La traduction et l'interprétation de conférence : Vers une approche intégratrice

Description

Abstract

The concept of "reliance" emerges from sociology. It is defined by Roger Clausse (1963) as a break from isolation, the search for functional links, and human communion. Edgar Morin popularized it, emphasizing the importance of a complex, interdisciplinary approach in contrast to Descartes' method of compartmentalization. Morin (1988/1990/1991) criticized the dissection of science and promoted transdisciplinary thinking through his works on complexity. He described complexity not as a solution but as a challenge, a way of thinking through complications, uncertainties, and contradictions. According to Morin, complexity integrates both simplification (selection, hierarchy, reduction) and communication, aiming to escape reductionist or overly globalist thinking.

Morin's method doesn’t reject Cartesian logic; rather, it integrates it into a method that reconciles various aspects of thought, promoting a more holistic understanding. He proposed principles such as holography, recursion, and dialogue. The holographic principle suggests that each part of an organism contains the information of the whole, illustrating the interconnectedness of all aspects of life. The principle of recursion emphasizes self-sustaining processes. These ideas form the basis of a complexity paradigm that challenges disciplinary boundaries and advocates for a transversal and multidimensional approach, applicable not only to philosophy and sociology but also to other fields like translation and conference interpretation.

The disciplines of translation and conference interpretation have traditionally been considered separate, governed by distinct theories and paradigms. However, scholars like Holmes, Chesterman, and others have worked toward bridging these fields. Holmes established a framework for translation studies, categorizing translation theories, while Chesterman further explored the intersection of translation and interpretation. The integration of these fields, as seen in Toury’s Norm Theory, reveals the shared principles and the potential for cross-disciplinary dialogue between translation and interpretation.

In fact,Toury describes translation as a norm-governed activity embedded in cultural contexts. He identifies three key types of norms that influence translators:

1.     Initial Norms: Translators must choose between source text adequacy (faithfulness to the original) and target text acceptability (adapting to the target culture).

2.     Preliminary Norms: These cover translation policies (e.g., text selection) and the use of indirect translations.

3.     Operational Norms: These guide decisions made during translation, such as modifications to the text.

This framework applies beyond translation, extending to conference interpretation, which is also heavily norm-regulated.

Interpreter training programs emphasize linguistic proficiency, technical expertise, and personal qualities (e.g., memory, attention, ethics). Founders like Velleman (1943) and researchers such as Lederer (2007) highlight the importance of these educational norms, which shape interpreters’ professional profiles.

In professional practice, associations like AIIC establish ethical norms, including:

·       Probity: Interpreters must only accept assignments within their competence.

·       Confidentiality: Information shared during interpretation must remain private.

·       Integrity and Accuracy: Interpreters must ensure faithful and precise communication without unnecessary omissions or changes.

Norms also guide interpretation techniques and strategies. Interpreters use methods like anticipation, compression, omission, and explicitation to manage challenges such as rapid speech or complex topics. Strategies are influenced by the goal of maximizing communication impact while maintaining accuracy.

Norms regulate conference interpretation across education, ethics, and operational strategies, showing that Toury’s norm theory, though developed for translation, is equally applicable to interpretation. This highlights the close connection between the two fields and suggests further exploration of their shared principles, fostering collaboration between translation studies and interpretation research