Diplomatic and Political

Interpreting Explained

The role of the interpreter at international meetings of politicians and

diplomats is a critical one. This book examines the history of diplomacy and
diplomatic interpreting as well as the rules and realities of modern diplomatic
relations. Building on interviews with interpreters, diplomats, and politicians,
it examines language as a tool of diplomatic and political communication, the
role of interpreters in diplomacy, and the different forms of interaction and
communicative behaviour interpreters face and exhibit.
The book covers the different ways in which interpreters manage informa-
tion, expressiveness, and interaction, and what diplomats think about them.
Each chapter presents key concepts and definitions; examples from existing lit-
erature are combined with interviews conducted with professional interpreters,
as well as seasoned diplomats and politicians, to illustrate their relevance in
interpreting practice. With activities for group work and self-​study, including
analysis and discussion of real-​life interpreted diplomatic or political events,
this book offers a range of interpreting exercises that encourage students to
apply the different strategies discussed.
Weaving together the voices of interpreters, diplomats, and politicians
with a systematic look at the theory and practice of interpreting in diplo-
matic settings, this is not only an essential textbook for students and educators
of interpreting but will also be of interest to professional interpreters and
students and scholars of politics and international relations.
Additional resources are available on the Routledge Translation Studies
Portal: http://​routledgetranslationstudiesportal.com.

Mira Kadrić is Professor of Interpreting Studies and Didactics of Translation

at the University of Vienna, Austria. She has published widely on interpreting
in political, diplomatic, court, and public service contexts, on interpreting and
translation didactics, and on law, and has extensive experience as an inter-
preter in the above contexts.

Sylvi Rennert is a postdoctoral researcher and senior lecturer at the University

of Vienna, Austria. Her research interests are dialogue interpreting, interpreting
quality, and didactics. As an interpreter, she has experience working in diplo-
matic and political, public service, and conference contexts.

Christina Schäffner is Professor Emerita at Aston University, Birmingham,

United Kingdom. Her main research interests are political discourse in trans-
lation and interpreting, news translation, metaphor in translation, and trans-
lation didactics, and she has published widely on these topics.
Translation Practices Explained
Series Editor: Kelly Washbourne

Translation Practices Explained is a series of coursebooks designed to

help self-​learners and students on translation and interpreting courses.
Each volume focuses on a specific aspect of professional translation
and interpreting practice, usually corresponding to courses available
in translator-​and interpreter-​ training institutions. The authors are
practicing translators, interpreters, and/​ or translator or interpreter
trainers. Although specialists, they explain their professional insights
in a manner accessible to the wider learning public.
Each volume includes activities and exercises designed to help
learners consolidate their knowledge, while updated reading lists and
website addresses will also help individual learners gain further insight
into the realities of professional practice.

Most recent titles in the series:

A Project-​Based Approach to Translation Technology

Rosemary Mitchell-​Schuitevoerder

Translating Promotional and Advertising Texts 2e

Ira Torresi

Subtitling
Concepts and Practices
Jorge Díaz Cintas and Aline Remael

Diplomatic and Political Interpreting Explained

Mira Kadrić, Sylvi Rennert, and Christina Schäffner

For more information on any of these and other titles, or to order,

please go to www.routledge.com/​Translation-​Practices-​Explained/​
book-​series/​TPE

Additional resources for Translation and Interpreting Studies are avail-

able on the Routledge Translation Studies Portal: http://​routledgetran
slationstudiesportal.com/​
Diplomatic
and Political
Interpreting
Explained
Mira Kadrić, Sylvi Rennert,
and Christina Schäffner

with an introduction by Peter Krois

First published 2022
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2022 Mira Kadrić, Sylvi Rennert, Christina Schäffner; introduction, Peter Krois

The right of Mira Kadrić, Sylvi Rennert, and Christina Schäffner to be identified as
authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78
of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered

trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without
intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data

Names: Kadrić, Mira, author. | Rennert, Sylvi, author. | Schäffner, Christina, author.
Title: Diplomatic and political interpreting explained / Mira Kadrić,
Sylvi Rennert, Christina Schäffner; an introduction by Peter Krois.
Description: London; New York: Routledge 2021. |
Series: Translation practices explained |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021004596 |
Subjects: LCSH: Communication in international relations. |
Diplomacy–Translating. | International relations–Translating. |
Translating and interpreting–Political aspects.
Classification: LCC P96.I53 K34 2021 | DDC 418/.02–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021004596

ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​40924-​1 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​40923-​4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​80989-​8 (ebk)

Typeset in Sabon
by Newgen Publishing UK
Contents

About this book vii

Chapter 1: Politics and diplomacy then and now: Introduction

by Peter Krois 1
1.1 Diplomacy throughout history 1
1.2 Development of international law 2
1.3 Development of international organisations 4
1.4 New challenges and developments 7
1.5 Politics and diplomacy: Responsibilities and
requirements 10
Study activities 14
Sources and further reading 14

Chapter 2: Interpreting in politics and diplomacy 18

2.1 The relevance of interpreting in politics and
diplomacy 19
2.2 Institutionalisation of diplomatic relations 21
2.3 Contexts of communication and interpreting 23
2.4 Language and communicative behaviour 30
2.5 Text, communication, and interaction 32
2.6 Interpreter alignment 34
Study activities 37
Sources and further reading 38

Chapter 3: Communication between conventions and creativity 42

3.1 Language as a tool and a symbol 42
3.2 Political communication and choice of
language 47
3.3 Political speeches for different
purposes: Informative, expressive, appellative 50
3.4 Comprehension and construction of meaning 56
3.5 Interpreters’ (in)visibility 59
3.6 Precision and meaning 62
Study activities 66
Sources and further reading 67
vi Contents

Chapter 4: Managing information: Ways of rendition and

degrees of involvement 73
4.1 Expectations, rules, and exceptions 73
4.2 Explicitation 78
4.3 Modification 83
4.4 Reduction 91
4.5 Interposition 95
4.6 Methods and approaches 103
Study activities 107
Sources and further reading 109

Chapter 5: 
Managing expressiveness and interaction: Ways of
rendition and degrees of involvement 112
5.1 Dimensions of expressiveness 112
5.2 Emotions and style 116
5.3 Expression 118
5.4 Moderation 128
5.5 Coordination 130
5.6 Mediation 132
5.7 Possibilities and limits 136
Study activities 138
Sources and further reading 140

Chapter 6: Interpreting as a situated practice 143

6.1 Qualifications and skills 143
6.2 Conditions and constraints 148
6.3 Briefing and team alignment 151
6.4 Trust and confidentiality 157
6.5 Interpreters in diplomatic mission 163
6.6 Ethics and responsibility 166
Study activities 169
Sources and further reading 170

Chapter 7: Political and diplomatic interpreting: Strategies

and developments 174
7.1 Interpreting in political and diplomatic
settings as a “tightrope walk” 174
7.2 Impartiality versus multipartiality 175
7.3 Interpreting in a changing landscape 178

Glossary 183
Index 188
About this book

This book provides a glimpse into the world of politics and diplomacy
from the perspectives of diplomats, politicians, and interpreters. All of
them are participants in interpreted communicative situations, albeit
with different statuses and roles.
In contrast to other forms of interpreting, interpreting in political
and diplomatic contexts has an exclusive, high-​profile image due to
the involvement of high-​ranking individuals from the fields of politics
and diplomacy and the potential impact of communicative interaction
in these domains, such as peace negotiations, whose outcome is visible
and of consequence to large audiences. Training and research interest
in this interpreting setting is starting to grow. A reason for the lack of
(empirical) research in particular is that it is difficult to gain access to
this domain of interpreting to obtain reliable data. Political and diplo-
matic negotiations are usually confidential and the parties involved are
very reluctant to share any information about their process. The details
of such negotiations are expected to not be made public and, conse-
quently, anything related to interpreting them is also only addressed
cautiously. Moreover, the already great confidentiality with which
interpreters treat the information they are privy to in the course of
their work becomes even more pronounced when dealing with sensi-
tive or classified topics. Nevertheless, a number of reports, documents,
interpreters’ memoirs, and research papers have been published over
the years that make it possible to gain some insight into the character-
istic features, expectations and requirements, as well as the contexts
and conditions of interpreting in political and diplomatic settings.
This book looks at the relevance of interpreting for politics and dip-
lomacy and the ways these professions interact and work together.
It starts with a short presentation of its history, illustrating the role
of interpreting in world politics and diplomacy with some examples.
The information gathered for this book comes from literature (espe-
cially interpreters’ memoirs) and from interviews conducted with
20 diplomats, politicians, and interpreters who have many years of
experience working for governments and international organisations,
as well as the authors’ own experience and reflection as researchers,
educators, or interpreters.
viii About this book

