Perspectives

Studies in Translation Theory and Practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20

Perspectives on interpreting

Roberto A. Valdeón

To cite this article: Roberto A. Valdeón (2021) Perspectives on interpreting, Perspectives, 29:4,
441-453, DOI: 10.1080/0907676X.2021.1922130
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1922130

Published online: 24 May 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4134

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmps20
PERSPECTIVES
2021, VOL. 29, NO. 4, 441–453
https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1922130

Perspectives on interpreting
a,b,c
Roberto A. Valdeón
a
South China Business College (SCBC), Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China; bUniversity of Oviedo,
Oviedo, Spain; cResearch Associate, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article serves to introduce the papers in this special issue, Interpreting studies;
devoted to interpreting studies. Over the past decades, historical overview;
interpreting has gained recognition as an academic field, typically publications on interpreting;
as a branch of translation studies. The paper starts with a brief modes; settings
historical overview of this practice, with a focus on the early
modern and the modern periods, and provides references to
some of the research conducted in other fields as well. The next
section offers a very brief survey of the modes and settings in
which interpreting currently takes place, including simultaneous,
consecutive and community interpreting. The article also serves
to highlight the diversity of themes, languages, theoretical and
methodological approaches, and geographical origin of the
authors.

In 2010 Franz Pöchhacker stated that the concept of interpreting refers ‘to a particular
form of translational activity and is therefore at once subsumed under the broader
notion of translation and set apart by its unique features’ (2010a, p. 151). Interpreting,
which predates the invention of writing and, therefore, of written translation (Pöch-
hacker, 2004, p. 9), is characterized by its immediacy vis-à-vis other forms of translation.
Drawing on the work of the German scholar Otto Kade, Pöchhacker stresses that, on the
one hand, the source text is provided only once and cannot be typically retrieved, and, on
the other, the target language is normally produced under time pressure, which does not
allow interpreters to correct or revise their output, as in other forms of (written)
translation.
The definition provided by Pöchhacker (that is, interpreting as a form of translation)
also points to the duality of interpreting as an academic field of enquiry. This is reflected
in the fact that interpreting studies is a discipline whose object of study is interpreting
which, in turn, is regarded as a subdiscipline within the larger academic discipline that
we know as Translation Studies (Pöchhacker, 2010b, p. 158). Pöchhacker is responsable
for the two general entries devoted to interpreting in the Handbook of Translation Studies
(Gambier & van Doorslaer, 2010-2013), namely ‘Interpreting’ and ‘Interpreting Studies’.
In addition, this collection includes chapters about ‘Teaching interpreting/training
interpreters’, also authored by Pöchhacker, ‘Court/legal interpreting’ by Debra Russell,
‘Quality in interpreting’ by Silvia Kalina, ‘Neurolinguistics and interpreting’ by Barbra

CONTACT Roberto A. Valdeón valdeon@uniovi.es

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
442 R. A. VALDEÓN

Ahrens, ‘Remote interpreting’ by Barbara Moser-Mercer, ‘Status of interpreters’ by

Cecilia Wadensjö, ‘Community interpreting’ by Erik Hertog, ‘Conference interpreting’
by Robin Setton, ‘Consecutive interpreting’ by Helle V. Dam, ‘Media interpreting’ also
by Franz Pöchhacker, ‘Relay interpreting’ by Miriam Shlesinger, ‘Simultaneous interpret-
ing’ by Mariachiara Russo, and ‘Simultaneous conference interpreting and technology’ by
Ebru Diriker. Interpreting also features prominently in many of the other entries in the
collection. All of this underscores the importance of this practice both as a profession and
as an academic discipline.
In addition to the above, the latest edition of The Routledge Encyclopedia of Trans-
lation Studies includes a sizeable number of chapters devoted to interpreting, while the
publication of handbooks and monographs focusing on this practice has increased expo-
nentially over the past two decades, as shown by the volumes by Pöchhacker and Shle-
singer (2002), Pöchhacker (2004, 2015), and Mikkelson and Jourdenais (2015). Some
of these publications have focused on specific topics and traditions, e.g. Setton, 2011
on interpreting and Chinese, which points to the consolidation of interpreting as a dis-
cipline in its own right. In fact, from its inception, interpreting has also occupied a central
role in the prestigious Benjamins Translation Library, which includes volumes devoted to
court interpreting (Edwards, 1995), interpreter training (Gile, 1995), conference inter-
preting (Gambier et al., 1997) and simultaneous interpreting (Setton, 1999) among
others. Of particular interest is the programmatic collection edited by Gile et al.
(2001), in which the contributors addressed young researchers starting their academic
career and discussed topics, project planning, critical readings of existing literature,
and affective factors such as stress. Other publishers specializing in translation studies
have also published several major works by interpreting specialists, some of which will
be mentioned in the next sections.

