Acknowledging the difficulties and paradoxes inherent in the situation and the negative feelings that often ensue, might help alleviate the burden or feelings of guilt that many interpreters have in respect to professional neutrality require-ments.
Indeed interpreters could be trained to use their negative feelings as paralin-guistic cues, and use those cues to enhance their interpreting skills, thus improving performance, rather than suffering the burden of not feeling ‘professional’ because one has, simply by harbouring negative emotions, broken an ethical requirement to be neutral. (Rudvin, 2002: 224)
As Rudvin states, the difficulties associated with the need to remain impartial must be acknowledged. Disagreeing or agreeing with what the parties state does not constitute unethical behaviour and it would be ludicrous for interpreters to feel guilty about forming judgements about any situation. What constitutes unethical behaviour, according to the code, is the deliberate alteration of an utterance to reflect the interpreter’s own beliefs, goals and purposes. As one of the interpreters stated: ‘My thoughts and feelings sometimes make my job difficult – but the code of ethics helps sort that out’ (Respondent 8).
4.3.3 Role
Table 4.5 outlines the entries which refer to the interpreter’s role. Only the NAJIT code explicitly states what the role of the interpreter is:
The function of court interpreters and translators is to remove the language barrier to the extent possible, so that such persons’ access to justice is the same as that of similarly situated English speakers for whom no such barrier exists.
The AUSIT code advises interpreters to explain their role to those who are unaccustomed to working with interpreters, but it does not define it. The AVLIC code mentions that it may be appropriate for interpreters to comment on the effectiveness of communication, the interpreting process and suggest appropriate resources and referrals. All other codes state what the role of the interpreter is not. As with the entries on impartiality, the codes seem to be attempting to rectify the practice of many practitioners who are mostly ad hoc and untrained. As discussed in chapter 2, research has found that a high percentage of practising interpreters, in certain sectors and in certain countries, show an open lack of impartiality and provide lay advice, give their own opinions on what the speakers should say and indiscriminately edit the utterances.
These practices are explicitly opposed by the codes of ethics. However, one of the Australian interpreters who responded to the survey expressed resentment to this:
The code was whipped up by some people who could see something through a keyhole and who believed they saw the whole world. What they saw was a bunch of unruly ethnics, recently anointed by NAATI, working in the Community domain in Australia in the 1980s with little idea of impartiality, confidentiality or punctuality, and the Code was a response to that highly specific problem. It displays almost no realistic grasp of the contemporary translation and interpreting industry. (Respondent 3)
Table 4.5 Entries on role
Code Role
Australia (AUSIT) 1999 Under #1, professional conduct: ‘Interpreters and translators shall explain their role to those unaccustomed to working with them’ (p. 12).
The role is not explicitly presented in the code.
It is implicit in the entries for accuracy and impartiality
Canada Society of Translators and Interpreters of British Columbia
Members shall not use their professional role to perform functions that lie beyond the
scope of a language professional, such as advocacy, counselling or improper disclosure of information.
The Association of Visual Language interpreters of Canada (AVLIC)
Members will refrain from using their professional role to perform other functions that lie beyond the scope of an interpreting assignment and the parameters of their professional duties. They will not counsel, advise, or interject personal opinions.
Association of Translators and Interpreters of Alberta (ATIA)
it may be appropriate for members to comment on the overall effectiveness of communication, the interpreting process and to suggest appropriate resources and referrals.
USA National Association of Judicial Interpreters and Translators? (NAJIT)
The function of court interpreters and translators is to remove the language barrier to the extent possible, so that such persons’ access to justice is the same as that of similarly situated English speakers for whom no such barrier exists.
Cross-Cultural Health Care Program (CCHCP)
An interpreter’s function is to facilitate communication. Interpreters are not responsible for what is said by anyone for whom they are interpreting. Even if the interpreter disagrees with what is said, thinks it is wrong, a lie or even immoral, the interpreter must suspend judgement, make no comment, and interpret everything accurately.
State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS)
Interpreters/translators are not to counsel, refer, give advice, or express personal opinions, to individuals for whom they are
interpreting/translating, or engage in any other activities which may be construed to constitute a service other than interpreting/translating.
Interpreters/translators are prohibited to have unsupervised access to clients, including but not limited to phoning clients directly.
Amidst the vast range of levels of education, experience, competence and background, it would be unrealistic to expect the code of ethics to cater for every practitioner’s specific needs. It may very well be that it is most useful to those entering the profession. It may be that novice professionals tend to follow guidelines strictly. More experienced profes-sionals are able to rely more on their professional judgement, which is based on the core principles of the code.
The role agreed by the codes, therefore, is for the interpreter to be the means by which communication between two people who speak different languages can be achieved. The codes speak against the inter-preter acting as an advocate, a counsellor, a gatekeeper or anything other than an interpreter. This, of course, does not exclude occasions when the interpreter needs to intervene to ask for clarifications or to explain an obvious cross-cultural misunderstanding, nor does it preclude the inter-preter from sight translating routine documents, forms or non-complex materials, as these are all functions of an interpreter.
Concept 4.4 The role of the interpreter as prescribed by the