Interaction in liaison interpreting

The abstract of "Interaction in liaison interpreting" by Auscaronra Blinstrubaiteacute, University of Vilnius, Lithuania, reads like this :

"This article discusses the specifics of liaison interpreting as a new profession which is quickly getting recognised. Three examples of liaison interpreting in different cultural and professional settings are chosen to discuss the role of the interpreter and her influence on the flow of information and negotiations. Also, the examples given illustrate the theoretical implications of Wadensj (1993) and Gentile (1996) for liaison interpreting activity as interaction. This study underlines that the process of interaction between the interlocutors speaking different languages is influenced by the interpreter's presence, notably so when she exerts too much intervention, partiality or interactive coordination."

To read the full article, you have to shell out close to $90. As the objectives of putting the access line high is less a matter of generating money than walling a territory of competences and powers, unless you are "a part of it" as would sing Lisa Minelli, you are left with ... imagining the full length of this inaccessible piece of knowledge and conjecture.

The interpreter's presence. Ha! How we all wished to get rid of her, her intervention, her partiality, her interactive coordination. I have to remember a recent client who specifically requested "neutrality". Neutrality is consciously managed. It doesn't come naturally even when you still don't understand your role as a liaison interpreter, even you kind of understand it.

The natural rush at "participating beyond mechanical rendition of speech" must be tamed. But what if patterns of interaction between the two sides are culturally so tainted with different, nay, incompatible hues that the "mere translating", if that were only feasible, would not allow communication to happen, beyond the surface of polite theater play?

I am always standing here in the context of liaison interpretation for business. The too sides are not talking about particle physics or mathematics. They are talking business each one using a set of well applied formulas that usually work within the play game of same culture same country interaction. The problem is when these two worlds get closer. From a pure ethnocentricism basis, they are not gravitating in identical systems. And to add to this image of gravitational objects getting closer to each others, the reduced distance totally warps bends and transforms the styles of interaction. It is evident as an interpreter when you listen to how both sides may, awkwardly, launch into brief inner discussions and the contrast suddenly implied by the fact that they now briefly speak among peers. I have never read anything about this warping of communication style but you never exactly get a cowboy in front of a samurai. Players are warped, at first encounter, but also when they have known each other well and develop a set of tone and manner, and some redundant jokes the interpreter fears more than anything else as she usually totally miss the background. I doubt the abstracted article covers any of these mumbling though.