A brief historical overview

From a historical perspective, interpreting was a necessary activity in the expansion of
empires. In her study of the role of language brokers in early imperial China, Rachel
Lung illustrates the importance of interpreting in Asia, tracing the earliest references to
the practice back to around 1000 BC, when interlanguage mediators were called ji,
xiang, Didi and yi (2011, pp. 3–4). Of these four designations only yi has survived, Lung
adds. Interpreters were necessary in China as a result of the many ethnic groups that
lived along the Yellow River and beyond. Because these groups spoke different languages
and dialects, and, although few historical records mention interpreters, we know that, for
instance, in the ninth century BCE, the Zhou dynasty had official language mediators that
had to be present at meetings with representatives of foreign nations (Hung & Pollard,
2009, p. 369). These individuals were referred to as sheren, meaning ‘tongues-man’, a meta-
phorical expression that would be used in other settings during the European conquest of
the Americas. Mediators were employed in later dynasties as Chinese merchants ventured
to do their business in neighbouring states. Interpreters were also used to disseminate the
culture of Han China (Lung, 2006, p. 236), considered superior to that of other ethnic
groups, thus acting as ‘cultural ambassadors’ (2006, p. 237).
Interpreters were also of paramount importance to the dissemination of Buddhism
and other religions. The translation of sutras involved several individuals, many of
 PERSPECTIVES 443

whom did not only translate the sacred texts but also interpreted them. In this context,
Hung claims, the interpreter was the real translator (2005, p. 49). This links up with some
of the debates about equivalence and faithfulness that characterized translation studies as
a discipline in the twentieth century. Kelly (1979), for instance, discussed the concept of
‘fidelity’ with respect to ‘fides interpres’ or ‘faithful interpreter’. Although this approach
can be and has been conceptually challenged, other authors have discussed the connec-
tion between translation and interpreting as a part of the process of reverbalizing source
texts. Hatim and Mason (1990, pp. 73–76), for example, stressed the difficulties encoun-
tered by trainee interpreters working at the European Parliament, using examples such as
the translation of modality of the original French utterance ‘un plan de restructuration
qui aurait été préparé par les administrateurs judiciaires’ to exemplify the challenges
interpreters face.
Depictions of interpreters can be found in Egyptian hieroglyphs where they were rep-
resented mediating in military and trade expeditions (Galán, 2011), while it has been
claimed that in Greece translation was regarded as a secondary activity because of the
status of Greek as a lingua franca (Connolly & Bacopoulou-Halls, 2009, p. 419).
However, as a result of its colonial expansion, Greece needed interpreters to communi-
cate with those individuals considered barbarians. We find testimonies to that effect in
the work of historian Herodotus, the author of Historíai (The Histories), which recorded
that Egyptian children were taught Greek to be able to speak with the locals:
To the Ionians and Carians who had lent him their assistance, Psammetichus assigned as
abodes two places opposite to each other, one on either side of the Nile, which received
the name of ‘the Camps.’ He also made good all the splendid promises by which he had
gained their support; and further, he entrusted to their care certain Egyptian children,
whom they were to teach the language of the Greeks. These children, thus instructed,
became the parents of the entire class of interpreters in Egypt. (1996, p. 183)

Herodotus mentioned interpreters on several other occasions (pp. 41, 238, 563) although
their names remained unknown to the readers. In the same vein, Xenophon mentioned
the role of interpreters in the Anabasis (1859, p. 23, 77, 127, 155), written around 370 BC.
Mediators were typically sent to meet foreign peoples in advance (1859, p. 269, 483), and,
although most mediators remained anonymous, Xenophon mentioned Pigres by name.
These two references to the role of interpreters in ancient times take us to the inter-
preting practice in the early modern period. When the Europeans reached the Americas,
young natives were kidnapped and taken to Europe, where they learned Spanish, French,
English or other languages in order to assist the European conquerors in their dealings
with native Americans. This type of situations was frequent across the continent, e.g. in
Spanish America (Giambruno, 2008, p. 30), in the French territories (Hart, 2013), in the
lands ruled by the Portuguese (Hart, 2013, p. 116) and also by the English (Bailey, 2004, p.
4). As in the case of the Chinese and the Greeks, European conquerors used interpreters
not only to communicate with the natives but to gain their trust (for instance, the English
took advantage of Manteo’s language skills to attempt to communicate with new native
groups, Oberg, 2013, pp. 75–77).
Europeans and other empires used interpreters to achieve their own economic and
political goals. Paradoxically, the debate about the function of interpreters has also
been manipulated and used for ideological purposes in academia. One such case is
444 R. A. VALDEÓN

