Simo K. Määttä
I am Associate Professor of Translation Studies at the Department of Languages of the University of Helsinki.
My research focuses on the wider social context and social consequences of language use and is inspired by sociological translation studies, critical sociolinguistics and critical discourse studies. I currently work on public service interpreting (community interpreting), with a particular emphasis on language ideologies, public service translation and translation policy, and hate speech and freedom of speech, including the notion of performativity. My previous research has focused on the theory of discourse and ideology, the translation of sociolinguistic variation in the novel, and language policies.
I received my Ph.D. in 2004 from the University of California, Berkeley. In addition to my academic work, I have worked as a freelance translator and public service and legal interpreter.
Address: Dept. of Languages
P.O. Box 24
FI-00014 University of Helsinki
My research focuses on the wider social context and social consequences of language use and is inspired by sociological translation studies, critical sociolinguistics and critical discourse studies. I currently work on public service interpreting (community interpreting), with a particular emphasis on language ideologies, public service translation and translation policy, and hate speech and freedom of speech, including the notion of performativity. My previous research has focused on the theory of discourse and ideology, the translation of sociolinguistic variation in the novel, and language policies.
I received my Ph.D. in 2004 from the University of California, Berkeley. In addition to my academic work, I have worked as a freelance translator and public service and legal interpreter.
Address: Dept. of Languages
P.O. Box 24
FI-00014 University of Helsinki
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (15)
Uploads
Papers by Simo K. Määttä
audio-recorded and transcribed screening interview conducted in Finland.
The participants included an agent, who asked the questions and
typed the interview record in Finnish, a professional interpreter translating
between Finnish and French (henceforth, interpreter) and an
asylum seeker (henceforth, interviewee) who communicated with the
interpreter in French. Significant comprehension problems between the
interpreter and the interviewee constituted a characterizing feature of
the encounter; hence, our goal in this chapter is to identify the potential
reasons for these problems. To this end, we analyze the linguistic
and interactional features of two such sequences. The analysis is based
mainly on conversation analysis (CA), emphasizing the sequential principle that the previous turn largely determines the features found in a
given turn. In addition, we take into account the constraints embedded
in telephone interpreting (TI) and those created by the mismatching linguistic resources of the interpreter and the interviewee. Therefore, the
CA approach is combined with insights from interpreting studies and
interactional sociolinguistics.
through two datasets. The first dataset is extracted from data collected in a
large European project whose goal was to improve counselling methods for refugee
women who have experienced gender-based violence (GBV). The second dataset
consists of selected passages of interpreting diaries, most of which are related to
trauma experienced by the (migrant) client.1 By combining the perspectives of the
service provider and the interpreter, the chapter aims to offer novel insights into
the multiple facets of the phenomena that emerge when the interpreter is faced
with the client’s trauma. Another goal is to reflect on the heuristic potential of
the two different data collection methods and propose new directions for future
work on the intersections of trauma and public service or community interpreting.
In addition, the chapter proposes a method to train interpreters to cope with
trauma through problem solving exercises combined with expert knowledge of the
mechanisms of vicarious traumatisation, as well as concrete tools to fight it.
Dans une discussion, un chercheur finlandais est sollicité pour réfléchir aux analyses proposées dans l’article dans le cadre de la minorité suédophone de Finlande.
Vihapuheen performatiivisuutta voidaan lähestyä yhdistämällä mikrotason kielellinen analyysi kielenkäytön intertekstuaalisuuden ja retoristen piirteiden analyysiin. Tällöin tarkastellaan erityisesti toposten eli kielenkäyttäjäyhteisön yleisesti hyväksyminä esitettyjen argumenttien syntaktista rakennetta. Perustavana oletuksena on silloin, että kaikki kielenkäyttö on performatiivista: sekä silloin, kun lausuma toteuttaa kuvaamansa toiminnan (varsinaiset performatiiviset lausumat) että silloin, kun se kuvaa maailmaa ja luo siten todellisuutta (konstatiiviset lausumat). Kielentutkimuksen metodeilla voidaan tutkia myös perinteisten vihapuhemääritelmien rajoille ja ulkopuolelle jäävää syrjivää kielenkäyttöä ja sen vaikutuksia. Tämä vaatii ennakkoluulotonta asennetta kielitieteen eri koulukuntien ja muiden ihmistieteiden luomien käsitteiden käyttämisessä.
audio-recorded and transcribed screening interview conducted in Finland.
The participants included an agent, who asked the questions and
typed the interview record in Finnish, a professional interpreter translating
between Finnish and French (henceforth, interpreter) and an
asylum seeker (henceforth, interviewee) who communicated with the
interpreter in French. Significant comprehension problems between the
interpreter and the interviewee constituted a characterizing feature of
the encounter; hence, our goal in this chapter is to identify the potential
reasons for these problems. To this end, we analyze the linguistic
and interactional features of two such sequences. The analysis is based
mainly on conversation analysis (CA), emphasizing the sequential principle that the previous turn largely determines the features found in a
given turn. In addition, we take into account the constraints embedded
in telephone interpreting (TI) and those created by the mismatching linguistic resources of the interpreter and the interviewee. Therefore, the
CA approach is combined with insights from interpreting studies and
interactional sociolinguistics.
through two datasets. The first dataset is extracted from data collected in a
large European project whose goal was to improve counselling methods for refugee
women who have experienced gender-based violence (GBV). The second dataset
consists of selected passages of interpreting diaries, most of which are related to
trauma experienced by the (migrant) client.1 By combining the perspectives of the
service provider and the interpreter, the chapter aims to offer novel insights into
the multiple facets of the phenomena that emerge when the interpreter is faced
with the client’s trauma. Another goal is to reflect on the heuristic potential of
the two different data collection methods and propose new directions for future
work on the intersections of trauma and public service or community interpreting.
In addition, the chapter proposes a method to train interpreters to cope with
trauma through problem solving exercises combined with expert knowledge of the
mechanisms of vicarious traumatisation, as well as concrete tools to fight it.
Dans une discussion, un chercheur finlandais est sollicité pour réfléchir aux analyses proposées dans l’article dans le cadre de la minorité suédophone de Finlande.
Vihapuheen performatiivisuutta voidaan lähestyä yhdistämällä mikrotason kielellinen analyysi kielenkäytön intertekstuaalisuuden ja retoristen piirteiden analyysiin. Tällöin tarkastellaan erityisesti toposten eli kielenkäyttäjäyhteisön yleisesti hyväksyminä esitettyjen argumenttien syntaktista rakennetta. Perustavana oletuksena on silloin, että kaikki kielenkäyttö on performatiivista: sekä silloin, kun lausuma toteuttaa kuvaamansa toiminnan (varsinaiset performatiiviset lausumat) että silloin, kun se kuvaa maailmaa ja luo siten todellisuutta (konstatiiviset lausumat). Kielentutkimuksen metodeilla voidaan tutkia myös perinteisten vihapuhemääritelmien rajoille ja ulkopuolelle jäävää syrjivää kielenkäyttöä ja sen vaikutuksia. Tämä vaatii ennakkoluulotonta asennetta kielitieteen eri koulukuntien ja muiden ihmistieteiden luomien käsitteiden käyttämisessä.