Abstract
Professional interpreters are obliged by their codes of ethics to interpret the speakers’ speech faithfully, including offensive, profane or vulgar language. In order to achieve this goal, interpreters need to be pragmatically competent, so as to understand the intention and effect of the offensive remark in the source language and be able to appropriately render it into the target language to achieve the same effect in the hearer. Research has shown, however, that not all interpreters abide by this requirement, and many tend to tone down or even omit any offensive language, for a number of reasons, including attempts to protect the hearers or to save their own face. This study examined the ways in which Arabic, Mandarin and Spanish speaking interpreters interpreted offensive language by a suspect in a simulated police interview into English. Experienced qualified interpreters in the three languages, maintained the highest levels of pragmatic equivalence.
Funding statement: This work was supported by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (Grant Number: contract DJF-16-1200-V-0003904).
References
Allan, Keith & Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511617881Suche in Google Scholar
AUSIT. 2012. AUSIT code of ethics and code of conduct. AUSIT. https://ausit.org/AUSIT/Documents/Code_Of_Ethics_Full.pdfSuche in Google Scholar
Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Baseheart, John R. & Terry C. Cox. 1993. Effects of police use of profanity on a receiver’s perceptions of credibility. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 9(2). 9–19.10.1007/BF02806658Suche in Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan. 1990/2002/2017. The bilingual courtroom. Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226923277.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Cambridge, Jan. 2005. The public service interpreter’s face: Rising to the challenge of expresing powerful emotion for others. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 51. 141–158.Suche in Google Scholar
Corsellis, Ann. 2008. Public service interpreting: The first steps. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230581951Suche in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25(3). 349–367.10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3Suche in Google Scholar
Dueñas González, Roseann, Victoria F. Vásquez & Holly Mikkelson. 1991. Fundamentals of court interpretation. NC: Carolina Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Dueñas González, Roseann, Victoria F. Vásquez & Holly Mikkelson. 2012. Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy, and practice, 2nd edn. Durham, NC: Caolina Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul. 1972. Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In J. Cole (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 207–282. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Felberg, Tatjana R. & Hanne Skaaden. 2012. The (de)construction of culture in interpreter-mediated medical discourse. Linguistica Antverpiensia 11(2012). 95–112.10.52034/lanstts.v11i.298Suche in Google Scholar
Felberg, Tatjana Radanović. 2016. Impoliteness–a challenge to interpreters’ professionalism. FLEKS-Scandinavian Journal of Intercultural Theory and Practice 3(1). 1–20.10.7577/fleks.1683Suche in Google Scholar
Felberg, Tatjana Radanović & Ljiljana Šarić. 2017. Interpreting impoliteness: Interpreters’ voices. FLEKS-Scandinavian Journal of Intercultural Theory and Practice 4(1). 1–17.10.7577/fleks.2436Suche in Google Scholar
Felix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar & Sean McKinnon. 2016. Perceptions of impolite behavior in study abroad contexts and the teaching of impoliteness in L2 Spanish AU - Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 3(2). 99–113.10.1080/23247797.2016.1251782Suche in Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra. 2004/2010. The discourse of court interpreting. Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.52Suche in Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra. 2007. The challenges of court interpreting: Intricacies, responsibilities and ramifications. Alternative Law Journal 32(4). 198–202.10.1177/1037969X0703200402Suche in Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra. 2014. Interpreting culture. Dealing with cross-cultural issues in court interpreting. Perspectives 22(3). 321–331.10.1080/0907676X.2013.827226Suche in Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty & Natalie Martschuk. 2018. Interpreter performance in police interviews. Differences between trained professional interpreters and untrained bilinguals. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1–25. DOI: 10.1080/1750399X.2018.1541649.Suche in Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra & Anthony Liddicoat. 2015. The meaning of accuracy and culture, and the rise of the machine in interpreting and translation. A conversation between Sandra Hale and Anthony Liddicoat. Cultus: The Journal of Intercultural Mediation and Communication 2015(8). 14–26.Suche in Google Scholar
Howes, Loene M. 2018. Community interpreters’ experiences of police investigative interviews: How might interpreters’ insights contribute to enhanced procedural justice? Policing and Society 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2018.144757210.1080/10439463.2018.1447572Suche in Google Scholar
Jacobsen, Bente. 2008. Interactional pragmatics and court interpreting an analysis of face. Interpreting 10(1). 128–158.10.1075/bct.26.10jacSuche in Google Scholar
Jay, Timothy. 2000. Why we curse: A neuro-psycho-social theory of speech. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.91Suche in Google Scholar
Jay, Timothy. 2009. The utility and ubiquity of taboo words. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4(2). 153–161.10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01115.xSuche in Google Scholar
