A Discourse-Oriented Approach to Interpreter’s Non-Rendition Behaviour: A Case Study of An Interpreted Parent-Teacher Talk

Year 2023, Volume: 7 Issue: 1 - JLR, 80 - 94, 30.12.2023

Burak Özsöz

https://doi.org/10.51726/jlr.1370174

Cited By: 1

Abstract

This article explores the types and functions of dialogue interpreter’s non-rendition behaviour in a corpus of transcriptions of a recorded parent-teacher meeting. Following Vargas-Urpi’s (2019) distinction between justified and unjustified renditions, it seeks to contribute to the discussion of the interpreter’s use of non-renditions in a relatively under-searched mediated communicative environment. Non-renditions, interpreter-generated original utterances that do not have corresponding counterparts in the preceding source utterance, are considered a part of “talk as activity”. Thus, as a theoretical framework, the study adopts a dialogic view to discuss interactional non-renditions as a discourse practice. The analysis of extracts drawn from a naturally occurring parent-teacher encounter revealed that the interpreter’s non-renditions are substantially self-prompted when they ask for clarification or confirmation. There are instances of talk that lead to the exclusion of the interpreter from the ongoing dialogue in monolingual sequences. The study also provides significant data on the use of reactive tokens as a listener’s response.

Keywords

Discourse analysis, Dialogic, Interpreting, Non-renditions, Educational Setting

References

• Cheung, A. K. F. (2017). Non-Renditions in Court Interpreting. A Corpus-Based Study, Babel, 63 (2), 174-199.
• Cirillo, L. (2012). Managing affective communication in triadic exchanges: Interpreters’ zero-renditions and non-renditions in doctor-patient talk. In C. J. Kellett Bidoli (Ed.), Interpreting across genres: Multiple research perspectives. EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 102–124.
• Davidson, B. (2000). The Interpreter As Institutional Gatekeeper: The Social-Linguistic Role of Interpreters in Spanish–English Medical Discourse, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4 (3), 379–405.
• Davitti, E. (2012). Dialogue Interpreting as Intercultural Mediation. Integrating Talk and Gaze in the Analysis of Mediated Parent-Teacher Meetings, Manchester: University of Manchester (Unpublished PhD Dissertation).
• Davitti, E. (2013). Dialogue Interpreting As Intercultural Mediation: Interpreters’ Use of Upgrading Moves in Parent–Teacher Meetings, Interpreting, 15 (2), 168–199.
• Englund Dimitrova, B. (1997). Degree of interpreter responsibility in the interaction process in community interpreting. In S. E. Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour & D. Steyn (Eds), The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 147–164.
• Gavioli L. (2012). Minimal responses in interpreter-mediated medical talk. In: Baraldi C. & Gavioli L. (Eds), Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 201–228.
• Hale, S. (2004). The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of The Law, The Witness, And The Interpreter. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Hanhan, S. F. (1998). Parent-Teacher Communication: Who’s talking? . In M.L. Fuller & G. Olsen (Eds), Home-School Relations. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 106-126.
• Jacobsen, B. (2008). Interactional Pragmatics and Court Interpreting: An Analysis of Face, Interpreting, Special Issue: Doing justice to court interpreting, 10 (1), 128-158.
• Mason, I. (2015). Discourse analytical approaches. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia Of Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 111-116.
• Metzger, M. (1999). Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing The Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
• Orestrom, B. (1983). Turn-taking in English Conversation. (Lund Studies in English 66.) Lund: Gleerup.
• Pillet-Shore, D. (2001). Doing Pretty Well: How Teachers Manage The Interactional Environment of Unfavorable Student Evaluation in Parent-Teacher Conferences, California: University of California (Unpublished MA Dissertation).
• Reddy, M. (1979). The Conduit Metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.) (1993), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 164-201.
• Roy, C. (2000). Interpreting As a Discourse Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-correction in The Organization of Repair in Conversation, Language, 53, 361-82.
• Tebble, H. (2012). Interpreting or Interfering? . In Claudio & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 23–44.
• Todorova, M. (2014). Interpreting conflict: Memories of an interpreter. In K. Kaindl, and K. Spitzl (Eds), Transfiction: Research into the realities of translation fiction. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 221–231.
• Tolins, J., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2014). Addressee Backchannels Steer Narrative Development, J. Pragma, 70, 152–164.
• Vargas-Urpi, M. (2019). When Non-renditions Are Not The Exception. A Corpus-based Study of Court Interpreting, Babel. 65 (4), 478-500.