Interpreting at the United Nations: the impact of external variables. The Interpreters’ View

Article Sidebar

PDF

ISSN online: 2444-1961

Prefijo Doi: 10.14201

Main Article Content

Jesús Baigorri-Jalón
Alfaqueque Research Group Universidad de Salamaca
Spain
Biography
Críspulo Travieso-Rodríguez
Alfaqueque Research Group Universidad de Salamaca
Spain
Biography
Vol. 3 No. 2 (2017), Articles, pages 53-72
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14201/clina2017325372
How to Cite

Abstract

Based on previous specific research on the topic, on responses to questionnaires sent to three different United Nations (UN) duty stations (New York, Geneva, Vienna) at the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011, and on UN unofficial and institutional sources, the authors reflect on how external variables have altered UN interpreters’ working conditions in recent years and how they have had an impact on the quality of their performance. Some of the points mentioned in the replies to questionnaires are related, inter alia, to the speed of delivery of speeches, the influence of information technologies or the use of remote interpreting. Apart from the statistical data obtained from the questionnaires, we have used brief excerpts from interpreters’ personal narratives to illustrate the analysis of the present-day situation and the interpreters’ prospects for the future. 

Keywords:

Conference interpreting, survey, information technologies, remote interpreting, external variables, tag cloud

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

References

Abbott, Andrew. 1988. The System of Professions. An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

Baigorri-Jalón, Jesús. 2003a. «La calidad de la interpretación simultánea en las Naciones Unidas en el cambio de milenio. Reflexiones desde la cabina», en Collados Aís et al. (eds.) (2003b), pp. 239-248.

Baigorri-Jalón, Jesús. 2003b. «Conference Interpreting: Evolution and Revolution. Notes on the Feminisation of the Profession», in Estudos de Tradução. Actas de Congresso Internacional, ed. by Maria Zina Gonçalves de Abreu and Marcelino de Castro. Funchal: Principia, Universidade de Madeira, pp. 27-34.

Baigorri-Jalón, Jesús. 2004, reprinted in 2014. Interpreters at the United Nations. A History. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.

Baigorri-Jalón, Jesús. 2015. «The history of the interpreting profession», in The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson and Renée Jourdenais. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 11-28.

Barghout, Alma, Lucía Ruiz Rosendo and Mónica Varela García. 2015. «The influence of speed on omissions in simultaneous interpretation. An experimental study». Babel 61 (3): 305-334. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.61.3.01bar

Barranco-Droege, Rafael et al. (eds.). 2013. Quality in interpreting: widening the scope, vol. 2. Granada: Comares.

Chiaro, Delia and Giuseppe Nocella. 2004. «Interpreters» Perception of Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Factors Affecting Quality: A Survey through the World Wide Web». Meta 49 (2): 278-293. http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2004/v49/n2/009351ar.pdf Accessed December 24, 2016. https://doi.org/10.7202/009351ar

Cidell, Julie. 2010. «Content clouds as exploratory qualitative data analysis'. Area 42 (4): 514-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2010.00952.x

Collados Aís, Ángela.1998. La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea. La importancia de la comunicación no verbal. Granada: Comares.

Collados Aís, Ángela et al. (eds.). 2003a. La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: investigación. Granada: Comares.

Collados Aís, Ángela et al. (eds.). 2003b. La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: docencia y profesión. Granada: Comares.

Collados Aís, Ángela et al. (eds.) .2007. La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: parámetros de incidencia. Granada: Comares.

García Becerra, Olalla et al. (eds.). 2013. Quality in interpreting: widening the scope, vol. 1. Granada: Comares.

McNaught, Carmel and Paul Lam. 2010. «Using Wordle as a supplementary research tool». The qualitative report, 15 (3): 630-643. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-3/mcnaught.pdf. Accessed December 24, 2016]

Moser-Mercer, Barbara (2005) «Remote Interpreting: Issues of Multi-Sensory Integration in a Multilingual Task». Meta 50 (2): 727-738. https://doi.org/10.7202/011014ar

Pöchhacker, Franz and Cornelia Zwischenberger. «Survey on quality and role: conference interpreters' expectations and self-perceptions». In aiic.net. March 15, 2010. http://aiic.net/p/3405. [Accessed December 14, 2016]

Pradas Macías, Esperanza Macarena. 2004. La fluidez y sus pausas: enfoque desde la interpretación de conferencias. Granada: Comares.

Pradas Macías, Esperanza Macarena. 2007. «La incidencia del parámetro fluidez», en La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: parámetros de incidencia, ed. by Ángela Collados Aís et al. (eds.). Granada: Comares, 53-70.

Seeber, Kilian G. 2011. «Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting. Existing theories –new models». Interpreting 13 (2): 176-204. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see

Seeber, Kilian G. and Christian Zelger. 2007. "Betrayal – Vice or Virtue? An Ethical Perspective on Accuracy in Simultaneous Interpreting'. Meta 52 (2): 290-298. https://doi.org/10.7202/016071ar

Setton, Robin. 2006. «Context in Simultaneous Interpretation». Journal of Pragmatics, 38: 374-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.07.003

Viaggio, Sergio. 2011. «Remote interpreting rides again», available at http://aiic.net/page/3710/remote-interpreting-rides-again/lang/1. Accessed December 24, 2016.

Yan Xiu Jackie, Jun Pan, Hui Wu and Ying Wang. 2013. «Mapping interpreting studies: The state of the field based on a database of nine major translation and interpreting journals (2000-2010)». Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446-473, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2012.746379. Accessed December 24, 2016.