The Linguist is a languages magazine for professional linguists, translators, interpreters, language professionals, language teachers, trainers, students and academics with articles on translation, interpreting, business, government, technology
Issue link: https://thelinguist.uberflip.com/i/1229313
APRIL/MAY The Linguist 9 @Linguist_CIOL FEATURES denominator is the word 'democracy'. We might suppose that this was the only element the interpreter caught from the sentence, and they were trying to reconstruct the rest from the context, which unfortunately failed. In 4a, by contrast, the omissions seem to be more strategic: note how the interpreter takes care not to mention any nationalities and resorts to a skilful generalisation: 'I don't know who else'. A need for guidelines Mitigating shifts related to impoliteness are certainly too common to attribute them all to the interpreter's cognitive overload, resulting from factors such as the speaker's strong accent or excessive speaking speed (which are ubiquitous during plenary debates). So what else might lie behind them? Conference interpreting lacks clearly formulated performance norms. The interpreter may well feel justified in reducing impoliteness for the sake of good rapport among the participants, in line with their envisaged role as a peacemaker and facilitator of international dialogue. After all, Jean Herbert, a famous interpreter and interpreter trainer, argued in his handbook, published in the 1950s: "Certain offensive phrases which may go further than the speaker intended or realised should preferably be attenuated. An interpreter who fails to do so does not fulfil his real mission." In the absence of relevant guidelines in codes of professional ethics, handling impoliteness is left to the interpreter's judgement on a case-by-case basis. This allows them a lot of leeway, but may also lead to doubts and confusion. Self-censorship may also play a prominent role. As Allan and Burridge note, "by default we are polite, euphemistic, orthophemistic and inoffensive". 1 It might be very difficult to reject this attitude, on the spot, while speaking on someone else's behalf. Consequently, mitigation might stem from the interpreter's desire (possibly even subconscious) to bring the message closer to their own standards of politeness, as well as the general standards of what is acceptable in parliamentary discourse. In any case, users of conference interpreting, both speakers and listeners, should realise that offensive remarks tend to fall flat in interpretation. At the same time, there is no way to predict what will happen to any individual impolite statement. When assessing such findings, we should consider the impact of a speaker's cooperativeness or lack thereof (e.g. their willingness to adjust their speaking speed or submit a written statement in advance). Instead of instantly blaming the interpreter for a failure to be 'faithful', it is important to take a realistic look at what is possible under the constraints of simultaneous interpreting. Notes 1 Allan, K and Burridge, K (2006) Forbidden Words: Taboo and the censorship of language, CUP: Cambridge "By default we are polite…" It might be difficult to reject this attitude while speaking on someone's behalf © EUROPEAN UNION 2019 - SOURCE: EP; ARNAUD DEVILLERS