Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2003) 23, 58–78. Printed in the USA.

Copyright 8 2003 Cambridge University Press 0267-1905/03 $12.00

4. INTERPRETERS, INTERPRETING, AND THE STUDY OF BILINGUALISM

Guadalupe Valdés and Claudia Angelelli

In this chapter we present a brief overview of the literature on interpreting focused

specifically on issues and questions raised by this literature about the nature of
bilingualism in general. It is our position that research carried out on interpreting—
while primarily produced with a professional audience in mind and concerned with
improving the practice of interpreting—provides valuable insights about complex
aspects of language contact that have not been thoroughly addressed by the existing
literature on bilingualism. Examination of the literature emphasizing a category of
bilinguals, who have been referred to as “true” bilinguals (Thiery, 1978a, b),
provides perspectives on both individual and societal bilingualism that can
complement, and possibly refocus, some current views of the linguistic,
psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic characteristics of language contact. For applied
linguists who study language minority populations around the world, the literature
on interpreting suggests important new directions for research focusing on areas
such as the process of high level development of two languages in diglossic
contexts; the effects of instruction on the development of nonsocietal languages; the
nature of language transfer; and the characteristics of communication between
speakers of societal and nonsocietal languages.

In his seminal book, Languages in Contact, Uriel Weinreich (1974) defined

language contact as the use of two or more languages by the same persons and spoke
of “language-using individuals” as the locus of the contact. For the practice of
alternately using two languages, he used the term bilingualism and for the persons
involved, he used the term bilingual. More recently, Thompson defined language
contact as “the use of two languages in the same place and at the same time” (2001,
p. 1). In this article, we are concerned with interpreters, a group of “language-using”
individuals, who, as the locus of language contact, alternately use two languages at
the same time and in the same place to broker communication between monolingual
individuals. These language brokers—because they mediate the interaction between
members of communities that have come into cultural contact—are engaged in a
practice that is very different from that carried out by “ordinary” bilinguals.1 While
ordinary bilinguals choose one or the other of their two languages depending on a
complex set of factors including setting, interlocutors, role relationships, topics,
situations, and the like interpreters do not choose. They work in a variety of settings,

58
 INTERPRETERS, INTERPRETING, AND THE STUDY OF BILINGUALISM 59

mediate the communication between many different types of interlocutors, and use
their two languages to convey the spoken discourse of individuals who speak one of
their languages to individuals who speak their other language.

Interestingly, the literature on bilingualism (e.g., Appel & Muysken, 1987;

Grosjean, 1982; Hamers & Blanc, 2000; Haugen, 1956; Romaine, 1995; Weinrich,
1974) has paid very little attention to this category of bilinguals. Of existing general
introductions to bilingualism, only Hamers and Blanc (1989) include a section on
interpretation, translation, and bilingualilty within which the various aspects of
interpretation (i.e., simultaneity of processing, pauses, chunking, memory,) are
described; and among students of bilingualism, only Grojsean (1997a, b; 1998) has
made reference to interpreters in developing a model of bilingual processing. The
professional literature on interpreters, on the other hand, has taken for granted the
unique dimensions of the bilingualism of individuals who often define themselves as
two monolinguals in one.

Here we present a brief overview of the literature on interpreting but focus

very specifically on issues and questions raised by this literature about the nature of
bilingualism in general. It is our position that the work carried out on interpreting—
while primarily produced with a professional audience in mind and concerned with
improving the practice of interpreting—provides valuable insights about complex
aspects of language contact that have not been thoroughly addressed by the existing
literature on bilingualism. Examination of the literature focusing on a category of
bilinguals who have been referred to as “true” bilinguals (Thiery, 1976; 1978a, b;
1982) provides perspectives on both individual and societal bilingualism that can
complement, and possibly refocus, some of our current views of the linguistic,
psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic characteristics of language contact. For applied
linguists who focus on language minority populations around the world, the literature
on interpreting suggests important directions for research focusing on areas such as
the process of high level development of two languages in diglossic contexts; the
effects of instruction on the development of nonsocietal languages; the nature of
language transfer; and the characteristics of communication between speakers of
societal and nonsocietal languages.

The Literature on Interpreters and Interpreting

Interpreting and translation are defined by members of the translation and

interpreting profession as the rendering of one message produced in one language
(the source language) into another (the target language). The term interpreting,
however, is used professionally to refer only to “spoken” or “oral” messages
communicated by speakers, while the term translation is used to refer exclusively to
the rendering of written texts. In this review, we limit our focus to the literature on
interpreters and interpreting because it is this literature that raises the most interesting
questions for applied linguists interested in the study of bilingualism.

In general, the literature on interpreting has focused on the various types of

interpreting that are carried out in various settings (conference, court, and community
60 GUADALUPE VALDÉS AND CLAUDIA ANGELELLI

interpreting) and on the different modes of interpretation (simultaneous and

consecutive) that are used by interpreters when rendering spoken messages. Some
researchers (Angelelli, 2000; Gile, 1994) argue this literature has generally been
produced by and within a very closed circle of professionals involved both in the
practice of interpreting and in the training of prospective interpreters. It has focused
primarily on conference interpreters and on simultaneous interpreting and has paid
much less attention to court and community interpreting and to the process of
consecutive interpreting. Moreover, interpreting has seldom been studied from the
perspective of social interaction (e.g., Angelelli, 2000; Metzger, 1999; Roy, 2000;
Wadensjö, 1998) or from the perspective of the development or acquisition of
interpreting competencies.

According to Gile (1998), the work on interpreting includes: (1) an early

period (1950s and 1960s) that produced the reflective writing of teachers and
practitioners; (2) a brief experimental period (1960s and 1970s) in which
psycholinguists investigated psychological and psycholinguistic aspects of
simultaneous interpreting; (3) a practitioners’ period (1960s to 1980s) in which
interpreting teachers developed an interest in research and theory; and (4) a renewal
period (1980s to the present) that has seen an increasing production of
interdisciplinary research as well as the use of more scientific methodologies.

