1887
image of Parliamentary impoliteness and the interpreter’s gender
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Impoliteness is a common phenomenon across various democratically elected parliaments. However, in multilingual legislative bodies such as the European Parliament speakers have to rely on interpreters to transfer pragmatic meaning, including face-threatening acts and impoliteness. The existing research in the field of Interpreting Studies offers much evidence of the filtering effect that interpreting may have on impoliteness, through facework strategies introduced by interpreters. The main question here is whether female interpreters tend to mitigate grave, intentional impoliteness to a greater degree than male interpreters. My analysis of a large corpus composed of English-Polish interpretations of speeches by Eurosceptic MEPs shows that mitigation of impoliteness by interpreters is a widespread phenomenon. The illocutionary force of original statements is often modified by means of diverse interpreting strategies. However, the quantitative analysis of interpreter facework does not reveal a statistically significant gender-based difference in the distribution of approaches towards impoliteness.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18064.bar
2019-11-26
2020-04-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge
    2006Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511617881
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617881 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Mona, and Andrew Chesterman
    2008 “Ethics of Renarration. Mona Baker is Interviewed by Andrew Chesterman.” Cultus1: 10–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
    2016Face Threats in Interpreting: A Pragmatic Study of Plenary Debates in the European Parliament. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaton, Morven
    2007 Intertextuality and Ideology in Interpreter-mediated Communication: The Case of the European Parliament. PhD diss., Heriot-Watt University.
  5. Ben-Ari, Nitsa
    2010 “When Literary Censorship is not Strictly Enforced, Self-censorship Rushes in.” TTR23 (2): 133–166. 10.7202/1009163ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1009163ar [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chilton, Paul
    2004Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cosmidou, Olga
    2013 “The European Parliament: A Temple of Multilingualism, a Pioneer in Interpreting ‘exploits’.” Gramma19: 129–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics25: 349–367. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2013 “Impoliteness: Questions and Answers.” InAspects of Linguistic Impoliteness, ed. byDenis Jamet, and Manuel Jobert, 2–15. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2016 “Impoliteness Strategies.” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. byAlessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, 421–445. Berlin: Springer International. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_16 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dąbrowska, Marta
    2007 “Are Genderlects Universal?” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis124: 49–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2012 “Gender and Positive Politeness in Facebook Communication.” Armenian Folia Anglistika1–2 (10): 7–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Diriker, Ebru
    2004De-/re-contextualizing Conference Interpreting. Interpreters in the Ivory Tower?Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.53 [Google Scholar]
  16. Duflou, Veerle
    2012 “The ‘first person norm’ in Conference Interpreting (CI) – Some Reflections on Findings from the Field.” InInterpreting Brian Harris: Recent Developments in Translatology, ed. byMaría Amparo Jimenez Ivars, and María Jesús Blasco Mayor, 145–160. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gile, Daniel
    2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Revised Edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gray, John
    1992Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus: A Practical Guide to Improving Communication and Getting What You Want. New York: Harper Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gentile, Adolfo, Uldis Ozolins, and Mary Vasilakakos, M.
    1996Liason Interpreting – A Handbook. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hale, Sandra and Jemina Napier
    2013Research Methods in Interpreting. A Practical Resource. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hampel, Elisabeth
    2015 “‘Mama Zimbi, pls help me!’ – Gender Differences in (Im)politeness in Ghanaian English Advice-giving on Facebook.” Journal of Politeness Research11 (1): 99–130. 10.1515/pr‑2015‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0005 [Google Scholar]
  22. Handke, Kwiryna
    2006 “The Language of Polish Women.” Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej41: 83–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Harris, Sandra
    2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse and Society12 (4): 451–472. 10.1177/0957926501012004003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012004003 [Google Scholar]
  24. Herbert, Jean
    1952 English Translation 1956. The Interpreter’s Handbook: How to Become a Conference Interpreter. Geneva: Librairie de l’Université.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Holmes, Janet
    1995Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ilie, Cornelia
    2001 “Unparliamentary Language: Insults as Cognitive Forms of Confrontation.” InLanguage and Ideology, Vol. II. Descriptive Cognitive Approaches, ed. byRené Dirven, Roslyn Frank and Cornelia Ilie, 235–263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.205.14ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.205.14ili [Google Scholar]
  27. Jones, Roderick
    1998Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kahane, Eduardo
    2007 “Interpreters in Conflict Zones: The Limits of Neutrality.”, aiic.net/page/2691/interpreters-in-conflict-zones-the-limits-of-neutrality/lang/1 (accessedJanuary 29, 2016).
