Regulación dependiente de O 2

   the inappropriate transfer of speech act strategies from one language to another, or the transferring from the mother tongue to the target language, of utterances which are semantically/syntactically equivalent, but which, because of different ‘interpretative bias’ tend to convey a different pragmatic force in the target language.

(Thomas, 1983: 101)

Only the most competent interpreters will convert the message prag-matically, taking the top-down approach, understanding the text as discourse rather than as words or sentences strung together.

Mason and Stewart (2001: 58), in discussing the performance of an interpreter in the O. J. Simpson trial, comment that ‘the requirement to translate literally tends to dissuade interpreters from adding, for example, hedges or particles to convey pragmatic implicature’, yet they concede that such an assumption is not validated by the data they present, as the interpreter in question does not interpret literally. As most community interpreters are untrained bilinguals, it is unlikely that an external mandate to interpret literally will guide their rendition;

rather, it is a lack of training and a lack of competence. Interpreters do

not usually interpret according to what lawyers tell them they should do, but according to what they think is the best choice at the time, or what comes to mind first. The better trained, the more thoughtful, the more prepared, the more experienced the interpreter is, the closer she or he will get to achieving a discourse-based interpreted rendition of the original. Jacobsen argues that fully authorised and trained inter-preters in Denmark will interpret pragmatically in spite of their code of ethics, which ‘instructs them to deliver absolute verbatim versions of originals’ (Jacobsen, 2002: 282). This is an important issue, which is examined more fully in chapter 4 when I discuss codes of ethics. It is only when interpreters are insecure that they will produce renditions that are syntactically and semantically very close to the original, produ-cing renditions that are pragmatically inaccurate (cf. Gile, 1998). The main question posed by the interpreter in the conversion phase is: ‘How would I express this utterance in the target language in this situation, with these participants to achieve a similar reaction in the listener?’

1.3.3 Delivery

The delivery phase comprises the end-product, the verbal output after the previous two phases have been completed. The style of the delivery will depend on the type and mode of interpreting and on the purpose of the interaction, as shown in Table 1.3.

As Table 1.3 shows, three modes – simultaneous, whispering simul-taneous into the minority language, long consecutive – focus on the propositional content of the original. The main purpose of the interpret-ation is to transmit the propositional content of the original to the target audience in the most coherent and succinct way. Such an aim will be reflected in the interpreter’s delivery. The constraints of these modes will also force the interpreter to paraphrase and omit non-content discourse features. The other two modes – dialogue and whispering simultaneous into the mainstream language – focus on both content and form. Such a focus is due to the demands and expectations of the settings and the purpose of the encounter. The difference between whispering simultan-eous interpreting into the minority language and into the mainstream language is also related to the different aims of the two activities. When the interpreter interprets simultaneously for a defendant in the back of the courtroom, the purpose is for defendants to hear their case in their own language. When the interpreter interprets simultaneously for a psychiatrist in a mental health consultation, the purpose is to enable the physician to extract information from which to carry out a diagnosis.

Such a diagnosis is based on both the content and the presentational

Table 1.3 Factors influencing style of delivery

Mode Setting Focus Style Register

Simultaneous Conference Propositional

style of the patient’s speech. Similarly, when the interpreter interprets a dialogue, it is not only the content of the utterances that is crucial in the interaction, but also the manner in which these utterances are expressed, which denote much meaning intended by the speakers. Extra-linguistic features such as tone, intonation and register are important components of the interactive discourse (cf. Hale, 2002).

∗ ∗ ∗

Having discussed translation and interpreting in general, the discussion will now shift to Community Interpreting specifically.

1.4 What is Community Interpreting?

Community Interpreting takes the interpreter into the most private spheres of human life. It does not take place at negotiations about major international political decisions or conferences on recent scientific discoveries; it takes place in settings where the most intimate and

significant issues of everyday individuals are discussed: a doctor’s surgery, a social worker’s or a lawyer’s office, a gaol, a police station or courtroom. These are only a few examples of settings where community interpreters work and where they are made privy to confidential inform-ation that would never have been available to them except in their capacity as an interpreter. The assurance that interpreters will abide by a strict code of ethics, which, among other things, ensures accuracy, confidentiality and impartiality (cf. chapter 4), is important in being accorded such trust. One would imagine it difficult for anyone will-ingly to allow a stranger into such intimate situations unless they were assured of these ethical obligations. Whether interpreters abide by them is explored later in this chapter and in chapter 4 in connection with the professional codes of ethics.

