This volume provides a critical examination of quality in the interpreting profession by deconstructing the complex relationship between professional norms and ethical considerations in a variety of sociocultural contexts. Over the past two decades the profession has compelled scholars and practitioners to take into account numerous factors concerning the provision and fulfilment of interpreting. Building on ideas that began to take shape during an international conference on interpreter-mediated interactions, commemorating Miriam Shlesinger, held in Rome in 2013, the book explores some of these issues by looking at the notion of quality through interpreters’ self-awareness of norms at work across a variety of professional settings, contextualising norms and quality in relation to ethical behaviour in everyday practice. Contributions from top researchers in the field create a comprehensive picture of the dynamic role of the interpreter as it has evolved, with key topics revisited by the addition of new contributions from established scholars in the field, fostering discussion and further reflection on important issues in the field of interpreting. This volume will be key reading for scholars, researchers, and graduate students in interpreting and translation studies, pragmatics, discourse analysis, and multilingualism.

This volume – the first-ever collection of research on healthcare interpreting – centers on three interrelated themes: cross-cultural communication in healthcare settings, the interactional role of persons serving as interpreters and the discourse patterns of interpreter-mediated interaction. The individual chapters, by seven innovative researchers in the area of community-based interpreting, represent a pioneering attempt to look beyond stereotypical perceptions of interpreter-mediated interactions. First published as a Special Issue of Interpreting 7:2 (2005), this volume offers insights into the impact of the interpreter – whether s/he is a trained professional or a member of the patient's family – including ways in which s/he may either facilitate or impair reliable communication between patient and healthcare provider. The five articles cover a range of settings and specialties, from general medicine to pediatrics, psychiatry and speech therapy, using languages as diverse as Arabic, Dari, Farsi, Italian and Spanish in combination with Danish, Dutch, English and French.

More the 1.46 million people in the United States have hearing losses in sufficient severity to be considered deaf; another 21 million people have other hearing impairments. For many deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, sign language and voice interpreting is essential to their participation in educational programs and their access to public and private services. However, there is less than half the number of interpreters needed to meet the demand, interpreting quality is often variable, and there is a considerable lack of knowledge of factors that contribute to successful interpreting. Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that a study by the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) found that 70% of the deaf individuals are dissatisfied with interpreting quality. Because recent legislation in the United States and elsewhere has mandated access to educational, employment, and other contexts for deaf individuals and others with hearing disabilities, there is an increasing need for quality sign language interpreting. It is in education, however, that the need is most pressing, particularly because more than 75% of deaf students now attend regular schools (rather than schools for the deaf), where teachers and classmates are unable to sign for themselves. In the more than 100 interpreter training programs in the U.S. alone, there are a variety of educational models, but little empirical information on how to evaluate them or determine their appropriateness in different interpreting and interpreter education-covering what we know, what we do not know, and what we should know. Several volumes have covered interpreting and interpreter education, there are even some published dissertations that have included a single research study, and a few books have attempted to offer methods for professional interpreters or interpreter educators with nods to existing research. This is the first volume that synthesizes existing work and provides a coherent picture of the field as a whole, including evaluation of the extent to which current practices are supported by validating research. It will be the first comprehensive source, suitable as both a reference book and a textbook for interpreter training programs and a variety of courses on bilingual education, psycholinguistics and translation, and cross-linguistic studies.

Legalism or legal formalism usually depicts judges as resolving cases by allegedly merely applying pre-existing legal rules. They do not seem to legislate, exercise discretion, balance or pursue policies, and they definitely do not look outside of conventional legal texts for guidance in deciding new cases. For them, the law is an autonomous domain of knowledge and technique. What they follow are the maxims of clarity, determinacy, and coherence of law. This perception of law and adjudication is sometimes designated as “an orthodox lawyering”. However, at least in certain cases, it is very difficult to say that legalism is not an inappropriate theory or a method of legal interpretation. Different theories have attested that legal interpretation is much more than just legalism, which appears to be far too naïve. In the framework of modern legal interpretation, the following questions can be raised. Is it possible to integrate legalism in a coherent theory of legal interpretation? Is legalism as a distinctive theory of legal interpretation still a feasible theory of interpretation? How can such a formalist approach withstand a critique from Dworkinian moral interpretivism or accusations of being a myth, masking political preferences from legal realists? These and many other issues about legal interpretation are discussed in this book by prominent legal philosophers and legal theorists.

Contrary to traditional theories of statutory interpretation, which ground statutes in the original legislative text or intent, legal scholar William Eskridge argues that statutory interpretation changes in response to new political alignments, new interpreters, and new ideologies. It does so, first of all, because it involves richer authoritative texts than does either common law or constitutional interpretation: statutes are often complex and have a detailed legislative history. Second, Congress can, and often does, rewrite statutes when it disagrees with their interpretations; and agencies and courts attend to current as well as historical congressional preferences when they interpret statutes. Third, since statutory interpretation is as much agency-centered as judgecentered and since agency executives see their creativity as more legitimate than judges see theirs, statutory interpretation in the modern regulatory state is particularly dynamic. Eskridge also considers how different normative theories of jurisprudence--liberal, legal process, and antiliberal--inform debates about statutory interpretation. He explores what theory of statutory interpretation--if any--is required by the rule of law or by democratic theory. Finally, he provides an analytical and jurisprudential history of important debates on statutory interpretation.

Using the model of "reading other people's mail," L. William Countryman proposes that we read the letters of the New Testament as an ongoing conversation between the text itself and the modern interpreter and the community.