  29. Kamińska-Szmaj, Irena
    2007Agresja językowa w życiu publicznym. Leksykon inwektyw politycznych 1918–2000 [Linguistic aggression in public life. A lexicon of political invectives 1918–2000]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Katan, David
    2011 “Interpreting as Intervention: Norms, Beliefs and Strategies.” InInterpretazione e mediazone: Un’opposizione inconcilabile?, ed. byJosé Francisco Medina Montero, and Sarah Tripepi Winteringham, 33–66. Rome: ARACNE.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Karwatowska, Małgorzata, and Jolanta Szpyra-Kozłowska
    2010Lingwistyka płci. Ona i on w języku polskim [Gender linguistics. She and he in Polish]. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMSC.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Knapp-Potthoff, Annelie
    2005 “Secondhand Politeness.” InPoliteness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice, ed. byRichard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide, Konrad Ehlich, 203–218. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lakoff, Robin
    1975Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1989 “The Limits of Politeness: Therapeutic and Courtroom Discourse.” Multilingua8: 101–129. 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2‑3.101
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.101 [Google Scholar]
  35. Laskowska, Elżbieta
    2008 “Między językiem ideologii a językiem agresji [Between the language of ideology and the language of aggression].” InReverendissimae Halinae Satkiewicz cum magna aestimatione, ed. byGrzegorz Dąbkowski, 185–193. Warsaw: Plejada.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Leech, Geoffrey
    2014The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Łyda, Andrzej, Alina Jackiewicz, and Krystyna Warchał
    2010 “Agentless Structures in the Interpreter’s Output: Looking into the Gender Factor.” Linguistica Silesiana31: 193–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Łyda, Andrzej, Krystyna Warchał, and Alina Jackiewicz
    2011 “Managing Criticism and Praise by Trainee Interpreters: Looking for Gender Differences.” InIndividual Learner Differences in SLA, ed. byJanusz Arabski and Adam Wojtaszek, 161–183. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847694355‑012
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694355-012 [Google Scholar]
  39. Magnifico, Cédric and Bart Defrancq
    2016 “Impoliteness in Interpreting: A Question of Gender?” Translation & Interpreting8 (2): 26–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Marcjanik, Małgorzata
    2007Grzeczność w komunikacji językowej [Politeness in linguistic communication]. Warsaw: PWN.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Marzocchi, Carlo
    2005 “On Norms and Ethics in the Discourse on Interpreting.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter13: 87–107.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2017 “Norms Revisited”. InThe Changing Role of the Interpreter. Contextualising Norms, Ethics and Quality Standards, ed. byMarta Biagini, Michael S. Boyd, and Claudia Monacelli, 219–227. New Yok and London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315621531‑11
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621531-11 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mason, Marianne
    2008Courtroom Interpreting. Lanham: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Mason, Ian, and Miranda Stewart
    2001 “Interactional Pragmatics, Face and the Dialogue Interpreter.” InTriadic Exchanges. Studies in Dialogue Interpreting, ed. byIan Mason, 51–70. Manchester: St Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Mills, Sara
    2003Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615238
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2005 “Gender and Impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research1 (2): 263–280. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.263
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.263 [Google Scholar]
  47. Monacelli, Claudia
    2006 “Implications of Translational Shifts in Interpreter-mediated Texts.” Pragmatics16 (4): 457–473. 10.1075/prag.16.4.03mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.16.4.03mon [Google Scholar]
  48. 2009Self-preservation in Simultaneous Interpreting: Surviving the Role. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.84
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.84 [Google Scholar]
  49. Nakane, Ikuko
    2008 “Politeness and Gender in Interpreted Police Interviews.” Monash University Linguistics Papers6 (1): 29–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Napier, Jemina, and Roz Baker
    2004 “Sign Language Interpreting: The Relationship between Metalinguistic Awareness and the Production of Interpreting Omissions.” Sign Language Studies4 (4): 369–393. 10.1353/sls.2004.0020
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2004.0020 [Google Scholar]
  51. Ogiermann, Eva
    2008 “On the Culture-specificity of Linguistic Gender Differences: The Case of English and Russian Apologies.” Intercultural Pragmatics5 (3): 259–286. 10.1515/IPRG.2008.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2008.013 [Google Scholar]
  52. Pérez de Ayala, Soledad
    2001 “FTA and Erskine May: Conflicting Needs? Politeness in Question Time.” Journal of Pragmatics33 (2): 143–169. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00002‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00002-3 [Google Scholar]
  53. Plug, H. José
    2010 “Ad Hominem Arguments in the Dutch and the European Parliaments. Strategic Manoeuvring in an Institutional Context.” InEuropean parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices, ed. byCornela Ilie, 305–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.38.15plu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.15plu [Google Scholar]
  54. Polkowska, Laura
    2014 “Naruszanie zasad etyki poselskiej w latach 2001–2012 [Breaking the rules of MP ethics in the years 2001–2012].” Poradnik Językowy1/2014: 61–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2004Introducing Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203504802
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203504802 [Google Scholar]
  56. Pöllabauer, Sonja
    2007 “Interpreting in Asylum Hearings: Issues of Saving Face.” InThe Critical Link 4. Professionalisation of Interpreting in the Community, ed. byCecilia Wadensjö, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, and Anna-Lena Nilsson, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Römer, Ute
    2005 “‘This seems somewhat counterintuitive, though…’ – Negative Evaluation in Linguistic Book Reviews by Male and Female Authors.” InStrategies in academic discourse, ed. byElena Tognini Bonelli, and Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti, 97–115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.19.08rom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.19.08rom [Google Scholar]
  58. Saeli, Hooman
    2016 “Persian Favor Asking in Formal and Informal Academic Contexts: the Impact of Gender and Academic Status.” Pragmatics26 (2): 315–344. 10.1075/prag.26.2.06sae
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.2.06sae [Google Scholar]
  59. Santaemilia, José
    2008 “The Translation of Sex-related Language: The Danger(s) of Self Censorship(s).” TTR21 (2): 221–252. 10.7202/037497ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/037497ar [Google Scholar]
  60. Seeber, Kilian
    2017 “Interpreting at the European Institutions: Faster, Higher, Stronger.” CLINA3–2: 73–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Tannen, Deborah
    1990You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Tymoczko, Maria
    2007Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    1998Interpreting as Interaction. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Watts, Richard J.
    2003Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  65. Weatherall, Ann
    2002Gender, Language and Discourse. Hove: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Wilkoń, Aleksander
    1987Typologia odmian językowych współczesnej polszczyzny [Typology of linguistic varieties of modern Polish]. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Zwischenberger, Cornelia
    2017 “Professional Self-perception of the Social Role of Conference Interpreters. InThe Changing Role of the Interpreter. Contextualising Norms, Ethics and Quality Standards, ed. byMarta Biagini, Michael S. Boyd, and Claudia Monacelli, 52–73. New Yok and London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315621531‑4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621531-4 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18064.bar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18064.bar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error