Abstract

The term ‘mediation’ has a long history both as a legal term (as in 'alternative dispute resolution’) and as a popular practice. It is also a well-developed discipline in, for example, sociology (c.f. Wadensjö (1992: 42). In one of the very many "Training & Resource Guide[s] for the Mediator", we learn that mediation "denote[s] the interaction of two parties gathered together with the assistance of a neutral party (mediator) to assist both parties resolve their dispute in a mutually satisfactory manner" (Bullen: 2012: 3). It is not immediately clear how translation and/or interpretation (T/I) might have anything to do with conflict resolution. Indeed, in a current survey on the subject, T/I respondents said they were "increasingly using 'mediation' activities, but not 'translation', since the latter is seen as a sentence-level replacement exercise" (Pym 2013). In many fields requiring T/I, ‘intercultural mediation’ is carried out by a growing group of non-T/I specialists. In business, for example, there are ‘intercultural consultants’, ‘writing consultants’ and ‘localization’ specialists. In public services, for immigration there are ‘cultural mediators’. Clearly the idea of interpretation or translation as a form of mediation has yet to become mainstream. Where T/I has been understood as a form of mediation, two very distinct strands have evolved: language (or linguistic) mediation, and intercultural (cross-cultural or cultural) mediation.

Autore Pugliese

• Katan David Mark

Tutti gli autori

• D. Katan

Titolo volume/Rivista

Non Disponibile

Anno di pubblicazione

2013

ISSN

Non Disponibile

ISBN

Non Disponibile

Numero di citazioni Wos

Nessuna citazione

Ultimo Aggiornamento Citazioni

Non Disponibile

Numero di citazioni Scopus

Non Disponibile

Ultimo Aggiornamento Citazioni

Non Disponibile

Settori ERC

Non Disponibile

Codici ASJC

Non Disponibile