Full Ebook of The Routledge Handbook of Public Service Interpreting 1St Edition Laura Gavioli Online PDF All Chapter

The Routledge Handbook of Public
Service Interpreting 1st Edition Laura

Gavioli
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-routledge-handbook-of-public-service-interpreting-
1st-edition-laura-gavioli/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Routledge Handbook of Korean Interpreting 1st

Edition Riccardo Moratto
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-routledge-handbook-of-korean-
interpreting-1st-edition-riccardo-moratto/
Routledge Handbook of Public Criminologies 1st Edition

Kathryn Henne
https://ebookmeta.com/product/routledge-handbook-of-public-
criminologies-1st-edition-kathryn-henne/
Public Service Operations Management A research

handbook 1st Edition Zoe J. Radnor
https://ebookmeta.com/product/public-service-operations-
management-a-research-handbook-1st-edition-zoe-j-radnor/
The Routledge Handbook of European Public Policy 1st

Edition Nikolaos Zahariadis (Editor) & Laurie Buonanno
(Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-routledge-handbook-of-european-
public-policy-1st-edition-nikolaos-zahariadis-editor-laurie-
buonanno-editor/
Public Service Logic; Creating Value for Public Service
Users Citizens, and Society through Public Service
Delivery 1st Edition Stephen P. Osborne
https://ebookmeta.com/product/public-service-logic-creating-
value-for-public-service-users-citizens-and-society-through-
public-service-delivery-1st-edition-stephen-p-osborne-2/
Public Service Logic: Creating Value for Public Service

Users, Citizens, and Society Through Public Service
Delivery 1st Edition Stephen P. Osborne
https://ebookmeta.com/product/public-service-logic-creating-
value-for-public-service-users-citizens-and-society-through-
public-service-delivery-1st-edition-stephen-p-osborne/
The Moral Heart of Public Service 1st Edition Claire

Foster-Gilbert
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-moral-heart-of-public-
service-1st-edition-claire-foster-gilbert/
Technological Innovation Put to the Service of Language

Learning, Translation and Interpreting 1st Edition
Óscar Ferreiro Vázquez
https://ebookmeta.com/product/technological-innovation-put-to-
the-service-of-language-learning-translation-and-
interpreting-1st-edition-oscar-ferreiro-vazquez/
The Routledge Handbook of Homelessness 1st Edition

Joanne Bretherton
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-routledge-handbook-of-
homelessness-1st-edition-joanne-bretherton/
THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF
PUBLIC SERVICE INTERPRETING
The Routledge Handbook of Public Service Interpreting provides a comprehensive overview of

research in public service, or community interpreting. It offers reflections and suggestions
for improving public service communication in plurilingual settings and provides tools for
dealing with public service communication in a global society.
Written by leading and emerging scholars from across the world, this volume provides
an editorial introduction setting the work of public service interpreting (PSI) in context
and further reading suggestions. Divided into three parts, the first is dedicated to the main
theoretical issues and debates which have shaped research on public service interpreting; the
second discusses the characteristics of interpreting in the settings which have been most in
need of public service interpreting services; the third provides reflections and suggestions on
interpreter as well as provider training, with an aim to improve public service interpreting
services.
This Handbook is the essential guide for all students, researchers and practitioners of PSI
within interpreting and translation studies, medicine and health studies, law, social services,
multilingualism and multimodality.
Laura Gavioli is a Professor of English language and English-Italian translation at the

University of Modena and Reggio Emilia and an expert in institutional, cross-cultural in-
teraction. Since the beginning of the 2000s, she has published work on interpreter-mediated
interaction, including a recent paper, with Cecilia Wadensjö, published in Health Communi-
cation (39/9, 2021).
Cecilia Wadensjö is a Professor of Interpreting and Translation Studies at Stockholm Uni-

versity. Since the early 1990s, she has published research on naturally occurring interpreter-
mediated institutional discourse, e.g. the book Interpreting as Interaction (Routledge, 2016).
She is a member of the editorial board of Interpreting: International Journal of Research and
Practice in Interpreting.
THE ROUTLEDGE
HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC
SERVICE INTERPRETING
Edited by
Laura Gavioli and Cecilia Wadensjö
Designed cover image: © Getty Images | CCeliaPhoto
First published 2023
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Laura Gavioli and Cecilia
Wadensjö; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Laura Gavioli and Cecilia Wadensjö to be identified as the
authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual
chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other
means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and
recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-P ublication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-P ublication Data
Names: Gavioli, Laura, editor. | Wadensjö, Cecilia, 1954– editor.
Title: The Routledge handbook of public service interpreting /
edited by Laura Gavioli, Cecilia Wadensjö.
Description: First edition. | Abingdon, Oxon;
New York, NY: Routledge, 2023. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022029106 | ISBN 9780367278427 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781032391151 (paperback) | ISBN 9780429298202 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Public service interpreting. | LCGFT: Essays.
Classification: LCC P306.947 .R68 2022 | DDC 418/.02—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022029106
ISBN: 978-0 -367-27842-7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-39115-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0 -429-29820-2 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9780429298202
Typeset in Bembo
by codeMantra
CONTENTS
List of contributors viii
Introduction 1
Cecilia Wadensjö and Laura Gavioli
PART 1
Theoretical and methodological approaches 15
1 General issues about public service interpreting: institutions, codes,

norms, and professionalisation 17
Carmen Valero-Garcés
2 The ambiguity of interpreting: ethnographic interviews with public

service interpreters 32
Kristina Gustafsson
3 Agency in and for mediating in public service interpreting 46

Claudio Baraldi
4 Cultural assumptions, positioning and power: towards a Social

Pragmatics of Interpreting 63
Ian Mason
5 Corpus-based studies of public service interpreting 76

Bernd Meyer
v
Contents
6 Technology use in language-discordant interpersonal healthcare

communication 89
Sabine Braun, Khetam Al Sharou and Özlem Temizöz
7 Public service translation: critical issues and future directions 106

Mustapha Taibi
PART 2
Exploring PSI settings 123
8 Public service interpreting in court: face-to-face interaction 125

Philipp Sebastian Angermeyer
9 Research on i nterpreter-mediated asylum interviews 140

Sonja Pöllabauer
10 Consecutive interpreting and multimodal sequences 155

Christian Licoppe
11 Vulnerable encounters? Investigating vulnerability in interpreter-

mediated services for v ictim-survivors of domestic violence and abuse 175
Rebecca Tipton
12 Public service interpreting in healthcare 192

Laura Gavioli and Raffaela Merlini
13 Challenges and remedies for interpreter-mediated dementia assessments 207

Charlotta Plejert
14 Public service interpreting in social care 225

Dorien Van De Mieroop, Antoon Cox and Koen Kerremans
15 A shared responsibility for facilitating inclusion in school settings

where sign-language interpreting is provided 242
Sigrid Slettebakk Berge
PART 3
Training and professionalization 259
16 ‘Interpreter’s mistake’: why should other professions care about the

professionalization of interpreters? 261
Hanne Skaaden
vi
Contents
17 Training sign language interpreters for public service interpreting 277

Christopher A. Stone, Cynthia B. Roy and Jeremy L. Brunson
18 Role play as a means of training and testing public service interpreting 292
Magnus Dahnberg
19 Monitoring in dialogue interpreting: cognitive and didactic perspectives 309

Elisabet Tiselius and Birgitta Englund Dimitrova
20 Blended learning is here to stay! Combining o n-line and on-campus

learning in the education of public service interpreters 325
Gry Sagli and Hanne Skaaden
21 The conversation analytic role-play method: how authentic data meet

simulations for interpreter training 342
Natacha Niemants, Jessica Pedersen Belisle Hansen and Elizabeth Stokoe
22 Training interpreters in asylum settings: the REMILAS project 362

Anna Claudia Ticca, Véronique Traverso and Emilie Jouin
23 Interprofessional education … interpreter education, in or and:

taking stock and moving forward 383
Demi Krystallidou
24 Training public service providers in how to communicate via interpreter 399

Tatjana R. Felberg and Gry Sagli
25 Education and training of public service interpreter teachers 414

Mira Kadrić and Sonja Pöllabauer
Index 429
vii
CONTRIBUTORS
Khetam Al Sharou is a Researcher at the University of Antwerp and an Honorary Research

Associate at Imperial College London. Her research looks to improve machine translation
quality and multilingual communication solutions in medical and crisis situations. Her con-
tributions include several EU/U K-f unded cross-d isciplinary projects, working alongside
developers and users.
Philipp Sebastian Angermeyer is an Associate Professor in Linguistics at York University

in Toronto, Canada. He is the author of Speak English or What? Codeswitching and Interpreter
Use in New York City Courts (2015, Oxford). Since 2018, he is co-editor of the International
Journal of Speech, Language and the Law.
Claudio Baraldi is a Professor of Sociology of Cultural and Communicative Processes at

the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy. His main interest is in methods for di-
alogic facilitation and language mediation. He has published several papers in international
books and journals and has co-edited a volume on these topics in collaboration with Laura
Gavioli.
Sabine Braun is a Director of the Centre for Translation Studies at the University of Surrey,
and a Co-Director of Surrey’s Institute for People-Centred Artificial Intelligence. Her re-
search explores human-machine interaction and integration in translation and interpreting,
especially to improve access to critical information, media content and vital public services.
Jeremy L. Brunson holds a PhD in Sociology. He is the Executive Director of the Divi-
sion of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion at Gallaudet University. His published work includes
analyses of video relay service, the academic field of Interpreting Studies, the invisible labour
of deaf people and legal interpreting.
Antoon Cox is a Professor in Multilingual and Intercultural Communication at Vrije Uni-

versiteit Brussel, a Postdoctoral Researcher and Lecturer in interpreting studies at KU Leu-
ven and an honorary visiting scholar at the School of Medical Education at King’s College
viii
Contributors
London. His research focuses on interpersonal communication in stressful multilingual

medical settings.
Magnus Dahnberg, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer and Director of the Institute for Interpret-
ing and Translation Studies (TÖI), Stockholm University. He defended his thesis in 2015
on interpreter-mediated conversations as role play. He is the former head of Swedish Armed
Forces Interpreter School, a Swedish-Russian interpreter and translator.
Birgitta Englund Dimitrova is a Professor Emerita of Translation Studies at Stockholm

University, Sweden. Her research interests are mainly in Slavic linguistics, cognition, bilin-
gualism and translation/interpreting. Publications include monographs (Expertise and Explic-
itation in the Translation Process, Benjamins, 2005), edited volumes and special issues, and a
large number of papers.
Tatjana R. Felberg is an Associate Professor of interpreting in the public sector at

OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University. Her research interests include various aspects of
interpreting in the public sector, intercultural communication and crisis communication in
different languages.
Kristina Gustafsson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Work, Lin-

naeus University, Sweden. She has conducted long-term ethnographic research on public
service interpreting in spoken languages in public service institutions in Nordic countries.
Gustafsson’s main research interests include public service interpreting, cultural encounters,
democratic practices, linguistic justice and postcolonial perspectives.
Jessica Pedersen Belisle Hansen is an Associate Professor at Østfold University College,

Norway. Her doctoral research addressed the interactional accomplishment of interpreting
in v ideo-mediated environments and was carried out at MultiLing Center for Multilingual-
ism in Society across the Lifespan at the University of Oslo. Her research interests include
language, interaction and multimodality.
Emilie Jouin is a linguistics engineer at the CNRS and works at the ICAR laboratory. She
collaborates in studies on the analysis of natural interactions. She is specialized in legal and
ethical issues about the collection and processing of audiovisual data.
Mira Kadrić is a Professor of Interpreting Studies and Didactics of Translation at the Uni-
versity of Vienna. She obtained degrees in Translation and Interpreting, PhD in Interpreting
and Law and Habilitation in Interpreting Studies and Didactics of Translation. Her research
focuses especially on empirical work on legal, political and diplomatic interpreting.
Koen Kerremans is an Associate Professor at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). He is currently

the chair of the applied linguistics section within VUB’s Faculty of Languages and Humanities.
His research focuses on topics related to terminology, multilingual and institutional communica-
tion, translation technology and public service interpreting and translation (PSIT).
Demi Krystallidou is a Senior Lecturer in Translation Studies at the Centre for Translation
Studies, University of Surrey, U K. Her research focuses on linguistically and culturally
ix
Contributors
mediated healthcare communication in primary, secondary care and mental healthcare, and
on interprofessional education in Health Sciences and Translation Studies.
Christian Licoppe is interested in conversation analysis and multimodal interaction anal-

ysis in mobile and institutional settings. He has developed several research programs on
v ideo-mediated communication, and the introduction of video links in French courts, with
a special interest in v ideo-mediated asylum proceedings and analyses of the interpreter’s
agency in multilingual courtroom proceedings.
Ian Mason is a Professor Emeritus at Heriot-Watt University. In his long career, he taught
translating, translation and interpreting studies. Recent work draws attention to a serious
mismatch between public expectations of interpreters’ performance and attested interpreter
behaviour. Current research focuses on matters of community, identity and communication
rights in interpreted encounters on n on-verbal communication and on reader response to
translations.
Raffaela Merlini is a Senior Lecturer in English language and Translation in the Depart-
ment of Law, Economics, Politics and Modern Languages at LUMSA University in Rome,
Italy. She has published in the field of Dialogue Interpreting, principally on the interactional
and socio-psychological dynamics of f ace-to-face interpreter-mediated talk in a variety of
institutional contexts.
Bernd Meyer is a linguist by training and Professor of Intercultural Communication at the

Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Germany, in the Faculty for Translation Studies,
Linguistics and Cultural Studies. His research focuses on language barriers in public service
institutions and linguistic approaches to community interpreting.
Natacha Niemants is an Associate Professor at the University of Bologna (Interpreting

and Translation Dept.), where she teaches French-Italian conference/d ialogue interpreting.
Her research focuses on interpreting in healthcare and a sylum-seeking contexts, training,
transcription and conversation analysis, and is published in international books and journals,
one authored monograph and three co-edited volumes.
Charlotta Plejert is an Associate Professor of Speech and Language Sciences. Her research
interests cover atypical interaction, often with a focus on multilingualism. She has co-edited
several volumes, for example Multilingualism and Ageing (De Bot, Plejert & Gram Simonsen,
2020) and Multilingual Interaction and Dementia (Plejert, Lindholm & Schrauf, 2017).
Sonja Pöllabauer holds a position as Professor for Interpreting Studies at the Centre
for Translation Studies, University of Vienna. She has been involved in projects on in-
terpreting in asylum procedures, healthcare interpreting and interpreter-mediated com-
munication in institutional settings, as well as the organization of training courses for lay
interpreters.
Cynthia B. Roy holds a PhD in Sociolinguistics. She is a former professor of Interpreting

Studies at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C. Her major publications are Interpreting
as a Discourse Process, and The Academic Foundations of Interpreting Studies: An Introduction to Its
Theories with Jeremy Brunson and Christopher Stone.
x
Contributors
Gry Sagli is employed as an Associate Professor at O sloMet – Oslo Metropolitan Univer-

sity, in the Department of International Studies and Interpreting. She teaches and conducts
her research in the field of interpreting in the public sector. Sagli’s background is from stud-
ies in Chinese language and culture.
Hanne Skaaden is a Professor in the Department of International Studies and Interpreting

at Oslo Metropolitan University. Her research interests cover the process of professionaliza-
tion in public service interpreting, remote interpreting, and first language attrition and the
bilingual migrant. She has extensive experience in teaching interpreting in the Norwegian
public sector.
Sigrid Slettebakk Berge is an Associate Professor in Pedagogy at Norwegian University

of Science and Technology/N TNU, within the Department for Teacher Education. Her
research interest is on interpreter-mediated education for deaf students, and interpreting for
deaf blind persons. She previously worked as an interpreter and as a teacher for interpreting
students.
Elizabeth Stokoe is a Professor of Social Interaction at Loughborough University, UK.

She conducts conversation analytic research to understand how talk works – from first dates
to medical communication and from sales encounters to hostage negotiation. She is a Wired
Innovation Fellow and in 2021 was awarded Honorary Fellowship of the British Psycholog-
ical Society.
Christopher A. Stone is a reader (a ssociate professor) in Interpreting and Translation at the
University of Wolverhampton, UK. His research interests include multimodal interpreter-
mediated interactions, in situ or via broadcast media. He maintains an active interpreting
practice and at the time of writing is the president of the World Association of Sign Language
Interpreters ( WASLI).
Mustapha Taibi is an Associate Professor in Interpreting and Translation at Western Syd-

ney University. He is also the Editor of Translation & Interpreting. His publications include
Community Translation; New Insights into Arabic Translation and Interpreting; Translating for the
Community; Multicultural Health Translation, Interpreting and Communication; and Translating
Cultures.
Özlem Temizöz is a Researcher at the University of Surrey. Özlem’s research is on lan-

guage technologies and their impact on the process, product and translator. Having done
research on translation directionality and postediting workflows, she is currently investi-
gating multilingual communication in healthcare settings and concurrent translation with
collaborative technologies.
Anna Claudia Ticca is a Researcher in Linguistics. Her main interest is the study of v ideo-
recorded social interactions in multilingual contexts, in which interpreters may participate.
Her research is also dedicated to identifying the interactional skills of professionals and rein-
vesting the results into vocational training in education, health and interpreting.
Rebecca Tipton is a Lecturer in Interpreting and Translation Studies at the University of

Manchester. Her research has explored aspects of interpreting in asylum, police and social
xi
Contributors
work settings; more recent work focuses on the development of interpreting provisions in
m id-late 20th-century Britain, particularly in the voluntary sector.
Elisabet Tiselius is an Associate Professor at Stockholm University, accredited to the EU,

Swedish state-authorized Public Service Interpreter. She is the President of the European
Society for Translation Studies and member of the SPRINT research group (VR-project
2016-01118). She is affiliated with the MC2lab (Bologna-Forlí) and TREC, Western Nor-
way University of Applied Sciences (DEPICT WP funded by Norwegian Research Council).
Véronique Traverso is a time Researcher at the National Center for Scientific

Full-
Research, in the field of conversation analysis, interactional linguistics and multimodality.
She has worked on a large range of social situations, in French, Arabic and multilingual
contexts. Since 2010, she has led several research projects on interpreter-mediated medical
consultations with refugees in France.
Carmen Valero-Garcés is a Full Professor of Translation and Interpreting at the Univer-

sity of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain, C o-director of the Postgraduate Program on PSIT and Coor-
dinator of the Research Group FITISPos (https://fitisposgrupo.web.uah.es/). She is also the
founder and co-editor of the FITISPos International Journal (https://fitisposij.web.uah.es).ceci.
Dorien Van De Mieroop is a Professor of Linguistics at KU Leuven, Belgium. Her main

research interests lie in the discursive analysis of institutional interactions – including inter-
preted interactions – and of narratives, about which she has published more than 40 articles
in peer-reviewed journals. She is co-editor of the journal Narrative Inquiry.
xii
INTRODUCTION
Modern linguistics embraces the idea that human sense making of words and other commu-
nicative resources is a social, dynamic activity. Inspired by the literary scholar and philos-
opher Michail Bachtin (1986), among others, language and communication researchers are
increasingly applying a dialogical view of language and mind (see, e.g. Linell 2009). Dialogic
theory is also the basis for several studies of interpreter-mediated interaction. Applying a
dialogical view of language and mind means, among other things, that interpreters are per-
ceived of as active participants, with their own agency, rather than as passive instruments.
Also, the everyday perception of interpreting of spontaneous talk in interaction as a simple
transfer of clear-cut messages in one language to equally unambiguous messages in an-
other language must be dismissed. A significant number of studies show that spontaneous
interpreter-mediated interaction, spoken and/or signed, are complex events, both linguisti-
cally and socially. For instance, participants may produce talk not necessarily to add content,
but also to organize the very talking. Nevertheless, in a certain sense, interpreting can be
described as a ‘monologising practice in a dialogically organized world’ (Wadensjö 2004) in
that, when interpreters perform consecutively, they tend to treat participants’ talk chunk by
chunk, regardless of whether they have been allocated the turn or take it on their own initia-
tive. When an utterance is rendered in another language, if not checked for ambiguities, it is
thus treated as a more or less unambiguous chunk of talk. Doing so, interpreters are expected
to be observant of linguistic details and of how talk fits in with the on-going exchange, an
expectation which involves interpreters’ familiarity with the larger, institutional and cultural
contexts.
Within interpreting studies, indeed all authors in this volume, perceive of interpreters as
active participants with their own agency. Yet, it can be argued, in line with, for example,
Inghilleri (2012) and Määttä (2015), that also researchers who do not see interpreters as
translation machines, but assume that they are active, sense-making participants with their
own agency, paradoxically still tend to cement the simple conduit metaphor in the view of
both communication and interpreters’ work, by their exclusive focus on interpreters’ choice
of words and expressions in the other language, that is, looking at (a nd evaluating) interpret-
ing exclusively on the basis of the ‘monologizing’ component of their activity, as one would
look at source texts in relation to target texts.
DOI: 10.4324/9780429298202-1 1
What is ‘the conduit metaphor’?

Interpreting, particularly in public service, has not been of interest exclusively to linguists
and interpreting/translation scholars. In articles in Medicine and Law journals, one some-
times finds ‘the (generic) interpreter’ described in terms of a tool that, if only maneuvered
correctly by the medical or legal expert, will work so as to not affect the case in question
in any unpredictable way. This description may be motivated by a collegial request, that
medical and legal professionals take responsibility for handling encounters with patients or
clients with whom they do not share a language, rather than handing over what might seem
in their view ‘too much’ responsibility to the interpreter. Nevertheless, the tool metaphor for
the interpreter is based on a simple but unrealistic idea that interpreters are, or can be, some
kind of n on-subjects, or translation machines, programmed to switch between languages in
some automatized way. Moreover, this view of interpreters is based on a simplistic view of
language and human communication, what linguists usually refer to as the conduit metaphor
(Reddy 1979).
The conduit metaphor becomes visible in speech and writing in phrases such as ‘h is
words expressed strong feelings’, and ‘I took my ideas from her text’. In m eta-language about
language and communication, words and phrases appear as a kind of container, into which
the speaker or the writer puts thoughts, feelings and meanings, exactly the same thoughts,
feelings and meanings that listeners and readers are expected to eventually be able to re-
trieve. The conduit metaphor ignores that all individuals are interpreting subjects, who cre-
ate meaning of words and expressions based on their respective knowledge, experiences and
expectations; in other words, that human communication is seldom completely predictable.
At the same time, the conduit metaphor is firmly established in our everyday thinking and
talking about words. The idea of words as containers of meaning is perhaps so familiar that
we, in everyday life, even have a hard time to think about language and communication in
a different way. But applied in the area of interpreting, the conduit metaphor, in Reddy’s
(1979) sense, can be quite misleading, for various reasons.
In studies of interpreting, the conduit metaphor has sometimes been used also to depict
interpreters, based again on a perception of words as containers of meaning, which inter-
preters allegedly have the task to retrieve and then load onto other containers, that is, words
in another language. Again, interpreting is depicted as something individuals do in relation
only to words that ‘have’ a meaning glued onto them, as it were, rather than in relation to
other human beings in a social context. In her groundbreaking book on sign language inter-
preting, Roy (2000: 1 01–4), also drawing on Reddy (1979), notes that the conduit metaphor
implies a number of basic assumptions about language, and simultaneously demonstrates
that, in the professionalization process of sign language interpreters, the conduit metaphor
in certain ways responded to the interpreters’ need to identify less as helpers and more as just
this – professionals.
Strongly related to the conduit metaphor in meta-language about language and com-
munication is the everyday perception of (good) interpreters as performing word-by-word
translation. In their review of interpreting practices within the Australian legal system,
Laster and Taylor (1994) shed light on what appear to be conflicting attitudes between law-
yers and interpreters as to how interpreting can and should take place. They believe that the
professions’ different perceptions and knowledge of word-for-word interpreting in them-
selves constitute a breeding ground for mistrust and believe that this mistrust would rather
increase if interpreters were to sign an unrealistic demand for w ord-for-word interpreting.
Instead of thinking of the interpreter in terms of a channel or a machine, they suggest that
2
Introduction
the court should consider the interpreter as a communication promoter and point to the need
to build mutual respect for how representatives of each profession exercise their professional
discretion, that is, how the actors take decisions founded in w ell-established professional
knowledge and professional ethics (Laster and Taylor 1994: 126). This argument, published
already in the 1990s, is no less valid today. In this volume, interpreters’ mandate and obliga-
tions in terms of professional discretion are discussed by Norwegian scholar Hanne Skaaden
(Chapter 16).
Definitions of ‘interpreting’
Research on interpreting can roughly be divided into studies focusing on the interpreting
individual and/or this individual’s cognitive processes on the one hand, and, on the other
hand, on interpreting as linguistic, communicative and social interaction. These two cat-
egories of studies are characterized by their different ways of delimiting interpreting as a
research object. In the former case, a definition of interpreting similar to that proposed by
Franz Pöchhacker is applied:
Interpreting is a form of Translation in which a first and final rendition in another

language is produced on the basis of a one-t ime presentation of an utterance in a
source language (Pöchhacker 2016: 11, bold in the original).
In Pöchhacker’s definition, translation is written with a capital T and refers to translation

in a general sense. The definition emphasizes immediacy and volatility as characteristic
features of interpreting that distinguish it from translation of written texts, but the orality
of interpreting is not specifically highlighted, which makes this definition possible to apply
also to explorations of signed language interpreting. Following this definition, the inter-
preting individual, or the cognitive operations involved when producing renditions, are
the primary objects of study. In this definition, interpreting means producing renditions of
previously spoken utterances in a source language. This implies that those speaking with the
assistance of interpreters basically are perceived of as producing utterances to be rendered
in a target language. In other words, this definition tends to disregard participants’ other
communicative projects (such as organizing the interaction, searching for words, provid-
ing minimal responses like ‘m m’ and ‘a ha’ and so forth), as well as situations and contexts.
Seemingly, this definition of interpreting has grown out of an interest in simultaneous
interpreting, where the performing interpreter is working with prepared (often in written
form) talk, rather than in the conditions of spontaneous spoken interaction. No doubt, to
interpret written speeches places different demands than to interpret spontaneous spoken
exchanges.
Interpreting can also be defined as interaction, as suggested by Wadensjö (1992; 1998).
With such an approach, the primary object of study is the interpreter-mediated situation. In
order to explore situations of this kind, Wadensjö (1998) suggests to apply sociologist Erving
Goffman’s (1981) notion of situated system of activity. In other words, in order to fully under-
stand participants’ behaviour in a social encounter of some kind, the researcher considers
not just their talk, but also the social, cultural and institutional frames which this situa-
tion entails. Defining interpreting as interaction allows for studying interpreters’ utterances
not only on the basis of their function as translations, as source texts in relation to target
texts but also on the basis of their coordinating function in the situated activity. Exploring
3
interpreting as interaction implies that all interpreter utterances are seen as having a poten-
tial impact on the content and the progression of an interpreter-mediated conversation. The
notion of a communicative pas de trois (Wadensjö 1998: 12), a communicative dance for three,
if you will, is to express that a triadic, bilingual, interpreter-mediated encounter has specific
communicative conditions that are worthwhile exploring systematically in their own right.
In spontaneous spoken interaction, the meaning that participants attribute to what is said
and done is instantly co-created as interaction unfolds. In interpreter-mediated conversations,
the interpreter is deeply involved in this sense making. The content and the progression of
talk will depend on how and when the interpreter renders in a new language what has been
said in the other. In a social encounter where the interpreter interprets consecutively, most
of the interpreter’s renditions will function as implicit coordinating moves (Wadensjö 1998: 109).
The interpreter’s talk is a prerequisite without which the monolingual participants will have
trouble going on with their exchange. The better they adapt to this specific communicative
situation, by waiting for their turns and making room for the interpreter’s renditions, the
easier the interpreter’s task will be. By speaking in parallel, by addressing the interpreter or
someone else present for side comments, by speaking very fast, indistinctly or for a very long
time, they may elicit explicit coordinating moves (Wadensjö 1998: 109) from the interpreter,
such as asking for repetition, for clarification, for time to interpret or time to s elf-correct, or
advising participants to respect each other’s right to be updated. Obviously, the more compe-
tent an interpreter is in terms of vocabulary and contextual knowledge, interpreting and co-
ordinating ability, and linguistic fluency in both languages, the better the conditions will be
for the monolingual parties to participate in the interpreted conversation, provided though,
they are focused on being each other’s interlocutors. Clearly, talking through an interpreter
is not an easy task and, for some, it may be unusual or even feel odd. So, explicit coordinat-
ing moves may sometimes be ‘the way’ in which the interlocutors learn how to participate
in interpreted interaction. Thus, learning how to use explicit coordination smoothly and
collaboratively may be an important issue in interpreters’ professionalization.
Defining interpreting as interaction opens up for studies not just of participants’ speech
production but also of their sense making based on other communicative resources (gestures,
body orientation, gaze direction, handling of artefacts and more). From this broader defini-
tion of interpreting also follows that interpreters’ p rofession-specific task in conversational
situations is perceived of as t wo-fold – to render others’ talk in a new language and, to facil-
itate the m
icro-organization of participants’ turns at talk, which, in turn, enables translation
to take place. In conclusion, while interpreting definitely includes translation activity, the
risk in defining interpreting as ‘a type of Translation’ is that of narrowing the researcher’s
view specifically to focus on words spoken as a relation between source texts and target
texts, while defining interpreting as interaction broadens the possible constituent parts of
‘interpreting’ and allows for looking at interpreters’ and primary parties’ agency in the light
of the institutional structures and frameworks within which interpreters operate, and at the
specific conditions for communication inherent in triadic or multiparty, bilingual and me-
diated encounters.
The significance of empirical studies

From the end of the 1990s, the interest of dialogue interpreting research has moved more
and more to on-field inquiries, based on the collection and analysis of data. Follow-
ing Wadensjö’s (1992; 1998) primary focus on dialogue interpreting as a situated activity,
video or audio-recorded interactions seem to provide suitable material to inquire into such
4
Introduction
situations. Collections of recorded encounters, then transcribed in detail for analysis, have
provided evidence of talk organization in interpreter-mediated settings and of interpreters’
practices in rendering and coordinating talk in interaction. Other studies like Tate and
Turner (1997/2002) or Leanza (2005; see Böser 2016 for a review) have instead collected data
through surveys or interviews with the participants in the interactions, both interpreters and
service providers, both individually and in focus groups. The latter data accounted for the
perceptions of the interlocutors about the interpreter-mediated encounters, based on their
expectations and experiences. The chapters in this volume refer, in various ways, to both
types of empirical research.
Empirical research, either showing interpreter-mediated interactional practices or high-
lighting the participants’ perceptions, has unveiled issues which make up for the debate in
public service interpreting nowadays. We deem four of them are particularly worth men-
tioning. The first is related to the features of talk in interaction, made evident in analyses
of authentic encounters. Studies on conversation, inspired by the work of sociologist Erv-
ing Goffman and then re-organized into an analytical methodology (Sacks, Schegloff and
Jefferson 1974), with a focus on institutional interaction (Drew and Heritage 1992), have
shown that no talk can be produced without the interlocutors reacting to each other’s con-
tributions and making sense of them. In conversation, even small interactional signals like
“m hm” or eye gaze, or even silence, contribute to the c o-construction of the interaction (see
Gardner 2001). These items may allow for the other interlocutor to go on or start speaking
or may indicate that they are expected to speak to someone else than the interlocutor who
is keeping silent. The fact that, in talk, even silence is a form of participation created more
than a challenge to a view of interpreting in which one of the interlocutors, the interpreter,
needs to interfere as little as possible in communication. In fact, interpreters do contribute
in talk sometimes with ‘co-constructive’ contributions like providing feedback to allow for
the interlocutors to actually produce talk. This is for instance the case in healthcare inter-
action where the interpreters help hesitating patients to go on talking (Leanza, Isabelle and
Rosenberg 2013; Theys et al. 2020) or in asylum seeking interactions where the interpreters
collaborate with the applicants’ narration development, while still allowing themselves space
to render (Pöchhacker 2012: 64–66; Pöllabauer, this volume and also Wadensjö, Rehnberg
and Nikolaidou 2022). How to precisely handle the features of talk, and participation in talk,
in the profession and in the training of professionals is still a matter of debate (see Ticca et al.
this volume, Niemants et al. this volume).
The second issue foregrounding empirical research concerns the subjects that are ob-
served, the interpreters in particular. The following are some questions pointing to the prob-
lems raised. If an interpreter, in the interaction, provides mhm and allows for continuation of
a participant’s turn, co-constructing an extended one, is it evidence of a feature of talk or of
the interpreter’s lack of professionalism? Is mhm the talk equivalent of note taking in speech
consecutive interpreting or a manifestation that the interpreter has lost talk coordination?
Focus groups and interviews show interpreters’ recurrent complaints that institutional pro-
viders and service seekers do not appropriately relate to the interpreters’ work, expecting
machine behaviour on the one hand or personal protection and even advocacy on the other.
Is this an expression of the interpreters’ n on-expertise? Of their inefficiency in coordinating
talk? Does it suggest the necessity of familiarizing interpreting service users with what it
means to talk through an interpreter? These questions have to do with the actual reliabil-
ity of the professionals observed in empirical studies. So, while on the one hand empirical
studies provide an amount of information about the interpreter-mediated encounter, infor-
mation may be skewed by the quality of informants. The quality of informants is, however,
5
‘ informative’ in sè, both in relation to the interpreting professionals available (a s well as the
professional service providers) and in the type of interaction they construe. The chapters in
this volume show the relevance of inquiries based on informants, but the problem of which
informants is likewise addressed (most explicitly in Chapter 16 by Hanne Skaaden).
The third issue raised by empirical research has to do with the specificities of the services
involved. While engagement in talk with one of the participants has been found relevant in
healthcare interpreting to optimise talk, putting the patients at ease (Penn and Watermeyer
2012) or encouraging them to talk about their problems (Gavioli 2012: 213–14; see also
Angelelli 2004), in other types of settings, such engagement may not work in the same way.
In immigration procedures, for instance, direct answers of interpreters to the service provid-
ers, though ‘quicker’ and possibly efficient in terms of talk exchange, reduce the opportunity
for the immigration applicants to show themselves as capable and competent, an opportunity
that is fundamental in this type of encounter (Mason 2009: 62). So, as in monolingual talk,
in interpreted talk different practices come at stake in different settings and may account for
the situated effectiveness of the interpreter’s work. The characteristics of the main settings
where PSI occurs, dealt with in section 2 of this volume, give a clear idea of the complexity
of public service interpreting work and account for the necessity that interpreters are able to
interpret the situation, together with (and ‘in’) the utterances that make it up, and are prepared
to exercise discretion in accommodating their interpreting practices to the situated activity.
The fourth issue highlighted by empirical data is the human intensity of the situations
involved in PSI. Illness, poverty, lack of freedom, rape, murder and other types of violence
are often the object of healthcare, legal and support services offered to foreign residents. Such
situations pose, more than others, the problem of empathic involvement of the interpreter
as a person as well as the problem of the treatment of empathy in talk (how to show its rele-
vance, how to render it). The problem is d ouble-sided, calling for the management of both
situations of potential sympathy for those who are perceived as the victims, and repulsion,
for those who are in horrible faults, like violent people and murderers (see Gustafsson this
volume). In these cases, it may not be easy for interpreters to discern what is the best possible
service that they can provide.
The chapters in the volume tackle the four issues summarized above by providing con-
crete examples as well as reflections helping interpreters and providers to grasp the nuances
and responsibilities concerning their participation in situations that may involve various
kinds of sensitivity and challenges. They provide more knowledge about the diverse situa-
tions and suggestions about how to provide effective service.
Interpreting as a resource for improving communication

in the public services
In this volume, interpreting is shown as a powerful resource to improve communication
in public services. There are at least three reasons why the public sector needs interpreting
services. The first and probably most obvious is that it is extremely hard for service providers
to communicate with users whose languages they cannot understand and speak. Although
this point has been debated, for instance in medical interpreting literature, where providers
have sometimes observed that the patients’ feelings and sensations are visible through their
bodies and faces and do not need translation (Hsieh and Nicodemus 2015: 1475), a desperate
need for interpreting has been made fully evident in situations where none is available. Lack
of availability has resulted, quite systematically, in an increasing involvement of ‘anyone-
translating-please’, be it a bilingual relative or friend, or staff member. The problems of
6
Introduction
these ad hoc solutions have been underlined in the literature (e.g. by Pöchhacker and Kadriç
1999), and possible ways of making them fruitful have been discussed (Bührig and Meyer
2004; Jansson, Wadensjö and Plejert 2017). What ad hoc interpreting has highlighted first
and foremost, however, is an unequivocal necessity for interpreting services’ availability in
public service encounters.
The second reason is related to the participation, in service encounters, of an interloc-
utor, the interpreter, specifically working on communication. The difference in language
is not the only difference highlighted in interpreter-mediated public service encounters, a
difference in the type of knowledge possessed by service providers and seekers is very much
at stake too. The work of interpreters (see, e.g. Raymond 2014) has highlighted the amount
of competence needed in building shared knowledge, by making clear or explicit those items
that may not mean much to one of the interlocutors (see also Mason 2006). While such a
difference in knowledge is well known from studies in monolingual interaction, interpreted
interaction as well as narratives of interpreters’ experiences give clear illustrations of (a) cases
in which the differences may be more relevant and crucial, and (b) ways in which they can be
treated. These cases show the functioning of asymmetric communication and may improve
communication in public services, not only when foreign speakers are involved, but for all
service seekers.
The third and possibly less obvious reason why interpreting is a powerful resource for
public services is that interpreters’ experience provides an incredibly rich amount of infor-
mation about what such services are in fact. A number of studies in this volume provide nar-
ratives showing that services may still be inadequate and unprepared to work in a changed
environment where service-seekers are no longer monolingual and autochthonous and sug-
gest possible improvements in the regulations or in the training of service providers. This
point too, which is well argued in Chapter 2 by Kristina Gustafsson, may provide benefits
not only for PSI, but for public services more in general.
Despite these strong points which make PSI an undoubtable resource, some studies, par-
ticularly in healthcare settings, have found that interpreters may negatively interfere in the
dynamics of public service encounters (Davidson 2000; Hsieh 2007; see Gavioli and Merlini
this volume). This poses again the problem of staff adequate preparation and the search for
effective ways of training both interpreting and service providers. In this volume, we have
dedicated an entire section, the third one to the problems associated with the training of the
personnel involved in PSI. These problems are related to poor knowledge of the PSI situa-
tions, including little or no knowledge of how interaction works, the languages involved and
the necessity to include also practical training, how to involve service providers, how to train
those who train interpreters and service providers.
Public Service Interpreting and Mediation