The focus of the book is on interpreting at official high-​level bilat-

eral meetings and multilateral diplomatic negotiations between
representatives of several countries. Both the content and the expres-
sive dimension of interpreted political and diplomatic communica-
tive interaction is addressed in a systematic way. The experiences of
politicians, diplomats, and interpreters are woven through the entire
book. In the introductory chapter to this book, the Austrian diplomat
Peter Krois gives a short overview of the historical development of
diplomacy and describes the current situation of international politics
and diplomacy.
The following chapters cover types and contexts of communica-
tive interaction (Chapter 2) and the characteristic features of com-
munication in politics and diplomacy (Chapter 3). The largest part
of the book is devoted to the question of how interpreters manage
information (Chapter 4), expressiveness and interaction (Chapter
5), and their degree of involvement in doing so. The final chapters
(6 and 7) address both practicalities of preparing for assignments,
working together as a team, and requirements of the interpreting
brief, as well as overarching themes of interpreters’ independence,
ethics and responsibility, and (multi)partiality in political and dip-
lomatic interpreting.
We interviewed 14 diplomats, politicians, and interpreters for this
edition of the book, and also used six interviews with interpreters
from a previously published German-​language manual on which this
book is based.
The six diplomats and two politicians interviewed all had many
decades of experience. The diplomats were from a number of coun-
tries in Europe and the Americas and had done multiple tours abroad
with postings at bilateral embassies in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the
Americas, as well as at multilateral organisations in Brussels, Geneva,
New York, and Vienna. They all spoke at least two foreign languages,
although most diplomats spoke many more, often trying to become
at least conversant in the languages of all countries they were posted
in. Despite this, they had extensive experience with consecutive and
simultaneous interpreting in bilateral and multilateral settings. The
politicians also were very familiar with international cooperation and
interpreting; one had been a politician at the local, national, and inter-
national level, serving, among other positions, as minister of justice
and Member of the European Parliament, while the other had been
the mayor of a capital that is host to several multilateral organisations
for over two decades and had served as president of the Council of
European Municipalities and Regions. His experiences are a good
example of city diplomacy; as cities take on an increasingly active
role in global developments and cooperate internationally in a wide
range of matters, they have their own “foreign policy,” bilateral and
 About this book ix

multilateral meetings, and, as in this case, their own interpreting and

translation departments.
In the interviews, we focused on how diplomats and politicians used
language(s) in different communication settings and their experience
with interpreted interaction. We were interested in learning of their
expectations and experiences regarding both difficult and successfully
interpreted communicative situations.
Most interpreters interviewed have between 20 and 40 years of
professional experience (with one outlier with five years of experi-
ence) in which they had worked with politicians and diplomats from
various countries –​some as freelancers, others as staff interpreters.
The working languages of the interpreters interviewed are Arabic,
Bulgarian, Chinese, English, French, German, Portuguese, Russian,
and Spanish. These languages are either their A language, i.e., the
mother tongue or the language they speak best according to the clas-
sification of the International Association of Conference Interpreters
(AIIC), or their B language, i.e., an active language in which the inter-
preter is perfectly fluent, but which is not a mother tongue. Many of
the interpreters interviewed are members of the AIIC and have been
working for embassies, ministries, and at state visits as well as for
international organisations such as the United Nations (UN) and the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) or major
European institutions such as the Organization for Security and Co-​
operation in Europe (OSCE) or the European Union (EU) Agency for
Fundamental Rights (FRA). In short, they have an extraordinarily high
level of expertise in interpreting in political and diplomatic settings.
We were interested in learning about their experiences in interpreting
in this area. We wanted to see how they manage their job, how
they behave when faced with specific issues –​e.g., regarding infor-
mation, emotions, speakers’ behaviour, ethical aspects, situational
constraints –​and how they see their own role as an interpreter. We
were also interested in their interaction with diplomats and embassy
staff as well as cooperation with their counterparts, i.e., interpreters
working for the other communicative party whom they get to know
at assignments at which the interpreters are members of the respective
delegations.
We are aware of potential shortcomings of interviews as a method
(e.g., memory errors, reluctance to disclose information, and acquies-
cence bias, i.e., the desire to provide answers the interviewer presum-
ably wants to hear). In view of this, we informed the interpreters that
they should share with us only information they wanted to share, thus
alleviating potential conflicts. Neither the diplomats and politicians
nor the interpreters interviewed shared any confidential information,
but examples have in some cases been generalised to avoid directly
identifying our interview partners.
x About this book

Interviews were used, for example, by Torikai (2009), who studied

five diplomatic interpreters who had been working in Japan in the
post-​World War II period. Since her interest was predominantly in
the life of these interpreters and their lived experience, she referred
to her interviews as “life-​story interviews” as a method to investi-
gate oral history. In our case, we were mainly interested in attitudes
towards interpreting and in interpreting strategies used to handle spe-
cific situations. Due to the COVID-​19 pandemic, we were not able to
conduct most interviews in person. Some of the people interviewed
preferred to give all or part of their answers in writing, while
others preferred interviews via video conference or phone. For this
reason, we prepared our questions as a written interview guide, which
we sometimes deviated from in the case of oral interviews. Out of
the 14 new interviews conducted for this book, nine were conducted
orally (six via videoconference, two via phone, and one in person) and
five in written form. The duration of the oral interviews was between
one and two hours.
In this book, we use the examples the interpreters gave us to illus-
trate characteristics of interpreting in general and of interpreting in
political and diplomatic contexts specifically. As will be shown in
the respective chapters, interpreters do not have identical or homo-
geneous opinions on interpreting and may behave differently in
similar situations. In some cases, the opinions and approaches of
different interpreters even contradict each other. The same applies
to the opinions and expectations of the diplomats and politicians
interviewed. Such differences are indicative of the complexity of the
job and the wide range of interpreted settings. In presenting these
different opinions, we want to encourage our readers to reflect on
strategies that can be used and their potential effects. The book does
thus not prescribe “correct” action but is rather intended to encourage
readers to engage critically with interpreting in politics and diplomacy
and to apply that critical thinking in their own decision making as
interpreters.
The interview quotes that are included in this book have been edited
for conciseness and grammar and, in some cases, translated from
German. The interview partners’ usage of pronouns and terminology
(e.g., referring to interpreting as translation or interpretation, while
we use only “interpreting” in the rest of the book, to avoid ambiguity)
has been retained.
This book is based on a German-​language manual on interpreting
in politics and diplomacy that was published in 2018 (Kadrić,
M. and Zanocco, G., 2018, Dolmetschen in Politik und Diplomatie.
Basiswissen Translation, Vienna, Facultas). The current book has
been adapted for the needs of an international audience, with 14
new interviews; the perspective of politicians and diplomats has been
 About this book xi

added and the content amended to include latest developments in the

field. It is no coincidence that the manual by Kadrić and Zanocco was
published in Vienna, the capital of Austria. Vienna is one of the inter-
national hotspots of political negotiations and thus also of interpreted
political and diplomatic communication. Several European and inter-
national organisations have their headquarters in Vienna, among them
bodies of the United Nations. Moreover, Vienna is frequently chosen
as a venue for international conferences. There is therefore an enor-
mous demand for interpreting in bilateral and multilateral meetings
and negotiations. Last but not least, Vienna is the birthplace of modern
diplomatic law, which was codified with the 1961 Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations.
Although our focus in this book is on face-​to-​face talks, many
points and strategies apply to settings where interpreters inter-
pret simultaneously in the booth as well, since the interviewees
are politicians, diplomats, and interpreters with longstanding and
extensive experience in conference and dialogue settings. Indeed,
some examples reference simultaneous interpreting in multilateral
contexts, such as at the UN, the OSCE, or the institutions of the EU.
This book is intended to serve as a source of information and as a
textbook for students and teachers on training programmes around
the world, primarily in the field of interpreting but also for the field
of diplomacy and international relations. We hope that the charac-
teristic features of interpreting in political and diplomatic settings
addressed, the illustrative examples of expectations and perform-
ance from interviews with politicians, diplomats, and interpreters,
as well as the study activities suggested at the end of each chapter
can serve as input and inspiration for any language pair students are
working with.
These study activities are aimed at fostering a deeper engagement
with the language of politics and diplomacy and a reflection on options
available to interpreters. They are often deliberately formulated in
such a way that students can develop critical thinking about the con-
textual conditions and constraints of interpreting in political and
diplomatic settings. They can be complemented by language-​pair-​
specific role play activities as appropriate in the respective training
environment.
The literature at the end of each chapter can serve as a starting
point for further research for those interested in doing so. For reasons
of readability, bibliographical references are included in the text
only where works are referenced directly. However, all sources used
in writing this book are listed in the “Sources and further reading”
section at the end of each chapter. You will also find supplementary
material such as speeches or videos for some of the study activities on
the Routledge Translation Studies Portal.
newgenprepdf