Doña Marina or Malinche, who served as a language mediator for the Spanish conquis-
tador Hernán Cortés during the conquest of Mexico. For many, Malinche represented
the violation of America by the Europeans, and has been considered a traitor to her
people (Cypess, 1991, p. 7), often ignoring the fact she had been sold as a slave by her
own people to chief Potonchan, who in turn gave her to Cortés as a present. The salience
given to Malinche as a symbol of almost anything is shown in the Routledge Encyclopedia
of Interpreting Studies, as she is the only interpreter of the period (male or female) to
deserve an entry (Karttunen, 2015), but Malinche was in fact one of the many women
that served as interpreters, not only in Spanish America but also in North America,
where English and French adventurers and colonists necessitated the services of local
speakers to communicate with the natives. In fact, similar roles were performed by Poca-
hontas and Sacagawea (Jager, 2015), who, unlike Malinche, have entered the romantic
imagination of the Unites States through comics, books and films (consider, for
example, children’s books such as Who was Sacagawea by Fradin and Bradin (2005),
and the popular Disney movie Pocahontas).
After the colonial period, interpreters have been instrumental in two very distinct cir-
cumstances. On the one hand, they received much attention during dramatic communi-
cative events such as the Paris and Nuremberg trials, the former at the end of World War
I while some of the members of the Nazi regime were prosecuted at the latter. Baigorri-
Jalón (2014) traces the beginning of conference interpreting to these two momentous
events that marked the lives of Europeans in the twentieth century. The importance of
conference interpreting is exemplified by conference interpreting. A complete course
and trainer’s guide, a training course authored by Setton and Dawrant (2016), two
experience interpreters and trainers who provide a detailed presentation of the practice
as well as numerous exercises for trainees.
Interestingly, Baigorri-Jalón (2015), a former interpreter at the United Nations and
a professor at the University of Salamanca who specializes in the history of interpret-
ing, has mentioned some of the reasons why interpreters may have received less atten-
tion than translators: historically their duties were not limited to interpreting, they
were not paid and had no formal training. And yet, as we have seen, interpreters
were of vital importance from antiquity until modern times. This meant that once
authorities understood the importance of their job, translators and interpreters were
incorporated into the civil, military and religious services. One of the best examples
of the move towards the professionalization of the interpreting practice is the
number of laws passed by the Spanish monarchy during the colonial period, which
aimed at training translators and interpreters and at promoting ethical practices.
This, as Baigorri-Jalón (2015) reminds us, was an antecedent of some of the norms
that were introduced, several centuries later, by supranational institutions such as
the European Union.
Indeed, together with the United Nations (Baigorri-Jalón, 2016), the European Union
has been a driving force for the interpreting profession during the twentieth and twenty-
first centuries. In fact, Perspectives has published a number of articles devoted to the intri-
cacies, characteristics and challenges of translating for the European Union. In this
special issue, Marta-Kajzer-Wietrny, Ilmari Ivaska and Adriano Ferraresi investigate
one very specific feature of interpreting, namely the rendition of numbers in interpreted
and translated texts. Using the European Parliament Translation and Interpreting
 PERSPECTIVES 445

Corpus, they hypothesize that the two modes have a different impact on the results and
argue that this has implications for the education of professionals in the future.
Although a number of authors, such as Baigorri-Jalón, have reflected on the impor-
tance of interpreting from a historical perspective, this is an avenue of research that cer-
tainly deserves greater attention. In fact, some of the publications on the topic have not
been authored by translation or interpreting scholars but rather by academics working in
disciplines such as history or literary studies. For instance, James H. Merrell (1999) has
written about the crucial role played by interpreters in North America. With a history
background, Merrell has meticulously described the fragile relationship between colo-
nists and native Americans in Pennsylvania, sustained by what he describes as the
shadowy figures of mediators. For her part, Sandra M. Cypess (1991) offers another
example of an academic, in her case from literary studies, who studied the historical
figure of an interpreter, i. e. Malinche, and provided a richer and more nuanced view
of the interpreter than many of those available in translation/interpreting studies
scholarship.
In line with this, the publications delving into the history of interpreting have high-
lighted that interpreters have played various roles, including language mediators, diplo-
mats, spies, and informants, and not only during the early colonial period. Sawyer (2016),
for instance, has underscored the relationship between interpreting and diplomacy in the
US context; Lan (2016) has reported on the execution of Taiwanese individuals who were
recruited as interpreters during World War II and were subsequently executed as traitors,
and Takeda (2016) illustrates the difficulties faced by Japanese interpreters, who were
considered war criminals or testified against their superiors during the US occupation
of Japan. In this special issue, Huan Zhao reveals the challenges that Xu Zhimo had to
face during Rabindranath Tagore’s 1924 visit to China. Drawing on Edward Said’s travel-
ling theory, Zhao contends that Zhimo received much opposition when the interpreter
attempted to mediate between Tagore and his Chinese audiences. Zhimo, a poet
himself, attempted to defend Tagore’s literary approach in the face of official criticism:
at that time the Indian poet was considered, Zhao claims, reactionary and ideologically
unacceptable. Despite this and partly due to Zhimo’s relentless efforts, Tagore has con-
tinued to exert a great influence on Chinese literary circles. Zhao’s article also serves to
underline the importance of conducting research into the history of interpreting in order
to understand its impact on the social, cultural and literary milieus of specific regions.

