A few weeks ago, I was interviewed by the BBC in connection with an incident involving the interpreter who watered down parts of President Trump’s speech at the UN General Assembly that were critical of the Iranian regime. Detailed transcriptions of both the original and the interpretation can be easily found online.
The interpreter was severely criticized on social media but stood his ground by indicating, inter alia, that he didn’t feel he had the right to trash his own country on air.
BBC wanted to hear the perspective of a UN interpreter. They wondered whether linguists are at liberty to introduce such willful meaning shifts. I went as far as I could within the limits of a live appearance. But I stopped short of passing judgment. You can hear my take on it here:
The following day, a few colleagues reached out to respectfully disagree with my approach, expressing the viewpoint that it is not an interpreter’s job to decide what should or should not be said, and that I would do well to publicly condemn that attitude. Basically, their point is that if somebody calls you a @#x!$%* in a different language, you have the right to know what they mean.
I hear them, and as a practicing interpreter and longtime trainer of interpreters, I fully subscribe to that philosophy. In an ideal world, fidelity should trump political correctness any day. Interpreters should remain as neutral a conduit as possible and get the message across as heard. Then again, the world is far from ideal, and I also know that circumstances play a role.
As I pointed out to the reporter, those omissions and meaning shifts, if deliberate, would have been unforgivable coming from a staff interpreter working out of a UN booth. That was not the case, though. And that changes the game at many levels.
The Fell Clutch of Circumstance
Culture is a huge factor in how one uses language. It plays a particular role in determining what one may say in public and how. What is considered appropriate or acceptable in a given country may be way off-limits in another.
Many countries also have laws criminalizing the use of inappropriate language on TV or the radio. And please don’t be too quick to dismiss this is an attribute of some backward, fundamentalist nation. The example that springs to mind probably hits a lot closer to home:
Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464: Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.)
I guess the trick lies in determining who defines what is ‘obscene, indecent or profane’ and how. Once again, the point at which strong language becomes ‘profane’ will vary drastically from one culture to the next.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, not every culture requires a bad word to be present for the purposes of an insult. Again, the US is a good example. Take ‘son of a bitch’, for instance, where the insult is conveyed primarily by intonation and by the general understanding surrounding an euphemism where ‘bitch’ (female dog) is used to mean something other — arguably far worse — than an animal epithet.
In some cultures, the mere mention of someone’s family or the use of taboo words like ‘cancer’ can come across as extremely insulting, depending on context. The same goes for waving, pointing fingers or inadvertently exposing the sole of your shoe in public. If you are away from home, chances are those gestures, and a few of your words, might be taken harshly, offensively or both.
It should be noted that the considerations above apply to individuals as well as cultures. That being so, an interpreter may feel personally offended by the use of certain language, for moral or religious reasons, and consequently inclined to substitute what he considers offensive with less impactful language when given a chance. Is he in the wrong for doing that? If so, according to whom and, more importantly, where?
Finally, this discussion would be incomplete if it fails to address a huge elephant in the room: the client. Who is the interpreter working for? Where does his loyalty belong? Once again, circumstances play a role.
His Master’s Voice
As discussed briefly during the interview, most heads of State have their interpreters in tow when attending an international function. They do so for a couple of reasons.
First, they need to be certain they are getting a full and accurate rendition of what they are being told by their counterparts in an exchange — especially if someone is calling someone else a @#x!$%*.
Number two, they rely on their interpreter to get their own message across as intended (which, mind you, may and often does differ from how it is said). Rather than a mere conduit or linguistic facilitator, the interpreter becomes a trusted adviser, a key PR official, who will try hard to help the President or PM stay objective and politically correct while delivering the message, as briefed.
Under such circumstances, or under duress, one’s perception of accuracy and fidelity might become more fluid, and the interpreter may find himself making slightly vaguer statements, either consciously or unconsciously, while giving the speaker a chance to rephrase the original utterance. One must be very clear about the job in hand. Then again, for a personal interpreter to a celebrity or public figure, that is the job in hand.
Yes, We Can!
As a rule, freelance or staff interpreters are ethically obliged to say it as it is. We’re not in the business of sugarcoating and not at liberty to deviate from the language chosen by the speaker as a matter of personal choice or whim. Then again a personal interpreter is not exactly a freelance interpreter. The former is no longer a totally independent player, and will be faced with decisions the rest of us will seldom have to contend with.
In any event, the circumstances discussed above are extremely rare and specific, and adjustments, if any, will be be minor, like finding substitutes for politically incorrect expressions or offering neutral pleasantries in lieu of compliments that could be taken the wrong way (when truly meant as compliments). These circumstances pose a conflict to any interpreter, whose ethics and credibility also hang in the balance. Not an easy job under any circumstances. And it doesn’t get any easier when your audience reaches in the millions.
