Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English
and American Studies
English-language Translation
Daniela Reischlov

Interpreters within the Realm of

International Relations Role, Power,
Ethical Standards and Responsibility
Masters Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: PhDr. Jarmila Fictumov

2012

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,

using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

..
Authors signature

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank to PhDr. Jarmila Fictumov for her kind and knowledgeable
supervision; to Jan Admek, Petr Antonn, Gabriela Babulkov, Tanja Barbian, Nicoleta
Culava, Rosamund Durnford-Slater, Vronique Chatterjee-Mars, Iva Kratochvlov, Sirpa
Lehtonen, Lenka Maixnerov, Marta Nedvdick, Lenka Neubareov, Jakub Nie, Iveta
Peinkov, Kateina Prokeov-Sitaov, Jakub Skebsk, Angela Rogner, Zuzana Svak,
and ten other respondents who wished to remain anonymous, for their time and willingness
to provide their valuable insights; and to my family who enabled me to study and
supported me the entire time. Without all of these people, this thesis would be
inconceivable.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 2

2.

Structure ................................................................................................................... 6

3.

Theoretical Embedment, Methodology and Terminology ................................... 8

3.1.

Theoretical Embedment ............................................................................................. 8

3.2.

Methodology .............................................................................................................. 9

3.3.

Terminology ............................................................................................................. 10

4.

History of Interpreting within the Realm of International Relations ............... 16

4.1.

Interpreting in Antiquity .......................................................................................... 16

4.2.

From Antiquity to Modernity ................................................................................... 18

4.3.

Modern History of Interpreting ................................................................................ 20

5.

The Role of the Interpreter ................................................................................... 22

5.1.

The Concept of the Interpreters Role within Interpreting Studies .......................... 22

5.2.

The Concept of the Interpreters Role in Practice.................................................... 25

5.2.1. Common Perceptions and Myths Concerning Interpreters ...................................... 25

5.2.2. One Passive Role or a Multiplicity of Active Roles ................................................ 29
5.3.

Theoretical Models and Concepts of the Interpreters Role .................................... 31

5.3.1. Interpreting as a Social Event .................................................................................. 32

5.3.2. Types and Metaphors of the Interpreters Role ....................................................... 33
6.

The Power of the Interpreter ................................................................................ 39

6.1.

The Concept of Power.............................................................................................. 39

6.2.

Sources of the Interpreters Power and its Types .................................................... 40

7.

Ethical Standards and the Issues of Responsibility and Criminal Liability..... 45

7.1.

Ethical Standards...................................................................................................... 45

7.2.

Responsibility and Criminal Liability ...................................................................... 50

8.

Perceptions of Practicing Interpreters A Study ............................................... 57

8.1.

Methodology ............................................................................................................ 57

8.2.

Results ...................................................................................................................... 60

8.2.1. Results Obtained from the Survey ........................................................................... 60

8.2.2. Results Obtained from the Personal Documents...................................................... 72
8.3.

Discussion ................................................................................................................ 79

9.

Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 83

Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 87
Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 92

1.

INTRODUCTION

As the title itself implies, this thesis is devoted to the topic of interpreting within the realm
of international relations. The thesis undertakes to carry out an exploratory study of the
interpreters within this sphere, particularly regarding the three following thematic areas:
The role of the interpreter within the realm of international relations
The power of the interpreter within the realm of international relations
The ethical standards and social responsibility of the interpreter within the realm of
international relations.
The choice of this topic was by no means arbitrary. On the contrary, it was a rather lengthy
and painful process in which the author fumbled for various topics and issues connected to
interpreting studies. In the end, the final decision to write a thesis on this particular topic
was reached mainly due to the following reasons. Firstly, the areas of international relations
and interpreting are, by the very nature of both of these activities, intrinsically connected,
since they encompass contacts between various groups or nations, who in most cases do not
share a common language. Secondly, whereas there has been a considerable volume of
literature published on various aspects of interpreting, such as conference interpreting,
consecutive/simultaneous interpreting or court/community interpreting, and even on topics
directly analyzed in this thesis, such as the role or the power of the interpreter, the
particular topic of interpreting and the role and power of interpreters within the sphere of
international relations has often been overlooked. It is worth noticing that despite the fact
that literature on international politics abounds with accounts of meetings between heads of
states, conferences and summits, as well as treaties and all sorts of international contacts,
the names of interpreters are only seldom mentioned in these records.1 The fact that the role
of interpreters within the realm of international relations is often underestimated is
confirmed even by the former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who stated that
1

R. A. Roland, in her book on diplomatic history of the role of interpreters in world politics, refers to them
as to a missing link in the chronicles of political history. (1999: 7)

Interpreters play a vital but overlooked part in diplomacy. (Albright 2003: 254) Last but
not least, the topic of this thesis was chosen due to the fact that I studied both international
relations and translation and this topic thus naturally combines both of my interests and
fields of expertise.
Both international relations and interpreting are age-old activities. Despite the fact that
international relations as a field of study, as well as interpreting like a profession were not
established until after World War I or more precisely World War II, in their primeval form,
they have always existed. When considering contacts between some prehistoric settlements,
we can hardly conceive of political relations, but these contacts constituted inter-social
contacts, and since these groups did not use the same means of communication, interpreters
were clearly needed.2 First references to professional interpreters appeared in Ancient
Egypt and their services have been essential in the international arena ever since.
Interpreters have played an important role during the period of overseas discoveries and
conquests, as well as during colonization. Although their importance decreased during the
19th century, when the official language of diplomatic encounters was French, mastered by
all statesmen, starting from World War I, the significance of interpreters grew again. With
the advent of simultaneous interpreting and the wave of national emancipation following
World War I and the wave of decolonization following World War II, the demand for
interpreting services grew even more. All major historic events of the 20th century would be
inconceivable without interpreters. They were presents during both world wars and during
the establishment and operation of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations and
the European Union, just to name the most important milestones in modern history of
international relations. Moreover, given the increasing interconnectedness and deepening
globalization trends in current world arena, it can be assumed that the demand for
interpreting services within the realm of international politics will only grow. This topic
thus certainly merits attention.

It is for a good reason that interpreting is sometimes referred to as the second oldest profession. For the
discussion of the origins of this simile, see Feldweg (1990).

Based on this historic evidence, this thesis maintains that, despite the fact that interpreters
have always played vital role in the conduct of international relations, their role, as well as
the entire field of diplomatic interpreting, is often overlooked within interpreting studies.
This thesis is therefore a humble attempt to expand the body of literature devoted to the
topic of diplomatic interpreting and interpreters within the realm of international relations.
The aim of this thesis is first, to present an overview of the most salient existing theories
and writing on the three examined topics (the interpreters role and power and ethical
standards and responsibility), and second, based on these theoretical concepts, conduct a
survey examining how are these theoretical concepts perceived by practicing interpreters. I
will attempt to ascertain interpreters attitudes towards the following issues and answer the
following questions:
The role of the interpreter
o What role do interpreters play within the realm of international relations?
o Do they play one role or a multiplicity of roles?
o Is their role active or passive?
o With what existing theoretical models and metaphors of the interpreters role do
they identify the most?
o How do they themselves perceive their roles in the international sphere?
o Can interpreters maintain strict neutrality?
o Is the role of the interpreter influenced by the working mode?
The power of the interpreter
o Does the role of an interpreter wield power?
o What does this power apply to?
o What kinds of power would the interpreters themselves use?
Ethical standards and responsibility
o Is the activity of interpreting bound by certain rules?
o

Do interpreters abide by some professional codes of ethics?

o Are there any ethical standards that could be universally applicable to all
interpreters?

o Should interpreters bear responsibility for their interpreting?

o Should they be held responsible just for the faithful rendition of the message, or
should they also be held responsible for the possible consequences of their
interpreting?
o Should interpreters be held criminally liable for interpreting at dealings leading to
serious violations of law or ethical standards?
The purpose of this thesis is neither to provide a comprehensive overview of the history of
interpreting nor of all the existing literature regarding the examined issues. The thesis
rather sets out to present the most salient concepts and theories with respect to each one of
the three studied issues and, based on these theoretical findings, conduct an exploratory
study ascertaining how these theoretical concepts are perceived by the practicing
community of interpreters.

2.

STRUCTURE

This section briefly describes the structure of this thesis and offers a short contents
summary of each chapter. The thesis consists of nine chapters. Disregarding the
introduction, the conclusion and this chapter, the thesis is organized into two main parts.
Chapters three to seven are devoted mainly to theoretical concepts, whereas chapter eight
deals solely with the survey and its results. Individual chapters are further divided into
subchapters, according to thematic division. The aim of the theoretical part is to offer an
overview of relevant literature on the issues studied in the thesis, while the aim of the
practical part is to draw upon these existing theoretical concepts (as well as upon the
observations of distinguished interpreters who have worked in the sphere of international
relations) and to explore, via a survey, how these concepts are perceived by practicing
interpreters and what do they themselves think about the three main examined issues.
Chapter 3 deals with the issues of theoretical embedment, methodology and terminology.
The section devoted to the theoretical embedment strives to set the thesis within the broader
context of interpreting studies. The second section, after a brief discussion of general
methodological obstacles within the field of interpreting studies, delineates the
methodology used in the thesis. The last section defines major concepts used in this thesis,
such as international relations, interpreting and the role and power of the interpreter.
Chapter 4 describes the history of interpreting within the realm of international relations,
in a chronological manner, tracing the footprints interpreters have left in the diplomatic
history from ancient Egypt to the modern world system. The aim of this chapter is to
present evidence that the fields of interpreting and international relations have been
intrinsically connected, and to show that interpreters have played a vital and active role in
the making of history.
Chapter 5 reviews the existing concepts and theories regarding the role of the interpreter.
The chapter particularly discusses the classical sociological model of the interpreters role

by Anderson, the meme of mediation by Pchhacker, the typology of interpreter-mediated

events by Alexieva, the neutrality myth as proposed by Metzger and elaborated upon by
Angelelli, and most importantly the taxonomies of the interpreters role as proposed by
Jalbert and Roy. Attention is also paid to a more alternative approach using role metaphors
of interpreters, and to common stereotypes about the interpreters role.
Analogically to Chapter 5, Chapter 6 reviews the existing concepts and theories regarding
both the types of power wielded by interpreters and its source. The theoretical concepts of
French and Brislin are used.
Chapter 7 discusses the issue of ethical standards which should be upheld by professional
interpreters. In this respect, special attention is given to codes of ethics promoted by the
International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC), International Federation of
Translators (FIT EUROPE), the Czech Union of Interpreters and Translators (JTP), the
Association of Conference Interpreters in the Czech Republic (ASKOT), as well as to rules
and principles required by major international organizations such as the United Nations.
The issues of the interpreters responsibility and criminal liability are also explored. Special
attention is given to the cases of interpreters tried during the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials.
Chapter 8 constitutes the actual research. This chapter includes the description of the
research process, as well as the data obtained from the survey and personal documents, and
their analysis.

3.

THEORETICAL EMBEDMENT, METHODOLOGY AND

TERMINOLOGY

This chapter discusses the theoretical embedment and applied methodology and defines the
basic concepts used in the thesis.
3.1. Theoretical Embedment
Interpreting studies constitute a fairly new field of study, which has, however, developed
into a remarkably heterogeneous series of loosely connected paradigms [] which lack
cohesiveness and [employ] various tools, methodologies, theories and models.
(Pchhacker, Schlesinger 2002: 4) Approach taken within the interpreting studies has been
rather interdisciplinary and research within this field has been inspired by paradigms from
many other disciplines, particularly linguistics and psychology. (ibid.) This thesis, however,
does not adopt this prevailing psychological and linguistic stance but draws rather on
notions adopted from sociology and anthropology. The subject of interpreting is examined
here in the wider sociocultural and interactional context.
If we were to consider the subject of this thesis with respect to the map of memes in
interpreting as introduced by Pchhacker (2004: 51-60), it would be located between the
basic conceptual dimensions of culture and interaction (as opposed to the conceptual
dimension of language and cognition) and it would correspond most likely to the meme of
mediation3 (as opposed to the memes of verbal transfer, cognitive information processing,
text/discourse and making sense). With respect to levels of modeling, also introduced by
Pchhacker (2004: 85-86), the subject of this thesis overlaps with the socio-professional,
institutional, interactional and also partly anthropological level, whereas the textual,
cognitive and neural levels are largely irrelevant to this study.

The meme of mediation is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.3.1.

3.2. Methodology
The second greatest obstacle to be overcome in the course of writing this thesis was,
besides the scarcity of available full-text literature, that of methodological issues.4
Despite the fact that a considerable part of this text is devoted to theoretical concepts and
issues, the thesis falls within the category of empirical studies, since the theoretical
concepts only serve as a basis for the empirical research. The thesis sets out to explore and
describe three selected aspects of interpreting within the realm of international relations,
and bears the characteristics of an exploratory study. The research strategy employed is
mainly that of a survey.
The methodology of an exploratory study was chosen chiefly due to the fact that it is
designed for the type of research conducted for a problem that has not been clearly defined
yet, and the results of the study usually help to determine the best research design, data
collection, methodology and selection of subjects for further research. Another reason was
that the exploratory study is flexible and can address questions of all types, its aim being to
ascertain what is happening with respect to a given issue, rather than to test some specific
theory. According to Babbie, the exploratory study is typically done for three purposes:

1. To satisfy the researchers curiosity.

2. To test the feasibility of undertaking a more extensive study.
3. To develop methods to be employed in any subsequent study.

(Babbie 2010: 91-93)

For the discussion of research methods and methodology within the interpreting studies, see Gile (2001)
or Pchhacker (2004: 47-65). For the discussion of methodology and research strategies in general, see
Disman (2005).

As follows from the above discussed theoretical embedment, interpreting studies constitute
a fairly young field of research. Moreover, considering the fact that the issues of the
interpreters role and power within diplomatic interpreting constitute a rather overlooked
and understudied topic, the methodology of an exploratory study seemed to be a perfect
choice.
For the actual study of the interpreters perceptions, the research strategies of a survey, and
an analysis of personal documents, namely autobiographies of distinguished interpreters5,
have been employed. For the description of the methodology used for the survey, see
Chapter 8.1.
It should be also stated that all of the translations from Czech sources, including literature
as well as the answers of Czech respondents obtained in the survey6, have been done by the
author. It should be also noted that throughout the entire thesis, the pronoun he, when
substituting the interpreter, is used to refer to both men and women. This decision was
made in order to be more economic and is by no means meant to undermine the importance
of women interpreters.
3.3. Terminology
I am well aware of the fact that the terminological part, and particularly the section devoted
to the definition of interpreting, might be criticized for being rather lengthy and maybe to a
certain degree even redundant, since the nature of interpreting is a part of common
knowledge. Given the multi-faceted nature of interpreting and the fact that this broad term
encompasses a large number of subcategories, and at the same time considering the fact

The analyzed autobiographies include: Schmidt, P. - Pamti Hitlerova tlumonka. [The Memoirs of
Hitlers Interpreter] and Obst, H. - White House Interpreter: the art of interpreting. Other autobiographies
such as Revsk, J. Zpisky vlen tlumonice. [Notes of a War Interpreter] or Palazchenko, P. My
Years with Gorbachev and Schevardnadze: The Memoir of a Soviet Interpreter, were also considered, but
since they were not relevant enough with respect to the three examined issues, they were not included in
the analysis.
The answers obtained in Czech include respondents 7 to 28 (R7-R28).

10

that interpreting constitutes the subject matter of this thesis, I regard it essential to properly
delineate what kind of interpreting will be studied in this thesis.
The major concepts used in the thesis are defined as follows:
International relations, similarly to other fields of social sciences, defy an easy and clearcut definition. Strictly speaking the field of international relations concerns the
relationships among the worlds governments. (Goldstein 2003: 3-4) With respect to
reality, however, this definition is too narrow and rather inaccurate. International relations
cannot be understood in isolation as a distanced abstract ritual conducted by a small group
of people such as presidents, generals and diplomats (ibid.). Despite the fact that these
leaders undoubtedly do play a major role in international relations, a number of other
actors, as well as topics, are also involved. For the purpose of this thesis, the concept of
international relations shall be understood as:

Political relations among nations, covering a range of activities

diplomacy, war, trade relations, alliances, cultural exchanges, and
participation in international organizations and involving [besides
governments and military generals] other actors such as international
organizations, multinational corporations and individuals. (ibid.)

This definition is crucial for the delineation of the type of interpreting analyzed in this
thesis, as well as for the selection of the respondents in the survey.7
Definitions of interpreting abound, but generally they can be divided into two groups.
Interpreting is either considered as an activity per se, or it falls under translation. Despite
the fact that many people, especially practicing interpreters, reject the idea of interpreting
being similar to translation, most scholars in the field maintain that, albeit existing
differences, interpreting and translation essentially fulfill the same function. (Gile 1998: 40)
Most definitions of interpreting thus tend to stem from translation studies. According to
7

For more details regarding the conduct of the survey and the choice of respondents see Chapter 8.

11

Roy, interpreting falls under translation, which in its broadest sense, has been defined as
the transfer of thoughts and ideas from one language (source) to another (target). (Roy
1993: 344)8 Pchhacker defines interpreting as a:
translational activitya special form of translationwhich can be
distinguished from other types of translational activity most succinctly
by its immediacy: in principle, interpreting is performed here and
now for the benefit of people who want to engage in communication
across barriers of language and culture. (Pchhacker 2004: 9-10)
Yet another definition is offered by Gile, who defines interpreting as the oral translation of
oral discourse. (Gile 1998: 40)9 Within the Czech academic environment, the concept of
interpreting was delineated for example by Hromasov, who defines it as:
A type of applied linguistic activity performed by a language specialist
an interpreter that serves the purposes of rendering oral utterances
between two or more speakers who do not speak the same language,
or between one speaker and his/her audience, who does not speak the
language of the speaker. (Hromasov: 3)

According to Pchhacker, the concept of interpreting can be further classified with regards
to various criteria. He defines two main groups of criteria, in particular criteria concerning
the settings and constellations and criteria concerning typological parameters. (Pchhacker
2004: 13-25)
Within the first group of criteria, interpreting is firstly distinguished based on social context
and setting in which the interpreting activity takes place. Here, Pchhacker draws
distinction between inter-social settings (interpreting between various social entities) and
intra-social settings (interpreting within heterolingual societies). Interpreting in
8

Due to limitations of space, the concept of translation is not defined here. For more information regarding
the definition of translation, see for example Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (Baker 2008)
or an overview of definitions presentend in Pchhacker (2004: 11-12).
These definitions often face criticism for equating interpreting with oral translation and thus excluding
interpreting in signed languages. This distinction is, however, largely irrelevant to the topic of this thesis,
as the majority of interpreting within the realm of international relations is carried out orally.

12

intra-social settings includes court interpreting, educational interpreting, community

interpreting10 and media interpreting. This category is, however, rather tangential to the
topic of this thesis. Of more interest to us is interpreting in inter-social settings. This
category comprises business interpreting, diplomatic interpreting and military interpreting.
Considering the topic of this thesis, the salient type of interpreting is diplomatic
interpreting,11 which occurs when the representatives of different linguistic and cultural
communities come together with the aim of establishing and cultivating political relations.
(Pchhacker 2004: 14) Diplomatic interpreting is closely connected to military
interpreting, since this type of interpreting occurs in cases when mutual political relations
deteriorate. This type encompasses talks with allies, truce negotiations and interrogations of
prisoners of war.

