Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

David Katan Universit del Salento (Lecce)

ABSTRACT According to academics, the interpreting profession has moved on from its traditional impartial black-box role to that of intervention. The first part of this paper will describe what intervention means in practice, and the various levels of intervention open to interpreters. It will be shown through the use of the Logical Levels model how the interpreters habitus both allows and constrains some levels of intervention according to professional norms and beliefs about interpreter identity. The second part of the paper reports an online survey of some 300 interpreters to gauge their own beliefs about invisibility, intervention and responsibility. The respondents replies show a clear resistance to anything more than a strategic intervention, following that favoured by the Paris School, and little interest in more ideological or reflexive types of intervention. Finally, it will be suggested that openness to change may well come from those interpreters working in other capacities, rather than from those working within the interpreting habitus itself.

1. Introduction Scholars over the last decade or so have begun to question the traditional dogma of interpreting as a passive, impartial, black box event. As Pchhacker (2006) puts it, interpreters appear to have gone social (c.f. Wolf, 2007: 5), and interpretation is now mediation (Pchhacker 2008), interaction (e.g. Wadensj, 1998), and also intervention (Angelelli, 2003; Munday, 2007; Gavioli and Maxwell, 2007). It is not always clear, though, what intervention actually means nor what the interpreters themselves believe about this relatively new label. As Maier (2007: 4) quoting Hale notes, there is a general professional identity crisis regarding the question. Indeed,

33

34

David Katan

as Mikkelson (2008: 87) points out, the whole area of interpreter responsibility, what interpreters can and should account for lies at the crux of the interpreters dilemma, and more light needs to be shed upon it. There is also, as Maier (2007: 5) points out, an insufficiency of raw material and need for more data regarding professional trajectories, self-perception and how interpreters and translators ply their trade. This aim of this paper is to address both main points. In part one, the focus is on what intervention for an interpreter entails, while part two reports on a questionnaire survey which will provide data regarding full time1 practicing interpreters and their beliefs with regard to readiness to intervene.

2. Levels of intervention Intervention, as Baker (2008: 16) notes is inherent in the act of translation and interpreting. So, this paper will discuss the subject, not in terms of intervention/non-intervention, but in terms of levels of intervention. I will suggest that for intervention to be fully accepted as the new dogma, fundamental changes will need to be made in the habitus, i.e., in the interpreters shared world of subjective aspirations the dispositions durably inculcated by the possibilities and impossibilities, freedoms and necessities, opportunities and prohibitions inscribed in the objective conditions (Bourdieu, 1990: 54). The disposition, I will suggest, can be usefully discussed in terms of a Logical Levels system, a concept borrowed from NeuroLinguistic Programming (Dilts,1990; Katan, 2004). In this system, any behaviour (such as an individual intervention) in a particular environment, will be logically the result of a set of interpreter enacted strategies, supported by a wider frame of accepted professional or socially accepted norms. The norms themselves will be based on further unstated more general beliefs about appropriacy and ethics, which, again logically,

The full time interpreters are a sub-group taken from a survey conducted in 2008 of around 1000 translators and interpreters, reported in Katan 2009a and 2009b.

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

35

will depend on the role status, and ultimately identity of the interpreter. The outline for this system of logical levels is as follows:
Environment (where, when) T e chn ic a l Fo rmal Out-ofawareness e.g. SME meeting room, table; proximity of buyer/seller and interpreter e.g. Courtroom, defense/prosecution positions; (non) proximity of interpreter Interpreting, speaking, listening, gesticulating, nodding, standing/sitting, Type of intervention Strategies (how) Semantic Area of focus Text explication/ omission Professionality; Illocutionary force; Genre conventions; Orientation; (Re)Alignment Example points translating, adding, glossing, framing, downtoning, shifting, disassociating, Neutrality; Fidelity; effective communication; Skopos; Loyalty, Visibility; Importance of the text.

From visible to invisible

Behaviour (what)

Norms (how) Pragmatic Cultural Beliefs (why)

Identity/role (who)

Ideological Cultural gaps; Interpreter as (relayer/ Reflexive Power relations coordinator/...); Intervenient being; Footing roles (author, editor) Missionary v. artisan; Mediator v.technician; Activist v. professional.

Purpose/ Spirituality (for whom or for what). Overriding raison detre; sense of self). Figure 1: The Logical Levels of Intervention

36

David Katan

According to this hierarchy of levels, the strategies employed by an interpreter will be enabled or constrained according to prevailing norms and beliefs concerning the profession and those concerning the role or identity of the interpreter. Importantly, following the popular iceberg theory (Hall, 1959/1990) only the behaviour is fully visible (in our case, listening and speaking the language, the kinesics, proxemics and other visible forms of communicative behaviour). The visible behaviour, though, is logically fostered or inhibited within wider frames. The highest level, sometimes termed spiritual, mission or purpose, answers the existential question Why am I here?, How do I see myself in relation to society? and What effect will my work have? Answers to these questions will be logically linked to the subordinate levels of beliefs and professional norms. These levels together will then establish the possibilities and impossibilities, freedoms and necessities, opportunities and prohibitions of particular interpreter behaviour in the objective world (Bordieu, 1990: 54). Hence, any change in strategy will first need to be sanctioned within the higher levels of the habitus of the interpreting world. As Jenkins (1992/2002: 78) states, habitus disposes actors to do certain things, it provides a basis for the generation of practices. So, by conflating habitus and the iceberg theory of culture we can see how the disposition of the habitus itself to do intervention is directly related to the level that is involved. One fundamental level difference is that between the visible, which Hall termed Technical and the other two levels. Technical is what we can see the interpreter doing, and focuses on the individual differences between the source and the target text. The next level is strategic, meaning that the interpreters production of a target text will follow a pattern, which will be less obviously visible. Also, this pattern will no longer necessarily be strictly related to features of the original text, but more to the habitus of the interpreter. In fact, the interpreters right to intervene on the form of the language, to add a metalinguistic comment, or to advise the listener that the interpreted comment does not mean what it might seem to mean, takes us to the heart of the third level of the Logical Levels model, the unquestioned core values and

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

37

beliefs, or stories about self and the world which then both guides and constrains ones orientation in the real world (Katan, 2008: 72).