As a freelance interpreter, I can choose who I work for, and I can object to impositions from a dictatorial leader whose ideas I don’t share. Staff interpreters are not at liberty to make the calls alluded to here, and they can bask in the knowledge that full neutrality is what is expected of them.
That was not so for the Iranian interpreter in question, working as he was for a State-controlled national TV chain in his country, and under very specific instructions. Given the circumstances, laws and impositions mentioned above — whether written or not — neutrality was probably not an option. And while we can take issue with some of those impositions, we have to assume not everybody can.
For these reasons, I stand by my decision not to pass judgment on the colleague.
| | |
For a more in-depth exploration of how swearing varies across the globe, I recommend an article by James Harbeck for the BBC in 2015.
Over to you:
What is your opinion?
Have you ever found yourself in a similar situation?
If so, what did you do?
I am sorry, but this is whole article should and must be discredited as utter nonsense. Interpreters cannot ‘moderate’ any communication they render in the other language, and there are no exceptions, no excuses, no circumstances which would ever justify this. An interpreter who tampers with the source language message, for whatever reason, is acting unprofessionally and should not be allowed to practise. This is opening a Pandora’s box in the middle of a minefield. Very disappointing that a fellow interpreter can be so misguided as to commit such an absurd article.
Dear Cordelia (and Leticia),
Thank you for your expressing your opinions and for doing it so eloquently. I have since revisited the article and made a few minor changes to indicate more clearly where our views coincide: freelance and staff interpreters, by definition, are ethically obliged to say it as it is. Full agreement.
On the rest, I continue to respectfully differ.
I completely agree with the viewpoints expressed by Cordelia O’Hara.
A fundamental requirement of a bona fide interpreter is to be neutral and impartial and to faithfully reproduce what all parts are saying, regardless of who is saying it to whom.
It is uttery unprofessional for the interpreter to change anything that is being said by either adding or omitting information according to their own judgement. Their job is not to judge or to moderate or to take pains that one of the sides may take offence. We act as a “mouthpiece” that conveys what is being said to all parties involved.
Anything different would breach the Code of Conduct that should be followed by any reputable interpreter.
I understand that in Mongolian, curse words involve killing. It’s the sexual repression in the west that turns words relating to intercourse into profanity.
Congratulations on a great interview and article. Next time I screw up in the booth I hope you’re standing nearby to help clean up my mess! Seriously, I know you’re a hardliner when it comes to understanding that we interpreters have an obligation to render a speaker’s words as faithfully as possible, without adding or subtracting from tenor or tone. I sensed your compassion in discussing our Iranian colleague’s political/diplomatic plight. But as I see it, as soon as he altered the content of Trump’s words, he ceased to be an interpreter and became a Government spokesperson, focused on spin. I assume that, under orders or duress, our colleague’s task was to render Donald Trump’s blistering criticism of the Iran Government in a way that would keep the bulk of the Iranian populace from understanding his words – and keep his own head attached to his neck. What he did is not interpretation, it’s spin.
Hi, Tom,
Thanks for taking the time to read.
That is exactly what I mean by personal interpreter. Not a freelancer or staff interpreter of whom neutrality is to be expected.
Everything is relative.
So, our Iranian colleague avoided loss of family members, a possible diplomatic incident and created a commotion in the interpreting community all at once? Strong fellow.
I believe the important thing to be taken into account, as pointed out many times by the author, is one single word: CIRCUMSTANCES. Should your life or that of your relatives be put at risk because of a few chosen words, what would you do? Should the safety of your nation be threatened or a diplomatic incident ensue because of a string of sounds that can be avoided or polished, what would you do?
I have not worn those shoes yet or walked that path. I do not know how I would behaved. However, it comforts me to know that some of us would rather mar their professional reputation than follow rules created in a vacuum or that are out of step with reality, in order to avoid an international conflict, for example.
This incident made me think of Red T and all the work being done around the world to protect interpreters in conflict zones. Our colleague may not have been physically in a conflict zone, but ethically and emotionally he indeed was – in more than one, to be accurate. He was forced to betray a principle of his profession, losing face and respect in the professional community, for the greater good.
In other words, he sacrificed himself so we could breathe more easily a little longer. Courageous.
Thank you for elaborating on it further in such unequivocal terms, Giovanna. We tend to forget that interpreting often does extend beyond the comfort of our glassy, cozy lit booths. Thanks for adding a whole new perspective.
I’d sum it up as an extremely difficult choice between
– being strictly professional and forgetting about our more human side (a “not my fault” / “I’m just doing my job” approach)
– being unable to dismiss the fact that our actions can cause harm to other people and taking action against it, even though it is not our responsibility and it may actually compromise our career.
Sorry, guys, but there’s no right answer there. Both are perfectly understandable and justifiable. In my humble opinion, we should be less judgmental and more understanding.