Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

Document généré le 2 mars 2019 13:34 Meta Journal des traducteurs Moving In-Bet

Document généré le 2 mars 2019 13:34 Meta Journal des traducteurs Moving In-Between: The Interpreter as Ethnographer and the Interpreting-Researcher as Anthropologist Şebnem Bahadır Volume 49, numéro 4, décembre 2004 URI : id.erudit.org/iderudit/009783ar https://doi.org/10.7202/009783ar Aller au sommaire du numéro Éditeur(s) Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal ISSN 0026-0452 (imprimé) 1492-1421 (numérique) Découvrir la revue Citer cet article Bahadır, Ş. (2004). Moving In-Between: The Interpreter as Ethnographer and the Interpreting-Researcher as Anthropologist. Meta, 49(4), 805–821. https://doi.org/10.7202/009783ar Résumé de l'article Dans les domaines du droit, de la santé et des services sociaux, l’interprète communautaire se voit confronté à des problèmes éthiques particulièrement délicats. Tout en recherchant un cadre théorique adéquat pouvant expliquer les rôles sociaux et les identités culturelles de l’interprétation communautaire, j’ai entrepris une re-lecture du sociologue et interprète de conférence allemand Heinz Göhring. Ses articles se situent entre les disciplines allemandes comme langue étrangère, les recherches interculturelles, incluant l’anthropologie culturelle, et la traductologie. Dans un premier temps, je décrirai sa perspective du traducteur/interprète idéal comme expert culturel. Ce dernier agit comme « mini-ethnologue ». Je tenterai d’aller plus loin que Göhring en liant sa pensée avec le concept de l’ethnologue critique en tant que modèle pour l’interprète communautaire professionnel. Je voudrais démontrer dans cette discussion théorique comment une synthèse du cadre proposé par Göhring peut être combinée avec des théories anthropologiques actuelles, non seulement dans le domaine communautaire, mais aussi en général. En plus des aspects concernant la politique de la traduction et de l’interprétation, je voudrai souligner que la révision des rôles de l’interprète doit également inﬂuencer la pédagogie et les recherches de la traduction et de l’interprétation. Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. [https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/] Cet article est diﬀusé et préservé par Érudit. Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l’Université de Montréal, l’Université Laval et l’Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. www.erudit.org Tous droits réservés © Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal, 2004 Moving In-Between: The Interpreter as Ethnographer and the Interpreting-Researcher as Anthropologist s ¸ebnem bahadır Bog ˇaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey sebnembahadir@turk.net RÉSUMÉ Dans les domaines du droit, de la santé et des services sociaux, l’interprète communau- taire se voit confronté à des problèmes éthiques particulièrement délicats. Tout en re- cherchant un cadre théorique adéquat pouvant expliquer les rôles sociaux et les identités culturelles de l’interprétation communautaire, j’ai entrepris une re-lecture du sociologue et interprète de conférence allemand Heinz Göhring. Ses articles se situent entre les disciplines allemandes comme langue étrangère, les recherches interculturelles, incluant l’anthropologie culturelle, et la traductologie. Dans un premier temps, je décrirai sa pers- pective du traducteur/interprète idéal comme expert culturel. Ce dernier agit comme «mini-ethnologue». Je tenterai d’aller plus loin que Göhring en liant sa pensée avec le concept de l’ethnologue critique en tant que modèle pour l’interprète communautaire professionnel. Je voudrais démontrer dans cette discussion théorique comment une syn- thèse du cadre proposé par Göhring peut être combinée avec des théories anthropologi- ques actuelles, non seulement dans le domaine communautaire, mais aussi en général. En plus des aspects concernant la politique de la traduction et de l’interprétation, je voudrai souligner que la révision des rôles de l’interprète doit également influencer la pédagogie et les recherches de la traduction et de l’interprétation. ABSTRACT My starting point in this article is the community interpreter who works in social, medi- cal and legal settings, under specific conditions, confronting very delicate ethical prob- lems. In search of a theoretical framework that accounts for the social roles and cultural identities of the community interpreter I began to re-read the German anthropologist and conference interpreter Heinz Göhring. His articles can be positioned between Ger- man Studies (‘Deutsch als Fremdsprache‘), intercultural communication studies (includ- ing cultural anthropology) and translation studies. I start out with his view of an ideal translator/ interpreter as cultural expert acting like a “mini-ethnographer” and try to go beyond Göhring by connecting his ideas to the concept of the critical ethnographer as model for a professional community interpreter. In this theoretical discussion I want to show how a synthesis of the framework proposed by Göhring and recent anthropological theories can be used for a new professional profile of the interpreter, not only in commu- nity settings but in general. Besides aspects concerning translation/ interpreting politics, I wish to foreground that a re-thinking of interpreter roles would/ should also affect translation/ interpreting pedagogy and research. MOTS-CLÉS/KEYWORDS anthropology, Göhring, interpreter-ethnographer, interpreting-researcher Meta, XLIX, 4, 2004 806 Meta, XLIX, 4, 2004 1. Making/Leaving the Interpreter Visible and Complicated I am writing as a person with at least two identities: as interpreter and interpreting- researcher. These two professional identities, if you look closely at them, consist of a multitude of social and cultural roles, positions and attitudes.1 At the beginning of my article is the word ‘I.’ This ‘I’ as interpreter and interpreting-researcher is what I want to write about. I will neither end up with anecdotal narrations nor lose myself in the philosophical and political dimensions of identity matters. The ‘I’ here and now is just an example. It is not my aim to reach clear-cut definitions or any illumi- nating presentation of its constituents. It is rather from the opposite side that I will try to approach the identity of the interpreter/ interpreting-researcher. I want to foreground the complexities and complications in the roles and identities by dwell- ing upon the multi-layered positions of the interpreter/ interpreting-researcher within the very specific communication situations they respectively experience. I wish to draw a parallel with the identity and position of the ethnographer/ anthropologist. My point of departure here is a re-reading of Heinz Göhring’s concept of the interpreter as an ethnographer engaged in fieldwork, especially with respect to participant observation and interviews with ‘informants’ (1977; 1980).2 My title comes from this analogy: Ammann (1995:43) notes Göhring’s use of the term Ethnologe in diminutive form (Mini-Ethnologe) when talking about what he expects from a translator. Within this re-reading I would like to work with a second level of analogy between the interpreting-researcher and the anthropologist. This idea is based on the assumption that the anthropologist is the categorizing and theo- rizing part of the ethnographer, trying not only to grasp cultures but also to (re)present them in writing, thus trying to ‘translate’ them for a special audience.3 Göhring’s professional ‘cultural mediators’ (Kulturmittler) benefit from practical methods like ethnographic fieldwork and from the theoretical frameworks of sociol- ogy and cultural and social anthropology (1976a, 1976b, 1977, 1980, 1998). As con- scious practitioners they would be convinced of cultural relativism. Within the framework of their professional ethics they would try hard to reflect this relativistic, egalitarian and anti-ethnocentric attitude in their actions by striving for the highest possible detachment and objectivity. Vermeer took up Göhring’s definition of culture and developed it further for his Skopos Theory in which certain foundations for a profile of the professional translator are laid (cf. for example Vermeer 1986:178-196). Theorists of the German functional approach basing their work on Vermeer’s Skopos theory, like Ammann, Nord and Witte, followed Vermeer and made use of Göhring’s definition of culture, of cultural competence and of cultural roles/identities. However, Göhring’s comparison between the translator/interpreter and the ethnographer has not been dwelt upon extensively. It has been noted now and then, but in passing. For me this analogy is like a programme, a framework for both a pedagogy for translator/ interpreter training and for a professional ethics. My reading of Göhring leads both the interpreter/ethnographer and the interpret- ing-researcher/anthropologist to the critical ethnographer’s crise de conscience. This crisis is caused by a questioning of identity and position within mediating activities, against the background of the changing political and ideological structures in the countries traditionally preferred by anthropologists. The result of this disorientation is the acceptance of various perspectives, which, in my analogy, applies to the work of the interpreting-researcher as well as to the interpreter. Nowadays cultural, social and professional identities are multiple and subject to hybridization (cf. Bhabha 1994a, 1994b, 1996; Hall 1996a, 1996b; Bauman 1997; even much earlier Goffman 1959). Since this is one of the theoretical pillars my paper is built on, the borderline between reflections on the social, cultural, political and ethi- cal positions of the interpreter on the one hand and the interpreting-researcher on the other becomes dynamic and flexible as well. Following a way of looking at the world that can be related to thinkers generally known as poststructuralist or deconstructionist, I would like to try to step out of the sphere where transparency, invisibility, neutrality, and along with these ideals, a kind of ‘dehumanization’ represent the professional standards for both (community) interpreting and research on (com- munity) interpreting.4 Similar deliberations and limitations determine the activities of both interpreting-researcher and interpreter. The interpreting-researcher is caught in the Geertzian dilemma between the emic and the etic perspective uploads/Societe et culture/ moving-in-between-the-interpreter-as-ethnographer-and-the-interpreting-researcher-as-anthropologist.pdf