2.1. Strategic intervention This first level of intervention is where language signs have a clear WYSIWYG (What-you-See-Is-What-You-Get) referential function, and any associated hidden values are universal (Katan, 2008: 70). The focus of the interpreter here is to transfer the terms and concepts in the source text abroad with minimum loss. It is the sense that must be made clear, which, as Salama-Carr (2008: 145) explains, is composed of an explicit part (which is actually written or spoken) and an implicit part (what is unsaid but nevertheless meant by the author and understood by the reader/listener. This type of intervention may be likened to NeuroLinguistic Programming metamodel work, which originally was used to help therapists understand their clients limited view or model of the world (Bandler and Grinder, 1975). The most important aspect of a metamodel analysis is to transform client Surface Structures, the illformed language used to describe their world, into well-formed utterances to create the complete representation of the logical relations (ibid. 1975: 28), inherent in their model of the world. Clearly, illformed surface structures, faithfully interpreted, allow for incomplete or mis-interpretations by the listener. Intervention at this level means disambiguating and clarifying the linguistic dragons, warning signs of potential miscommunication (Katan and Trickey, 1997: 115). These, as Bandler and Grinder (ibid) point out can usually be detected when information regarding the subject, predicate or their attributes are missing. Ill-formed sentences will not satisfy challenges such as: Who, what or how, exactly? An example below, taken from an interpreted interview on a TV show (Katan and Straniero-Sergio, 2001: 226), gives a good example of how the interpreter instinctively filled the sense of what was implicit in the original surface structure:

38 Guest:

David Katan (laughs) Ive been adopted by Sioux and I danced the sun dance

This is an example of an ill-formed sentence, as we do not know with whom exactly the guest danced. Note how the interpreter intuitively supplied the missing information (in italics):
Interpreter: e ho anche ballato la danza del sole con loro and I also danced the sun dance with them

The guest continues with a further ill-formed sentence, as we do not know how, in what way the piercing took place. The interpreter, once again fills in the sense gaps:
Guest: Interpreter: and they pierced me on the back e han- ehm hanno anche ehm praticato delle delle dei segni rituali sulla schiena (.) dei fori/ and they ehm they also ehm practiced some some ritual signs on my back (.) some perforations

2.2. Norms Strategies are a direct outcome of norms, which form the bedrock of the dispositions in the interpreters habitus. Interpreting norms are to be found explicitly in professional association guidelines. For example, the National Standard Guide for Community Interpreting Services Canada, published online in 2007 states: there should be no distortion of the original message through additions, omissions, or explanation. The idiom, register, style and tone of the speaker is preserved. Once fidelity to the original text norm is taken as part of the habitus, it is logical to then read that the Standards of Practice do not endorse cultural brokering and advocacy. In academia too, interpreting course programmes, text books and research papers were until recently original message oriented, and focused on invisibility (fostered by the emphasis on training for conference interpreting). Intervention, though, at the Formal Level was encouraged. It was known as la thorie du sens or the interpret(at)ive approach. The focus is clearly surface message bound, with the aim of re-producing the sens.

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

39

As Pchhacker (2004: 71) notes, interpreting courses worldwide were directed influenced by the established certainties and truths forged at the first School for Interpreters and Translators in Paris. It was professional interpreters who dominated the I/T teaching profession both in Paris and elsewhere. The authority and drive of these professionalizing programmes, based on conference interpreting invisibility and impartiality ensured that any other school of theory or practice largely remained in the shadow (ibid: 36). It should be added that the Interpreters School, Trieste, followed faithfully in the Paris school footsteps. Much conference interpreting work is transactional (Brown & Yule 1983), so la thorie du sens approach is often sufficient to ensure effective communication. However, where the communication is clearly interactional, where connotations, pragmatic meaning and face, as we will see, all come into play, the inculcation of university training and professional norms make it difficult for an interpreter to feel professional about further intervention which would compensate for any miscommunication.

2.3. Cultural and Pragmatic intervention There are two separate Levels here, pragmatic and cultural, though interlinguistic pragmatics cannot really be discussed without the wider frame of the cultural, so the two levels will be to all intents and purposes conflated. In general, at this more out-of-awareness Logical Level, the focus is no longer on making the sense apparent in the surface structure, because the text is now viewed as discourse, and as involving meaningful exchange. Hence, quality of the uptake and the pragmatic effects dominate. At this level there are a number of areas, all focussing on the hearer and the effectiveness of the uptake. Register Audiences intraculturally have an out-of-awareness understanding for the type of discourse appropriate within a particular genre. Hence, at this level of intervention, the interpreter is aware that the pragmatics of communication is influenced by the culture filter (c.f. Katan,

40

David Katan

2009c). Discourse viewed at this level, allows an interpreter to judge to what extent normal communication style may be valued differently inter-culturally and to intervene accordingly. Katan and SergioStraniero (2001: 227), for example, give the following cultural intervention example of a talk-show interpreted guest, a Maori doctor who spoke very basic English:
Guest/Interpreter G: a woman can create the possibility I: e una donna pu in effetti con ci creare una possibilit G: and the sex of the twins I: anche possibile stabilire a seconda del tipo di alimentazione ehm una maggiore probabilit di avere un maschio piuttosto che una femmina Back-translated Italian interpretation: expert talk A woman can in fact through this create a possibility It is also possible to establish ehm depending on the form of alimentation a greater probability of having a male rather than a female

The language of the doctor in the interpreted Italian example is longer, more complex, and employs a more formal and specialized lexis. It also includes background information, implicit from the immediate context, conforming to Italian KILCy2 expert-talk norms. The result is that the Italian audience now correctly hears an expert giving medical advice according to Italian generic norms Speech Act In transactional communication, interpreters intervene to maintain appropriate register. In interactional communication, it is the illocutionary force that requires intervention if the message is to be successfully carried across cultures. As Hatim & Mason (1997: 81) themselves underline:
Crucially, it should be added that the seriousness of an FTA [face threatening act] is a cultural variable; it cannot be assumed that that the same act would carry the same weight in different socio-cultural settings