Interpreting modes and settings

Typically, interpreting is classified according to two different factors: modes, i. e. the form
required to mediate between two or more parts, and setting, that is, the environment in
which the interpreting practice occurs.
As regards the former, simultaneous and consecutive interpreting are the most
common practices. Although simultaneous interpreting had been used before the Nur-
emberg trials, it was during this momentous event that it received worldwide attention,
as audiences could see images of the accused wearing earphones to understand prosecu-
tors and judges. The Hollywood movie Judgement at Nuremberg further publicized the
importance of interpreting as, during the trials, movie goers could see Spencer Tracy,
Burt Lancaster, Judy Garland and Maximilian Schell wearing earphones to follow what
446 R. A. VALDEÓN

speakers of other languages were saying. As a professional activity, simultaneous inter-

preting had been previously used at other multilingual gatherings such as the Inter-
national Labour Organization’s Assembly of 1927. As Seeber (2015a) points out,
simultaneous interpreting is to some extent surrounded by mystery: interpreters may
give the impression that they interpret effortlessly. However, the mystery and, to some
extent, glamour that seem to characterize the practice tends to overlook the serious
toll it takes on the practitioners, who, according to Monacelli (2009), often see survival
as the main objective of their difficult profession.
The specificities of simultaneous interpreting are the basis of much of the research into
the cognitive processes involved in interpreting, as it requires not only the ability to com-
municate between speakers of different languages but also good general knowledge,
excellent familiarity with two or more foreign languages, and the ability to coordinate
listening and speaking at the same time (Russo, 2010, p. 333). Interest in the cognitive
processes involved can be traced back to the 1990s, (e.g. Gile, 1995 drew on cognitive psy-
chology to propose a model that distinguished between automatic and non-automatic
mental operations, emphasizing the role of the latter), but it is in the twenty-first
century that most of the work has been published. Recent research has looked at
working memory (Mellinger & Hanson, 2019), the correlation between explicitation
and increased load (Gumul, 2021), the mental effort required to perform a simultaneous
interpreting task (Seeber, 2015b), and the effects of delivery rate on quality (Ruiz
Rosendo et al., 2021).
As regards the settings in which interpreting can occur, Pöchhacker (2004, pp. 13–14)
stresses that the social context of interaction is crucial for the activity. The social context
can include business interpreting, which Pöchhacker regards as a type of ‘primeval’ inter-
preting practice, since it was required to conduct economic exchanges (as those men-
tioned by Lung in early imperial China); diplomatic and military interpreting (as
during the periods of European expansion in the Americas and beyond); court interpret-
ing (which can be further classified into legal, judicial and courtroom: see, for example,
the volume edited by Shlensinger & Pöchhacker, 2010, previously published as a special
issue of Interpreting); and educational interpreting. Much of the work published over the
past decade focuses specifically on one of those settings, e.g. court interpreting in the
United States (e.g. Killman, 2021) or, given the increasing importance of China in aca-
demia, politics, diplomacy and world finances, it is not unusual to have monographs
exclusively dedicated to translation and interpreting in that context, as shown by
Hlavac and Xu’s recent monograph devoted to Chinese-Interpreting and Intercultural
Communication (2020), which analyzes interpreting in a variety of settings including dip-
lomatic, business and healthcare contexts, as well as the only special issue of Interpreting
devoted to a specific geographical region (Setton, 2009).
In addition to the above, the second half of the twentieth century witnessed the move-
ment of millions of people from developing countries to the wealthier West, where inter-
preting was necessary in any attempts to integrate immigrants into the host societies.
This type of interpreting, whose origin can be traced back to the 1960s (Pöchhacker,
1999), has been generally called community interpreting, or public service interpreting
in the UK and cultural interpreting in Canada (Pöchhacker, 2004, p. 15). Community
interpreting may be necessary in settings such as medical centres, hospitals and other
public contexts. Some of these research avenues have been explored in collections and
 PERSPECTIVES 447

articles. For instance, Ji et al. (2019) have recently edited a collection on health interpret-
ing which includes contributions that look at specific geographical areas such as the
United States and Seattle (Creeze & Gordon, 2019) and Canada (Russell, 2019), or
that consider the challenges of interpreters dealing with highly complex health issues
such as mental health (Bot, 2019). On the other hand, the contributors to the volume
edited by Valero Garcés and Martin (2008) deal with issues such as the norms governing
community interpreting, the relations of power between the agents involved in the
activity, and the role this practice plays in the West.
A more recent interest among interpreting and translation scholars is the use of these
two practices in the media. Research has considered, among other aspects, non-pro-
fessional interpreting (Antonini & Bucaria, 2016), interpreting in rendering news texts
(Zhen & Ren, 2018), and the role of interpreting in English elite football (Baines,
2018). Pöchhacker (2018) has recently proposed a typology of media interpreting for
the study of reception-oriented studies, a trend that is gradually gaining interest
among scholars, particularly of audiovisual material. Pöchhacker identifies two main
lines of enquiry, namely research on the expectations of media users and assessment
of interpreted audiovisual content on the one hand, and studies on media accessibility
for deaf viewers through signed language interpreting on the other.