Service seekers requiring interpreting services are typically people who not only speak a dif-
ferent language, but who often come from backgrounds with different institutional systems,
traditions, habits and values. These differences, grouped together, are referred to as ‘cultural’
differences and provide a reason why PSI may be considered as a form of intercultural com-
munication. Cultural differences create concern in the public services, for the possibility
that the seekers’ different expectations about what the service can do for them might lead to
non-compliance with the service requirements. Possibly for this reason, ‘mediating’ cultural
differences in PSI has sometimes been considered prior and in some way additional to the
interpreting activity at stake (Merlini 2009).
7
Indeed, as will be shown in the chapters in this volume, in an asymmetric type of interac-
tion as we have in public service encounters, little or no familiarity with the services combined
with little or no knowledge of the language used make interpreted PS interactions even more
asymmetric, leading to argue that this, sometimes, huge imbalance needs to be addressed in
interpreting to allow for communication to occur (Mason and Ren 2012). As explained by
Claudio Baraldi in Chapter 3, the concept of mediation comes from studies in monolingual
conflict management, and, as such, conflict may easily be intended as an idea inherent to me-
diation, even in reference to interpreted mediation. Since huge asymmetries may provoke con-
flict, then mediation in PSI may involve dealing with potential or emerging ‘cultural’ conflicts.
While, as this volume shows, there is no doubt that PSI occurs in situations of strong
asymmetry and with vulnerable participants, attributing asymmetry and vulnerability to
cultural differences may have several drawbacks. First, using culture as an explanatory tool
for obstacles in communication may result in ‘othering’ minority patients, thus hiding rather
than highlighting communication problems (Felberg and Skaaden 2012). Second, interpret-
ers’ attempts to explain what may be perceived as unusual participants’ behaviour in terms
of different habits, traditions or values may in fact result in the production of stereotypes
(Barbieri 2009). Third, mediating ‘cultures’ by attributing individuals to cultural groups
deprives these individuals of the opportunity of participating in the interaction ‘as per-
sons’, with personal expression being interpreted (a nd possibly misinterpreted) in the light of
‘g roup features’ (Baraldi 2012: 323).
While mediation of ‘cultures’, whatever it means, may be one way to look at mediation
in PSI, restricting the concept to cultures has clear limitations. Studies observing interpreted
interactions (for instance Wadensjö 1998; Angelelli 2004, 2012; Penn and Watermeyer 2012)
have suggested that interpreting work can enhance both understanding and positive rela-
tionships through interactional practices. Possibly the strongest theoretical explanation of
mediation as occurring through interpreting work is provided by Wadensjö’s concept of co-
ordination (1998: 105), which we discussed above. In their coordinating activity, interpreters
are active agents who influence and regulate communication, generating a common focus
and sustaining the definition of encounters.
Coordination occurs through the selection of rendition forms as well as other interpret-
ers’ contributions, including forms of intercultural mediation: original utterances’ intended/
possible meaning is negotiated interactionally and the renditions to follow are designed as to
allow participants share understanding and rapport.
Shared understanding and rapport does clearly not necessarily mean that the interlocutors
are empathic with each other or that they can accommodate with each other perspectives.
Quite the contrary, as shown in the volume, problematic and even conflictual situations
occur in PSI and there may be cases where ambiguity and deception are involved too. Inter-
action, even conflictual interaction, however, occurs with at least two – in the case of in-
terpreted talk at least three – participants ‘participating’ – even to construct ambiguities,
deception and conflict. Even though the latter situations pose tough constraints on interpret-
ing and possibly the necessity of pointing to the existence of ambiguity (or deception) quite
explicitly, t alk-coordination, we believe, is the type of mediation activity mostly at stake in
interpreter-mediated work.
The contributions in this volume

The volume is divided in three parts. The first is dedicated to the main theoretical issues
and debates which have shaped research on PSI; the second discusses the characteristics of
8
Introduction
interpreting in the settings which have been most in need of PSI services; the third provides
reflections and suggestions on interpreter as well as provider training, with an aim to im-
prove PSI services. Below, we provide a sketch of the main issues dealt with in each chapter,
in the order given in the table of contents. The threads connecting the chapters are however
many more than those that can be highlighted in this introduction: a section called ‘Related
topics’ at the end of each chapter guides the reader to explore links and connections among
the topics and problems dealt with in the contributions.
The opening chapter by Carmen Valero-Garcés offers an overview of the main challenges
characterising the field of Public Service Interpreting, most notably, the great variety of lan-
guages to cope with (together with a lack of interpreters for many of these languages), the
asymmetric relationships involved in situations where health, freedom and other fragilities
are at stake, and the effort of the public sector in providing adequate (or sometimes inade-
quate) services in these situations. The main controversies are discussed regarding interpret-
ers’ ethics and participation in the development of PSI as a profession.
The following three chapters deal with qualitative research perspectives and discuss, from
different angles, ways in which interpreters’ participation in public service encounters gives
evidence of and may contribute to social change. Kristina Gustafsson in C hapter 2 introduces
an ethnographic approach to the study of PSI. On the basis of interviews with interpreters
working in public settings, she shows unexpected features of building dialogic relationships
guaranteeing equal access and representation in the interaction. Besides illustrating an ap-
plication of the ethnographic approach to the study of PSI, Gustafsson suggests that the per-
spective of interpreters as well as the narration of their experiences may be a rich source of
information not only about the provision of interpreting service, but also, and most notably,
about the provision of public service to minorities, showing aspects that would otherwise get
overlooked. In Chapter 3, Claudio Baraldi discusses sociological approaches to the notion
of agency suggesting that agency does not cover any action by participants in the interaction,
but those which create visible social change. While this perspective on agency may be chal-
lenging for interpreters’ participation, in that interpreters have the task to guarantee that the
other participants participate first and foremost and in their own will, Baraldi shows examples
from authentic interpreter-mediated interaction where mediators are given the opportunity
and take the chance to make a difference, by promoting migrant women’s inclusion and
providers’ attention for their health and psychological conditions. In Chapter 4, Ian Mason’s
contribution discusses notions foregrounding a pragmatic view of PSI research. Starting
from the ideas of identity, position and power, Mason first highlights a distinction between
institutional and interactive power and then looks at how interactive power may affect in-
stitutional power through conversational uptake, reinforcing weak participants’ voices or,
alternatively, the power of institutional representatives. Mason’s reflection offers a compre-
hensive outlook on the complex relationship between language and context and shows that
notions like positioning, cultural assumptions and power are dynamic ones. He suggests that
the intersections among these notions account for the construction and rendition of meaning
in context, thus moving towards what may be called a social pragmatics of interpreting.
An increasing interest of PSI studies for data, like transcripts of interpreted interactions, has
brought to the creation of collections that can be stored and classified as to become shared re-
search materials. Thus corpus-based methods of archiving, categorizing and interrogating the
data are now finding their way into interpreting studies in general, and PSI studies in particu-
lar. This expanding field of research is presented and discussed by Bernd Meyer in Chapter 5,
together with an illustration of one of the few, possibly the only publicly available corpus of
PSI today, the Community Interpreting Database (A ngermeyer, Meyer and Schmidt 2012).
9
The two chapters concluding part 1 reflect on the integration of different media in public
service interpreting and translation. First, the use of technology to assist, complement and/or
replace human interpreters has started to expand in the PSI area, with an increased demand
for distant communication to both cope with the problem of finding suitable interpreting
services when needed and to deal with isolation requirements, which not least the Covid-19
pandemics brought to the fore. In C hapter 6, Sabine Braun, Khetam Al Sharou and Özlem
Temizöz discuss the main types of technologies used in interpreting interaction in healthcare
and focus on the ways in which technology re-shapes the interaction as well as the connected
challenges for interpreters and service providers. In the seventh and last chapter of part 1,
Mustapha Taibi discusses the issues involved in translating written documents for the public
service. While the medium, written rather than spoken language, allows for more consulta-
tion with the public service stakeholders, the issue of accessibility is one of fundamental im-
portance in public service translation, requiring a strong commitment of translators to orient
to the readers’ expectations and knowledge as well as the situation in which these documents
need to be read and understood. A possibly extreme example given by Taibi, still offering a
clear idea of what ‘situated’ public service translation may mean, is that of crisis scenarios, in
which full and clear information may help reduce the loss of lives.
Moving to part 2, the first three chapters deal with PSI in legal settings, face-to-face and
remote. Philipp Angermeyer in C hapter 8 highlights general as well as particular contextual
issues affecting interpreting in court, for instance distinguishing between interpreting in
cross-examination or inquisitorial proceedings, in which questions have different purposes
and targets. The chapter also discusses the contribution of studies from different disciplines,
like linguistics, anthropology, sociology and law and addresses the crucial issue of personal
deixis in situated court interpreting activities. In Chapter 9 Sonja Pöllabauer outlines the de-
velopment of the subfield ‘interpreter-mediated asylum interviews’, providing an overview
of recurrent and salient issues on research exploring authentic discourse data. One of these
issues is dealt with at length in Chapter 10 by Christian Licoppe. Drawing on video record-
ings of naturally occurring courtroom proceedings concerning asylum cases, this chapter
demonstrates how the introduction of video links in courtrooms can affect the conditions
for interpreters’ work, and also for the production of other participants’ questions and nar-
ratives. Using ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (EM/CA), Licoppe generates
new knowledge about the impact of participants’ location in relation to each other, and about
the interdependence between actors’ communicative projects. At the same time, he demon-
strates the explanatory power of EM/CA as a theoretical and methodological approach to
studies of consecutively interpreted interaction. A very particular type of legal setting is that
of v ictim-survivors of domestic violence and abuse, dealt with in C hapter 11 by Rebecca
Tipton. Besides showing cases of testimony of women’s experiences of domestic violence, the
chapter offers a more general reflection on the idea of personal and contextual vulnerability.
The other major traditional area in which PSI services are most needed, besides court
and other legal settings, is health care. Laura Gavioli and Raffaela Merlini in Chapter 12
discuss clinician-patient interpreting on the basis of two apparently divergent purposes, that
of providing appropriate medical therapy and that of giving patients care, attention and reas-
surance. Following studies on healthcare in monolingual contexts, eliciting patients’ stories
of experience, worries and fear is helpful for the clinicians to provide adequate cures and it
is thus part of the task of interpreting to consider this double goal in medical encounters.
Still in the medical area, C hapter 13 by Charlotta Plejert deals with the specific situation of
mental health. Here, patients’ tests include work based on repeating sounds, naming familiar
or unfamiliar objects, recognising situations. While such tests may not be easy for patients
10
Introduction
with mental disorders in general, in c ross-cultural encounters where familiarity of sounds,

objects and situations may not be shared, they may be particularly hard to handle and in-
terpreters are tackled with the double task of (a) finding suitable equivalents in the patient’s
language, fitting the test purposes and (b) refrain from supporting patients’ comprehension,
which would invalidate the test.
Public service interpreting in social care is the topic dealt with in C hapter 14. As the
authors Dorien Van De Mieroop, Antoon Cox and Koen Kerremans state, interpreting in
social care is less studied than interpreter-mediated legal and medical encounters. The chap-
ter first provides an overview of some of the most explored topics in this subfield. Among
these is the issue of interpreters’ involvement, which hardly is unique to the field of social
care, but which has been scarcely explored on real life empirical data drawn from social care
encounters. The very presence of an interpreter, or of a certain interpreter, as well as the
absence of any interpreter, or the use of other bilingual professionals (or non-professionals)
in the role of interpreter – all are factors that may complicate the establishment of rapport
between institutional representatives and clients, the authors argue, emphasising that rapport
is crucial in social care contexts. The last chapter in the second p art – Chapter
15, by Sigrid
Slettebakk Berge, focuses on a likewise not much studied PSI area, that of educational set-
tings. Drawing on unique video recordings from classrooms, where students with signed and
spoken language respectively are together, she explores the conditions for interpreting, for
learning and for teaching and concludes that these conditions can be considerably improved
if interpreters and teachers collaborate in class in a systematic way.
Part three of the handbook has more on participants’ collaboration. Interpreter edu-
cation is discussed as a key element to enhance interpreter status and consequently their
professionalization, but also as a way to improve public services. In the first chapter, Hanne
Skaaden, within a general model of professionalization, shows that although public service
interpreting fulfils the performative aspects of professional activity, the organizational aspect
in terms of education, is not sufficiently developed. The author argues that this situation does
not only hold back the process of interpreter professionalization, but may also have negative
consequences for the professional integrity of those in charge of institutional encounters and
subsequently for the integrity of their clients. The following chapter, written by Christopher
Stone, Cynthia Roy and Jeremy Brunson, suggests that the education of signed language
interpreters for public service interpreting has much to offer for organisers of spoken lan-
guages PSI. In Chapter 17 in fact the authors describe the development of signed language
education in the European Union, the United States and in Australia and show that there
are fewer differences between spoken and signed languages than many may think when it
comes to education and practice. Quite some space is devoted to innovative curricula and
teaching. For instance, v ideo-recorded student role-plays and how these can constitute situ-
ated learning are discussed at length. C hapter 18 by Magnus Dahnberg is focused entirely on
role play as a means of training and testing PSI for signed and spoken languages alike. The
author draws on sound recordings of spoken role plays to demonstrate their various design
and suitability for specific purposes. For example, role plays based on detailed manuscripts
differ in significant ways from role plays relying on role cards, which also implies that their
suitability for learning and testing purposes differ.
In Chapter 19, Elisabet Tiselius and Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, using discourse data
from scripted role plays, focus on interpreters’ cognitive processes and suggest to use the
concept of monitoring, as defined in three different research traditions, to discuss the im-
pact and importance of interpreters’ cognitive abilities in face-to-face encounters. As the
authors demonstrate, interaction shows evidence of interpreters monitoring the discourse
11
in adjusting their contributions (for instance in self-repair and in asking for clarification or
repeat). It is not likewise easy to establish the relationship between interpreters’ memory
load to their coordinating competence or to various types of contributions from the other
participants, to participants’ knowledge of institutional procedures, mutual expectations and
so forth. The chapter gives food for thought for reflections on such a link/connection and
suggests that exercises on monitoring cognitive load are needed in the training of interpret-
ers for PSI.
Covid-19 accelerated the development of online education worldwide, even if the phe-
nomenon is far from new. In C hapter 20, Gry Sagli and Hanne Skaaden provide an overview
of research on what has been called blended learning, that is, combination of online and
on-campus education, as this has developed in various disciplines and educational programs.
Subsequently, the authors account for the blended learning model that has been established
in the BA programme for public service interpreters at Oslo Metropolitan University. The
chapter shows what learning aims can be acquired online and for what aims on-campus ac-
tivities seem more appropriate. Also, the authors emphasize that didactics that stimulate stu-
dent interactivity is essential in creating opportunity for learning, whether on-site or online.
The two following chapters focus on the use of recordings and transcripts of authen-
tic mediated encounters in the training of interpreters. Natacha Niemants,
interpreter-
Pedersen Belisle Hansen and Elizabeth Stokoe in Chapter 21 explore the use of the so-called
Conversation Analytic Role-Play Method (CARM), originally developed to train for dispute
mediation, in the training of interpreters. While this method, as other types of role-plays,
involves simulation, it has the advantage of showing interpreting problems which really took
place, selecting them over a range of authentic materials and asking trainees to discuss how
the problem might be solved in the specific situation. Similar to what occurs in conversa-
tion analysis, in which recordings and transcripts allow researchers to repeat the event in a
sort of ‘slow-motion’ mode which makes the event analysable, in CARM training, trainees
can deal with the interpreting problem ‘in slow-motion’, discussing possible renditions and
their consequences. C hapter 22 by Anna Claudia Ticca, Véronique Traverso and Emilie
Jouin provides a recounting of the REMILAS (Refugees, Migrants and their Languages
in healthcare services) research project. The project examines communication and mutual
understanding in multilingual health, mental and social care consultations, thus linking up
to other contributions in the volume both dealing with asylum seeking and healthcare. The
focus of the chapter is on the development of a training program used to train both interpret-
ers and providers and based on natural interpreter-mediated talk. Besides providing more
suggestions about how to use authentic data in training, the chapter shows a completely new
program based on self-learning modality and accessible via digital instruments.
Chapter 23 aims at introducing a specific kind of interprofessional education (IPE) as a
teaching and learning model in the field of PSI. Demi Krystallidou takes education in the
healthcare s ector – where IPE was first d eveloped – as a case in point and shares her experi-
ences and critical reflections concerning the use of IPE in h ands-on training sessions, where
PSI students and medical students learn to collaborate in practice. In Chapter 24, Tatjana R.
Felberg and Gry Sagli share their experiences of training public service providers represent-
ing different institutions in how to communicate via interpreters. The authors argue for the
importance of such training and for making it easily available for various groups of public
service providers. The final chapter in the handbook is devoted to education and training of
public service interpreter teachers. In C hapter 25 Mira Kadrić and Sonja Pöllabauer outline
research on the education of teachers for dialogue interpreting, with a specific focus on PSI,
without differentiating between signed and spoken language interpreting or any particular
12
Introduction
institutional setting. The chapter discusses methodological and didactic approaches to teach-
ing and learning which implies that the issues, knowledge and skills brought up can be ap-
plicable not just to teachers but in a wider field of interpreting.
References
Angelelli, Claudia (2004) Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communication. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
——— (2012) “Challenges in interpreters’ coordination of the construction of pain”, in Coordinating
Participation in Dialogue Interpreting, Claudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli (eds). Amsterdam, Benja-
mins: 251–68.
Angermeyer, Philipp S., Bernd Meyer, and Thomas Schmidt (2012) “Sharing community interpreting
corpora: A pilot study”, in Multilingual Corpora and Multilingual Corpus Analysis, Thomas Schmidt
and Kai Wörner (eds). Hamburg Studies in Multilingualism 14, Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 2 75–94.
Bachtin, Mikhail (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist
(eds), trans. Vern W. McGee. Austin, University of Texas Press.
Baraldi, Claudio (2012) “Interpreting as dialogic mediation: The relevance of expansions”, in Coor-
dinating Participation in Dialogue Iinterpreting, Claudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli (eds). Amsterdam,
Benjamins: 297–326.
Barbieri, Viola (2009) “La traduzione della diversità culturale nell’interazione mediata”, in La Media-
zione L inguistico-Culturale: una prospettiva interazionista, Laura Gavioli (ed). Perugia, Guerra: 203–30.
Böser, Ursula (2016) “Interviews and focus groups”, in Researching Translation and Interpreting, Claudia
Angelelli and Brian James Baer (eds). London/New York, Routledge: 236–46.
Bührig, Kristin and Bernd Meyer (2004) “Ad hoc interpreting and achievement of communicative
purposes in briefings for informed consent”, in Multilingual Communication, Juliane House and
Jochen Rehbein (eds). Amsterdam, Benjamins: 43–61.
Davidson, Brad (2000) “The interpreter as institutional gatekeeper: The social-linguistic role of inter-
preters in Spanish–English medical discourse”, Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (3): 3 79–405.
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage (1992) Talk at Work. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Felberg, Tatjana R., and Hanne Skaaden (2012) “The (de)construction of culture in interpreter-
mediated medical discourse”, Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series. Themes in Translation Studies 11:
67–84.
Gardner, Rod (2001) When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Gavioli, Laura (2012) “M inimal responses in interpreter-mediated medical talk”, in Coordinating Par-
ticipation in Dialogue Interpreting, Claudio Baraldi and Laura Gavioli (eds). Amsterdam, Benjamins:
201‒28.
Goffman, Erving (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hsieh, Elaine (2007) “Interpreters as co-diagnosticians: Overlapping roles and services between pro-
viders and interpreters”, Social Science & Medicine 64: 924–37.
Hsieh, Elaine, and Brenda Nicodemus (2015) “Conceptualizing emotion in healthcare interpreting: A
normative approach to interpreters’ emotion work”, Patient Education and Counseling 98: 1474–81.
Inghilleri, Moira (2012) Interpreting Justice: Ethics, Politics, and Language. New York/L ondon, Routledge.
Jansson, Gunilla, Cecilia Wadensjö, and Charlotta Plejert (2017). “Managing complaints in multi-
lingual care encounters”, Multilingua 36 (3): 3 13–46. (Published o n-l ine 28.03.17) Open Access.
https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2016– 0 0043
Laster, Kathy, and Veronica L. Taylor (1994) Interpreters and the Legal System. Sydney, The Federation Press.
Leanza, Yvan (2005) “Roles of community interpreters in paediatrics as seen by interpreters, physi-
cians and researchers”, Interpreting 7 (2): 67–192.
Leanza, Yvan, Boivin Isabelle, and Ellen Rosenberg (2013) “The patient’s Lifeworld: Building mean-
ingful clinical encounters between patients, physicians and interpreters”, Communication & Medicine
10: 13–25.
Linell, Per (2009) Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories
of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC, Information Age Publishing.
Määttä, Simo (2015) “Interpreting the discourse of reporting: The case of screening interviews with
asylum seekers and police interviews in Finland”, Translation & Interpreting 7 (3): 21–35. http://d x.
doi.org/10.12807/t i.107203.2015.a02
13
Mason, Ian (2006) “On mutual accessibility of contextual assumptions in dialogue interpreting”, Journal
of Pragmatics 38: 359–73.
——— (2009) “Role, positioning and discourse in f ace-to-f ace interpreting”, in Interpreting and Trans-
lating in Public Service Settings, Raquel De Pedro Ricoy, Isabelle Perez, and Christine Wilson (eds).
Manchester, St. Jerome: 5 2–73.
Mason, Ian and Wen Ren (2012) “Power in face-to-face interpreting events”, Translation and Interpret-
ing Studies 7 (2): 233‒52.
Merlini, Raffaela (2009a) “Seeking asylum and seeking identity in a mediated encounter: The projection
of selves through discursive practices”, Interpreting 11 (1): 57–92.
Penn, Claire, and Jennifer Watermeyer (2012) “W hen asides become central: Small talk and big talk
in interpreted health interactions”, Patient Education and Counseling 88: 391–98.
Pöchhacker, Franz (2012) “Interpreting participation: Conceptual analysis and illustration of the in-
terpreter’s role in interaction”, in Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting, Claudio Baraldi
and Laura Gavioli (eds). Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 45–70.
——— (2016) Introducing Interpreting Studies. 2nd ed. London/New York, Routledge.
Pöchhacker, Franz, and Mira Kadriç (1999) “The hospital cleaner as healthcare interpreter: A case
study”, The Translator 5 (2): 147–60. Special Issue on Dialogue Interpreting Ian Mason (ed).
Raymond, C.W. (2014) “Epistemic brokering in the interpreter-mediated medical visit: Negotiating
‘patient’s side’ and ‘doctor’s side’ knowledge”, Research on Language and Social Interaction 47 (4):
426–46.
Reddy, Michael J. (1979) “The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about lan-
guage”, in Metaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony (ed). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press:
284–324.
Roy, Cynthia B. (2000) Interpreting as a Discourse Process. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson (1974) “A simplest systematics for the organi-
zation of t urn-taking for conversation”, Language 50: 696–736.
Tate, Granville and Graham Turner (1997/2002) “The code and the culture: S ign-language interpreting –
in search of the new breed’s ethics”, in The Interpreting Studies Reader, Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam
Shlesinger (eds). London, Routledge: 373–83.
Theys, Laura, Demi Krystallidou, Heidi Salaets, Cornelia Wermuth, and Peter Pype (2020) “Emotion
work in interpreter-mediated consultations: A systematic literature review”, Patient Education and
Counseling 103 (1): 33–43.
Wadensjö, Cecilia (1992) Interpreting as Interaction: On Dialogue Interpreting in Immigration Hearings and
Medical Encounters (PhD diss.). Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No. 83, Linköping, Tema
Kommunikation.
——— (1998) Interpreting as Interaction. London, Longman.
——— (2004) “Dialogue interpreting: A monologising practice in a dialogically organised world”, Tar-
get. International Journal of Translation Studies 16 (1): 105–24. https://doi.org/10.1075/t arget.16.1.06wad
Wadensjö, Cecilia, Hanna Sofia Rehnberg, and Zoe Nikolaidou (2022) “Managing a discourse of
reporting: The complex composing of an asylum narrative”, Multilingua (published online May 24,
2022), https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2022- 0 017.
14
PART 1
Theoretical and methodological

