Cover not available
Part of
History of Linguistics 2021: Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHoLS 15), Milan, 28 August – 1 September
Edited by Savina Raynaud, Maria Paola Tenchini and Enrica Galazzi
[Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 133] 2024
► pp. 90–103

Chapter 6
Eléments pour une histoire de l’interprétation

Considérations méthodologiques, enjeux et perspectives

| University of Bologna
Interpretation gained visibility in the 20th century thanks to two major historic events: the Paris Peace Conference (1919), in which consecutive interpreters played a crucial role, and the Nuremberg Trials (1945–1946), in which simultaneous interpretation gained international recognition. These key events helped to give the profession unprecedented prestige. The emergence of schools for translators and interpreters after World War II fostered the development of Interpreting Studies along with Translation Studies. Essentially conference interpreting centered, these studies have unfortunately neglected for a long time other forms of interpreting, wrongly regarded as lower-ranking forms, although older and more widespread. Today, an increasing number of studies aim to reconstruct the global history of this millennia-old language practice. Initially West-centered, if not Europe-centered, currently more and more works go beyond this original framework. The present article examines this epistemological shift in the historiography of interpreting, the methodological problems it implies, its challenges and perspectives.
Keywords: interpreting, history, historiography, methodology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.D’une historiographie accessoire au renouveau des Interpreting studies
  • 3.Une lecture foncièrement occidentocentrique
  • 4.Réflexions et itinéraires méthodologiques
  • 5.En guise de conclusion
  • Bibliographie
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.