General Characteristics of the Literature Since 1990

Since 1990, the literature on interpreting has continued to focus on the

teaching of interpreting and translation (Colina, 2002; Dollerup & Loddegaard, 1992;
Gile, 1994; Kalina, 1992; Kurz, 1992; Mead, 2000; Viaggio, 2000), and on
conference and simultaneous interpreting (Cutler, 2000/01; Lambert & Moser-
Mercer, 1994; Mead, 2000; Sabatini, 2000/01; Tissi, 2000). This literature has also
included discussions of methodological challenges in the study of simultaneous
interpreting (Gile, 1994). In general, as Gile (1998) has argued, studies done in the
1990s have indeed focused on traditional topics, but there has been an increase in the
broader examination of topics and areas that move the field beyond its primary focus
on the teaching and training of interpreters.

The study of the information processing in interpreting as well as in

translation has also continued to interest a number of scholars (e.g., Bell, 1991;
Lörscher, 1991; 1992; Shreve, Schaffner, Danks, & Griffin, 1993) during the last
decade. While criticized by some for its limitations, this particular focus has
attempted to construct a psychological model of the interpreting or translation
process that can account for the ways in which the interpreter solves
interpreting/translation problems in real time using particular strategies. Although
much of this work lacks an empirical foundation, it is valuable to researchers because
of the directions it suggests for further research.
 INTERPRETERS, INTERPRETING, AND THE STUDY OF BILINGUALISM 61

Quality of Interpretation

Attention has focused to a lesser degree on the assessment of the quality of

translation/interpretation both from theoretical and practical perspectives. In general,
theoretical work has focused on developing valid and useful concepts of
translation/interpretation quality. However, as House (1997; 1998) explains, the
assessment of quality presupposes a theory of translation/interpretation involving the
relationship between source and target text (e.g., equivalence, adequacy, fidelity,
ideational clarity, linguistic acceptability, or terminological accuracy) as well as the
perception of this relationship by individuals who make use of the services of
interpreters. House’s (1998) overview of approaches to the evaluation of quality of
interpreting (e.g., anecdotal and subjective approaches, response-oriented
approaches, and text-based approaches) reveals that these are based on a number of
very different theoretical perspectives. Moreover, there appear to be many
conflicting views even about central notions (such as equivalence; see Kenny, 1998)
that some scholars (e.g., Newman, 1994) consider to be common-sense terms.

For individuals concerned about the quality and performance in professional

interpreting, the lack of agreed-upon views within the profession about such issues is
problematic. Some recent work, however, has begun to contribute to the more
extensive examination of the quality of interpreted interactions. Clifford (2001), for
example, examines interpreter assessment and draws attention to the limits of a
lexico-semantic approach as a reductionist perception of interpreting. His work
suggests using features of discourse theory (such as deixis, modality, and speech
acts) to identify some of the competencies needed to interpret, and to then develop
assessment instruments with the technical rigor found in other fields. Wadensjö
(1998, 1999) and Valdés et al. (2000) consider talk as a communicative activity, not
as text and argue for the equivalence of communicative function of the utterance
rather than the equivalence of text. Both researchers, while not necessarily focusing
on quality control, use discourse features to judge the value of interpreting.

A number of studies have also focused on clients’ expectations (Bühler,

1986; Kopczynski, 1994; Kurz, 1989; 1993; 2001; Marrone, 1993), perceptions
(Gile, 1990; Kurz, 2001), and reactions (Ng, 1992) regarding interpreting. Work
conducted from this perspective argues that measurements of quality that do not
include a user variable are simply incomplete. Pöchhacker (2001) suggests that work
on clients’ expectations of quality of interpreting needs to be carried out across the
spectrum (i.e., from an international forum—conference interpreting—to an intra-
social event—community interpreting.)

Work in Areas Outside of Conference Interpreting

In comparison to work conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, during this last
decade, increasing attention has been given to what, according to Mason (2001), had
been previously viewed as the poor relations of conference interpreting. This new
work includes a focus on the practice of court interpreting (Berk-Seligson, 1990; De
Jongh, 1992; Gonzalez, Vásques, & Mikkelson, 1991; Moeketsi, 1999) as well as on
62 GUADALUPE VALDÉS AND CLAUDIA ANGELELLI

the practice of community interpreting (Angelelli, 2001; Carr, Roberts, Dufour, &
Steyn, 1995; Mason, 2001; Metzger, 1999; Roy, 2000; Wadensjö, 1998) which has
begun to emphasize crucial differences between various types of interpreting,
specifically between conference, court, medical, and community interpreting.
Related literature includes theoretical papers on translation and cross-cultural
communication (Simon, 1992), power and ideology (Sengupta, 1995), and reports of
well-designed research focusing on the role of the interpreter (Angelelli, in press;
Kaufert & Putsch, 1997; Wadensjö, 1995). Research in these situated practices has
included sign language interpreting (Metzger, 1999; Roy, 2000) specifically looking
at interpreters as interlocutors. Finally, some attention has been given to interpreting
involving the work of interpreters done remotely. Work conducted by Angelelli
(2001), Benmaman (2000), and Wadensjö (1995) has incorporated the use of
telephone and speakerphone in interpreted interactions in community and court
settings.

This new research has been particularly important in that it has

problematized time-honored beliefs about the social role of the interpreter. A
number of empirical studies have raised important questions about the notion of the
neutrality (Metzger, 1999), invisibility (Angelelli, 2001), and the influence that
interpreters have on interactive discourse in interpreted interactions (Metzger, 1999;
Roy, 2000; Wadensjö, 1995; 1998). Examining two cases of interpreted medical
encounters, Metzger illustrated the Interpreter’s Paradox that exists when interpreters
are “faced with the goal of providing access to interaction of which they are not a
part, while they are, in fact, physically and intentionally present” (1999, p. 47).
While studies of court and community interpreting have focused on consecutive
interpreting, the issues they have raised about the nature of interpreting in general is
likely to impact significantly on a variety of aspects such as interpreter impartiality,
the nature of the interpreting event as a three-party interaction, the education of
interpreters, and the standards of practice and ethics taken for granted by the
profession.

In sum, the current literature on interpreting offers a view of a category of

bilinguals who carry out their work under particular conditions in settings within
which monolingual individuals who do not share a common language come into
contact. Whether engaged in the practice of simultaneous interpreting of extensive
monologues in political or business meetings or whether they are involved in the
practice of “dialogic” interpreting (Wadensjö, 1998) in which they broker
communication between a doctor and patient or a teacher and a parent, interpreters
are individuals who, as the locus of language contact, have much to teach us about
the nature of this contact and about the characteristics of bilingual individuals who
broker interactions between monolingual members of groups in contact.