approaches
1
GENERAL ISSUES ABOUT
PUBLIC SERVICE INTERPRETING
Institutions, codes, norms, and professionalisation
Introduction
Although public service interpreting (PSI) is one of the first forms of intercultural commu-
nication in history, it has only recently been defined as a professional and communicative
activity. It has also become the subject of academic research. According to Wadensjö (1998:
49), whose definition of PSI was one of the first to be recorded, PSI refers to interpreting
in public services to facilitate communication between staff and laypeople meeting for a
particular purpose. While Wadensjö refers to PSI as a form of social interaction, capturing
the perspectives of both parties involved in institutional encounters, Mikkelson (1996: 19)
offers a definition based on PSI as a concern at the macro level of society, considering it an
activity that facilitates equal access to legal services, healthcare, education and social services
to groups of people belonging to cultural or linguistic minorities who generally have lower
levels of education and income and are often unfamiliar with or unaccustomed to the new
social reality in the country in which they reside. Ozolins (2000: 32), among many others,
emphasises what he calls the ‘institution-driven’ characteristic of PSI, which highlights how
the institutional policies of each country affect its professionalisation.
The difficulties in defining this field of practice are also illustrated by the absence of a
common name. The variety of expressions used to address this activity illustrates the point:
community interpreting, liaison interpreting, interpreting in social services, dialogue inter-
preting, PSI and translation, and there are even specific names based on professionals and
their areas of expertise, such as healthcare interpreter, intercultural health mediator, cultural
interpreter, community interpreter, legal interpreter or public service interpreter to name
but a few. The two terms most used nowadays to refer to the activity are PSI and commu-
nity interpreting. The latter is the most employed expression in some countries, including
the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The United Kingdom and some
European countries prefer PSI or public service interpreting and translation over community
interpreting to prevent confusion with translation/interpreting work performed by amateurs
on a voluntary basis (Corsellis 2002: 32).
Since the second half of the twentieth century, PSI has developed significantly as an aca-
demic discipline within Translation and Interpreting Studies (TIS). A closer look at research
in TIS shows abundant literature describing cases where family members, children, friends
DOI: 10.4324/9780429298202-3 17
or anyone speaking or understanding two languages may help break language barriers in
hospitals, police stations, social work offices or immigration departments. The literature
also highlights training experiences or projects related to lesser-used languages (Bot 2003;
Burdeus-Domingo et al. 2020).
What emerges from this literature is PSI’s journey from an informal activity to an occu-
pation and eventually to a fully fledged profession. Tseng’s (1992) professionalisation model
of new occupations in four stages might serve as a framework of reference (for an analysis of a
different model of the professionalisation process, see Skaaden, 2018). Tseng’s model outlines
four stages: (1) market disorder and fierce competition among the practitioners of the pro-
fession in question, with a complete lack of social recognition; (2) development of consensus
about practitioners’ aspirations; (3) creation of professional associations and codes of conduct,
giving professionals higher social recognition and prestige; (4) adherence to the code of eth-
ics and control of entry to the profession, which consolidates the profession’s establishment.
Nevertheless, as Mikkelson (1996) points out, progressing from stages 1 to 4 does not happen
overnight, and boundaries between the different stages may be blurred and not identifiable.
This chapter explores some of the controversies and critical issues that have dominated
this process. It will include reflections on critical issues related to institutional relationships
and PSI, codes, norms and PSI’s professionalisation.
Institutional contexts and PSI

PSI can be broadly understood as interpreting in institutional contexts when public service
providers and users speak different languages. The relationship between the institutional
contexts and multilingual PSI encounters will be carried out in three distinct steps: (a) types
of interactions, (b) identification of challenges and (c) methods and tools to cope with such
challenges.
Types of interactions
Narrowing the gap between the administration and each resident in a specific area requires a
smooth operating system which Corsellis (2008: 71–89) visualises as a chain formed by three
fundamental components: public service providers; interpreters, mediators or intermediaries
that make communication possible; and users that are not proficient in the language in which
the services are provided.
Institutional encounters have many traits in common, but the interactions are diverse
(Agar 1985). There is an institution-individual relationship, and there is also an individual-
individual relationship. In the first type of interaction – institution-individual – the mi-
grant approaches the institutions or public service, seeking a service that existed before the
migrant/individual arrived at the host location. Consequently, the institutions have estab-
lished protocols, values, and operations specifically required to access their services. In the
second type of interaction – that is, individual-individual – providers do not systematically
apply the same criteria to every service-
seeker: instead, they act according to a personal
framework supported by the training they have received, their familiarity with potential
cultural differences, their linguistic knowledge, their own life experience within and outside
their country, or even their prejudices. Furthermore, the complexity of intercultural rela-
tionships that vary depending on the context of the interaction (legal, medical, educational,
social) must be considered; this leads to various relationships between actors from horizontal
to hierarchical ( Jiménez Salcedo 2010: 45). Thus, eliminating the language barrier is not the
18
General issues about public service interpreting
only issue in such encounters; other barriers must be overcome to facilitate understanding
and provide or receive the service in question.
The interaction’s success depends on the collaboration of all the actors involved in the
communicative chain described by Corsellis (2008). The mere linguistic involvement of the
interpreter is not sufficient; other professionals that act as providers (social workers, NGO
workers, public sector workers, and so on) must also collaborate. Such collaboration may,
however, be hindered for several reasons. Corsellis’s volume (2008, Chap. 7 and 8: 118–

7 4) describes the importance of training public sector workers to work with PSI and across
cultures. She underlines the need to promote interdisciplinarity between all the parties in-
volved and explores ideas about the policy and management skills needed to provide an
organisational framework. In her words, ‘Management of change requires a clear analysis of
an existing situation, identification of targets and the development of practical incremental
steps to cover the gap within agreed timescales’ (Corsellis 2008: 9). Accordingly, she claims
that the first step in achieving this objective is policy: a national commitment to providing
what is needed. In addition, she recommends a coordinated national approach ‘because a
piecemeal approach has associated challenges and risks’. Related topics are discussed in this
volume by Felberg and Skaaden, and by Krystallidou.
Challenges
One of the most significant challenges to providing accurate PSI is the vast number of lan-
guages that PSI services require and the difficulties of providing language-
specific training
and education for interpreters in many such languages, particularly those of limited diffusion.
This situation has given rise to some complaints, mainly in the legal sector (EULITA 2016),
concerning the qualifications held by the interpreters contracted and the actual quality of
their work. Moreover, low pay rates are causing many experienced and qualified interpreters
and translators to reject working for the public sector. Consequently, as Benhaddou (2012:
93–95) reports, Spanish institutions have lowered the required minimum qualifications,
which stems from the reality that otherwise no qualified interpreters would be available.
Low payment and lowered qualifications have affected PSI also in the United Kingdom, as
Staton (2019) shows. Related issues and other problems affecting PSI will be discussed below.
The power relations between institutions and service users present another challenge.
These relations precede any difficulties immigrants who do not speak the language have
when they establish contact and eventually apply for service. The privileges that institutions
have over citizens are legitimised by the executive power from which they arise and, there-
fore, allow institutions to impose their rules. Institutions’ power also implies responsibili-
ties, for example, communicating with their clients. Both Prunč (2012) and Skaaden (2018)
have considered this duality. Researchers like Lippi-Green (1994), Skutnabb-K angas (1999),
Blanchet (2016) and Wallace and Monzó-Nebot (2019) have highlighted the limits of the
tacit policies of institutional and individual monolingual practices. These researchers call
for measures to alleviate the substantial economic, administrative, and ideological obstacles
encountered when individuals and institutions attempt to support and maintain linguistic
and cultural diversity.
This complex situation requires institutional adaptation. It is the task of institutional
powers to take the first step to adapting services in cases of significant multiculturalism.
The act of calling on an interpreter or mediator represents an effort by providers to adapt
an existing protocol of action to a new need. This adaptation can hardly be a smooth one
for providers in that it introduces a change in the service culture of institutions that have
19
never considered communication a problem. As Wallace and Monzó-Nebot (2019) note,

along with many others, the public sphere is now multilingual, and yet monolingual policies
have been favouring the hegemonic pursuit of the most powerful Western languages while
the essential nature of multilingualism has been silenced, thus disenfranchising the different
(l inguistic) minorities.
Modern societies pose relatively new challenges to public institutions. Research (Aguilar-
Solano 2015; Angelelli 2015; Burdeus-Domingo et al. 2020; Valero-Garcés 2020) has re-
vealed situations in which professional and non-professional interpreters and translators share
social spaces, identify issues and challenges that act as obstacles to professionalisation. More-
over, in research interviews, interpreters have suggested measures to bring public institutions
closer to effectively fulfilling their duties. If communication in public institutions does not
work satisfactorily across languages, they risk losing the public’s trust. This undesired conse-
quence highlights the institutional importance of PSI services straightforwardly as possibly
the only means to enable successful communication between institutional representatives
and m inority-language-speaking clients. Thus, research that provides data and exemplifies
the risks and benefits of interpreters’ work may help raise awareness of their value and even-
tually improve their working conditions in the public sector.
PSI facilitates multilingualism in a myriad of situations in the world today. This reality
also stresses the heterogeneous nature of the interpreting business and its dependence on
public funding. Decisions to distribute resources must consider many factors, interdepen-
dencies, risks and possible outcomes. Beyond mere time constraints and the influence of cir-
cumstances such as the 2008 economic crisis, funds have been heavily cut while complexities
have become more and more visible against a background of more and more diverse societies
with demands for increasingly participatory and representative practices.
Coping with challenges

A solution adopted by many institutions to cope with the challenges of providing adequate
PSI services is to outsource translation and interpreting services to private companies: this
is, however, not ideal. Based on research conducted in S pain – though the statement may be
applied in many other cases – Garcia-Beyaert (2015: 53) affirms:
(…) outsourced management by a private company has not proved ideal, but policymak-
ers have shown little sensitivity. Despite criticism of the lack of guarantees for quality in
the original contract (which focused on language ability and devoted little attention to
interpreting), the requirement for competence in interpreting completely disappeared
from the new request for tenders in 2012.
In line with the above, other problems found in the institution-

migrants relationship include
difficulties in recruiting not only well-prepared interpreters but also interpreter trainers.
This problem is well addressed by Kadriç and Pöllabauer in this volume. The scarcity of
language resources and translation technologies for minority languages is likewise among
the issues and challenges to be considered (Balogh, Salaets and Van Schoor 2016: 6). Thus,
bridging the gap between the right to an interpreter and the actual availability of interpreters
is still a work in progress worldwide. And this shapes the path towards the professionalisation
of PSI by not fulfilling yet the dual role that PSI has of (1) providing the means for public
sector workers to maintain their professional integrity when performing their duties, grant-
ing access to essential services for all; and (2) guaranteeing individuals’ rights of access to
20
those services (Wallace and Monzó-Nebot 2019). As the Covid-19 pandemic has evidenced,
safe communication between society and its minorities is in the interest of society at large.
Different countries have adopted similar solutions to cope with PSI’s challenges: special-
ised qualifications exist, although not always in languages of lesser diffusion, yet govern-
mental authorities still fail to make them a requirement. As a result, many language service
providers appoint non-professionals (often at a lower rate of pay) who cannot undertake
highly specialised interpreting, thus putting the rights of migrants and the integrity of insti-
tutional representatives at risk.
The aim to guarantee the right to communicate and the need to improve the quality of
translation and interpreting services has led several organisations at national and interna-
tional levels to call for the further professionalisation of PSI, especially for court translators
and interpreters. For instance, the European Legal Interpreters and Translators Association
(EULITA) was responsible for pushing the adoption of Directive 2010/64/EU (on the adop-
tion of this Directive in other European countries, see Giambruno 2014b). The association
has repeatedly called upon the EU to ensure that all Member States have transposed the
Directive into domestic law since the deadline to do so was in 2013. Yet, almost ten years
later, many countries have failed to do so (EULITA 2019).
Codes, ethical principles, and standards

Every profession sets its standards for professional conduct that guides actions. These stan-
dards are usually published as a code of ethics or a best practice guide regulating professional
activity. Most ethical codes are based on meta- ethical principles, which are sometimes re-
ferred to as prima facie duties. Classic examples of such meta-ethical principles (Ross 1930/
2002) are as follows: do no harm (nonmaleficence); do good (beneficence); fidelity (keeping
one’s promises and contracts and not engaging in deception); reparation (repairing the inju-
ries that one has caused to others); gratitude; justice and equality; self- improvement.
These meta-ethical principles are at the core of studies on ethics in different contexts
within the field of PSI. For example, C amayd-Freixas (2013), Baixauli-Olmos (2013) and
Inghilleri (2012) focus on the area of law, while Dysart-Gale (2005) looks at healthcare.
These studies show that while the professional codes of practice used by each group of
professionals converge on fundamental principles, there are nevertheless specific disparities
that may lead to conflict or incongruent judgments in terms of the fulfilment of the ethical
tenets when two professionals work together, for instance, civil servants and PSI (Valero-
Garcés 2017). More examples can be found in collective papers focusing mainly on ethics in
interpreting: (Re)Visiting Ethics and Ideology in Situations of Conflict (Valero-Garcés and Vita-
laru 2014), Ethics of Non-Professional Translation and Interpreting, Special issue of Translation and
Interpreting Studies (Monzó-Nebot and Wallace 2020) and Ethics in Public Service Interpreting
(Phelan et al. 2020).
Thus, when PS interpreters are asked to define their role, no unanimous consensus exists
beyond the transmission of information across languages (Pöchhacker 2002: 63; Angelelli
2004: 47–48); they usually assert that their role is not restricted to merely translating. Inter-
preters’ notions of what their role should be are conditioned by norms they have embraced
over the years, both consciously and unconsciously (Inghilleri 2003: 259), and the realities
and demands of the domain in which they have acquired their professional experience. Dis-
crepancies have also been pointed out between the norms declared by interpreters and what
they do in the field (Anderson 1978; Wadensjö 1998; Bot 2003: 34; Inghilleri 2003: 257;
Pöllabauer 2004; Valero and Gauthier 2010: 8).
21
These discrepancies have been the object of numerous studies, articles and seminars con-
cerning not only interpreters but also the perception that providers and clients have of their
ethics and how language services carry out their role (Gentile 2016).
The principles that guide action in PSI may be influenced by several factors, such as the
society in question, the culture(s) the society is in contact with, the participants’ educational
background and even their personal or private ethics. When two different professions with
respective codes coexist in the same context, there may be overlap, disagreement or mis-
alignment. When it comes to achieving or practising the ethical principles that guide each
profession, ethical conflicts may arise if and when different solutions clash. This tendency is
gaining support in some instances and points to the need to re-examine theories on PSI and
guidelines established in codes and principles (Wallace and Monzó-Nebot 2019: 12).
Research on the professionalisation of PSI illustrates a first era during which the conduit
metaphor (Roy 1993/2002) was taken as an inspiration to guide practice and draft codes of
conduct (Merlini 2015: 28) to claim some authority and prestige. Nowadays, an increasing
number of studies show how interpreters engage their ethics (Bot 2003; Inghilleri 2010;
Valero-Garcés 2017), thus transgressing the requirements of impartiality by mediating, tak-
ing on additional tasks and making decisions unconsciously or n ot – as to when omissions
and additions are used effectively to support an ongoing encounter while also not siding
exclusively with one of the parties (Martin 2000). Interpreters may also perceive power im-
balances and even go a step further to take measures to compensate for inherent asymmetries
(Bancroft 2017: 2 05–10).
Exploring interpreting as social interaction, Wadensjö (1998) finds that in situated en-
counters, mediation is inherent in interpreting. Wadensjö (1998: 1 05–6) writes,
In dialogue interpreting, the translating and coordinating aspects are simultaneously pres-
ent, and the one does not exclude the other. These aspects condition each other. Seen
like this, it is not an empirical question whether interpreters are translators or mediators –
they cannot avoid being both (italics in the original).
In other words, to understand how interpreter-mediated interaction works, we need to

