Publication: El intérprete en los servicios públicos entre la primera y la tercera persona
Authors
Taibi, Mustapha
item.page.secondaryauthor
item.page.director
Publisher
Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, Editum
publication.page.editor
publication.page.department
DOI
item.page.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Description
Abstract
Mientras que en interpretación de conferencias sorprendería que un
intérprete usase la tercera persona para interpretar, en la interpretación
en los servicios públicos (bilateral) no es raro encontrar intérpretes que lo
hagan, por falta de formación, o por convicción, o por las complicaciones
de la interpretación en situaciones triádicas. Este artículo presenta los
resultados de un análisis cuantitativo de veinte consultas médicas con el
fin de averiguar si existe acuerdo entre los intérpretes en cuanto al uso de
la primera persona, y si los mismos intérpretes son constantes en su uso.
El análisis cuantitativo consiste en contar y clasificar los turnos de palabra
de los intérpretes participantes según el estilo de interpretación
(directo/indirecto). Los resultados indican una falta de consenso entre los
intérpretes y una falta de uniformidad en el estilo de interpretación de la
mayoría de los intérpretes (en la misma consulta).
While it would be unusual to use reported speech (the third person) in conference interpreting, this practice is not uncommon in community interpreting, which could be due to a number of reasons, including lack of appropriate training, the interpreter’s own beliefs and preferences, or the complexities associated with community settings and triadic interactions. In this paper twenty interpreter-mediated healthcare consultations are analysed quantitatively to verify whether there is consistency among the interpreters and within the performance of each one of them. The processing method consists of counting and classifying interpreter turns according to their level of directness (direct/indirect translation; direct/indirect representation). The findings indicate inconsistencies both among the interpreters as a group and within the individual performance (in the same consultation) of most interpreters.
While it would be unusual to use reported speech (the third person) in conference interpreting, this practice is not uncommon in community interpreting, which could be due to a number of reasons, including lack of appropriate training, the interpreter’s own beliefs and preferences, or the complexities associated with community settings and triadic interactions. In this paper twenty interpreter-mediated healthcare consultations are analysed quantitatively to verify whether there is consistency among the interpreters and within the performance of each one of them. The processing method consists of counting and classifying interpreter turns according to their level of directness (direct/indirect translation; direct/indirect representation). The findings indicate inconsistencies both among the interpreters as a group and within the individual performance (in the same consultation) of most interpreters.
publication.page.subject
Citation
item.page.embargo
Collections
Ir a Estadísticas
Sin licencia Creative Commons.