Interpreters and Interpreting from the Perspective of the Study of Bilingualism

For applied linguists working on language contact among majority and

minority societies around the world, the literature on interpreters and interpreting
offers important insights about the linguistic and psycholinguistic characteristics of
 INTERPRETERS, INTERPRETING, AND THE STUDY OF BILINGUALISM 63

individual bilingualism. In this section, we examine the bilingualism of interpreters

as reflected in this literature and identify directions for research in studying
conditions and life experiences that might lead to the development of high levels of
language proficiency in two languages. We also review work carried out on the
difficulties and linguistic challenges experienced by these highly proficient bilinguals
in the course of interpreting and again point to directions for further research on the
difficulties encountered by less proficient bilinguals, including second language
learners. Finally, we examine the implications of work on information processing for
further work on bilingualism and cognition.

The Exceptional Bilingualism of Interpreters

While the study of bilingualism has been much concerned with typologies
and categorizations of different types of bilingualism (e.g., Baetens-Beardsmore,
1982; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994), the literature on interpreters and interpreting has
tended to assume an individual who is expected to have

a very extensive command of his working languages,

constituting if not a ‘perfect’ grasp then at least an extremely sure-
footed mastery not only of the language itself but of all aspects,
social, cultural, political, etc., of the linguistic community
concerned (Henderson, 1982, p. 151).

There is little information in the literature, however, about the particulars of

this perfect grasp or mastery. Information about expected or assumed language
proficiencies of interpreters can be drawn primarily from the broad guidelines for the
profession produced by professional organizations and from the literature that
focuses on the training of students and practitioners. For example, the Association
Intérnationale des Intérpretes de Conférence (International Association of
Conference Interpreters, hereafter AIIC), with 2500 conference interpreter members
from 81 countries, the organization to which individual practitioners and schools of
translation and interpretation refer for guidance on the profession, states definite
criteria regarding interpreters’ working languages. It differentiates between receptive
and productive skills to classify languages as active (those into which the interpreter
works) and passive (those from which interpreters work). The AIIC also rates
languages as A, B, or C. According to the AIIC, an ‘A’ language is the interpreter’s
native language or other strictly equivalent to a native language into which
interpreters can work in either simultaneous or consecutive mode. All interpreters
must have at least one ‘A’ language but may have more. A ‘B’ language is a
language other than the interpreter’s native language of which she or he has a perfect
command and into which she or he works from one or more of her or his other
languages. Some interpreters work into a ‘B’ language in only one of the two modes
of interpreting. ‘C’ languages are languages of which the interpreter has a complete
understanding and from which she or he works (AIIC, 2002, p. 19).

From the perspective of the study of bilingualism, it is interesting that the

literature on interpreting limits the use of the term bilingual to those individuals who
64 GUADALUPE VALDÉS AND CLAUDIA ANGELELLI

are considered to have two native or ‘A’ languages. This very narrow definition of
bilingualism appears to be based on the notion of two-monolinguals-in-one that has
been rejected by a number of students of bilingualism (e.g., Cook, 1997; Grosjean,
1989; Mohanty & Perregaux, 1997; Romaine, 1995; Woolard, 1999) for ordinary
bilinguals.

The Development of an Exceptional Type of Bilingualism

With the exception of early work on young interpreters (Harris, 1977; 1978;
1980; 1992; Harris & Sherwood, 1978; Toury, 1984, 1995) and recent historical
work on translation/interpretation (Baker, 1998; Karttunen, 1994), very little has
been written about the lived experiences of interpreters and/or about the development
of such exceptional types of bilingualism. Work on young interpreters, while not
focused particularly on the bilingualism of young interpreters, nevertheless
contributes to our understanding of the life experiences of individuals who begin to
interpret early in their lives. Arguing that “natural translation” is an innate skill in all
bilinguals (Harris, 1977; 1978; 1980; 1992; Harris & Sherwood, 1978) has sought to
account for the emergence and development of this skill particularly in young
children. Toury (1984; 1995), on the other hand, speaks of “native” translators and
argues that while predisposition for interpreting may be coextensive with
bilingualism, the unfolding of interpreting ability is coextensive with “the ability to
establish similarities and differences across languages, which may be termed
‘interlinguism’” (Toury, 1995, p. 248). Toury further maintains that interpreting
ability develops in response to both environmental and internal feedback based on
particular social norms and opportunities for participating in real-life acts of
translation. Toury suggests, moreover, that the shortcuts and fixed solutions that
interpreters develop to handle particular problems may “compensate for incomplete
and/or unbalanced bilingualism which is one possible verification of the claim that an
increase in the rate of bilingualism and an increase in translation proficiency do not
necessarily run completely parallel” (1995, p. 252).

Baker (1998), in synthesizing the work on the history of interpreting

prepared for the Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, points out that historically
interpreters have generally been members of minority groups of several different
types. In the New World, interpreters were natives who were captured and trained as
interpreters. In Turkey during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, they were
members of groups that were converts to Islam, and in the 1940s and 1950s,
interpreters were wartime émigrés, Jewish survivors of concentration camps, and
second-generation migrants. The descriptions provided by Baker of minority group
members forced by life circumstances to acquire a second language suggest that
many interpreters working today might be adolescent or adult sequential bilinguals
who acquire their second language in the society in which it is spoken.
Unfortunately, there is little information in the literature about the particular
conditions (e.g., schooling, access to a broad range of registers in both languages)
that might lead to native-like proficiencies in two languages, especially for minority
group members.
 INTERPRETERS, INTERPRETING, AND THE STUDY OF BILINGUALISM 65

Other descriptions of interpreters offer very different perspectives on the

development of bilingualism among interpreters. Remarking on the growth and
effectiveness of interpreter training programs, for example, Kurz and Bowen remark
on the passing of the first generation of self-taught interpreters who included
“Russian aristocrats who grew up speaking French to their parents and Russian to
their servants, while learning English from their governess and German from their
tutor” (1999, p. 4). They also maintain that the era of “interpreters who acquired
their language skills as a result of changing domiciles and schooling in different
language communities in the wake of the upheavals in Europe and during World War
II” is almost gone (Kurz & Bowen, 1999, p. 4). While Kurz and Bowen are more
focused on the importance of formal training to interpreters than on the conditions
for the development of their linguistic skills, their comments do suggest that
individuals who have developed the levels of language mastery required by the
profession have included: (1) simultaneous bilinguals of various types and
combinations; (2) sequential bilinguals who are members of the upper classes and
who may have changed countries of residence (e.g., children of diplomats) and/or
who have been formally schooled in different languages; and (3) sequential
bilinguals who are products of historical or personal upheavals and who are often
members of minority groups in particular societies. The identification of three
categories of bilinguals among skilled interpreters implies that the development of
high levels of proficiency, including mastery of a variety of registers, occurs through
real-life interactions and experiences that take place over a considerable period of
time.

