Abstract
This paper focuses on a possible gender-based approach towards norms in simultaneous interpreting by analysing the use of connective markers by male and female interpreters to reveal patterns of interpreters’ handling of translational norms. Drawing on the 2008 subcorpus of EPICG with French source texts and their English and Dutch interpretations, the present study checks whether male and female interpreters translate, omit or add connective markers in the same way. The results are then tested against other parameters which might have an influence such as language, speech delivery rate or the gender of the speaker. It appears that the interpreter’s gender does not affect the use of connective markers. As for the other parameters under study, it seems that only speech delivery rate significantly impacts the interpreters’ performances, especially when it comes to the omission of connective markers.
Highlights
This paper is part of a project on gender-based differences in simultaneous interpreting and examines possible gender-based approaches towards norms
The present paper studied possible gender differences towards norms in simultaneous interpreting
Considering that the literature adduces a genderbased treatment of norms, a trend confirmed by a previous corpus-based study on norms (Magnifico & Defrancq, 2019), it was assumed that these differences would be reflected in male and female interpreters’ output
Summary
This paper is part of a project on gender-based differences in simultaneous interpreting and examines possible gender-based approaches towards norms. Interpreters are expected to comply with interpreting norms (Harris, 1990), such as completeness, accuracy, first-person rendition, etc., it seems that specific features of the interpreting process sometimes force interpreters to breach them. Cognitive load in particular is blamed for errors and omissions, i.e. incomplete and inaccurate renderings of source texts (Gile, 1995). More recent studies adduce that these omissions and shifts from the source speech could be part of the interpreter’s strategy in specific settings (Diriker, 2004; Jansen 1992; Monacelli, 2009; Wadensjö 1992)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