xii About this book

We would like to express our thanks to all politicians, diplomats,

and interpreters who agreed to share their experience with us through
interviews:
Maria Berger, Nedyalka G. Chakalova, Maite Fernández García,
Michael Häupl, Cristina Fraile Jiménez de Muñana, Teta M. Moehs,
Karin Proidl, Michel Tran, Ferdinand von Trauttmansdorff, Leigh
Turner, Sergio Viaggio, Hilmar Walter, and Zhao Liuyin, as well as
those who preferred not to be named.
Our special thanks go to Peter Krois for the introductory chapter to
this book, an Austrian diplomat and lecturer on European and inter-
national issues. After postings in Warsaw, Belgrade/​Prishtina, Berlin,
and Vienna, he is currently the Austrian Delegate in EU Council
working parties on the North Africa, Middle East, and Gulf region at
the Permanent Representation of Austria to the EU in Brussels and is
designated as Head of Mission to Syria.
Thank you to Dalibor Mikić for his invaluable help throughout the
entire production process of this book.
We are also very grateful to Routledge for having given us the oppor-
tunity to publish this book. We appreciate their support, suggestions,
advice, and understanding in its completion.

Sources and further reading

Kadrić, M. and Zanocco, G. (2018) Dolmetschen in Politik und Diplomatie.
Basiswissen Translation, Vienna, Facultas.
Torikai, K. (2009) Voices of the Invisible Presence: Diplomatic Interpreters in
Post-​World War II Japan, Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins.
1 
Politics and diplomacy
then and now
Introduction by Peter Krois1
Translation: Sylvi Rennert

Politics and diplomacy are multifaceted concepts that have undergone

many changes throughout history. The activities they denote are prob-
ably as old as the organisation of human coexistence and the medi-
ation within and between organised communities it necessitates.
The following reflections are written from the perspective of a prac-
titioner and, due to their nature as a brief introduction, cannot provide
an exhaustive and complete account of all aspects of diplomacy and
politics. Instead, the aspects that appear most essential to the author
are highlighted. As this book focuses on interpreting in politics and
diplomacy, this introduction centres on those aspects of politics and
diplomacy where interpreting is of particular relevance, i.e., foreign
policy and bilateral and multilateral diplomacy.

1.1 Diplomacy throughout history

The 24th-​century-​bc vassal treaty between the ruler of the city-​state
of Ebla in what is now northern Syria and the city of Abarsal from the
Ebla palace archives is considered the most ancient treaty preserved in
written form in history. The clay tablet on which the treaty is written
is now kept in Idlib Museum in northern Syria.
Such treaties between states are important written documents that
allow historians to research the foreign policies of states and their
relations with each other even centuries or millennia later. However,
these treaties only reflect the outcome of negotiations, which often
themselves were the result of military conflicts and wars of varying
durations. The Hundred Years’ War between France and England from
the first half of the 14th century to the second half of the 15th century
ad and the Thirty Years’ War in the first half of the 17th century ad
shall serve as examples of prolonged wars from the Middle Ages and
Early Modern period in Europe. The Peace of Westphalia of 1648,
which marked the end of the Thirty Years’ War, is considered a mile-
stone in the development of international law in Europe.
2 Politics and diplomacy then and now

The history of wars cannot be reduced to victory and defeat. They

have always brought suffering, destruction, and economic decline –​
often also for the victors, who, like the losing side, have to bear the
enormous costs of waging war.
Therefore, it has always been in the interests of responsible foreign
policy to avoid war where possible, although a glance at European his-
tory will show how often this failed. All too often, conflicting interests
and the desire of rulers to expand their power, territory, and wealth led
to armed conflict. Such wars were an expression of a “might is right”
approach to international relations, where the question of which side
was stronger was determined on the battlefield. With states continu-
ously striving to expand their territory and sovereignty, new conflicts
were inevitable.
It was therefore generally the role of foreign policy to avoid or at
least delay the outbreak of military conflict, and to redefine the bilat-
eral relationship of the warring parties after its end. Of course, for-
eign policy also served to cultivate relationships with friendly states
and to enable the trade of goods and services, cultural and scientific
exchange, and travel between states under certain agreed-​upon terms.
Diplomacy was always in the service of the foreign policy of a
country’s ruler and was expected to pursue a country’s goals deftly
and skilfully, which often required deception and manoeuvring. As a
result, diplomacy is sometimes tinged with negative connotations of
dishonesty, deceit, and bad intentions.

1.2 Development of international law

Over time, rules and customs developed to govern the relationships
between sovereign states. These are complemented by important inter-
national treaties that are considered milestones in the development
of positive international law, such as the aforementioned Peace of
Westphalia or the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna of 1815 after the
Napoleonic Wars, the Geneva Convention of 1864, which is tied to the
International Committee of the Red Cross and the Battle of Solferino,
or The Hague Conventions, negotiated at the peace conferences in The
Hague in 1899 and 1907. What these treaties and conventions all have
in common is that they were penned in response to wars in an attempt
to change structures and arrangements or to set terms of engagement
to avoid unnecessary cruelty.
Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice
from 1945 describes the sources of international law. These are inter-
national conventions that have been legally recognised by the par-
ticipating international legal personalities –​generally states –​in
accordance with their national laws, as well as international custom
and general principles of law. They are supplemented by decisions
 Politics and diplomacy then and now 3

of the international courts and teachings of recognised experts in

international law. One essential difference between national and
­international law is that international law has no central legislative
body, no general hierarchical court system, and no executive power
to ensure that international law is applied universally. Instead, inter-
national law could be described as a coordinating system that pri-
marily relies on voluntary agreement.
In his 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch,” the
German philosopher Immanuel Kant made an important philosoph-
ical contribution in the form of a peace treaty in which he discussed
the necessary conditions for perpetual peace. The main points of the
essay were revolutionary for their time, calling for the people to have
a voice in matters of state as a precondition for preventing wars,
criticising the establishment of standing armies as fostering war, and
considering international trade a powerful instrument for securing
peace. For Kant, perpetual peace was the ultimate goal of the his-
tory of all human activity, even if it was not overtly aimed toward
it. The founding of the League of Nations after World War I and the
United Nations after World War II as well as the fundamental idea
of European integration that emerged at the time may be considered
reflective of Kant’s ideas.
An excellent contemporary critical discussion of Kant’s essay
“Perpetual Peace” can be found in a 1995 Jürgen Habermas essay
published in English as “Kant’s Idea of Perpetual Peace with the
Benefit of Two Hundred Years’ Hindsight” (1997). Habermas not
only discusses Kant’s essay, but also reflects on the changes that
have taken place since then, such as the nature of war. While war in
Kant’s time was generally a geographically limited conflict between
nations, Habermas adds to this discourse civil wars, the two World
Wars, the terror of bombardment, guerilla warfare, and ideologic-
ally motivated wars of destruction and expulsion. We might add
to these new forms of war that Habermas lists the new threat to
peace that is terrorism. Nevertheless, Habermas considers Kant’s
essay still relevant today, as the principles at work that he identified
have proven to remain effective at least indirectly. As a side note, in
his essay, Habermas criticised the failure to institute the Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights at the
Vienna World Conference on Human Rights in the summer of 1993;
it was, however, established later that year by decision of the United
Nations General Assembly.
With the creation of the United Nations after World War II, we
begin seeing a distinction between bilateral and multilateral diplo-
macy, which is also significant for diplomatic interpreting.
Following this brief overview of the development of international
law, we shall now look at major changes that have altered and shaped
4 Politics and diplomacy then and now

the functioning and the scope of policy and diplomacy since at least
the 19th century.