Jay, Timothy & Kristin Janschewitz. 2008. The pragmatics of swearing. Journal of Politeness Research 4(2). 267–288.10.1515/JPLR.2008.013Suche in Google Scholar
Jay, Timothy B. 2018. The psychology of expressing and interpreting linguistic taboos. In Keith Allan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of taboo words and language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198808190.013.5Suche in Google Scholar
Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity. 2017. Recommended national standards for working with interpreters in courts and tribunals canberra: Judicial council on cultural diversity.Suche in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1980. Explorations in semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/pb.i.5Suche in Google Scholar
Lim, Nangyeon. 2016. Cultural differences in emotion: Differences in emotional arousal level between the East and the West. Integrative Medicine Research 5(2). 105–109.10.1016/j.imr.2016.03.004Suche in Google Scholar
Liu, Xin & Sandra Hale. 2018. Achieving accuracy in a bilingual courtroom: The effectiveness of specialised legal interpreter training. The Interpreter & Translator Trainer 12(3). 299–321.10.1080/1750399X.2018.1501649Suche in Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, behaviour, Culture 1(1). 9–33.10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9Suche in Google Scholar
Magnifico, Cédric & Bart Defrancq. 2016. Impoliteness in interpreting: A question of gender? The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research 8(2). 26–45.10.12807/ti.108202.2016.a03Suche in Google Scholar
Matsumoto, David, Tsutomu Kudoh, Klaus Scherer & Harald Wallbott. 1988. Antecedents of and reactions to emotions in the United States and Japan. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 19(3). 267–286.10.1177/0022022188193001Suche in Google Scholar
Matsumoto, David, Seung Hee Yoo & Johnny Fontaine. 2008. Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 39(1). 55–74.10.1177/0022022107311854Suche in Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally & Penelope Eckert. 2003. Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791147Suche in Google Scholar
Mehl, Matthias R., Samuel D. Gosling & James W. Pennebaker. 2006. Personality in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(5). 862–877.10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.862Suche in Google Scholar
Monacelli, Claudia. 2009. Self-preservation in simultaneous interpreting: Surviving the role. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/btl.84Suche in Google Scholar
Mulac, Anthony. 1976. Effects of obscene language upon three dimensions of listener attitude. Communication Monographs 43(4). 300–307.10.1080/03637757609375941Suche in Google Scholar
Mulayim, Sedat & Miranda Lai. 2017. Ethics for police translators and interpreters. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press.10.1201/9781315368719Suche in Google Scholar
NAJIT. n. d. National association of judicial interpreters and translators. Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities.Suche in Google Scholar
Safdar, Saba, Wolfgang Friedlmeier, David Matsumoto, Seung Hee Yoo, Catherine T. Kwantes, Hisako Kakai & Eri Shigemasu. 2009. Variations of emotional display rules within and across cultures: A comparison between Canada, USA, and Japan. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement 41(1). 1.10.1037/a0014387Suche in Google Scholar
Saidin, Nurul Izzati & Leelany Ayob. 2009. The sustainability of the translation field. In Hasuria Che Omar, Haslina Haroon & Aniswal Ghani (eds.), Politeness in interpreting, 266–271. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Translators Association.Suche in Google Scholar
Taibi, Mustapha & Mohamed El-Madkouri Maataoui. 2016. Interpreting taboo: The case of Arabic interpreters in Spanish public services. In Mustapha Taibi (ed.), New insights into Arabic translation and interpreting, 69–90. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783095254-006Suche in Google Scholar
Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2). 91–111.10.1093/applin/4.2.91Suche in Google Scholar
Tryuk, Malgorzata. 2007. Community interpreting in Poland. In Cecilia Wadensjö, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova & Anna-Lena Nilsson (eds.), The critical link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community, 95–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.70.12trySuche in Google Scholar
Yamagishi, Toshio, Hirofumi Hashimoto & Joanna Schug. 2008. Preferences versus strategies as explanations for culture-specific behavior. Psychological Science 19(6). 579–584.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02126.xSuche in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2019-0065).
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Interpreting profanity in police interviews
- Investigating the language-culture nexus in refugee legal advice meetings
- A local discursive dimension in a specific historical context: Students’ narratives of police experiences during South Africa’s #FeesMustFall protests
- A weave of symbolic violence: dominance and complicity in sociolinguistic research on multilingualism
- Transnational Sri Lankan Sinhalese family language policy: Challenges and contradictions at play in two families in the U.S.
- Review
- A Review on Contra Instrumentalism: A Translation Polemic by Lawrence Venuti
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Interpreting profanity in police interviews
- Investigating the language-culture nexus in refugee legal advice meetings
- A local discursive dimension in a specific historical context: Students’ narratives of police experiences during South Africa’s #FeesMustFall protests
- A weave of symbolic violence: dominance and complicity in sociolinguistic research on multilingualism
- Transnational Sri Lankan Sinhalese family language policy: Challenges and contradictions at play in two families in the U.S.
- Review
- A Review on Contra Instrumentalism: A Translation Polemic by Lawrence Venuti