consider two aspects of interpreter practice: interpreters are simultaneously rendering and
coordinating talk in interaction, implicitly or explicitly.
Pöchhacker (2008: 9) argues that mediation is a crucial aspect in understanding the con-
troversies surrounding the concept of the interpreter’s role in PSI and identifies three dimen-
sions of mediation in interpreting: linguistic/cultural, cognitive and contractual.
The line between mediating and interpreting has been one of the most debated in PSI,
leading to associate mediation with cultural differences and interpreting with linguistic ones.
Jiménez Salcedo (2010: 50) argues that the characteristics of a mediator and an interpreter in
PSI overlap, mainly in the level of biculturality and the ability to master two languages – not
only linguistically but also in terms of body language, proxemics, and semiotics. However,
the concept of ‘culture’ is highly complex, and the task of cultural mediation must not be
interpreted narrowly to avoid falling into culturalist readings without an appropriate con-
textualisation (Weiss and Stuker 1998: 46 and see also Baraldi this volume and Skaaden this
volume).
The main question remains: What degree of mediation is adequate and realistic to in-
clude in order not to compromise the ethical principles of impartiality or neutrality and
fidelity? In their efforts to propose solutions to this problem, some studies (Angelelli 2004;
Zimányi 2009; Lee and Llewellyn-Jones 2013; Aguirre 2019) have identified different role
22
prototypes for interpreters placed along an imaginary continuum according to the degree
of mediation involved. Terms used in the literature to refer to the interpreter’s role include
active participant, assistant, cultural broker, advocate, conciliator middleman, broker, go-
between, gatekeeper, clarifier, explainer, cultural mediator, helpmate or agent. Although
these terms are metaphorical descriptions, they may turn into prescriptive ones. If each term
(or role description) came with an ethical code of its own, that would contribute to creating
confusion rather than a shared professional identity. The diversity of fields and situations PSI
covers may need descriptive but flexible classifications with no clear- cut borders if each set
of circumstances requires different actions and choices by the interpreter (Angelelli 2004:
47). Some examples of the complexity of the role of the interpreter in PSI include the di-
agrammatic tool devised by Zimányi (2009), the notion of Role-Space coined by Lee and
Llewellyn-Jones (2013) and Aguirre’s multi-layered continuum (2019).
One of the characteristics of PSI that triggers the idea that the complexity of the role
can be split into different sub-roles is the diversity of public services involved. Runcieman
(2020), for instance, suggests that the interpreter’s interactive role is more visible and relevant
in some fields than in others. For example, there is greater demand for cultural sensitivity and
understanding of both the source and target cultures in asylum interpreting. Here, he argues,
the interpreter must continually mediate between diverse sociocultural conventions where the
potential for misunderstandings may constantly arise. As an example, Runcieman cites the
application process: the asylum seeker may have no understanding of a different judicial
system or have heightened levels of distrust towards state officials and/or strong suspicions
about the potential abuse of power of the state. In their verbal communication, the asylum
seeker might also have fewer or very different politeness markers or use more elaborate hedg-
ing strategies, which could make them seem too aggressive or too evasive, potentially lead-
ing to an unfavourable outcome in their appeal. Moreover, many asylum interviews elicit
petitioners’ narratives about their lives and experiences, which can be a source of frustration,
incomprehension, or doubts about their veracity for officials due to differences in the cultural
canons of what constitutes a compelling, plausible narrative. For some or all these reasons,
interpreters often intervene or even assume the role of interviewers. At times, they may even
alter the style and register of interviewees’ statements (Pöllabauer 2004; Runcieman 2020).
In court interpreting, Berk-Seligson (2002) and Hale (2004) also indicate that interpreters’
interventions like altering the style and register can make the difference between a defendant
being found guilty or innocent.
In the healthcare setting, there may appear to be a tendency for the interpreter to act
more as a conduit, conveying information from one language to another without a personal/
cultural contribution (Wilcox and Shaffer 2005: 4), particularly, when communicating the
medical practitioners’ prescriptions regarding medicines and curative therapies (but see Gav-
ioli and Merlini, this volume, for a discussion about dealing with facts and emotions in
interpreter-mediated interaction in healthcare). Again, the interpreter acting as a conduit
might not be as straightforward as it seems in the case of emergency room care or doctor-
patient interactions in healthcare centres. Relevant factors include different socio-cultural
and socioeconomic backgrounds with differing levels of education and socioeconomic status,
which, makes some explanations necessary for effective communication (Angelelli 2008).
Who has the responsibility/competence to explain the professional context or concepts in
such situations seems to be a never-ending topic of discussion.
Another reason to look at PSI as specific to sub- areas or settings is that health and legal
settings cover a lot of PSI work. In countries where PSI is more developed, such as Austra-
lia or Canada, healthcare interpreting has gained much attention and court interpreting is
23
widely recognised as a profession. As Sasso and Malli (2014) suggest, if policy recognition
is desired, then perhaps fragmenting the field is an alternative approach. This is reflected in
the existence of different ISO standards, now specifically elaborated for the healthcare and
legal areas.1 However, Corsellis (2008) also warned about the impact that fragmentation may
have on PSI compared with the advantage of standing together and potentially becoming
stronger as a profession. Evidence has shown that significant milestones have been achieved
as a unified body, including the publication of the first international standard for community
interpreting, the ISO norm Interpreting: Guidelines for community interpreting in 2014. A revision
of these standards has been initiated in 2021.
Directly or indirectly, existing ISO standards may leave room for discussion. Besides,
the differences between countries are so extensive and intricate that PSI could evolve in
many different directions. As Moreno-Rivero (2020) points out, now, the provision of PSI
in legal and healthcare settings in the EU is only regulated by Directive 2010/64/EU. More
specifically:
Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010,
on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, grants access to
translation of all relevant documentation and court interpreting in c riminal – but not
civil – proceedings to speakers of all EU official languages.
Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011,
on the application of patients’ rights in cross-
border healthcare, acknowledges patients’
rights to information. However, each country has the responsibility (and freedom) to
issue its laws to regulate the application of these rules. Consequently, the adoption of
language rules that help manage PSI partly relies on each country individually: there is
a common EU-wide framework, but its implementation (or the lack of it) differs among
countries, as noted in a report by the European Commission (2018).
PSI on the path toward professionalisation

In an interview published some years ago (Valero-Garcés 2014), Corsellis explains that the
first step in advancing the professionalisation of PSI is to agree on a definition. Based on the
results of the EU project Qualitas, Corsellis claims that professions come into being when
trust is required, primarily because the clients are not able to judge for themselves the quality
of service offered as they do not speak both languages in question. To fulfil what is required
of them by their professional code, professions need to establish five principles: Selection cri-
teria (for entry to training and then the professional register); Initial and in-service training;
Recognised assessments at all levels; Guidelines and good practice; Disciplinary procedures.
These five principles were mentioned already in a preceding EU project –Aequitas – where
Corsellis and Félix Fernández (2001) emphasise the importance of being transparent, na-
tionally, and internationally recognised, consistent and accountable to the public and the
profession. A brief review of the five conditions about PSI shows that they are not met in
many countries today. In short, there is no consistency in the profession worldwide. In the
following, I will discuss some of the challenges that countries are facing and the solutions
they are adopting on the path toward the professionalisation of PSI.
The principle of consistency is worthwhile; however, implementing it in practice may
not be an easy task. Taking the literature and experience of PSI as a point of departure,
some of the many challenges and issues identified include the lack of recognition of PSI
as a profession; the non-availability of (adequate) training; and differences in language
24
resources and translation technologies for LLD (Giambruno 2014a; Balogh, Salaets and Van
Schoor 2016).
The lack of recognition of PSI as a profession implies a lack of professionalisation. To
achieve professionalisation, training is necessary, and the level and length of education no
doubt have an impact on professional status. Nevertheless, at the time of this writing, there
are still no clear directions about whether training should be offered by higher education
institutions or professional training institutions or whether it should be provided by NGOs
and other bodies involved in migration support (De Pedro Ricoy 2010). In practice, PSI is
still struggling with offering well-
trained translators and interpreters in the required (wide)
variety of languages and cultures, and debates are still ongoing about the formats to adopt,
from one-day instruction to periodical seminars or workshops to undergraduate and post-
graduate courses (Valero-Garcés 2019).
The present situation does not mean that PSI has not evolved. Despite the differences
between countries, PSI has gradually advanced towards professionalisation ever since it be-
came the focus of academic and research activity when the well- known 1995 Critical Link
conference was held in Canada. Seemingly, the boundaries between conference interpreting
and PSI are becoming blurred and the differences are starting to fade altogether. Some indi-
cations of this change are seen in the current debate over prestige and by increasing recog-
nition of PSI by other professionals and societies at large. Also, as Mikkelson (1996) argues,
some links between conference interpreting and PSI are quite evident. For instance, while
conference interpreting has contributed to shaping standards in PSI (sometimes a bit blindly
and because there was little else to serve as a model), it is becoming increasingly clear that
PSI can contribute to the development of conference interpreting by increasing practitioners’
perceived status of con-
sensitivity to various layers of contexts. In her analysis of the self-
ference and public service interpreters, Gentile (2014) found that a sense of lower status still
characterises PSI interpreters. At the same time, her data indicate an increasing awareness of
the social role carried out by the interpreting profession as a driving force that motivates PSI
interpreters to follow the path towards full professionalisation.
Searching for models of good practice based on the realisation that quality indeed impacts
equal access to justice and fair trials may also contribute to consolidating the profession-
alisation of PSI. For Corsellis (Valero-Garcés 2014: 10) this will include exploring non-
p rofessional interpreting both in research and training beyond mainstream institutions to
include groups of interpreting practitioners whose positions have been, or still are, rather
peripheral (be it professional, ad hoc, novice, volunteer and/or activist), but who play an
active part in society.
Merging different disciplinary and methodological approaches for the purpose of research
and training could also promote PSI professionalisation (see Krystallidou; Sagli and Skaaden,
this volume). Research indicates that the professionalisation process of PSI is linked also to
complex ideological and social factors. In some areas, the tendency is that PSI interpreting
generally is perceived as no less professionalised than conference interpreting or legal in-
terpreting and translation (LIT), which is recognised as a professional branch of its own in
some countries. No doubt, language service providers, practitioners and their clients must
continue striving for the common ground before PSI is broadly accepted as a profession
(Bancroft 2017).
However, some of the characteristics of PSI already mentioned, such as unstable working
conditions and poor remuneration, also contribute to the de-professionalisation of the trade,
thus compromising, for instance, individuals’ right to basic services or to fair trials. Gentile
(2017) shows how the implementation of nationalist ideologies, including aspects such as the
25
privatisation and outsourcing of PSI, have hindered the professionalisation of PSI and dam-
aged public perception of the profession.
Gentile (2017) further points out that to achieve full professionalisation and public rec-
ognition, PSI must gain and maintain the general public’s trust. However, the tendency to
outsource and/or cut interpreting services among some national governments in the EU,
particularly after the 2008 economic crisis, has not only transformed PSI into a commodity
but is creating a situation in which the winner is a cheap service rather than a quality one.
Cheaper services may become more widespread after the coronavirus pandemic, which has
boosted the need for interpreting services but created the conditions for a new economic
crisis.
In 2011, Sela-Sheffy and Shlesinger referred to translators and interpreters as ‘an extreme
example of an understudied semi-professional occupation’ (2011: 3). And indeed, it seems
like PSI continues to be a semi-profession, that is, an occupation that has achieved a few
characteristics of professions but does not possess sufficient autonomy to be sociologically
classified as such (Saha and Dworkin 2009).
Problems of professionalisation, financial cuts to translation and interpreting services,
privatisation and outsourcing to external agencies appear to be destroying systems where
service providers were once encouraged to use registered and state-certified interpreters (for
instance, in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands) (Gentile 2017). Gentile (2017) notes
that this illustrates the link between national policies and their impact on professionalisation
processes and interpreters’ perception of their status. In her research on the professional status
of PSI, Gentile provides insights into interpreters’ opinions and comments on three param-
eters: remuneration, perception of status and the social value of interpreting. In her own
words, ‘Despite the discouraging results, a positive aspect that emerges from the survey is
that many interpreters continue to work in this setting because they consider it to be a moral
imperative, a sign of justice towards the most vulnerable’ (Gentile 2014: 204).
This attitude suggests that interpreters include principles of social justice in their actions
to address the ‘democratic deficit’ (Gentile 2017: 83). Therefore, following Gentile, inter-
preters’ codes of ethics should arguably pay attention to the link between PSI and social
justice by specifying that interpreters are actively involved in addressing discrimination in
hospitals, courts, and all other settings where their services are required, an approach that has
proved useful in, for instance, enhancing the professionalisation of other professions, such as
nursing (Cohen and Ezer 2013).
Finally, dialogue between institutions and service providers could prove fruitful to raise
awareness of serious consequences, which may possibly result in the violation of language
rights, incorrect diagnoses and miscarriages of justice. In a world in which migrants are
ghettoised and discriminated against, interpreters are professionals who, ideally, work re-
sponsibly to make sure that human rights are respected. There may thus be a strong need to
listen to the opinions, fears and struggles of these professionals who sustain an ethical duty
that many national governments seem to have forgotten.
Conclusion and further developments

PSI has developed with uncertain force in the translation/interpreting professions, adding
new challenges and demands, but also new solutions. Some solutions to the challenges ex-
perienced during these years of evolution in PSI are already underway. Lessons can be learnt
from sharing experiences and common projects encompassing different settings. Despite
these difficulties, PSI is undoubtedly a growing market, although it may not be considered as
26
prestigious as other forms of interpreting, such as conference interpreting or interpreting for

international or commercial organisations (Gentile 2014: 195). Nonetheless, PSI has sparked
debate over important topics such as education, the interpreter’s role, and the recognition of
interpreting as a profession. It has also led to the inclusion of new forms of communication
(e.g. remote interpreting), and some concrete efforts have been made to develop standards
for the profession, including the emergence of associations like ENPSI (European Network
for Public Service Interpreting and Translation). This all serves to demonstrate that, at least
in Europe, PSI is moving toward (national) accreditation systems in compliance with rec-
ommendations made by the EU, the transposition of Directive 2010/64 on the right to
interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and increasing awareness of the
need to cooperate with all the different actors involved in managing communication in
present-day public institutions. The consequences of the current pandemic and economic
crisis and the negative impact they will have on a financial level, as well as on a political
and social level, are not yet known (European Commission 2020, Meer and Villegas 2020;
United Nations 2020).
Further reading
Monzó-Nebot, Esther, and Melisa Wallace (2020) Ethics of Non-P rofessional Translation and Interpreting,
Special issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies 15 (1).
This special issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies explores the emergency of new societies, new
values, new demands when mapping non-
professional interpreting and translation, and pay special attention to
issues of justice, trust, accuracy, truth, virtue, and self-care.
Ng, Eva, and Ineke Creeze (2020) Interpreting in Legal and Healthcare Settings: Perspectives on Research and
Training. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
The book addresses issues related to interpreting in legal and healthcare settings at large, but the variety of
innovative themes it addresses, based on empirical research and real-life experiences from different parts of the
world makes it suitable also for PSI researchers and trainers.
Phelan, Mary, Mette Rudvin, Hanne Skaaden, and Patrick Stefan Kermit (2020) Ethics in Public Service
Interpreting. London/New York, Routledge.
The book explores ethical dilemmas from different perspectives and explains the difference between personal
and professional principles; it also offers ample explanation and discussion of guidelines, clearly illustrated with
examples.
Valero-Garcés, Carmen (2019) “Training public service interpreters and translators: Facing chal-
lenges”, Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law 71: 88–105. https://doi.org/10.2436/
rld.i71.2019.3262
The article calls attention to the need of education and training for raising the status of PSIT and provides
experiences of PSIT researchers, practitioners and trainers which help highlight challenges and advances in the
PSIT area.
Related chapters
Chapter 7, Public service translation: Critical issues and future directions by Mustafa Taibi
Chapter 16, ‘Interpreter’s mistake’ – Why should other professions care about the professionalization of interpret-
ers? by Hanne Skaaden
Note
1 ISO 13611:2014, Interpreting — Guidelines for community interpreting; ISO 18841:2018, Inter-
preting services — General requirements and recommendations; ISO 20228:2019, Interpret-
ing services — L egal i nterpreting — Requirements; ISO 21998:2020, Interpreting services —
Healthcare i nterpreting — Requirements and recommendations; ISO 20539:2019, Translation,
interpreting and related technology — Vocabulary.
27
References
Agar, Michael H. (1985) “Institutional discourse”, Text & Talk, Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of
Discourse 5 (3): 147–68.
A guilar-Solano, María (2015) “Non-professional volunteer interpreting as an institutionalized practice
in healthcare: A study on interpreters’ personal narratives”, Translation & Interpreting 17 (3): 132–48.
Aguirre Fernández Bravo, Elena (2019) “Interpreter role (self-)perception: A model and an assessment
tool”, Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law 71: 62–72.
Anderson, R. Bruce W. (1978) “Interpreter roles and interpretation situations: Cross cutting typol-
ogies”, in Language, Interpretation and Communication, David Gerver and H. Wallace Sinaiko (eds).
New York/L ondon, Plenum Press: 130–217.
Angelelli, Claudia V. (2004) Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role. A Study of Conference, Court, and Medical
Interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
——— ( 2008) “The role of the interpreter in the healthcare setting: A plea for a dialogue between
research and practice”, in Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting. Definitions and Dilemmas, Car-
men Valero-Garcés and Anne Martin (eds). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 247–65.
——— (2015) Study on Public Service Translation in C ross-B order Healthcare. Final Report for the Euro-
pean Commission, Directorate-General for Translation Ref. DGT/2014/T PS. URL:https://
publications.europa.eu/e n/p ublication- d etail/- /p ublication/6 382f b66- 8 387- 11e5- b 8b7-
01aa75ed71a1 (accessed 1 November 2021).
Baixauli-Olmos, Luis (2013) “A description of interpreting in prisons – Mapping the setting through an
ethical lens”, in Interpreting in a Changing Landscape. Selected Papers from Critical Link 6, Cristina Schäff-
ner, Krzysztof Kredens and Yvonne Fowler (eds). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 4 5–60.
Balogh, Katalin, Heidi Salaets, and Dominique Van Schoor (2016) TraiLLD: Training in Languages of
Lesser Diffusion. Antwerp, Lannoo Publishers.
Bancroft, Marjory (2017) “The voice of compassion: Exploring t rauma-i nformed interpreting”, in
Ideology, Ethics and Policy Development in Public Service Interpreting and Translation, Carmen V alero-
G
arcés and Rebecca Tipton (eds). Bristol, Multilingual Matters: 195–219.
Benhaddou Handi, Elhassane (2012) “La traducción y la interpretación en el Ministerio del Interior”,
in Ensayos sobre la traducción jurídica e institucional, Iciar Alonso Araguás, Jesús Baigorri Jalón and
Helen Campbell (eds). Granada, Comares: 9 1–102.
Berk-Seligson, Susan (2002) The Bilingual Courtroom. Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago,
IL, The University of Chicago Press.
Blanchet, Philippe (2016) Discriminations: combattre la glottophobie. París, Textuel.
Bot, Hanneke (2003) “The myth of the uninvolved interpreter interpreting in mental health and the de-
velopment of a three-person psychology”, in The Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community, Louise
Brunette, Georges L. Bastin, Isabelle Hemlin and Heather Clarke (eds). Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
John Benjamins: 27–35.
Burdeus-Domingo, Noelia, Suzanne Gagnon, Sophie Pointurier, and Yvan Leanza (2020) “Puentes
y barreras en la formación en interpretación en los servicios públicos: la docencia a intérpretes con
experiencia no profesional”, in The Human Factor in PSIT, Carmen Valero-Garcés (ed). Alcalá de
Henares, Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad: 77–84.
Camayd-Freixas, Erik (2013) US Immigration Reform and Its Global Impact. Lesson from the Postville Raid.
New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohen, John, and Tamar Ezer (2013) “Human rights in patient care: A theoretical and practical frame-
work”, Health and Human Rights 15 (2): 7 –19.
Corsellis, Anne, and Leandro Félix Fernandez (2001) Aequitas: Access to Justice across Language and Cul-
ture in the EU. (Extract from chapter 7), Erik Hertog (ed.). Antwerp, Lessius Hogeschool.
Corsellis, Anne (2002) “Creating a professional context for public service interpreters and translators”,
in Traducción e Interpretación en los Servicios Públicos: Nuevas necesidades para nuevas realidades/New Needs
for New Realities, Carmen Valero-Garcés and Guzmán Mancho (eds). Alcalá de Henares, Servicio
de Publicaciones de la Universidad: 31–38.
——— (2008) Public Service Interpreting. The Firsts Steps. Basingstoke Hampshire, Palgrave.
De Pedro Ricoy, Raquel (2010) “Training public service interpreters in the UK: A fine balancing act”,
The Journal of Specialised Translation 14 (n /a): 1 00–20.
D ysart-Gale, Deborah (2005) “Communication models, professionalization, and the work of medical
interpreters”, Health Communication 17 (1): 91–103.
28
EULITA (2016) Letter of Support to APTIJ Complaint by EULITA.

