1. Who interprets interpreting?
A study of the social turn in Interpreting Studies
Author: Ruth Pike
Supervisor: Dr Peng
Module: MODL5301M Dissertation
Word count of text: 10,068 (including Appendix A: 236 words)
Word count of Abstract: 218
Mark awarded: 72, distinction
Status: Unpublished
Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of
MA Conference Interpreting and Translation Studies
The University of Leeds
Centre for Translation Studies
August 2011

2. 1
Abstract
The ‘social turn’ describes a trend in Interpreting Studies which arose in the 1990s
and can be largely attributed to the beginning of the process of professionalization of
community interpreting. The interdisciplinary nature of the social turn led to a
re-analysis of interpreting and the role of the interpreter through new theoretical
frameworks, such as sociolinguistics and discourse analysis. Consequently, it
marked a shift in emphasis from communication as monological to communication as
dialogical, and a shift from studying interpreting as a product to studying interpreting
as a process. The former has significant implications for meaning and quality in
interpreting because it implies that the target text (TT) is not intended to be a faithful
copy of the source text (ST), but creates meaning in dialogue with the ST. However,
the social turn has also provided useful insights into the socio-cultural and relational
aspects of communication which could improve quality in interpreting. The social turn
has helped further the process of professionalization of community interpreting, but
further professionalization remains threatened by financial constraints and negative
perceptions of community interpreting. The lack of professionalization of community
interpreting also limits the extent to which the social turn is able to have an impact on
interpreting practice, but greater communication amongst different ‘types’ of
interpreters and scholars could mitigate this.

3. 2
Contents
Abstract...................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction: The social turn in context............................................................. 3
1.1 Defining interpreting................................................................................... 3
1.2 Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies: Parallel disciplines? ...... 4
Figure 1: Model of Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies......................... 5
1.3 Introducing the ‘social turn’ in Interpreting Studies ................................ 6
2. The social turn and other texts............................................................................ 8
2.1 Community interpreting and the beginnings of professionalization...... 8
2.2 Defining community interpreting against other forms of interpreting . 11
2.3 The call for descriptivism......................................................................... 13
2.4 New theoretical frameworks as texts ...................................................... 14
3. The social turn and the text: Collaboration or servitude? .................................. 17
3.1 From servitude to collaboration? ............................................................ 17
3.2 The death of the speaker.......................................................................... 19
3.3 A new form of illusionism......................................................................... 20
4. The social turn as a text .................................................................................... 23
4.1 Meaning and quality in interpreting: monological versus dialogical.... 23
4.2 Meaning and quality in interpreting: product versus process .............. 26
5. Conclusions: The impact of the social turn and future prospects ...................... 28
5.1 Impact on meaning and quality in interpreting....................................... 28
5.2 Impact on the role, status and professionalization of the community
interpreter............................................................................................................ 29
5.3 Who interprets interpreting and who will interpret the future of
interpreting?........................................................................................................ 30
Appendix A: Comparison of different models of professionalization......................... 33
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 34

4. 3
1. Introduction: The social turn in context
1.1 Defining interpreting
The terms ‘translating’ and ‘interpreting’ are often used interchangeably in
Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies. However, most scholars recognize that
there is some distinction between them. Pöchhacker (Pöchhacker 2004. In: Hale
2007 p.5) defines interpreting as ‘a form of Translation in which a first and final
rendition in another language is produced on the basis of a one-time presentation of
an utterance in a source language’. Pöchhacker’s definition accounts for the fact that
many scholars use the term ‘Translation’ to refer to interpreting, although generally
not vice-versa. Hale (2007) sums up the differences between interpreting and
translating as follows:
The first, obvious, difference is that one is expressed in written form
(Translation) and the other in oral form (Interpreting), and for this reason, the
translation process includes a number of steps that are not available to the
interpreter. (2007 p.8)
Echoing this definition, Dam (Dam 1993. In: Kondo 1997 p.159) highlights three main
factors which distinguish interpreting from translating:
1) In interpreting, target-text receivers are normally part of the primary
audience of the sender.
2) There are differences in the medium involved and position of the
communication parties.
3) The interpreter does not have time to adapt the text to follow conventions of
text structuring and structuring of argumentation.
In this dissertation, I will use the term ‘interpreting’ to refer to the oral form of
translation, which, as the above definitions explain, is distinct from the written form of
translation. However, on occasion I will refer to scholars who use the term
‘Translation’ to refer to interpreting.

5. 4
1.2 Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies: Parallel disciplines?
The subject of where Translation Studies is situated in relation to other disciplines
has been a key concern of scholars such as Snell-Hornby who have set out to
present Translation Studies as a discipline within its own right. Snell-Hornby (2006)
declares that:
Up to the mid-1980s (...) the study of translation was widely seen as a
concern of either linguistics or literary studies, and my ‘integrated approach’
set out to overcome the divisions between them and to present Translation
Studies as an independent discipline. (Snell-Hornby 2006 p.IX, Preface)
The term ‘Translation Studies’ is often used as a blanket term for both Translation
Studies and Interpreting Studies. However, Pöchhacker (2008 pp.36-37) observes
that Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies have not always followed parallel
paths. In his analysis of the turns in Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies, in
relation to the work of Snell-Hornby, Pöchhacker (2008 p.36) points out that whilst
Translation Studies took a ‘cultural turn’ in the mid- to late 1980s, Interpreting
Studies called for more objective and scientific empirical research on interpreting.
Pöchhacker (2008 p.37), in contradistinction to Snell-Hornby, argues that there was
no need for an ‘empirical turn’ in interpreting research, because interpreting research
is grounded in experimental psychology rather than linguistic or literary theorising.
Pöchhacker (2008 pp.36-38) designates the 1980s and 1990s as a period of
divergence between Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies. The 1990s was
the period, following the abundance of more empirical studies in Interpreting Studies,
when the so-called ‘social turn’ emerged.
Figure 1 illustrates the basic conceptual shifts in the relation of Interpreting Studies
to Translation Studies. It is based on Snell-Hornby (2006 pp.IX-XI, Preface),
Pöchhacker (2008 pp.35, 37) and Roy’s (2000 p.3) analysis of the turns within
Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies. Influences such as ‘Linguistics’ are
noted around the diagrams. These are intended to show the main disciplinary
framework of Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies, rather than illustrating all
of the complexity of influences on these disciplines. It should also be noted that
whilst Interpreting Studies has begun to be seen as a discipline in its own right, it is
generally not seen in complete isolation of Translation Studies.

6. 5
Figure 1: Model of Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies
Stage 1: Up to mid-1980s
Interpreting Studies as a sub-set of Translation Studies.
Stage 2: 1980s-1990s
Translation Studies and Interpreting Studies as separate disciplines.
Stage 3: 1990s
Community Interpreting as a form of interpreting begins to establish its own identity
within Interpreting Studies. Different theoretical frameworks are used to frame
Interpreting Studies.
Interpreting Studies
Community Interpreting
Sociolinguistics
Discourse analysis
Ethnography
Conversational
analysis
Translation Studies Interpreting Studies
Linguistics
Literary theory
Translation Studies
Interpreting Studies
Cognitive psychology
Psycholinguistics