1.3 Development of international organisations

The Industrial Revolution brought about profound and far-​reaching
changes in the domains of work, economy, and society. This change
has been compared in significance to the invention of agriculture
and the move to permanent human settlements. With mass produc-
tion, international trade intensified, companies expanded and became
international, and the division of labour in production increased. In
his book Das Universum der Dinge: Zur Ästhetik des Alltäglichen
(which can be translated into English as “The Universe of Things: The
Aesthetics of the Everyday”), the philosopher Konrad Paul Liessmann
addresses this topic when he explains how difficult it is for consumers
today to track all the steps of production of the things they buy. This
was also illustrated by Wolfgang Uchatius in an excellently researched
article in which he describes the production and distribution process
of a t-​shirt of a well-​known international textile company. In his essay
on Kant, Jürgen Habermas (1997) notes that in the mid-​1990s, each
of the 30 largest globally operating corporations had an annual turn-
over that exceeded the gross national product of 90 United Nations
member states. In the same essay, he argues that with the denational-
isation of the economy, particularly the interconnectedness of finan-
cial markets and industrial production, national politics is losing its
control over the conditions of production and with it any leverage
for preserving previously achieved social standards. Consequently,
these issues affect not only national politics but also international
relations, and they are discussed in international organisations such
as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the International Labour
Organisation (ILO), both headquartered in Geneva, as well as inter-
national financial institutions such as the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) or the World Bank. The Organisation for Economic Co-​
operation and Development (OECD), based in Paris, also addresses
these issues, which have become increasingly pressing due to deregu-
lation since the 1970s and the resulting growing interdependence and
globalisation. This was thrown into stark relief by the global impact
of the financial and economic crisis that began in the USA in 2008.
The report of the high-​level group on financial supervision in the EU
chaired by Jacques de Larosière of 25 February 2009 provides good
insight into the causes of the crisis. In 2007, the year before the crisis
broke out, the volume of transactions on the global financial markets
was approximately 74 times higher than total world production. Over
90% of these transactions were in financial derivatives, most of them
speculative.
 Politics and diplomacy then and now 5

Another factor that will help us understand the development of for-

eign policy and diplomacy is the sharp increase in the number of states,
particularly during the 20th century. In 1900, there were 22 states in
Europe; today there are 50. In the same time frame, the number of sov-
ereign states worldwide increased from 77 to 196.
In view of these figures, the area of international relations and dip-
lomacy since 1900 could be called a growth sector. The sharp increase
in the number of states is due in particular to the collapse of colonial
powers and the restructuring of Europe after the two World Wars, as
well as the more recent collapse of states in Eastern and Southeastern
Europe.
The end of World War II was followed not only by the founding
of the United Nations in 1945 but also, with some delay, by the cre-
ation of military pacts that marked the beginning of the Cold War.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded in
1949 by 12 signatory states; today it has 30 member states. On 14
May 1955, the Warsaw Pact was founded. It had eight member states
and was dissolved on 1 July 1991. Just a month before the Warsaw
Pact was signed, in April 1955, representatives of some 30 states that
were on neither side of the Cold War had met in Bandung, Indonesia.
At a summit in Belgrade in 1961, the Non-​Aligned Movement was
founded, which currently has some 120 member states, especially in
Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
In Europe, the Council of Europe was founded in 1949 as a forum
for general European matters. It has grown from its original ten
Northern and Western European member states to 47 today. In this
forum, several binding international agreements have been concluded,
the most well-​known of which is perhaps the European Convention
on Human Rights, which contains a catalogue of fundamental and
human rights safeguarded by the European Court of Human Rights
in Strasbourg.
A milestone in reducing tensions during the Cold War in terms
of the policy of détente was the Conference on Security and Co-​
operation in Europe (CSCE), whose Final Act was signed in Helsinki
on 1 August 1975. In this declaration of intent, the signatory states
committed to principles such as the inviolability of frontiers, peaceful
settlement of disputes, non-​intervention in internal affairs of other
states, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They
also agreed on economic, scientific, and environmental cooperation.
With the Charter of Paris, the participating European countries as well
as the United States and Canada declared the end to the East–​West
conflict in 1990. In 1995, the CSCE was formally established as the
Organization for Security and Co-​operation in Europe (OSCE). The
OSCE is headquartered in Vienna and currently has 57 member states
in Europe, Asia, and North America.
6 Politics and diplomacy then and now

The United Nations as well as the OSCE aim to prevent and

resolve conflict by peaceful means and help safeguard peace. This is
also the core idea of European integration, which began in the early
1950s with the founding of the since-​dissolved European Coal and
Steel Community by six European states and has developed and
changed significantly since then, from the founding of the European
Communities in 1957 to the establishment of the European Union as
a single legal entity as we know it today through the Lisbon Treaty,
which entered into force on 1 December 2009. The European Union
is an international organisation sui generis; its Member States have
consolidated their sovereignty in key areas and decide on a wide range
of matters by qualified majority. It is the largest entirely voluntary pol-
itical integration project worldwide to date.
Many other international organisations have been established as well,
both worldwide and regionally. The list of special organisations of the
United Nations alone is long, and there are many other organisations
and forums of multilateral global and regional cooperation. They
address a wide range of issues that are more easily dealt with at an
international level, such as international development as set out in the
2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, public health,
crisis management, or wildlife conservation, as well as issues that
can only be resolved globally, such as climate change, which affects
all states and requires the participation of all. Relevant intergovern-
mental organisations include the African Union (AU), headquartered
in Addis Ababa, which has 55 member states and in 1999 replaced the
Organization of African Unity, which had been founded in 1963; the
35-​member Organization of American States (OAS), which is located
in Washington, DC and was founded in 1948; the Arab League, with
22 member states, which was formed in 1945 and is headquartered
in Cairo; the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which
has 57 members and is located in Jeddah, founded in 1969; and the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which has ten
member states and has its secretariat in Jakarta. Many of these regional
organisations pursue inter-​regional cooperation through dialogue with
each other or with the United Nations; for example, the OIC has per-
manent delegations to the EU and the UN, and the AU has permanent-​
observer status in the UN General Assembly. The Asia-​Europe Meeting
(ASEM) process includes the EU and ASEAN member states as well
as Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia,
New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, Switzerland,
and the United Kingdom, as well as the ASEAN Secretariat and the
European Union as partner organisations. As part of this process, bien-
nial summits are held alternating between Asia and Europe. There are
also many organisations elsewhere, e.g., in Latin America, Africa, or
the Arab region, such as the Gulf Cooperation Council founded in
 Politics and diplomacy then and now 7

1981, or the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS),

founded in 1973. At the other end of the spectrum, we have trans-
continental coalitions, like the Group of 77, a coalition of developing
countries working together to strengthen coordination and promote
their economic interests, which has grown to over 130 members
since its founding in 1964, or the quite heterogeneous Non-​Aligned
Movement (NAM), with its 120 member states, which was founded
in 1961 –​following preparatory meetings since 1955 –​as a reaction
to the East–​West Conflict. An interesting recent project is the Belt and
Road Initiative (BRI), which was launched by China in 2013 as an
infrastructure initiative to strengthen trade routes and power supply
networks through major investments to better link especially Asia,
Africa, and Europe, but also Latin America. It is now supported by
over 130 states, but is also criticised internationally as China tries to
gain more influence globally.
A special area of international cooperation is disarmament, arms
control, and the progressive ban on weapons of mass destruction
and particularly dangerous weapons. International efforts are cur-
rently underway to achieve a complete ban on nuclear weapons. The
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons was awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize in 2017. With the development of fully automated
machines of war, a dangerous new challenge has emerged, as these
autonomous weapons systems can kill without being controlled by
a human, which reframes the crucial question of international law
of the ultimate human responsibility for consequences of acts of war
prohibited by international law.

1.4 New challenges and developments

The proportion of internal armed conflicts to international wars
increased until the 1970s and has since almost consistently remained
at over 90%. While Kant’s focus over 200 years ago was on wars
between countries, most conflict resolution today is needed within
countries. Additionally, the terror attacks in the United States on 11
September 2001 (widely known as “9/​11”), although not the first of
their kind, suddenly brought into stark relief the fact that the phenom-
enon of global terrorism poses an additional security issue for states
and society. To achieve their goal of spreading fear and terror among
entire societies, it is sufficient for terrorists to attack a relatively small
number of so-​called soft targets that are difficult to protect. This is
another of the current challenges for politics and diplomacy: to pro-
vide maximum protection from such attacks while simultaneously
limiting the fundamental freedoms of citizens as little as possible.
Within the European Union, the Member States agreed on a strategy
to combat terrorism in 2005.
8 Politics and diplomacy then and now