——— (2019) European Commission Publishes Report on the Implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU.
URL: https://w ww.eulita.eu/en/2019/02/01/european-commission-publishes-report-on-the-
i mplementation-of-d irective-2010-64-eu/. (accessed 1 November 2021).
European Commission (2018) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the
Implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010
on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/T XT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0857 (accessed 1 November 2021).
——— (2020) How Is the Coronavirus Reshaping Migration Worldwide? URL: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
en/news/how-coronavirus-reshaping-m igration-worldwide. (accessed 1 November 2021).
García-Beyaert, Sofia (2015) “Key external players in the development of the interpreting profes-
sion” in The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, Holly Mikkelson, and Renee Jourdenais (eds).
London/New York, Routledge: 45– 60.
Gentile, Paola (2014) “The conflict between interpreters’ role and professional status: A sociological
perspective”, in (Re)Visiting Ethics and Ideology in Situations of Conflict, Carmen Valero-Garcés and
Bianca Vitalaru (eds). Alcalá de Henares, Universidad de Alcalá: 195–204.
——— (2016) The Interpreter’s Professional Status: A Sociological Investigation into the Interpreting Profession.
PhD diss., University of Trieste.
——— (2017) “Political ideology and the de-professionalisation of public service interpreting: The
Netherlands and the United Kingdom as case studies”, in Ideology, Ethics and Policy Development in
Public Service Interpreting and Translation, Carmen Valero-Garcés and Rebeca Tipton (eds). Bristol,
Multilingual Matters: 63–83.
Giambruno, Cynthia (2014a) “Dealing with languages of lesser diffusion”, in Assessing Legal Interpreter
Quality through Testing and Certification: The QUALITAS Project, Cynthia Giambruno (ed). Alicante,
Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante: 93–107.
——— (2014b) “The current state of affairs in the EU: Member state profiles”, in Assessing Legal Inter-
preter Quality through Testing and Certification: The QUALITAS Project, Cynthia Giambruno (ed).
Alicante, Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante: 149–90.
Inghilleri, Moira (2003) “Habitus, field and discourse: Interpreting as a socially-situated activity”,
Target 15 (2): 243–68.
——— (2010) “You don’t make war without knowing why”, The Translator, special issue on Translating
Violent Conflict 16 (2): 175–96.
——— ( 2012) Interpreting Justice – Ethics, Politics, and Language. London/New York, Routledge.
Jiménez Salcedo, Juan (2010) Traducción-interpretación en los servicios públicos en Quebec: ¿Un modelo para
Andalucía? Fundación Pública Andaluza Centro de Estudios, Junta de Andalucía.
Lee, Robert, and Peter L lewellyn-Jones (2014) Redefining the Role of the Community Interpreter. The
Concept of R ole-Space. Lincoln, SLI Press.
Lippi-Green, Rosina (1994) “Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in
courts”, Language in Society 23 (2): 163–98.
Martin, Ann (2000) “La interpretación social en España”, in La traducción y la interpretación en España
hoy: Perspectivas profesionales, Dorothy Kelly (ed). Granada, Comares: 207–23.
Merlini, Rafaella (2015) “Empathy: A ‘zone of uncertainty’ in mediated healthcare practice”, Cultus:
The Journal of Intercultural Mediation and Communication 8: 27–49.
Meer, Nasar and Leslie Villegas (2020) The Impact of COVID-19 on Global Migration. URL: https://
www.glimer.eu/w p-content/uploads/2 020/0 6/Global-M igration-Policies-a nd-COVID-19.pdf.
(accessed 1 November 2021).
Mikkelson, Holly (1996) “Community interpreting: An emerging profession”, Interpreting 1 (1):
125–29.
Monzó-Nebot, Esther and Melisa Wallace (2020) “New societies, new values, new demands. Map-
ping non-professional interpreting and translation, remapping translation and interpreting ethics”,
Translation and Interpreting Studies 15 (1): 1–14.
Moreno-R ivero, Javier (2020) “Translation as social policy: Quality management in public service
interpreting and translation”, Languages, Society and Policy. URL: http://w ww.meits.org/policy-
papers/paper/t ranslation-a s-social-policy-quality-m anagement-i n-public-service-i nterpreting-
a nd-t ranslation. (accessed 1 November 2021).
Ozolins, Uldis (2000) “Communication needs and interpreting in multilingual settings: The inter-
national spectrum of response”, in The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, Roda Roberts,
29
Silvana E. Carr, Diana Abraham, and Aideen Dufour (eds). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Ben-
jamins: 21–33.
Phelan, Mary, Mette Rudvin, Hanne Skaaaden, and Patrick Stefan Kermit (2020) Ethics in Public Ser-
vice Interpreting. London/New York, Routledge.
Pöchhacker, Franz (2002) “Getting organized: The evolution of community interpreting”, Interpreting
4 (1): 125–40.
——— (2008) “Interpreting as mediation”, in Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting. Definitions and
Dilemmas, Carmen Valero-Garcés and Anne Martin (eds). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benja-
mins: 9 –26.
Pöllabauer, Sonja (2004) “Interpreting in asylum hearings: Issues of role, responsibility and power”,
Interpreting 6 (2): 143–80.
Prunč, Erich (2012) “Rights, realities and responsibilities in community interpreting”, The Interpreters’
Newsletter 17 (2012): 1–12.
Ross, W. David (1930/2002) The Right and the Good. Oxford, Oxford University Press. (Reprinted
from the original edition with an introduction by Philip Stratton-Lake).
Roy, Cynthia B. (1993/2002) “The problem with definitions, descriptions, and the role metaphors
of interpreters”, in The Interpreting Studies Reader, Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger (eds).
London/New York, Routledge: 344–54.
Runcieman, Alan James (2020) “Community interpreting and the Covid 19 crisis: Present relevancy
and future directions”, Tilburg Papers in Cultural Studies No. 242.
Saha, Lawrence, and Anthony Gary Dworkin (2009) International Handbook of Research on Teachers and
Teaching. New York, Springer.
Sasso, Angela, and Kiran Malli (2014) “Trying to fit a square peg in a round hole: Is community
interpreting just too big for public policy? The Canadian experience a provocation”, FITISPos
International Journal 1 (n /a): 42–50.
Sela-Sheffy, Rakefet, and Miriam Shlesinger (2011). Identity and Status in the Translational Professions.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Skaaden, Hanne (2018) “Invisible or invincible? Professional integrity, ethics, and voice in public ser-
vice interpreting”, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 27 (14): 1 –14.
Skutnabb-K angas, Tove (1999) “Linguistic human r ights – A re you naive, or what?”, TESOL Journal
8 (3): 6 –12.
Staton, Bethan (2019) “U K’s court interpreters fear cost-cutting is threatening fair trials”, Financial
Times. URL: https://w ww.ft.com/content/55447226-a f9c-11e9-8030-530adfa879c2. (accessed 1
November 2021).
Tseng, John (1992) “Interpreting as an emerging profession in Taiwan – A sociological model”, MA
Thesis. Taipei, Taiwan, Fu Jen Catholic University.
United Nations (2020) “Everyone included: Social impact of COVID-19”. DISD. URL: https://
www.un.org/development/desa/d spd/everyone-i ncluded-covid-19.html. (accessed 1 November
2021).
Valero-Garcés, Carmen (2014) “Interview of Anne Corsellis”, FITISPos International Journal 1 (2014):
92–102.
——— (2017) “Ethical codes impacting in prison communication”, in Ideology, Ethics and Policy Devel-
opment in Public Service Interpreting and Translation, Carmen Valero-Garcés and Rebeca Tipton (eds).
Bristol, Multilingual Matters: 105–30.
——— (2019) “Training public service interpreters and translators: Facing challenges”, Revista de
Llengua I Dret, Journal of Language and Law 71: 8 8–105.
——— (
2020) “ Overcoming language barriers in the Spanish healthcare context”, in Interpret-
ing in Legal and Healthcare: Perspectives on Research and Training, Eva Ng and Ineke Creeze (eds).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 2 33–41.
Valero-Garcés, Carmen, and Laura Gauthier (2010) “Bourdieu and public service interpreting and
translation: Towards a social theory in PSIT”, MonTI 2 (n /a): 9 7–117.
Valero-Garcés, Carmen, and Bianca Vitalaru (eds) (2014) (Re)Visiting Ethics and Ideology in Situations of
Conflict. Alcalá de Henares, Universidad de Alcalá Publicaciones.
Wadensjö, Cecilia (1998) Interpreting as Interaction. Harlow, Essex, Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Wallace, Melissa, and Esther Monzó-Nebot (2019) “La traducció i la interpretació jurídiques en els
serveis públics: definició de qüestions clau, revisió de polítiques i delimitació del públic de la
30
traducció i la interpretació jurídiques en els serveis públics”, Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of
Language and Law 71: 1–12.
Weiss, Regula, and Rahel Stuker (1998) Interprétariat et médiation culturelle dans le système de soins, rapport
de base. Neuchâtel, Forum suisse pour l’étude des migrations.
Wilcox, Sherman, and Barbara Shaffer (2005) “Towards a cognitive model of interpretation”, in Topics
in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice, Terry Janzen (ed). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John
Benjamins: 2 – 40.
Zimányi, Krisztina (2009) “On impartiality and neutrality: A diagrammatic tool as a visual aid”,
Translation & Interpreting 1 (2): 55–70.
31
2
THE AMBIGUITY OF
INTERPRETING
Ethnographic interviews with public service
interpreters
Kristina Gustafsson
Introduction: public service interpreting and welfare service studies

It’s true, we [interpreters] experience and witness a lot of bad things in society. Not just
bad, both bad and good, to be honest. But basically, there’s a demand for public service
interpreting when people are in trouble. That’s a fact (25:2, p. 1).1
The public service interpreter quoted above describes his experiences of multilingual en-
counters between welfare professionals and clients in various service settings. In the same
interview, he discusses aspects of ethics, loyalties, power, and responsibilities associated with
interpreting in the public sector. The interpreter is one of 26 key participants interviewed
during two research projects about public service interpreting in Sweden with the joint title
The Interpreter Project (Gustafsson, Norström and Fioretos 2012, 2013; Norström, Fioretos and
Gustafsson 2012).2
For me, as a scholar in ethnology and social work, a starting point for The Interpreter
Project was the perception that although there are thousands of encounters every day in
different welfare service settings between welfare professionals and clients who do not
speak Swedish (the majority language), their knowledge of interpreting and the position
of the interpreter is far from comprehensive. Extensive research has been conducted that
explores issues of multilingualism and language competence in social work (Chand 2005;
Harrison 2006, 2007; Kriz and Skivenes 2010; Tipton 2016; Westlake and Jones 2017; Hall
and Valdiviezo 2018; Gustafsson, Norström and Höglund 2019), in legal and court settings
(Torstensson 2010; Elsrud 2014; Elsrud, Lalander and Staaf 2017; Staaf and Elsrud 2018), in
health and medical care (Gerrish et al. 2004; Kale and Syed 2010; Hadziabdic 2011; Plejert
et al. 2015; Haralambous et al. 2018; Granhagen et al. 2019), and in the area of migration
and asylum investigation (Herlihy and Turner 2007; Kjelsvik 2014; Akin 2017; Puumala,
Ylikomi and Ristimäki 2017). However, public service interpreting is not the main focus
of these studies.
Furthermore, when it is discussed, interpreting is primarily presented as an issue that
might have a negative impact on the work of welfare professionals and the legal rights of
the client. Chand (2005) and Kriz and Skivenes (2010) present several critical aspects of how
32 DOI: 10.4324/9780429298202-4

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Jesus Christ, along with Moses and Ezra. Thus there was not full
proof against the accused on the principal point of the statute
charged upon—namely, the cursing of God or any other person of the
blessed Trinity. The jury nevertheless unanimously found it proven
‘that the panel, Thomas Aikenhead, has railed against the first
person, and also cursed and railed our blessed Lord, the second
person, of the holy Trinity.’ They further found ‘the other crimes
libelled proven—namely, the denying the incarnation of our Saviour,
the holy Trinity, and scoffing at the Holy Scriptures.’ Wherefore the
judges ‘decern and adjudge the said Thomas Aikenhead to be taken
to the Gallowlee, betwixt Leith and Edinburgh, upon Friday the
eighth day of January next to come, and there to be hanged on a
gibbet till he be dead, and his body to be interred at the foot of the
gallows.’
It struck some men in the Privy Council that it was hard to take the
life of a lad of eighteen, otherwise irreproachable, for a purely
metaphysical offence, regarding which he had already expressed an
apparently sincere penitence; and this feeling was probably
increased when a petition was received from Aikenhead, not asking
for life, which he had ceased to hope for, but simply entreating for
delay of a sentence which he acknowledged to be just, on the ground
that it had ‘pleased Almighty God to begin so far in His mercy to
work upon your petitioner’s obdured heart, as to give him some
sense and conviction of his former wicked errors ... and he doth
expect ... if time were allowed ... through the merits of Jesus, by a
true remorse and repentance, to be yet reconciled to his offended
God and Saviour.’ I desire, he said, this delay, that ‘I may have the
opportunity of conversing with godly ministers in the place, and by
their assistance be more prepared for an eternal rest.’
Lord Anstruther and Lord Fountainhall, two members of the
Council, were led by humane feeling to visit the culprit in prison. ‘I
found a work on his spirit,’ says the former gentleman, ‘and wept
that ever he should have maintained such tenets.’ He adds that he
desired for Aikenhead a short reprieve, as his eternal state depended
on it. ‘I plead [pleaded] for him in Council, and brought it to the
Chan[cellor’s] vote. It was told it could not be granted unless the
ministers would intercede.... The ministers, out of a pious, though I
think ignorant zeal, spoke and preached for 1696.
cutting him off ... our ministers being,’ he adds, ‘generally of a
narrow set of thoughts and confined principles, and not able to bear
things of this nature.’ It thus appears that the clergy were eager for
the young man’s blood, and the secular powers so far under awe
towards that body, that they could not grant mercy. The Council
appears in numberless instances as receiving applications for delay
and pardon from criminals under sentence, and so invariably assents
to the petition, that we may infer there having been a routine
practice in the case, by which petitions were only sent after it was
ascertained that they would probably be complied with. There being
no petition for pardon from Aikenhead to the Council after his trial,
we may fairly presume that he had learned there was no relaxation of
the sentence to be expected.
As the time designed for his execution drew nigh, Aikenhead wrote
a paper of the character of a ‘last speech’ for the scaffold, in which he
described the progress of his mind throughout the years of his
education. From the age of ten, he had sought for grounds on which
to build his faith, having all the time an insatiable desire of attaining
the truth. He had bewildered himself amongst the questions on
morals and religion which have bewildered so many others, and only
found that the more he thought on these things the further he was
from certainty. He now felt the deepest contrition for the ‘base,
wicked, and irreligious expressions’ he had uttered—‘although I did
the same out of a blind zeal for what I thought the truth.’ ‘Withal, I
acknowledge and confess to the glory of God, that in all he hath
brought upon me, either one way or other, he hath done it most
wisely and justly.... Likeas I bless God I die in the true Christian
Protestant apostolic faith.’ He then alluded in terms of self-
vindication to aspersions regarding him which had been circulated in
a satire by Mr Mungo Craig, ‘whom I leave,’ said he, ‘to reckon with
God and his own conscience, if he was not as deeply concerned in
those hellish notions for which I am sentenced, as ever I was:
however, I bless the Lord, I forgive him and all men, and wishes the
Lord may forgive him likewise.’ Finally, he prayed that his blood
might ‘give a stop to that raging spirit of atheism which hath taken
such a footing in Britain both in practice and profession.’ Along with
this paper, he left a letter to his friends, dated the day of his
execution, expressing a hope that what he had written would give
them and the world satisfaction, ‘and after I am gone produce more
charity than [it] hath been my fortune to be trysted hitherto with,
and remove the apprehensions which I hear 1696.
[195]
are various with many about my case.’
There was at that time in Edinburgh an English Nonconformist
clergyman, of Scottish birth, named William Lorimer, who had come
to fill the chair of divinity at St Andrews. While Aikenhead was under
sentence, Mr Lorimer preached before the Lord Chancellor and other
judges and chief magistrates, On the Reverence due to Jesus Christ,
being a sermon apropos to the occasion; and we find in this
discourse not one word hinting at charity or mercy for Aikenhead,
but much to encourage the audience in an opposite temper. It would
appear, however, that the preacher afterwards found some cause for
vindicating himself from a concern in bringing about the death of
Aikenhead, and therefore, when he published his sermon, he gave a
preface, in which he at once justified the course which had been
taken with the youth, and tried to shew that he, and at least one
other clergyman, had tried to get the punishment commuted. The
prosecution, he tells us, was undertaken entirely on public grounds,
in order to put down a ‘plague of blasphemous deism’ which had
come to Edinburgh. The magistrates, being informed of the progress
of this pestilence among the young men, had two of them
apprehended. ‘One [John Fraser] made an excuse ... humbly
confessed that it was a great sin for him to have uttered with his
mouth such words of blasphemy against the Lord; professed his
hearty repentance ... and so the government pardoned him, but
withal ordered that he should confess his sin, and do public penance
in all the churches in Edinburgh. And I believe the other might have
been pardoned also, if he had followed the example of his
companion; but he continued sullen and obstinate, I think for some
months; and the party were said to be so very bold and insolent, as to
come in the night and call to him by name at his chamber-window in
the prison, and to tell him that he had a good cause, and to exhort
him to stand to it, and suffer for it bravely. This influenced the
government to execute the law.’
With regard to efforts in favour of Aikenhead, Mr Lorimer’s
statement is as follows: ‘I am sure the ministers of the Established
Church used him with an affectionate tenderness, and took much
pains with him to bring him to faith and repentance, and to save his
soul; yea, and some of the ministers, to my certain knowledge, and
particularly the late reverend, learned, prudent, peaceable, and pious
Mr George Meldrum, then minister of the Tron Church, interceded
for him with the government, and solicited for his pardon; and when
that could not be obtained, he desired a reprieve for him, and I
joined with him in it. This was the day before his execution. The
chancellor was willing to have granted him a reprieve, but could not
do it without the advice of the Privy Council and judges; and, to shew
his willingness, he called the Council and judges, who debated the
matter, and then carried it by a plurality of votes for his execution,
according to the sentence of the judges, that there might be a stop
put to the spreading of that contagion of blasphemy.’[196]
Mr Lorimer’s and Lord Anstruther’s statements are somewhat
discrepant, and yet not perhaps irreconcilable. It may be true that, at
the last moment, one of the city clergy, accompanied by an English
stranger, tried to raise his voice for mercy. It is evident, however,
that no very decided effort of the kind was made, for the records of
the Privy Council contain no entry on the subject, although, only
three days before Aikenhead’s execution, we find in them a reprieve
formally granted to one Thomas Weir, sentenced for housebreaking.
The statement itself, implying a movement entirely exceptive, only
makes the more certain the remarkable fact, derived from Lord
Anstruther’s statement, that the clergy, as a body, did not intercede,
but ‘spoke and preached for cutting him off,’ for which reason the
civil authorities were unable to save him. The clergy thus appear
unmistakably in the character of the persecutors of Aikenhead, and
as those on whom, next to Sir James Steuart, rests the guilt of his
blood.
The Postman, a journal of the day, relates the last moments of the
unhappy young man. ‘He walked thither [to the place of execution—a
mile from the prison] on foot, between a strong guard of fusiliers
drawn up in two lines. Several ministers assisted him in his last
moments; and, according to all human appearance, he died with all
the marks of a true penitent. When he was called out of the prison to
the City Council-house, before his going to the place of execution, as
is usual on such occasions, he delivered his thoughts at large in a
paper written by him, and signed with his own hand, and then
requested the ministers that were present to 1696.
pray for him, which they did; and afterwards he himself prayed, and
several times invocated the blessed Trinity, as he did likewise at the
place of execution, holding all the time the Holy Bible in his hand;
and, being executed, he was buried at the foot of the gallows.’
There had been for two years under 1697. Jan. 16.
process in the Court of Session a case in
which a husband was sued for return of a deceased wife’s tocher of
eight thousand merks (£444, 8s. 10d.⅔), and her paraphernalia or
things pertaining to her person. It came, on this occasion, to be
debated what articles belonging to a married woman were to be
considered as paraphernalia, or jocalia, and so destined in a
particular way in case of her decease. The Lords, after long
deliberation, fixed on a rule to be observed in future cases, having a
regard, on the one hand, to ‘the dignity of wives,’ and, on the other,
to the restraining of extravagances. First was ‘the mundus or vestitus
muliebris—namely, all the body-clothes belonging to the wife,
acquired by her at any time, whether in this or any prior marriage, or
in virginity or viduity; and whatever other ornaments or other things
were peculiar or proper to her person, and not proper to men’s use or
wearing, as necklaces, earrings, breast-jewels, gold chains, bracelets,
&c. Under childbed linens, as paraphernal and proper to the wife,
are to be understood only the linen on the wife’s person in childbed,
but not the linens on the child itself, nor on the bed or room, which
are to be reckoned as common movables; therefore found the child’s
spoon, porringer, and whistle contained in the condescendence [in
this special case] are not paraphernal, but fall under the communion
of goods; but that ribbons, cut or uncut, are paraphernal, and belong
to the wife, unless the husband were a merchant. All the other
articles that are of their own nature of promiscuous and common
use, either to men or women, are not paraphernal, but fall under the
communion of goods, unless they become peculiar and paraphernal
by the gift and appropriation of the husband to her, such as a
marriage-watch, rings, jewels, and medals. A purse of gold or other
movables that, by the gift of a former husband, became properly the
wife’s goods and paraphernal, exclusive of the husband, are only to
be reckoned as common movables quoad a second husband, unless
they be of new gifted and appropriated by him to the wife again. Such
gifts and presents as one gives to his bride before or on the day of the
marriage, are paraphernal and irrevokable by the husband during
that marriage, and belong only to the wife 1697.
and her executors; but any gifts by the
husband to the wife after the marriage-day are revokable, either by
the husband making use of them himself, or taking them back during
the marriage; but if the wife be in possession of them during the
marriage or at her death, the same are not revokable by the husband
thereafter. Cabinets, coffers, &c., for holding the paraphernalia, are
not paraphernalia, but fall under the communion of goods. Some of
the Lords were for making anything given the next morning after the
marriage, paraphernalia, called the morning gift in our law; but the
Lords esteemed them man and wife then, and [the gift] so
irrevokable.’[197]
John, late Archbishop of Glasgow, having Jan. 30.