Mason (1999: 156) gives an example of an Italian entrepreneur refusing an offer from a potential buyer. He explains how an untrained in2

For KISS/KILC (Keep it Long and Complete) (see Katan, 2004: 261-2)

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

41

terpreter (the entrepreneurs daughter) showed not only bicultural awareness but also the instinct to save everyones face:
Entrepreneur: Digli che un imbecille!/Tell him hes an imbecile Interpreter: My father wont accept your offer

This interpreter here is doing more than just making the sense explicit. Indeed, almost the opposite strategy is being employed. The reason, as Katan (2004: 316) suggests, is that in an Italian exchange emotional language is much more acceptable than in a British, and that language in general is rarely taken at face value. Hence the interpreters intervention, in producing a more acceptable message, was a successful interpretation of the illocutionary intent. For an interpreter to be able to decide how the force of a speech act will be received in this exchange, she needs take a variety of perceptual positions:
The first position would be that of the black-box interpreter or animator (in Goffmans sense): attention is paid exclusively to the words, and idealised meaning. In the 2nd position, the interpreter is translating for the client, and is aware of the pragmatic effect of each translated turn. In the 3rd perceptual position, the interpreter can disassociate from the interactants on stage and gauge the effect of the dynamic negotiation of meaning (Katan and Sergio-Straniero, 2001: 221)

Conversational maxims At this strategic level we could also mention the need to manage conversational maxim differences. Kondo (1990) (see also Katan, 2004: 304) talk of the problem of intervention and cultural variation with regard to how implicature functions in diplomatic talk; and how this strategically affects uptake particularly when the negotiation is delicate. The case in point regarded a Japanese interpreter and the faithful translation of his prime ministers positive sounding words, zensho shimasu/I will deal with the matter in a forward looking way. This utterance, though, actually flouted the Maxim of Quality: do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence or rather dont lie the flouting of which is an accepted Japanese way to reduce the weight of the face-threatening act. President Nixon was unable to access the implicature, and hence did not hear the diplomatic

42

David Katan

lie. After 12 months of subsequent Japanese silence regarding the matter, Nixon felt betrayed and thought all Japanese politicians liars and utterly untrustworthy (Kondo, 1990: 59). The interpreter had been bound, as Kondo states, at the lower level of strategic intervention due to constraints of the professional norm: interpreters can work essentially only with what has been expressed (1990: 63). Had the interpreter been able to extend his habitus of possibilities, he would have been able to intervene culturally, aware that the acceptance of conversation maxims is culture specific. In Anglo cultures Quantity (make your contribution as informative as required) rather than Quality is the more diplomatically acceptable floutable maxim. Hence, the interpreter could have introduced, for example, a nonsequitur, such as we would not wish to spoil your stay here (Katan, 2004: 304), or perhaps signal closure, such as The Prime Minister is suggesting that this is a delicate matter. Cultural practice Other aspects of intervention at this level are to do with differing cultural signifying practices. When, for example, in the middle of an Italian business meeting, the Italian member says Vogliamo un caff?/What about some coffee, this may well signify Lets have a break from the business in hand, and not Lets have some coffee brought into the room while we work. We have now left the intervention levels of linguistic compensation or manipulation, and are now suggesting that the interpreter should intervene as author (Goffman 1981). With regard to the above example, the interpreter could decide either to work on the text itself and say Shall we go and get some coffee? or intervene as primary participant, framing the words of the original text, What about some coffee?, with her own addition, such as: I think he is suggesting from the coffee bar downstairs. Beliefs Apart from adapting or adding to the surface message, there are many cases of intervention that actually require withholding the message. Under the heading Dont tell the patient, Blignault et al (2007: 229) recount the vital importance of not interpreting what the plain-

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

43

speaking Australian doctor might report, for example, to patients of Vietnamese origin. This is due to the fact that it is even more taboo to discuss illness and death in Vietnam than it is in the West. Yet, when it comes to religious talk, however, it is the West that is more reticent. Herrero (cited in Vidal Claramonte, 2005: 270) reports how the faithful interpretation of the culturally normal frequent invocation of God practiced by a Moroccan citizen accused of drug trafficking offended those in authority, the belief being that only the good should invoke Gods name and even then only in exceptional circumstances.

2.4. Ideological This term is used by Wing-Kwong Leung (2006: 139) as a neutral rather than derogative term in translation studies. In his words, ideological is sociopoliticized, and it means being oriented towards action it is proactive, not just reactive. This ideological level focuses on defining who is acting or intervening. If we define the who as a professional interpreter rather than friend, colleague or employee then we will logically expect different norms, strategies and behaviours regarding the type of intervention. The professional will feel constricted in her ability to intervene by the norms of her habitus, while the amateurs will be much freer to interpret, and with a clear sense of loyalty based not on sense but on meaning, uptake and relationship. On the other hand, if the person defines herself as a cultural broker (Gay, 1993: 293) then loyalty will be towards fair play and to ensuring effective communication for all. This will then result in the interpreter deciding not only to intervene on the text, but at a meta-level to intervene on the interpreting event itself. In business, Gavioli and Maxwell (2007) discuss how the interpreter can and does initiate un-elicited talks. It is at this level, also, that power relations and the possibility to redress the asymmetries in the communication process becomes the object of focus. Asymmetry is a natural result of the fact that the commissioner will usually be, or will represent, one of the clients only. The interpreter herself, too, will usually be closer to one of the clients

44

David Katan

linguistically, culturally or affectively. In a number of countries, particularly those more ascription oriented (c.f. Katan, 2004: 239-240) the business interpreter is expected to take sides, according to who is paying: [her] role is to support [her] own team and possibly even to protect them from confrontational conduct by the western negotiators (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1997: 110). Palmer (2007: 20) points to further problems regarding neutrality in more extreme situations. In Iraq, western journalists and soldiers have to depend on local interpreters and fixers, resulting in the possibility of false information; or alternatively, as a result of a journalists excessive dependence over time on the local informer, the interpreter may not just inform, but actually form the journalists view of the situation. From the point of view of the interpreter, she will find herself in an uneasy position, especially when her ethics are not coherent with those of their commissioner (c.f. Inghilleri and Harding, 2010). In fact, western interpreters are in reality not as neutral as their habitus would have it. Moeketsi (2007: 107), for example, notes how South African interpreters are required to interpret private discussions between prosecution and/or defense lawyers and their clients, which may create the impression that the interpreter colludes or conspire with the opposing parties in litigation. Whatever the interpreting situation, whether war, legal or business, issues of trust are exactly the same.