Other challenges for Europe and the world include the financial and
economic crisis of 2008, climate change, and increasing migration and
mobility. In early 2020, the COVID-​19 pandemic began spreading rap-
idly around the world. Within a short time it had not only caused a
high death toll but had also shut down public and international life
in almost all areas, with socio-​economic consequences that far eclipse
those of the financial and economic crisis. Tackling the pandemic and
its consequences has become a test for international cohesion and
cooperation in the face of this global challenge for our world, which is
more globalised and interconnected than ever before.
The number of non-​governmental organisations operating at the
national level has increased significantly all around the world over
the last decades, and a growing number of globally operating non-​
governmental organisations have emerged as well. These organisations
often have financial resources in the billions of dollars and consider-
able political influence. They are active in states where most countries
do not have diplomatic representation because of political instability,
such as, at the time of writing, Libya or Yemen. Consequently, they
have access to information that is otherwise difficult to obtain and
they help collect data on war crimes and crimes against humanity that
could not be obtained through diplomatic channels. Some of these
organisations have taken on a monitoring function with regard to
state actors or corporations in the fields of human rights, social issues,
or the environment, while others are involved in humanitarian work.
The growing influence of non-​governmental organisations has also
been recognised by politics, which can aid or hinder their work.
The growing importance and increasing interconnectedness of civil
society as a whole –​and not only those parts of civil society that are
organised in non-​governmental organisations –​in many parts of the
world calls to mind the “citizens of the world” postulated by Kant in
his essay on “Perpetual Peace.”
Diplomacy encompasses a wide range of topics that also includes
culture. Cultural diplomacy is a “soft power” instrument that can
promote mutual understanding and, when used correctly, also has
enormous political and economic potential. Many states use cultural
diplomacy in their relationships with other countries, supporting the
staging of plays, the translation of literature into other languages,
performances by musicians, and exhibitions of visual artists from their
country. The goals of such actions are not always purely cultural in
nature. After World War II, Amerika Haus in war-​torn Vienna, Austria,
offered the population a window to a different world and engendered
a positive view of the United States in many of those who visited it.
But cultural diplomacy can take many forms. The annual invitation
of a “guest of honour” to the Frankfurt Book Fair in Germany is
another example. When the “Arab World” was the guest of honour
 Politics and diplomacy then and now 9

of the Frankfurt Book Fair in 2004, this generated enormous interest

and presented modern Arabic literature to a German and international
audience to a previously unseen extent. At the same time, it also created
an intense exchange between the guests from the “Arab World” and
their German hosts. As another example, the New Year’s concert of the
Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra that is broadcast from Vienna to 90
countries is not only a musical start to the New Year but also a presen-
tation of Austrian music combined with ballet and impressions of the
most beautiful parts of the country. Not all cultural exchange requires
diplomatic support, but it can be helpful, even if the initial motive of
the cultural exchange was not of a diplomatic nature or initiated by
diplomacy.
Sports diplomacy is another multifaceted field. A country’s top
athletes are its ambassadors in the world of sports, as is evidenced
especially in large events like the Olympic Games or the world
championships of different disciplines. Such events have both an
internal effect, where the population –​or, rather, a smaller or larger
part, depending on the discipline –​follow the events closely and cheer
for their athletes, and an external effect, as the achievements of the
country’s top athletes boost its reputation. Athletes can reinforce this
effect through their behaviour and statements. Countries also strive
to host major sporting events, as they not only generate consider-
able indirect profit that can cover most of the costs of preparing and
hosting the event but can also boost the popularity and image of the
country and its population if they go well. An example of this is the
positive atmosphere during the 2006 Football World Cup in Germany.
Qatar plans to host the 2022 World Cup to attract attention as a com-
paratively young state.
Bilateral sporting events were also used during the Cold War to pre-
pare or initiate political rapprochement, such as between the United
States and the People’s Republic of China in the early 1970s, when
the US table tennis team was invited to visit China after the World
Championships in Japan. This strategy (often referred to as “ping-​
pong diplomacy”) was the catalyst for an improvement of diplomatic
relations and eventually led to a visit of US president Richard Nixon
to China. Conversely, political and diplomatic conflicts are sometimes
played out in the realm of sports, as with the Cold War-​motivated
boycott of the Olympic Games in Moscow in 1980 and Los Angeles in
1984 or the controversy around the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.
Conflicts can even be triggered by sports events, as was the case with the
“Football War” between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969, when vio-
lent clashes between fans of the two countries’ national teams at World
Cup qualifying matches brought long-​harboured political tensions to
a boil, culminating in the dissolution of diplomatic relations by El
Salvador and a short but intense war. A regional example of sports
10 Politics and diplomacy then and now

diplomacy in action is the Central European Diplomatic Football Cup,

which has been held since 1996 with teams representing the foreign
ministries of Germany, Austria, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic,
and Hungary, and which is hosted by a different one of the partici-
pating countries each year. Starting after the fall of the Iron Curtain
and continuing through the EU enlargement, the regular games are
another symbol of overcoming the past.
Religion is and has been a reason for war all too often throughout
history, particularly when it is used as a pretext for political ends.
Religious conflict in the Middle Ages, such as the Crusades, the
spread of Islam, and the many religious wars in Europe, are histor-
ical examples, and the conflict centring on the Rohingya minority in
Myanmar is a contemporary one. However, apart from the very old
diplomatic tradition of the Holy See being recognised as a sovereign
entity of international law, religion was not usually at the forefront of
diplomatic relations in the past. However, this has changed in recent
decades, with initiatives such as those of former Austrian foreign min-
ister Alois Mock, who began promoting interfaith dialogue in 1991
to foster the peaceful coexistence of different faiths, leading to regular
international interfaith conferences. The European External Action
Service, the EU’s diplomatic service, has been active in the realm of
religion and diplomacy for some years and offers seminars on the
topic, especially for European institutions.
There are, of course, other areas that are promoted or supported
through diplomatic channels, such as scientific cooperation, including
the exchange of students, researchers, and university lecturers, as well
as cooperation in international research projects, such as the experi-
mental nuclear fusion reactor ITER in France or the world’s largest
particle accelerator at CERN in Switzerland, which are made pos-
sible through the cooperation of a substantial number of countries.
However, discussing these areas in detail would go beyond the scope
of this introduction.

1.5 Politics and diplomacy: Responsibilities and

requirements
After reflecting on the development of international relations and
the current challenges at the international level, let us now look at
the professions and responsibilities of politicians and diplomats, and
how they may be distinguished from each other. Politicians who hold
important functions in the domain of foreign policy include but are
not limited to heads of state and government and ministers of external
affairs. Depending on the constitution of their country, they are gen-
erally accountable for their foreign policy decisions either directly to
the electorate or to the parliament elected by the voters. Diplomats are
 Politics and diplomacy then and now 11

generally permanently employed in the civil service of their country

and their task is to provide the foreign policy decision makers with
the best possible information and advice so that they may make and
implement decisions in the best interest of the country they represent.
This requires special training. Different countries have varying degrees
of separation between the political and diplomatic levels.
In 1754, the Austrian Empress Maria Theresa set an example that
other states would follow by founding the so-​called Oriental Academy,
which was the basis for the later establishment of the Consular
Academy and, after World War II, the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna.
Students of the Academy learned European languages as well as
Turkish, Persian, and Arabic, and after completing their training were
usually posted at the imperial embassy at the Sublime Porte in Istanbul
as interpreters and diplomats. Many of them went on to contribute to
making culture and literature from the Ottoman Empire and Persia
known in Austria and beyond.
Internationally, there are two different approaches to the organisa-
tion of diplomatic services, although hybrid forms exist as well. Some
foreign services expect their diplomats to specialise in a certain geo-
graphical area, country, or issue, such as human rights or disarma-
ment, and deploy them exclusively in that area. Other foreign services
prefer the generalist model, where diplomats are posted in different
countries and expected to familiarise themselves with different issues
in the course of their careers. All diplomatic services, however, have
one aspect in common. They require a high degree of mobility, with
frequent moves between work at headquarters at home and diplo-
matic posts abroad.
The work of diplomats and consuls, who also have important rep-
resentative functions for their country and responsibilities in the care
for citizens of their country of origin staying in the host country, is
governed by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
and the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations which, along with the
1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties, were negotiated in Vienna
and form part of the basic body of international treaties governing
international relations worldwide. This is by no means a coincidence.
As a neutral state located between East and West, Austria was a fre-
quent host to negotiations during the Cold War and actively promoted
the development of international law.
What these conventions from the 1960s do not show, however, is
how radically the profession of diplomat has changed over the last
two to three decades. With the end of the Cold War and the fall of
the Iron Curtain, the possibility of overcoming the division of Europe
seemed tangible. However, this euphoria was not to persist; disillu-
sionment quickly followed with the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the
ensuing wars.
12 Politics and diplomacy then and now