The magnitude of the community interpreter’s responsibility can only be understood when realising that their work is crucial for the lives of innumerable people who would be unable to communicate without their services. According to Garber, ‘the circumstances in which community interpreters practise carry even more risk and more respons-ibility than conference interpreting’ (2000: 19). Smirnov compares community interpreting with the more lucrative business interpreting and concludes that community interpreting is ‘superior in [its] “human-itarian” (social) significance’ (1997: 213). Unlike international gath-erings, where for many delegates speaking their national language represents a political, symbolic statement rather than a necessity (see Viaggio, 2004), in Community Interpreting settings the participants would simply not be able to communicate without the services of an interpreter. This makes the interpreter a crucial link between the two interlocutors. The need for competent, ethical community inter-preters is therefore paramount. As Smirnov states, ‘Sadly enough it is not the life of an interpreter, but that of his client that may become a price paid for a poor rendition’ (1997: 215). Garber agrees that the consequences of incompetent interpreting in the community setting can be great and proposes that ‘standards must be high enough to ensure that the risk to the client is not increased because of inac-curate or unethical interpretation’ (2000: 17). The demands placed on the community interpreter are high, yet there are no consistent stand-ards for their practice or any formal requirement for adequate training around the world, as the job of the community interpreter continues to be misunderstood and undermined by many. As Mikkelson states, community interpreting is ‘the least prestigious and most misunder-stood branch of the interpreting profession’ (1996: 124). According to

Gentile and colleagues, even conference interpreters misunderstand Community Interpreting, not regarding it as ‘an area of interpreting in its own right, but rather as a residual arm of language work at best, or multilingual welfare work (often with a charity air) at worst’ (1996:

8-9). Gehrke goes as far as to suggest that Community Interpreting

‘represents a combination of two separate professions: interpreting and social work’ (1993: 420). Gentile et al. (1996) speculate that this confu-sion may be related to its historical development (which grew from the outset of the twentieth-century welfare migrant state) and to the participants involved in the interactions. They believe that the status of the participants in the communicative event influences the status of the interpreter. Since conference interpreters interpret for interna-tional figures, their own status is elevated. Community interpreters interpret for participants of differing status, but are normally identified with the migrant or refugee, who tends to be a powerless participant.

Roberts (1997) argues that the low status of Community Interpreting is self-perpetuating, with words such as ‘assistance’ and ‘service’ being common in definitions of Community Interpreting, but uncommon in definitions of Conference or Business Interpreting. Hale (2005) argues that such low status emanates mainly from four interconnected causes:

the disorganised and unstructured state of the industry; the absence of mandatory university education; the lack of a strong professional identity; and the general unawareness of the complexity of the task.

Such unawareness is reflected not only in the monolingual participants’

attitudes, but also in the attitude of many who act as interpreters, with their usual statement ‘I’m just the interpreter’ when referring to themselves.

1.4.1 Controversy over its label

The lack of consensus over the term Community Interpreting has led to controversy about the appropriateness of having any type of clas-sification for the different types of interpreting at all. Gentile (1997) and Roberts (1997) argue against classification, advocating the single term ‘Interpreting’ to avoid divisiveness. Such a view is reinforced by Mikkelson (1996: 126), who comments that different sectors of the interpreting profession have tried to distance themselves from others deemed to be less prestigious – for example, conference interpreters from community interpreters and court interpreters from ad hoc inter-preters – resulting in a weakening of the profession. Nevertheless, clas-sifications and labels do exist and will probably never cease to exist.

As Snell-Hornby states, ‘the tendency to categorise is innate in man and essential to all scientific development’ (1988: 26).