On myths about interpreting and their revelation

Abstract of the plenary lecture

Authors

• Cecilia Wadensjö University of Stockholm

Abstract

Myths are often used for practical purposes. Calling a certain view or understanding ‘a myth’ is often a step in the introduction of an alternative view. For instance, in the literature on interpreting there are recurrent references to ‘the myth of the invisible interpreter’ and ‘the myth of neutrality’. What purpose do alleged revelation of these ‘myths’ serve? What alternative views are introduced? In this paper, I will discuss the potential productivity – and counter productivity – of designating ‘myths’ and arguing against them, using examples drawn from recent studies of interpreting.