Interpreting research
As a consolidated subfield, interpreting has its own well-established academic journal,
Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, edited by
Pöchhacker and Minhua Liu, currently publishing its twenty-third issue. In the editorial
to the first issue of 2021, which in fact marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the journal,
Pöchhacker and Liu (2021) underscore both the quality of the articles published in their
journal and the diversity of topics and approaches. Pöchhacker and Liu graphically
describe the processes involved in the submission, refereeing, revision and publication
of articles, similar in most respects to those of all the other major translation studies jour-
nals. Interpreting has indeed become the journal par excellence of the field and, therefore,
congratulations on its anniversary are in order.
However, research into interpreting is also available in general translation studies
periodicals such as Meta, Translation and Interpreting Studies, Target and Perspectives,
as the pressure to publish or perish has increased over the past two decades (Valdeón,
2019; Pöchhacker & Liu, 2021). This special issue of Perspectives gathers in fact a
series of papers that were submitted, refereed, revised and accepted for publication
over the past two years, and which serve to showcase the varied interests of researchers
and practitioners in interpreting. The authors of these articles have drawn on a variegated
number of theoretical approaches and applied a variety of methodologies to delve into
the complexity of the interpreting practice. I have already mentioned some of the articles
in the preceding sections, so this section will introduce the rest, many of which are inter-
disciplinary in nature. Let us start with the more linguistic approaches.
In her work, Daria Dayter compares the occurrence of non-fluencies such as self-
repairs, silent pauses and fillers in interpreted and spontaneous speech. Biber et al.
(1999) first provided a detailed description of these features of conversational English,
which had been largely neglected by traditional and pedagogical grammars. Researchers
448 R. A. VALDEÓN

have gradually incorporated these elements in the teaching of languages as well as the
study of translation of, for example, audiovisual texts. Although interpreted speech is
not characterized by the spontaneity of everyday language, it shares with the latter
some of its features, including the fact that it occurs in real time and that it is subject
to the limitations of working memory (Biber et al., 1999, p. 1066). In addition,
interpreters, unlike translators, may be able to reformulate a sentence and may need
time to aptly render the original words into the target language. Dayter, who works
with the pair Russian-English, studies a parallel bidirectional corpus and shows that
while interpreters have recourse to some of the features of spontaneous English men-
tioned above, the number of reformulations and fillers tends to be much smaller than
in the case of everyday English.
Yijun Guo is also interested in language issues, albeit from a pragmatic perspective.
Similarly to Dayter, Guo focuses on the translation of political texts, in this case of the
Chinese premiers’ press conferences, and studies the translation of the Chinese polite
formula ‘xiexie’, as used by both the politicians and the journalists present at the press
conferences. Guo finds that the omission of this expression can lead to the construction
of different images of the participants in this type of highly ritualized institutional events.
The article highlights the importance of studying the translation of (im)politeness strat-
egies across languages, an area of research that has gradually attracted the attention of
scholars worldwide. Istvan Keckskes (2014), for instance, has used the term ‘intercultural
pragmatics’ to refer to the study of interculturality as an emergent and co-constructed
phenomenon (2014, p. 15). Kecskes, a Hungarian professor based at a US university,
is indeed in an excellent position to understand the importance of studying the chal-
lenges faced by speakers of different languages, including interpreters.
Jieun Lee and Seoyeon Hong also scrutinize the problems of interpreting conversa-
tional exchanges, using a case study to that effect. Lee and Hong’s language pair also
includes Russian but, instead of English, Korean is the language of the country
where the participants are based. As interpreting is crucial in a case such as this one,
which involves a criminal investigation into a murder charge, Lee and Hong show
that the interpreter’s lack of competence might have a serious impact on the fate of
the accused. Similar challenges are described by Mohammed Y. Abu-Risha and Para-
maswari Jaganathan. In their article, they discuss some of the problems caused by
the Jordanian court system, which does not have detailed professional standards for
court interpreters. This, they claim, allows interpreters to render their services using
their discretion, giving way to misunderstandings and, consequently, complaints by
the litigants. For this reason, they stress that it is necessary to develop a code of
conduct that would ensure the quality of the interpreting process, particularly
through accreditation and certification.
The working conditions of interpreters are examined in Paweł Korpal’s contribution.
Unlike the Jordanian case, Poland has an accreditation system, and the Polish Ministry of
Justice regulates the services and rates of court interpreters. However, this level of pro-
fessionalization does not seem to be reflected in the views expressed by the interpreters
in relation to their job satisfaction. Using an online questionnaire, Korpal aimed to
describe the problems faced by Polish court interpreters by enquiring about features
such as stressors and medical symptoms. Among his findings, Korpal reports on the
existence of physical issues (e.g. back pain, fatigue and eye irritation), dissatisfaction
 PERSPECTIVES 449

