The Linguist

16 The Linguist Vol/60 No/1 2021 thelinguist.uberflip.com FEATURES Why insults can be so tricky for interpreters and how a five-step approach can help. By Darinka Mangino A young and inexperienced interpreter was assigned to support a team of engineers setting up a gas turbine in a refinery in central Mexico. The first task was to meet the group of technicians. As each one called out their name and role, she interpreted into either English or Spanish. All went well until the last introduction: "Yo soy Don Chingón" said the most senior technician. The interpreter's jaw dropped and the Mexican team burst into laughter. The lead foreign engineer was a Welsh man who understood the situation immediately and took the interpreter to one side: "Listen, we will spend the next few weeks with this team and the way I react now will define the tone of our communication." The interpreter argued that it was not culturally appropriate for a woman to use "big words" in front of men. The client replied: "This is a conversation between me and them, so I want to know exactly what they say to me." When they returned to the team, the interpreter translated: "I am the bloody expert in this yard, nice to meet you." The Welsh engineer laughed and shook the man's hand: "Nice to meet you, bloody expert!" Mission accomplished. The ice-breaker worked and the communication flowed. Even for the inexperienced but culturally aware interpreter it was obvious that some sort of amicable turf war was going on, and that the use of a 'big word' in Mexican Spanish was by no means an insult. Yet for some reason she did not feel entitled to play the language game. Was it due to her lack of expertise or her lack of training on the subject matter, or even an unconscious gender bias? If it had not been for this impromptu masterclass by a generous client it is most likely that she would have misinterpreted similar situations in later negotiations, business deals or court cases because she did not understand her place as a neutral vehicle of communication. In some contexts, such as televised live interviews and diplomatic functions, the interpreter may be expected to tone down a remark, but this is a conscientious decision based on context and the protocols of interaction, rather than a random choice of words or an omission. Caught off guard When linguists share interpreting war stories a common topic is the interpretation of swear words and how hard it is to deal with such situations. In most cases the interpreter is caught off guard, or cannot find the linguistic and cultural equivalent to fit the register. In conference interpreting the use of epithets takes on sophisticated formulations, as with this comment from Russian Minister of Defence Sergey Shogyu in reply to a UK remark on Russia's presence in Libya: "What do they have on their coat of arms? A lion, I guess. There is an old saying: all lions are felines, but not all felines are lions." In public speaking, taboo words only make an appearance when negotiations get heated, or when a colloquial interjection is used as the punchline of a funny anecdote in an off- the-record exchange. This usually occurs during side conversations when delegates debrief together or evening functions when the atmosphere is less formal. In legal interpreting a lot more is at stake. In the example above the only person that had something to lose was the interpreter (her job and the client's trust). In a legal setting, interpreters must make sense of situations that happened in the past and are brought to the present through words and gestures. These stories are presented in front of a judge, who will determine their credibility based on what witnesses say via an interpreter. Making the right linguistic and cultural decisions becomes harder since the interpreter has limited access to the actual context of what happened. Not only that, but in cases where there is only one interpreter assigned to a hearing, the same interpreter will be the voice of both the prosecution and the defence. The adversarial nature of legal cases adds a level of complexity to the work, since interpreters have to remember the lexical choices they have made in the narrative of each of the parties. During cross-examinations it is common for witnesses to use the 'I said-she said' format. If a victim of abuse gives evidence of a name- calling episode, the interpreter must carefully choose the words to describe the position of the abuser and of the victim. When a witness gives testimony it is the interpreted version that stands on the record. However what reaches the cross-examination phase stems from their initial statement, which was likely interpreted by a different interpreter, who may have chosen a different epithet. Whatever the interpreter utters can be challenged. Take the following example: Cada que me ponía una falda pegada me decía que me veía guarra/'Every time I wore a tight skirt he called me bitchy.' Let's say that the abuser is bilingual and disputes the interpreter's choice of words ("I never called her that"); or the counsel, in an effort to discredit the witness, challenges the interpreter's lexical choice. Another barrier to accuracy comes from the stressful nature of the profession. Being Swearing blind

• Cover