UNINT, Rome, 23-24 November 2017\u00a0LARIM (Laboratory of Interpreter-Mediated Interactions), a research group on interpreter-mediated interactions set up in October 2012 within the Faculty of Interpreting and Translation (FIT) of UNINT (University of International Studies of Rome), is organizing its 2nd International Conference on 23-24 November 2017. The 2nd LARIM conference aims to delve into the constructs of power and ideology seeking out studies that focus on evidence \u2013 both at a micro and macro level \u2013 of emerging trends in authentic data.<\/p>\n
The 1st LARIM conference \u2018Interpreter\u00ad-mediated interactions: methodologies and models\u2019 was held in Rome on 7-9 November 2013 as a tribute to Miriam Shlesinger. Three publications have seen the light since then, which were inspired by and based on many of the contributions to that conference:
\nBiagini, Marta; Boyd, Michael S.; Monacelli, Claudia (eds) (in press) The Changing Role of the Interpreter: Contextualising norms, ethics and quality standards. London\/New York: Routledge.
\nBiagini, Marta; Davitti, Elena; Sandrelli, Annalisa (eds.) (2017) Participation in Interpreter-mediated Interaction: Shifting along a multidimensional continuum. Special issue of the Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 107, January 2017.
\nBendazzoli, Claudio and Monacelli, Claudia (eds.) (2016) Addressing Methodological Challenges in Interpreting Studies Research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.<\/p>\n
In the most recent publication above, still in press, the editors close the volume with an Afterword where they express the following:<\/p>\n
It would be interesting for future research to further examine the relationship between the interpreter\u2019s performance and the institutional discourse producer\u2019s ownership of discourse and social practices. In such a view discourse ownership could be construed in terms of its relation to power and ideology focusing on the correlation between the discourse producer and the interpreter. Thus, does the dominant position of the speakers, be they from the military, political, legal, media sphere or other, condition and influence the interpreter performance, limiting his\/her power of action (Anderson 2002\/1976)? Are interpreters able to produce more or less divergent and non-normative behaviours, thus empowering themselves and those they are called to work for? And, if so, to what extent?<\/p>\n
This quote begs a number of fundamental questions:
\n\u25cf Who does the interpreter represent in such encounters?
\n\u25cf To what extent can intentionality be evinced in micro and macro analyses?
\n\u25cf Who is responsible for text creation and propagation, i.e. who owns texts?<\/p>\n
In terms of power and ideology in interpreter-mediated settings, these are but a few of the many questions text ownership may raise.<\/p>\n
Power is one of the most complex concepts in the social and political sciences, partly because there are so many competing definitions, and partly because many key decisions are made behind closed doors, making for confidential settings. At the same time, the analysis of power is critical to our understanding the contexts in which we work. Examining the processes and structures of power leads us to develop knowledge of the forces that shape our organizations, institutions, relationships and, as a consequence, our own opportunities and experiences (Tolmach Lakoff 2000:24) both as professionals and as analysts.
\nIdeology is closely linked to power in terms of making sense of a shared meaning within a specific context. To date there have been relatively few studies that have concentrated on power and ideology in Interpreting Studies (e.g. Beaton 2007; Calzada P\u00e9rez 1997, Katan e Straniero-Sergio 2003; Wallmach 2002, Vuorikoski 2004).
\nWe espouse a wider view of ideology, which also encompasses hegemony (cf. Beaton 2007, Mason 1994, Fowler 1985) as \u201ca set of beliefs and values which inform an individual\u2019s or institution\u2019s view of the world and assist their interpretation of events, facts, etc.\u201d (Mason 1994: 25). In line with scholars operating in the field of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), such as Teun van Dijk (1998) and Ruth Wodak (2001) all language use can be construed, at some level, as ideological. Therefore, as users of language representing other people\u2019s language use, interpreters are necessarily immersed in ideology. The discipline of Interpreting Studies is challenged to examine its role and stance ideologically (P\u00f6chhacker 2006).
\nFurthermore, in her chapter entitled \u201cInterpreting and Ideology: Research Trends and Methods\u201d, Anne Martin (2016: 225-244) has helped to lay the groundwork for a discussion on power and ideology and we here quote her work \u2013 where applicable \u2013 when listing the areas of interest for the conference.<\/p>\n
\n