with their salaries and difficulties to have access to material that could help interpreters
during the interpreting process.
Interpreter training is another major area of research, as shown by Jim Hlavan and
Claire Harrison’s article. These authors report on interprofessional education, a teaching
and learning technique used in healthcare training. This involves situation-based training
with two or more groups of professionals belonging to two different fields, medicine and
interpreting in their case study. This pedagogical approach is clearly interdisciplinary,
which, in Hlavan and Harrison’s view, contributes to increased awareness of the skills
of the other group. This in turn serves to improve the quality of the interpreting
service, for example when cultural-based issues are at stake. In their study, both
groups acknowledged the value of this teaching/learning strategy for their respective
training. Interdisciplinary collaboration is also reflected in the professional background
of the authors: Jim Hlavac is a certified interpreter and interpreter trainer, while Claire
Harrison is a medical doctor.
Cooperation and interdisciplinarity are also at the basis of Ana Rojo, Ana I. Foulquié-
Rubio, Laura Espín and Francisco Martínez’s contribution. Combining the insights of
translation studies and psychology, and similarly to Korpal, Rojo and her colleagues
are interested in how stress affects interpreters. In contrast to Korpal’s article though,
their approach explores the impact of stress and anxiety on academic scores, heart rate
and speech rhythm. To assess anxiety in a simulated situation, Rojo and her colleagues
used the Spanish version of the State Anxiety Inventory, and found that, despite the limit-
ation of the study, there is strong evidence linking the relationship between rhythm,
anxiety and stress on the one hand and student grades on the other. Coaching students
to change their attitudes towards stress, the authors also add, can contribute to releasing
pre-task tension, and prevent some of the more negative effects on the results of the inter-
preting service. This in fact falls in line with recent work pointing to the need to change
our attitude towards stress in general, and not only in this specific professional practice.
Stanford health psychologist Kelly McGonigal (2015), for example, has underscored the
importance of changing attitudes to stress, which could prove to be advantageous rather
detrimental in situations of tension.
Researchers into the interpreting practice have gradually become micro-specialized
as they turn their attention to concrete contexts and professional environments. The
final articles provide fine examples of this. Han Xu, based in Australia, a country
with a numerous Chinese community, studies the interrelationship between lawyers
and interpreters, and stresses the varying degree of qualifications expected of these
two types of professionals, which often results in dissatisfaction with the status quo
of interpreters working within the Australian legal system (Hale, 2011; Hale &
Napier, 2016). Xu’s findings highlight the need to promote the use of better
qualified interpreters and to improve their professional status. For her part, Jihong
Wang, who is also based in Australia, focuses on telephone interpreting. Telephone
conversations, including institutionalized conversations such as doctor-patient inter-
actions, were first analyzed by conversation analysts in the 1950s and 1960s. Although
Wang does not draw on their work, her article does survey the use of pragmatic for-
mulae such as forms of address. Both Han Xu and Jihong Wang used questionnaires to
obtain the information needed to analyze the interpreting practice in these professional
environments.
450 R. A. VALDEÓN

Finally, I would like to emphasize once again the variety of theoretical frameworks
and methodological approaches used by the contributors. The last article of this special
issue highlights the challenges that authors face when conducting research into the
interpreting practice. In their paper, Annelies Baekelandt and Bark Defrancq
propose a method to study interpreting with lower levels of input control which,
they argue, tends to be problematic in experiments in which researchers use pre-
recorded speeches. Their study analyzes the response to written cues in a PowerPoint
presentation with varying constituent orders and varying ratios of explicit verbal input,
with particular reference to the subject-object-verb order within the context of Dutch
speakers. Their work exemplifies an interdisciplinary approach combining cognitive
and linguistic approaches. Similarly to other authors in this issue, Baekelandt and
Defrancq indicate a number of limitations to their study and warn the readers to
take the results with some caution. But together with the rest of the contributions,
their work highlights the vitality and diversity of interpreting scholarship. Interpreting
scholars work in a variety of environments, and many of them also work or have
worked as interpreters, thus they have insider’s knowledge of the intricacies and com-
plexities of the profession. All of them exemplify the cultural and linguistic diversity of
the field, as the language pairs examined include two of the following: Arabic, Dutch,
English Chinese, Korean, Polish, Russian and Spanish.
This introductory article has attempted to provide a brief overview of interpreting
scholarship, focusing on the historical evolution, the modes and the settings in which
interpreting occurs in order to present the articles selected for the special issue. Other
equally relevant topics and features such as the so-called constellations of interaction
(Pöchhacker, 2004, pp. 16–17), intersemiotic types of interpreting such as sign language
(whose importance is reflected in the collection edited by Roy & Napier, 2015), and
ethical issues have not been presented here, as they are not the focus of the contri-
butions. We have no space to discuss the interdisciplinary approaches that have bur-
geoned in the twenty-first century (e.g. drawing on disciplines such as sociology,
e.g. the collection edited by Angelelli, 2014), the collections devoted to research meth-
odologies (e.g. Nicodemus & Swabey, 2011), and quality issues (Zwischenberger &
Behr, 2015) among many other topics. However, the number of submissions being cur-
rently processed is indeed promising, so we are likely to publish articles on these topics
in the future.
I would like to conclude by expressing my gratitude to the interpreting scholars who
generously share their time and expertise with the journal to ensure the quality of the
papers finally accepted for publication.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor
Roberto A. Valdeón is the editor-in-chief of Perspectives and the general editor of the Benjamins
Translation Library. He originally trained as an interpreter at the University of Glasgow under the
supervision of Nicholas G. Round, to whom this article is dedicated.
 PERSPECTIVES 451

ORCID
Roberto A. Valdeón http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1948-0473

