Direct versus indirect speech in community interpreting
MetadataShow full item record
This thesis analyzes interpreting as reported speech and attempts to discover whether it matters or not if interpreting is performed as direct or indirect speech. Traditionally, interpreter training prescribes direct speech. Because community interpreters may be untrained, many use indirect speech. Although direct speech is necessary in court interpreting, it may not be in medical interpreting. There has been little research done on this question and the results are inconclusive. In this study, mock interpreting sessions were videotaped and transcribed. Additionally, interpreters were surveyed via internet. All interpreters used direct speech, however the mock interpreting sessions demonstrate that the interpreting process has a tendency to introduce significant stylistic changes in the interpreted renditions, such as lengthening, shortening, changes in formality, and the omission of curse word and discourse markers. The majority of survey respondents express a strong preference for direct speech, with very few admitting to using indirect speech.