Interestingly, the view of interpreters (and prospective interpreters) as fully

developed exceptional bilinguals is problematized by the debate within the
interpreter-training profession about the role of language instruction in such
programs. Although most interpreter training programs require that prospective
interpreters be tested on their language proficiencies, and although there is general
consensus about the need for interpreters to have mastered their working languages
as described above (Moser-Mercer, 1984; 1994; Seleskovitch & Lederer, 1989;
Weber, 1984), the very presence of the debate on language teaching within the
profession suggests that both practicing interpreters and interpreter trainers believe
that it is possible for late bilinguals, who have acquired a second language in
instructed settings, or for minority bilinguals, who have had little access to a range of
registers in their non-societal language, to develop high level native-like
proficiencies in both their languages as part of interpreter training. This possibility
raises interesting questions about whether fluent, functional (steady state)
bilingualism is static condition that is beyond pedagogical intervention or a dynamic
condition that can be further developed. Extreme positions in this debate are
evidenced by Krouglov (1996) who argues that translation and interpretation should
be taught at various levels of language development and by Seleskovitch and Lederer
(1989), and Weber (1984) who propose that translation and interpreting not be taught
unless students have full command of their working languages. The predominant
view of language development drawn from the literature on interpreter training is that
“complete” mastery of native language and “perfect comprehension” of the second
language/s are required for interpreting courses.
66 GUADALUPE VALDÉS AND CLAUDIA ANGELELLI

The literature on the training of interpreters, however, also reflects a middle

position as evidenced by the curriculum of the Institute of Translation and
Interpreting in Vienna (Snell-Hornby, 1992). In the description of this curriculum,
Snell-Hornby reveals a belief in language development by including three blocks of
study or training: lower, central, and upper. It is within the lower block that language
courses are offered, allowing “a transitional phase between school and university and
ensuring that anyone aiming to be a professional translator or interpreter can start his
or her training with adequate command of languages concerned” (p. 12). Angelelli
and Degueldre (2002) also argue for a transitional phase in the training of interpreters
by describing the option of language enhancement programs before entering graduate
studies in translation/interpretation. Such programs, the authors maintain, provide
candidates with the opportunity to use their language under pressure in tasks that
emulate translation/interpretation reality but in a monolingual mode (e.g., shadowing
or parroting, working towards simultaneous interpreting—or paraphrasing and re-
structuring, working towards consecutive interpreting and sight translation) in
academic settings.

The Challenge of Keeping Two Languages Apart

The literature on interpreters and interpreting is concerned with the highly

specialized language performance of bilingual/multilingual individuals. Indirectly,
however, this literature provides an important perspective on whether and in what
ways a group of bilinguals who have been characterized as exceptional or extreme
reduce or minimize all possible traces of transference between their two languages.
While not concerned specifically with the challenge faced by bilinguals in keeping
two languages apart, the literature on interpreters and interpreting has paid
substantial attention to the “errors” and challenges found in the interpreting products
of interpreters at different levels of training. For example, Sabatini (2000/01)
reported on challenges in listening comprehension for simultaneous interpreting of
non-standard English speeches. Bülow-Møller (1999) examined the processing of
irrealis including innocuous items like not, never, and perhaps by simultaneous
interpreters. Other researchers examining incorrect renditions by interpreters have
focused on pragmatic accuracy (Hale, 1997), lexical use and lexical inventory
(Paloposki, 2001; Shakir & Farghal, 1997), lack of fluency and loss of rhetorical
effect (Altman, 1994), structural and semantic collocation (Obana, 1993).
Additionally, other researchers (e.g., Cutler, 2000/01) have examined the role that the
phonology of the native language of the listener (as well as the lexicon and grammar)
plays in listeners’ expectations of how meaning is expressed in words.

Work dealing with the written medium, on the other hand, has discussed the
legacy of language teaching in translator training and the effects that language
teaching may have in beginner students of translation (Colina, 2002; Nord, 1991).
Challenges identified include excessive interference conceived by some authors to
result from language teaching through cognates (Kussmaul, 1995), lack of
consideration of pragmatic factors, lack of global strategies, tendency towards
transcoding, and excessive reliance on dictionaries.
 INTERPRETERS, INTERPRETING, AND THE STUDY OF BILINGUALISM 67

The work focusing on errors and challenges encountered by interpreters has

also compared the difficulties encountered by trained interpreters and ordinary
bilinguals. For example, Dillinger (1994) looked at differences in comprehension
processing between these two groups and concluded that comprehension in
interpreting is not a specialized ability, but rather the application of an existing skill
under more unusual circumstances. In general, studies carried out on errors and
difficulties of various types offer an interesting perspective to students of both
incipient and developing bilingualism as well as fully functional and stable
bilingualism. The difficulties and linguistic challenges experienced by highly
proficient bilinguals under conditions of stress and pressure can perhaps guide the
understanding of difficulties encountered by less proficient bilinguals, including
second language learners, in various types of interactions.

The Study of Interpreting and Information Processing

Much attention has been given to the study of interpreting and information
processing by members of the interpreting profession as well as by researchers
outside the profession (e.g., psycholinguists) who have had a special interest in
complex information processing activities. Most work carried out to date has
focused on simultaneous interpretation because it is only during simultaneous
interpreting that attention must constantly be divided between the comprehension of
input and the production of output.