7. 6
1.3 Introducing the ‘social turn’ in Interpreting Studies
According to Pöchhacker (2008 p.38), the ‘social turn’ may be understood in terms of
the significant impact which the so-called ‘emergence of community-based
interpreting’ had on Interpreting Studies in the 1990s. Mason (2001 p.i) suggests that
a pivotal moment in the development of this movement was The Critical Link –
Interpreters in the Community, a conference which was held in Geneva Park,
Canada, in which different practitioners, trainers and researchers came together with
the common aim of serving the community, viewing themselves as fundamentally
different from conference interpreters. Mason (2001 p.i) remarks that ‘the Geneva
Park conference marked a turning point’. Roberts (2002 p.167) states that ‘it has
really only been since then that the exchange of information on a national and
international basis has begun’. This conference was followed by another conference
three years later in Vancouver, Critical Link II, and then by a number of key
publications by those ‘endeavouring to stake out the discipline and determine
appropriate methods for its systematic study’ (Mason 2001 p.i). Thus, the emergence
of community interpreting and the recognition of this type of interpreting as being
distinct from conference interpreting led to a re-analysis of interpreting.
Scholars writing at this time, firstly, positioned their own analysis and theories in
relation to other discourses, secondly, realigned the interpreter in relation to the text
interpreted, and thirdly, offered a new perspective through which interpreting could
be viewed. In this dissertation, I will analyse this in terms of: 1) the social turn and
other texts, 2) the social turn and the text, and 3) the social turn as a text. In other
words I will look at: 1) Where the social turn stands in relation to other discourses, 2)
Where scholars within the social turn position themselves in relation to the source
text and 3) Metaphorically speaking, the question of how the social turn functions as
a text for reading interpreting, and more specifically for measuring quality in
interpreting. I have chosen to frame this discussion using the term ‘text’ for a number
of reasons. It is true that the scope of Interpreting Studies has now broadened from a
mere discussion of the relation of source text to target text and some scholars such
as Wadensjö (1998 pp.8-9) prefer to think primarily in terms of ‘talk as activity’ rather
than ‘talk as text’. However, such arguments are themselves expressed as texts.
Furthermore, the apparent shift in focus within Interpreting Studies invites a
discussion of where Wadensjö and other scholars stand in relation to the text. As

8. 7
Katan (Katan 2004. In: Sykes 2011 p.1) observes, there has been a shift in the
perception of the role of the interpreter from ‘machine conduit’ to ‘communication
facilitation’, and we are now perhaps heading towards ‘bilingual/bicultural mediation’.
In this dissertation, I will not engage in lengthy debate on the issue of the role of the
interpreter from a relational point of view. However, I will study the position of the
interpreter in relation to the text which sheds light on the degree of intervention by
the interpreter which is deemed acceptable.
The term ‘social turn’ describes a general shift within Interpreting Studies. Evidently,
not all scholars in Interpreting Studies within the 1990s held the same viewpoint.
However, I will examine some of the general trends within their theories, focusing
more specifically on Cecilia Wadensjö, Holly Mikkelson, Ian Mason, Basil Hatim and
Cynthia Roy. I have chosen to focus on these particular scholars because of their
influence within the sphere of Interpreting Studies, without wishing to play down the
significant contribution of other scholars such as Cokeley and Berk-Seligson within
this field. Pöchhacker (2004 p.41) describes Mikkelson and Wadensjö as ‘influential
authorities’ who played a key role in developing initiatives within the mainstream
interpreting research community in the 1990s. Wadensjö’s social-interactionist
perspective on Interpreting Theory has been highly influential. Roy (2000 p.32) notes
that ‘Since Wadensjö, more and more researchers are turning towards an
interactive, discourse-oriented approach to interpreting’. Mason and Roy are also
cited as being amongst those who endeavoured to ‘stake out the discipline’ (Mason
2001 p. i). Furthermore, Pöchhacker (2004 p.37) describes Roy as one of the
‘pioneering US scholars’. Roy (2000 pp.26-27) herself makes reference to Hatim and
Mason’s Discourse and the Translator (1990), as being a key work, establishing a
discourse approach to translation. In this dissertation, I will also refer to Linell’s (1997
pp.49-67) discussion of theories of language, communication, human action and
meaning, as this provides a clear explanation of the ‘new direction for research on
interpretation based on a dialogic, rather than a monologic view on language and
language use’ (Wadensjö 1998 p.7, italics in original). Linell’s work was recognized
by Pöchhacker (2004 p.40), who referred to his contribution at the ‘International
Conference on Interpreting’ in 1994 in Turku, Finland as being a ‘keynote paper’.

9. 8
2. The social turn and other texts
2.1 Community interpreting and the beginnings of professionalization
Pöchhacker (2008 p.38) refers to the ‘emergence of community-based interpreting’
in the 1990s as having a significant impact on Interpreting Studies. However,
perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to this as the beginning of the
professionalization of community-based interpreting. Roberts (2002 p.157) points out
that community interpreting has been practised for a long time, the first recorded
practice of it dating back to 1534 in Canada. However, according to Roberts (2002),
it has been the last of the three types of interpreting to attract attention. Roberts
(2002) states that:
While the professionalization of conference interpreting began in the 1950’s
[sic] and that of court interpreting in the 1970’s [sic], community interpreting
has begun to aspire to professionalization only in the last decade [1990s].
(Roberts 2002 p.157)
First of all, let us begin by considering what is meant by ‘professionalization’ and
what the significance of this was for Interpreting Studies in the 1990s. (For a full
comparison of the main definitions to which I will be referring, see Appendix A) I
would like to start by drawing attention to Roberts’ (Roberts 1994. In: Mikkelson
1996) suggestion that professionalization begins with clarification of terminology and
of the role(s) of the community interpreter. Salaets and Van Gucht (2008 p.273) also
point out that ‘Defining the role and task of interpreters in community settings is an
issue of prime concern and controversy in the drive for professionalization of
interpreter service delivery’. The Geneva Park Conference and the proliferation of
scholarly work at the time focusing on the role of the interpreter clearly correlate with
this notion. Roy (2002 pp.344-353) offers a summary of some of the discussions
which raged throughout the 1990s over the role of the interpreter (although Roy does
not make specific reference to this as being her objective). Roy (2002 pp.344-353)
suggests that there have been different historical portrayals of the role of the
interpreter including the interpreter as helper, as machine or conduit, as
communication facilitator and as a bilingual, bicultural specialist. Mikkelson (1999)
provides a synopsis of the climate of the time, which was filled with debate over the

10. 9
status of different types of interpreting, and whether or not community interpreting,
for example, should be differentiated from other forms of interpreting. As Mikkelson
(1999) highlights, scholars have been divided over whether community interpreting
should be seen as distinct from other forms of interpreting. Consequently, debate
over the role of the interpreter cannot be seen as being exclusive to the domain of
interpreting. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the re-analysis of community
interpreting led to wider discussion about interpreting and the role of interpreters on
the whole.
Another important point associated with the beginning of professionalization is
training. Kearns (2008 pp.2-3) examines the origins of professionalization, tracing it
back to the Industrial Revolution. He suggests that the development of professions
began with the recognition that training was needed. Tseng (Tseng 1992. In:
Mikkelson 1996) suggests that the first stage of professionalization consists of fierce
competition followed by practitioners seeking training to gain a competitive edge and
subsequently the establishment of education programmes to respond to this need.
Roberts (Roberts 1994. In: Mikkelson 1996) suggests that the provision of training
for community interpreters follows the clarification of terminology and role. This is
then followed by provision of training for trainers of community interpreters and for
professionals working with interpreters. Again, the social turn in Interpreting Studies
may be linked to the growth in training. If there are more training courses available,
then more academic research is carried out. Hale (2007 p.172), for instance,
describes the challenges faced by course organizers who are forced to prioritize due
to time constraints, but find this difficult in the absence of research, a factor which is
linked to the lack of courses. Scholars within the social turn provided research which
could improve training for interpreters. Many scholars within the social turn openly
expressed such a desire to influence and build on existing training. Roy (2000
pp.125-126), for instance, includes a section on ‘Implications for Teaching’. Part III of
Triadic Exchanges (Mason 2001 pp.107-171) is entitled ‘Issues in Training’.
Wadensjö (1998 p.286) suggests that training may not only be a part of the process
of professionalization, but may also help in defining professionalism itself. She
suggests that programmes for interpreter training should include criteria on defining
professionalism, for instance, criteria for inclusion among professionals and criteria
for evaluating interpreters’ professional skill.