References
Angelelli, C. V. (Ed.). (2014). The sociological turn in translation and interpreting studies. John
Benjamins.
Antonini, R., & Bucaria, C. (2016). Non-professional interpreting and translation in the media.
Peter Lang.
Bailey, R. W. (2004). American English: Its origins and history. In E. Finegan, & J. R. Rickford
(Eds.), Language in the U.S.A.: Themes for the twenty-first century (pp. 3–17). Cambridge
University Press.
Baigorri-Jalón, J. (2014). From Paris to nuremberg. The birth of conference interpreting. John
Benjamins.
Baigorri-Jalón, J. (2015). The history of the interpreting profession. In H. Mikkelson, & R.
Joudenais (Eds.), The routledge handbook of interpreting (pp. 11–28). Routledge.
Baigorri-Jalón, J. (2016). The use of photographs as historical sources, a case study: Early simul-
taneous interpreting at the United nations. In K. Takeda, & J. Baigorri-Jalón (Eds.), New insights
into the history of interpreting (pp. 167–191). John Benjamins.
Baines, R. (2018). Translation and interpreting for the media in the English premier league. In S.
Baumgarten, & J. Cornellà-Detrell (Eds.), Translation and global spaces of power (pp. 179–193).
Multilingual Matters.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken
and written English. Longman.
Bot, H. (2019). Mental health interpreting: Challenges and opportunities. In M. Ji, M. Taibi, &
H. M. Crezee (Eds.), Multicultural health translation, interpreting and communication (pp.
205–215). Routledge.
Creeze, I., & Gordon, M. T. (2019). Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic access to the health care
system: Case studies from Seattle and auckland. In M. Ji, M. Taibi, & H. M. Crezee (Eds.),
Multicultural health translation, interpreting and communication (pp. 3–24). Routledge.
Cypess, S. M. (1991). La Malinche in Mexican literature. From history to myth. University of Texas
Press.
Connolly, D., & Bacopoulou-Halls, A. (2009). Greek tradition. In M. Baker, & G. Saldanha (Eds.),
Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation studies (pp. 418–426). Routledge.
Fradin, J. B., & Bradin, J. B. (2005). Who was Sacagawea. Penguin Books.
Edwards, A. B. (1995). The practice of court interpreting. John Benjamins.
Galán, J. (2011). Intérpretes y traducciones en el Egipto imperial. SEMATA, 23, 295–313.
Gambier, Y. & van Doorslaer, L. (2010-2013). Handbook of translation studies (4 volumes). John
Benjamins.
Gambier, Y., Gile, D., & Taylor, C. (1997). Conference interpreting: Current trends in research. John
Benjamins.
Giambruno, C. (2008). The role of the interpreter in the governance of sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century Spanish colonies in the ‘New world’: Lessons from the past to the present. In C. Valero-
Garcés, & A. Martin (Eds.), Crossing borders in community interpreting. definitions and
dilemmas (pp. 27–49). John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. John Benjamins.
Gile, D., Dam, H. V., Dubslaff, F., Martinsen, B., & Schjoldager, A. (2001). Getting started in inter-
preting research. John Benjamins.
Gumul, E. (2021). Explicitation and cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 23
(2), 45–75. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00051.gum
Hale, S. (2011). Interpreter policies, practices and protocols in Australian courts and tribunals. A
national survey. Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.
452 R. A. VALDEÓN

