Introduction Interpreting Studies (IS) can still be considered a young academic discipline. The proliferation of literature is promising both in terms of the increase in the number of publications and the scope of the material. The more recent academic interest in accounting for the diversity of interpreting activities categorized under “community interpreting” is injecting a breath of fresh air into a ªeld which, in its short history, has mostly focused on simultaneous conference interpreting. Simultaneous Conference Interpreting, which in this book I shall refer to interchangeably as simultaneous interpreting (SI) or conference interpreting, has indeed been the most salient type of interpreting in the 20th century. The boom in the number of international meetings of all sizes has created signiª cant demand for experts in interlingual and intercultural communication, leading to the emergence of SI as a technology-assisted solution to the grow ing demand for e¹cient cross-cultural contacts. SI has always had an aura about it, possibly due to the charm of the large conference halls and highly specialised/institutionalised settings of simulta neous interpreter-mediated conferences. Furthermore, the near-simultaneity of the original speech and its interpretation into another language also seems to have added prestige and created “awe at an impossible task miraculously done” (Shlesinger 1989a: 8). On the other hand, the scholarly interest in interpreting seems to have followed a hierarchy of its own, with most of the scholarly attention being devoted to the most salient types and features of interpreting (i.e., conference interpreting as the most salient type and cognitive aspects of the task as the most salient feature). The focus of SI research has varied from experiments on the role of memory and attention during SI to verbal-manual interference tasks, from the lateralization of the brain hemispheres of interpreters to pupillometry tests and the eŸect of ear asymmetries to information processing models for interlingual communication. Within a ªeld dominated by cognitive, psycho and neuro-linguistic paradigms, considerably less attention has been devoted to SI as “situated action”. That is to say, the position of conference interpreters as individuals and professionals working and surviving in socio-cultural contexts, and the interdependency between socio-cultural contexts and the presence and performance of conference interpreters have not been among the major ªelds of research in Interpreting Studies. This aspect of SI Research has diŸered markedly from the emphasis placed on the constitutive and constraining role of socio-cultural, interactional and ideological context(s) in Translation Studies. Starting with the emphasis placed on looking at actual translations in contexts in Descriptive Translation Studies, as well as the almost-parallel emphasis given by Skopos and Translatory Action theories to the situatedness of translation, scholars who have worked with and also critically reassessed the basic assumptions of these theoretical frameworks as well as numerous others who have approached translations from a variety of diŸerent perspectives, such as deconstruction, postcolonialism, critical social theory and gender studies, have converged on a view of translation as a cultural and contextual practice and acknowledged the shaping power of socio-cultural and ideological contexts with varying degrees of emphasis. They have also explored the “voice” of the translator and questioned the ideological reasons behind the translator’s seeming non-presence in translated texts. More recently, this interest in the situatedness of translation has expanded to cover the relatively less studied cognitive processing in translation, and attempts have been made to explore the links between “situated translation” and “situated cognition”.1 Interestingly, the meager interest shown in the relationship between the product and process of SI and socio-cultural and interactional contexts has also set SI Research apart from the literature on other modes of interpreting, especially on community interpreting, which has come to place an almost exclusive emphasis on exploring interpreting in relation to contexts. In Com munity Interpreting Research, the focus of many studies has been on how the mediation of an interpreter in¶uences the interaction and the relations be tween the interlocutors, how it reveals, represents, reproduces and occasionally restores power diŸerences between individuals, as well as between individuals and institutions or society at large. Scholars working on community interpret ing have been very keen on analyzing and questioning the position of the interpreter, his/her job descriptions, the implications of an interpreter-medi ated interaction in and on various settings such as police interrogations, doc tor-patient encounters, psychiatric interviews, refugee hearings, etc.