The complexity of the translation/interpretation process has perhaps been

most thoroughly described by Bell (1991). Bell views the process of
translating/interpreting as a special case of human information processing that takes
place in both short-term and long-term memory, through devices for decoding text in
one language and encoding it into another via nonspecific language representations.
For Bell, the process operates at the linguistic level of the clause and proceeds in
both a bottom-up and top-down manner, integrating both approaches. The style of
operation is both cascaded and interactive so that analysis or synthesis at one stage
need not be completed before the next stage is initiated. Overall, Bell (1998) views
the process of translation and interpretation as a problem-solving procedure during
which translators and interpreters encounter problems of comprehension,
interpretation, and expression and evolve strategies for coping with them. This view
is widely held (Alexieva, 1998; Gran, 1989; Levy, 1967; Riccardi, 1998).

In spite of the fact that, as Wilss (1996) contends, there is little agreement in
the field about how the decision-making procedure might work in interpretation, the
problem-solving perspective suggests translation/interpretation is an extraordinarily
complex information processing activity. It may be especially complex for
community or face-to-face interpreters who are engaged both in interpreting and in
coordinating primary parties’ utterances (Roy, 2000). As Wadensjö (1998) points
out, such interpreting involves simultaneous attentiveness—that is, the ability to
simultaneously focus on the pragmatic level (talk as activity including the managing
of multi-party interaction), on the linguistic level (talk as text), and on the balance
between the two.
68 GUADALUPE VALDÉS AND CLAUDIA ANGELELLI

Conclusions and Implications for Future Work in Applied Linguistics

Professional interpreters/translators (individuals who earn a living through

interpreting or translating) can be said to be highly skilled bilingual individuals who,
as Bell (1998) contends, listen, read, speak, and write in different ways from other
language users. The literature on interpreting makes evident that interpreters are
bilinguals who develop high levels of proficiencies in two or more languages and
that these developed proficiencies, in combination with other attributes and
characteristics allow them to carry out very difficult tasks under conditions of
extreme stress.

Although the intersection between the literature on interpreters and

interpreting and the literature on bilingualism has been limited, for applied linguists
who focus on language minority populations around the world, the literature on
interpreting provides a number of insights that can inform current understandings of
both circumstantial and elective bilingualism (Valdés & Figueroa, 1994) and
suggests directions for future research. Specifically, research on interpreters of
different types (conference, court, community) and research on interpreting in
different modes (consecutive versus simultaneous) can provide important
information about (1) ultimate attainment in a second language, (2) contexts of
language contact within which monolinguals of each group come into contact, and
(3) the cognitive characteristics of bilingual individuals.

Among the questions about the ultimate attainment of a second language that
could be explored by applied linguistics researchers are the following:

1. How can high levels of bilingualism such as those manifested by interpreters

of different types be measured and described?
2. Can such bilingualism be described without reference to monolingual
norms?
3. What is the range of levels of ultimate attainment in the L2 among
successful interpreters?
4. What is the difference in ultimate attainment of individuals who acquire the
L2 as children and individuals who acquire the L2 as adults?
5. How is ultimate attainment affected by contexts of language acquisition?
6. Are levels of ultimate attainment relatively stable? To what degree can
levels of attainment be improved by classroom instruction? To what degree
can various life events contribute to language attrition?
7. What are the characteristics of interlanguage transfer for individuals of the
same and different levels of attainment? How does interlanguage transfer
take place under different conditions?

The study of ultimate attainment of second languages is fundamental to

applied linguists as they seek to develop not only descriptive rubrics of language
proficiency that go beyond existing FSI Scales but to define levels of what Byrnes,
Crane, and Sprang have referred to as “advancedness” among second language
learners (2002, p. 25). Ultimate attainment, moreover, continues to be important
 INTERPRETERS, INTERPRETING, AND THE STUDY OF BILINGUALISM 69

within debates about the critical period in second-language acquisition, which in the
United States, have become part of the political debates over bilingual education.
Educational linguists in particular would gain much from an increased understanding
of the kinds of language pedagogies that can improve proficiencies in both the
written and the oral language in students who have already achieved fluent,
functional proficiencies in a second language but who may wish to develop a broader
range of registers and styles. Similarly, they would gain much from the study of the
development of high-level proficiencies in two languages by interpreters of language
minority origin who were able to develop such proficiencies in communities in which
the functional specialization of languages provided little access to a range of oral and
written texts and interactions.

In addition to offering important insights about ultimate language

attainment, the literature on interpreters and interpreting raises important questions
about the contexts of language contact in which interpreting takes place and about
relationships between majority and minority communities. These questions include:

1. What is the relationship between majority and minority monolinguals in

language contact situations?
2. What types of ordinary and institutional language contact situations between
majority and minority individuals require interpreters?
3. Who interprets in which situations?
4. What are the characteristics of such interpreters (age, language proficiency,
experience, knowledge, socioeconomic status)?
5. What do the challenges encountered by interpreters in mediating
communication between majority and minority group members reveal about
the characteristics of the language contact situation?

Recent work on child interpreters (Bullock & Harris, 1997; Shannon, 1987;
Tse, 1995; Vásquez, Pease-Alvarez, & Shannon,1994; Zentella, 1997) has
contributed to our understanding of some of these issues. Similarly, recent work on
community interpreting (Angelelli, 2001; Metzger, 1999; Roy, 2000; Wadensjö,
1998) has provided important information about the situated practice of interpreting.
However, further examination of this situated practice can provide additional
important information to students of bilingualism about the relationship between
majority and minority group members and about the possible barriers to majority
language acquisition by minority group members as they interact in various
institutional contexts.

Finally, the literature on interpreting and interpreters suggests that, if it is the

case that not all bilingual individuals can interpret, there is much to be learned by
students of bilingualism about bilingual language processing in different types of
bilinguals. As was noted in this article, there is much disagreement within the
profession about the degree to which all bilinguals, that is, all individuals who have
more than one language competence, can interpret. Harris and Sherwood (1978), for
example, argue that interpreting ability is a natural consequence of bilingualism.
Other scholars, while essentially agreeing with this position, have attempted to be
70 GUADALUPE VALDÉS AND CLAUDIA ANGELELLI

more precise about how such interpreting ability might be described. Lörscher
(1991), for example, suggests that every individual who has two or more languages
also possesses what he terms a “rudimentary” ability to mediate between them.

