On norms and ethics in the discourse on interpreting

This paper deals in general terms with the way the notion of “translational norm” has been used in research on interpreting, mainly in papers by Shlesinger (1989 and 1999), Harris (1990), Schjoldager (1995), Gile (1999), and, more recently, Garzone (2002). I shall then advance reasons why this notion could find wider application, or at least be made more explicit. I shall not be looking, yet, at a corpus of scholarly or non-scholarly discourse stating more or less implicitly what the norm is, although this body of “extratextual pronouncements” is, as Shlesinger (1999) noted, an important source of evidence for the norms operating in interpreting (with some caveats concerning the gap between normative discourse and norms in practice, as recalled in Toury 1998). A recent example of how prevailing norms for a given setting, conference interpreting, can be elicited from discourse and then compared with actual behaviour is provided in the study by Diriker (2004). For the time being, however, I shall keep within the limits of a broad and admittedly abstract argument in favour of a “thicker” description of norms in interpreting, substantiated by anecdotal evidence that I hope will be deemed relevant.