In addition to these enormous political changes, the daily life

of diplomats has changed profoundly as well. Computers have
displaced typewriters, diplomats no longer dictate their reports but
write them themselves, emails have replaced paper reports, and the
volume of correspondence has increased exponentially with the pos-
sibility of sending messages to a large number of recipients elec-
tronically. The Internet has completely changed the availability of
information and has made it easier to receive information even on
very distant events. Satellite television and, sometime later, global
social networks had a similar effect –​the political potential of the
latter has been evident at least since the so-​called Arab Spring of
2011. Social networks and Twitter have also found their way into
politics and public diplomacy and are now increasingly being used
as a means of communication even by heads of state. This has also
changed the nature of public relations work, as press officers hasten
to correct false statements or news reports. New media have sped up
the pace of communication and the news cycle, particularly in the
area of public relations.
But not only are we more interconnected in the digital realm; the
nature of travel has changed as well. Over the last decades, long-​
distance travel has become affordable for a much larger number of
people than ever before, which also means that when disaster strikes,
there are more people who need consular assistance. Economic
relations and trade are more interconnected than ever and require
more frequent diplomatic intervention. Globalisation has increased
the need for international cooperation. The number of states and of
international and regional organisations has increased considerably,
leading to more international conferences and bilateral meetings.
Digitalisation, globalisation, and growing interconnection have
increased the volume and pace of work required in international
relations. The work environment of diplomats has changed radically
to become more complex than in the past. But has this changed the
core competencies that make someone a good diplomat?
As skills a diplomat should possess, most people would be quick
to name the command of several languages, negotiating skills, social
etiquette, high social intelligence and sociability, the ability to quickly
grasp complex matters and situate them in a larger context, good
instincts and an understanding of human nature, politeness and tact,
as well as the ability to quickly acquire technical knowledge and cul-
tural understanding, and to adapt to new and sometimes unexpected
situations.
But there is more to being a good diplomat. As a representative of
their country, it is a diplomat’s responsibility to explain the positions
of the sending country to their counterparts in the receiving country
and to report home on the positions of the receiving country. The core
 Politics and diplomacy then and now 13

of their mission is to contribute to the positive development of bilat-

eral relations, i.e., to promote mutual understanding and facilitate
agreement between sending and receiving states in important matters.
This naturally includes building a good network of contacts in the
receiving state based on mutual trust. Of course, successful work
abroad also requires a good, strong relationship built on trust with
the colleagues in the capital city of one’s own country, as diplomats
also advise the central office of the diplomatic service at home to
help them make the right decisions. At times, a diplomat may also
suggest or even start their own initiatives, as circumstances allow.
In these aspects, the work of diplomats is not so different from that
of interpreters and translators, because diplomacy, too, at its core, is
about mediating between two –​or, in multilateral diplomacy, more –​
parties. The better a diplomat is able to understand the thoughts and
position of the other parties to the negotiations, the more successful
they will be. Such an approach can make it easier to find a creative or
pragmatic solution to a difficult situation, but requires a high degree
of mental flexibility and the willingness to assume the perspective of
one’s counterpart without questioning one’s own position. However,
one may also experience one’s own position differently when viewing
it from a different angle.
With the increased complexity of international relations in the age
of globalisation and inundation with news and information, some-
times in real time, the ability to distinguish the important from that
which is not important becomes essential. This requires the diplomat
to pause regularly to look at the big picture and reflect.
The rules of diplomatic relations are regulated by protocol and may
differ from country to country. The level of detail and complexity of
the protocol increases with the rank of the guest. State visits by the
head of state of another country are planned minutely and nothing
is left to chance, making for complex preparations. Working visits by
members of the government require less preparation, and day-​to-​day
interaction with government bodies in the receiving state are gener-
ally relatively uncomplicated once the necessary contacts have been
established.
We used Habermas’ modern interpretation of Kant’s “Perpetual
Peace” as our entry point into the understanding of the essential
questions of international relations beyond day-​ to-​
day business.
It allowed us to highlight some –​necessarily subjectively selected –​
moments from the history of the development of international relations,
foreign policy, and diplomacy. If this has succeeded in encouraging the
students reading this introduction to read up on the cited sources and
perhaps continue their own research and reflect on these and other
points, then it has fulfilled its purpose. Democratically responsible for-
eign policy needs not only good politicians and diplomats, but, as Kant
14 Politics and diplomacy then and now

wrote, above all citizens who are interested in international affairs and
consider them with critical thought, as they are conducted by their
mandate and on their behalf.

Note
1 This chapter exclusively reflects the author’s personal opinion and personal
legal assessment.

Study activities
1. Find out about the diplomatic services of your country and
the countries of your other working languages. How are they
organised? How/​where are diplomats trained? Are there any inter-
national organisations in these countries?
2. Find out about the diplomatic relations between the countries
of your working languages. Are they friendly or tense? Do they
have bilateral agreements? Are they part of the same multilateral
agreements or organisations?
3. Research the embassies of the country or countries of your
other working language(s) in your country and vice versa. Do
they organise any cultural activities, receptions, or public events
to represent their country in the host country? Do they have an
interpreting or language department?

Sources and further reading

Alley, R. (2004) Internal Conflict and the International Community. Wars
Without End? London: Routledge.
Anheier, H. and Themudo, N. (2002). “Führung und Management in
internationalen Mitgliederorganisationen,” in Frantz, C. and Zimmer,
A. (eds), Zivilgesellschaft international. Alte und neue NGOs. Opladen,
Leske + Budrich, pp. 303–​328.
Bsteh, A. (2013) Geschichte eines Dialoges: Dialoginitiativen St. Gabriel an
der Jahrtausendwende. Mödling, Verlag St. Gabriel.
Esherick, C., Baker R. E., Jackson, S., and Sam, M. (eds) (2017) Case Studies in
Sport Diplomacy. Morgantown, WV, West Virginia University.
Gehlen, A. (1961) Anthropologische Forschung. Zur Selbstbegegnung und
Selbstentdeckung des Menschen. Reinbek bei Hamburg, Rowohlt.
Gruber, S. (2014) “Educating Diplomats in Commodity Sciences at the K.K.
Consular-​ Academy,” in Chochol, A. and Szakiel, J. (eds), Commodity
Science in Research and Practice: Achievements and Challenges of
Commodity Science in the Age of Globalization. Krakow, Polish Society of
Commodity Science, pp. 131–​141.
 Politics and diplomacy then and now 15

Habermas, J. (1995) “Kants Idee des Ewigen Friedens –​aus dem historischen
Abstand von 200 Jahren,” Kritische Justiz, 28(3), pp. 293–​319.
Habermas, J. (1997) “Kant’s Idea of Perpetual Peace, with the Benefit of Two
Hundred Years’ Hindsight,” in Bohman, J. and Lutz-​Bachmann, M. (eds),
Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal. Cambridge, MA,
The MIT Press, pp. 113–​153.
Jahn, E. (2014) “Die wundersame Vermehrung der Nationalstaaten im
Zeitalter der Globalisierung,” in Frankfurter Montags-​Vorlesungen,
Politische Streitfragen in zeitgeschichtlicher Perspektive. Available at www.
fb03.uni-​frankfurt.de/​50725299/​ZSFraMoV27-​NET-​Nationalstaaten-​I-​
46.pdf? (accessed 1 November 2017).
Kant, I. (1991) Political Writings. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (2003) To Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. Indianapolis, IN,
Hackett Publishing.
Krishna-​Hensel, S. F. (2000) The New Millennium: Challenges and Strategies
for a Globalizing World. Aldershot, Ashgate.
Liessmann, K. P. (2010) Das Universum der Dinge. Zur Ästhetik des
Alltäglichen. Hamburg/​Vienna, Zsolnay.
Missoni, E. and Alesani, D. (2013) Management of International Institutions
and NGOs: Frameworks, Practices and Challenges. Hoboken, NJ, Taylor
and Francis.
Nygård, H. M. and Gates, S. (2013) International Area Studies Review: Special
issue on Sports Diplomacy, Politics, and Peace Building, 16(3).
Olinga-​Shannon, S., Barbesgaard, M., and Vervest, P. (2019) “The Belt and
Road Initiative (BRI): An ERPF Framing Paper.” Available at www.tni.
org/​en/​publication/​the-​belt-​and-​road-​initiative-​bri?gclid=Cj0KCQiA88X_​
BRDUARIsACVMYD917hHO6eI79dB1X9jk7jWMsiGBGRAPvYCy8_​
Our_​bgwtJR4EL9mWAaAhRVEALw_​wcB (accessed 11 January 2021).
Oneal, J. R. and Russett, B. (1999) “The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits
of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–​
1992,” World Politics, 52(1), pp. 1–​37.
Terminski, B. (2010) “The Evolution of the Concept of Perpetual Peace in the
History of Political-​Legal Thought,” Perspectivas Internacionales, 6(1), pp.
277–​291.
Uchatius, W. (2010) “Das Welthemd,” Die Zeit, 16 December. Available at
www.zeit.de/​2010/​51/​Billige-​T-​Shirts/​komplettansicht (accessed 11 January
2021).

