Abstract
Interpreters in the public sector in Norway interpret in a variety of institutional encounters, and the interpreters evaluate the majority of these encounters as polite. However, some encounters are evaluated as impolite, and they pose challenges when it comes to interpreting impoliteness. This issue raises the question of whether interpreters should take a stance on their own evaluation of impoliteness and whether they should interfere in communication. In order to find out more about how interpreters cope with this challenge, in 2014 a survey was sent to all interpreters registered in the Norwegian Register of Interpreters. The survey data were analyzed within the theoretical framework of impoliteness theory using the notion of moral order as an explanatory tool in a close reading of interpreters’ answers. The analysis shows that interpreters reported using a variety of strategies for interpreting impoliteness, including omissions and downtoning. However, the interpreters also gave examples of individual strategies for coping with impoliteness, such as interrupting and postponing interpreting. These strategies border behavioral strategies and conflict with the Norwegian ethical guidelines for interpreting. In light of the ethical guidelines and actual practice, mapping and discussing different strategies used by interpreters might heighten interpreters’ and interpreter-users’ awareness of the role impoliteness can play in institutional interpreter– mediated encounters.
Highlights
Interpreters in Norway’s public sector work in a variety of contexts, including courts, hospitals, police stations, schools, social offices, private homes, and jails, and they interpret hundreds of institutional encounters daily (NOU, 2014: 13)
Given all of the above, the main aims of this study are (a) to map interpreters’ discursive constructions of what they consider their own strategies for interpreting impoliteness and (b) to analyze interpreters’ discursive constructions in connection with the Norwegian ethical guidelines and the notion of moral order
Some of the strategies we identified based on the interpreters’ feedback overlap with those identified in the research conducted by Magnifico and Defrancq (2016), whose study on how conference interpreters handle interpreting face-threatening acts (FTAs) identified the following interpreting strategies: omission, downtoning, translation, strengthening, and addition
Summary
Interpreters in Norway’s public sector work in a variety of contexts, including courts, hospitals, police stations, schools, social offices, private homes, and jails, and they interpret hundreds of institutional encounters daily (NOU, 2014: 13). Interpreters evaluate some encounters as impolite and challenging for interpreters when it comes to interpreting impoliteness This recurring issue is voiced in interpreting courses, which originally motivated this study (see Felberg, 2016). These challenges raise a basic question: Should interpreters (a) render everything faithfully, taking no stance on their evaluation of impoliteness, or (b) should they interfere in the communication between the primary communication participants, making an evaluation of the impoliteness? Are they incompetent and/or unprofessional? Have they misunderstood their function and forgotten that they are neutral participants? Or are they too preoccupied with making an impression and saving their own or others’ face?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