Secondly, types of interpreting within this group are categorized

according to situational constellations of interaction. Here, the basic distinction is drawn

between bilateral or dialogue interpreting, where a (bilingual) interpreter assumes the
role of a mediator between two (monolingual) clients, and interpreting in multilateral
communication, which could be equated with conference interpreting. (ibid.: 13-17)
Within the second group, types of interpreting are classified according to the following
criteria: language modality, working mode and professional status.12 Regarding the

10

11

12

This type of interpreting encompasses further subcategories such as public service interpreting or
healthcare interpreting.
Diplomatic interpreting as a specific category is also distinguished by Hromasov. In her interpretation, a
diplomatic interpreter is equated with the medieval concept of dragoman. After the First World War,
diplomatic interpreters started to be referred to as parliamentary interpreters or cabinet interpreters,
the term cabinet being derived from the fact that they interpreted for governments (= cabinets). It is of
interest, that according to Hromasov, the category of diplomatic interpreting nowadays merges with the
categories of conference and liaison interpreting, which implies that diplomatic interpreting as a category
per se ceased to exist. (Hromasov: 6). As for the existence of the specific category of diplomatic
interpreting, there is no general agreement among academics.
Pchhacker lists two further criteria directionality and the use of technology. Classification according to
directionality concerns combinations of working languages and modes of interpreting (direct interpreting,
retour interpreting and relay interpreting for more detail see for example Conference Interpreting
Explained (Jones 1998: 8-10, 131-133). Classification according to the use of technology encompasses
remote interpreting, telephone interpreting and videophone interpreting, among the most important ones.
These two criteria are, however, not included in the main overview and not discussed in greater detail,
since they are largely irrelevant to the topic of this thesis. This thesis is concerned with interpreting within
the realm of international relations, regardless of its directionality or used technology.

13

language modality, we can differentiate between spoken-language interpreting and singlanguage interpreting. Regarding the working mode, we can differentiate between
consecutive

interpreting,

simultaneous

interpreting,

chuchotage

and

sight

interpreting.13 The last presented criterion is that of professional status. This category is
rather self-explanatory, as it classifies interpreting according to the level of expertise
possessed by interpreters. Within this category a line can be drawn between professional
interpreters, who possess special skills and who have received special training, and
lay/natural interpreters, who are usually bilinguals with no special training in
interpreting. (ibid.: 17-23) Albeit historically it might be difficult to distinguish
professional and lay interpreters, it can be assumed that interpreters working within the
realm of international relations, regardless of the time period, were delegated by
governments or administrations of the countries they were working for and must have
exhibited certain level of competence and must have enjoyed certain degree of confidence
on the part of their employers. They can thus be considered professionals. Within the
current context, however, only professional interpreters with considerable experience with
interpreting within the realm of international relations are the subject of this thesis. They
might be working either as freelancers or staff interpreters of various international
organizations or governments and they might even lack formal training in interpreting, but
they must be practicing interpreters with substantial experience in this field.
As can be clearly seen, interpreting is a rather multifaceted and complex concept covering a
range of distinct types and categories. For the purpose of this thesis, the concept of
interpreting shall be understood as an oral interlingual and intercultural mediation enabling
communication between actors in the international arena, who do not share or, due to the
issues of national pride, choose not to share the same language. This mediation shall
concern issues of international relations and shall be performed by professional interpreters.
It follows that this thesis is primarily concerned with inter-social diplomatic and military
interpreting. Business interpreting is not included per se, but only to the extent to which it
13

Due to limitations of space and the fact that these concepts are considered to be generally known, their
explanation is not provided. For detailed definition, see the Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies
(Baker 1998).

14

is carried out by governments or other international actors as part of their political relations
and negotiations. The same applies to court interpreting, which is not included unless it
overlaps with the realm of international relations, as is the case of war crimes tribunals.14
As to further specifications, interpreting defined for the purpose of this thesis encompasses
both bilateral and conference interpreting, as well as all types of working modes and all
directionality.
An interpreter shall be, for the purpose of this thesis, simply understood as the person who
performs the interpreting activity as defined above.
Role of the interpreter shall be understood as a set of more or less normative behavioral
expectations associated with a social position, that is with the position of the interpreter.
(Pchhacker 2004: 147)
The concept of the interpreters power is defined in terms of a framework established by
psychologist J. A. French who defined power as the maximum force that person A can
induce on B minus the maximum resisting force which B can mobilize in the opposite
direction. (Roland 1999: 165) For the purpose of this thesis, however, power shall be
understood as the interpreters ability to influence the discourse and to, either intentionally
or unintentionally change the outcome of the interpreter-mediated event.
For the sake of avoiding redundant repetition, if not stated otherwise, the terms interpreting
and interpreter refer to interpreting and interpreters operating within the above defined
realm of international relations.

14

Examples would be the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials after the Second World War or the proceedings at
the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

15

4.

HISTORY OF INTERPETING WITHIN THE REALM OF

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

This chapter does not aspire to offer a comprehensive overview of the history of diplomatic
interpreting. Instead, it offers just a brief summary of the most important milestones in the
history of diplomatic interpreting, its objective being the attempt to illustrate the fact that
interpreters have always been connected to the sphere of international relations, have been
actively involved in the conduct of day-to-day international politics and have thus
contributed to the making of history.
4.1. Interpreting in Antiquity
As it has been stated, interpreting as a specialized activity carried out by professionals was
not fully established until well into the 20th century. This does not mean, however, that
interpreting did not exist prior to this. On the contrary, it is well known, that even the most
primitive tribes in the history of mankind maintained communication and engaged in
activities which could be, from the modern point of view, considered an early form of
diplomatic relations. And since these tribes did not use the same means of communication,
it logically follows, that some type of interpreting must have been performed. (Roland
1999: 9) It is thus clear that albeit interpreting as a profession is fairly young, the essence of
interpreting activity has been present since the times of ancient peoples.
The origins of interpreting are not easily traceable, since interpreting was for the biggest
part of history considered a common activity, sometimes of low esteem, and the names of
interpreters and accounts of their activities were only seldom noticed. However, the first
existing reference to interpreters can be traced back to ancient Egypt. Starting at the end of
the period of the Pyramids, mentions of interpreters and their activities can be found in
various contexts. They participated in diplomatic missions to other countries but also acted
on behalf of the administration within the country itself, since it was inhabited by peoples
of various tongues. Interpreters also acted as commercial negotiators. Later on, young

16

Egyptian boys were sent to foreign settlers to learn the language and a special class of
interpreters is known to exist. (Hermann 1956: 15-17)
Within the Roman Empire, the demand for interpreting services was even greater. Given
the fact that it was the largest existing empire at that time, engaging in contacts with a
number of other civilizations, interpreters were needed in large numbers. According to
Hermann, interpreters were needed in the administration, particularly for contacts with the
non-classical peoples such as Egyptians, Syrians and Germans and they were also used for
administrations purposes within the Roman Empire itself. They were paid for either by the
state or sometimes, the officials hired them privately. Under the reign of Pontus, the interior
ministry (Magister Officiorum) alone employed as many as 130 interpreters. (Hermann
1956: 19) The wide use of interpreters is confirmed by Julius Cesars remark, where he
comments on dispensing with the usual interpreters. (Roland 1999: 18) The policy of
Roman Empire directed to use interpreters even on occasions when the people involved
commanded the same languages and it was thus unnecessary. The use of interpreters
however, served as assertion of superiority. (ibid.) This demonstrates that not only were
these interpreters employed by the state, but their presence or absence also had political
implications. The Roman Empire, being well renowned for its expansionist politics, relied
heavily on interpreters services also within the army. Here, the use of interpreters was
twofold. They served as peace/capitulation negotiators with the subjugated nations and they
also played a vital role within the multinational Roman army. (Hermann 1956: 19-20)
References to interpreters serving on behalf of states and governments can be also found in
the Bible. For example when people gathered to plead with Joseph, after he had become
governor of Egypt, for some grain, they remarked that they knew not that Joseph
understood them, for he spoke unto them by an interpreter. (Genesis 42:23). Other Bible
references to interpreting can be found for example in the Book of Daniel. (Roland 1999: 910)

17

4.2. From Antiquity to Modernity

In Early Middle Ages, the services of interpreters were used by the Church to spread
Christianity. During the Lateran Council in 649, Greek monks were engaged as interpreters
between Greek and Latin. According to some, these monks could be considered the first
conference interpreters in the history of mankind (Hromasov: 2). Despite the fact that
close connections between religion and politics undoubtedly existed at that time, this type
of interpreting constitutes a marginal area in this study.
With respect to diplomatic interpreting, of much greater interest are interpreters in the
Ottoman Empire, so called dragomen. Dragomen became the key figures in diplomatic
relations between the Ottoman Empire and the rest of Europe. All foreign ambassadors
appointed to Turkey communicated with sultans administration through this class of
dragomen.15 Diplomats relied heavily on their services, since they represented the only
means of communication. The dragomen subsequently acquired more power and were
entrusted with performing various diplomatic missions, such as concluding treaties or
negotiating.16 The meaning of the term dragomen evolved from interpreter to interpreter
diplomat. (Roland 1999: 44-49)17
In the case of dragomen, the connection between interpreting and diplomacy becomes
crystal clear. Another fact confirming this connection is the establishment of training
institutions, which were usually sponsored by states, or directly founded by foreign
ministries of respective countries. For example in France, corps of student interpreters for
the Levant was organized as early as 1662 and under Napoleon, the School of Oriental
Languages was set up within the Foreign Ministry. In Russia, a school for interpreters was

15
16

17

In Turkish, they were referred to as truchemen.

According to Hromasov, dragomen enjoyed such authority partly because all diplomatic activities in the
Ottoman Empire were carried out orally, not in writing. (Hromasov: 2) For more details on dragomen,
see Chapter 5.2.2. and 7.2.
Cases of interpreters serving their governments can be observed in other parts of the world as well. For
example the first civil service appointees to be named in China under the Confucian government (165
B.C.) were actually clerks fulfilling the function of interpreters. (ibid.:83)

18

established in 1718 and similar institutions were also created in other countries. (ibid.:146154)
In European diplomacy of that time, the importance of interpreting was dwindling, as Latin
became the main language of diplomacy, later on substituted by French. Throughout the
18th, 19th and the first half of the 20th century, all major political negotiations between
European states were carried out in French, a language mastered by all diplomats and
statesmen. Interpreting nevertheless remained essential for contacts with other parts of the
world.
The role played by interpreters during the period of overseas discoveries and conquests was
vital. When Christopher Columbus set out for his journey, two interpreters were present
aboard his ship. We can hardly blame him for discovering America, but since he believed
to be destined for India, the services of his interpreters proved to be rather unhelpful.
Despite this mishap, Columbus did not renounce the services of interpreters and upon his
return to Europe he took with him several native inhabitants to be trained in Spanish
language and culture. Later on, those returned and became the basis for a new generation of
native interpreters. (Angelelli 2004: 8-9) Interpreters, of both European and non-European
origin also made major contributions to the conquest of Latin America,18 they were
essential for the French commercial success in Canada and when Lewis and Clark set out
on their expedition across the United States, they were accompanied by nobody else but
interpreters.19 It goes without saying that these voyages and conquests were carried out on
behalf of the governments. The interpreters were thus once again working to promote the
international interests of their countries.

18

19

Especially renowned in this respect is Marina, a Native who was to become an interpreter for H. Corts.
For more information on Marina, see Chapter 5.2.2.
For more detailed account of interpreters contributions during the exploration of the Western Hemisphere
see Roland (1999: 58-80).

19

4.3. Modern History of Interpreting

The modern diplomatic interpreting, as we conceive it today, did not come into existence
until relatively recently. Some sources state that interpreters achieved professional status as
early as 1563, with the establishment of courts and the passing of laws regulating
interpreters duties, responsibilities and salaries. (Angelelli 2004: 10) Most of the scholars
agree, though, that the first milestone in the development of modern diplomatic interpreting
was World War I. This professionalization is closely connected to the fact that English
started to replace French as the official diplomatic language. Another related and greatly
influential factor was greater involvement of the United States in world affairs, which was
manifested most explicitly during the war and the negotiations in the aftermath. (Gile 1998:
40-41)
Major development of conference interpreting came about in the interwar period. These
years witnessed the establishment of various international organizations, such as the
League of Nations or the International Labor Organization, just to name the most important
ones. Equally important was the wave of national liberation movements triggered by the
war, which gave rise to many new nations who wanted to exercise the right to use their
languages in the international arena. (Hromasov: 3-4) Moreover, the number of
international conferences and meetings grew immensely in this period20 and this increasing
demand for interpreting services gave a boost to the professionalization of modern
conference interpreting.
The second milestone in the development of modern interpreting can be equated with the
advent of simultaneous interpreting, which had its major premiere in the international arena

20

According to Shenton, between the two world wars, there occurred a striking proliferation in the number
of conferences sponsored by international organizations [] In 10 years between 1840 and 1850, there
was, on the average, only one such conference per year, but by 1910 the annual number had jumped to
nearly 120, and by the early 1930s, to around 250. Today, approximately 2,000 such conferences are held
every year. Throughout the 1930s, French had been chosen as the official tongue for 67 per cent of the
meetings, English for 49 per cent and German for 40 per cent, followed at some distance by Italian,
Spanish and Dutch. (Shenton in Roland 1999: 138)

20

during the Nuremberg Trials in the aftermath of World War II.21 The war also brought
about the establishment of the United Nations, where the services of interpreters were of
substantial importance. (ibid.5) Nowadays, interpreters are essential not only for the
workings of the United Nations but also for other major international institutions, such as
the European Union. The current closely interconnected world would be hardly conceivable
of without interpreters, who served the diplomatic needs of various actors in the
international arena, be it states or international organizations.
The above examples suffice to demonstrate that the fields of interpreting and diplomacy
have been closely interconnected throughout the entire history, from the first tribal states all
the way up to modern supranational organizations. Now, we shall examine more closely
what roles interpreters play in this arena.

21

The advent of simultaneous interpreting is usually equated with its major spread in the post-WWII period.
Some authors nevertheless maintain that simultaneous interpretation is just as old as consecutive
interpretation. According to Obst, books and articles on the subject often assert that [simultaneous
interpreting] came into existence with the founding of the League of Nations after WWI, or later during
the Nuremberg Trials after WWII. The assumption [being] that simultaneous interpretation is tied to the
use of electrical or electronic equipment. But even with electrical equipment, primitive as it were, there
already were a few experiments in simultaneous interpreting at conferences in Germany and Russia before
the League of Nations was founded. [] Simultaneous interpreting was occasionally preferred even in
ancient history. (Obst 2010)

21

5.

THE ROLE OF THE INTERPRETER

This chapter analyzes the issue of the interpreters role, both on the theoretical and the
practical level. First, the concept of the interpreters role is embedded into the field of
interpreting studies. Subsequently, the concept is discussed in relation to practice; common
perceptions and myths concerning interpreters, as well as an overview of the multiplicity of
roles enacted by interpreters throughout history are presented. The third and most extensive
section of this chapter deals with theoretical models and concepts related to the interpreters
role. This section includes a discussion of the basic elements of translation situations
(Anderson), the meme of mediation (Pchhacker), the typology of interpreter-mediated
events (Alexieva) and, most importantly, the discussion of the taxonomy of the interpreters
role (Jalbert, Roy) and of various metaphors concerning the interpreters role. The aim of
this chapter is to challenge the two common notions of interpreters passivity and
invisibility, and to present both theoretical and real-life evidence supporting the notion of
interpreters as active participants performing a multiplicity of roles.

5.1. The Concept of the Interpreters Role within Interpreting Studies

For a long time, the issue of the interpreters role did not constitute a very prominent topic
within the field. It was only relatively recently that the concept of the interpreters role
gained prominence, and articles and studies on the interpreters role started to abound.
According to Angelelli, the changing perception of the interpreters role and its growing
prominence correspond to the evolution of research in conference interpreting, as divided
into periods by Gile. (Angelelli 2004: 14)
Gile identified four periods of research, namely the early writings period (1950s and
1960s), the experimental period (early 1960s and 1970s), the practitioners period (late
1960s, 1970s and early 1980s), and the renewal period (mid-1980s till today). (Gile 1998:
40-48) The early writings period was essential for the delineation of the concepts of
interpreting and of the role interpreters were expected to play. During the second period,

22

however, the issue of the interpreters role was overshadowed by other topics, as priority
was given to the study of cognitive and psycholinguistic processes. The third period,
dominated by the Thorie du sens (Theory of Meaning)22, pushed the issue of the
interpreters role even further out of the limelight. Since proponents of this predominant
theory considered meaning as a construct existing on its own, rather than as a result of the
co-construction of the parties involved in the interpreting event, virtually no attention was
paid to the interpreters role. It was only during the fourth, renewal period, that the concept
of the interpreters role finally gained some prominence within the research in interpreting
studies. During this period, the formerly predominant Thorie du sens started to be
questioned and the new generation of researchers, stemming mainly from practitioners in
the field, started to call for a more interdisciplinary approach to the subject of interpreting.
This in practice meant desisting from the focus on the linguistic transfer and informationprocessing aspect of interpreting, and incorporating new sociocultural approaches, which
subsequently resulted into greater attention being paid to the interpreters role (and to
various sociocultural aspects related to the figure of interpreter such as gender or class) as
well as to the context in which interpreting occurred. (ibid., Angelleli 2004: 14-17)
Nowadays, the issue of the interpreters role has, according to Pchhacker, become one of
the most prominent topics in interpreting studies. (2004: 147) Despite the fact that articles
on the interpreters role abound in current research literature, the issue is usually discussed
mostly in the context of community or sign language interpreting23, and articles on the role
of interpreters within conference interpreting, let alone within the realm of international
relations, are only seldom to be found. This could be caused by two factors. Firstly, it was
actually during the international conferences in the aftermath of World War I that
interpreting was established as a profession in the modern sense. Due to the fact that
22
23

For detailed definition see the Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (Baker 1998).
This explains the fact that most of the authors, as well as theoretical concepts concerning the interpreters
role, quoted in this thesis, stem from the community or sign language interpreting background. For
example, Cynthia B. Roy has a longstanding experience as a practicing sign language interpreter in the
USA and Cecilia Wadensj is a professional community interpreter in Sweden. Similarly, the work of M.
Jalbert concerns interpreting in health care situations. There is, however, no reason why their findings
could not be applied to other types of situations. On the contrary, their concepts are highly relevant to the
topic of this thesis.