applied to the king for permission to go to
Scotland ‘for recovery of his health,’ obtained a letter granting him
the desired liberty under certain restrictions. On the ensuing 16th of
March, there is an ordinance of the Privy Council, appointing the
town of Cupar, in Fife, and four miles about the same, as the future
residence of the ex-prelate, provided he give sufficient caution for
keeping within these bounds, and entering into no contrivance or
correspondence against the government.
On the 15th of April, the archbishop, having found no ‘convenient
lodging for his numerous family in Cupar,’ was permitted, on his
petition, to reside in the mansion of Airth, under the same
conditions. Two months later, this was changed to ‘the mansion-
house of Gogar, near to Airth, within the shire of Clackmannan.’ The
archbishop does not appear to have been released from his partial
restraint till February 1701.[198]
Commenced an inquiry by a commission Feb.

from the Privy Council into the celebrated
case of Bargarran’s Daughter—namely, Christian Shaw, a girl of
eleven years old, the daughter of John Shaw of Bargarran, in
Renfrewshire. A solemn importance was thus given to circumstances
which, if they took place now, would be slighted by persons in
authority, and scarcely heard of beyond the parish, or at most the
county. It was, however, a case highly characteristic of the age and
country in which it happened.
In the parish of Erskine, on the south bank of the Clyde, stands
Bargarran House, a small old-fashioned mansion, with some inferior
buildings attached, the whole being 1697.
enclosed, after the fashion of a time not
long gone by, in a wall capable of some defence. Here dwelt John
Shaw, a man of moderate landed estate, with his wife and a few
young children. His daughter Christian had as yet attracted no
particular attention from her parents or neighbours, though
observed to be a child of lively character and ‘well-inclined.’
One day (August 17, 1696), little Christian having informed her
mother of a petty theft committed by a servant, the woman broke out
upon her with frightful violence, wishing her soul might be harled
[dragged] through hell, and thrice imprecating the curse of God upon
her. Considering the pious feelings of old and young in that age, we
shall see how such an assault of terrible words might well impress
the mind of a child, to whom all such violences must have been a
novelty. The results, however, were of a kind which could scarcely
have been anticipated. Five days afterwards, when Christian had
been a short while in bed, and asleep, she suddenly started up with a
great cry, calling, ‘Help! help!’ and immediately sprung into the air,
in a manner astonishing to her parents and others who were in the
room. Then being put into another bed, she remained stiff and to
appearance insensible for half an hour; after which, for forty-eight
hours, she continued restless, complaining of violent pains through
her whole body, or, if she dozed for a moment, immediately starting
up with the same cry of irrepressible terror, ‘Help! help!’
For eight days the child had fits of extreme violence, under which
she was ‘often so bent and rigid that she stood like a bow on her feet
and neck at once,’ and continued without the power of speech, except
at short intervals, during which she seemed perfectly well. A doctor
and apothecary were brought to her from Paisley; but their bleedings
and other applications had no perceptible effect. By and by, her
troubles assumed a different aspect. She seemed to be wrestling and
fighting with an unseen enemy, and there were risings and fallings of
her belly, and strange shakings of her whole body, that struck the
beholders with consternation. She now began, in her fits, to
denounce Catherine Campbell, the woman-servant, and an old
woman of evil fame, named Agnes Naismith, as the cause of her
torments, alleging that they were present in person cutting her side,
when in reality they were at a distance. At this crisis, fully two
months after the beginning of her ailments, her parents took her to
Glasgow, to consult an eminent physician, named Brisbane,
regarding her case. He states in his 1697.
[199]
deposition, that at first he thought the
child quite well; but after a few minutes, she announced a coming fit,
and did soon after fall into convulsions, accompanied by heavy
groanings and murmurings against two women named Campbell and
Naismith; all of which he thought ‘reducible to the effect of a
hypochondriac melancholy.’ He gave some medicines suitable to his
conception of the case, and for eight days, during which the girl
remained in Glasgow, she was comparatively well, as well as for eight
days after her return home. Then the fits returned with even
increased violence; she became as stiff as a corpse, without sense or
motion; her tongue would be drawn out of her mouth to a prodigious
length, while her teeth set firmly upon it; at other times it was drawn
far back into her mouth. Her parents set out with her again to
Glasgow, that she might be under the doctor’s care; but as they were
going, a new fact presented itself. She spat or took from her mouth,
every now and then, parcels of hair of different colours, which she
declared her two tormentors were trying to force down her throat.
She had also fainting-fits every quarter of an hour. Dr Brisbane saw
her again (November 12), and from that time for some weeks was
frequently with her. He says: ‘I observed her narrowly, and was
confident she had no human correspondent to subminister the straw,
wool, cinders, hay, feathers, and such like trash to her; all which,
upon several occasions, I have seen her pull out of her mouth in
considerable quantities, sometimes after several fits, and sometimes
after no fit at all, whilst she was discoursing with us; and for the most
part she pulled out those things without being wet in the least; nay,
rather as if they had been dried with care and art; for one time, as I
remember, when I was discoursing with her, she gave me a cinder
out of her mouth, not only dry, but hot, much above the degree of the
natural warmth of a human body.’ ‘Were it not,’ he adds, ‘for the
hairs, hay, straw, and other things wholly contrary to human nature,
I should not despair to reduce all the other symptoms to their proper
classes in the catalogue of human diseases.’ Thereafter, as we are
further informed, there were put out of her mouth bones of various
sorts and sizes, small sticks of candle-fir, some stable-dung mingled
with hay, a quantity of fowl’s feathers, a gravel-stone, a whole gall-
nut, and some egg-shells.
Sometimes, during her fits, she would fall 1697.
a-reasoning, as it were, with Catherine
Campbell about the course she was pursuing, reading and quoting
Scripture to her with much pertinence, and entreating a return of
their old friendship. The command which she shewed of the language
of the Bible struck the bystanders as wonderful for such a child; but
they easily accounted for it. ‘We doubt not,’ says the narrator of the
case, ‘that the Lord did, by his good spirit, graciously afford her a
more than ordinary measure of assistance.’
Before leaving Glasgow for the second time, she had begun to
speak of other persons as among her tormentors, naming two,
Alexander and James Anderson, and describing other two whose
names she did not know.
Returned to Bargarran about the 12th of December, she was at
ease for about a week, and then fell into worse fits than ever. She
now saw the devil in various shapes threatening to devour her. Her
face and body underwent frightful contortions. She would point to
places where her tormentors were standing, wondering why others
did not see them as well as she. One of these ideal tormentors, Agnes
Naismith, came in the body to see the child, spoke kindly, and prayed
God to restore her health; after which Christian always spoke of her
as her defender from the rest. Catherine Campbell was of a different
spirit. She could by no means be prevailed on to pray for the child,
but cursed her and all her family, imprecating the devil to let her
never grow better, for all the trouble she had brought upon herself.
This woman being soon after imprisoned, it seemed as if from that
time she also disappeared from among the child’s tormentors. We
are carefully informed that in her pocket was found a ball of hair,
which was thrown into the fire, and after that time the child vomited
no more hair.
The devil’s doings at Bargarran having now effectually roused
public attention, the presbytery sent relays of their members to be
present in the house, and lend all possible spiritual help. One
evening, Christian was suddenly carried off with an unaccountable
motion through the chamber and hall, down the long winding stair,
to the outer gate, laughing wildly, while ‘her feet did not touch the
ground, so far as anybody was able to discern.’ She was brought back
in a state of rigidity, and declared when she recovered that she had
felt as one carried in a swing. On the ensuing evening, she was
carried off in the same manner, and borne to the top of the house;
thence, as she stated, by some men and 1697.
women, down to the outer gate, where, as
formerly, she was found lying like one dead. The design of her
bearers, she said, was to throw her into the well, when the world
would believe she had drowned herself. On a third occasion, she
moved in the same unaccountable manner down to the cellar, when
the minister, trying to bring her up again, felt as if some one were
pulling her back out of his arms. On several occasions, she spoke of
things which she had no visible means of knowing, but which were
found to be true, thus manifesting one of the assigned proofs of
possession, and of course further confirming the general belief
regarding her ailments and their cause. She said that some one spoke
over her head, and distinctly told her those things.
The matter having been reported with full particulars to the Privy
Council, the commission before spoken of was issued, and on the 5th
February it came to Bargarran, under the presidency of Lord
Blantyre, who was the principal man in the parish. Catherine
Campbell, Agnes Naismith, a low man called Anderson, and his
daughter Elizabeth, Margaret Fulton, James Lindsay, and a Highland
beggar-man, all of whom had been described as among Christian’s
tormentors, were brought forward and confronted with her; when it
was fully seen that, on any of these persons touching her, she fell into
fits, but not when she was touched by any other person. It is stated
that, even when she was muffled up, she distinguished that it was the
Highland beggar who touched her. The list of the culprits, however,
was not yet complete. There was a boy called Thomas Lindsay, who
for a half-penny would pronounce a charm, and turn himself about
withershins, or contrary to the direction of the sun, and so stop a
plough, and cause the horse to break the yoke. He was taken up, and
speedily confessed being in paction with the devil, and bearing his
marks. At the same time, Elizabeth Anderson confessed that she had
been at several meetings with the devil, and declared her father and
the Highland beggar to have been active instruments for tormenting
Christian Shaw. There had been one particular meeting of witches
with the devil in the orchard of Bargarran, where the plan for the
affliction of the child had been made up. Amongst the delinquents
was a woman of rather superior character, a midwife, commonly
called Maggie Lang, together with her daughter, named Martha
Semple. These two women, hearing they were accused, came to
Bargarran, to demonstrate their innocence; nor could Christian at
first accuse Maggie; but after a while, a ball of hair was found where
she had sat, and the afflicted girl declared 1697.
this to be a charm which had hitherto
imposed silence upon her. Now that the charm was broken, she
readily pronounced that Mrs Lang had been amongst her
tormentors.
In the midst of these proceedings, by order of the presbytery, a
solemn fast was kept in Erskine parish, with a series of religious
services in the church. Christian was present all day, without making
any particular demonstrations.
On the 18th of February—to pursue the contemporary narration
—‘she being in a light-headed fit, said the devil now appeared to her
in the shape of a man; whereupon being struck in great fear and
consternation, she was desired to pray with an audible voice: “The
Lord rebuke thee, Satan!” which trying to do, she presently lost the
power of her speech, her teeth being set, and her tongue drawn back
into her throat; and attempting it again, she was immediately seized
with another severe fit, in which, her eyes being twisted almost
round, she fell down as one dead, struggling with her feet and hands,
and, getting up again suddenly, was hurried violently to and fro
through the room, deaf and blind, yet was speaking to some invisible
creature about her, saying: “With the Lord’s strength, thou shalt
neither put straw nor sticks into my mouth.” After this she cried in a
pitiful manner: “The bee hath stung me.” Then, presently sitting
down, and untying her stockings, she put her hand to that part which
had been nipped or pinched; upon which the spectators discerned
the lively marks of nails, deeply imprinted on that same part of her
leg. When she came to herself, she declared that something spoke to
her as it were over her head, and told her it was Mr M. in a
neighbouring parish (naming the place) that had appeared to her,
and pinched her leg in the likeness of a bee.’
At another time, while speaking with an unseen tormentor, she
asked how she had got those red sleeves; then, making a plunge
along the bed at the supposed witch, she was heard as it were tearing
off a piece of cloth, when presently a piece of red cloth rent in two
was seen in her hands, to the amazement of the bystanders, who
were certain there had been no such cloth in the room before.
On the 28th of March, while the inquiries of the commission were
still going on, Christian Shaw all at once recovered her usual health;
nor did she ever again complain of being afflicted in this manner.
The case was in due time formally prepared for trial; and seven
persons were brought before an assize at Paisley, with the Lord
Advocate as prosecutor, and an advocate assigned, according to the
custom of Scotland, for the defence of the accused. It was a new
commission which sat in judgment, comprehending, we are told,
several persons not only ‘of honour,’ but ‘of singular knowledge and
experience.’ The witnesses were carefully examined; full time was
allowed to every part of the process, which lasted twenty hours; and
six hours more were spent by the jury in deliberating on their verdict.
The crimes charged were the murders of several children and
persons of mature age, including a minister, and the tormenting of
several persons, and particularly of Bargarran’s daughter. It is
alleged by the contemporary narrator, Francis Cullen, advocate, that
all things were carried on ‘with tenderness and moderation;’ yet the
result was that the alleged facts were found to be fully proved, and a
judgment of guilty was given.
It is fitting to remember here, that the Lord Advocate, Sir James
Steuart, in his address to the jury, holds all those instances of
clairvoyance and of flying locomotion which have been mentioned, as
completely proved, and speaks as having no doubt of the murders
and torments effected by the accused. He insisted strongly on the
devil’s marks which had been found upon their persons; also on the
coincidence between many things alleged by Christian Shaw and
what the witches had confessed. From such records of the trial as we
have, it fully appears that the whole affair was gone about in a
reasoning way: the premises granted, everything done and said was
right, as far as correct logic could make it so.
On the 10th of June, on the Gallow Green of Paisley, a gibbet and a
fire were prepared together. Five persons, including Maggie Lang,
were brought out and hung for a few minutes on the one, then cut
down and burned in the other. A man called John Reid would have
made a sixth victim, if he had not been found that morning dead in
his cell, hanging to a pin in the wall by his handkerchief, and believed
to have been strangled by the devil. And so ended the tragedy of
Bargarran’s Daughter.
The case has usually, in recent times, been treated as one in which
there were no other elements than a wicked imposture on her part,
and some insane delusions on that of the confessing victims; but
probably in these times, when the phenomena of mesmerism have
forced themselves upon the belief of a large and respectable portion
of society, it will be admitted as more likely 1697.
that the maledictions of Campbell threw the
child into an abnormal condition, in which the ordinary beliefs of her
age made her sincerely consider herself as a victim of diabolic malice.
How far she might be tempted to put on appearances and make
allegations, in order to convince others of what she felt and believed,
it would be difficult to say. To those who regard the whole affair as
imposture, an extremely interesting problem is presented for
solution by the original documents, in which the depositions of
witnesses are given—namely, how the fallaciousness of so much, and,
to appearance, so good testimony on pure points of fact, is to be
reconciled with any remaining value in testimony as the verifier of
the great bulk of what we think we know.
About thirty years before this date, a Mar.

