Susan Berk-Seligson Essay Example for Free

Susan Berk-Seligson Essay That same year, Berk-Seligson (199o) ground-breaking study of hundreds of hours of courtroom interpreting also appeared. Her major finding was that interpreters became actively involved participants in the discourse process of courtroom proceedings. She found that court interpreters are intrusive elements in court proceedings far from being the unobtrusive figure that attorneys and judges would like her to be. For example, ordinary court procedures, as well as other participants, shift attention to interpreters on Ð ° regular basis in Ð ° courtroom. Judges have to introduce and swear in interpreters, thus calling attention to them as another participant in Ð ° judicial process, as well as calling attention to the notion of accuracy in translation. In the voir dire process with jurors, attorneys ask directly if the presence of an interpreter is bothersome. More important, what will show up repeatedly in future studies is that attorneys and judges often resort to addressing the interpreter rather than the witness when they ask their questions. Berk-Seligson also demonstrated that interpreters were not always just interpreting. They ask for permission to speak when proceedings become confusing; they ask for clarification of Ð ° term or idea; they halt proceedings when they hear Ð ° word they do not understand; they ask for repetition of what they did not hear. At times, they report difficulty, such as clarifying ambiguity, dialect differences, or grammatical problems. Finally, witnesses, defendants, plaintiffs, and other participants within the court make side comments to interpreters or talk to them directly. Moreover, she provided examples of interpreters’ who controlled the flow of testimony by urging or prompting Ð ° witness to speak or by getting witnesses and defendants to be silent. For example, interpreters say to witnesses do you understand? or answer! or answer, please. Interpreters also ask questions of witnesses such as what? or І didnt hear you. Berk-Seligsons study is the first sociolinguistic study of interpreters to follow traditional sociolinguistic studies by recording hundreds of hours of data, looking for patterns and variations in the speech of the participants (see Labov 1972). More important, it is the first published study to observe, describe, and evaluate interpreters active participation in the role of one who passes on what others say and in the role as an individual participant in Ð ° speech situation. Cecilia Wadensjo Interpreter-mediated conversations as Ð ° mode of communication have been dealt in the book of Wadensjo, interpreting as Interaction that was published in the year 1998. Interpreters and their responsibilities have also been included in this book. Empirical data recorded interpreter-mediated encounters within medical, legal, and social services settings have been examined in the heart of her book. Moreover, analytical frameworks of the nature of social organizations have been theoretically grounded in the works of Wadensjo. In addition, the dialogic theory of language and interaction has also been included in her works. A seminal perspective of the interpreter has been offered by her, by whom problems of translations are not the only that are solved as an engaged actor, but problems of mutual understanding in situated interaction are also solved. Two interdependent activities-translations and coordination are consisted in the interpreting that was revealed by the application of a dialogic framework. Moreover, two kinds of talk are created by the interpreters, which is a fact that established the abovementioned revealing of the interpreting. In this regard, relaying of a message generates first type of talk, and the assisting of a flow of talk by the interpreter generates the second type of talk. When the interpreters role performance is investigated as interaction [italics hers], however, when the interpreter is studied in relation to Ð ° relevant audience or role others (Goffman), it becomes self-evident that the dialogue interpreter must be conceived of as both relayer and co-ordinator (1992: 266). Examples of utterances directed at the interpreter and from the interpreter have also been provided by her. The content of the relayed message has not been included in these examples. Thus, perception of a co-ordinate activity among the participants, as well as, Ð ° responsibility of the interpreter has been included in the progression of talk. Mutual and shared understanding has been created by the progression and substance of talk, and the distribution of responsibility for this among co-interlocutors in an interpreter-mediated conversation. Understanding in conversation and its opposite miscommunication has been problematized by Wadensjo, in order to further elaborate on interpreter rights and responsibilities. In this regard, three different ways in terms of handling of miscommunication events by the interpreters have been showed by Wadensjo. Perspectives for the constituting of sufficient understanding among the participants are revealed by the ways, in which miscommunication is dealt by the interpreters. In this regard, exploration of interpreters and their responsibilities has been done by Wadensjo, as it has been seen in her discussion of replaying by displaying and replaying as re-presenting. Through language, interpreters can distance themselves from an utterance they speak, Ð ° distinction that results in the primary participants better understanding of the message. Her point is that even when interpreters move further away from the role of strictly transferring, it benefits the goal-oriented exchange. By noticing this distancing, it demonstrates how the reality of interpreting does not reflect the idealized pedagogy about how interpreters do their work. Notably, in manifesting this distance, we get an idea of personal style. While the old adage to just translate and translate everything is Ð ° useful shorthand for explaining interpreting to lay persons and newcomers, it is not useful for explanations needed to define interpreting as Ð ° profession and to define the actual rights and responsibilities that define the everyday experience of interpreting work. A vast new perspective for understanding, researching and teaching the work of interpreters has been opened by Wadensjo. The perspective of interpreter as engaged actor solving not only problems of translation but problems of mutual understanding has been offered by Wadensjo in a seminal way. It has been suggested in her first full-length work that the task of interpreting much better can be understood by people, if the perception of interactivity of the primary participants should be accounted, as compared with the looking up of interpreter and the interpreted message. Again for the first time, a deeply theoretical understanding of the complex nature of participation in an interpreter-mediated encounter has been provided by the frameworks of social interaction and dialogic linguistics. Wadensjo differs from Berk-Seligson in attempting to understand interpreters as they do their job, not evaluating them against idealized and unsubstantiated notions of ideal practice.