Search

The global spread of English as a lingua franca (ELF) has caused a fundamental change to translation and interpreting (T&I). Translation and interpreting used to revolve around bilingual mediation between native speakers and native listeners. In interpreting, in particu­lar, more often than not, source speeches are now produced by non-native English speakers. The impact of this development has the potential to uproot our traditional understanding of T&I. This article sets out to describe how ELF or, more specifically, input produced by non-native English speakers under ELF conditions, differs from the native-speaker input, transla­tors and interpreters used to be dealing with. It gauges the consequences of these differences for translation and interpreting and examines how fundamental a change it is navigating between non-native speakers and listeners, as compared to the traditional situation of mediat­ing between speakers and listeners operating in their respective first languages. This culmi­nates in an exploration of the question as to whether there is reason to speak of a paradigm shift in translation and interpreting studies.

This contribution analyses the argumentative premises underlying applied linguistic research conducted in the area of English-medium instruction. Applied linguistics not only studies language as it is used in the real world but is widely understood as an approach through which real-world problems in matters of language can be solved. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that applied linguistics is commonly used as a diagnostic perspective in English-medium instruction (EMI) research where it aims to provide insight into issues in need of fixing or improvement. Such studies are not conducted in an argumentative vacuum: they are embedded in a background process of policymaking, debate and discussion by stakeholders and policymakers who are involved in the introduction of English as an international language in higher education. This paper aims to highlight the argumentative backdrop against which applied linguistic research into EMI is construed and legitimised. Analysing conference abstracts in the field of EMI, the paper seeks to draw attention to everyday logic and beliefs applied linguists engage in when submitting paper proposals for conferences. It calls for a critical applied linguistic research agenda which foregrounds the potential ideological effects everyday conceptualisations of language have on EMI research and, ultimately, on EMI policymaking.

Erworben im Rahmen der Schweizer Nationallizenzen (http://www.nationallizenzen.ch), Many factors can affect the translation and interpreting process, but the quality of source texts has been explicitly identified as an issue in surveys of professional translators and interpreters as well as in recent workplace studies. If translators and interpreters encounter resistance in carrying out their tasks, for example by difficulties in extracting meaning from non-native English input, then flow can be interrupted and performance affected. In this paper, we explore how English as a lingua franca (ELF) input could potentially increase the cognitive load not only for translators and interpreters but also for other multilinguals. We describe the range of methods that can be used to measure the cognitive effort and stress associated with processing ELF input and explain the challenges that can be encountered when researchers are committed to using authentic ELF material to make comparisons under relatively controlled but ecologically valid conditions. One of the driving motivators for this type of research is to understand how interpreters and translators deploy their expertise to deal with ELF input in work settings in order to draw inferences about strategies for other segments of the population.

Forty adult native speakers (NSs) listened to a non-native speaker's (NNS) reading of well-formed sentences and those containing grammatical errors of three types (NNS, egregious NS, and high frequency NS). Identified errors were judged for gravity on a 5-point scale. Contrary to our hypothesis, there appears to be no penalty when NNSs make grammatical errors that are also made by some NSs. A second experiment included 20 NS experts, 20 NS non-experts, and 20 advanced proficiency NNSs. All groups identified the three error types and rated them for gravity and annoyance in an aural task; they then identified the same errors in a written task. NNSs and NS experts outperformed non-expert NSs on high frequency NS errors, presumably because of heightened language awareness. The NNSs were significantly more annoyed by high frequency NS and NNS errors than were the NSs and considered all errors to be more serious than did the NSs. Identification of NNS errors was significantly better for all NSs in the aural tha...