11. 10
Kearns (2008 p.3) and Tseng (Tseng 1992. In: Mikkelson 1996) suggest that the
creation of professional associations occurs after training has been established.
Wadensjö (1998 p.49) also notes the importance of both training programmes and
professional associations in the professionalization process: ‘The professionalization
process manifests itself in the emergence of interpreters’ associations, educational
programmes and certification examinations’. At the time of the social turn, there were
few professional associations established. Roberts (2002 p.167) observes that whilst
some countries such as the UK and Australia have organizations which set and
maintain standards, elsewhere there is often only ‘a more or less official consortium
of groups involved in community-based interpreting’. In the UK, there is the Institute
of Linguists, which was founded in 1910, whilst in Australia there is the National
Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters, founded in 1977. Neither of
these however is exclusive to community interpreting. Roberts (2002 p.168) also
writes that ‘The authority that a standard-establishing group has to impose and
assess the standards depends on how official its status is’. Hence, less official
bodies in countries will have little control over the practice of community interpreting.
A further problem, according to Roberts (2002 p.174), is that many conference
interpreters and court interpreters are reluctant to integrate community-based
interpreters into their associations for fear of having their own status diminished.
The lack of professionalization of community interpreting in comparison to
conference interpreting in the 1990s and, according to many, in the twenty first
century, inevitably had and continues to have a negative impact on the status of the
profession. In Hale’s (2007 p.33) fairly recent analysis of community interpreting, she
writes that community interpreters ‘receive much lower pay and have little status as
professionals’. However, conversely, the proliferation of scholarly work on
interpreting within the social turn and the nature of that work might well be attributed
to this very lack of professionalization. Kearns (2008 p.1) states that ‘Attitudes to
intervention themselves are intimately tied to notions of professional behaviour’. The
degree of intervention is often determined by professional associations who
prescribe the degree of intervention which should be equated with ‘professional
behaviour’. Wadensjö (1998 p.285) states that ‘The single member either belongs to
the association of professionals and accepts its norms, or is excluded and will be
grouped among the non-serious performers or the amateurs’. By way of example, if

12. 11
professionalism in conference interpreting were to be closely aligned with the notion
of abiding by the transfer model of communication then that would be the ‘text’ to
which the interpreter would have to swear allegiance, in order to be considered a
professional. If, however, as in the case of community interpreting, a process of
professionalization is still taking place, the degree of intervention permitted by the
interpreter has not yet been dictated by a text and the interpreter has greater
freedom over her role. Hence, the social turn was able to reassess the role of the
interpreter and the degree of intervention permitted. Scholars within this period had
the freedom to realign Interpreting Studies in relation to other discourses and to form
their own ‘text’ for interpreting. They hoped that their efforts would contribute to the
professionalization of the community interpreter. Wadensjö (1998), for instance,
declares that:
explorations of authentic, transcribed interpreter-mediated interaction is a way
to provide insights into the task of interpreting, knowledge which in my mind is
necessary in order to accomplish professionalism in the field. (Wadensjö 1998
p.286)
2.2 Defining community interpreting against other forms of interpreting
In the First International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health, and Social
Service Settings in 1994, ‘community interpreting’ was defined as follows:
Community interpreting 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. (Roberts 2002 p.158)
However, during the social turn there was not a complete consensus over the
classification of community interpreting. Roberts (2002 p.157) classifies interpreting
into three types: conference interpreting, court interpreting and community
interpreting. However, Mikkelson (1996) classifies community interpreting and court
interpreting into one category, stating that ‘Community interpreting, which includes
court and medical interpreting, is following the typical pattern of a profession in its
infancy’. There are a number of terms which are sometimes used interchangeably
with ‘community interpreting’. Roberts (2002 p.158) lists terms such as ‘public

13. 12
service interpreting’, ‘cultural interpreting’, ‘dialogue interpreting’ and ‘liaison
interpreting’, then going on to coin her own term, ‘community-based interpreting’
(Roberts 2002 p.161). Whilst these terms are often used to refer to the same domain
of interpreting, they are not entirely synonymous. ‘Liaison interpreting’, for instance,
is a broader definition which also includes interpreting in business and tourism
settings (Roberts 2002 p.160).
However, it appears that categorizing different ‘types’ of interpreting is often more
about political reasons than distinctive features. Mikkelson (1999) discusses the
‘divisiveness of drawing distinctions among different types of interpreting’. She
begins by quoting different interpreters who seem to wish to differentiate themselves
from other ‘types’ of interpreters because they feel the need to assert their own
identity, superiority or professionalism over others. Similarly, Roberts (2002 p.173)
argues that there are more similarities than differences between different ‘types’ of
interpreting. She notes that all ‘types’ of interpreting require the same basic skills,
ethical principles, high standards and adaptation of technique. Consequently, in her
view there is no need to make distinctions from a logical, practical and theoretical
point of view. However, insightfully, Roberts notes that:
Arguments against consideration of community-based interpreting as a
distinct profession and in favour of grouping all types of interpreting into one
single profession do not take into account the fact that conference
interpreting, court interpreting and community interpreting are at very different
stages of professionalization, which could lead practitioners of one to reject
those of another. (Roberts 2002 p.173)
The purpose of this dissertation is not to differentiate between different types of
interpreting or to attempt to redefine either community interpreting or interpreting. I
will therefore primarily refer simply to ‘interpreting’, on occasion making reference
specifically to ‘community interpreting’ when this is contextually appropriate.
However, I believe it is important to note that the social turn arose within the context
of the beginning of the professionalization of community interpreting. I therefore
believe that the work of scholars from this period is best understood with reference to
community interpreting, but should not be looked at in isolation from the broader
context of interpreting, given that, as many scholars point out, there are more
similarities than differences between different types of interpreting.

14. 13
2.3 The call for descriptivism
Toury (1995 p.1) advocates a shift towards a more prescriptive approach, stating
that ‘there is a need for a descriptive branch’. Toury (1995 p.2) suggests that those
who are application-oriented within Translation Studies tend to shun ‘research within
its own terms of reference’ particularly if such studies are ‘properly descriptive’, that
is:
if they refrain from value judgements in selecting subject matter or in
presenting findings, and/or refuse to draw any conclusions in the form of
recommendations for ‘proper’ behaviour. (1995 p.2)
From the latter statement we can deduce that Toury perceives a truly descriptive
approach to implicate suspending judgement and refusing to offer recommendations.
So where do scholars from the social turn stand in relation to this?
Roy (2000) and Wadensjö (1998) openly purport to be descriptive and situate their
work in opposition to previous prescriptive studies. Roy, for instance, states that:
the aim of this work is to describe the linguistic and sociolinguistic activities of
one interpreter involved in an authentic interpreted event, rather than
prescribe certain ideals or norms about interpreters or interpreting. (Roy 2000
p.21, italics in original)
Wadensjö (1998 pp.4-5), under the sub-heading ‘Description before prescription’
situates herself in opposition to traditional studies on translation and interpreting,
which she describes as ‘normative in character, either providing directives for correct
translation, or building upon (implicit or explicit) ideas of correct language use’.
Indeed, neither Roy nor Wadensjö formulate lists of rules which should be followed
by the interpreter. However, they clearly cannot and do not refrain from making value
judgements. The very notion of language carrying social meaning (Roy 2000 pp.14-
15) implies that value judgements are implicit within any text, whether in written or
oral form. Furthermore, Roy (2000 p.15) makes reference to Gumperz’s notion of
‘contextualization cues’ and states that ‘when a listener does not react to a cue or is
unaware of its function, interpretations vary, misunderstandings occur, and
judgments are made’. Applying this principle to a reading of Roy’s text, her theories
could be correctly understood or misunderstood according to whether judgements
are in line with her own or not. Moreover, whilst rules may not be overtly prescribed,

