Abstract:
Generally speaking, the literature on simultaneous interpreting and
professionals within the field tends to take norms like the interpreter's
'faithfulness' to the speaker and 'accuracy' for granted, without making
scrupulous research descriptions or investigations. The simultaneous
interpreters' 'mediation' is one of those norms. They often than not describe
it as being unprofessional. In a globalized world where the need for such
an activity increases, it becomes necessary and even inevitable to account
empirically for the norms and principles of this practice. Therefore, the
present paper studies and evaluates mediation in the context of professional
conferences. It attempts to determine whether there is mediation on the part
of the simultaneous interpreter, and if so, to what degree this can be
acceptable.
The paper applies a multidisciplinary approach to English speeches
given at real conferences and their simultaneous interpretations into
Arabic. The Interpretive Theory, a pragmatic model, and some political
theories formed the theoretical basis of analysis. Content analysis and
comparative study constituted a perfect methodology to this end. It comes
to the conclusion that there is a mediation on the part of interpreters and
there are cases where it is acceptable and others where it becomes
unacceptable (very few due to the high degree of professionalism
presented).