Selected treaties on international law

Charter of the United Nations. Available at www.un.org/​en/​charter-​united-​
nations/​(accessed 11 January 2021).
Statute of the International Court of Justice. Available at www.icj-​cij.org/​en/​
statute (accessed 11 January 2021).
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Available at http://​legal.un.org/​ilc/​
texts/​instruments/​english/​conventions/​9_​2_​1963.pdf (accessed 11 January
2021).
16 Politics and diplomacy then and now

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Available at http://​legal.un.org/​ilc/​

texts/​instruments/​english/​conventions/​9_​1_​1961.pdf (accessed 11 January
2021).
Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. Available at https://​treaties.un.org/​
doc/​publication/​unts/​volume%201155/​volume-​1155-​i-​18232-​english.pdf
(accessed 11 January 2021).

Online sources
Chatham House (n.d.) “China’s Belt and Road Initiative.” Available at
www.chathamhouse.org/​topics/​chinas-​belt-​and-​road-​initiative-​bri?gclid=
Cj0KCQiA88X_ ​ B RDUARIsACVMYD-​ a 5WztDd2QzRoOUBuuzld
G0SmWB3P7VUxgO3WQs5Cs3-​I2PgIK6R0aAlYaEALw_​wcB (accessed
11 January 2021).
Cultural Relations Platform (n.d.) Available at www.cultureinexternalrelations.
eu/​(accessed January 2021).
Directorate-​General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (European
Commission) (2018) Sport Diplomacy. Identifying good Practices: A Final
Report to the European Commission. Publications Office of the European
Union. Available at https://​op.europa.eu/​en/​publication-​detail/​-​/​publica-
tion/​0efc09a6-​025e-​11e8-​b8f5-​01aa75ed71a1/​language-​en/​format-​PDF/​
source-​64573201 (accessed 11 January 2021).
European Commission (2017) Taking Action on the Central Mediterranean
Route: Managing Flows, Saving Lives. Malta Summit. Available at https://​
ec.europa.eu/​info/​publications/​taking-​action-​central-​mediterranean-​route_​
de (accessed 11 January 2021).
European Council (n.d.) “EU’s Response to the Terrorist Threat.” Available at
www.consilium.europa.eu/​en/​policies/​fight-​against-​terrorism/​ (accessed 11
January 2021).
European Union (n.d.) “The History of the European Union.” Available
at https://​europa.eu/​european-​union/​about-​eu/​history_​en (accessed 11
January 2021).
EU External Action Service (2016) “Religion in International Diplomacy:
Promoting Religious Literacy,” 23 September. Available at https://​eeas.
europa.eu/ ​ t opics/ ​ e nergy- ​ d iplomacy/ ​ 1 0373/​ r eligion-​ i n-​ i nternational-​
diplomacy-​promoting-​religious-​literacy_​es (accessed 11 January 2021).
Frontex (n.d.) “Migratory Map.” Available at https://​frontex.europa.eu/​along-​
eu-​borders/​migratory-​map/​ (accessed 11 January 2021).
Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (n.d.) Available at www.culturaldiplomacy.
org/​index.php?en_​abouticd (accessed 11 January 2021).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (n.d.) “Sixth Assessment
Report.” Available at www.ipcc.ch/​(accessed 11 January 2021).
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) (n.d.) Available
at www.icanw.org/​(accessed 11 January 2021).
KAICIID (n.d.) Available at www.kaiciid.org/​de (accessed 11 January 2021).
Mercator Institute for China Studies (2018) “Mapping the Belt and Road
Initiative: This is Where We Stand,” 7 June. Available at https://​merics.org/​
en/​analysis/​mapping-​belt-​and-​road-​initiative-​where-​we-​stand (accessed 11
January 2021)
 Politics and diplomacy then and now 17

Prokofieva, I. (2016) “5 Cultural Diplomacy Opportunities for Resolving

a Conflict,” Culture & Creativity, 27 April. Available at www.culture
partnership.eu/​en/​article/​cultural-​diplomacy-​opportunities (accessed 11
January 2021).
Schreiber, W. (2015) “Innerstaatliche Kriege seit 1945,” Bundeszentrale
für politische Bildung, 10 November 2015. Available at www.bpb.de/​
internationales/​weltweit/​innerstaatliche-​konflikte/​54508/​innerstaatliche-​
kriege-​seit-​1945 (22 March 2021).
Schulmeister, S. (2008) “Handelsdynamik und Preisschwankungen auf
Finanzmärkten und das Stabilisierungspotential einer Finanztransaktions­
s­teuer,” WIFO Monatsberichte 8/​2008, pp. 607–​626. Available at www.
wifo.ac.at/​jart/​prj3/​wifo/​resources/​person_​dokument/​person_​dokument.
jart?publikationsid=33285&mime_​type=application/​pdf (accessed 22
March 2021).
The Christian Muslim Dialogue (n.d.) Interreligious Dialogue of the
Religious-​ Theological Institute of St. Gabriel. University of Vienna.
Available at https://​se-​ktf.univie.ac.at/​forschung-​kooperationen/​christlich-​
muslimischer-​dialog/​(accessed 22 March 2021).
United Nations (2015) “Paris Agreement,” United Nations Treaty Collection,
12 December. Available at https://​treaties.un.org/​pages/​ViewDetails.
aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_​ n o=XXVII-​ 7 -​ d &chapter=27&clang=_ ​ e n
(accessed 11 January 2021).
United Nations (2019) “Autonomous Weapons That Kill Must Be Banned,
Insists UN Chief,” UN News, 25 March 2019. https://​news.un.org/​en/​story/​
2019/​03/​1035381 (accessed 22 March 2021).
United Nations (n.d.) “Funds, Programmes, Specialized Agencies and Others.”
Available at www.un.org/​en/​sections/​about-​un/​funds-​programmes-​specialized-​
agencies-​and-​others/​ (accessed 11 January 2021).
United Nations (n.d.) “Sustainable Development Goals for 2015–​ 2030.”
Available at www.un.org/​sustainabledevelopment/​sustainable-​development-​
goals/​(accessed 11 January 2021).
Vienna School of International Studies (n.d.) Available at www.da-​vienna.
ac.at/​en/​ (accessed 11 January 2021).
2 
Interpreting in politics
and diplomacy

The existence of thousands of languages worldwide makes unlimited

direct communication between speakers impossible. Translation and
interpreting have therefore always played a major role in mediating
communicative needs in practically all domains of social life. In brief,
the difference between the two is that translation refers to written
communication and interpreting to oral communication. Translators
work on the basis of material that is fixed, e.g., as printed text, which
allows them to revise their output, check it regularly against the source
text, and conduct research to produce a target text which is appro-
priate for its specified purpose. The work of interpreters, however, is
more time-​constrained.
A typical characteristic of interpreting is that the text is ephemeral.
The source text is generally impermanent and presented only once,
with the exception of a few modes. As a result, interpreting is typi­
cally characterised by a lack of time and limited opportunities to check
or correct the target text. Interpreting can be done in the consecu-
tive or simultaneous mode. In consecutive interpreting, the interpreter
reproduces the message in the target language after the speaker has
finished the original message, which is often a part of a longer text.
There is therefore only one person speaking at a time. Interpreters first
listen, and then speak, often using notes taken during the speaker’s turn
to support their memory. In simultaneous interpreting, the interpreter
conveys the original speaker’s message in the target language with a
short décalage, or time lag, while the speaker is still speaking, requiring
interpreters to listen and speak at the same time. At conferences, sim-
ultaneous interpreters often work in interpreting booths, and the
audience can hear their output via headphones. At smaller meetings,
interpreters may also whisper their rendition to their audience (usually
just one or two people unless using mobile interpreting equipment,
which consists of a highly sensitive microphone and headsets with
infrared receivers). This form of simultaneous interpreting is also
known as chuchotage, from the French chuchoter (“to whisper”).
Other forms of simultaneous interpreting include sight interpreting,
where the interpreter interprets a written document in real time, and
the hybrid form simultaneous consecutive, or sim-​consec, where the
 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy 19

interpreter takes consecutive notes with a smart pen or app that also
records the sound, allowing the interpreter to switch between written
and auditory input while interpreting after the speaker.
Translation and interpreting have been essential in politics and dip-
lomacy throughout history. A few historical examples illustrating the
significance of interpreting will suffice.