Still other scholars do not agree. Bell, for example, maintains that “the
ability to use two or more languages, even at a high standard, is no guarantee of a
person’s capacity to work between them or to operate as an interpreter or translator
for sustained periods of time or at reasonable speeds” (1995, p. 95). Neubert further
argues, “any old fool can learn a language. . .but it takes an intelligent person to
become a translator” (1984, p. 57, as quoted in Bell, 1991). Gile (1995) labels the
two positions reductionistic. He maintains that natural aptitudes are a prerequisite
for becoming a translator and interpreter, but points out that training can help
individuals fully realize their potential and develop skills more rapidly. Many
believe, as does Weber (1984), that only exceptionally gifted people can become top-
level professionals on their own. Toury (1984), however, maintains that the
unfolding of innate skills is a function of a bilingual speaker’s practice in actual
translating/interpreting. According to Hamers and Blanc what makes “the translator
and interpreter distinct from other bilinguals is neither his fluency in several
languages, nor his bilingual competence, but his ability to use them in complex
information-processing activities” (1989, p. 254).

Work carried out to date by Malakoff (1991) and Hakuta (1991) represents
important efforts in the direction of investigating those aspects of metalinguisitic
awareness, or what Toury (1995) termed “interlinguism,” that are central to the
process of interpreting. However, there is still much to be done. Clearly notions of
quality of interpretation and theories about the assessment of this quality, both
currently underdeveloped, will be basic to our understanding of the differences
between skilled and trained interpreters and other bilinguals. The directions charted
by the literature on interpreters and interpreting will be of fundamental importance to
applied linguists as they take on the challenge of studying bilingual language
processing in both ordinary and exceptional bilinguals.

In sum, the literature on interpreting and the special characteristics of

interpreters, a perhaps special category of bilinguals, needs to be explored by
mainstream students of bilingualism as they address the many complex issues
surrounding the life and well being of bilingual and multilingual populations around
the world. For applied linguists working on language contact among majority and
minority societies, the literature on interpreters and interpreting offers important
insights about the linguistic and psycholinguistic characteristics of individual
bilingualism as well as about the sociolinguistic contexts and situated practices that
give rise to the development of particular language competencies and proficiencies.

Notes

1. We use the term “ordinary” bilinguals for individuals who acquire their two
languages in bilingual communities and who alternately use their two languages to
interact with members of that community. The literature on bilingualism has referred
 INTERPRETERS, INTERPRETING, AND THE STUDY OF BILINGUALISM 71

to such bilinguals as folk bilinguals, natural bilinguals, and more recently,

circumstantial bilinguals.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baker, M. (Ed.). (1998). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London:

Routledge.

Perhaps the most complete reference work on translation studies currently in

existence, this work offers overviews of key areas in both translation and
interpretation including conference and simultaneous interpreting, court
interpreting, didactics of translation, translatability, and machine translation.
It also includes an extensive presentation of the history and tradition of
translation and interpretation in 31 areas of the world.

Dimitrova, B., & Hyltenstam, K. (Eds.) (2000). Language processing and

simultaneous interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

This volume provides the papers presented at the 1997 International

Symposium on Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting. It
brings together researchers from psychology, general linguistics,
psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics. Contributors discuss how theories
and research from these fields could be fruitfully applied to the study of
simultaneous interpreting and examines ways in which the study of
simultaneous interpreting could inform knowledge in those areas.

Moeketsi, R. (1999). Discourse in a multilingual and multicultural courtroom: A

court interpreter’s guide. Hatfield, Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik Publishers.

A recent contribution to the study of interpreted legal discourse, this book

reports on an investigation of court procedure in South African criminal
courts and provides a critical analysis of a corpus of 250 case studies
including all the African languages of South Africa as well as French and
Portuguese. Arguing that court interpreting is an extremely complex task
demanding specific skills, the author makes recommendations about status
planning in the new South African language policy, the teaching and
learning of African languages, and interpreter training.

Pöchhacker, F., & Shlesinger, M. (Eds.). (2002). The interpreting studies reader.
London: Routledge.

A collection of 26 texts (some of them seminal, and five of them published

in English for the first time) organized in seven parts. This volume covers
theoretical and empirical aspects of both simultaneous and consecutive
72 GUADALUPE VALDÉS AND CLAUDIA ANGELELLI

interpreting, issues related to spoken and signed languages and

considerations of the various settings (conference, community, and court) in
which interpreters play a vital role in an interaction.

Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. Harlow, Essex, UK: Addison

Wesley Longman.

This work presents interpreter-mediated communication by exploring

interpreters’ responsibilities and the expectations of all participants in the
interaction. It discusses the distribution of responsibility for content and the
progression of talk in interpreter-mediated conversation in community
settings.

OTHER REFERENCES

Alexieva, B. (1998). Consecutive interpreting as a decision process. In A. Beylard-

Ozeroff, J. Králová, & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Translators’ strategies and
creativity (pp. 181–188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Altman, J. (1994). Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous interpreting. In S.
Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research
in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 25–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Angelelli, C. (2000) Interpreting pedagogy: A bridge long overdue. ATA Chronicle
[Translation Journal of the American Association of Translators], 29(11), 40–
47.
Angelelli, C. (2001). Deconstructing the invisible interpreter: A study of the
interpersonal role of the interpreter in a cross- linguistic/cultural
communicative event. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University.
Angelelli, C. (in press). The interpersonal role of the interpreter in cross-cultural
communication: Survey of conference, court, community, and medical
interpreters in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. In L. Brunette, G. Basti, I.
Hemlin, & H. Clarke (Eds.), Critical links 3: Interpreters in the community
(pp. 289–302). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Angelelli, C., & Degueldre, C. (2002). Bridging the gap between language for general
purposes and language for work: An intensive superior-level language/skill
course for teachers, translators and interpreters. In B. L. Leaver & B.
Shekhtman (Eds.), From advanced to distinguished: Developing professional-
level language proficiency (pp. 91–110). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Appel, R., & Muysken, P. (1987). Language contact and bilingualism. London:
Edward Arnold.
Association Intérnationale des Intérpretes de Conférence (AIIC). [International
Association of Conference Interpreters]. (2002). Annuaire 2002. Geneva,
Switzerland: Author.
 INTERPRETERS, INTERPRETING, AND THE STUDY OF BILINGUALISM 73

Baetens-Beardsmore, H. (1982). Bilingualism: Basic principles. Clevedon, Avon:

Tieto Ltd.
Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London:
Longman.
Bell, R. T. (1998). Psycholinguistic/cognitive approaches. In M. Baker (Ed.),
Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 185–190). London:
Routledge.
Bell, S. J. (1995). The challenges of setting and monitoring standards of community
interpreting: An Australian perspective. In S. E. Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour,
& D. Steyn (Eds.), The critical link: Interpreters in the community (pp. 93–
108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Benmaman, V. (2000). Telephone interpreting in American courts: Just reach out and
ouch! Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Conference of the American
Translators’ Association. Oct. 31–Nov 3rd. Los Angeles, CA.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The bilingual courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for
the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua,
5(4), 231–235.
Bullock, C., & Harris, B. (1997). Schoolchildren as community interpreters. In S. E.
Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour, & D. Steyn (Eds.), The critical link:
Interpreters in the community, Vol. 19 (pp. 227–235). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Bülow-Møller, A. M. (1999). Existential problems: On the processing of irrealis in
simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 4(2), 145–168.
Byrnes, H., Crane, C., & Sprang, K. A. (2002). Nonnative teachers the advanced
level: Challenges and opportunities. ADFL Bulletin (Association of
Departments of Foreign Languages, 33(3), 25–34.
Carr, S. E., Roberts, R., Dufour, A., & Steyn, D. (Eds.). (1995). The critical link:
Interpreters in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Clifford, A. (2001) Discourse theory and performance-based assessment: Two tools
for professional interpreting. Meta, 46, 365–378.
Colina, S. (2002). Second language acquisition, language teaching and translation
studies. The Translator, 8(1), 1–24.
Cook, V. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism and cognitive processing. In A.
M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism:
Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 279–299). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cutler, A. (2000/01). Listening to a second language through the ears of a first.
Interpreting, 5(1), 1–23.
De Jongh, E. M. (1992). An introduction to court interpreting. New York: University
Press of America.
Dillinger, M. (1994). Comprehension during interpreting: What do interpreters know
that bilinguals don’t? In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the
gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 155–189).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
74 GUADALUPE VALDÉS AND CLAUDIA ANGELELLI

Dollerup, C., & Loddegaard, A. (Eds.). (1992). Teaching translation and

interpreting: Training, talent and experience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (1990). L’evaluation de la qualité de l’interprétation par les délegués: Une
étude de cas. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 3, 66–71.
Gile, D. (1994). Methodological aspects of interpretation and translation research. In
S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical
research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 39–56). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (1998). Conference and simultaneous interpreting. In M. Baker (Ed.),
Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 40–45). London:
Routledge.
González, R. D., Vásques, V. F., & Mikkelson, H. (1991). Fundamentals of court
interpretation: Theory, policy and practice. Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic Press.
Gran, L. (1989). Interdisciplinary research on cerebral asymmetries: Significance and
prospects for the teaching of interpretation. In L. Gran & J. Dodds (Eds.),
The theoretical aspects of teaching conference interpretation (pp. 93–100).
Campanotto, Italy: Udine.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals
in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 5–15.
Grosjean, F. (1997a). The bilingual individual. Interpreting: International Journal of
Research in Interpreting, 2, 163–191.
Grosjean, F. (1997b). Processing mixed language: Issues, findings and models. In A.
M. G. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism:
Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149.
Hale, S. (1997). The interpreter on trial: Pragmatics in court interpreting. In S. E.
Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour, & D. Steyn (Eds.), The critical link:
Interpreters in the community (pp. 201–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. H. A. (1989). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism (2nd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, B. (1977). The importance of natural translation. Working papers on
bilingualism (pp. 96–116). Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.
Harris, B. (1978). The difference between natural and professional translation.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 417–427.
Harris, B. (1980). How a three-year-old translates. In E. A. Afrendas (Ed.), Patterns
of bilingualism (pp. 370–393). Singapore: Regional English Language
Centre (RELC).
 INTERPRETERS, INTERPRETING, AND THE STUDY OF BILINGUALISM 75

Harris, B. (1992). Natural translation: A reply to Hans P. Krings. Target, 4(1), 97–
103.
Harris, B., & Sherwood, B. (1978). Translating as an innate skill. In D. Gerver & H.
Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication (pp. 155–170).
New York: Plenum Press.
Haugen, E. (1956). Bilingualism in the Americas: A bibliography and research guide
(Vol. 26). University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
Henderson, J. (1982). Some psychological aspects of simultaneous interpretation.
Incorporated Linguist, 21(4), 149–152.
House, J. (1981). A model for translation quality assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen:
Gunter Narr.
House, J. (1998). Quality of translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia
of translation studies (pp. 197–200). London: Routledge.
Kalina, S. (1992). Discourse processing and interpreting strategies: An approach to
the teaching of interpreting. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.),
Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent, and experience (pp.
251–257). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Karttunen, F. (1994). Between worlds: Interpreters, guides and survivors. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Kaufert, J. M., & Putsch, R. W. (1997). Communication through interpreters in
healthcare: Ethical dilemmas arising from differences in class, culture,
language, and power. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 8(1), 71–87.
Kenny, D. (1998). Equivalence. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of
translation studies (pp. 77–80). London: Routledge.
Kopczynski, A. (1994). Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic
problems. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker & K. Kaindl (Eds.),
Translation studies—An interdiscipline (pp. 189–198). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Krouglov, A. (1996). Teaching social and cultural differences. In C. Dollerup, & V.
Appel (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 3: New horizons (pp.
81–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kurz, I. (1989). Conference interpreting: User expectations. In D.L. Hammond (Ed.),
Coming of age: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American
Translators Association (pp. 143–148). Medford, New Jersey: Learned
Information.
Kurz, I. (1993). Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups. The
Interpreters’ Newsletter, 5, 13–21.
Kurz, I. (2001). Conference interpreting: quality in the eras of the user. Meta, 46,
394–409.
Kurz, I., & Bowen, M. (1999). Editorial. Interpreting, 4(1), 1–8 [Special issue].
Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the translator. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lambert, S., & Moser-Mercer, B. (Eds.). (1994). Bridging the gap: Empirical
research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levy, J. (1967). Translation as decision process. To honor Roman Jakobson, Vol. 2
(pp. 1171–1182). The Hague: Mouton.
76 GUADALUPE VALDÉS AND CLAUDIA ANGELELLI