15. 14
is not the vary act of designating the discourse of the social turn as superior to
previous discourses and as the ‘correct’ view of language and communication
ironically somewhat prescriptive in nature?
Baker (2006 pp.106-107) refers to ‘framing narratives in translation’, arguing that
framing is an active strategy implying agency, which we use to construct reality. She
notes that in translating and interpreting:
participants can be repositioned in relation to each other and to the reader or
hearer through the linguistic management of time, space, deixis, dialect,
register, use of epithets, and various means of self-and other identification.
(Baker 2006. In: Sykes 2011 pp.2-3)
Given that this view of translating and interpreting stems from a view of language
and the process of communication, an analysis of scholars within the social turn
should not be undertaken without giving due consideration to the framing narratives
and social meaning present within their own texts.
2.4 New theoretical frameworks as texts
Snell-Hornby (2006 pp.69-114) refers to the ‘interdiscipline’ of the 1990s.
Pöchhacker (2004 p.44) points out that ‘Interpreting practices in community-based
settings have proved an attractive topic to non-interpreter specialists in fields like
linguistics, sociology and discourse studies’. Pöchhacker (2004 p.37) also notes that
‘pioneering US scholars like Dennis Cokeley and Cynthia B. Roy’ lacked an
academic infrastructure of their own and consequently ‘turned to sociolinguistics as a
disciplinary framework, while endeavouring also to take account of research findings
from the field of spoken-language conference interpreting’. Roy (2000) provides a
very useful overview of some of the different disciplines which influenced her and
other scholars of the time, which included interactional sociolinguistics (pp.12-18),
conversation analysis (pp.18-19), ethnography of communication (pp.19-21),
sociolinguistics and discourse studies (pp.26-35).
These new disciplines brought their own theories of language, communication, and
human action and meaning which formed new frameworks for understanding
interpreting. Linell (1997 pp.49-67) contrasts two sets of such theories, illustrating
the shift brought about in Interpreting Studies by the adoption of new theoretical

16. 15
frameworks. Linell (1997) opposes the structuralist, transfer and monological to the
functionalist, social-interactionist and dialogical. He correlates these theories in a
table which I have reproduced below (Linell 1997 p.54):
Correlated set (A) Correlated set (B)
Theories of:
1. Language Structuralist (formalist) Functionalist
2. Communication Transfer (conduit) Social-interactionist
3. Action and meaning Monological Dialogical
For Linell (2007 p.52), the transfer or conduit model of communication is
monological, meaning that the speaker is most important and the listener is merely a
recipient of what the speaker creates. This is based on a structuralist understanding
of language which finds its roots in code theory, according to which language
consists of signs with fixed meanings which can be understood, shared and
transferred. The social-interactionist model of communication, developed by Bakhtin
(Bakhtin 1979/1986. In: Wadensjö 1998 p.38) on the other hand is dialogical,
meaning that ‘messages are co-produced in dialogue’ (Linell 2007 p.52). This is
based on a functionalist view of language, whereby meanings are constructed and
reconstructed through communication (Linell 2007 p.51).
Scholars within the social turn generally align themselves with the latter set of
theories. Wadensjö (1998 p.8), for instance, states that she is working with the
dialogical model, Hatim and Mason (1990 p.2) state that they are looking at
translation/interpreting as a ‘communicative transaction taking place within a social
framework’. Roy also refers to the theories of Wadensjö, Hatim and Mason, situating
her own work within the context of a discourse framework (Roy 2000 p.3), influenced
by interactional sociolinguistics (Roy 2000 p.12).
Thus, it appears that there is a general trend within the social turn of a shift from the
structuralist, transfer and monological to the functionalist, social-interactionist and
dialogical, although this is a matter which will be examined in more detail in due
course (see 4.1 Meaning and quality in interpreting: monological versus dialogical).

17. 16
Interestingly, in Hale’s (2007 p.10) more recent analysis of Community Interpreting,
she makes a distinction between on the one hand, monologic interpreting which in
her view includes simultaneous interpreting and long consecutive interpreting, and
on the other hand, dialogic interpreting, under which she classifies dialogue
interpreting (short consecutive, interviews, consultation and courtroom). However,
Hale’s (2007 p.10) classification of different types of interpreting as monologic or
dialogic does not appear to reflect the majority of scholars from earlier on in the
social turn. Wadensjö (1998 p.41), for instance, clearly views monologism and
dialogism as completely different units of analysis: ‘The different epistemologies,
monologism and dialogism, imply different units of analysis’. She makes no
distinction between different types of interpreting in this sense, but only contrasts the
conduit model and the interactionist model: ‘In contrast to the monological conduit
model […], the Bakhtinian interactionist model is dialogical’ (Wadensjö 1998 p.41,
italics in original).
So how do these new theoretical frameworks and a dialogic understanding of
language, communication and meaning affect the relationship between the
interpreter and the text?

18. 17
3. The social turn and the text: Collaboration or
servitude?
3.1 From servitude to collaboration?
Kelly (1979 pp.206-207) contrasts personal authority structure (collaboration with
text) with positional authority structure (servitude to text), arguing that ‘depending on
the type of authority his text exercises over the translator, fidelity will mean either
collaboration or servitude’. Kelly (1979 p.218) notes that ‘Each age in cases of doubt
sees the balance of personal versus positional differently’. Similarly, Hatim and
Mason (1990 p.16) argue that ‘The distinction between author-centred and text-
centred has to do with the status of the source text’. So how does the social turn
view the balance between personal and positional? Does the interpreter work in
collaboration with the source text or in servitude to it? What status does the source
text have?
On a surface level, it appears that the social turn reflects a shift from servitude to the
text to collaboration with the text. Wadensjö, for instance, suggests that meaning is
produced in dialogue with all participants potentially having equal status. She states
that ‘Sense is made in and by a common activity’ (Wadensjö 1998 p.8) and quotes
Simmel who argues that ‘among three elements, each one operates as an
intermediary between the other two’ (Simmel 1964. In: Wadensjö 1998 p.11). Yet
can this really be understood in terms of collaboration? Do all participants in the
dialogue have equal status, for instance? Is the interpreter more or less powerful
than other participants? Is the interpreter more or less involved? Kearns (2008)
highlights that:
The degree to which these actors [translators and interpreters] intervene in
the process [translation and interpretation], the nature of that intervention, and
the perspective from which that intervention is seen, lie at the heart of what is
taught in training courses and what is published in scholarly journals. (Kearns
2008 p.1)
Kearns therefore suggests that intervention in practice is bound up with intervention
in theory. Whilst the work of scholars does not necessarily influence interpreting
practice in all cases, it is worth noting that there is a two-way interplay between
practice and theory, with each to some extent influencing the other. Kearns (2008

