Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMoore, Patrick
dc.description.abstractThis 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.
dc.subjectReported speech
dc.subjectDirect speech
dc.subjectIndirect speech
dc.subjectCommunity interpreting
dc.titleDirect versus indirect speech in community interpreting
dc.title.alternativedoes it really matter?
dc.description.departmentRomance Languages
dc.description.advisorSarah E. Blackwell
dc.description.committeeSarah E. Blackwell
dc.description.committeeHildebrando Ruiz
dc.description.committeeMarlyse Baptista

Files in this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record