2.5. Reflexive Though collusion is considered unprofessional by all western written and unwritten interpreter professional codes of conduct, there are now more, academic led, calls for interpreters to be identified as activist (Baker, 2008), committed to redressing current power imbalances, and in particular, to give more voice to the less powerful in society. At this meta-level, the interpreter is very much more self-aware of who she is and of her position in society; and, importantly, does not take the status quo (e.g. power relations in society or professional rules of conduct for interpreters) as given. At this level, all interpreting means intervention; and that not only will the quality of ones

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

45

work be visible, but so too will ones own ideology, beliefs and working norms. Taken to its extreme, the interpreter consciously decides how to consciously manipulate the original stance taken by a client to redress the asymmetries of power. Professional associations, and most lay people, would certainly call this type of intervention sabotage (see also Palmer, 2007), Activists on the other hand, will tend to see non-intervention as condoning, and hence strengthening the asymmetries of power. Baker (2008: 18), herself, stops short of completely endorsing the type of intervention which would visibly contravene professional norms. At the same time, though, she makes it clear that there are a number of situations where an interpreter should be entitled to autonomously decide to actively influence the reception of the message away from the intention of the original speaker. A further possible reflexive intervention is that of whistle-blowing. One case which received a great deal of media attention was that of a university lecturer in interpreting, who is also a court interpreter with 23 years experience. Writing in the New York Times, Camayd-Freixas (2008) recounts how the American Immigration and Customs Enforcement trumped up charges on immigrant Guatemalan workers, which he began to feel very uncomfortable about. He notes that the norm as laid out in his professional contract was clear, and in theory does provide for an interpreters reflexive response, which is to refuse the assignment. As he tells us:
Standards for Performance and Professional Responsibility for Contract Court Interpreters in the Federal Courts, where it states: Interpreters shall disclose any real or perceived conflict of interest and shall not serve in any matter in which they have a conflict of interest.

However,
The question was did I have one. Well, at that point there was not enough evidence to make that determination.

Hence, he remained faithful to what had been expressed during the trial, but afterwards did blow the whistle, reporting the trumped up charges.

46

David Katan

2.6. Changing intervention level There are two main motivating drives for suggesting that the interpreter take on more intervention. First, as we have noted, there are a number of academics who see intervention as political, and that the interpreters presence as gatekeeper will either further dominant power relations, or if empowered may help safeguard the less powerful. That said, Mikkelson (ibid) herself is convinced that belief in activism is still a minority position taken in academic quarters. It is probably also true that in general the last thing a business client wants is a reflexive interpreter, as Masons interpreted father makes clear: Perch non gli hai detto quello che ti ho detto di dirgli?/Why didnt you tell him what I told you to tell him? Here, the client (and commissioner) echo the interpreters traditional professional norm, that what is stated in the text should be restated, whatever the effect. Second, it is now accepted (by academics at least) that meaning is co-constructed rather than innate in the text (c.f. Ondarra, 1997), and that therefore interpreters themselves are active intermediaries (Mikkelson, 2008:86) added to the fact that their very presence influences the co-construction of meaning. So, what about the interpreters themselves? According to Angelelli (2004:1), there is evidence of a shift in the interpreters dispositions. She opens her volume on healthcare interpreting suggesting that in this first decade of the 21st century, the interpreters are beginning to ask: What can I do to help, what is my role? And, it is to the interpreters that we now turn.

3. The interpreter A survey of over around 10003 translators (T), interpreters (I) and aspiring T/Is conducted in 2008 via the internet was designed to gauge subjective aspirations and the dispositions durably inculcated, or more simply, the T/I beliefs about their world(s). One set of major beliefs investigated concerned T/I operational norms. As Toury (1999:
3

1223 began the questionnaire. 901 answered all the questions

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

47

14) states, these norms are the translation of general values or ideas shared by a group as to what is conventionally right and wrong, adequate and inadequate into performance instructions appropriate for and applicable to particular situations. Importantly, as Simeoni pointed out (1998: 26) A habitus-governed account emphasizes the extent to which translators themselves play a role in the maintenance and perhaps the creation of norms.

3.1. Norms vs. habits Before analyzing the results, it should be made clear that a discussion of habitus, the model of the world, does not in itself tell us how interpreters actually behave in a particular environment. As Korzybski (1958: 58-60), among others, tells us, the model or the map of the world, is just that. Like any other map, it is necessarily a simplification and distortion of the reality. Amit-Kochavi, for example, insisted that she never intervened during her translation of the Arabian Nights from Arabic into Hebrew. Yet, when Pym (2009) probed further, she realized that she had not only made strategic interventions on the text but she had also made a number of autonomous editorial decisions, which included deciding which of the Nights to translate into Hebrew. Closer to home, Eraslan Gerek (2008: 25) reports on a survey of conference interpreters, which shows how interpreter replies did not coincide with reality: Through the analysis of these interpreted interactions, it was found that the actual behaviour of interpreters in reallife situations, or their role performance in Goffmans terms, differs considerably from their normative role defined both by interpreters and users as neutral and uninvolved in the interaction and faithfulness to the original speech. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997: 32) also note that performance might not mirror declared values, simply because there will be other over-riding values, which may well not be declared. With this in mind we will now investigate the interpreters habitus.

48

David Katan

3.2. The Survey Corpus The questionnaire was posted to colleagues (T/I teachers, professionals and MA/PhD students) around the world, using surveymonkey4. Overall results can be found in previous publications (Katan, 2009a, 2009b). With regard to interpreters, 304 out of the 870 who work in T/I ticked interpreting as a first, second or at times role, and have an average of 12 years experience (23% with 21+ years). Of these, 158, roughly half (57%), interpret and also translate as their main area of work, with the majority (122) on a freelance basis. The vast majority have some form of I/T university education (85 have either a degree or MA in interpreting, and a further 40 have a degree in translation). The targeted nature of the survey meant that the respondents themselves regarded themselves as professional, committed, and from the comments it was clear that they distanced themselves from the cowboy competition (see Katan, 2009b). Yet only 75 classified themselves as interpreters only. Clearly, the survey results cannot tell us if this reflects the market, but intuition would lead us to suspect that there are relatively few interpreters who can live comfortably by interpreting alone. The breakdown by country of response is as follows:

Figure 2: Country

As can be seen, though the survey was global, the results are very much skewed to certain countries (for more details see 2009a).
4

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PJ5HCWN

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

49

Respondents were given a wide array of choices regarding fields of work, as can be seen in figure 3 below, as well as the opportunity to tick more than one of ten main areas plus anything and everything as well as add their own other main area. Those who had ticked both translating (T) and interpreting (I) as main role were classified as part timers and hence were not included in the chart below. Almost every interpreting respondent ticked 2 main areas resulting in 229 main area ticks from a sample of 1255 respondents. They were also allowed to apportion the fields of work into up to three levels of importance: 1st job/main area, also and at times.

Figure 3: Area of Interpreter Specialisation (actual numbers)

The radar chart above compares the relative specialisation in each field, represented by the relative position of main area, also and at times on each ray. As can be seen, the principal outliers on the outer ring (main area) are business interpreting (18%), followed by technical (16%) legal (15%) and then anything and everything (14%). The also, middle ring, as can be seen, is almost as large, but shows more communality, favouring legal, once again, marketing and tourism. The at times, inner ring, is almost perfectly undifferentiated,
It will be seen that the number of replies is never constant, as respondents were allowed to skip individual questions at will.
5

50

David Katan

though there is a slight hesitancy to dabble in business. In fact, business interpreting appears to be the most specializing, with most distance between the three rings. However, an analysis of the entire group of all T and I business main area respondents (209) from the main survey showed that only six did not have a 2nd area of work (2 interpreters and 4 translators). Clearly, also the fact that we have some literary responses in the chart above shows just how variegated a further 1st, 2nd or 3rd area of work might be not forgetting the 60% of the interpreters who also or at times will interpret anything and everything.

3.3 Visibility The first question regarding habitus asked the respondents to state how much they agreed that the T/I should be invisible, meaning to what extent should one noticeably intervene in the flow of proceedings between the clients.

Figure 4: T/I should be invisible (%) according to main role

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies Actual numbers Definitely agree Mainly agree It depends Mainly no Definitely not Total Translator 73 166 110 27 24 400 Interpreter 17 51 32 9 8 117 Part-timer 9 71 64 25 19 188 Total 99 288 206 61 51 705

51

The previous graph shows how similar the 117 interpreters6 were to the translators and to the mixed group of those who said their main area was both T and I. As can be seen, there is remarkable conformity between the three groups, with the interpreters more of less midway between the translators and the part-timers. The majority of the 705 respondents, here, cluster around the mainly agree that the T or I should remain invisible whatever the situation. Specifically regarding the interpreters, if we merge the mainly with the definitely agree we find that 58% (68) of interpreters basically agree that invisibility is an ideal to be preserved, while only 15% (17) basically disagree. The it depends category was designed to gauge the readiness of interpreters to change strategy, regardless of their norms. It was worded as follows: It depends: meaning yourself, i.e. your own choices, which may oscillate between all the above [original words, listener, commissioner] at any given moment. Positive replies to it depends were designed to reveal those who have a much more ideological and reflexive approach to the job in hand, and should give us an idea of the proportion of interpreters who consider intervention not so much as a fixed norm but as a series of options with all Levels available. Of the 3 groups, the interpreters are the most norm-bound: only 27% felt that it was the interpreters role to make their own decisions regarding appropriate visibility. This was only one percentage behind the translators it depends, but a good seven points behind the part-timers (34%). Breaking down the main area freelance interpreter group into the more popular specialist areas results in a very low number of interThese groups are mutually exclusive, meaning that these interpreters do not translate and the translators do not interpret. As mentioned earlier, though, the vast majority do have another, second job (such as in teaching). For further details see Katan 2009a/b.
6

52

David Katan

preters per group. Yet, it may show us if there is a likelihood of any pattern differentiation, which might then show some differing views on visibility. The numbers are as follows:
Immigration/Public service: Medical: Legal: Technology: Business: 10 10 23 25 47

As can be seen from the chart below, even with very small numbers taken from over 20 different countries around the world, there is remarkable conformity in mainly agreeing that the interpreter should be invisible with one exception:

Figure 5: The interpreter should be invisible (%) according to job area

The medical interpreters are clearly the only group slightly more open to visibility; while, surprisingly, the cultural mediator par excellence, the immigration and public service interpreter, appears to be the least open. Yet, of course, the numbers are so small, that all we can say is that there is little to differentiate the various areas of the profession. If we look at the main area of work for the whole group of all those who work (and study) in medical (96 responses), community (immigration, public service) (86), legal (160) and business (209),

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

53

which now specifically includes translators, we can see the same trends:

Figure 6: Translator/Interpreter should be invisible (%)

As can be seen, there is again remarkable agreement between the various groups. If anything, it would seem that that the medical interpreters are most in agreement with invisibility (6% more than the average of the other 3 groups), though there is a fairly sharp drop of 14% mainly agreeing to invisibility. We should though always remember that with such small numbers we can only talk about the general trends, and not the handful of medical interpreters who did not tick mainly agree.
Medical Definitely agree Mainly agree It depends Mainly no Definitely not 18% 32% 28% 11% 11% Average other Difference between Medical groups and Average other groups 12% + 6% 47% -14% 22% + 6% 10% + 1% 10% + 1%

Overall, there is not really (yet) enough evidence to corroborate Angelellis (2004:1) assertion that health-care interpreters (or community interpreters for that matter) are consciously questioning the traditional habitus.

54

David Katan

Of those who mentioned it depends, 22 added comments. As stated earlier, the it depends category was designed to highlight those who might have a more interventionist disposition. However, it was clear that, for most, visibility was perceived as intervention as a strategy, and not as a norm; and would be dictated, not by interpreter beliefs, identity or purpose, but by a lower Logical Level, the Environment, referred to as the situation or context. Also, where the comments specifically mention higher Logical Levels of visibility, it is usually done so cautiously, gingerly moving away from the sanctioned habitus with an array of hedging devices, conditionals, modals and do on. The example comments below regarding when an interpreter should intervene have been organized according to five types of situation mentioned:
A. Clarification If it is business interpreting the main aim is to make sure that the two business partners are getting their point across and that they understand each other. It can be necessary to become more visible. (Italy, degree T/I; T/I freelance, marketing assistant; business; 13 years) B. Type of interpreting event: An interpreter should not always be invisible in liaison interpreting, where the personality is important to the client. (Italy, Master T/I; T/I freelance; -; 5 years) Cooperative encounters (eg: medical and social services: visibility and negotiation are often appropriate). Adversarial encounters (eg: US legal settings): invisibility. (Argentina, degree/T; freelance/I; legal; 8 years) Depends on the assignment - sometimes a high degree of visible intercultural operation is required and desirable.... a true "invisibility" is practically impossible to achieve. (Finland; degree in languages, Master T/I; Freelance/I; legal, technical, community; 10 years) C. Issues of responsibility: It could depend on the politics of the situation where someone could blame the interpreter for interpreting something in a certain way (even if correct). Then the interpreters life could be in jeopardy! (Germany; Master in Science-Arts/Languages; PhD student/freelance I/T; marketing, business, technical, tourism; 21+ years) D. Physical/Psychological presence and audience expectation/wants. ...in community interpreting settings the interpreter should not be invisible, he/she contributes to the whole atmosphere of the setting which is for ex-

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies ample very important in psychological/psychotherapeutic settings (the main field Im working in). (Austria; Master/T; permanent/I; medical; 7 years) I have experienced many situations where customers deliberately use the interpreter as buffer, mediator or even strategic tool (e.g. to buy time). All this of course refers to consecutive interpreting! (Germany; Master T/I; permanent/I ; technical/legal; 10 years) E. Acknowledgement He/she should be invisible only during the interpretation, but he/she should be very visible after or before it, especially if the interpretation was good (Croatia; degree/I; I/freelance; business/technical/tourism; 6 years)

55

3.4 Loyalty The interpreters were given four choices as to where they put first, or most loyalty. As the figure below shows, it is the original words that must be adhered to rather than the listeners needs:

Figure 7: Interpreter main focus/loyalty (actual numbers)

Though the listener is in second place, with 26 replies, this is still 50% less important than the original words, which scored 56. In lowly third place was it depends, meaning that only 22 out of a total of 113 interpreters demonstrated a disposition to take active control of their objective reality. Furthermore, compared to the other groups in the survey (translators, the T/I part timers, academics and T/I students) it is the interpreter group whose insistence on loyalty to the text shows itself to be the most durably inculcated by the impossibilities, the necessities and

56

David Katan

prohibitions which they feel to be inscribed in the objective conditions of their work. The graph below shows the relative emphasis according to each group:

Figure 8: T/I and academic main focus/loyalty (%)

Hardly surprisingly, while the interpreters might be the most conservative, it is the T/I teachers who are the most open to focussing on the possibilities, freedoms and opportunities provided in the objective conditions, with 41% replying that loyalty would depend on the interpreters own decisions. However, this did not stop, over a quarter (28%) of the T/I teachers affirming primary importance to the original words. We might also note that the students, tomorrows interpreters, are clearly influenced by the skopos theory, with nearly a third (31%) believing that loyalty lies with the quality of listener uptake. The students also believe slightly more in their own freedom to act but, even for them, the it depends, meaning yourself, is still hardly a priority at only 28%.

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

57

3.5. Responsibility for Listener Reaction Surprisingly, perhaps, replies to the following question appeared to contradict the interpreters invisibility. The question was: Given that the interpretation is linguistically correct, to what extent should the interpreter be responsible for listener reaction ideally and in reality:

Figure 9: Responsibility for Listener Reaction (Actual numbers)

As can be seen, the vast majority felt that, ideally, it was the interpreters job to intervene always on behalf of the listener. The vast majority also agreed, that in practice, the interpreter did intervene very much of the time on behalf of the client. The 13 who replied it depends explained, in the main that context (as before) would affect the level of responsibility. There was an exception:
A) Professional ethics: It depends on the interpreter... some just dont care about this. I think it is a very important part of the job (Brazil, degree in Sciences, freelance T/I; anything and everything, 6 years)

58

David Katan

The other replies have been grouped as follows:

B) Client disposition on the purposes of the author: if they mean to cause indignation, be obnoxious, be aggressive, an interpreter must not change these individual authorial goals and purposes...(but has to be invisible) (Hungary, Hu-En, degree in T/I, PhD in Arts, freelance I & I/PhD; tourism/immigration/business, 7 years) C) Physical proximity whether he has a chance to have contact with his listener (Slovenia, PhD in I, freelance I/lecturer; anything and everything, 15 years)

Comments regarding client disposition show once again the belief in invisibility, and fidelity to the original regardless of how listeners uptake the message, exactly as outlined in Gentile et als authoritative Liaison Interpreting: A Handbook: The formulation of the message is the responsibility of the other parties; the interpreters responsibility is to interpret (Gentile, Ozolinis and Vasilakakos, 1996: 48). And this is the key to the apparent paradox. There is quite simply an implicit belief that loyalty to the original words is the best way to be loyal to the listener, as explained by one respondent (in reply to the question on loyalty to the (1) the original words, (2) the listener, (3) :
I do not think that there is a conflict of interests between the 1st and 2nd option (Germany, degree in I, freelance I/lecturer; technical/immigration, 7 years)

3.6. Who is the interpreter At the beginning I mentioned that the logical levels within the habitus are governed by beliefs about self and purpose. In an attempt to ascertain who the interpreter believes she is, respondents were asked to compare their work with that of another profession. There were 115 interpreter replies to this question, and each respondent could tick up to three boxes which most did. The percentage results among the 12

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

59

options were as follows (popularity of reply clockwise from most to least):

Figure 10: The Interpreter can be compared to a ... (%)

The first point to note is that that the two shapes are not dissimilar. Hence, practice, in the main follows theory, but falls short of the interpreters ideals, except for a surprising agreement on the most popular comparison of all, that of mediator (23% ideal and 22% in practice). Given what has been said before, perhaps there are 2 caveats to be made. First, the results are necessarily skewed, in terms of the personalised form of targeted respondents. Many of the 66 respondents (57% of the group) who ticked mediator will have been directly or indirectly influenced by this authors particular habitus, and publication, subtitled an introduction for translators, interpreters and mediators (Katan, 2004). This volume emphasized the unrecognized intervenient nature of the profession. Probably more relevant here, though, is the fact that mediator, as Baker (2008: 15) points out, is a vague term. She notes that from a semiotic perspective, mediation implies a person speaking on behalf of another person, and hence mediation would be the

60

David Katan

same as reporting what someone else has said or written, in the same or in another language. So, more than probably, given the interpreters loyalty to the original language, the group see mediator, not as a cultural mediator, but in line with the next most popular set of comparisons (linguist, artisan, wordsmith), i.e. as relayers, and guardians of the surface text as a product. The relayer respondents were, of course, also allowed to tick more intervenient being (Maier 2007) roles. As the chart shows, examples such as agent of social change, educator, missionary, or broker, rate as more or less the least popular, each garnering less than 10% of the total proportion of preferences which goes to confirm the text relayer hypothesis, Yet, it must also be said that there is an important minority who do feel that interpreting has a stronger sense of mission, for 25 respondents (20% of the total cohort) did also tick agent of social change as one of their choices. An analysis of this group, though, shows little patterning. They come from 11 different countries, have more or less equally a degree in languages or in I/T, and are more or less equally distributed amongst the professional areas whitin the group:

Figure 11:

Main areas of work: All interpreters v Agents of social change

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

61

What is of interest is that a number of the agent of social change group added significant other main fields of work:
military (Hungary; degree in T/I; freelance I; + legal, also immigration and medical; 8 years) international humanitarian org. (Georgia; degree in I; freelance T/I; + immigration, medical, tourism & legal; 7 years) human rights (Finland; Master in T; freelance I; + anything and everything; 21+ years) third sector NGOs, CSOs (Brazil, degree in sciences; freelance T/I; + anything and everything; 6 years)

We may presume that the Hungarian freelance interpreters military role refers not to active duty but to something more humanitarian, which is what would link it to the other respondents. In these cases, then, the belief that an interpreter is an agent of social change is related to their wider field of action.

4. Conclusion Interpreter intervention can be considered at a number of Logical Levels, organized in terms of beliefs about role and norm possibilities and constraints. These will determine the Level and type of intervention believed to be appropriate. The interpreters habitus, its model of reality, and the field in which it operates would appear still to be bound at the first Level of intervention: explicitation of the sens. It is a strategy to be employed when needs must. Though academics have begun to highlight the limitations and the distorted reality of the interpreters objective conditions there also appears to be strong indisposition to change from within the profession. Indeed, as we have already seen, Simeone (1998: 26) hinted that it is the translators themselves [who] play a role in the maintenance and perhaps the creation of norms. At the outset we noted that any change in strategy will first need to be sanctioned within the higher levels of the habitus of the interpreting world, but it may well be that for interventionist strategies to be sanctioned, there will need to be more cross fertilization from fields, like those above, all of which come from outside the profession.

62

David Katan

And, as a final word, I can only concur with this comment:

We as professional T/Is need to stand up to our social status, there is still a lot to be done regarding visibility and ethical responsibility (Spain, Master in T/I + Master in Arts + painting at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna; freelance T/I; anything and everything; 21+ years)

Bibliography Angelelli, C. The Visible Collaborator: Interpreter Intervention in Doctor/Patient Encounters, in Metzger, M., Collins, S., Dively, S., Shaw R., eds. From Topic Boundaries to Omission: New Research on Interpretation (Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, 2003): 3-25. Angelelli, C. (2004) Medical Interpreting and CrossCultural Communication (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Baker, M. Resisting State Terror: Theorising Communities of Activist Translators and Interpreters, in Bielsa Mialet, E., Hughes, C., eds. Globalisation, Political Violence and Translation (Palgrave Macmillan 2010): 222-42. Baker, M. (2008) Ethics of Renarration: Mona Baker is Interviewed by Andrew Chesterman, Cultus 1: 10-33. Bandler, R., Grinder, J. The Structure of Magic I (Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books, 1975). Blignault, I, Stephanou, I, Barrett, C. Achieving Quality in Health Care Interpreting: Insights from interpreters, in Hale, S. B., Ozolins, U., Stern, L., eds The Critical Link 5. Quality in Interpreting: a shared responsibility (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2007): 221-234. Bourdieu, P. The Logic of Practice (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990). Brown, G., Yule, G. Discourse Analysis (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983) Camayd-Freixas, E. Interpreting after the Largest ICE Raid in US History: A Personal Account. (2008) http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ images/2008/07/14/opinion/14ed-camayd.pdf. Accessed 17/01/11.

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

63

Dilts, R. Changing Belief Systems with NLP (Capitola, CA: Meta Publications, 1990). Eraslan Gerek, . Cultural Mediator or Scrupulous Translator? Revisiting Role, Context and Culture in Conference Interpreting, in Boulogne, P., ed. Translation and Its Others. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007. (2008) http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.htm, 1-33. Accessed 23/12/10. Gavioli, L., Maxwell, N. Interpreter Intervention in Mediated Business Talk, in Bowles, H., Seedhouse, P., Gotti, M., eds., Conversation Analysis and Language for Specific Purposes (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2007): 141-182. Gay, G. Building Cultural Bridges: A bold proposal for teacher education, Education and Urban Society, 2:5 (1993): 285-299. Gentile, A, Ozolins, U, Vasilakakos, M. Liason Interpreting: A Handbook (Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, 1996). Goffman, E. Forms of Talk (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981). Hall, E.T. The Silent Language (New York: Garden City, Doubleday & Co., 1959/1990). Hatim, B., Mason, I. The Translator as Communicator (London: Routledge, 1997). Inghilleri, M., Harding, S-A., eds. The Translator. Special Issue: Translation and Violent Conflict, 16:2 (2010): 165-173. Jenkins, R. Pierre Bourdieu (London/New York: Routledge, 1992/2002). Katan, D. Translation Theory and Professional Practice: A Global Survey of the Great Divide, Hermes, 42 (2009a): 111-153. Katan, D. Occupation or Profession: A survey of the translators world, in Sela-Sheffy, R.,Shlesinger, M., eds. Profession, Identity and Status: Translators and Interpreters as an Ocupational Group. Special Issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies (2009b): 187-209. Katan, D. Translation as Intercultural Communication, in Munday, J. ed. The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies (Oxford: Routledge, 2009c): 74-92.

64

David Katan

Katan, D. Culture, in Baker, M., Sladanha, G., eds. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation (London/New York: Routledge, 2008): 70-73. Katan, D. Translating Cultures: an introduction for translators, interpreters and mediators (Manchester: St. Jerome, 2004): 70-73. Katan, D., Straniero-Sergio, F. Look Whos Talking: the Ethics of Entertainment and Talk Show Interpreting, The Translator, 7: 2, (2001): 213-238. Katan, D., Trickey, D. Negotiating Meaning across Cultures: using the Meta Model in NLP as an International Business Communication Tool, in Evans, D., ed. Communicative Ability and Cultural Awareness: A Key to International Corporate Success, VIII ENCoDe International Conference, Groupe EDHEC, Nice, (1997): 114-119. Kondo, M. What Conference Interpreters Should Not Be Expected to Do, The Interpreters Newsletter 3 (1990): 59-65. Korzybski, A. Science and Sanity, 4th ed., The International NonAristotelian Library Publishing Company (1958). Maier, C. The Translator as an Intervenient Being, in Munday, J., ed. Translation as Intervention (London/New York: Continuum, 2007): 1-18. Mason, I. Introduction, The Translator. Special Issue: Dialogue Interpreting, 5 (2) (1999): 152-8. Mikkelson, H. Evolving Views of the Court Interpreters Role: Between Scylla and Charybdis, in Valero-Garcs, C., Martin, A., eds. Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2008): 81-97. Moeketsi, R. M. H. Intervention in court interpreting: South Africa, in Munday, J., ed. Translation as Intervention (London/New York: Continuum, 2007): 118-137. Munday, J. (ed) Translation as Intervention (London/New York, Continuum: 2007). National Standard Guide for Community Interpreting Services Canada (2007/www.multilanguages.com/.../National_Standard_Guide_ for_Community_Interpreting_Services.pdf. Accessed 29/12/2010. Ondarra, J. K. Collaborative Negotiation of Meaning: a longitudinal approach (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997).

Interpreting as intervention: norms, beliefs and strategies

65

Palmer, J. Interpreting and Translation for Western Media in Iraq, in Salama-Carr, M., ed. Translating and Interpreting Conflict (Amsterdam/New York, Rodopi, 2007): 13-28. Pchhacker, F. Introducing Interpreting Studies (London/New York: Routledge, 2004). Pchhacker, F. Interpreters and Ideology: From Between to Within, TRANS. Internet-Zeitschrift fr Kulturwissenschaften, 16. (2005) www.inst.at/trans/16Nr/09_4/poechhacker16.htm. Accessed 23/12/2010. Pchhacker, F. Interpreting as mediation, in Valero-Garcs, C.; A. Martn, eds. Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting. Definitions and Dilemmas (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2008) 9-26. Pchhacker, F. Going Social? On Pathways and paradigms in Interpreting Studies, in Pym, A., Shlesinger, M., Jettmarov, eds. Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2006): 215-232. Pym, A. On the Ethics of Translators Interventions (2009) http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Ch1XiM1rCvg. Accessed 17/01/2011 Salama-Carr, M. The Interpretive Approach, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2008): 145-147. Simeoni, D. The Pivotal Status of the Translators Habitus, Target 10:1 (1998): 1-39. Toury, G. A Handful of Paragraphs on Translation and Norms, in Schffner, C., ed. Translation and Norms (Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 1999): 9-31. Trompenaars, F., Hampden-Turner, C. Riding the Waves of Culture (London: Nicholas Brearley, 1997). Vidal Claramonte, M.C.. Re-presenting the Real: Pierre Bourdieu and Legal Translation, The Translator, 11:2 (2005): 259-276. Wadensj, C. Interpreting as Interaction (London: Longman, 1998). Wing-Kwong Leung, M. The Ideological Turn in Translation Studies, in Ferreira Duarte, J., Assis Rosaand, A., Seruya, T., eds. Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamin, 2006): 129144.

66

David Katan

Wolf, M. The Emergence of a Sociology of Translation, in Wolf, M., Fukari, A. Constructing a Sociology of Translation (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamin, 2007): 1-38.