23

conference interpreting on international relations is the oldest sphere in which the modern
professional interpreters have worked, the researchers in the field may feel that the
interpreters role within this domain, as compared to the spheres of community or medical
interpreting, is well defined and delineated and requires no further study. Secondly, it could
be caused by the international setting itself. Modern conference interpreters working within
the realm of international relations have become high-status professionals who complied
with sharply delineated boundaries of their profession. Their role in the communicative
process thus became more strictly confined. This trend was further intensified by the
introduction of simultaneous interpreting, which involved the use of ancillary equipment.
Unlike in interpreter-mediated events in which interpreters are more present, such as
during community or consecutive interpreting or chuchotage, simultaneous interpreters at
big international conferences were removed to interpreting booths. They were thus deprived
of direct contact with the interlocutors, their role seeming more narrowly limited and thus
not worth examining. (Pchhacker, Schlesinger 2002: 339) In spite of this prevailing
stance, this thesis maintains that even interpreters within the realm of international relations
are direct and active participants in the interpreter-mediated event and as such have played
and, even with the increasing usage of modern technology, still play a number of active
roles. The specific and often overlooked issue of the interpreters role within the realm of
international relations thus certainly merits attention.24
Once we have established the concept of the interpreters role within the interpreting
studies, a number of questions inevitably arise. What role do interpreters play within the
realm of international relations? Do they play one role or multiple roles? Is their role
passive or active? What are the existing theoretical concepts and models of interpreters
roles? Do practicing interpreters identify with them? How do they themselves perceive their
roles as interpreters in the international arena? While the questions concerning the selfperception of practicing interpreters remain to be answered in the practical part of this
24

A similar stance is also held by Le, Mnard and Van Nhan in their study on interpreters identities. These
authors maintain that next to community interpreting there is another domain where interpreting may
carry an even greater significance: international and transnational relations. Indeed, these types of
relations not only involve individuals who interact with each other, but also have consequences on the
socio-cultural and economic development of nations. (2009: 97)

24

thesis, we shall have a look now at the remaining questions, discussing the common
perceptions and myths concerning interpreters in practice, as well as the theoretical models
and metaphors connected to this concept.
5.2.

The Concept of the Interpreters Role in Practice

5.2.1. Common Perceptions and Myths Concerning Interpreters

As follows from the aforementioned definitions of interpreting,25 the basis of the
interpreters role is to facilitate communication between at least two people who do not
share (or choose not to share) the same language. While for the greatest part of history the
roles of interpreters were multiple and fluid, throughout the modern history of interpreting,
marked by a sharper delineation of the profession, the perception of the interpreters role
tended to be dominated by a mechanistic conception, where interpreters were perceived as
mere machines passively rendering utterances from one language into another one.
(Pchhacker 2004:147)
This mechanistic approach is clearly illustrated by two examples from recent past. The first
and most striking example is that of the interpreters employed by the Foreign Service of the
former Czechoslovakia. These interpreters were for a fairly long time conferred the status
of technical personnel (Hromasov: 6), which means that they were put on an equal footing
with housekeepers (or rather embassy-keepers) and maintenance personnel. The second
example is that of allied interpreters during World War II. Baigorri-Jaln, in his paper on
the role of interpreters in war conflicts, mentions three stories of soldiers who were
required to interpret during high-level international events without having any previous
experience with interpreting or without even properly mastering the language. The first
example is the story of W. C. Archie, who was suddenly called to be General Eisenhowers
French interpreter during the first meeting of the Allied Control Council. The second
example is that of Richard Sonnenfeldt who experienced a sudden promotion in the army
25

See Chapter 3.3.

25

and virtually overnight changed his position from a motor-pool private to a chief interpreter
for the American interrogators of Nazi leaders. The most extraordinary example is the story
of Vernon Walters who was ordered to interpreter for groups of Portuguese officers, in
spite of the fact that the languages he commanded were Italian, Spanish and French, not
Portuguese. (Baigorri-Jaln 2011: 2-3)
One could object that the three above related stories occurred during war times, when
standard procedures have to yield to emergency and often non-standard solutions. This
could be to a certain degree true. There is, however, a very poignant simile with a nurse.
The three soldiers were ordered to interpret despite their inadequate professional training or
language knowledge, the order being justified on the basis of an ongoing severe conflict
with no time for perfection. But what if the person receiving orders was a mobilized nurse?
Would she be also ordered to perform a surgery regardless of her formal training and
education? (ibid: 4) Most likely not, despite the fact that, as for the importance of the event,
a surgery could be easily compared to a high-status international meeting, the outcome of
which was to determine the future of postwar Germany. According to Baigorri-Jaln, the
above mentioned examples:
confirm the ordinary perception by would-be users of interpreters
that anyone who knows the two languages involved (is) immediately
qualified to interpret or translate between them. As if languages were
abstract concepts and self-contained repositories that you command
entirely and perfectly, irrespective of your educational background,
your origin and the subject you are dealing with. (ibid: 3)

The fact that interpreting has often been equated with a mechanical operation clearly
demonstrates the tendency to downplay the importance and demandingness of the
interpreters role, as well as the impact of this activity, although it could be easily argued

26

that one faulty interpreted utterance during a high-level military meeting, lets say on the
topic of nuclear weapons, could have far-reaching consequences for millions of people.26
Another common stereotype related to interpreters is the myth of invisibility. It is of no
coincidence that interpreters were often referred to as the missing link (Roland 1997:7)
and their role in interpreter-mediated events was likened to the role of a ghost. (As 1998:
36) The issue of the interpreters invisibility has been tackled by a number of scholars,27
most prominently by Angelelli (2004). In order to dispel this myth, she attempted to find
out why are interpreters, in spite of being so central to the cross-linguistic/cultural
communication, so often portrayed as invisible and how come they allow themselves to be
portrayed as such.
In examination of the invisibility stereotype, Angelelli draws on the neutrality myth, as
proposed by Metzger, who points out that the myth is closely connected to the so called
interpreters paradox. This paradox could be very briefly summarized as follows: The
interpreters, despite being active and powerful participants of interpreted events, affecting
their outcomes, are required to remain neutral.28 According to both Metzger and Angelelli,
the myth of invisibility/neutrality is attributable to three main factors: the dominant
research paradigms within the interpreting studies,29 the system of interpreters training and
the setting of the interpreted event.30 Angelelli explains the causality using her model of a
closed circle: The model starts by considering the research paradigms within the field. The
research on interpreting has been derived from practice and has been concerned primarily
26

27
28
29
30

This issue is closely connected to the notion of the interpreters status, which is, however, beyond the
scope of this thesis. For a detailed account of the issue of the interpreters status throughout the history,
see for example Roland or Hermann.
See for example Roy, Metzger, Wadensj (1998).
For more details, see Metzger (1999), especially Chapters 1 and 5.
Previously discussed in Chapter 5.1.
The issue of setting is addressed here only to a limited extent, due to the inevitably limited scope of this
thesis, as well as to the fact that this thesis is concerned with interpreting in the realm of international
relations, thus largely delineating the setting, since the greatest differences in setting come into question
when discussing community interpreting as opposed to conference interpreting. The issue of setting is
reflected only to the extent of considering the differences between the modes of consecutive and
simultaneous interpreting.

27

with the linguistic and information-processing aspect of the profession. Inasmuch as the
research has concentrated mainly on the conference venue, which had the highest status, yet
the role of interpreters seemed to be constrained, it did not account for the issue of the
interpreters role. The research also failed to incorporate related theories from other fields,
such as sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology or sociology. As a result, the field was
created as a closed circle. This situation left us with a complex field of practice, which
nevertheless lacks interdisciplinary theoretical insights. This theoretically uninformed
practice subsequently became professionalized. Nowadays, professional associations
continue to prescribe rules by which practice abides. The circle is closed by the presence of
interpreting schools, where the existing form of practice continues to perpetuate itself.
(Angelelli 2004: 22-27)
Angelelli indicates that in order to dispel the myth of invisibility, this closed circle needs to
be opened. She proposes to do so by leaving behind the information-processing aspect of
interpreting and starting to acknowledge the fact that the practice of interpreting is socially
situated. Her argumentation goes along the lines of interpreting as a communicative event.
She maintains that interpreting cannot happen in social vacuum. Rather, interpreting is a
very specific type of communicative event (she uses the term ICE interpretedcommunicative event), where all parties to the ICE, including the interpreters, work
together to generate the meaning. The interaction during which meaning gets constructed
can have various formats, for example clarifying, restating, repeating, paraphrasing or
requesting information, none of which can be explained using the concept of an invisible or
neutral interpreter. Angelelli thus concludes that the real role of an interpreter is that of an
individual who orchestrates language, cultural and social factors in an ICE, and as such
cannot be reduced to that of a mere neutral, invisible language decoder-encoder. (ibid.)
A similar line of argumentation is followed by Pchhacker and Jones. Jones, a long-time
practicing conference interpreter, argues that conference interpreters may have to actively
intervene, for instance by providing the requisite explanations or even changing the
original speakers references. (1998: 4) The interpreter would thus shape the mediated

28

interaction as an active third party rather than remain neutral and invisible. (Pchhacker
2004: 59)
5.2.2. One Passive Role or a Multiplicity of Active Roles
Despite the above discussed examples of prevailing perceptions of interpreters as passive,
machine-like, invisible elements of interpreter-mediated events, there exists vast historical
evidence that interpreters have performed a number of active roles throughout the history of
international relations.
We shall start this discussion by looking at the etymology of the word interpreter. While in
many language families, such as in Slavic, Germanic and Scandinavian, the roots of the
expressions denoting an interpreter can be traced back to Akkadian, the English word
interpreter is derived from the Latin word interpres, in the sense of expounder, that is a
person explaining what is obscure. (Pchhacker 2004: 9-10) This Latin term manifests the
practical situation of the person interpreting. Irrespective of whether the word interpres is
derived from inter-partes or inter-pretium, the term designates the human mediator
positioned between two parties or values, performing far more diverse activities than
simply providing linguistic mediation between parties transacting business. (Hermann
1956: 18) In contrast to this practical definition, the Greek term meant a person who acts
like Hermes, a human being who performs one of this gods numerous activities (ibid.) No
matter which of the etymological interpretation we choose, both the Greek and the Latin
terms imply that the roles of interpreters are multiple, and thus defies the simplistic
equation with an invisible machine.
In the light of historic evidence, the common myths and perceptions of the interpreters role
do not hold water either. There are many examples showing that interpreters have played
multiple roles and often have significantly influenced or changed the outcome of the
interpreted event. Viewed in a broad historical perspective, interpreters often appear as allround intermediaries carrying out a number of diffuse functions in addition to their
translational tasks. (Pchkacker, Schlesinger 2002: 339) The most salient example of
29

interpreters performing a multiplicity of active roles is that of Turkish dragomen. Since

they constituted the sole communication channel between the sultan and all foreign
ambassadors, they became the key figures in the diplomatic relations between Eastern and
Western Europe. Without their presence, no international dealings could proceed. It is
apparent that dragomen in this position necessarily wielded various powers, and in their
roles they had the ability to actively influence outcomes of various situations. The court
hearings with foreigners could serve as an example. The dragomen were legally obliged to
be present at all court hearings with foreigners and subsequently sign the judgment.
Dragomens refusal to sign the judgment prevented the settlement of the dispute. (Roland
1992: 44-49) Some might argue that the position of dragomen was unique and the
illustrative value of this example is thus low. There are, however, countless other real-life
examples to be cited. Interpreters have performed diverse executive functions in various
war conflicts. For instance the personal interpreter of Cyrus31 was on repeated occasions
sent to order an attack, both real and feigned (ibid.: 14), and Paul Schmidt, the personal
interpreter of Hitler, personally accepted a British ultimatum which subsequently lead to
the declaration of the Second World War. (Schmidt 1997: 150) Interpreters are also known
to have prevented numerous bloodsheds. An outstanding example is that of Juan Ortz, the
interpreter to Hernando de Soto during his exploration of Georgia and Florida:
According to one authority, Ortz as an interpreter was worth a
hundred men to the expedition, on several occasions probably saving
the Europeans from annihilation. Once, when the hot-tempered
Spaniards had been about to execute some remarkably unapologetic
Indians who had been caught, stealing food, Ortz deliberately
misinterpreted the culprits scornful, insulting barbs at the Spaniards as
pleas for mercy, thereby mollifying the latter into sparing their lives
and no doubt, thus saving many Spanish lives in the future. (Roland
1992: 58-59)

Similarly Doa Marina, the personal interpreter to Hernn Corts, is credited with having
saved the Spaniards from total disaster. During one expedition to Cholula, she made friends
with the wife of a prominent native and thus discovered that the native Cholulans were
31

Cyrus was a Persian Achaemenid prince, 424-401 B.C.

30

plotting to murder the entire company of Europeans. By telling Corts, she prevented the
slaughter of the Europeans (although ironically enough, she brought about the slaughter of
Cholulans). (ibid.: 60-61)
Interpreters have affected outcomes of interpreted events not only in the past, but they do
so on daily basis even in the current international relations, for example during various
peacekeeping missions. Edwards, in her study on the role of communication in peace and
relief mission negotiations, has concluded that:

When you are conducting negotiations, an interpreter can be one of

your key assets. The intelligence, personality and street smarts of an
interpreter can be crucial in helping you convey your message across
linguistic and cultural barriers. The interpreter is your local specialist in
public relations. An interpreter can give you suggestions on the best
way to proceed with a person from different cultural background, and
may notice nuances that would otherwise be overlooked. [Moreover]
errors in translation of peacekeeping negotiations can have a dramatic
and costly impact on international missions.
(Edwards 2001)
We could continue with countless other examples, but the aforementioned ones suffice to
show that on many occasions interpreters have stepped out of their roles of sole language
mediators, and taking on various other roles, they have actively affected the outcomes of
interpreted situations.
5.3.

Theoretical Models and Concepts of the Interpreters Role

The stereotypical perceptions of interpreters as passive, invisible elements in the

interpreting process are refuted not only by real-life examples, but more importantly by a
number of theoretical concepts. The strongest line of argumentation is based on the concept
of interpreting as a social event (see for instance Anderson, Angelelli, Alexieva Metzger).
The mere fact that interpreters are participants in the social event implies that they
necessarily have to take on a role in the process.

31

5.3.1. Interpreting as a Social Event

Basic Elements of an Interpreter-Mediated Event
In order to be able to analyze the concept of the interpreters role, we first have to establish
the basic elements of an interpreter-mediated event. A set of minimal conditions that are
necessarily present in any translation situation, as proposed by Anderson, follows:

1. Typically, translation occurs in social situations involving interaction

among at least three persons.
2. These actors may be identified as producer, interpreter and consumer.
(Clearly, the interpreter is both consumer and producer at once. He
consumes the utterance in the source language, and produces an
utterance in the target language. This is true for any item that is conveyed
in the interaction, while his clients either produce or consume any single
item hence the distinction drawn here.) In some cases producer and
consumer are roles adopted interchangeably by a single participant. In
others they are played by unique individuals. The dual role situation may
be illustrated by a multilingual conference, whereas the separate role
situation may be exemplified by a translated lecture. At times it may be
convenient to refer to both producer and consumer together as clients of
the interpreter, since both use his services.
3. It follows that the role of the interpreter is pivotal to the entire social
process. In the type case of three participants, two may be assumed to be
monolingual. The interpreter is, by definition, bilingual. The two
monolingual actors would be unable to communicate with each other
without his aid except through a primitive set of gestures.
(Anderson 1976: 210)
This typology was further elaborated upon by Alexieva who distinguishes interpretermediated events based on a number of parameters that belong to two large groups: elements
of the communicative situation, and the mode of delivery.32 Her typology is nevertheless
32

The mode of delivery can take on four different forms: simultaneous interpreting, chuchotage, consecutive
interpreting and liaison interpreting. The elements of communication include: participants, topic, text type
and text building strategies, spatial and temporal constraints, and the goal of the event. Based on these
elements, an interpreter-mediated event can be located along a continuum of universality vs. culture-

32

redundantly detailed. For the purpose of this thesis, it suffices to establish interpreting as a
social communicative event in which interpreters play a pivotal role by enabling
communication.
The Meme of Mediation
A similar idea of interpreting as communicative interaction where interpreters play the
pivotal role was promoted by Pchhacker in his mediation meme. As this meme implies,
the interpreter is usually the man (or woman) in the middle an intermediary, not so
much between the languages involved as between the communicating individuals and the
institutional and socio-cultural positions they represent. (2004: 59) Since the two
monolingual parties in the communicative interaction may often have different expectations
and goals, which might conflict with each other, the interpreter might be forced to take on
the role of a mediator and act as an agent regulating the development of understanding. The
interpreter may be required to regulate the turn-taking behavior, may act as a regulator of
the discourse, and in cases when proper understanding is endangered may even perform a
mediating intervention, such as providing clarifications or asking complementary questions.
(ibid.) All of these actions clearly require the interpreter to act as an active agent taking on
various roles.
5.3.2. Types and Metaphors of the Interpreters Role
The pioneering study of the issue of the interpreters role, which is nowadays considered to
be the classic in the interpreting studies literature on this topic, was carried out by
Anderson. He presented some models of the interpreters role and some hypotheses about

specificity, namely: distance vs. proximity (between speaker, addressee and interpreter); noninvolvement vs. involvement (of the speaker as a text entity); equality/solidarity vs.
non-equality/power (related to status, role and gender of the speaker and the addressee, as well as the
interpreter in some cases); formal setting vs. informal setting (related to the number of participants,
degree of privacy, and distance from home country); literacy vs. orality; cooperativeness/
directedness vs. non-cooperativeness/indirectness (relevant to negotiations strategies); shared goals
vs. conflicting goals. (Alexieva 1997: 221-230)

33

their behavior. The three main determinants of the interpreters role according to Anderson
were identified as follows:

The interpreter as bilingual.

The interpreter as the man in the middle, subject to client
expectations that are often conflicting.
The interpreter as a power figure, exercising power as a result
of monopolization of the means of communication.33
(Anderson 1976: 210-214)
In spite of acknowledging the importance of Andersons study, this thesis draws on a more
exhaustive taxonomy of interpreters roles given by Jalbert. Although this taxonomy was
developed with regard to healthcare interpreting, there is a priori no reason why it could
not apply to other types of interpreter-mediated events as well. It only suffices to substitute
the participants of the discourse (namely the patient and the healthcare provider) for the
interpreters two clients in a discourse on international relations, but the classification
remains generally valid.34 Jalbert classifies interpreters roles as follows:

Translator: The interpreter minimizes her presence as much as

possible. In this role she simply facilitates the communication
process, not interfering with what the speaker says.
Cultural Informant: The interpreter helps [one party] to better
understand [the other party]. In this role the interpreter uses
her knowledge of cultural norms and values.
Culture Broker or Cultural Mediator: The interpreter is a
cultural informant but also a negotiator between two conflicting
value systems or symbolic universes. In this role, the Culture
Broker needs to enlarge, provide explanations or synthesize
[clients] utterances to help both parties arrive at a meaningful
shared model (of care, of behavior, etc.).
33
34

The issue of the interpreters power is dealt with in Chapter 6.

A similar approach was used for example by Le, Mnard and Van Nhan (2009) who used Jalberts
taxonomy in their study of conference interpreters identities in Vietnam.

