Interpreting expletives in cross-cultural interaction in court
Section snippets
A new method of interpreting expletives
Whenever you interpret, you are most likely performing cross-cultural interaction. One of the thus far basic principles in interpreting in cross-cultural interaction general and in court in particular is that the interpreter needs to interpret expletives literally as they are spoken by any interlocutor in interaction.
Once I was in court observing a Vietnamese female colleague interpret in the cross-examination of an accused in the witness box. The accused said angrily in Vietnamese: “Đ. M. Tôi
Literature review
Expletives are swearwords. Swearing is the use of taboo words (Ljung, 2011) and is universal (Pinker 2008). Although a number of researchers (Jay 2009; Ljung 2011; Wang 2013; Stephens 2013) have argued that swearing has the positive effect of releasing stress, anger and tension, it has been asserted (Stephens, 2013) that swearwords make people more aggressive.
Men and women have been found to use expletives differently. While some (Lakoff, 1973; Spender, 1980) explained the differences in the
Research questions
The aim of this research project is to study the views of interpreting service users, who are lawyers, and interpreters about how common expletives should be interpreted. The research project specifically aims to answer the following questions.
- 1)
Must interpreters swear as a suspect/witness/accused/speaker does or can they use euphemisms such as “F-word”, “B-word”, “B. S.”, etc. to interpret expletives in cross-cultural interaction in general and in court in particular?
- 2)
Are there gender differences
Methodology
Data for this study is from interviews with 46 lawyers (i.e. 25 males and 21 females) and 51 interpreters (i.e. 24 males and 27 females) of different languages in Australia and the United States. All of these informants agreed to have their data analysed and published while remaining anonymous. In all interviews, the same question was asked: “Do you think that interpreters must swear as a suspect/witness/accused/speaker does or they can use euphemisms such as “F-word”, “B-word”, “B. S.”, etc.
Results and discussion
The table below shows the numbers of male and female lawyers as well as interpreters who agree with the propositions herein.Propositions Lawyers Interpreters Male Female Male Female The interpreter must swear as a speaker does. 6 5 7 2 The interpreter can use euphemisms to interpret expletives. 19 16 17 25
As the interview data shows, the number of those who think that interpreters must swear as a speaker does is in stark contrast with the number of those who do not. The use of euphemisms in interpreting
Conclusions
What I propose here is the use of euphemisms to interpret expletives when applicable in order to preserve accuracy without going out of your way to say what you may not normally do. The euphemisms should be widely understood and largely accepted. I only recommend using euphemisms when its use does not affect the content of the message and the subject matter. If the matter in focus is about swearwords, which is very unlikely, there is no way around but to interpret them as they are. But if the
Funding
This project is funded by Elite Interpreters, Translators & Teachers (ELITE ITT).
Acknowledgements
I am deeply indebted to my family for enduring my absence during the key phases of this research project in addition to my work commitments. Besides, I appreciate and value the feedback as well as support from those involved in the review and approval processes.
Dr Giao Quynh Tran (Dr Grace Tran) is the Principal of Elite Interpreters, Translators & Teachers (ELITE ITT). With a PhD in Applied Linguistics (UniMelb) and NAATI Accreditation for a Professional Interpreter and Translator in English and Vietnamese, both directions, among other degrees, plus 25 years of experience in interpreting and translation in Vietnam, the US, and Australia specializing for the most part in court interpreting, she has made all the lawyers and clients whom she has worked
References (21)
Language and Gender
(2007)Impoliteness – a Challenge to interpreters' professionalism
FLEKS–Scand. J. Intercult. Theory Pract.
(2016)- et al.
Fundamentals of Court Interpretation: Theory, Policy and Practice
(1991) The Treatment of register variation in court interpreting
Translator
(1997)How faithfully do court interpreters render the style of non-English speaking witnesses' testimonies? A data-based study of Spanish-English bilingual proceedings
Discourse Stud.
(2002)The Discourse of Court Interpreting
(2004)- et al.
Subtitling swearwords in reality TV series from English into Chinese: a Corpus-based study of the family
Transl. Interpr.
(2014) The utility and ubiquity of taboo words
Perspect. Psychol. Sci.
(2009)Language and women's place
Lang. Soc.
(1973)Conflicting views on court interpreting examined through surveys of legal professionals and court interpreters
Interpreting: Int. J. Res. Prac. Interpr.
(2009)
Cited by (0)
Dr Giao Quynh Tran (Dr Grace Tran) is the Principal of Elite Interpreters, Translators & Teachers (ELITE ITT). With a PhD in Applied Linguistics (UniMelb) and NAATI Accreditation for a Professional Interpreter and Translator in English and Vietnamese, both directions, among other degrees, plus 25 years of experience in interpreting and translation in Vietnam, the US, and Australia specializing for the most part in court interpreting, she has made all the lawyers and clients whom she has worked with happy. Having co-authored a book, she is the sole author of another book, 19 peer-reviewed journal articles and numerous newspaper as well as magazine articles. http://www.eliteitt.com.au