Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton April 23, 2018

Exploring Approaches to Interpreting Studies

From semiotic perspectives to multimodal analysis

Binhua Wang
From the journal Chinese Semiotic Studies


This article explores the relevance of semiotic perspectives on and approaches to Interpreting Studies. Interpreting can be perceived as textual (re)production, as communicative interaction, and as a sociocultural activity, and can be studied in the linguistic and structural approach at the micro-dimension, the pragmatic and communicative approach at the meso-dimension, and in the sociocultural approach at the macro-dimension respectively. Different degrees of applicability can be identified in structural semiotics, interpretive semiotics, and social semiotics. Multimodal analysis integrating linguistic semiotics, paralinguistic semiotics, and non-linguistic semiotics is identified as having great potential in examining the communicative process of interpreting in its entirety.


This article is written as a tribute to the late Prof. Jiazu Gu, who would be very pleased to see the continuing success of the journal of Chinese Semiotic Studies.


Ais, Ángela Collados. 1998. La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: La importancia de la comunicación no verbal [Quality assessment in simultaneous interpreting: The importance of nonverbal communication]. Albolote (Granada): Editorial Comares.Search in Google Scholar

Baker, Mona. 2006. Contextualization in translator- and interpreter-mediated events. Journal of Pragmatics 38(3), 321–337.10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.010Search in Google Scholar

Eco, Umberto & Siri Nergaard. 1998. Semiotic approaches. In Mona Baker (ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies, 218–222. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Gao, Fei & Binhua Wang. 2017. Multimodal corpus approach to dialogue interpreting studies in the Chinese context: Towards a multi-layer analytic framework. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 22.Search in Google Scholar

Hatim, Basil & Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the translator. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Hatim, Basil & Ian Mason. 1997. The translator as communicator. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Jacobson, Roman. 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. In Reuben A. Brower (ed.), On translation, 232–239. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mason, Ian. 2001. Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Mason, Ian. 2009. Role, positioning and discourse in face-to-face interpreting. In Raquel de Pedro Ricoy, Isabelle Perez and Christine Wilson (eds.), Interpreting and translating in public service settings. Policy, practice, pedagogy, 52–73. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Mason, Ian & Stewart Miranda. 2001. Interactional pragmatics, face and the dialogue interpreter. In Ian Mason (ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting, 51–70. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Mason, Ian. 2015. Discourse analytical approaches. In Franz Pöchhacker (ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies, 111–116. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Munday, Jeremy. 2016. Introducing translation studies (4th edn.). London and New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Pérez-González, Luis. 2014. Multimodality in translation and interpreting studies, In Sandra Bermann & Catherine Porter (eds.). A companion to translation studies, 119–131. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Poyatos, Fernando. 1987/2002. Nonverbal communication in simultaneous interpreting and consecutive interpreting. A theoretical model and new perspectives, Franz Pochhacker & Miriam Shlesinger (eds.), The interpreting studies reader, 235–246. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Seleskovitch, Danica & Marianne Lederer. 1984. Interpréter pour traduire. Paris: Didier Erudition.Search in Google Scholar

Shlesinger, Miriam. 1989. Simultaneous interpretation as a factor in effecting shifts in the position of texts on the oral–literate continuum. MA Thesis. Tel Aviv University.Search in Google Scholar

Stecconi, Ubaldo. 2007. Five reasons why semiotics is good for translation studies, Yves Gambier, Miriam Shlesinger, Radegundis Stolze (eds.) Doubts and directions in translation studies. Selected contributions from the EST congress, Lisbon 2004, 15–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Stecconi, Ubaldo. 2009. Semiotics. In Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha (eds.). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (2nd edn.), 260–263. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Torop, Peeter. 2008. Translation as communication and auto-communication. Sign System Studies 36(2), 375–397.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Binhua & Dezheng Feng. 2018. A corpus-based study of stance-taking in interpreted political discourse. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. 26(2), 246–260.10.1080/0907676X.2017.1395468Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Binhua & Lei Hong. 2011. A descriptive study of oral/literate shift in Chinese–English consecutive interpreting. Chinese Translators Journal (中国翻译). 32 (2). 73–77.Search in Google Scholar

Zagar Galvão, Elena. 2009. Speech and gesture in the booth – A descriptive approach to multimodality in simultaneous interpreting. In Dries De Crom (ed.), Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2008. Leuven: CETRA [Online].Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-4-23
Published in Print: 2018-5-25

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston