300 likes | 457 Views
5 - Negotiating Meaning in Face-to-Face Interpreting: An intercultural perspective. Ian Mason ( Heriot Watt University ) Sichuan University, October 2013. Interculturality. New book published in USA by Chinese-American Amy Chua (professor of law at Yale University):
E N D
5- Negotiating Meaning in Face-to-Face Interpreting:An intercultural perspective Ian Mason (Heriot Watt University) Sichuan University, October 2013
Interculturality • New book published in USA by Chinese-American Amy Chua (professor of law at Yale University): • Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother
Interculturality • Parenting styles: • US (promote freedom, creativity) versus • Chinese (promote discipline) • Reception in US: • Defence of long US tradition of creativity, innovation. • Fear: look at China’s economic success!
Interculturality • Chinese translation: • Parenting Guide by a Yale Law Professor: Raising Kids in America
Interculturality • Reception in China: • ‘How do I get my kids into Harvard?’ • Differing reader response to same text: • ‘Pre-text’: the assumptions we bring to our reading. • Different title also reflects culture.
The Co-operative Principle • Ideal speaker and listener • No allowance for cultural differences • Anglo-centric?
Cross-cultural business exchange in English A Hello, Mr X X Hello, Mr A A It’s been a long time since we saw each other last X Yes, too long, I’m afraid A Well, that depends on what you mean by a long time … • Stalpers (1987)
Apparent flouting of maxims • RELEVANCE: “It’s been a long time…” • Implicature: criticism – it’s been too long. • QUANTITY: “… I’m afraid” • Implicature: I regret (that you have taken so long?) • MANNER: “… that depends…” • Implicature: I don’t consider it long • Cross-cultural implicature • Assumptions not shared
The dialogue interpreter • at centre of cross-cultural exchanges • only participant with bi-cultural expertise • ability to make the implicit explicit
House (2005): Dimensions of cross-cultural difference (German – English) Directness ---------- Indirectness Orientation Orientation towards self ---------- towards Other Orientation Orientation towards Content ---------- towards Addressees Explicitness ---------- Implicitness Ad hoc Formulation ----------Verbal Routines
Sources of intercultural difficulties • Differences of language behaviour • Differences of non-verbal behaviour • attribution of motives to others’ behaviour • in-group/out-group bias Brislin (1980)
British/Chinese business meeting (Spencer-Oatey & Xing, in Spencer-Oatey 2008) • Language behaviour: ‘we’/’you’ focus • Non-verbal behaviour: (in)formality • Attribution: seating arrangement shows lack of respect • In/out-group: importance of personal contact: Tim, the China Sales Manager
In addition: • Differences of power and status • The interpreter’s role conflict: • The right to intervene? • The duty to intervene?
Interpreter intervention in Chinese/English meeting • British chairman makes welcome speech. • His team introduce themselves. • British chairman invites Chinese team to introduce themselves. • Head of Chinese team begins reply speech. • Interpreter interrupts: “No, just introduce yourselves… ” Spencer-Oatey & Xing 2008: 263
Footing • “the alignments we take up to ourselves and the others present as expressed in the way we manage the production or reception of an utterance” E. Goffman (1981), p.128
Footing: production format • Animator • Author • Principal
An example: distancing Interpreter’s footing at a war-crimes trial • Need to interpret very distressing testimonies. • Need to cope with aggressive witnesses.
An example: distancing “Le présidentvousdemandesi…” [The judge is asking you whether…] “Die Zeuginantwortet…” [The witness replies that…]
An example: alignment Therapy session at Vienna hospital (German/Serbian) T Now look, today we won’t sit down, today we’ll lie down, like in sleeping. I You will lie down here. T Hm?… Do you mind that? P Yes T Shall we do that? P Yes T Yes, good. Do you understand me? [to I] Tell him to/ I Do you understand? The lady says you should lie down. Down there you should lie down, down there. Pochhacker & Kadric (1999)
An example: alignment … T Do you understand me? [to I] Tell him to/ I Do you understand? The lady says you should lie down…
Intercultural pragmatics An example: courtroom interpreting (Berk-Seligson 1988;1990) • Deferential politeness more common in Latin-American Spanish than in American English • L-A interpreter initiates cycle of politeness • Witnesses must address the court (i.e. the judge) • Witnesses often address the interpreter
Interpreter’s four options • interpret accurately (“Yes, Madam”) • interpret incorrectly (“Yes, Sir”) • raise the problem with the judge • drop the honorific
Interpreter strategies • Evidence that interpreters do ‘face work’, e.g. attenuation of bad news (redressive action): • Doctor: “your blood pressure is high” • Interpreter: “you have a little raised blood pressure”
Interpreter strategies • Doctor: “You’re HIV-positive” • Interpreter: “The tests are positive” Clifford (2007) • Off-record strategy
Interpreter strategies • Doctor: “Are you taking any other medication?” • Patient: “No… well, actually, I take sleeping pills but don’t tell him that!” • Culture 1: medicines by prescription only, for patient only. • Culture 2: medicines freely available, exchanged among friends and family.
Interpreter strategies Angelelli (2012): pain-rating scales Nurse: Okay, from a scale from one to ten, ten being the worst pain, is it a ten? (…) Patient: Well. Yes. I have had it since this morning. It is there, I can feel it, not very strong but… Interp: How strong is not very strong, is it a 5, a 3 or a… Patient: More or less like a 5
Footing and control Off.Did you look round for a job in Poland? Int.[Did you look for work? You looked for work and there wasn’t any?] Imm.[Yes] Int.Yes, he was looking for work but there was no work.Berriff 1997
Institutional Role • TV interpreting • Immigration or medical interpreting • USA courtroom interpreting • The interpreter’s ability to control.
Conclusion: Interpreter behaviour • Protection of own self/image • Assumptions about cultural assumptions of participants and about their interactional goals • Alignment (often but not always to the more powerful participant) • Face work • Institutional constraints on freedom