34

Advocate: In a value-conflict situation, the interpreter may

choose to defend [one party] against [the other party].
Bilingual Professional: The interpreter becomes the
professional. She leads the interview in the [clients] language
and then reports to the [other client]. She can do this because
of prior training in [the given field] or, in more limited way,
because of her knowledge of institutional practices and
routines.
(Jalbert in: Le, Mnard, Van Nhan 2009: 93)

Another classification of interpreters roles is given by Roy. Similarly to Jalbert, her

classification also concerns community interpreting (she is particularly concerned with sign
language interpreting for the deaf) but, albeit with some reservations (specifically the first
category), it can be applied to the role of interpreters within the realm of international
relations as well. Roy, using metaphorical language, identifies four main existing categories
of roles of interpreters:
Interpreters as helpers. This category, most closely connected to sign language
interpreting, encompasses interpreters who interpret out of their good will.
Interpreters in this category, who are usually family members or friends, lack any
formal training in interpreting and interpret with no claims to financial
compensation, their sole objective being to help. With respect to this thesis, this
category is largely irrelevant, because interpreters working within the realm of
international relations are mostly highly trained professionals paid for their work.
Interpreters as the persons in the middle The Conduit Model. Interpreters
within this category are mediators whose function is to enable communication
between two parties in the interpreted event who do not speak (or choose not to
speak) the same language. According to Roy, interpreters in this category are
rendering a professional service, while refraining from accepting the decisionmaking responsibilities for either party involved in an interpreting event. This

35

category corresponds to the machine-like perception of the interpreters role as

discussed above.
Interpreters as communication-facilitators. This category came to exist due to
the emergence of conflicts which arose with the extreme conduit view. The conduit
description enabled interpreters to deny responsibility for any consequences of an
unsuccessful interpreting event, which lead to the deterioration of consumers
perceptions of interpreters. Interpreters thus strived to come up with a new
description of their role the communication facilitator. As Roy points out,
however, this description is the conduit notion disguised as a communication
facilitator, since the essence remains the transfer from one language into another
one.
Interpreters as bilingual, bicultural specialists. This category acknowledges the
fact that interpreters must perform transfers of utterances not only between two
language systems, but also between two cultures. They must thus be not only
bilingual, but also bicultural.
(Roy 1993: 349-351)
Metaphors of the Interpreters Role
Some scholars suggest that our understanding of the interpreters role can be improved by
using metaphors and metaphorical descriptions instead of definitions and taxonomies. (Roy
1993: 346) It goes without saying that metaphors of the interpreters roles to a large extent
overlap with the classifications presented above, their illustrative value nevertheless runs
high.
The greatest number of metaphors is related to the persisting stereotypical machine-like
perception of the interpreters role or, in other words, to the conduit model. In examination
of the self-perceptions of practicing interpreters, Roy found out that professional
interpreters often see themselves as a kind of a channel or bridge through which
communication between two people can happen. (Roy 1993: 347) Within this metaphor,

36

interpreters, acting as channels, are expected to perform a number of complex functions.

They have to faithfully and accurately reproduce a message from one speaker to another
without changing it, and remain impartial and neutral at the same time. Yet they have to
remain passive. They are not allowed to introduce new topics, change topics, ask questions
of their own, interpose their opinion or give advice, and they must maintain confidentiality.
Metaphors denoting this type of interpreters role abound. Most often it has been likened to
a machine, a copy-machine, a bridge, a telephone or a window. (ibid.) The stereotypical
perception of interpreters invisibility has also been expressed by way of a metaphor in
which interpreters were likened to a ghost, thus also implying the passivity and neutrality of
the interpreters role. (As 1998: 336) An interesting metaphor was introduced by
Wadensj, who likened the interpreters role to that of a cook, who, striving to preserve the
taste (i.e. preserve the meaning of the interpreted message), prepares goods to make them
digestible for a particular consumer (i.e. has to make the message understandable in other
language and culture systems). (Wadensj 1993: 357)
The Interpreters Role Synthesis
This chapter has shown that despite the prevailing and in practice deeply embedded
perception of interpreters as passive and invisible elements of interpreting events, most
scholars (Angelelli, Baker, Jones, Metzger, Roland, Roy), as well as real-life evidence,
support the notion of interpreters as active and visible elements, who more often than not
perform a multiplicity of roles. The concept of the interpreters role has been addressed by
various authors who have presented diverse classifications and taxonomies. If we were to
present a synthesis of the aforementioned classifications and metaphors, we could come up
with the following scheme.
Firstly, we can equate the particular types of roles as presented by Jalbert and Roy, together
with the metaphors. Once these role types have been unified, we can place them on two
imaginary scales of visibility/invisibility, more precisely activity/passivity. The role types
could be equated as follows:

37

Jalberts translator role type corresponds to Roys conduit model and communication
facilitator. With respect to metaphors, this role could be equated with the metaphors of a
ghost, a machine, a copy-machine, a bridge, a telephone or a window. All of these terms
imply that interpreter is a passive, invisible element of an interpreted event that does not
intervene in the discourse and serves solely as a language mediator.
Jalberts role types of a cultural informant, cultural mediator and, to a certain degree,
the bilingual professional correspond to Roys category of interpreters as bilingual,
bicultural specialists. With regards to metaphors, this role could be equated with the
metaphor of a cook. All of these role types imply that the interpreter acts as an active,
visible element of an interpreted event that occasionally intervenes in the discourse, and
besides being a language mediator also pursues the role of a cultural mediator. Interpreters
within this category take more liberty with the interpreted utterance, their main objective
being the facilitation of understanding.
Jalberts role type of an advocate, who actively pursues the interests of his/her clients,
constitutes a special category. The category of interpreters as helpers as proposed by Roy
is omitted in this synthesis, because it is largely irrelevant to the topic of this study.
If we were to place these role types on the scale of visibility/invisibility (activity/passivity),
the pole of visibility being on the very left and the pole of invisibility being on the right, the
particular role types would be as follows: advocate, bilingual professional, cultural broker,
cultural informant and translator.

38

6.

THE POWER OF THE INTERPRETER

The fact that we build on the premise that interpreters are active elements of an interpretermediated event necessarily implies that interpreters can exercise some kind of power. After
the introductory definition of power (French, Brislin), the sources of the interpreters
power, as well as the possible kinds of powers, are discussed.

6.1.

The Concept of Power

The concept of power, as discussed in this thesis, draws from a framework established by
psychologist J.A. French, who defined power as the maximum force that person A can
induce on B minus the maximum force which B can mobilize in the opposite direction.
(qtd. in Roland 1997: 165) This framework was elaborated upon by Brislin who, based on
five categories of interpersonal power as coined by French35, introduced these five
categories of power as applicable to the role of the interpreter. These five categories are as
follows:

Attraction power would occur when the person needing help

likes his interpreter as a person, above and beyond a liking
based on the interpreters special skills
Expert power is the most obvious attribute held by the
interpreter, as his special skills in language are needed by
monolingual people wanting to communicate with others who
speak various languages
Reward power *based, according to French, on As ability to
mediate rewards for B+ will likewise be frequent. Frenchs use of
the word mediate is well chosen since the interpreter may not
have any rewards himself in the form of economic help or
35

The five types of interpersonal power that are based on the relationship between A and B are: attraction
power based on Bs liking for A, expert power based on Bs perception that A has superior knowledge and
information, reward power based on As ability to mediate rewards for B, coercive power based on As
ability to mediate punishments for B, and legitimate power based on Bs belief that A has a right to
prescribe his behavior or opinions. (French in Roland 1999: 165)

39

political influence, but he can mediate these by skillfully

interpreting the wishes of one personto another
Coercive power is a contrast to reward power, and it refers to
situations in which the interpreter can mediate punishments.
The clearest case is probably the situation in which an
interpreter can make communicators angry at each other by
doing a poor job of interpreting their desires and feelings to
each other.
Legitimate power may be more common than would be
considered at first glance. If the communicator realizes that
there are cross-cultural differences in the way that people
discuss differing viewpoints and make decisions, he may call
upon the interpreter (who ideally knows both the languages
and the cultural practices of both parties in the negotiation) to
make suggestions regarding the best way to present a certain
point of view.
(Brislin 1976: 28-30, in: Roland 1997: 165-166)
These theoretical concepts provide a useful overview of various types of power that could
possibly be wielded by interpreters while performing their role. The drawback of this
overview is, however, its overly academic nature. In order to be able to ascertain what type
of power an interpreter has wielded, it would be necessary to examine particular case
studies, which is beyond the scope of this study. For the purpose of this thesis, especially
with respect to the practical research, it suffices to define power as the interpreters ability
to influence the discourse and to, either intentionally or unintentionally, change the
outcome of the interpreter-mediated event.
6.2.

Sources of the Interpreters Power and its Types

The interpreters power results from two mutually interconnected factors the exclusivity
of the role, granting the interpreter unique access to knowledge, and, more importantly, the
monopoly over the means of communication. The concept of the interpreters power is also
closely connected to the notion of the interpreters neutrality/invisibility.

40

Monopoly over the Means of Communication

The interpreter within an interpreter-mediated event is traditionally positioned as the person
in the middle. Since it can be assumed that the interpreter in this situation is the only one
who has access to both languages, the intended interaction would be unattainable without
his participation. Because bilingualism in this situation constitutes a rare skill, the
interpreters position in the middle means that he wields power inherent in all positions
which control scare resources. If a client happens to command the languages involved, the
power of the interpreter disappears, because the monopoly over the means of
communication is lost. (Anderson 1976: 212-214)
Since the interpreters position in an interpreter-mediated event is pivotal due to his unique
access to the means of communication, the interpreters behavior can be expected to have a
substantial influence on the structure and the outcome of the entire interpreter-mediated
event. The interpreters influence stems from his ability to translate selectively. He may
translate all that is said by both clients with as great fidelity as he can master or he may
choose not to. (ibid.: 212) Countless examples of interpreters who took liberty with the
interpreted discourse could be cited. Takeda lists the examples of an interpreter who
deliberately misinterpreted for a Gaelic poet defendant in 18th century Ireland and a more
current example of a sign language interpreter in Ukraine who delivered her own political
message while pretending to be interpreting the 2004 election results.36 (Takeda 2007: 31)
Even if interpreters endeavor to render the discourse as faithfully as possible, there is still
considerable room left for the interpreters interpretations and lexical choices. No
interpretation of an utterance between two languages can occur as a word-for-word
translation, since the language systems of different languages vary with respect to their
grammatical structures and vocabulary, and word-for-word renditions would thus not work.
It follows that the interpreter cannot succeed in translating all utterances with absolute
accuracy and must inevitably make choices, which may either intentionally or
36

Another example could be the story of Juan Ortz related in Chapter 5.2.2.

41

unintentionally change the outcome of the interpreted event. The interpreter must make
choices with regards to the differences in lexical, grammatical and prosodic means, as well
as in syntactical constructions and phraseologism. (Wadensj 1993: 356)
Exclusivity
The second source of the interpreters power, closely connected to the already discussed
monopoly over the means of communication, is the exclusivity of the interpreters role. Not
only are interpreters the only ones who have access to both languages, but they also often
are the only third party that is present at significant and often confidential dealings. For
example, shortly before the Battle of Zama,37 the decisive battle of the Second Punic War,
Hannibal and Scipio Africanus had parleyed, accompanied only by their respective
interpreters. (Roland 1999: 20) Interpreters were the only third party present at secret
dealings between the Roman Emperor Caracalla and emissaries from the outlying regions
of the Roman Empire,38 during which the emissaries were suborned to invade Italy and
capture Rome. (ibid.: 12) Similar examples can be found in modern history as well. For
instance, during the Big Four meetings at Versailles in 1919, the only other person
present for the first three weeks of these meetings, besides the American President
Woodrow Wilson, the British Prime Minister Lloyd George, the French Prime Minster
Georges Clemenceau and the Italian Prime Minister Vittorio Emanuele Orlando, was the
interpreter Paul Mantoux. All of these examples show that interpreters not only have power
over the linguistic aspects of an interpreted event, but since they often are the only ones
who, in the given moment, have complete information, they can also have the power to
influence or change the outcome of the situation. They can do so during the actual
interpreted event by withholding information or by substituting the interpreted utterance for
something else, or outside the interpreted event by providing confidential information to a

37

38

In 202 B.C., the Romans under Scipio Africanus defeated the Carthaginian under Hannibal at a site called
Naraggara, in what is now Tunisia.
In the past, interpreters sometimes had to pay for the exclusivity of their role with their lives, since they
often were the only witnesses and it was desirable to get rid of them. For more detailed information, see
Chapter 7.2.

42

fourth party. It is of no coincidence that the duty of confidentiality is one of the most
important principles asserted by various codes of ethics concerning interpreters.39
The Interpreters Power and Neutrality
The issue of the interpreters power is closely connected to the already discussed issue of
neutrality. According to Takeda, the interpreters power, namely the fear that interpreters
could abuse their power, is the reason why interpreters clients try to regulate and constrain
the interpreters role and promote the prevailing perception of interpreters as neutral
machines or conduits. (2007: 31) If we understand the interpreters role as passive and
invisible, we can assume that it is also neutral. However, if we maintain that the
interpreters role is active and visible, we must also assume that this role wields power.
Some authors, namely Anderson, nevertheless indicate that interpreters cannot be perceived
as neutral (and therefore powerless) elements of an interpreter-mediated event, because of
their relation to the languages concerned. As it has already been stated, interpreters are by
definition bilingual. Various studies have shown that the linguistic behavior of bilinguals
is influenced by the order in which they learned the languages at their command and the
relative dominance of their languages. (Anderson 1976: 210-211) Although some
interpreters might be strictly neutral, in most interpreters there is the probability that they
will identify more with monolingual speakers of their mother tongue than with speakers of
other languages. Similarly, they are more likely to identify with speakers of the dominant
language, rather than with clients speaking their other languages. (ibid.)
The Power of the Interpreter Synthesis
If we perceive interpreters as active and visible elements of an interpreter-mediated event,
we must assume that their role also wields power. The interpreters power stems from two
mutually interconnected factors the monopoly over the language, and the exclusivity of
39

The issue of the interpreters ethical standards is dealt with in Chapter 7.

43

the role. Building on these two factors, we can identify two types of powers that can be
exercised by interpreters the power to influence the discourse and the power to influence
or change the outcome of the interpreter-mediated event. Both of these types of power can
be exercised either intentionally or unintentionally, and in practice they often overlap. In
particular, interpreters can exercise the following powers:
the power to make grammatical and lexical choices
the power to withhold information
the power to change, add or substitute information
the power to relate confidential information and thus influence the outcome of
events

44

7.

ETHICAL STANDARDS AND THE ISSUES OF

RESPONSIBILITY AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Considering the important role played by interpreters in facilitating and promoting

communication and understanding in the international arena, and the fact that the
interpreters performance could significantly influence the outcome of an interpreted event,
the issues of ethical standards and interpreters responsibility inevitably come to mind. Is
the activity of interpreting bound by certain rules? Do interpreters abide by some
professional code of ethics? And are there any ethical standards that could be considered
universally applicable to all interpreters? Furthermore, allowing for the power wielded by
interpreters as discussed in the previous chapter, should interpreters bear responsibility for
their interpreting? If so, should they be held responsible only for the faithful rendition of
the interpreted message, i.e. the quality of their work, or should they also be held morally
responsible for the possible consequences of their interpreting? Can interpreters even be
held criminally liable for interpreting at dealings leading to serious violations of law or
ethical standards? The issue of ethical standards of interpreters did not constitute a very
prominent topic until after World War II (Roland 1999: 169), but since then it has been
attracting ever increasing attention. This chapter endeavors to present an overview of the
most salient ethical standards expected of an interpreter, and to discuss the issue of the
interpreters responsibility and criminal liability.
7.1. Ethical Standards
Given the delicate nature of the role of the interpreter (who serves as the pivotal element
enabling communication and has an exclusive access to both of the languages concerned), it
comes as no surprise that the professional conduct of interpreters is governed by certain
rules. The most important source of rules and ethical standards required of interpreters are
codes of ethics, proposed by various professional associations of interpreters and

45

international organizations using interpreters services.40 This thesis examines namely the
codes of ethics proposed by the AIIC (International Association of Conference Interpreters)
the largest international professional organization representing conference interpreters,
the FIT EUROPE (International Federation of Translators)41, the JTP (Union of Interpreters
and Translators) the largest Czech professional organization representing interpreters and
translators, the ASKOT (Association of Conference Interpreters in the Czech Republic)
the leading Czech association of conference interpreters, and last but not least the code
proposed by The International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which is a
body of the United Nations.
Despite the fact that these codes of ethics vary and they, being rather general, refrain from
exact delineation of ethical and unethical conduct, there are certain ethical standards that
can be identified in most of them. The ethical standards foregrounded virtually in all codes,
and thus the ones that could be considered the most salient and universally applicable to all
interpreters, are the standards of confidentiality, neutrality and impartiality, and of
professionalism.
The principle of professional secrecy/confidentiality is the chief ethical standard
governing the professional conduct of interpreters. According to the Ethical Code of the
JTP, interpreters shall be:

40

41

The existence of written ethical standards for interpreters can be, according to Pchhacker, traced back at
least to the period between 1529 and 1630, when the Spanish Crown introduced fourteen laws regulating
the behavior of interpreters in contacts between colonial officials and the native population. (2004: 164)
Similarly, Angelelli states that interpreters were required to take an oath stating that they would interpret
without bias, neither omitting nor adding anything as early as 1563. (2004: 10) It is of interest to note
that whereas in the past these standards were imposed on interpreters by higher authorities, the modern
ethical standards are forged by interpreters themselves or their professional associations. (Pchhacker
2004: 164)
FIT EUROPE is one of the regional centers of the International Federation of Translators, which unites
some 40 associations of translators, interpreters, terminologists and other language specialists across
Europe. Its Code of Professional Practice is especially relevant, because it draws on the codes of ethics
proposed by its members. Principles of ethical conduct upheld in countries such as the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland or the Netherlands are thus incorporated in
the Code. (http://www.fit-europe.org/)

46

fully bound by professional secrecy, whereby they must not reveal to

anyone anything that they may learn during their activities of
interpreting relating to non-public discussions. (JTP Ethical Code, 3)

Similarly, the FIT Code of Professional Practice stipulates that:

[Interpreters] shall maintain complete confidentiality at all times and

treat any information received in the course of work as privilege,
except when the law requires disclosure. (FIT Code of Professional
Practice, Article 1.4.)

The codes of ethics not only ban interpreters from sharing and disseminating confidential
information obtained during interpreting, but they also strictly prohibit them to use the
gained knowledge for their personal benefit. Article 1.5. of the FIT code states that:

[Interpreters] shall not derive any gain from privileged information

acquired in the course of work undertaken. In particular, they shall not
interfere in a clients business relations with his/her customers. (FIT
Code of Professional Practice, Article 1.5.)

The JTP Ethical Code likewise states that interpreters must never misuse or take
advantage of confidential information. (JTP Ethical Code, 4)
Equal importance is attributed to the standard of neutrality/impartiality. Under these
standards, the interpreters shall not allow any personal or other interest to interfere with
the discharge of their duties, (ICTY Code of Ethics, Article 5) during which they are
bound to the strictest impartiality. (ibid., Article 8) In accordance with the FIT Code,
interpreters:

shall carry out their work with complete impartiality and not express
any personal opinions in the course of the work. (FIT Code of
Professional Practice, Article 1.3.)

47

The third type of standards prescribed by virtually all codes of ethics is professionalism.