19. 18
p.2) suggests that intervention in particular has become more of a central issue with
the shift in focus in Translation Studies from translation as an object to translation as
a process to translators as subjects.
So what do scholars have to say on this matter? Metzger (Metzger 1995. In: Roy
2000 p.33) argues that interpreters function as participants, but are ‘far more
constrained in their participation than any other participants’. However, Anderson
(2002 p.212) describes the interpreter as having relative power compared to his
clients. Wadensjö (1998 p.105) also notes that interpreters have ‘a unique position
from which to exercise a certain control’. Perhaps this is not so much a question of
status, but rather of role. There are boundaries to the degree of participation deemed
acceptable for the interpreter, so interpreters are in a sense ‘more constrained in
their participation’. However, at the same time, the interpreter has a significant
impact on the dialogue. The ‘unique position’ of the interpreter signifies that her
impact on communication is not identical to that of the other participants, yet the
interpreter perhaps has a choice (or may be forced to make a choice) over the
degree to which she works in collaboration with the other participants and over
whether she works in their interests. Navarro (Navarro 2006. In: Sykes 2011 p.1), for
instance, describes how interpreters at an Immigration Detention Centre were paid
by the Spanish Institute for Employment and therefore had to comply with its
communication requirements, which signified that they were constrained to work
more in the interest of the authorities than the immigrants. This could be understood
in terms of unbalanced levels of servitude to the texts of the participants. However,
Wadensjö’s notion of sense being made as a common activity points more to the
idea of collaboration. Thus, from this perspective, perhaps interpreted
communication could be understood as signifying a certain degree of collaboration
between all participants and the text, whereby all participants are not necessarily on
an equal footing and have varying levels of control over that text. It must be noted of
course that Wadensjö does not just perceive talk as text, but also perceives it as an
activity, yet she nonetheless recognizes that communication may be analysed from
the perspective of ‘talk as text’ (Wadensjö 1998 p.21).

20. 19
3.2 The death of the speaker
In Hale’s (2007 p.5) analysis of definitions of interpreting, she notes that Wadensjö
and Pöchhacker avoid making reference to fidelity and suggests that Wadensjö’s
understanding of interpreting implies that there is no need to remain faithful to the
original as the translator creates his or her own version of the message. Similarly,
Linell (1997 p.55) states that ‘speakers are not the only authors, but instead
interlocutors are often co-responsible’. This suggests a loss of the original, the term
‘original’ suggesting that one thing precedes another rather than emerging
simultaneously. It also resonates strongly with Roland Barthes’ 1967 theory of the
‘Death of the author’ (Barthes 1967. In: Finkelstein and Glaser 2002 pp.221-224). In
fact, similar parallels were already being drawn in Translation Studies in the 1980s
when it diverged from Interpreting Studies. Snell-Hornby (2006) describes the
discussion in the 1980s on the tension between the authority of the original and the
autonomy of the translation which arose in the context of colonialist works:
The ‘cannibalistic’ interpretation of the text aims at creating a new reading of
colonialism, which in translation produces a variety of discourses, challenging
the hierarchy of power between the ‘original’ and translation. (Snell-Hornby
2006 p.60)
Arrojo (Arrojo 1997. In: Snell-Hornby 2006 pp.60-62) applied the deconstructionist
approach of Jacques Derrida to Translation Studies, suggesting that the translator
takes on the role of author, and deconstructing concepts such as the ‘sacred
original’, the attempt to reproduce the intentions of the author and the notion of
‘faithfulness’ to the source text. Arrojo (Arrojo 1997. In: Snell-Hornby 2006 p.61)
argued that ‘translation, like reading, is no longer an activity that preserves the
‘original’ meanings of an author, but one which sees its task in producing meanings’.
Arrojo (Arrojo 1997. In: Snell-Hornby 2006 p.62, italics in original) also made
reference to Barthes’ notion of the death of the author and the birth of the reader.
Linell’s (1997 p.55) statement that ‘speakers are not the only authors’ clearly echoes
Arrojo’s argument that the translator takes on the role of author and points to the
notion of the death of the speaker. If Wadensjö’s logic is followed through it also
implies a disregard for the speaker and the original. However, Wadensjö clearly

21. 20
wishes to impose some limitations on the freedom of the interpreter to interpret the
speaker in any way she chooses, as Wadensjö (Wadensjö 1998. In: Hale 2007 p.5)
indeed defines the role of the interpreter as that of mediator, speaking or writing on
behalf of another author. Similarly, Roy (2000 p.22) states that ‘an interpreter’s
primary concern while interpreting is to make sense of what any one person means
when saying something and to convey that same sense to another person’. Thus,
whilst some scholars within the social turn claim to have an understanding of
language and meaning which resonates strongly with a deconstructionist view, in
reality they actually do have some belief in the responsibility of the interpreter to
convey an original meaning uttered by a speaker.
3.3 A new form of illusionism
In the 1970s, Levý (Levý 1969. In: Snell-Hornby 2006 pp.22-23) divided translation
method into two groups, the ‘illusionist’ and the ‘anti-illusionist’. Levý (Levý 1969. In:
Snell-Hornby 2006 pp.22-23) argued that the translation was a copy, and the
translator could either create the illusion that his translation was an original text
(illusionist) or could refrain from imitating the source text and make it clear that his
text was a translation (anti-illusionist). There has been much debate on this matter.
Venuti (2008 pp.1-34) attacks the illusionist approach of scholars such as Shapiro.
Shapiro (Shapiro [n.d.]. In: Venuti 2008 p.1) states: ‘I see translation as the attempt
to produce a text so transparent that it does not seem to be translated’. Venuti (2008
pp.12-13) contends that ‘the translator’s invisibility at once enacts and masks an
insidious domestication of foreign texts’. By ‘domestication’ he means a bias towards
the target culture and language. Venuti (2008 p.34) argues, not so much for a strict
anti-illusionist approach or emphasis on foreignness, but rather for ‘a less
homogenous approach to translation’.
In interpreting, this issue of an illusionist versus an anti-illusionist approach to
translation appears to be resolved to some degree when we turn to the concept of a
triadic exchange, developed by scholars such as Wadensjö (1998) and Mason
(2001). Interpreting is no longer seen as a two-fold process, but rather as a three
party interaction. Thus, the interpreter is not so much in the business of imitation or
concealment of an original, but rather is concerned with shaping dialogue. From this

22. 21
stance, quality of interpretation is judged not so much in terms of fidelity to an
original, but rather in terms of successful communication and satisfaction of the
participants concerned. Pym (2004 p.176) states that there are multiple
‘understandings’ and that the aim of translation is cooperation, not ‘static meaning’.
However, this raises the question of whether the participants share this expectation
of cooperation and understanding of meaning.
Wadensjö (1998) states that she works on:
the assumption that interpreters tend to lean on a textual model, and typically
strive to translate primary parties’ original utterances as ‘closely’ as possible.
At least, this is how we often explain to non-interpreters what we are doing.
(Wadensjö 1998 p.103)
This would seem to suggest that non-interpreters and many interpreters do not in
fact understand interpreting as being about cooperation and multiple
‘understandings’, but rather would assume that the interpreter is seeking to
accurately translate original utterances.
Kurz (2002 pp.313-314) refers to a number of scholars who advocate judging quality
in interpreting from the perspective of the audience, a trend which appears to be
prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s. Déjean le Féal (Déjean le Féal 1990. In: Kurz
2002 p.313), for instance, states that ‘our ultimate goal must be to satisfy our
audience’. Yet, if the audience or listeners are unaware that an interpreter values her
own perception of successful cooperation above fidelity to their message are they
really being satisfied? Perhaps, they are only being satisfied on the basis of an
illusion that meaning has been transferred from the original speaker.
In fact, if we look more closely at the ideas of Wadensjö, we see that there is not a
total departure from the idea of the copy and the original, but rather a redefining of
what constitutes a copy, based on Wadensjö’s understanding of language and
meaning. Wadensjö (2002 p.356) poses the question of what the minimum
requirements are for arguing that a copy is a copy, given that a copy does not equal
an original. She refers to Bakhtin’s theory of 1986 that the nature of language is such
that it is always open to further interpretation, arguing that the way to get beyond this
is to apply a descriptive approach (Wadensjö 2002 p.356). Wadensjö then proceeds
to discuss the two-fold role of the dialogue interpreter as relayer of utterances