certain Sir Alexander M‘Culloch of Myreton,
in the stewartry of Kirkcudbright, with two sons, named Godfrey and
John, attracted the attention of the authorities by some frightfully
violent proceedings against a Lady Cardiness and her two sons,
William and Alexander Gordon, for the purpose of getting them
extruded from their lands.[200] Godfrey in time succeeded to the title,
and to all the violent passions of his father; but his property was
wholly compromised for the benefit of his creditors, who declared it
to be scarcely sufficient to pay his debts. Desperate for a subsistence,
he attempted, in the late reign, by ‘insinuations with the Chancellor
Perth,’ and putting his son to the Catholic school in Holyrood Palace,
to obtain some favour from the law, and succeeded so far as to get
assigned to him a yearly aliment of five hundred merks (about £28)
out of his lands, being allowed at the same time to take possession of
the family mansion of Bardarroch. From a complaint brought against
him in July 1689 before the Privy Council, it would appear that he
intromitted with the rents of the estate, and did no small amount of
damage to the growing timber; moreover, he attempted to embezzle
the writs of the property, with the design of annihilating the claims of
his creditors. Insufferable as his conduct was, the Council assigned
him six hundred merks of aliment, but only on condition of his
immediately leaving Bardarroch, and giving up the writs of the
estate. Yielding in no point to their decree, he was soon after ordered
to be summarily ejected by the sheriff.[201]
There was a strong, unsubdued Celtic element in the
Kirkcudbright population, and Sir Godfrey 1697.
M‘Culloch reminds us entirely of a West
Highland Cameron or Macdonald of the reign of James VI. What
further embroilments took place between him and his old family
enemies, the Gordons of Cardiness, we do not learn; but certain it is,
that on the 2d of October 1690, he came to Bush o’ Bield, the house
of William Gordon, whom twenty years before he had treated so
barbarously, with the intent of murdering him. Sending a servant in
to ask Gordon out to speak with some one, he no sooner saw the
unfortunate man upon his threshold, than ‘with a bended gun he did
shoot him through the thigh, and brak the bane thereof to pieces; of
which wound William Gordon died within five or six hours
thereafter.’[202]
The homicide made his way to a foreign country, and thus for
some years escaped justice. He afterwards returned to England, and
was little taken notice of. William Stewart of Castle-Stewart, husband
of the murdered Gordon’s daughter, offered to intercede for a
remission in his behalf, if he would give up the papers of the
Cardiness estate; but he did not accept of this offer. Perhaps he
became at length rather too heedless of the vengeance that might be
in store for him. It is stated that, being in Edinburgh, he was so
hardy as to go to church, when a gentleman of Galloway, who had
some pecuniary interest against him, rose, and called out with an air
of authority: ‘Shut the doors—there’s a murderer in the house!’[203]
He was apprehended, and immediately after subjected to a trial
before the High Court of Justiciary, and condemned to be beheaded
at the Cross of Edinburgh. The execution was appointed to take place
on the 5th of March 1697;[204] but on the 4th he presented a petition
to the Privy Council, in which, while expressing submission to his
sentence, he begged liberty to represent to their Lordships, ‘that as
the petitioner hath been among the most unhappy of mankind in the
whole course of his life, so he hath been singularly unfortunate in
what hath happened to him near the period of it.’ He thought that
‘nobody had any design upon him after the course of so many years,
and he flattered himself with hopes of life on many considerations,
and specially believing that the only two proving witnesses would not
have been admitted. Being now found guilty, he is exceedingly
surprised and unprepared to die.’ On his 1697.
petition for delay, the execution was put
forward to the 25th March.
Sir Walter Scott has gravely published, in the Minstrelsy of the
Scottish Border, a strange story about Sir Godfrey M‘Culloch, to the
effect that he had made friendship in early life with an old man of
fairyland, by diverting a drain which emptied itself into the fairies’
chamber of dais; and when he came to the scaffold on the Castle Hill,
this mysterious personage suddenly came up on a white palfrey, and
bore off the condemned man to a place of safety. There is, however,
too much reason to believe that Sir Godfrey really expiated the
murder of William Gordon at the market-cross of Edinburgh. The
fact is recorded in a broadside containing the unhappy man’s last
speech, which has been reprinted in the New Statistical Account of
Scotland. In this paper, he alleged that the murder was
unpremeditated, and that he came to the place where it happened
contrary to his own inclination. He denied a rumour which had gone
abroad that he was a Roman Catholic, and recommended his wife
and children to God, with a hope that friends might be stirred up to
give them some protection. It has been stated, however, that he was
never married. He left behind him several illegitimate children, who,
with their mother, removed to Ireland on the death of their father;
and there a grandson suffered capital punishment for robbery about
the year 1760.[205]
The Privy Council had an unpleasant Mar.

affair upon its hands. Alexander Brand, late
bailie of Edinburgh—a man of enterprise, noted for having
introduced a manufacture of gilt leather hangings—had vented a libel
under the title of ‘Charges and Gratuities for procuring the additional
fifteen hundred pounds of my Tack-duty of Orkney and Zetland,
which was the surplus of the price agreed by the Lords,’ specifying
‘sums of money, hangings, or other donatives given to the late
Secretary Johnston; the Marquis of Tweeddale, late Lord High
Chancellor; the Duke of Queensberry, then Lord Drumlanrig; the
Earl of Cassillis; the Viscount of Teviot, then Sir Thomas
Livingstone; the Lord Basil Hamilton; the Lord Raith, and others.’
He had, in 1693, along with Sir Thomas Kennedy of Kirkhill and Sir
William Binning, late provosts of Edinburgh, entered into a contract
with the government for five thousand stands of arms, at a pound
sterling each, which, it was alleged, would have allowed them a good
profit; yet, when abroad for the purchase of the arms, he wrote to his
partners in the transaction, that they could not be purchased under
twenty-six shillings the piece; and his associates had induced the
Council to agree to this increased price, the whole affair being, as was
alleged, a contrivance for cheating the government. To obtain
payment of the extra sum (£1500), the two knights had entered into
a contract for giving a bribe of two hundred and fifty guineas to the
Earls of Linlithgow and Breadalbane, ‘besides a gratuity to James
Row, who was to receive the arms.’ But no such sum had ever been
paid to these two nobles, ‘they being persons of that honour and
integrity that they were not capable to be imposed upon that way.’
Yet Kennedy and Binning had allowed the contract to appear in a
legal process before the Admiralty Court, ‘to the great slander and
reproach of the said two noble persons.’ In short, it appeared that the
three contractors had proceeded upon a supposition of what was
necessary for the effecting of their business with the Privy Council,
and while not actually giving any bribes—at least, so they now
acknowledged—had been incautious enough to let it appear as if they
had. For the compound fault of contriving bribery and defaming the
nobles in question, they were cast in heavy fines—Kennedy in £800,
Binning in £300, and Brand in £500, to be imprisoned till payment
was made.
Notwithstanding this result, there is no room to doubt that it had
become a custom for persons doing business for the government to
make ‘donatives’ to the Lords of the Privy Council. Fountainhall
reports a case (November 23, 1693) wherein Lord George Murray,
who had been a partner with Sir Robert Miln of Barnton in a tack of
the customs in 1681, demurred, amongst other things in their
accounts, to 10,000 merks given yearly to the then officers of state.
‘As to the donatives, the Lords [of Session] found they had grown
considerably from what was the custom in former years, and that it
looked like corruption and bribery: [they] thought it shameful that
the Lords, by their decreet, should own any such practice; therefore
they recommended to the president to try what was the perquisite
payment in wine by the tacksmen to every officer of state, and to
study to settle [the parties].’[206]
From the annual accounts of the Convention of Royal Burghs, it
appears that fees or gratuities to public 1697.
officers with whom they had any dealing
were customary. For example, in 1696, there is entered for consulting
with the king’s advocate anent prisoners, &c., £84, 16s. (Scots); to his
men, £8, 14s.; to his boy, £1, 8s. Again, to the king’s advocate, for
consulting anent the fishery, bullion, &c., £58; and to his men, £11,
12s. Besides these sums, £333, 6s. 8d. were paid to the same officer
as pension, and to his men, £60. There were paid in the same year,
£11, 12s. to the chancellor’s servants; £26, 13s. 4d. to the macers of
the Council; and an equal sum to the macers of the Court of Session.
The Quakers of Edinburgh were no better Apr. 20.

used by the rest of the public than those of
Glasgow. Although notedly, as they alleged, ‘an innocent and
peaceable people,’ yet they could not meet in their own hired house
for worship without being disturbed by riotous men and boys; and
these, instead of being put down, were rather encouraged by the local
authorities. On their complaining to the magistrates of one
outrageous riot, Bailie Halyburton did what in him lay to add to their
burden by taking away the key of their meeting-house, thus
compelling them to meet in the street in front, where ‘they were
further exposed to the fury of ane encouraged rabble.’ They now
entreated the Privy Council to ‘find out some method whereby the
petitioners (who live as quiet and peaceable subjects under a king
who loves not that any should be oppressed for conscience’ sake)
may enjoy a free exercise of their consciences, and that those who
disturb them may be discountenanced, reproved, and punished.’ This
they implore may be speedily done, ‘lest necessity force them to
apply to the king for protection.’
The Council remitted to the magistrates ‘to consider the said
representation, and to do therein as they shall find just and right.’[207]
St Kilda, a fertile island of five miles’ June 1.

circumference, placed fifty miles out from
the Hebrides, was occupied by a simple community of about forty
families, who lived upon barley-bread and sea-fowl, with their eggs,
undreaming of a world which they had only heard of by faint reports
from a factor of their landlord ‘Macleod,’ who annually visited them.
Of religion they had only caught a confused 1697.
notion from a Romish priest who stayed
with them a short time about fifty years ago. It was at length thought
proper that an orthodox minister should go among these simple
people, and the above is the date of his visit.
‘M. Martin, gentleman,’ who accompanied the minister, and
afterwards published an account of the island, gives us in his
book[208] a number of curious particulars about a personage whom he
calls Roderick the Impostor, who, for some years bypast, had
exercised a religious control over the islanders. He seems to have
been, in reality, one of those persons, such as Mohammed, once
classed as mere deceivers of their fellow-creatures for selfish
purposes, but in whom a more liberal philosophy has come to see a
basis of what, for want of a better term, may in the meantime be
called ecstaticism or hallucination.
Roderick was a handsome, fair-complexioned man, noted in his
early years for feats of strength and dexterity in climbing, but as
ignorant of letters and of the outer world as any of his companions,
having indeed had no opportunities of acquiring any information
which they did not possess. Having, in his eighteenth year, gone out
to fish on a Sunday—an unusual practice—he, on his return
homeward, according to his own account, met a man upon the road,
dressed in a Lowland dress—that is, a cloak and hat; whereupon he
fell flat upon the ground in great disorder. The stranger announced
himself as John the Baptist, come direct from heaven, to
communicate through Roderick divine instructions for the benefit of
the people, hitherto lost in ignorance and error. Roderick pleaded
unfitness for the commission imposed upon him; but the Baptist
desired him to be of good cheer, for he would instantly give him all
the necessary powers and qualifications. Returning home, he lost no
time in setting about his mission. He imposed some severe penances
upon the people, particularly a Friday’s fast. ‘He forbade the use of
the Lord’s Prayer, Creed, and Ten Commandments, and instead of
them, prescribed diabolical forms of his own. His prayers and
rhapsodical forms were often blended with the name of God, our
blessed Saviour, and the immaculate Virgin. He used the Irish word
Phersichin—that is, verses, which is not known in St Kilda, nor in the
Northwest Isles, except to such as can read the Irish tongue. But
what seemed most remarkable in his obscure prayers was his
mentioning ELI, with the character of our preserver. He used several
unintelligible words in his devotions, of 1697.
which he could not tell the meaning
himself; saying only that he had received them implicitly from St
John the Baptist, and delivered them before his hearers without any
explication.’ ‘This impostor,’ says Martin, ‘is a poet, and also
endowed with that rare faculty, the second-sight, which makes it the
more probable that he was haunted by a familiar spirit.’
He stated that the Baptist communicated with him on a small
mount, which he called John the Baptist’s Bush, and which he
forthwith fenced off as holy ground, forbidding all cattle to be
pastured on it, under pain of their being immediately killed.
According to his account, every night after he had assembled the
people, he heard a voice without, saying: ‘Come you out,’ whereupon
he felt compelled to go forth. Then the Baptist, appearing to him,
told him what he should say to the people at that particular meeting.
He used to express his fear that he could not remember his lesson;
but the saint always said: ‘Go, you have it;’ and so it proved when he
came in among the people, for then he would speak fluently for
hours. The people, awed by his enthusiasm, very generally became
obedient to him in most things, and apparently his influence would
have known no restriction, if he had not taken base advantage of it
over the female part of the community. Here his quasi-sacred
character broke down dismally. The three lambs from one ewe
belonging to a person who was his cousin-german, happened to stray
upon the holy mount, and when he refused to sacrifice them,
Roderick denounced upon him the most frightful calamities. When
the people saw nothing particular happen in consequence, their
veneration for him experienced a further abatement. Finally, when
the minister arrived, and denounced the whole of his proceedings as
imposture, he yielded to the clamour raised against him, consented
to break down the wall round the Baptist’s Bush, and peaceably
submitted to banishment from the island. Mr Martin brought him to
Pabbay island in the Harris group, whence he was afterwards
transferred to the laird’s house of Dunvegan in Skye. He is said to
have there confessed his iniquities, and to have subsequently made a
public recantation of his quasi-divine pretensions before the
presbytery of Skye.[209]
Mr Martin, in his book, stated a fact which has since been the
subject of much discussion—namely, that whenever the steward and
his party, or any other strangers, came to St 1697.
Kilda, the whole of the inhabitants were, in
a few days, seized with a severe catarrh. The fact has been doubted; it
has been explained on various hypotheses which were found
baseless: visitors have arrived full of incredulity, and always come
away convinced. Such was the case with Mr Kenneth Macaulay, the
author of the amplest and most rational account of this singular
island. He had heard that the steward usually went in summer, and
he thought that the catarrh might be simply an annual epidemic; but
he learned that the steward sometimes came in May, and sometimes
in August, and the disorder never failed to take place a few days after
his arrival, at whatever time he might come, or how often so ever in a
season. A minister’s wife lived three years on the island free of the
susceptibility, but at last became liable to it. Mr Macaulay did not
profess to account for the phenomenon; but he mentions a
circumstance in which it may be possible ultimately to find an
explanation. It is, that not only is a St Kildian’s person disagreeably
odoriferous to a stranger, but ‘a stranger’s company is, for some

Full Ebook of The Routledge Handbook of Public Service Interpreting 1St Edition Laura Gavioli Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Full Ebook of The Routledge Handbook of Public Service Interpreting 1St Edition Laura Gavioli Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Ebook of The Routledge Handbook of Public Service Interpreting 1St Edition Laura Gavioli Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Routledge Handbook of Public

Service Interpreting 1st Edition Laura

The Routledge Handbook of Korean Interpreting 1st

Routledge Handbook of Public Criminologies 1st Edition

Public Service Operations Management A research

The Routledge Handbook of European Public Policy 1st

Public Service Logic: Creating Value for Public Service

The Moral Heart of Public Service 1st Edition Claire

Technological Innovation Put to the Service of Language

The Routledge Handbook of Homelessness 1st Edition

The Routledge Handbook of Public Service Interpreting provides a comprehensive overview of

Laura Gavioli is a Professor of English language and ­English-​­Italian translation at the

Cecilia Wadensjö is a Professor of Interpreting and Translation Studies at Stockholm Uni-

List of contributors viii

1 General issues about public service interpreting: institutions, codes,

2 The ambiguity of interpreting: ethnographic interviews with public

3 Agency in and for mediating in public service interpreting 46

4 Cultural assumptions, positioning and power: towards a Social

5 ­Corpus-​­based studies of public service interpreting 76

6 Technology use in ­language-​­discordant interpersonal healthcare

7 Public service translation: critical issues and future directions 106

8 Public service interpreting in ­court: ­face-­​­­to-​­face interaction 125

9 Research on i­­ nterpreter-​­​­​­mediated asylum interviews 140

10 Consecutive interpreting and multimodal sequences 155

11 Vulnerable encounters? Investigating vulnerability in ­interpreter-​

12 Public service interpreting in healthcare 192

13 Challenges and remedies for ­interpreter-​­mediated dementia assessments 207

14 Public service interpreting in social care 225

15 A shared responsibility for facilitating inclusion in school settings

16 ‘­Interpreter’s mistake’: ​­why should other professions care about the

17 Training sign language interpreters for public service interpreting 277

19 Monitoring in dialogue interpreting: cognitive and didactic perspectives 309

20 Blended learning is here to stay! Combining o ­ n-​­line and ­on-​­campus

21 The conversation analytic role-play method: how authentic data meet

22 Training interpreters in asylum settings: the REMILAS project 362

23 Interprofessional education … interpreter education, in or and:

24 Training public service providers in how to communicate via interpreter 399

25 Education and training of public service interpreter teachers 414

Khetam Al Sharou is a Researcher at the University of Antwerp and an Honorary Research

Philipp Sebastian Angermeyer is an Associate Professor in Linguistics at York University

Claudio Baraldi is a Professor of Sociology of Cultural and Communicative Processes at

Antoon Cox is a Professor in Multilingual and Intercultural Communication at Vrije Uni-

London. His research focuses on interpersonal communication in stressful multilingual

Birgitta Englund Dimitrova is a Professor Emerita of Translation Studies at Stockholm

Tatjana R. Felberg is an Associate Professor of interpreting in the public sector at

Kristina Gustafsson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Work, Lin-

Jessica Pedersen Belisle Hansen is an Associate Professor at Østfold University College,

Koen Kerremans is an Associate Professor at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (­VUB). He is currently

Christian Licoppe is interested in conversation analysis and multimodal interaction anal-

Bernd Meyer is a linguist by training and Professor of Intercultural Communication at the

Natacha Niemants is an Associate Professor at the University of Bologna (­Interpreting

Cynthia B. Roy holds a PhD in Sociolinguistics. She is a former professor of Interpreting

Gry Sagli is employed as an Associate Professor at O ­ sloMet – ​­Oslo Metropolitan Univer-

Hanne Skaaden is a Professor in the Department of International Studies and Interpreting

Sigrid Slettebakk Berge is an Associate Professor in Pedagogy at Norwegian University

Elizabeth Stokoe is a Professor of Social Interaction at Loughborough University, UK.

Mustapha Taibi is an Associate Professor in Interpreting and Translation at Western Syd-

Özlem Temizöz is a Researcher at the University of Surrey. Özlem’s research is on lan-

Laura Gavioli is a Professor of English language and English-Italian translation at the

5 Corpus-based studies of public service interpreting 76

6 Technology use in language-discordant interpersonal healthcare

8 Public service interpreting in court: face-to-face interaction 125

9 Research on i nterpreter-mediated asylum interviews 140

11 Vulnerable encounters? Investigating vulnerability in interpreter-

13 Challenges and remedies for interpreter-mediated dementia assessments 207

16 ‘Interpreter’s mistake’: why should other professions care about the

20 Blended learning is here to stay! Combining o n-line and on-campus

Koen Kerremans is an Associate Professor at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). He is currently

Natacha Niemants is an Associate Professor at the University of Bologna (Interpreting

Gry Sagli is employed as an Associate Professor at O sloMet – Oslo Metropolitan Univer-

Véronique Traverso is a time Researcher at the National Center for Scientific

Carmen Valero-Garcés is a Full Professor of Translation and Interpreting at the Univer-

What is ‘the conduit metaphor’?

with mental disorders in general, in c ross-cultural encounters where familiarity of sounds,

never considered communication a problem. As Wallace and Monzó-Nebot (2019) note,

In line with the above, other problems found in the institution-

In other words, to understand how interpreter-mediated interaction works, we need to

EULITA (2016) Letter of Support to APTIJ Complaint by EULITA.

32 DOI: 10.4324/9780429298202-4