Hale, S., & Napier, J. (2016). ‘We’re just kind of there’: Working conditions and perceptions of
appreciation and status in court interpreting. Target. International Journal of Translation
Studies, 28(3), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.28.3.01hal
Hart, J. (2013). Textual imitation: Making and seeing literature. Palgrave.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). The translator as communicator. Routledge.
Herodotus. (1996). The histories (G. Rawlinson, translated by). Wordsworth Editions.
Hlavac, J., & Xu, Z. (2020). Chinese-Interpreting and Intercultural communication. Routledge.
Hung, E. (2005). Cultural borderlands in China’s translation history. In E. Hung (Ed.), Translation
and cultural change (pp. 43–64). John Benjamins.
Hung, E., & Pollard, D. (2009). Chinese tradition. In M. Baker, & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation studies (pp. 369–378). Routledge.
Jager, R. J. (2015). Malinche, Pocahontas and Sacagawea. Indian women as cultural intermediaries
and national symbols. University of Oklahoma Press.
Ji, M., Taibi, M. & Crezee, H. M. (2019). Multicultural health translation, interpreting and com-
munication. Routledge.
Karttunen, F. (2015). Malinche. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting
studies (pp. 242–244). Routledge.
Keckskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Kelly, L. (1979). The true interpreter. Blackwell.
Killman, J. (2021). Translating in the shadow of interpreting in US court systems: Standards,
guidelines and practice. In F. Prieto Ramos (Ed.), Institutional translation and interpreting
(pp. 62–83). Routledge.
Lan, S. M. (2016). ‘Crime’ of interpreting: Taiwanese interpreters as war criminals of World War
II. In K. Takeda, & J. Baigorri-Jalón (Eds.), New insights into the history of interpreting (pp. 193–
223). John Benjamins.
Lung, R. (2006). Translation and historiography: How an interpreter shaped historical records in
latter Han China. TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction, 19(2), 225–252. https://doi.org/10.
7202/017830ar
Lung, R. (2011). Interpreters in early modern China. John Benjamins.
McGonigal, K. (2015). The upside of stress: Why stress is good for you, and how to get good at it. Penguin.
Mellinger, C., & Hanson, T. A. (2019). Meta-analyses of simultaneous interpreting and working
memory. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, 21(2),
165–195. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00026.mel
Mikkelson, H., & Jourdenais, R. (Eds.). (2015). The Routledge handbook of interpreting. Routledge.
Merrell, J. H. (1999). Into the American woods. Negotiators on the Pennsylvania frontier. W.W.
Norton & Co.
Monacelli, C. (2009). Self-preservation in simultaneous interpreting. Surviving the role. John
Benjamins.
Nicodemus, B., & Swabey, L. (2011). Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry into action. John
Benjamins.
Oberg, M. L. (2013). The head in Edward nugent’s hand: Roanoke’s forgotten Indians. University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Pöchhacker, F. (1999). ‘Getting organized’: The evolution of community interpreting. Interpreting.
International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, 4(1), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.
1075/intp.4.1.11poc
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. Routledge.
Pöchhacker, F. (2010a). Interpreting. In Y. Gambier, & L. v. Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of
Translation Studies Volume 1 (pp. 153–157). John Benjamins.
Pöchhacker, F. (2010b). Interpreting. In Y. Gambier, & L. v. Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of
Translation Studies Volume 1 (pp. 158–172). John Benjamins.
Pöchhacker, F. (2015). Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. Routledge.
Pöchhacker, F. (2018). Media interpreting: From user expectations to audience comprehension. In
E. Di Giovanni, & Y. Gambier (Eds.), Reception studies and audiovisual translation (pp. 253–
276). John Benjamins.
 PERSPECTIVES 453

Pöchhacker, F., & Shlesinger, M. (2002). The interpreting studies reader. Routledge.
Pöchhacker, F., & Liu, M. (2021). Interpreting research in print. A quarter-century update.
Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, 23(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00060.edi
Ruiz Rosendo, L., Varela García, M., & Barghout, A. (2021). Interpreting at the United Nations:
The effect of delivery rate on quality on simultaneous interpreting. In F. Prieto Ramos (Ed.),
Institutional translation and interpreting (pp. 190–208). Routledge.
Roy, C. B., & Napier, J. (2015). The sign language interpreting studies reader. John Benjamins.
Russell, D. (2019). International perspectives and practices in healthcare interpreting with sign
language interpreters: How does Canada compare? In M. Ji, M. Taibi, & H. M. Crezee (Eds.),
Multicultural health translation, interpreting and communication (pp. 37–65). Routledge.
Russo, M. (2010). Simultaneous interpreting. In Y. Gambier, & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook
of Translation Studies Volume 1 (pp. 333–336). John Benjamins.
Sawyer, D. B. (2016). The US department of state’s corps of student interpreters: A precursor to the
diplomatic interpreting of today? In K. Takeda, & J. Baigorri-Jalón (Eds.), New insights into the
history of interpreting (pp. 99–133). John Benjamins.
Seeber, K. G. (2015a). Simultaneous interpreting. In H. Mikkelson, & R. Joudenais (Eds.), The
Routledge Handbook of interpreting (pp. 79–95). Routledge.
Seeber, K. G. (2015b). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting. Measures and methods. In M.
Ehrensberger-Dow, S. Göpferich, & S. O’Brien (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity in translation and
interpreting process research (pp. 18–33). John Benjamins.
Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. John Benjamins.
Setton, R.2009). China and Chinese. Special issue of Interpreting 11(2).
Setton, R. (2011). Interpreting Chinese, interpreting China. John Benjamins.
Setton, R., & Dawrant, A. (2016). Conference interpreting. A complete course and trainer’s guide.
John Benjamins.
Shlensinger, M., & Pöchhacker, F. (2010). Doing justice to court interpreting. John Benjamins.
Takeda, K. (2016). Guilt, survival, opportunities, and stigma. Japanese interpreters in the postwar
occupation period (1945-1952). In K. Takeda, & J. Baigorri-Jalón (Eds.), New insights into the
history of interpreting (pp. 225–246). John Benjamins.
Valdeón, R. A. (2019). Translation studies and the ethics of publishing. Perspectives, 27(5), 761–
775. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1631861
Valero Garcés, C., & Martin, A. (2008). Crossing borders in community interpreting. John
Benjamins.
Xenophon. (1859). The Anabasis of Xenophon (T. Clark, Translated by). Charles DeSilver.
Zhen, L., & Ren, W. (2018). Interpreting as an influencing factor on news reports: A study of inter-
preted Chinese political discourse recontextualized in English news. Perspectives, 26(5), 691–
707. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1411373
Zwischenberger, C., & Behr, M. (2015). Interpreting quality: A look around and ahead. Frank &
Timme.