23. 22
between two people and as coordinator of communication between them (Wadensjö
2002 pp.356-357). Wadensjö’s discussion reveals that even in a ‘triadic exchange’,
the issue of where the interpreter stands in relation to the original is still very much
pertinent. Wadensjö (2002 p. 358) suggests that renditions may close, expand,
reduce or substitute information expressed in the original utterance. For example,
the interpretation may contain less explicitly verbalized information (reduction) or
more explicitly verbalized information (expansion). She argues that the interpreter’s
relaying activity can result in deviations from originals in two directions, either in
specification or in despecification of the original utterances, that is to say, terms used
and explanations given may be more specific or more general in nature (Wadensjö
2002 p. 364).
On the basis of her understanding of language and meaning, Wadensjö thus
problematizes the notion of the interpreter’s role as consisting of providing ‘close’
translations to the original, appearing to argue that this is an impossible feat. In light
of this, I would suggest that her ideas give rise to the possibility of a second new
form of illusionism: the illusion that participants within a communicative situation are
working on the same premises because assumptions about meaning and language
have not necessarily been openly discussed. In other words, an interpreter may hold
to the view that her role consists of enabling cooperation rather than reflecting the
meaning of the speaker, whilst other participants may assume that the interpreter is
relaying the original message accurately. These different understandings of the role
of the interpreter are based on assumptions about meaning and language, which we
will now turn to examine in more detail.

24. 23
4. The social turn as a text
4.1 Meaning and quality in interpreting: monological versus dialogical
Firstly, I believe it would be helpful to look at what is understood by the term
‘meaning’. I will present four possible definitions of this term (by no means intended
to be exhaustive) and I will then proceed to examine how scholars within the social
turn understand ‘meaning’ in relation to these four definitions of ‘meaning’.
Definitions of ‘meaning’:
1) ‘Meaning’ as the message conveyed through an utterance.
2) ‘Meaning’ as the interpreted or reframed message.
3) ‘Meaning’ as common understandings reached through verbal exchanges.
4) ‘Meaning’ as misunderstandings reached through verbal exchanges.
The transfer or conduit model which preceded the social turn focused on the process
of 1 to 2, and on ensuring that 2 was as close as possible to 1, to the exclusion
perhaps of 3 and 4. Ingram’s model (Ingram 1974. In: Roy 2000 p.26) simply
represented the interpreter as a channel in a communication-binding context with a
source and text receiver.
Hatim and Mason (1990 p.4) present a more complex view of the relation of 1 to 2,
arguing that ‘the ST is itself an end-product and again should be treated as evidence
of a writer’s intended meaning rather than the embodiment of the meaning itself’. If
the ST itself is viewed as a copy, then the TT is at best an inexact copy of a copy – it
provides evidence of what the message was, but it cannot be treated as though it
were identical to the speaker’s intended meaning, and should equally be viewed as a
product within its own right. This view correlates with the postmodernist, Jean
Baudrillard’s (1994) notion of simulacra and copies of copies. Baudrillard (1994)
refers to the ‘successive phases of the image’:
[1] it is the reflection of a profound reality;
[2] it masks and denatures a profound reality;
[3] it masks the absence of a profound reality;
[4] it has no relation to any reality whatsoever: it is its own pure simulacrum.
(Baudrillard 1994 p.6, italics in original)

25. 24
According to the first phase, the image successfully represents the original, whilst
according to the second phase, the image is a poor representation of the original.
Thus, interpretation (an ‘image’) may be judged more positively or negatively in
terms of its ability to represent original utterances (‘profound realities’). The third
stage suggests that the image reveals the absence of the original. According to this,
an interpretation would show that there is no original, or if we look at Hatim and
Mason (1990 p.4) again, that the ST is only ‘evidence’ or a copy rather than the
‘embodiment of the meaning’ or the original itself. Finally, if Baudrillard’s last stage
were applied to Hatim and Mason’s theory, then even the ‘speaker’s intended
meaning’ would have to be classed as a copy or simulacrum. This matter can only
be speculated on as Hatim and Mason do not explicitly state their view of the
‘speaker’s intended meaning’. However, I would suggest that their views correlate
with either stage 3 or stage 4 of Baudrillard’s description of the ‘successive phases
of the image’.
Linell (1997 p.54) suggests an opposition between on the one hand, definitions 1
and 2 (‘monological’, ‘structuralist’, ‘transfer’), and on the other hand, definitions 3
and 4 (‘functionalist’, ‘social-interactionist’ and ‘dialogical’). In line with Linell,
Wadensjö, Roy and other scholars from the social turn appear to focus on definitions
3 and 4, when referring to meaning, but this is not exclusively the case. Wadensjö
(1998) states that:
The dialogical model, in contrast [to the monological model], implies that
meaning conveyed in and by talk is a joint product. Sense is made in and by a
common activity. Communication, as well as mis-communication,
presupposes a certain reciprocity between the people involved. (Wadensjö
1998 p.8, italics in original)
Thus, her argument is that meaning can be equated with communication (definition
3: ‘common understandings’) and miscommunication (definition 4:
‘misunderstandings’). However, according to Roy’s (2000 p.30) analysis of her work,
she does study the interpreter as ‘relayer’ and ‘coordinator’. The idea of relaying a
message strikes a chord with the relation between definitions 1 and 2.

26. 25
Roy (2000 p.16) like Wadensjö equates meaning with definitions 3 and 4, that is with
common understandings (‘mutual conventions’) and misunderstandings. Roy (2000)
states her conclusions drawn from Gumperz:
[1] Meanings are jointly constructed between speakers as they talk
[2] Conversations contain internal evidence of their outcomes, that is, the
ways in which participants share, partially share, or do not share, mutual
conventions for meaning and how they succeed in achieving their
communicative ends. (Roy 2000 p.16)
However, importantly, Roy (2000 p.22) also notes that ‘an interpreter’s primary
concern while interpreting is making sense of what any one person means when
saying something and to convey that same sense to another person’. Although Roy
does not openly acknowledge the transfer model, she clearly works on the basis that
the interpreter should transfer the sense of what one person says to the other –
again the process of definition 1 to definition 2 of meaning. Furthermore, in reference
to Goffman, Roy (Roy 2000 p.17) also states that the conditions required during
interaction ‘mirror the structural versus functional perspectives of discourse’,
appearing to affirm the validity of both perspectives on discourse. This suggests that
she may not abide by Linell’s view of a strict dichotomy between the structuralist and
the functionalist.
Gile (1995 p.40) links understanding of the interpreter’s role in communication to
assessment of quality. He points out that whether the interpreter is seen to be
aligned with the speaker or seen as a facilitator determines how quality is assessed:
criteria of quality and actual quality assessment by the various participants in
communication may depend to a significant extent on the definition of the
Translator’s role as the Sender’s alter ego, or as a facilitator of communication
working for the Receiver or the Client. (Gile 1995 p.40)
Although this is not necessarily the case, the definition of the Translator’s role as the
Sender’s alter ego tends to be associated with the transfer model (primarily
definitions 1 and 2 of meaning) whilst the definition of the Translator’s role as
facilitator of communication tends to be associated with the social-interactionist
model of communication (primarily definitions 3 and 4 of meaning). In light of this, it

