Abstract
In Poland, as in most countries, interpreting (similarly to translation) is a free profession (apart from sworn translation and interpreting rendered by certified translators and interpreters) which does not adhere to any particular prescriptive code or officially accepted regulations. Efforts have been made both internationally and domestically to introduce a set of universal principles or a professional working framework on commercial and scholar grounds (various codes of conduct drafted by organisations worldwide) to standardise techniques and approaches to interpreting with the aim of establishing a set of practices to ensure high quality interpreting. Regardless of the prescriptive nature of such codes or guidelines and the work of scholars, one of the matters that is of essence and still seems open for discussion is the choice of the grammatical person in which interpreters render and relay interpreted messages to their clients. This article presents a short description of what community interpreting is, its place within the interpreting domain, and it focuses on the aspect of direct/indirect address (using first or third grammatical person, respectively, while interpreting), its emotional and cognitive strain which the interpreters experience, and related lexical and grammatical choices they consequently make. The purpose of the article is the identification of possible reasons of such choices on the basis of feedback received from professionally active interpreters (both as full-time and part-time interpreters) in diverse settings: business, community, remote interpreting. The study reveals that the choice of grammatical person depends on many factors, such as cognitive and emotional strain, personal preference, context, client, and, in most cases, it is not dictated by any code of conduct.
About the author
Przemysław Boczarski works as a remote community interpreter and a translator. His MA dissertation investigated the challenges stemming from the absence of structure to facilitate non-Polish speakers in Poland. Presently, Przemek is working on his PhD dissertation which explores the concept of the many different roles that interpreters assume, and the ethical issues which arise in a remote environment. His research focuses on the strategies employed by remote interpreters in order to cope with the lack of context and visual stimuli in remote interactions.
References
Angermeyer, Philipp S. 2005. Who is “I”? Pronoun Choice and Bilingual Identity in Court Interpreting. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 11(2). 31–44.Search in Google Scholar
Bahadır, Şebnem. 2010. The task of the interpreter in the struggle of the other for empowerment. Mythical utopia or sine qua non of professionalism. Translation and Interpreting Studies 5(1). 124–139.10.1075/tis.5.1.08bahSearch in Google Scholar
Geiling, Angelika, Christine Knaevelsrud, Maria Böttche & Nadine Stammel. 2021. Mental Health and Work Experiences of Interpreters in the Mental Health Care of Refugees: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Psychiatry 12(October).10.3389/fpsyt.2021.710789Search in Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra. B. 2008. Controversies over the role of the court interpreter. In Carmen Valero Garcés & Anne Martin (eds.), Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and dilemmas, 99–121. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins Translation Library.10.1075/btl.76.06halSearch in Google Scholar
Harris, Brian & Bianca Sherwood. 1978. Translating as an Innate Skill. In David Gerver & Henry Wallace Sinaiko (eds.), Language Interpretation and Communication. NATO Conference Series, vol 6, 155–170. Boston: Springer10.1007/978-1-4615-9077-4_15Search in Google Scholar
Jacobsen, Bente. 2017. The Community Interpreter: A Question of Role. HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business 42. 155–166.10.7146/hjlcb.v22i42.96850Search in Google Scholar
Katan, David. 2004. Translating Cultures. An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators, 18. London and New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Phelan, Mary. 2001. The Interpreter’s Resource. Topics in translation 19. 1–2.10.21832/9781853597091Search in Google Scholar
Pietrzak, Paulina & Adam Bednarek 2015. Interpreting. In Łukasz Bogucki, Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski & Piotr Stalmaszczyk (eds.), Ways to translation, 306–309. Łódź: Łódź University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies, 172. London and New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203504802Search in Google Scholar
Tryuk, Małgorzata. 2006. Przekład ustny środowiskowy. Warszawa: PWN.Search in Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as interaction. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