[Interpreters] shall not accept any assignment for which they are not
qualified. Acceptance of an assignment shall imply a moral undertaking
on the *interpreters+ part to work with all due professionalism. (AIIC
Code of Professional Ethics, Article 3)

Similarly, the ASKOT code states that interpreters shall not accept assignments they could
not fulfill in the best possible quality. (ASKOT Code of Ethics)
Another commonly required standard is that of collegiality. Furthermore, interpreters are
required to do nothing that might detract from the dignity of the profession and []
refrain from any act which might bring the profession into disrepute. (AIIC Code of
Professional Ethics, Article 4)
All of these standards appear in each one of the aforementioned codes, and they can thus be
considered the basic ethical standards guiding the conduct of interpreters.
Ethical Standards Implications for the Concepts of the Interpreters Power and Role
Besides the essential ethical standards to be upheld by interpreters, the codes of ethics also
deal, albeit indirectly, with the issues of the interpreters role and power as discussed in the
two previous chapters. Despite the fact that no code directly defines the concept of the
interpreters power and the extent of his active involvement in an interpreted event, some
codes of ethics propose rules and standards that implicitly empower interpreters. (Diriker
2004: 30-31) For instance, the ITY (Institute of Translation and Interpreting) code states
that interpreters should take all reasonable steps to ensure complete and effective
communication between the parties. (ITI Code of Professional Conduct, Article 4.3.,
emphasis added) The formulation all reasonable steps leaves sufficient room for the
interpreters personal initiative (be it the choice of vocabulary, provision of an explanation

48

etc.) and thus indicates that the role of the interpreter might be active and as such
necessarily wielding power.
Analogically to the divided opinions on the interpreters role and power prevailing within
the academic circles and among practitioners themselves, there is no agreement to be found
across various ethical codes either. While some codes, such as the above example,
understand the interpreters role as active, others limit the role of the interpreter to a mere
powerless language professional. For example, the ICTY code of ethics explicitly states
that Interpreters [] shall not exercise power or influence over their listeners. (ICTY
Code of Ethics, Article 5) Similarly, the code of the Society of Translators and Interpreters
of British Columbia (STIBC), declares that interpreters shall not use their professional role
to perform functions that lie beyond the scope of a language professional, such as advocacy
or counseling. (STIBC Code of Ethics)
This discrepancy does not exist just with respect to the interpreters role and power, but
also with respect to the overlapping issue of ethical/unethical or rather desired/undesired
conduct of interpreters. According to Diriker:

While adopting the strictest rules on impartiality, objectivity,

confidentiality, accuracy and completeness, the Codes also attach
considerable importance to the provision of an effective
communication through interpreting and consider as desirable the
involvement of the interpreter in ensuring an easier, more effective
and complete communication. While doing so, the Codes do not
problematize how the requirement of complete detachment of the
interpreter and strict fidelity to the original message fit with the
concomitant demand of cultural mediation and gatekeeping of
effective communication. [By juxtaposing these conflicting demands]
the Codes draw fuzzy, if not paradoxical borders between the ethical
and the unethical involvement of the interpreter. (2004: 32)

49

Ethical Standards Synthesis

As can be seen from the aforementioned discussion, there are certain ethical standards that
can be deemed essential for all interpreters. The boundary between ethical and unethical
behavior is, however, very thin and rather ambiguous. Another aspect to be considered is
whether practicing interpreters really abide by these ethical standards, seeing as they are
hard to enforce42 and their following may thus be to a large extent voluntary. Again, this
issue remains to be answered in the practical part of this thesis.
7.2. Responsibility and Criminal Liability
If we posit that the interpreters role wields power, we must wonder if this role also brings
responsibility. And were we to answer in the affirmative, what does this responsibility
apply to? Should interpreters be held responsible only for the quality of the interpreting, or
should they also bear moral responsibility with respect to the consequences of their
interpreting? Some authors argue that interpreters should bear responsibility for both, and
they thus haven a moral obligation to reject assignments, the cause of which is unethical or
illegal. Some even argue that all interpreters should work solely as freelancers, in order to
be able to accept or reject assignments at will and thus retain their independence and moral
integrity. (Brouwer in: Roland 1999:164) Others, however, disagree. One interpreter for
example stated that: I refuse to take the blame for environmental pollution just because I
sometimes translate Operating Instructions for heavy machinery [] Hitler would have
been just as bad without an interpreter. (ibid.) This opinion can be to a certain extent
justifiable, because rigorous judgments of moral consequences of interpreting might as well
lead to a situation when almost all interpreting could be, from a certain vantage point,
considered unethical. But what if the issue in question is of a more straightforward
42

According to some codes, interpreters can be punished for breaching the stipulated rules. The AIIC Code
for example states that: the Disciplinary and Dispute Committee, acting in accordance with the
provisions of the Statutes, shall impose penalties for any breach of the rules of the profession as defined in
this Code. (AIIC Code of Professional Ethics, Article 1, b) The penalties however usually entail
exclusion from the Association or suspension of the membership, their coercive power thus being
disputable.

50

nature, such as interpreting the outcome of which leads for example to arms trafficking or
armed conflicts, causing deaths of civilians. Should interpreters be held criminally liable
for mediating at such assignments? And is this responsibility legally enforceable?
Diplomatic Immunity and its Breach
For the greatest part of history, interpreters within the realm of international relations were
granted diplomatic immunity. There are, nevertheless, numerous exceptions when this was
not the case, and interpreters were actually punished and often even lost their lives due to
the performance of their profession. This was either because the messenger was confused
with the message, or simply because due to their unique position of an interpreter, they
knew too much and became uncomfortable witnesses who had to be silenced. We could cite
innumerable examples in this respect. Interpreters were executed already in ancient
Rome,43 and a number of Chinese interpreters44 and Turkish dragomen met their deaths as
well.45 The examples of an interpreter being harassed for the performance of his duty are to
be found even in modern history.
Soon, however, it became evident that to punish interpreters for the practice of their
profession is rather undesirable, mainly due to two reasons. Firstly, it hindered the accuracy
of the interpreting, since interpreters had the tendency to adjust the message in order to
avoid potential punishment.46 Secondly, due to these possible severe punishments,
interpreters were hard to obtain. It has thus become commonplace to grant interpreters
within the international relations diplomatic immunity.

43

44
45
46

An example would be the already mentioned story of the interpreter of Caracalla (see Chapter 6.2.). Since
Caracalla wanted to conceal his treachery, and the interpreters were the only witnesses to it, he had them
put to death. (Roland 1999: 12)
See Roland, p. 87.
Ibid., p. 46-49.
Of illustrative value is the story of one of the Turkish dragomen. It was not uncommon for dragomen to
get punished for transmitting an unpalatable message. They would often become subjects of insults or
harassment and sometimes they were event sentences to death. It is thus no wonder when the first
dragoman was once asked by a foreign diplomat whether he had accurately transmitted a certain
unpleasant message, he said he had, but he had rounded off the edges. (Roland 1999: 48)

51

Turkish dragomen were supposed to enjoy diplomatic immunity under the provisions of the
Capitulatory Treaty concluded between Turkey and France as early as 1536. It was,
however, not until 1673 when a new treaty was negotiated that the dragomen were finally
granted all the privileges and immunities they were entitled to.47 (Roland 1999: 46-49)
Interpreters working for the League of Nations were granted diplomatic privileges and
immunities in 1930, when they became official members of the First Division and therefore
gained equal status, salary and conditions of employment as other members, including
diplomatic immunity and privileges. (ibid.:124) Interpreters working for the United Nations
are subject to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
According to the Convention:

Article 105 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that

representatives of the Members of the UN and officials of the
Organization shall similarly enjoy privileges and immunities as are
necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection
with the Organization. (Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of
the United Nations)

Section 18 of the Convention further states that officials of the UN shall be immune from
legal process in respect of words spoken or written and all acts performed by them in their
official capacity. (ibid.: Article 18, a), emphasis added) This clearly shows that
interpreters working within the realm of international relations who are either part of a
diplomatic mission of a state, or who are employees of major international organizations
are granted diplomatic immunity.
As Bartolini (2009) indicates, having immunity and not being subject to the jurisdiction of
the State in which [interpreters] are providing their services, does not [] entail absolute
immunity from criminal liability. The granted immunity shall thus be more precisely

47

The immunity the dragomen were finally granted was on the other hand rather broad. It for example
extended to all family members and it was to be hereditary.

52

called functional immunity, since it only covers acts carried out in the performance of
the function an individual is appointed for. (ibid.)
But how is the issue of the interpreters responsibility addressed in the case of freelance
interpreters?
Freelance Interpreters and the Issue of Responsibility
Unlike in the above discussed cases of staff interpreters of various states and international
organizations who are protected by immunity, freelance interpreters, who actually
constitute the majority of interpreters currently working in the sphere of international
relations, are left in a kind of a legal vacuum, since there are no laws that would
specifically deal with the figure of the interpreter. (Bartolini 2009) Freelancers contracted
by major international organizations, such as the UN, constitute a sort of an intergrade,
since they fall into the category of locally recruited personnel and they are thus, under the
so called SOFA agreements (status of force agreements), granted the same immunities and
privileges as the staff interpreters.48 In the case of interpreters contracted on ad hoc basis
for particular assignments, we once again have to turn to the codes of ethics.
The ASKOT code of ethics stipulates that interpreters have both moral and professional
responsibility for their performance. (ASKOT Code of Ethics, emphasis added) The FIT
code, on the other hand, states that interpreters have the sole responsibility for their work.
(emphasis added) However, the same code states that interpreters shall observe the
respective laws and regulations:

Interpreters are free to accept or turn down work, subject to any legal
constraints. They shall decline work if it results in a clash of interests, if
they believe it is intended for illegal or dishonest purposes or if they
know that their capacity, working conditions or time will prevents its
proper completion. (FIT Code of Professional Practice, Article 4.1.)
48

The status of force agreements (SOFAS) are treaties defining the legal status of personnel employed to
assist an international mission.

53

Pursuant to Article 1.4., the interpreters are even obliged to break the principle of complete
confidentiality when the law requires disclosure. (ibid.)
The Interpreters Liability in Armed Conflicts and the Legal Obligation to Give Evidence
The issue of the interpreters liability is of a special interest in times of war and armed
conflicts, which unfortunately constitute an inherent part of international relations.
Interpreters working in conflict and post-conflict situations exercise a number of significant
functions, and their presence in armed conflicts is even provided for in the international
humanitarian law.49 It follows that the nature of the interpreters work inevitably brings
them in contact with events leading to war crimes and violations of law, either as direct
participants, or as witnesses. Should they bear legal liability for interpreting at such
instances? And should they have a legal obligation to give evidence to international crime
tribunals concerning the information they may have obtained while performing their
interpreting duties?
Let us first discuss the issue of legal liability for interpreting at events leading to serious
war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The best example to consider would be
the interpreters of the Axis, who were direct witnesses to all the atrocities and who were
later tried during the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials. The best known Nazi interpreter is
probably Dr. Paul Schmidt, who interpreted for many high-ranking Nazis, such as Hitler
and Gring, throughout the entire war.50 In 1945 he was arrested by the U.S. Army and for
the next three years he lived in prison and under house arrest. Despite his arrest, he was
never charged with any crime. At the Nuremburg Trials, he testified as a witness for the
defense as well as for the prosecution. He himself, however, was absolved of any guilt.
49

50

The presence of interpreters in war conflicts is not only indispensable, but it is even required by
international law, namely the Geneva Conventions The Third Geneva Convention, articles 95 and 96
stipulate the right of prisoners of war who are involved in disciplinary or criminal proceeding held by the
Detaining Power to be granted the services of an interpreter in the course of such proceedings. Similar
provisions detained by another state in situations of military occupation.
For more information on Schmidt, see Chapter 8.1.

54

(Roland 1999: 169-170) But a number of other Axis interpreters were found guilty. Pieter
Menten, a Nazi linguist, was found guilty of having assisted in mass execution of Polish
Jews and sentenced to 15 years in prison. A similar fate was met by several Japanese
interpreters, who were found guilty of atrocities committed during the war, and some of
them were even sentenced to death. Yet it is of importance to note that these interpreters
were tried for deeds as rape, torture, murder of unarmed civilians and abuse of prisoners of
war.(ibid.: 171) Not a single one of them was tried for and found guilty of having
interpreted at events leading to war and other crimes against humanity. The Nuremburg and
Tokyo Trials thus seem to have established an important precedent confirming that whereas
interpreters, such as anyone else, have to abide by existing laws, they cannot be tried for the
performance of their profession, even if it requires interpreting at events leading to
violations of law.
Once we have established that interpreters cannot be held criminally liable for the
performance of their profession, we should attempt to ascertain whether they have the legal
obligation to give evidence of crimes they might have, in the role of the interpreter,
witnessed. The demand to testify is in stark contrast to the principle of professional
confidentiality. Moreover, it also interferes with the issue of the interpreters safety,
especially in war conflicts. If the interpreter was to be considered as a potential
inconvenient witness to the crimes being committed, his safety would be jeopardized.51
(Bartolini 2009)
Although the FIT code stipulates that interpreters shall maintain complete confidentiality
at all times () except when the law requires disclosure (FIT Code of Professional
Practice, Article 1.4, emphasis added), and the Axis interpreters, such as Dr. Schmidt, were
asked to testify during the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials, the current practice seems to be
the contrary. The rulings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
51

The need to ensure interpreters security, especially in war conflicts and post-conflict situations, is also
confirmed by Edwards. According to her: It is vital to remember the safety of the interpreters, as in most
cases, the locally-engaged language assistant does not leave the field when you do. For example in Bosnia,
interpreters were subject to threats, intimidation, and reprisals against themselves or family members.
(Edwards 2001)

55

(an institution to which we are, in the absence of legal provision on this matter, forced to
turn to, and where this issue has been dealt with most extensively) indicate that the need to
avoid exposing interpreters performing their official duties to undue pressure, in view of
the importance of ensuring that they can undertake the tasks assigned to them with the
requisite peace of mind, (Bartolini 2009) is greater than the obligation to give evidence.
Responsibility and Criminal Liability - Synthesis
Despite the fact that opinions on the issue of the interpreters responsibility vary, certain
general trends can be identified. While interpreters should always bear responsibility for the
quality of their work, they cannot be held responsible for the performance of their
profession, even if it entails interpreting assignments leading to war or other atrocities.
Interpreters nevertheless have to abide by existing laws. The immunity granted to them is
therefore only functional immunity, covering acts carried out in the performance of
interpreting. The current practice further indicates that, since the need to ensure the
interpreters safety and conditions for an optimal performance of the interpreting activity is
a priority, interpreters are freed from the obligation to give evidence about crimes they
might have witnessed during interpreting.

56

8.

PERCEPTIONS OF PRACTICING INTERPRETERS A STUDY

After discussing all of the three main examined issues as addressed in theoretical writings,
we shall now approach to the final part of the thesis, analyzing the three examined issues as
perceived by practicing interpreters themselves.
8.1. Methodology
The study was conducted in April 2012 and the sources of the studied data were twofold.
First, the perceptions of practicing interpreters were studied via a survey and second, via an
analysis of personal documents, namely memoirs of distinguished interpreters. The basic
criterion for the selection of the respondents was their experience with interpreting within
the sphere of international relations. Another important criterion was their willingness to
participate in the survey and to dedicate their time. Therefore, I would like to thank
sincerely all of the respondents. Without their help this thesis would be inconceivable. I
would also like to stress that, given the nature of this study, it by no means strives to offer a
generally valid representation of the attitudes of practicing interpreters as a whole. This
study rather sets out to present the most salient theoretical concepts concerning the three
studied issues, and their perceptions by a selected group of interpreters. The group of the
respondents is necessarily selective and limited and the results of this study can thus be by
no means generalized.
The survey in a form of a semi-structured questionnaire (including both closed and openended questions) was distributed via e-mail. While some of the interpreters were contacted
directly, others received the link to the questionnaire from their colleagues or the
organization they are members or employees of. The following organizations and
associations of interpreters were contacted: the AIIC (International Association of
Conference Interpreters), the Institute of Translation Studies Charles University, the
Association of Conference Interpreters in the Czech Republic, the JTP (Union of
Interpreters and Translators), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, the

57

Office of the President of the Czech Republic and the association Conference Interpreters
UK. The questionnaire was distributed in two language versions (Czech and English),
which were, however, identical as to its content. The questionnaire was divided into three
sections corresponding to the three main studied topics (i.e. the interpreters role, power,
and the issues of ethical standards and responsibility). Two further sections on personal
information and anonymity were also included. For the full version of the English
questionnaire, see the Appendix.
A total number of 28 interpreters participated in the survey. All of the respondents have
substantial experience with interpreting within the sphere of international relations, the
average length of their experience being 18-and-a-half years. The respondent with the
longest experience has been a practicing interpreter for forty years, whereas the one with
the shortest experience has been interpreting for four years, the rest of the respondents
experience ranging anywhere in between. Most of the respondents (19) have worked as
freelance interpreters; few of them worked both as freelancers and staff interpreters (8), and
one respondent has been employed as a staff interpreter only. The institutions that the
respondents have interpreted for include the following:
Directorate General for Interpreting at the European Commission (DG SCIC)
European Council (EC)
Court of Justice of the EU
International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
United States Agency for International Aid (USAID)
Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States (TACIS)
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
Besides that, they have also interpreted at assignments for various public services, state
agencies and political parties. With the exception of 6 respondents, all have received formal
training in translation and interpreting and some of them even work as interpreting

58

instructors themselves.52 Among the respondents languages, there are a total number of 8
mother tongues and 11 working languages.53 Since the wish of the majority of respondents
was to remain anonymous, the respondents are labeled with numbers, i.e. R1 stands for
respondent number one etc. Those who agreed with the publication of their names are listed
in the acknowledgement at the beginning of the thesis. The complete transcriptions of the
questionnaires with the respondents answers (again upholding the principle of anonymity)
can be found on the enclosed CD. Furthermore, it is important to note that the total number
of responses might in some cases exceed the total number of respondents, since some
questions enabled the respondents to select multiple answers. In other cases, the total
number of answers is lower, because not all of the respondents were willing to answer all of
the questions. It should be noted that with the exception of respondents R1-R8, the answers
were provided in Czech, and they were translated into English by the author.
The memoirs constituting the second source of data were selected on the basis of their
availability and their relevance, i.e. the degree to which they were able to address the three
main issues discussed. The examined memoirs are: Dr. Paul Schmidt Hitlers Interpreter,
and Harry Obst White House Interpreter.
Dr. Paul Schmidt (1899 1970), often dubbed Hitlers interpreter, served as an interpreter
for the German Foreign Office from 1923 to 1945. Before the outbreak of World War II, he
interpreted in Geneva for the League of Nations and he was present at most of the crucial
meetings of that time. During WWII he became the chief interpreter of the Nazi regime,
interpreting for all the key Nazi figures, such as Hitler, Gring, Goebbels or Ribbentrop, as
well as for the key figures of the Allied Powers. (Schmidt 1997) In 1945, Schmidt was
52

53

The majority of respondents (11) have studied translation and interpreting at the Charles University in
Prague. Other listed training centers included: University of Alcal (Madrid), Comenius University
(Bratislava), ESIT (Paris), Turku University (Finland), University of Westminster (UK) and University of
Graz (Austria),
The most common working language among the respondents was English (16 respondents), followed by
German (9 respondents) and French (7 respondents). Other working languages include Czech, Italian,
Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Slovak, Spanish and Swedish. In most cases, the mother tongue of the
respondents was Czech. Other mother tongues included English, Finnish, French, German, Romanian,
Slovak and Spanish.

59

arrested by the Allies and subsequently imprisoned. He then appeared during the
Nuremburg Trials as a witness for both the defense and the prosecution, but he himself was
absolved of all blame.
Harry Obst (1932), a German citizen by birth, studied languages and translation at Mainz
University. In 1957 he immigrated to the United States, where he gained citizenship and
subsequently started to work as an interpreter. From 1965 to 1984 he served as a
Diplomatic Interpreter at the U.S. Department of State. In 1984 he was appointed director
of the Office of Language Services at the U.S. Department of State, a position he held until
his retirement in 1997. Throughout his career, he interpreted for seven American Presidents
from L.B. Johnson to Bill Clinton54 and was thus present at many of the major events of the
Cold War.
8.2. Results
8.2.1. Results Obtained from the Survey
The Role of the Interpreter
Out of the total number of 28 respondents, the majority (18) stated that the role of the
interpreter is passive, the interpreter being a mere bystander on the international scene.
The rest of the respondents (10) maintained that the role of the interpreter is active and the
interpreter thus has the capacity to actively influence the interpreting and its outcome.
While virtually all of the respondents agreed that the primary role of the interpreter is to
translate between two languages, 24 out of 27 respondents agreed that aside of this,
interpreters perform other roles as well. In most of the cases, the respondents implied that
the role of the interpreter is not merely to translate words, but to get the message across
(R12). Another respondent stated that the basis of the interpreters role is not mechanical
translation, but to enable mutual understanding. (R18) The interpreter thus does not
54

The Presidents he interpreted for were namely: Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush and
Clinton.

60

simply utter lifeless words, but conveys a feeling, tone, mood, intensity, tension (when it
exists), etc., all aspects that do not relate directly to words. (R7) Most of the respondents
furthermore implied that besides being a translator, the interpreter has to serve as an
intermediary between two cultural, social and political contexts. (R11) According to
some respondents, the role of the interpreter is also to represent his country (R13, R16).
Another role mentioned by the respondents was that of a guide and a protector.
If the interpreter serves as an escort interpreter, he should be able to
answer potential questions and to ensure that the guest will not make
a fool of himself. (R28)
One of the respondents stated that:
Quite often the translator is also a liaison person, personal assistant,
guide etc. In some cases the interpreter also plays the role of an expert
in fields of interest to the client he happens to be more knowledgeable
about. (R3)
With the exception of the role of the guide, however, this opinion did not seem to be
endorsed by others.
The notion of the interpreters role being not merely that of a translator, but also that of an
intermediary between two cultures, seems to be confirmed in the following question, where
the respondents were asked to choose the most appropriate label for the interpreters role.55
According to 21 respondents, the most appropriate label is that of a cultural informant,
implying that the main role of the interpreter is to help one party to better understand the
other by using his knowledge of cultural norms and values. In 10 instances, the respondents
chose the label of a cultural mediator, under which the interpreter, besides being a cultural
informant also serves as a negotiator between two conflicting value systems. An equal
number of respondents thought that translator is the most appropriate label for the
interpreters role, implying that interpreters serves solely as language mediators and do not
interfere with what the speakers say. These answers may, to a certain degree, seem
55

The respondents were asked to choose from the following labels, as defined in Chapter 5.3.2.: translator,
cultural informant, cultural mediator, advocate and bilingual professional. Multiple answers were possible.

61

inconsistent, since a number of respondents stated, that interpreters should serve solely as
language mediators, while at the same time stating that they also serve as cultural
informants and cultural mediators. These answers nevertheless seem to confirm the
findings from the previous question that virtually all of the respondents think that the basis
of the interpreters role is to translate between two languages, while at the same time also
serving as an intermediary between two cultures. The labels of advocate and bilingual
professional were not endorsed by any of the respondents.
In the following question, the respondents were asked to choose the most appropriate
metaphor of the interpreters role.56 In their opinion, the most appropriate metaphor seemed
to be that of a cook (20 respondents). This metaphor maintains that the interpreter has to
preserve the meaning of the interpreted event, but has to make the message understandable
in other languages and cultures as well. These answers thus seem to be in accordance with
the respondents notions of an interpreter serving as an intermediary between cultures, as
stated above. 13 respondents out of 28 further chose the conduit metaphor. The metaphor of
a ghost was chosen 7 times and it appears to be connected mainly to the mode of
interpreting, which constituted the next question.
The respondents were asked whether they think that the interpreters role is influenced by
the mode they are working in. 20 respondents out of the total number of 28 stated that the
role of the interpreter is influenced by the working mode, whereas the rest maintained that
the role of the interpreter is always the same regardless of the mode he is working in. In
most of the cases, the respondents were convinced that interpreters working in the
consecutive mode are more proactive and exposed (R1), whereas the role of interpreters
working in the simultaneous mode is more ghost-like. Below are some of the answers to
illustrate this point.

56

The respondents were asked to choose from the following metaphors, as defined in Chapter 5.3.2.: the
conduit metaphor, the cook metaphor and the ghost metaphor. Multiple answers were again possible. The
respondents were also given the opportunity to list their own metaphors, but none of the respondents listed
any.

62

Consecutive interpreters are more visible to the customer and may

need to switch between various stances: that of a ghost, a cook or a
mere translation device. They engage in dialogues with the customers
on a wide range of occasions, while the simultaneous interpreter is
more of ghost. (R3)
In consec and chuchotage the context is more informal than in a
classical simultaneous setup so the roles are more relaxed and the
interpreter may sometimes be more active in the communication
situation. (R5)
In the consecutive mode, the interpreter is more present and involved,
even if he is solely translating meaning. This presence adds another
dimension in the mind of the listeners, and this can increase depending
on the personality of the interpreter. One is not invisible and should
not seek to become invisible. (R7)
When working in the simultaneous mode, the interpreter is less of a
disturbing element. He does not delay nor prolong the discussion and
thus enables a more direct and real exchange of opinions and
information. The less visible the interpreter is (in the sense that he
does not attract attention to his role), the better for the
communication. It could be likened to the role of a referee in collective
sports. (R17)
An interpreter working in the simultaneous mode could be likened to a
conduit, because this mode does not allow for text adjustment or
explanation. When working in the consecutive mode, the interpreter
has an opportunity to stress the important information. (R26)

The opinions on the interpreters role during chuchotage differed. While some respondents
maintained that chuchotage is the most ghost-like mode (R7), others stated that during
chuchotage, the interpreter is more exposed and there is a greater likelihood of interaction
with the client. (R15) Similarly, another respondent stated that chuchotage enables the
translator to build a more personal contact with both parties. (R18)
The last set of questions concerning the interpreters role was connected to the issue
neutrality. The majority of respondents (20 out of 28) agreed that it is possible for an
interpreter to maintain strict neutrality. Those who disagreed argued as follows:

63

Nobody can be strictly neutral. Communication is subjective by its mere

nature and the interpreter cannot make the message void of his/her
subjective perception and interpretation. Neutrality is not always a
good thing and might be even hurtful in some situations requiring
interpreting. (R3)
Unconscious inflections of the voice or body language can betray
partiality. (R4)
In case of controversial topics, the principle of neutrality sometimes
may not be upheld. (R19)
Neutrality cannot always be maintained. Even though I strive for
neutrality, I doubt that I can remain neutral under all circumstances.
(R14)
[Interpreters] always benefit from their acquis: acquired knowledge,
life experience. No two interpreters will interpret the same source
speech in exactly the same way. (R8)
The interpreter does not work in a vacuum but of course is present in
the situation as himself as well as in the professional role. What is
important that even if the interpreter has an opinion of what is going
on, they may not let that influence their professional performance. (R5)

The answers of the respondents thus seem to imply that even though neutrality is in most of
the cases desirable, it cannot always be maintained, because communication as such is
subjective by its nature and moreover, every interpreter has different experience and
different kind of knowledge and no two interpreters will thus react identically. The overall
tendency among the respondents to perceive interpreters as neutral was confirmed by the
two following questions, where interpreters were asked whether they feel prone to prefer
speakers of their mother tongue to speakers of other languages and speakers of dominant
world languages to speakers of minor languages. Out of the total number of 28 respondents,
only 1 has admitted the preference for the speakers of dominant languages and only
7 respondents admitted the preference for the speakers of their mother tongue. The rest of
the respondents claimed to have no preference, thus confirming that at least with respect to
the languages involved, they maintain neutrality.

64

The Power of the Interpreter

In this section, the respondents were asked to express their opinion about the concept of the
interpreters power. Out of the total number of 28 respondents, 19 agreed with the
statement that the role of the interpreter wields power. Out of the 19 respondents who
answered in the affirmative, 12 believed that the interpreter can exercise power over the
language (i.e. can choose which words to use or which part of the utterance to stress); 7 of
the respondents believed that the interpreter has power over both the language and the
outcome of the interpreted event (i.e. by withholding or changing the interpreted
information). In the following question, the interpreters were asked to choose which type of
power would they, as interpreters, use.57 In accordance with the previous answers, 10
respondents have stated that they, as interpreters would use none of the powers. The
majority of respondents (15 out of 27) stated that they would use the power to choose
words and stress parts of the interpreted utterances. One of the respondents stated the belief
that the interpreter has the power to choose the most suitable expression. However, he
should not use the power to decide what part of the speech to stress, as this could distort the
meaning of the interpreted message. (R23) When asked to relate examples of situations
when the respondents, in their roles of interpreters, used or should use power, the following
examples were provided:

The interpreter should by no means add or in any other way influence

the interpreted message. However, there are situations when the
interpreter might realize that the cultural differences between his
clients might constitute a barrier. In this case, the interpreter should
adopt a more active role. He should not provide information that has
not been said though. He should alert the parties that certain
information should be clarified. (R23)

57

The respondents were asked to choose from the following types of power, as defined in Chapter 6: the
power to choose which words to use or what part of the utterance to stress, the power to withhold
information, the power to change, add or substitute information, the power to relate confidential
information obtained during the interpreting to an outside party or none. The respondents were also given
the opportunity to list any other type of power they consider relevant. Multiple answers were again
possible. One of the respondents has decided not to answer this question.

65

The interpreter has the power to contribute to a positive outcome of

the interpreted event by providing a perfect interpretation [that leaves
a good impression], for example during press conferences. (R11)
The interpreter has the power to positively influence the outcome,
mainly by choosing appropriate expressions and suppressing the
unwanted aggressive elements (for example the case of Topolnek).58
In the past, on several occasions I have succumbed to the temptation
to cover the blunder of the Czech speaker which subsequently helped
to avoid an international embarrassment. (I will not list the particular
names.) (R26)

These answers thus seem to imply that the interpreter has the power to positively influence
the outcome of the interpreted event through his power over the language. The power to
withhold information, the power to change, add or substitute information and the power to
relate confidential information obtained during interpreting to an outside party were, on the
contrary, not marked by any of the respondents. This clearly shows the respondents
conviction that despite the fact that the real-life evidence has shown that these powers can
be abused by some interpreters, they lie outside of the scope of interpreters profession.
Ethical Standards and the Issue of Responsibility
In this last section, the respondents were questioned on their attitudes toward the issues of
ethical standards, the interpreters responsibility and criminal liability. When asked whether
interpreters should be held responsible for their work, all of the respondents unanimously
answered in the affirmative.

Definitely. Professional standards and code of ethics are a must for any
professional and interpreters are no exception to the rule. Moreover,
since their work may have immediate direct impact on people,

58

The infamous case of misinterpretation during the speech held by the then Czech prime minister
Topolnek in the European Parliament in March 2009. The interpreter has misinterpreted, using the word
bombs instead of bonds, triggering a small international scandal, thanks to which Topolnek made the
headlines of all major news around the world. For more detail, see for example Hanzl (2009).

66

interpreters need to be extremely meticulous in following ethic rules.

(R3)
The way we interpreter is a choice. We are responsible for our choices.
(R8)
Everyone is responsible for the quality of their work. (R22)
One should be responsible for his deeds in every profession. This
should, however, not be confused with the responsibility for the
original message of the speaker, because the interpreter has no
influence over that. (R19)
Interpreters should be held responsible, but only to a certain degree,
because it is very difficult to determine the extent of the interpreters
guilt. When a bad interpretation occurred, causing problems, it is hard
to determine whether the interpreter did it on purpose or whether he
only misunderstood the speaker or was not provided sufficient material
to prepare beforehand. (R16)

The respondents were further asked to specify what kind of responsibility an interpreter
should bear responsibility only for a faithful rendition of the interpreter utterance, moral
responsibility for the consequences of the interpreting, or responsibility for both.
20 respondents out of the total number of 28 believed that interpreters should bear
responsibility only for a faithful rendition, whereas 8 respondents believed that interpreters
should be held responsible for both. The majority of the respondents, who were in favor of
the sole responsibility for the language aspect of the interpreting argued as follows:

Interpreters should always be held responsible for the quality of their

work and they should, under all circumstances, behave professionally.
(R15)
In my mind an interpreter should be held responsible for the accuracy
of his interpretation and have the opportunity to rectify a mistake, for
instance, in order to better serve listeners. This type of responsibility is
not equivalent to liability in my view. (R7)
An interpreter should be held responsible for the accuracy of his
interpreting, but not for the content of the interpreted communication.
(R18)

67

An interpreter should be held responsible for a faithful and accurate

rendition of the message. If a problem caused by poor interpreting
occurs, the interpreter is the only one to blame. (R21)
Everyone bears responsibility for his work, for the preparation etc. I do
not mean the criminal liability here, but everybody is responsible for his
work. (R20)
Like doctors, we have an overreaching responsibility that towards the
message. I do not think that we should assume any responsibility
beyond that. (R1)
An interpreter should for example not be opposed to making a contract
regarding the issue of confidentiality, which would also list possible
sanctions in case of its breach. Analogically, the interpreter can make a
commitment to exact and faithful translation. (R9)

These results seem to correspond to the respondents believes that interpreters wield power
over the language and the interpretation as such, but not over its outcome. So analogically,
the interpreters should bear responsibility for the faithful rendition of the message, but not
for the consequences of the interpreted event.
When it came to the issue of the interpreters criminal liability for interpreting at dealings
leading to serious violations of law or ethical standards, the opinions differed. A slight
majority of the respondents (17 out of 28) believed that interpreters cannot be held
criminally liable, whereas the rest of the respondents (11) believed they can. Those who
were against the criminal liability of interpreters mainly argued that the interpreter is not
responsible for the content of the interpreted message and moreover, cannot know
beforehand that the content of the interpreted assignment may be problematic. The issue of
the interpreters confidentiality also seemed to play a role. Even these answered seemed to
indicate that this issue is rather problematic and there is no black and white answer to it.

If the interpreter has accepted a contract bona fide and they become
aware of illegal goings-on during the negotiations they should not be
held liable for what they interpret. Interpreters are bound by
professional secrecy. (R5)

68

An interpreter may have accepted an assignment in good faith and

then find out that it leads to the situation described above [serious
violation of law]. It would not be by his fault. (R7)
An interpreter cannot know beforehand that the content of the
interpreting might be problematic. It is a question whether the
interpreter should inform law enforcement agencies. This is a fairly
complicated issue, because the interpreter should be bound by the
principle of confidentiality. I think that in this case it is up to the
decision of an individual interpreter. I personally would most likely
decide based on the gravity of the issue in concern. In any case, I would
never accept an assignment for this client again. (R18)
This is a tricky question. The interpreter cannot be held liable for the
source text and criminal intentions of the parties, but he/she is
responsible for being recruited by a party it is their choice, the
interpreter can decline the offer. In the event the interpreter becomes
aware of serious violations of law or ethical standards, they should first
inform the parties/employer thereof, and ultimately, law enforcement
agencies. Participating in criminal or unethical dealings always implies a
certain share of responsibility. (R8)
Yes and no. It can be sometimes difficult for the interpreter to judge, if
the given situation leads to serious violations of law and ethical
standards or not. On the other hand, every interpreter should have his
boundaries as to what to interpret and what not. The interpreter
should be therefore criminally liable only in those cases, where he
provably and intentionally changed the interpreted information in
order to benefit one of the parties. (R23)
An interpreter is answerable to the client for his work, not to the
society for the activities of his client. (R19)

The most salient argument of those who were for the criminal liability was that nobody
can be exempt from the obligation to follow the existing law. (R17) One of the
respondents stated that the interpreter certainly should be criminally liable, because he
becomes an accomplice. Without him, the illegal dealing could not take place. (R26) This
was, however, a minority opinion. Most of the respondents who were in favor of the
interpreters criminal liability argued that the interpreter can be held criminally liable:

69

[O]nly in the case that he does not fulfill the obligation to report an
illegal activity he has been informed about during the interpreting.
(R22)
[Because] the person who has information about illegal activity has the
obligation to notify law enforcement agencies. (R28)
[O]nly for agreeing to work with such customers, not for doing his job
as such. (R3)
Only interpreting for unconstitutional activities should be subject to
prosecution. (R1)
[O]nly in cases when he intentionally and knowingly violated the ethical
code, i.e. withheld or changed information or added something that
has not been said. (R21)
In the following section, the respondents were questioned with respect to the issue of
ethical standards and codes of ethics. All of the respondents (28) stated they abide by a
certain code of ethics while interpreting. The respondents were further asked to specify,
which code of ethics they follow.59 In most of the cases the following options were labeled:
personal code (15), the AIIC code (13) and the code proposed by the employer (8). Some
respondents listed a combination of codes, combining either their personal code with that of
the AIIC or their employer, or that of their employer and the AIIC. The respondents were
furthermore asked to list ethical standards they consider to be the most important ones for
interpreters. The ethical standards that were mentioned the most were the following:
confidentiality, neutrality and objectivity, faithfulness and accurateness of the interpreted
message, professional conduct (encompassing things such as respect for clients, sufficient
preparation, punctuality etc.) and collegiality. It thus seems that the ethical principles
mentioned by the respondents are almost identical to those upheld by various codes of
ethics, as discussed in Chapter 7.

59

The respondents were asked to choose from the following types of codes, as defined in Chapter 7: the
AIIC code, the code of ethics proposed by the employer, personal code of ethics, other code or none.
Multiple answers were again possible.

70

Lastly, the respondents were asked if they had ever rejected a job solely on the grounds of
moral objections. A slight majority of the respondents (16 out of 28) answered no, implying
though that the answer is negative because so far they have not encountered an assignment
that would have to be rejected due to ethical concerns. (R26) Another respondent stated
that:

Luckily, I have never been put in a position to make such decisions. Still,
I know for sure that I would never interpret/translate anything
promoting trafficking, pornography, religious beliefs, financial pyramids
etc. (R3)

Those respondents who stated that they have rejected an assignment based on moral
objections usually did so, because they were opposed to the political or religious beliefs of
the speaker, or they suspected the speaker of behaving unethically or dishonestly.