27. 26
therefore seems that there are two extremes in assessing quality in interpreting
based on these understandings of meaning:
1) Quality = close linguistic translation of original
One danger is an over-emphasis on the linguistic transfer (definitions 1 and 2) which
takes place in interpreting to the exclusion of understanding of socio-cultural context,
communicative and power relations and other important factors.
2) Quality = cooperation and successful communication
Another danger is an over-emphasis on the end result of communication (definitions
3 and 4), such that the means of getting there or the original intentions of speakers
are deemed irrelevant.
It seems that in attempting to move away from the limited understanding of
interpreting as being purely a linguistic transfer, theorists from the social turn would
tend to lean more towards the latter assessment of quality. However, according to
Gile (1995 p.40, italics in original), it would appear that there remains a general
consensus in practice ‘that Translation should be a faithful image of the original
discourse, and that the Translator should strive to represent fully the Senders and
their interests’. This is essential because if a complete break from the notion of
linguistic transfer were made this would evidently be highly problematic for quality in
interpreting. In my view, the ideal is an integrated approach, an acknowledgement
that linguistic transfers do indeed occur, but a recognition that they are not
exclusively linguistic and that the original intentions of a speaker cannot be
successfully communicated unless the socio-cultural context and communicative
relations are taken into account.
4.2 Meaning and quality in interpreting: product versus process
The social turn, however, might be understood not so much as a shift in emphasis
from the ST or original to the TT or end-product, but rather as a shift in emphasis
from the product to the process. Hatim and Mason (1990 pp.2-3) declare that they
will look at translation and interpreting as a ‘communicative transaction taking place
within a social framework’, viewing translation as a ‘process’ rather than a ‘product’.
Such a definition of interpreting gives rise to a third assessment of quality:

28. 27
3) Quality = successful process
At this point, I think it is worth referring again to Kearn’s suggestion (2008 p. 2) that
there has been a shift in focus in Translation Studies from translation as an object to
translation as a process to translators as subjects. Hatim and Mason (1990 p.3) state
that they will look at translation as a process, rather than as a product, which is
clearly their emphasis. However, they situate their discussion within the context of a
‘social framework’. Thus, I would argue that they also focus on translators as
subjects. Consequently, assessing quality as a process from this perspective would
involve not just looking at the linguistic process, but also considering how
successfully the interpreter manages the communicative situation and performs her
role during the process of interpreting.
Evidently, neither the product nor the process can be looked at in isolation of each
other, otherwise we may just be perceiving an illusion of quality. Equally, linguistic
information cannot be separated from the behaviour of the interpreter. For instance,
an interpreter may appear to be interpreting well, from a mere analysis of her
behaviour and her ability to manage turn taking (see Wadensjö 1998 pp.152-196),
but a closer examination of the linguistic content in the communicative instance may
reveal otherwise. Similarly, an examination of linguistic content in isolation of social
context might suggest a successful interpretation, yet if both participants
misunderstand each other, the successfulness of the interpretation may well be
queried (not that the interpreter is necessarily responsible for any misunderstanding).
Conversely, the end-product or ST may be rated highly by the listener. However,
analysis of the process might highlight significant omissions or distortions.

29. 28
5. Conclusions: The impact of the social turn and
future prospects
5.1 Impact on meaning and quality in interpreting
Some of the theories within the social turn could potentially be detrimental to quality
in interpreting if followed through to their logical extreme. As mentioned previously,
Hale (2007 p.5), for instance, notes that Wadensjö (1998) and Pöchhacker (2004)
avoid making reference to fidelity. Pym’s statement (2004 p.176) that there are
multiple ‘understandings’ and that the aim of translation is cooperation, not static
meaning, is highly problematic for assessing quality. What if the two participants
have no desire to cooperate? Or what if their cooperation is based on a total
misunderstanding of each others’ viewpoints? Pym’s understanding of meaning as
fluid implies that there are no rigorous objective criteria for assessing interpreting
and that interpretation is entirely down to subjective individual interpretation.
Evidently, cooperation is important, but it should not be viewed as the sole purpose
of interpretation and should not be used as the only measure of quality in
interpreting.
However, it is clearly beneficial for assessment of quality not to be purely limited to
analysis of linguistic transfer either. The contributions made by scholars within the
social turn, highlighting the socio-cultural and relational elements of discourse are of
great value. The fact that, according to Gile (1990 p.40), there is a general
consensus on seeking to represent the speaker and his or her intentions, suggests
that whilst scholars may choose to focus on the relational aspects of communication,
they would not advocate interpretations which bear little resemblance to the original
utterance. Thus, on the whole it appears that progress has been made in the
domain of assessing meaning and quality in interpreting. However, just as adhering
purely to the transfer model has its pitfalls, adhering purely to a model of the
interpreter as mediator also presents significant risks.

30. 29
5.2 Impact on the role, status and professionalization of the community
interpreter
Debate within the social turn on the role of the interpreter and the position of the
interpreter in relation to the text has furthered understanding of how interpreters
perceive themselves, how others perceive them and how they act in practice. Hale
(2007) suggests that:
The low status of Community Interpreting as a profession leads to a poor
sense of professional identity. When interpreters are insecure about their
professional status and competence they tend to undermine their work as
interpreters and attempt to take on roles they consider to be more important,
such as acting as pseudo-welfare workers, health workers or para-legals.
(Hale 2007 p.167)
This suggests that status, professional identity and role are intrinsically linked to one
another.
Scholars within the social turn have made significant contributions in defining the
nature of community interpreting and the role of interpreters. However, there remains
much work to be done in the area of training which is crucial to the development of
the status and professional identity of community interpreters, and to the defining of
their role, both in theory and practice. Recent studies suggest that whilst progress
has been made, community interpreting is far from being fully fledged as a
profession. Hale (2005 p.166) underlines that ‘Compulsory pre-service training in
Community Interpreting is far from being a reality anywhere in the world’ due to:
a lack of recognition for the need for training and a lack of financial support
and incentives. This situation has led to a lack of uniformity in interpreters’
backgrounds and consequent deficiencies in their practice. (Hale 2005 p.166)
Kearns also suggests that:
The professionalization of dialogue or community interpreting is in part
constrained by the limited levels of training offered in educational institutions
and in part by the low level of formal training required by employers. (Kearns
2008 p.3)

31. 30
5.3 Who interprets interpreting and who will interpret the future of
interpreting?
The social turn has drawn attention to the status of community interpreters, the need
for further progress to be made in the professionalization of community interpreting
and the similarities between the role of community interpreters and the role of other
so-called ‘types’ of interpreters. However, the real test of the social turn is its impact
on interpreting. To what extent may it be classified as a ‘text’ for reading
interpreting? I believe that there are two main ways in which the understanding of
meaning, quality and the role of the interpreter held by scholars such as Wadensjö,
Mikkelson, Mason, Hatim and Roy could have an impact on interpreting. Firstly, if the
ideas of such scholars were to be applied as the theoretical framework for training of
interpreters (and of their trainers). Hale (2007 p.173), for instance, notes that
‘different theoretical understandings of the meaning of terms such as accuracy or
equivalence will impinge on the way educators teach and assess students’.
Secondly, if existing professional associations were to adopt the values of scholars
from the social turn, or if professional organizations were to be created which based
their understanding of interpreting on this theoretical framework.
In light of this, I believe that it is essential for more rigorous analysis to be carried out
of the implications of theories from the social turn for quality and meaning in
interpreting, in order that their value may be assessed and may more directly inform
interpreting practice. Pöchhacker (2004 p.30) suggests that the lack of training
offered at an academic level for interpreters working in community settings ‘is one of
the crucial differences between conference and community interpreting, and has
profound implications for the development of research’. Thus, the two-way
relationship which should exist between research/scholarly work and training is
constrained by the lack of professionalization of community interpreting. Without
training, interpreting is left to the subjective interpretation of individuals.
So what is the future of community interpreting? Is it likely to continue on the road
towards greater professionalization or conversely, are we likely to witness a process
of de-professionalization, with community interpreting reverting to its state prior to
the social turn? The work of the social turn in defining community interpreting cannot