Article language: French

References (63)
Bibliographie
Alonso-Araguás, Icíar. 2008. “Historia, historiografia e interpretación. Propuestas para una historia de la mediación lingüística oral”. La traducción del futuro: mediación lingüístca y cultural en el siglo XXI dir. par Luis Pegenaute, Janet De Cesaris, Mercè Tricás & Elisenda Bernal, 429–440. Barcelona: PPU/AIETI.Google Scholar
Alonso-Araguás, Icíar & Jesús Baigorri-Jalón. 2021. “Interpretación: historia y profesión”. Interpretare da e verso l’italiano. Didattica e innovazione per la formazione dell’interprete dir. par Mariachiara Russo, 459–475. Bologna: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
Andronikof, Costantin. 1968. “Introduction”. L’interprète dans les conférences internationales. Problèmes de langage et de communication dir. par Danica Seleskovitch, 1–20. Paris: Minard Lettres modernes.Google Scholar
Baigorri-Jalón, Jesús. 2000. La interpretación de conferencias: el nacimiento de una profesión. De París a Nuremberg. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
. 2004. Interpreters at the United Nations: A History. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
. 2015. “History”. Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies dir. par Franz Pöchhacker, 183–186. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2019. Lenguas entre dos fuegos. Intérpretes en la Guerra Civil española. 1936–1939. Granada : Editorial Comares.Google Scholar
Ballard, Michel. 2013. Histoire de la traduction. Repères historiques et culturels. Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Balliu, Christian. 2008. “L’interprète : une vie sans histoire”. Interprète de la République dir. par Christopher Thiéry, 15–21. Bruxelles: Les éditions du Hazard.Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan. 1990. The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bowen, Margareta, David Bowen, Francine Kaufmann & Ingrid Kurz. 1995. “Interpreters and the making of history”. Les traducteurs dans l’histoire dir. par Jean Delisle, Judith Woodsworth, 245–279. Ottawa : Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cary, Edmond. 1956. La traduction dans le monde moderne. Genève: Georg & Co. Google Scholar
Černov, Gelij V. 1978. Teorija i praktika sinchronnogo perevoda [Théorie et pratique de l’interprétation simultanée]. Moskva: Meždunarodnye otnoŝenija.Google Scholar
Chernov, Gelij V. 1992. “Conference Interpretation in the USSR: History, Theory, New Frontiers”, Meta 37:1. 149–162.Google Scholar
Chernov, Sergei. 2016. “At the Dawn of Simultaneous Interpreting in the USSR. Filling some gaps in the history”. New Insights in the History of Interpreting dir. par Takeda, Kayoko & Jesús Baigorri-Jalón, 135–165. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins Joan and Ruth Morris. 1996. Interpreters and the Legal Process. Winchester: Waterside Press.Google Scholar
Cronin, Michael. 2002. “The Empire Talks Back: Orality, Heteronomy and the Cultural Turn in Interpretation Studies”. Translation and Power dir. par Maria Tymoczko & Edwin Gentzler, 45–62. Amherst & Boston: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
De Jongh, Elena M. 1992. An Introduction to Court Interpreting. Theory and Practice. New York: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Delisle, Jean, Judith Woodsworth, dir. 1995. Les traducteurs dans l’histoire. Ottawa: Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
Delisle, Jean. 1997–1998. “Réflexions sur l’historiographie de la traduction et ses exigences scientifiques”. Equivalences 26:2/27:1. 21–43.Google Scholar
Dolmann, Eugen. 1963. Dolmetscher der Diktatoren. Bayreuth: Hestia.Google Scholar
Edwards, Alicia B. 1995. The Practice of Court Interpreting. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falbo, Caterina. 2004. La ricerca in interpretazione. Milano: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
Falbo, Caterina & Alessandra Riccardi, dir. 2016. Interpreting and Interpreters throughout History. Interpreter’s Newsletter 21. Trieste: EUT.Google Scholar
Gaiba, Francesca. 1998. The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galazzi Enrica. 2001. “Oral imaginaire et imaginaire de l’oral”. In Oralité dans la parole et dans l’écriture. Oralità nella parola e nella scrittura. Analyses linguistiques, valeurs symboliques, enjeux professionnels dir. par Mariagrazia Margarito, Enrica Galazzi & Monique Lebhar Politi, 3–4. Torino: Edizioni Libreria Cortina.Google Scholar
Gardiner, Alan H. 1915. “The Egyptian Word for Dragoman”. Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology 37:117–125.Google Scholar
Gehman, Henry S. 1914a. The Interpreters of Foreign Languages among the Ancients: A Study Based on Greek and Latin Sources. PhD dissertation. Philadelphia: Lancaster Intelligencer Printing Co.
1914b. “The Use of Interpreters by the Ten Thousand and by Alexander”. The Classical Weekly 8:2. 9–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentile, Adolfo. 1997. “Community Interpreting or Not? Practices, Standards and Accreditation”. The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community dir. par Silvana E. Carr, Roda P. Roberts, Aideen Dufour & Dini Steyn, 109–118. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Regards sur la recherche en interprétation de conférence. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
Glässer, Edgar. 1956. “Dolmetschen im Mittelalter”. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Dolmetschens dir. par Thieme et al., 61–79. München: Isar.Google Scholar
Gofman, Evgenij A. 1963. “K istorii ustnogo perevoda” [A propos de l’histoire de l’interprétation]. Tetradi perevodčika 1: 20–26.Google Scholar
Gonzáles Dueñas Roseann, Victoria F. Vásquez & Holly Mikkelson. 1991. Fundamentals of Court Interpretation. Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goody, Jack. 2006. The Theft of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grataloup, Christian. 2011. Faut-il penser autrement l’histoire du monde? Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Herbert, Jean. 1952. Manuel de l’interprète. Comment on devient interprète de conférences. Genève : Librairie de l’Université, Georg & Co. Google Scholar
Hermann, Alfred. 2002 [1956]. “Interpreting in Antiquity”. The Interpreting Studies Reader dir. par Franz Pöchhacker & Miriam Shlesinger, 15–22. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keiser, Walter. 1999. “L’histoire de l’Association Internationale des Interprètes de conférence.” History of Interpreting dir. par Ingrid Kurz & Margareta Bowen. Special Issue Interpreting 4:1.81–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “L’interprétation de conférence en tant que profession et les précurseurs de l’Association Internationale des Interprètes de Conférence (AIIC) 1918–1953”. Meta 49: 3.576–608. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lung, Rachel. 2011. Interpreters in Early Imperial China. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lung, Rachel & Donghui Li. 2005. “Interpreters as Historians in China.” Meta 50:3.997–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maalouf, Amin. 1983. Les croisades vues par les Arabes. La barbarie franque en Terre sainte. Paris: Jean-Claude Lattès.Google Scholar
Mounin Georges. 1963. Les problèmes théoriques de la traduction. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Palažčenko, Pavel R. 2020. Professija i vremja. Zapiski perevodčika-diplomata [La profession et le temps. Carnets d’un interprète]. Moskva: Novaja gazeta.Google Scholar
Roditi, Edouard. 1982. Interpreting. Its History in a Nutshell. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Rževskaja, Elena M. 2005. Zapiski voennogo perevodčika [Carnets d’une l’interprète de guerre]. Moskva: Knižnij klub.Google Scholar
Salevsky, Heidemarie. 2018. “The Origins of Interpreting in the Old Testament and the Meturgeman in the Synagogue”. The Bible Translator 69: 2.184–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica. 1968. L’interprète dans les conférences internationales. Problèmes de langage et de communication. Paris: Lettres Modernes Minard.Google Scholar
Skuncke, Marie-France. 1989. “Tout a commencé à Nuremberg”. Parallèles 11.5–8.Google Scholar
Švejcer, Aleksandr. D. 1999. “At the Dawn of Simultaneous Interpretation in Russia”. Interpreting 4:1.23–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takeda, Kayoko. 2010. Interpreting the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. A sociopolitical analysis. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takeda, Kayoko & Jesús Baigorri-Jalón, dir. 2016. New Insights in the History of Interpreting. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thieme, Karl, Alfred Hermann & Edgar Glässer, dir. 1956. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Dolmetschens. München: Isar.Google Scholar
Thiéry, Christopher. 1985. “La responsabilité de l’interprète de conférence professionnel ou pourquoi nous ne pouvons pas écrire nos mémoires”. Meta 30:1.78–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Todorov, Tzvetan. 1982. La conquête de l’Amérique. La question de l’autre. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Torikai, Kumiko. 2009. Voices of the Invisible Presence: Diplomatic Interpreters in Post-World War II in Japan. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hoof, Henri. 1962. Théorie et pratique de l’interprétation. Avec application particulière à l’anglais et au français. München: Max Hueber Verlag.Google Scholar
. 1986. Petite histoire de la traduction en Occident. Louvain-la-Neuve: Cabay.Google Scholar
. 1991. Histoire de la traduction en Occident. Paris / Louvain-La-Neuve: Duculot.Google Scholar
. 1996. “De l’identité des interprètes au cours des siècles”. Hieronymus Complutensis 3.9–20.Google Scholar
Veyne, Paul. 1971. Comment on écrit l’histoire. Essai d’épistémologie. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Wachtel, Nathan. 1971. La vision des vaincus: les Indiens du Pérou devant la Conquête espagnole, 1530–1570. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar