual/cultural communication, interaction management, role/positioning, and politeness/face have been widely explored (e.g. Wadensjö, 1998; Metzger, 1999; Roy, 2000; Mason, 1999, 2001). Analysis of interpreting in dialogue settings has repeatedly confirmed that, despite normative conceptualizations of interpreters as invisible and powerless, interpreters do have agency: besides being physically present in the interaction (and, thus, unavoidably visible), they are active co-participants and co-constructors of meaning whose decisions and behaviors undeniably influence the interpreted interaction

(Wadensjö, 1998; Roy, 2000; Bélanger, 2004; Wilcox & Shaffer, 2005).

While an in-depth discussion of the abundant research on interpreted interactions is outside the scope of this dissertation, the reader unfamiliar with the literature is referred to works such as Wadensjö’s (1998) volume on interpreting as interaction, Metzger’s (1999) volume on neutrality in interpreting, the special edition of The Translator edited by Mason (1999), the edited volume on dialogue interpreting also edited by Mason (2001), Roy’s (2000) volume on turn-taking;

Angelelli’s (2004) exploration of interpreters’ views of their roles, Hale’s (2007) overview of community interpreting, Valero Garcés & Martin’s (2008) edited volume on community interpreting, Baraldi & Gavioli’s (2012) edited volume focused on coordination of talk, and the multiple edited volumes arising from the Critical Link International conferences (Schäffner, Kredens, & Fowler, 2013; Hale, Ozolins, & Stern, 2009; Wadensjö, Englund Dimitrova, &

Nilsson, 2007; Brunette, Bastin, Hemlin & Clarke, 2003; Roberts, Carr, Abraham & Dufour, 2000; and Carr, Roberts, Dufour, & Steyn, 1997), among many other books and articles that explore dialogue interpreting.

1.2 The Dialogue Interpreter as Task-Performer: A Process-Focused