Ad hoc interpreting at the crossways between natural, professional, novice and expert interpreting

Ad hoc interpreting, i.e. interpreting initiatives that take place in a context which cannot be catered for by conventional services for reasons that may be geopolitical, socio-economic and/or socioprofessional, has been underexplored in interpreting studies. This is because our endeavour to grant a status to interpreting has largely oriented our research (whether academic- or professionally-oriented) towards institutionalized forms of interpreting practice and learning. If we are to better do justice to the complex role that interpreters play in society, we need to address ad hoc interpreting which, despite its lack of visibility and formalization, remains among the most extended practice of interpreting nowadays. To undertake this research agenda, however, some of the theoretical prisms through which interpreting has traditionally been approached and which hardly account for past and contemporary ad hoc interpreting practices need to be reviewed. This is particularly the case of the notions of natural, professional, novice and expert interpreting. Undertaking a critical review of these notions, this essay discusses how they have evolved as mutually exclusive terms (natural versus professional, novice versus expert) so as to codify different degrees of status on the basis of interpreting skills, training, experience and a sense of community belonging. It then focuses on ad hoc interpreting at the Nuremberg Trials and puts this case into perspective with more contemporary ad hoc interpreting practices, such as those taking place in civil society and at war. Finding themselves at the crossroads between natural, professional, novice and expert interpreting, past and contemporary ad hoc interpreting initiatives lend legitimacy to a more context-based approach to interpreting practice and learning.