Lörscher, W. (1991). Translation performance, translation process and translation

strategies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Lörscher, W. (1992). Process-oriented research into translation and implications for
translation teaching. TTR: Traduction, terminologies, rédaction, 5(1), 145–
161.
Malakoff, M. E. (1991). Natural translation ability in French-English bilingual
school-age children: A study of source language errors in naive child-
translators. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Yale University.
Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1991). Translation skill and metalinguistic awareness in
bilinguals. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing and language
awareness in bilingual children (pp. 141–166). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Marrone, S. (1993). Quality: A shared objective. The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 5, 35–
41.
Mason, I. (Ed.). (2001). Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting.
Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Mead, P. (2000). Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages.
The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 89–102.
Metzger, M. (1999). Sign Language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of
neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Mohanty, A. K., & Perregaux, C. (1997). Language acquisition and bilingualism. In
J. W. Berry, P. R. Dasen, & T. S. Saraswathi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-
cultural psychology: Basic processes and human development, Vol. 2 (pp.
217–253). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1984). Testing interpreting aptitude. In W. G. Thome (Ed.),
Translation theory and its implementation in the teaching of translating and
interpreting (pp. 318–325). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1994). Aptitude testing for conference interpreting: Why, when
and how. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap:
Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 57–68). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Newman, A. (1994). Translation equivalence: Nature. In R. E. Asher & Y. M. Y.
Simpson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 4694–
4700). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Ng, B. C. (1992). End users’ Subjective reaction to the performance of student
interpreters. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 1, 35–41 [Special issue].
Nord, C. (1991). Skopos, loyalty and translation conventions. Target, 3(1), 91–109.
Obana, Y. (1993). The linguistic significance of lexical items in the case of
conference interpretation from English to Japanese. Meta, 38, 491–501.
Paloposki, O. (2001). Enriching translations, simplified language? An alternative
viewpoint to lexical simplification. Target, 13(2), 265–288.
Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality assessment in conference and community
interpreting. Meta, 46, 410–425.
Riccardi, A. (1998). Interpreting strategies and creativity. In A. Beylard-Ozeroff, J.
Králová, & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Translators’ strategies and creativity
(pp. 171–179). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
 INTERPRETERS, INTERPRETING, AND THE STUDY OF BILINGUALISM 77

Roy, C. (2000). Interpreting as a discourse process. New York: Oxford University

Press.
Sabatini, E. (2000/01). Listening comprehension, shadowing and simultaneous
interpretation of two “non-standard” English speeches. Interpreting. 5(1),
25–48.
Seleskovitch, D., & Lederer, M. (1989). Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation.
Brussels: Didier Erudition Opoce.
Sengupta, M. (1995). Translation as manipulation: The power of images and images
of power. In A. Dingwaney & C. Maier (Eds.), Between languages and
cultures: Translation and cross-cultural texts (pp. 159–74). Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Shakir, A., & Farghal, M. (1997). When the focus of the text is blurred: A
textlinguistic approach for analyzing student interpreters’ errors. Meta, 42,
629–640.
Shannon, S. M. (1987). English in el barrio: A sociolinguistic study of second
language contact. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.
Shreve, G., Schaffner, M. C., Danks, J. H., & Griffin, J. (1993). Is there a special
kind of “reading” for translation?: An empirical investigation of reading in
the translation process. Target, 5(1), 21–41.
Simon, S. (1992). The language of cultural differences: Figures of alterity in
Canadian translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), Rethinking translation: Discourse,
subjectivity, ideology (pp. 159–176). London: Routledge.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1992). The professional translator of tomorrow: Language
specialist or all-round expert? In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.),
Teaching translation and interpreting—Training, talent and experience (pp.
9–21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thiery, C. (1976). Le bilinguisme vrai (l’acquisition d’une double competence).
[True bilingualism (acquisition of dual competence)]. Etudes-de-
Linguistique-Appliquée, 24 (Oct.-Dec.), 52–63.
Thiery, C. (1978a). True bilingualism and second-language learning. In D. Gerver &
H. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication (pp. 143–
163). New York: Plenum Press.
Thiery, C. (1978b). True bilingualism; le bilinguisme vrai. Fremdsprachen, 22(3),
179–181.
Thiery, C. (1982). True bilingualism; le bilingisme vrai. Multilingua, 1(4), 203–212.
Tissi, B. (2000). Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A
descriptive analysis. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 103–128.
Thompson, S. G. (2001). Language contact: An introduction. Washington DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Toury, G. (1984). The notion of “native translator” and translation teaching. In W.
Wilss & G. Thome (Eds.), Die Theorie des Ubersetzens und ihr
Aufschusswert fur die Ubersetzungs und Dolmetschdidaktik (pp. 186–195).
Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Toury, G. (1995). Excursus C: A bilingual speaker becomes a translator: A tentative
developmental model. In G. Toury (Ed.), Descriptive translation studies and
beyond (pp. 241–258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
78 GUADALUPE VALDÉS AND CLAUDIA ANGELELLI

Tse, L. (1995). Language brokering among Latino adolescents: Prevalence, attitudes,

and school performance. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17(2),
180–193.
Valdés, G., Chávez, C., Angelelli, C., Gonzalez, M., García, D., & Enright, K.
(2000). Bilingualism from another perspective: The case of young
interpreters from immigrant communities. In A. Roca (Ed.), Research on
Spanish in the United States: Linguistic issues and challenges (pp. 42–81).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. A. (1994). Bilngualism and testing: A special case of
bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Vásquez, O. A., Pease-Alvarez, L., & Shannon, S. M. (1994). Pushing boundaries:
Language and culture in a Mexicano community. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Viaggio, S. (2000). The overall importance of the hermeneutic package in teaching
mediated interlingual intercultural communication. The Interpreters’
Newsletter, 10, 129–144.
Wadensjö, C. (1995). Dialogue interpreting and the distribution of responsibility.
Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 14, 111–129.
Wadensjö, C. (1999, November). Telephone interpreting and the synchronization of
talk in social interaction. The Translator, 5, 247–264.
Weber, W. (1984). Training translators and conference interpreters. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Weinreich, U. (1974). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.
Wilss, W. (1996). Knowledge and skills in translator behavior. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Woolard, K. A. (1999). Simultaneity and bivalency as strategies in bilingualism.
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 8, 3–29.
Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual. Oxford: Blackwell.