4.1 Foci and paradigmsThe growing

4.1 Foci and paradigms

The growing number of translator and interpreter training programs means a growing number of researchers interested in didactic issues. Whereas the topic has been a major one in IR from the start (see Gile 2000), it has been growing in TR as well, with a more research-oriented approach (as exemplified by Orozco 2000). This focus draws many descriptive and prescriptive texts on translator training, but has also generated much interest in the translation process (see for instance Kussmaul 1995, Beeby et al. 2000, Schäffner and Adab 2000). This in turn gave rise to some popularity of the Think-Aloud-Protocol (TAP) paradigm, an empirical paradigm for indirect observation of the translator’s mental operation.
Another important focus for translation research is translation for the media, which are becoming a major client for translation (see Gambier and Gottlieb 2001). Yet another major field of translation activity is localization, which has also attracted the attention of many authors and is part of many translation conferences. Both of these developments are linked to powerful economic factors which have changed the distribution of professional translation over the years.
As to information technology, its rapid development has also made it possible to use the computer rather easily and conveniently for large-scale quantitative research using methods derived from corpora linguistics (see Meta 43:4 (1998), Olohan 2000).
In interpreting, the growth in the field has not had the same effects, since the environment from which interpreting researchers come, essentially interpreter training programs, has remained the same, with the same motivations and the same constraints. The two important changes which have occurred are linked to different factors:
- More empirical research: over the past few years, in IR, there is definitely more empirical research (Gile 2000). However, upon close scrutiny of publication data (see the online IRN Bulletin at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/daniel.gile/), it appears that a large proportion of these studies come from interpreting students’ graduation theses, as opposed to studies by experienced researchers. This suggests that the time and efforts required to produce an original empirical study are within the reach (and compatible with the motivation) of students, presumably thanks to the support given to them by their supervisors, but as soon as they become professional interpreters, they devote their time to the more lucrative profession of conference interpreting, and can no longer find enough motivation to undertake new original research. Thus, the upward trend in the production of empirical research may be more a result of institutional factors, linked to the requirement for a thesis at the end of an academic course, than an actual paradigm shift.
- More research on dialogue and community interpreting: while it is difficult to pinpoint the precise weight of each factor in its present evolution, it is easy to acknowledge the social need for better provision of such interpreting services in many countries over the past decade or so, and this clear need has led to much interest on the part of public authorities in the relevant countries in research into these forms of public service interpreting. This has been reflected by both funding of and effective cooperation from such authorities in research projects (see Roberts et al. 2000), and is generating more research into the relevant types of interpreting.
However, the most important paradigmatic change in both translation research and interpreting research is probably the wide acceptance of Translation as an ‘interdiscipline’ (among the many statements and publications about this topic, see the title and preface of Snell-Hornby et al. 1994), which may be a misnomer for the acceptance of much input from neighboring disciplines. In translation, it is not really new, since over the centuries, comparative linguistics, literature and philosophy were always part of the reflection on translation. However, new interdisciplinarity components have been added, in particular text linguistics, corpora linguistics, psycholinguistics (in connection with TAP studies), pragmatics, cultural studies. In interpreting research, interdisciplinarity has meant the acceptance and use of cognitive psychology, neurophysiology, and more recently, text linguistics and pragmatics (see for instance Kurz 1996, Setton 1999).

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

4.1 Foci and paradigmsThe growing number of translator and interpreter training programs means a growing number of researchers interested in didactic issues. Whereas the topic has been a major one in IR from the start (see Gile 2000), it has been growing in TR as well, with a more research-oriented approach (as exemplified by Orozco 2000). This focus draws many descriptive and prescriptive texts on translator training, but has also generated much interest in the translation process (see for instance Kussmaul 1995, Beeby et al. 2000, Schäffner and Adab 2000). This in turn gave rise to some popularity of the Think-Aloud-Protocol (TAP) paradigm, an empirical paradigm for indirect observation of the translator’s mental operation. Another important focus for translation research is translation for the media, which are becoming a major client for translation (see Gambier and Gottlieb 2001). Yet another major field of translation activity is localization, which has also attracted the attention of many authors and is part of many translation conferences. Both of these developments are linked to powerful economic factors which have changed the distribution of professional translation over the years. As to information technology, its rapid development has also made it possible to use the computer rather easily and conveniently for large-scale quantitative research using methods derived from corpora linguistics (see Meta 43:4 (1998), Olohan 2000). Dalam menafsirkan, pertumbuhan di bidang tidak memiliki efek yang sama, karena lingkungan yang menafsirkan peneliti datang, pada dasarnya program pelatihan penerjemah, tetap sama, dengan motivasi sama dan kendala-kendala yang sama. Dua perubahan penting yang terjadi yang terkait dengan faktor-faktor yang berbeda:-Penelitian empiris lebih: selama beberapa tahun, di IR, ada penelitian empiris pasti lebih (Gile 2000). Namun, setelah dengan cermat publikasi data (Lihat buletin IRN online di http://perso.wanadoo.fr/daniel.gile/), tampak bahwa sebagian besar ini studi datang dari menafsirkan siswa lulus tesis, sebagai lawan dari studi oleh para peneliti berpengalaman. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa waktu dan upaya yang diperlukan untuk menghasilkan sebuah studi empiris yang asli berada dalam jangkauan (dan kompatibel dengan motivasi) siswa, mungkin berkat dukungan yang diberikan kepada mereka oleh atasan mereka, tetapi segera mereka menjadi penerjemah profesional, mereka meluangkan waktu mereka untuk profesi lebih menguntungkan konferensi menafsirkan, dan tidak dapat menemukan cukup motivasi untuk melakukan riset asli baru. Dengan demikian, tren dalam produksi penelitian empiris mungkin lebih akibat faktor kelembagaan, terkait dengan persyaratan untuk tesis di akhir kursus akademik, pergeseran paradigma yang sebenarnya.- More research on dialogue and community interpreting: while it is difficult to pinpoint the precise weight of each factor in its present evolution, it is easy to acknowledge the social need for better provision of such interpreting services in many countries over the past decade or so, and this clear need has led to much interest on the part of public authorities in the relevant countries in research into these forms of public service interpreting. This has been reflected by both funding of and effective cooperation from such authorities in research projects (see Roberts et al. 2000), and is generating more research into the relevant types of interpreting. However, the most important paradigmatic change in both translation research and interpreting research is probably the wide acceptance of Translation as an ‘interdiscipline’ (among the many statements and publications about this topic, see the title and preface of Snell-Hornby et al. 1994), which may be a misnomer for the acceptance of much input from neighboring disciplines. In translation, it is not really new, since over the centuries, comparative linguistics, literature and philosophy were always part of the reflection on translation. However, new interdisciplinarity components have been added, in particular text linguistics, corpora linguistics, psycholinguistics (in connection with TAP studies), pragmatics, cultural studies. In interpreting research, interdisciplinarity has meant the acceptance and use of cognitive psychology, neurophysiology, and more recently, text linguistics and pragmatics (see for instance Kurz 1996, Setton 1999).