32. 31
be undone, but training opportunities will not necessarily improve nor is the creation
of professional associations with legal status and real impact guaranteed. In my
view, the two main obstacles to further professionalization of community interpreting
and to the dialogue between theory and practice are financial constraints and the
perception of community interpreting, on an internal and external level. Pöchhacker
(Pöchhacker 2004. In: Hale p.165) states that ‘With public-sector institutions often
unable, or unwilling, to pay for professional interpreting services, there are few
incentives for engaging or investing in higher-level training’. Given the current
economic climate and public sector cuts, particularly felt in Europe, the likelihood of
public-sector institutions having more funding for professional interpreting services in
the near future seems slim. Privatization of professional interpreting services is not
out of the question though. On the level of internal perception within the world of
interpreting, as I mentioned previously, many conference interpreters and court
interpreters are reluctant to integrate community-based interpreters into their own
associations (Roberts 2002 p.174). Roberts (2002 p.174) states that the result of this
is that community-based interpreters are ‘trying to forge ahead on their own’. Salaets
and Van Gucht (2008) carried out an empirical study of how community interpreters
within Flanders perceive their profession, finding that:
The interpreters perceive themselves as having an important role in society
and also as being perceived as such by others. But as yet that reality is not
translated into due respect and appreciation, proper remuneration and legal
recognition of the profession. (Van Gucht 2008 pp.267-287)
This study was based on a small sample of 19 active community interpreters and
therefore does not necessarily represent the profession as a whole. However, it is
evident from this study that a certain degree of appreciation of the work of
community interpreters does not constitute equality of status with conference
interpreters.
To end on a more positive note, the work of scholars such as Mikkelson and Roberts
in highlighting the similarities between different ‘types’ of interpreting and the need
for more dialogue, paints a brighter picture for the future. In the current climate there
may be little funding for higher-education courses exclusively in community
interpreting or little incentive to study given pay conditions and the fact that training is
generally not compulsory. However, if a more global approach is taken to training,

33. 32
whereby courses are offered which equip or qualify interpreters to work in more than
one field, this may help in raising the status of community interpreters and in
improving their training. More dialogue between different types of interpreters and
interpreting scholars would also contribute to this end, enabling Interpreting Studies
and interpreters to interpret interpreting rather than financial conditions and
perceptions of status.

34. 33
Appendix A: Comparison of different models of
professionalization
Stages of professionalization
Tseng (in Mikkelson 1996) Roberts (in Mikkelson
1996)
Kearns (2008 p.3)
1. i. Strong competition among
practitioners of a given
occupation, many of whom
are unqualified. Clients rate
price over quality of service.
ii. Training viewed by
practitioners as a means of
gaining a competitive edge.
iii. Education programmes
set up to respond to needs.
1. Clarification of
terminology (i.e. settling
on a clear definition and
a universally recognized
name for the
occupation)
1. Recognition that
training is
needed.
2. Consolidation of profession,
development of some
consensus about
practitioners’ aspirations and
emphasis on quality of
service.
2. Clarification of the
role(s) of the community
interpreter.
2. The migration of
training to
universities.
3. Emergence of professional
associations, in which
practitioners can work
collectively to improve their
working conditions,
formulate standards, control
admission to the profession,
and appeal to clients and the
public for recognition of the
profession.
3. Provision of training for
community interpreters.
3. The creation of
professional
associations
4. i. Recognition by clients and
the public of the professional
nature of the work of the
practitioners.
ii. Legislative recognition of
the profession.
4. Provision of training for
trainers of community
interpreters.
4. An explicit
attempt to
separate
competent
practitioners
from the
incompetent
5. Provision of training for
professionals working
with interpreters.
5. Codes of ethics
6. Accreditation of
community interpreters.
6. Legal
recognition

35. 34
Bibliography
ANDERSON, B. 2002. Perspectives on the role of interpreter. In: PÖCHHACKER, F
AND M. SHLESINGER. eds. The interpreting studies reader. London: Routledge,
pp.208-217.
BAKER, M. 2006. Translation and conflict: A narrative account. London: Routledge.
BARTHES, R. 2002. The death of the author. In: D. FINKELSTEIN AND S.F.
GLASER, eds. The book history reader. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.221-224.
BAUDRILLARD, J. 1994. Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press.
GILE, D. 1995. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
HALE, S.B. 2007. Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
HATIM, B. AND I. MASON. 1990. Discourse and the translator. London: Longman.
KEARNS, J. ed. 2008. Translator and interpreter training: Issues, methods and
debates. London: Continuum.
KELLY, L. 1979. The true interpreter: A history of translation theory and practice in
the West. Oxford: Blackwell.
KONDO, M. et al. 1997. Intercultural communication, negotiation and interpreting. In:
Y. GAMBIER et al. Conference interpreting: Current trends in research: Proceedings

36. 35
of the international conference on ‘Interpreting - what do we know and how?’, 25/27
August 1994, Turku. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, pp.49-67.
KURZ, I. 2002. Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups. In:
PÖCHHACKER, F AND M. SHLESINGER. eds. The interpreting studies reader.
London: Routledge, pp.312-325.
LINELL, P. 1997. Interpreting as communication. In: Y. GAMBIER et al. Conference
interpreting: Current trends in research: Proceedings of the international conference
on ‘Interpreting - what do we know and how?’, 25/27 August 1994, Turku.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.49-67.
MASON, I. ed. 2001. Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting.
Manchester: St. Jerome.
MIKKELSON, H. 1999. Interpreting is interpreting – or is it? In: GSTI 30th
anniversary conference [online]. [Accessed 2nd August 2011]. Available from:
<http://www.acebo.com./papers/INTERP1.HTM>.
MIKKELSON, H. 1996. The professionalization of community interpreting. In: M.M.
JEROME-O’KEEFE. Global vision: Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the
American Translators Association. [n. p.]: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[Accessed 2nd August 2011]. Available from:
<http://www.acebo.com./papers/PROFSLZN.HTM>.
PÖCHHACKER, F. 2004. Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge.

37. 36
PÖCHHACKER, F. 2008. The turns of interpreting studies. In: G. HANSEN et al,
eds. Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel
Gile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 25-46.
PYM, A. 2004. The moving text: Localization, translation, and distribution.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
ROBERTS, R.P. 2002. Community interpreting: A profession in search of its identity.
In: E. HUNG, ed. Teaching translation and interpreting 4: Building bridges.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.157-175.
ROY, C.B. 2000. Interpreting as a discourse process. New York and Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
ROY, C. 2002. The problem with definitions, descriptions, and the role metaphors of
interpreters. In: PÖCHHACKER, F AND M. SHLESINGER. eds. The interpreting
studies reader. London: Routledge, pp.344-353.
SALAETS, H. AND J. VAN GUCHT. 2008. Perceptions of a profession. In: VALERO-
GARCÉ, C. AND A. MARIN. eds. Crossing borders in community interpreting:
Definitions and dilemmas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company,
pp.267-287.
SNELL-HORNBY, M. 2006. The turns of translation studies: New paradigms or
shifting viewpoints? Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
SYKES. R. 2011. Who does the interpreter work for – the speaker, listener, his/her
employer, colleagues working on relay etc.? Is the ‘audience’ relevant? Unpublished.

38. 37
TOURY, G. 1995. Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
VENUTI, L. 2008. The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. 2nd ed. London
and New York: Routledge.
WADENSJÖ, C. 1998. Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.
WADENSJÖ, C. 2002. The double role of a dialogue interpreter. In: PÖCHHACKER,
F AND M. SHLESINGER. eds. The interpreting studies reader. London: Routledge,
pp.354-371.