I was offered to work for an international meeting for the extreme right
wing parties of Europe and I did not accept it for moral and political
reasons. (R6)
Interpreting at the congress of the Communist Party. (R14)
Yes, I did. It was interpreting at a meeting which was organized by a
controversial organization. (R12)
I refused to interpret for a client who did not treat the other party in a
standard way. (R9)

One of the respondents stated that:

Once I was forced to finish the interpreting early, because it was

already several hours long and due to fatigue and subsequent declining
performance, there was a risk of my faulty interpreting. (R21)

All of the above mentioned examples show that ethical standards do have relevance for
interpreting and the interpreters themselves uphold them in practice. Furthermore, a very

71

interesting point was made by one of the respondents who answered that he had never
rejected an assignment solely on the grounds of moral objections, because as a civil
servant (staff interpreter) I cannot refuse assignments. (R5) This shows that the opinion
that all interpreters should work as freelancers in order to be able to reject assignments they
find unethical, should be taken into account.
8.2.2. Results Obtained from the Personal Documents
Before discussing the information obtained from the personal documents of two
distinguished interpreters, it should be noted that these documents have the character of a
memoir. This implies that it was not possible to ask the authors any additional questions
and some questions posed in the questionnaire thus inevitably remain unanswered. These
memoirs nevertheless provide valuable insights into many of the discussed issues.
Dr. Paul Schmidt
The memoirs of Dr. Paul Schmidt are especially relevant with respect to the issues of the
interpreters role and the issue of ethical standards (namely neutrality and integrity), and to
a certain degree even with respect to the issue of power. The issues of responsibility and
criminal liability in connection with Dr. Schmidt have already been discussed in Chapter 7.
Let us have a look at the issue of the interpreters role first.
When examining the role of the interpreter as perceived by Schmidt, the first thing that
merits attention is the actual title of the memoir. While in most other languages, the book is
titled simply Hitlers Interpreter (the English edition), or Pamti Hitlerova tlumonka (The
Memoirs of Hitlers Interpreter, the Czech edition), the German original is entitled Statist
auf diplomatischer Bhne, which could be freely translated as A Spear Carrier60 on the
Diplomatic Stage. The fact that Schmidt himself has chosen such a title implies a lot about
his self-perception and his opinions on the issue of the interpreters role. The entire book,
60

Spear carrier is, according to a dictionary definition, a minor actor in crowd scenes, sometimes also
referred to as an extra.

72

however, abounds with references to the importance of his role, listing many examples of
him playing an active role and even performing a multiplicity of functions that were
beyond the scope of his interpreting profession. On many occasions, Schmidt was asked to
serve as a messenger, delivering documents and giving briefings to other members of the
government, and sometimes he was even charged to accept foreign ambassadors instead of
the minister.

In September 1939, I personally accepted from the British ambassador

the ultimatum, which subsequently led to the British declaration of
war. (Schmidt 1997: 150)
Ribbentrop charged me to find out who has failed this time. (ibid.: 154)
I was informed that the Russian Army has just entered Poland and
charged with passing this information to Ribbentrop. (ibid.: 195)

On other occasion, Schmidt took on the role of an advisor:

Gring asked me what I knew about Laval61 and what I thought about
him *+ unlike Hitler, he was very open to all of my remarks and
suggestions. (ibid.: 27)

Another situation when Schmidt clearly attempted to play an active role and took on the
initiative occurred in 1939, shortly before the outbreak of the war. During a meeting
between Ribbentrop and the British Ambassador Henderson, the German party refused to
give the British a copy of a document, playing a political hoax.62

I made the last desperate attempt to mediate the content of the

document to Henderson. I looked at him with an intent stare, trying to
61
62

Laval was a French politician.

This situation occurred in the eve of WWII. Germany was trying to convince the British that they do not
want to enter the war with Poland, pretending to have prepared new peace conditions. The entire situation
was however a political hoax, since the Germans presented the conditions only orally and refused to give
them to the British Ambassador in writing, knowing that the Polish would agree to them. By that time,
Germany was already decided to start the war and this was just a mere face-saving trick.

73

insinuate that he should ask for the translation of the German

suggestions into English. This is something Ribbentrop could have
hardly refused and I was determined to translate at such speed that
would allow Henderson to take notes. (ibid.: 184-5)

No matter how unsuccessful these attempts were, they clearly show the possibility and
intention to actively influence the outcome of the event from the position of the interpreter.
Despite the fact that his memoirs provide an account of the multiplicity of active roles he
played, Schmidt perceived himself as a mere bystander on the scene of international
relations.

From my observational post, I was able to observe history as it

unfolded in front of me. (ibid.:102)

On the occasion of the proceedings preceding the Munich Agreement, Schmidt stated:

This time, I will not be a mere spear carrier in an international

performance; rather I will have to play a humble but not unimportant
role in the real drama of history. (ibid.:117)

Yet his self-perception as a mere bystander on the stage of international relations prevailed,
as he concludes his autobiography by stating that:

In 1945, my career of an interpreter for the German Foreign Office

came to an end. Yet for almost quarter of a century, in my humble but
not unimportant role, I was closely connected with European political
affairs *+ standing as a spare career on the foreign-policy scene.
(ibid.:315,317)
Concerning the issue of ethical standards, Schmidt confirms that the most important ethical
standard to be upheld is that of neutrality.

74

Only seldom have I regretted this much that out of the position of the
interpreter, I cannot intervene in the discussion.63 But to present his
own opinion is a deadly sin for the interpreter, since such a behavior
would inevitably lead to a total confusion of all parties involved, as
each party would suppose that the words uttered are the opinion of
the other party, not that of the interpreter. (ibid.:185)

Due to the fact that he had upheld the neutrality principle, he was considered as impartial
by all parties.

Only now have I fully realized the trust put in me. Until now, none of
the foreign politicians dealing with our government *+ have brought
their own interpreter with them. (ibid.:122)

When Hitler offered Chamberlain to confer tt--tt he added:

Of course in the presence of Mr. Schmidt. But he is an interpreter. As

an interpreter, he is neutral and thus does not belong to any of the
parties. (ibid.:118)

This indicates that the perception of the interpreters neutrality was upheld and respected by
Schmidt himself as well as all the politicians involved. However, some of Schmidts
remarks imply that despite of striving for neutrality, an interpreter cannot be strictly neutral
since he is necessarily influenced by his personal believes and experience. This
combination than creates inner tensions and concerns about the breach of ones integrity.
Due to the circumstances of WWII and the Nazi regime, Schmidt was of course in no
position to reject an assignment based on his moral objections. Some of his remarks
nonetheless indicate that moral issues and ethical standards were of concern to him.64

63
64

Here, Schmidt again refers to the already mentioned situation on the eve of the Munich Agreement.
In defense of Dr. Schmidt, it should be said that despite outside pressure he had resisted for a long time,
and entered the NSDAP only in 1943. Also, as has already been said, Schmidt was absolved of all guilt.
The extent of his sympathy towards the Nazi regime and the extent of his participation nevertheless
remain open to dispute.

75

I have cursed the Nazi regime which caused the inner conflict of my
conscience, when I secretly sympathized with the enemy. (ibid.:288)

With respect to the issue of power, Schmidts autobiography indicates that he certainly
used the power to make grammatical and lexical choices, and on occasions he also used the
power to change the information in order to prevent an international scandal.65 In his role of
an interpreter, he even used the power to direct the speakers when there was a danger that
their behavior might have a negative impact on the interpreting; and he did so even though
the speakers in question were Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier and Mussolini.
Harry Obst
The memoirs of Harry Obst are especially relevant with respect to the issues of the
interpreters role and ethical standards, although the issue of the interpreters power is
discussed as well.
Similarly to Schmidts memoirs, this autobiography also abounds with examples of the
multiplicity of active roles played by the interpreter. Obst cites many situations in which he
had to take on the role of an advisor, or that of a diplomat and icebreaker.
When interpreting for Rogers66 on matters concerning Germany, he
[president Nixon] had to turn to me every once in a while and ask for
advice in a whisper. (Obst 2010)
The president [Johnson] turned to me and asked Mr. Interpreter, how
shall we answer that? Luckily, I had read and half memorized the
military part of the briefing book for this meeting. I suggested an
answer, and gave him the facts, numbers and names of weapons. The

65

66

During a diner organized by Hitler, one of the Ambassadors was privately telling Schmidt that i tis the
common belief abroad, that Hitler is mentally ill. In the very moment the Ambassador was pronouncing it,
the room fell silent. Since nobody spoke the language of the Ambassador, they all started to ask Schmidt
what has been just said. Schmidt, knowing that he could not say any such thing, gave completely different
information, than what was said.
German Chancellor.

76

chancellor returned. Johnson repeated what I had just told him,

without missing a beat. (ibid.)
There are times when the interpreter has to step out of his subservient
role and become icebreaker in an awkward situation. (ibid.)

Since Obsts book is not a mere autobiography, but partly also a theoretical book
advocating better training for interpreters in the United States, Obst even directly gives his
opinion on the issue of the interpreters role and his ability to actively influence the
outcome of an interpreted event.

It takes five million dollars to train one aircraft carrier pilot. Nobody has
ever seriously argued against spending this money. It is in the national
interest. Trained professional interpreters are also in the national
interest. You can train a large number of interpreters for five million
dollars. One properly trained diplomatic interpreters skilled translation
may avoid the conflict in which that carrier may have to be used, at a
possible cost in tens or hundreds of millions. (ibid.)

Thus Obst, unlike Schmidt, does not hold the stance of an interpreter being a mere
bystander on the international scene. According to Obst, translators and interpreters form
the bridge between different languages and different cultures. (ibid.) On many occasions,
he even directly complained about the invisibility of the interpreter, which was usually
manifested by locating the microphone for the interpreter at a considerable distance from
the president, and thus keeping him out of camera pictures, or assigning the interpreter a
seat which was far away from the speakers. This not only diminished the importance of the
interpreter, but also made it substantially harder for the interpreter to understand the
speaker and interpret.

Once again, separate microphones for my translation of the speech

were about forty feet to the left to keep me out of the television
picture, even though there were two dozen other people to Carters
immediate left and right, including Chancellor Schmidts interpreter.
(ibid.)

77

Considering ethical standards, Obst mainly deals with the standards of professionalism, i.e.
the quality of the interpreting, and neutrality. In his opinion:

The client rightfully expects that the professional interpreter will

accurately duplicate in the other language everything that was said *+
without omissions, additions, or distortions. He also expects that the
message will be delivered in the same tone of voice, retaining the
points of emphasis, the humor or irony and all relevant nuances. (ibid.)

Similarly to Schmidt and the majority of respondents from the survey, Obst also maintains
that the most important ethical standard to be upheld is that of neutrality. In conformity
with others, his comments imply that although a must, neutrality is not always easy to
maintain, especially since one is inevitably influenced by his preferences and likings.

For a professional interpreter, liking or disliking an important client

creates emotional hurdles that you need to jump over every day. You
have sworn an oath of loyalty to your government, and professional
ethics forbids you from being anything but totally impartial. This is
often not easy to do. As an interpreter, you have an arsenal of options
to make the leaders you like sound better and the leaders you dislike
sound worse. And there is sometimes a little mischievous elf jumping
around in your brain that says, Sock it to him. He deserves it. Or it
may whisper, What a stupid remark form your favorite president. Help
him out. Make him sound better. Being impartial is easy when the
client has no personal place in your heart. But when you really like or
dislike somebody, you are in for a battle with your conscience many a
day. (ibid.)

This comment also has relevance with respect to the issue of power. It clearly follows that
in Obsts opinion, the interpreter has power over language. Other remarks indicate, that the
interpreter also has the power to change the outcome of the interpreted event (as is implied
in the aforementioned passage on the necessity of interpreters training), and to some
limited extent, serving mainly diplomatic needs established by protocol, even to add or

78

substitute information.67 Lastly, Obst comments on the source of the interpreters power,
by simply stating that Knowledge is power. And since interpreters were often the ones
with an exclusive access to information, they were also the only ones who had the
knowledge at the given moment. As Obst states, There is little historical information
about the lifespan of those interpreters. (ibid.)
8.3. Discussion
The aim of the study was to ascertain how are the theoretical concepts regarding the issues
of the interpreters role, power and ethical standards and responsibility, as presented in
chapters five, six and seven, perceived by practicing interpreters themselves. Before
approaching the actual discussion, it should be stated one more time that the presented
conclusions represent opinions of a small selected group of interpreters. The validity of this
research is thus inevitably limited and can be by no means generalized.
This thesis, based on the findings of many distinguished scholars from the field of
interpreting studies, has maintained that interpreters within the sphere of international
relations play a multiplicity of active roles and their role thus cannot be reduced to that of a
mere neutral and invisible language decoder-encoder. The thesis has furthermore
maintained that the role of the interpreter wields power and he thus has to bear
responsibility for his interpreting, which should be furthermore regulated by certain ethical
standards. This stance seemed to be confirmed by the research only to a limited extent.
Almost all of the respondents agreed that interpreters play a multiplicity of roles. Besides
being translators, which constitutes the basis of the profession, interpreters are most often

67

In this case, Obst refers to a state visit of President Carter to Austria. The White House office has decided
to deliver a speech, leaving out the acknowledgements to the Austrian government. This was strictly
against the protocol, and since Obst had a long-time experience, he was considering inserting the
acknowledgement into his German version of the speech, in order to avoid international embarrassment.
As an interpreter, I had an option here. I could just put in the acknowledgements in my German rendition.
If called on it, I could say, Gosh, I am sorry. I am so used to doing this at airports, I forgot it was actually
not said by the president.

79

perceived as communication enablers, which implies mediating not only between

languages, but also between different cultures. This corresponds to the fact that the label for
the interpreters role chosen by the majority of respondents as the most appropriate one is
that of a cultural informant, followed by the roles of a translator and cultural mediator. The
roles of an advocate and bilingual specialist were unanimously rejected by all respondents.
It is of interest that these results are absolutely identical to the results of a study by Le,
Mnard and Van Nhan, carried out on the topic of self-perception of Vietnamese
interpreters (2009), and with respect to the notion of the interpreter as a cultural mediator
also correspond to the findings made by Edwards. (2011) A metaphor most strongly
acknowledged by the respondents was that of a cook, followed by the conduit metaphor and
the ghost metaphor. Since the metaphor of a conduit and the metaphor of a ghost both
imply the interpreters invisibility,68 they could be with certain reservations equated. We
could thus state that the respondents opinions on the most appropriate metaphor were
ambiguous, an equal number of respondents chose a metaphor implying visibility and a
metaphor implying invisibility.69 This ambiguity can probably be attributed to the fact that
almost two thirds of the respondents believe that the role of the interpreter is influenced by
the working mode. Angelellis theory that one of the factors the interpreters role depends
on, are the settings of the interpreted event thus seems to be confirmed.
So far, it could seem that albeit with some reservations, the respondents endorse the notion
of the interpreter as an active and visible element of the interpreter-mediated event, as two
thirds of them were in favor of this notion. Yet when directly asked, whether interpreters
play an active or passive role, two thirds of the respondents (i.e. the same number of
respondents supporting the notion of interpreters being visible and active elements) stated
that the role of the interpreter is passive. This paradoxical situation shows that it is the
practicing interpreters themselves who also perpetuate and conform to the stereotypical

68
69

See the synthesis in Chapter 5.3.2.

Since multiple answers were possible, a curious situation occurred when some respondents labeled both
the metaphor implying visibility and the metaphor implying invisibility. As some of them stated, however,
this had to do with the fact that according to them, interpreters play different roles in different settings.

80

perceptions of interpreters. The concept of the closed circle which needs to be opened, as
proposed by Angelelli, thus certainly seems to be validated and well-founded.
The above discussed ambiguity carried over to the issue of the interpreters power. Again
two thirds of the respondents stated that they believe that the interpreters role wields
power, yet the same number stated that the role of the interpreter is passive. Concerning the
types of power interpreters wield, the majority of those who believed that interpreters have
power, labeled the power over language. Their answers nevertheless seemed to imply that
interpreters can influence the outcome of an interpreted event through language. No
authoritative answer can be given though. On the other hand, strong consensus emerged
over the types of powers interpreters should never use, as all of the interpreters
unanimously stated that they would never use the power to withhold, change, add or
substitute information or to relate confidential information to an outside party.
The least problematic issue, as to the consistency of the answers and the ambiguity of the
opinions were the ethical standards. All of the respondents stated that they abide by a code
of ethics when interpreting. Despite the fact that they cited various codes, including codes
promoted by international organizations, their employers or their own personal codes; the
standards considered to be the most important ones were almost identical, including the
principle of confidentiality, neutrality/objectivity and professionalism (with respect to both
the quality of work and the professional conduct). Two thirds of the respondents further
believed that interpreters can maintain strict neutrality. The notion of preference of
dominant languages and mother tongues, as proposed by Anderson, did not seem to be
endorsed by the respondents, as almost all of them stated that they do not have preferences
with respect to speakers languages. This issue is slightly problematic though, because
strict neutrality is hard to assess. Considering the fact that interpreting is a social event, it
can be assumed that its participants, including the interpreters, are necessarily influenced by
the environment and the people they interact with. Moreover, knowing that neutrality is one
of the most important ethical standards to be upheld, interpreters may have the tendency to
perceive themselves as neutral, although they are not. In order to assess the level of

81

neutrality, another type of study would have to be conducted. The relevance of the myth of
neutrality as coined by Metzger thus cannot be judged.
An absolute consensus also emerged with respect to the issue of the interpreters
responsibility, as all of the respondents stated that interpreters should be held responsible
for their work. The fact that two-thirds of the respondents believed that interpreters should
be held responsible for a faithful rendition of the interpreted utterance only, fully
corresponds to their belief that interpreters have power over language, and also complies
with the codes of ethics, which prescribe the observance of professionalism with respect to
the quality of work. Disagreement nevertheless arose over the issue of the interpreters
criminal liability, with a slight majority of respondents being in favor of the opinion that
interpreters cannot be held criminally liable for mere interpreting, regardless of the topic.
These divided opinions are, however, in accordance with the current practice as the
boundaries drawn by various codes of ethics on the issue of ethical/unethical conduct are
rather fuzzy, and the opinions of scholars differ as well.
As can be seen from the aforementioned discussion, some of the theoretical concepts are
endorsed by practicing interpreters, while others are not. This study has in any case proven
that the issues of the interpreters role, power, and ethical standards and responsibility have
their founding in the field of interpreting studies, as well as in practice. The opinions of
both academics and practicing interpreters themselves seem to be in many instances
ambiguous, yet at the same time these issues seem to be attracting increasing attention from
both of these groups. It thus follows that the topics discussed in this study warrant closer
examination. While it may be difficult to come up with some authoritative answers to
issues such as the interpreters role or self-perception; issues like the interpreters neutrality
or responsibility and criminal liability certainly merit attention. This study has proven that
to conduct such a study is feasible, and when employing a different methodology, most
likely large-scale qualitative research, authoritative results could be reached.

82

9.

CONCLUSION

This thesis has undertaken to carry out an exploratory study of interpreters within the realm
of international relations, particularly with respect to the three interconnected issues of the
interpreters role, power, and ethical standards and responsibility. The aim of the thesis
was, first, to present an overview of the most salient existing theories on the three examined
topics, and second, based on these theoretical concepts supplemented by historical
evidence, to conduct a survey examining how these theoretical concepts are perceived by
practicing interpreters themselves. The author has particularly attempted to ascertain
answers to the following questions: What role do interpreters within the realm of
international relations play? Do they play one role or a multiplicity of roles? Is their role
active or passive? How do the interpreters themselves perceive their role in the
international arena? With what existing theoretical models and metaphors of the
interpreters role do they identify the most? Can interpreters maintain strict neutrality?
Does the role of an interpreter wield power? What does this power apply to? What kinds of
power would the interpreters themselves use? Is the activity of interpreting bound by
certain rules? Do interpreters abide by some professional codes of ethics? Are there any
ethical standards that could be universally applicable to all interpreters? Should interpreters
bear responsibility for their interpreting? Should they be held responsible just for the
faithful rendition of the message, or should they also be held responsible for the possible
consequences of their interpreting? Can interpreters be held criminally liable for
interpreting at dealings leading to serious violations of law or ethical standards?
This study has been informed mainly by theoretical concepts and historical evidence, which
were organized in such a manner as to refute the commonly held perceptions of interpreters
as passive and invisible elements. The vast historical evidence discussed in Chapter 4,
ranging from ancient times all the way up to modern world-affairs, has clearly shown that
interpreters have always been connected to the sphere of international relations, and as such
have been actively involved in the conduct of day-to-day international politics, playing a
multiplicity of roles. The notion of the interpreter as an active and visible actor has been

83

further supported by theoretical concepts presented in Chapter 5. Many prominent

interpreting studies scholars, such as Angelelli, Baigorri-Jaln, Jones, Metzger,
Pchhacker, Roy or Wandesj, building their argumentation mainly along the lines of
interpreting as a social communicative event, have maintained that, by enabling
communication, interpreters play a pivotal role in the social communicative event, and as
such can be neither passive nor invisible. Chapter 6, stemming from the premise that
interpreters are active elements of an interpreter-mediated event, has implied that the role of
the interpreter wields power, its main sources being the exclusivity of the interpreters role
and the resulting unique access to knowledge, and the monopoly over the means of
communication. Chapter 7, building on the premise that power implies responsibility, has
discussed the issues of ethical standards and the interpreters responsibility and criminal
liability. It has been shown that the conduct of the interpreting activity is regulated by
various codes of ethics, proposed either by professional associations of interpreters or
various organizations using interpreting services, and that there are certain ethical standards
that could be considered generally valid. On the other hand, the issue of the interpreters
responsibility has proven to be rather problematic. While the sources endorse the fact that
interpreters should bear responsibility for the quality of their work, no authoritative
conclusion can be found on the issue of moral responsibility. The practice nevertheless
indicates that major international organizations, such as the United Nations, tend to
promote the concept of functional immunity, stipulating that although interpreters are not
exempt to law, they cannot be held criminally liable for acts carried out in the performance
of their profession. The practice also indicates that, due to concerns for the interpreters
safety and the quality of interpreting, interpreters do not have the obligation to give
evidence.
Based on these findings, the thesis has maintained that interpreters within the sphere of
international relations play a multiplicity of active roles, and their role thus cannot be
reduced to that of a mere neutral and invisible language decoder-encoder. The thesis has
furthermore maintained that the role of the interpreter wields power and he thus has to bear
responsibility for his interpreting, which should be furthermore regulated by certain ethical
standards. The survey confirms this stance only to a certain degree.
84

The practicing interpreters seemed to fully endorse the facts that the conduct of the
interpreting activity should be governed by certain rules, and that there are some ethical
standards which can be considered generally applicable to all interpreters. They also
supported the notion of interpreters playing a multiplicity of roles, performing other
functions than just mere language decoding-encoding. General agreement was also reached
on the fact that the interpreter does not serve as a mere language mediator, but mainly as a
cultural informant, mediating not only between two languages, but mainly between two
cultures. The notion of the interpreters responsibility for the quality of the work was also
supported by all. With respect to these issues, the results of the study showed clear answers,
whereas the following issues proved to be more problematic.
A disagreement arose over the issue of the interpreters responsibility for the consequences
of the interpreting, or rather over the issue of the interpreters criminal liability. Some
argued that interpreters cannot be exempt to law, and since everybody is responsible for his
actions, even interpreters should be held responsible for participating in illegal and
unethical activities, more so that in their role of interpreters, they are actually the ones who
make such dealings possible. On the contrary, others argued that interpreters serve as mere
mediators and they thus cannot be held responsible for the deeds and intentions of their
clients. The greatest ambiguity appeared with respect to the issue of the interpreters
passivity/activity. While the majority of the interpreters stated that they believe that the role
of the interpreter wields power, thus by definition implying that interpreters have the
capacity to influence the interpreter-mediated event, the same number of respondents also
stated that they believe the interpreters role is passive. Not only are these results rather
inconsistent, but they also suggest that the practicing interpreters themselves conform to
and perpetuate the stereotypical perceptions of interpreters as invisible and passive. And
they do so even though they believe that in the conduct of their profession, they can wield
power. These results clearly indicate that the closed circle, as proposed by Angelelli, still
waits to be opened.

85

The stance maintained by this thesis has been confirmed only partly. No authoritative
results can thus be presented and further research would be necessary to ascertain more
conclusive answers. The study has nevertheless proven that the issues of the interpreters
role, power, and ethical standards and responsibility certainly merit attention. While it may
be difficult to reach authoritative results with respect to issues such as the interpreters role,
other issues (such as the interpreters criminal liability) are definitely worth exploring.
This study, being exploratory in its nature, has fulfilled its goals, i.e. namely to conduct a
humble attempt to expand the body of literature devoted to the topic of diplomatic
interpreting and interpreters within the realm of international relations, to test the feasibility
of undertaking a more effective study, to present suggestions for further research and, last
but not least, to satisfy the researchers curiosity. It is the hope of the author that it can thus
serve as a starting point for further studies venturing into the field of diplomatic
interpreting and the issues of the interpreters role, power and criminal liability within the
ever increasingly important field of international relations.

86

BIBLIOGRAPHY
As, A. (1998): Quality Assessment in Simultaneous Interpreting: the importance of
nonverbal communication, in: Pchhacker, F., Schlesinger, M. (eds.) (2002): The
Interpreting Studies Reader, New York: Routledge.
Albright, M. (2003): Madame Secretary: A Memoir,New York: Miramax Books.
Alexieva, B. (1997): A Typology of Interpreter-Mediated Events, in: Pchhacker, F.,
Schlesinger, M. (eds.) (2002): The Interpreting Studies Reader, New York: Routledge.
Anderson, R. B. W.: Perspectives on the Role of Interpreter, in: Pchhacker, F.,
Schlesinger, M. (eds.) (2002): The Interpreting Studies Reader, New York: Routledge.
Angelelli, C. V. (2004): Revisiting the Interpreters Role, Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Asociace konferennch tlumonk v esk republice [Association of Conference
Interpreters in the Czech Republic] (undated): Code of Ethics, retrieved April 11, 2012
from: http://www.askot.cz/en/code-of-ethics/
Babbie, E. (2010): The Practice of Social Research, Wodsworth: Cengage Learning.
Baigorri Jaln (2011): Wars, Languages and the Role(s) of Interpreters, retrieved March
29, 2012 from: http://hal-confremo.archivesouvertes.fr/docs/00/59/95/99/PDF/BAIGORRI_BEIRUT_FINAL.pdf
Baker, M. (ed.) (1998): Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, London and New
York: Routledge.

87

Bartolini, G. (2009): General Principles of International Humanitarian Law and their

Application to Interpreters Serving in Conflict Situations, retrieved April 17, 2012 from:
http://aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/page3396.htm
Diriker, E. (2004): De-/Re- Contextualizing Conference Interpreting, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Disman, M. (2005): Jak se vyrb sociologick znalost, Univerzita Karlova v Praze:
nakladatelstv Karolinum.

Edwards, V. (2001): The Role of Communication in Peace and Relief Mission Negotiations,
retrieved March 24, 2012 from: http://www.bokorlang.com/journal/20interpr.htm

Feldweg, E.: Should Conference Interpreters Specialize?, in: Bowen, D., Bowen, M. (eds.)
(2008): Interpreting: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Gile, D.: Conference and Simultaneous Interpreting, in: Baker, M. (ed.) (1998): Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, London and New York: Routledge.
Gile, D. [et. at.] (eds.) (2001): Getting Started in Interpreting Research: Methodological
Reflections, Personal Accounts and Advice for Beginners, Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Pubslihing Company.
Goldstein, J. S. (2003): International Relations, New York: Routledge.
Hanzl, J. (2009): Kladivo na tlumonky, [Hammer of the Interpreters], retrieved April 19,
2012 from: http://blisty.cz/art/46385.html

88

Hermann, A. (1956): Interpreting in Antiquity, in: Pchhacker, F., Schlesinger, M. (eds.)

(2002): The Interpreting Studies Reader, New York: Routledge.
Hromasov, (undated): [A textbook of intepreting, unpublished source].
Institute of Translation & Interpreting (2012): Code of Professional Conduct, retrieved
April 13, 2012 from:
http://www.iti.org.uk/pdfs/newPDF/20FHConductIn_%2806-11%29.pdf
International Association of Conference Interpreters (2012): Code of Professional Ethics,
retrieved April 10, 2012 from: http://aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/article24.htm
International Committee of the Red Cross (1949): Convention (III) relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War, retrieved April 15, 2012 from:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/375?OpenDocument
International Committee of the Red Cross (1949): Convention (IV) relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, retrieved April 15, 2012 from:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument
International Federation of Translators (undated): Code of Professional Practice, retrieved
April 11, 2012 from:
http://www.fit-europe.org/vault/deont/European_Code_%20Professional_Practice.pdf
International Federation of Translators (undated): FIT-Europe: the Official Web Page,
retrieved April 10, 2012 from: http://www.fit-europe.org/
Jednota tlumonk a pekladatel [Union of Interpreters and Translators] (undated):
Ethical Code, retrieved April 10, 2012 from:
http://www.jtpunion.org/spip/article.php3?id_article=472&var_recherche=code+of+ethics

89

Jones, R. (1998): Conference Interpreting Explained, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Le, E., Mnard, N., Nhan, N. (2009): Interpreters Identities: An Exploratory Study of
Vietnamese Interpreters in Vietnam, retrieved March 21, 2012 from:
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/TC
Metzger, M. (1999): Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality,
Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Obst, H. (2010): White House Interpreter: the art of interpreting, Bloomington: Author
House.
Palaschenko, P. (1997): My Years with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze: The Memoir of a
Soviet Interpreter, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Pchhacker, F. (2004): Introducing Interpreting Studies, New York: Routledge.
Pchhacker, F., Schlesinger, M. (eds.) (2002): The Interpreting Studies Reader, New York:
Routledge.
Roland, R. A. (1999): Interpreters as Diplomats: A Diplomatic History of the Role of
Interpreters in World Politics, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Roy, C., B. (1993): The Problem with Definitions, Descriptions and the Role Metaphors of
Interpreters, in: Pchhacker, F., Schlesinger, M. (eds.) (2002): The Interpreting Studies
Reader, New York: Routledge.
Revsk, J. (2012): Zpisky vlen tlumonice [Notes of a War Interpreter], Praha:
Nakladatelstv Paseka.

90

Schmidt, P. (1997): Pamti Hitlerova tlumonk [The Memoir of Hitlers Interpreter], Brno:
Barrister &Principal.
Society of Translators and Interpreters of British Columbia (2008): Code of Ethics,
retrieved April 13, 2012 from: http://www.stibc.org/page/code%20of%20ethics.aspx
Takeda, K. (2007): Sociopolitical Aspects of Interpreting at the International Military
Tribunal for the Far East (1946-1948),retrieved March 13, 2012 from:
http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/8769/Thesis.pdf?sequence=1
The International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (1999): The Code of Ethics for
Interpreters and Translators Employed by the ICTY, retrieved April 9, 2012 from:
http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Miscellaneous/it144_codeofethicsinterpreters_
en.pdf
United Nations (1946): Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations,
retrieved April 14, 2012 from:
http://www.undp.org.vn/digitalAssets/27/27318_UN_Convention_on_Priviledges_and_Im
munities.pdf
Wadensj, C. (1998): Interpreting as Interaction, London: Longman.
Wadensj, C. (1993): The Double Role of a Dialogue Interpreter, in: Pchhacker, F.,
Schlesinger, M. (eds.) (2002): The Interpreting Studies Reader, New York: Routledge.

91

APPENDIX The Survey

Interpreters within the Realm of International Relations

Please fill in the questionnaire either by choosing an answer of by filling it in. It should not take
more than 15 minutes of your time. Thank you.
* Required

THE ROLE OF THE INTERPRETER

Do you think that the interpreters role within the realm of international relations is active or
passive? *
The role of the interpreter is active. He/she actively influences the interpreting and its
outcome.
The role of the interpreter is passive. He/she is a mere bystander on the
international scene.

The interpreters role is to translate between two languages. Aside of this, do you think they
perform any other role? *

Which of the following categories do you find an appropriate label for the role of the interpreter?
* (Multiple answers possible.)
Translator the interpreter serves solely as a language mediator and does not
interfere with what the speakers say.

92

Cultural Informant the interpreter uses his/her knowledge of cultural norms and
values to bring about better understanding among the speakers.
Cultural Mediator The interpreter is a cultural informant but also a negotiator
between two conflicting value systems or symbolic universes. He/she needs to elaborate,
provide explanations or synthesize the clients utterances to help better understanding.
Advocate the interpreter may choose to defend the interest of one party.
Bilingual professional The interpreter, being a professional both in the languages
and the topic of the interpreted event, leads the dialogue on behalf of his/her client.

Which one of the following metaphors of the interpreters role do you find the most salient? *
(Multiple answers possible.)
Conduit metaphor The interpreter has to faithfully and accurately reproduce a
message from one speaker to another without changing it, and remain impartial and
neutral at the same time.
Ghost metaphor Interpreters are passive, invisible elements of an interpretermediated event.
Cook metaphor The interpreter has to preserve the meaning of the interpreted
event, but has to make the message understandable in other language and culture
systems.
None of the above.
Other:

Do you think that the role of interpreters is influenced by the mode they are working in
(consecutive/simultaneous/chuchotage)? *
No, the role is always the same.
Yes, the role changes depending on the mode. (Please specify in the following
section.)

93

Do you think that interpreters can be strictly neutral? *

Yes
No. Please explain why not in the following section.

Do you feel prone to prefer speakers of your mother tongue to speakers of other languages? *
Yes
No

Do you feel prone to prefer speakers of dominant world languages to speakers of minor
languages? *
Yes
No

THE POWER OF THE INTERPRETER

Do you think that the role of the interpreter wields power? *
No (Please skip the following question.)
Yes (Please answer the following question.)

If yes, please choose from the following:

94

The interpreter can exercise power over the language. For example, the interpreter
can choose which words to use or what part of the utterance to stress.
The interpreter can exercise power over the outcome of the interpreted event by
withholding or changing the interpreted information.
The interpreter can exercise power over both.
Other:

Which of the following types of power would you, as an interpreter, use? * (Multiple answers
possible.)
The power to choose which words to use or what part of the utterance to stress.
The power to withhold information.
The power to change, add or substitute information.
The power to relate confidential information obtained during interpreting to an
outside party .
None.
Other:

RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICAL STANDARDS

Do you think that interpreters should be held responsible for their work? *
No (Please specify in the following section and skip the next question.)
Yes (Please specify in the following section and answer the next question.)

95

Interpreters should be held responsible:

only for a faithful rendition of the interpreted utterance.
morally for the consequences of their interpreting.
for both.

Interpreters should be held criminally liable for interpreting at dealings leading to serious
violations of law or ethical standards. *
Yes (Please specify in the following section.)
No (Please specify in the following section.)

Do you abide by some Code of Ethics when interpreting? * (Multiple answers possible.)
I follow the Code of Ethics proposed by the AIIC (International Association of
Conference Interpreters).
I follow the Code of Ethics proposed by my employer.
I follow my personal Code of Ethics.
None.
Other:

Which ethical standards do you consider to be the most important for interpreters? Please specify.

96

Have you ever rejected a job solely on the grounds of your moral objections? *
No
Yes (Please specify in the following section.)

ANONYMITY
Do you agree with the publication of your name in the thesis? *
Yes
Yes, but only in the acknowledgement.
No, I would like to remain anonymous.

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Name *

E-mail: *

Mother tongue *

97

Working languages *

Do you have formal interpreting/translation education? *

No
Yes (Please specify in the following section.)

How many years of practice do you have? *

I work/worked: * Multiple answers possible.

as a freelancer.
for an institution. (Please specify in the following section.)

98

Please feel free to add any comment that you consider interesting or relevant.

Do you wish to receive a copy of this thesis by e-mail? *

Yes
No

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND INTEREST.

99

SUMMARY
This thesis has undertaken to explore the issue of interpreters within the realm of
international relations, particularly with respect to the issues of the interpreters role, power
and ethical standards and responsibility. Building on the premise that interpreters are vital,
yet often overlooked elements, the thesis has intended to refute the commonly held
perceptions of interpreters as passive and invisible.
The main aim of the thesis was first, to present an overview of the most salient existing
theories and writings on the three main examined issues, and second, based on these
theoretical findings, conduct an exploratory study in order to ascertain how these
theoretical concepts are perceived by practicing interpreters themselves.
Based on both theoretical findings and historical evidence, the thesis has maintained that
interpreters within the sphere of international relations play a multiplicity of active roles,
and their role thus cannot be reduced to that of a mere neutral and invisible language
decoder-encoder. The thesis has furthermore maintained that the role of the interpreter
wields power and he thus has to bear responsibility for his interpreting, which should be
furthermore regulated by certain ethical standards. The survey confirmed this stance only to
a certain degree.
While the majority of the questioned interpreters could readily agree on the issues of ethical
standards and the interpreters responsibility, the issues of the interpreters role and
criminal liability were of a more controversial nature. No authoritative conclusions were
thus reached. In order to arrive at generalizable results, a more in-depth study would be
clearly needed. The thesis has nevertheless proven that to conduct a study on this issue is
feasible and that certain topics, especially that of the interpreters power, and responsibility
and criminal liability certainly merit attention.

100

RESUM
Tato prce se zabvala problematikou tlumonk ve sfe mezinrodnch vztah, a to
zejmna v souvislosti s otzkami role tlumonk a jejich moci, a otzkou etickch
standard a zodpovdnosti. Prce vychzela z pesvden, e tlumonci v rmci
mezinrodnch vztah hraj sice velmi dleitou, asto vak opomjenou roli a snaila se
proto vyvrtit obecn pevldajc stereotypy, dle kterch je role tlumonka pasivn a
neviditeln.
Hlavnm clem tto prce bylo poskytnout pehled nejvznamnjch teoretickch koncept
pojednvajcch o tech ve uvedench tmatech a provst vzkum, kter by zjistil, jak
jsou tyto teoretick koncepty vnmny samotnmi tlumonky pohybujcmi se ve sfe
mezinrodnch vztah.
V nvaznosti na teoretick koncepty a empirick data bylo stedn tez tto prce tvrzen,
e tlumonci v rmci mezinrodnch vztah hraj celou adu vznamnch a aktivnch rol,
a nen proto mon je redukovat na pouh neviditeln jazykov stroje. Prce dle tvrdila,
e tlumonci maj z titulu sv funkce moc a mus proto za svou innost i nst
zodpovdnost, a zrove dodrovat jist etick principy. Toto stanovisko se v rmci
vzkumu potvrdilo jen sten.
Zatmco vtina respondent se shodla na tom, e tlumonci by se mli dit etickmi
standardy a nst za svou innost zodpovdnost, v souvislosti s rol tlumonk a jejich
trestn odpovdnost se nzory liily. Tato studie tak nedospla k dnm obecn platnm
zvrm. Bylo vak zjitno, e provst vzkum tkajc se tchto otzek je mon a navc i
douc. Tmata jako trestn odpovdnost tlumonk jsou toti velmi aktuln a jist si
zaslou, aby jim byla vnovna vt pozornost.

101

102