2.1 The relevance of interpreting in politics and

diplomacy
The 1945 Yalta Conference, the 1978 Camp David Summit, the
1995 Dayton Agreement, the 2018 Trump-​Kim Summit in Hanoi, the
regular G20 and G7/​8 Summits, the annual World Economic Forum
in Davos, the Brexit negotiations between the European Union (EU)
and the United Kingdom, and the many regular meetings of EU heads
of government and ministers –​meetings of the world’s most powerful
politicians, many of them historic moments and events of worldwide
impact and interest, rely on highly qualified interpreters, although they
mostly stay discreetly in the background, often just out of frame in
photographs and film, and often go unnoticed by the public. Today,
hardly a day goes by without meetings and conferences involving
politicians or diplomats, be it at the national level, in European Union
bodies, or in international organisations. To this we can add countless
expert meetings with highly specialised technical subject matters of
political or diplomatic import that also require interpreting –​anything
from agriculture and fisheries to economy and education. The many
facets of diplomacy, from trade negotiations to state visits, from sports
to culture, also demand a high degree of expertise from interpreters
with regards to terminology, rules, sports jargon, proper names, art
history, etc.
The historical examples, especially those documented in the biog-
raphies and memoirs of famous interpreters, are evidence that the
process of facilitating understanding has always considered the com-
patibility of the plans, goals, and interests of everyone involved.
Interpreters historically also took on other tasks by taking minutes or
acting as personal advisors or even serving as envoys themselves. Their
work was also strongly shaped by the ideology and people for whom
they interpreted as well as their own social status.
The historical relevance of interpreting in political and diplomatic
contexts is a topic that interpreting research has approached from
various angles (see, for example, Roland 1999, Takeda and Baigorri-​
Jalón 2016). It is assumed that even early tribes and peoples relied on
mediators to facilitate communication when they met. Until the 15th
century, interpreters even accompanied their rulers onto the battle-
field in times of war, making a clear distinction between diplomatic
20 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy

and military interpreting impossible. Some of the earliest evidence

of the presence of diplomatic interpreters can be found in Ancient
Egypt, where “royal messengers” who spoke several languages
were responsible for official external relations and delivered the
pharaoh’s missives to foreign rulers. They were often accompanied
by a “common interpreter,” who was of lesser importance than the
official “ambassador.” These first ambassadors and interpreters can
be seen in the famous relief scene from the tomb of regent and later
Pharaoh Horemheb in Memphis, which depicts the interpreter as a
dual figure that faces both ways. Later, in Ancient Greece and in the
time of the Roman Empire, people with language skills were also
used as ambassadors to convey important messages to foreign coun-
tries. There is also evidence of interpreter-​envoys in early imperial
China (Lung 2011). Thus the boundaries between the multilingual
mediator and the ambassador were fluid. Throughout the history
of interpreting in diplomacy, we see the use of people with varying
degrees of multilingual competence, who in some cases were even
persecuted because they were accused of being traitors or had to
deliver negative messages. Others were trusted personal advisors or
had tasks in addition to linguistic mediation and, because of their
language skills, influenced the contacts and relations with foreign
peoples or communities. The history of the conquest of the Americas
provides many examples of this. One of the most famous interpreters,
La Malinche, the interpreter of the Spanish conqueror Hernán Cortés,
provided valuable assistance in the negotiations between indigenous
tribes and the Spanish conquerors, but was also considered a traitor
to her people (Roland 1999).
The field of trade and trade relations has always been closely linked
to that of diplomacy. Early interpreters were often entrusted with far-​
reaching tasks in the field of trade and diplomacy. This is evidenced by
the Canadian interprètes résidents, who were highly efficient intermedi-
aries between the indigenous peoples and the European settlers and
traders, while at the same time acting as guides, explorers, diplomats,
and traders. All in all, the history of world diplomacy offers many
examples of the use of language mediators, whose tasks often went
beyond language mediation itself and who had a significant influence
on communication and diplomatic relations. Thus political and diplo-
matic interpreting is probably one of the original forms of dialogic lan-
guage and cultural mediation. While some of these interpreters of the
past fell into interpreting by virtue of their circumstances and multi-
lingualism, others were trained specifically for the job, such as the
Dragomans, who served as diplomatic interpreters for the Venetians
in the Ottoman Empire in the 16th and 17th centuries (Rothman
2009), or the official interpreters for Chinese, Japanese, Jurchen (later
Manchu), and Mongolian trained at the Bureau of Interpreters of the
 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy 21

Korean Chosŏn dynasty from 1392 until the end of the 19th century
(Sixiang 2014; Song 2001).
In the 20th century, political and diplomatic interpreting finally
developed into the forms we know today. The first multilingual nego-
tiations and conferences took place after World War I. In addition
to bilateral consecutive interpreting, the simultaneous mode was
introduced.
The most significant historical events of the 20th century that
required interpreting services were probably the Paris Peace Conference
of 1919, where 32 nations entered into discussions on peace treaties,
and the activities of the International Labour Organisation and the
League of Nations. After World War II, 21 nations negotiated at the
1946 Paris Conference, and the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes
trials took place. Communication at all these events was only possible
with the help of interpreters.
The latter half of the 20th century saw the founding of several inter-
national and supranational organisations dedicated to peacekeeping
and political and diplomatic activities. It was at this time also that
the interpreting profession began to organise itself. The International
Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) was founded in 1953,
which is still the only international association of interpreters, and
now has 3,000 members working in 90 countries. At the same time,
professional associations at the national level began to emerge, and are
still being founded today in some countries.

2.2 Institutionalisation of diplomatic relations

States communicate with each other at different levels. An important
part of this communication is the diplomatic service, which is usually
incorporated into a country’s foreign ministry. The basic provisions
governing diplomatic relations of states with each other today are
laid down in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (often
referred to as the Vienna Convention) of 1961. Some 190 states have
signed up to the Vienna Convention to date.
In a world of institutionalisation and globalisation, there are local
and global interests, and thus local and global political and diplomatic
talks. We can further distinguish between bilateral and multilateral
talks. At the supraregional and global levels, political and diplomatic
relations are primarily the subject of international and supranational
organisations and political institutions, such as the bodies of the
United Nations and the European Union. At the local level, diplomatic
activities fall within the sphere of state administration, and are usually
the purview of the heads of state and government and ministries.
The Vienna Convention provides that diplomatic relations between
states and embassies be established only by mutual agreement of the two
22 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy

states involved. These steps cannot be taken unilaterally. The respon-

sibilities of diplomatic missions are also regulated in the Convention,
including representing the sending state in the receiving state and
negotiating with the government of the receiving state. It also expli-
citly mentions that one function of a diplomatic mission is to gather
information about the situation in the receiving state by all lawful
means and to report on it to its own government. Furthermore, such
a mission protects the interests of its nationals in the receiving state,
for example, if a diplomatic agent is involved in criminal proceedings
in the receiving state. Among the functions of diplomatic missions, the
Convention mentions the promotion of friendly bilateral relations and
the development of economic, cultural, and scientific relations. This
function remains as important as ever, and states also set up their own
cultural institutes for an even greater effect.
Before the advent of modern communication technology, embas-
sies played a central role in communication between states. Today,
governments can follow events around the world through traditional
and social media, and direct contact with foreign governments
has become easier thanks to technology. Nevertheless, diplomatic
missions still have an important role to play. For one, it is easier to
get a good picture of the situation and the emotions on the ground
and to contextualise them politically –​this is the same reason
large media companies like to have permanent correspondents in
important locations. Additionally, missions are vital to communica-
tion in crisis situations. Therefore, it is still worthwhile to look at the
rules of diplomatic missions. The missions are, in a way, outposts of
ministries of foreign affairs in other countries –​although not every
country has an ambassador in every other country in the world. The
Vienna Convention also stipulates that the receiving state has the
right to refuse a certain person as head of mission (ambassador) of
another state. The sending state must then nominate another person
as ambassador.
Politicians and diplomats communicate in a variety of interaction
formats. Interaction formats of the highest diplomatic importance are
bilateral meetings between representatives of different states. A state
visit is a visit by a high-​ranking state representative to another state. At
an official state visit, the head of state is afforded the full honours of
the diplomatic protocol; in particular, they are received with military
honours and a state banquet is held. State visits have a stricter protocol
than working visits between heads of state, heads of government,
foreign ministers, or representatives of international organisations.
Because of their diplomatic significance and the elaborate programme,
heads of state generally only make one state visit to any given country
during their term of office, in contrast to official visits, working visits,
and other meetings.
 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy 23

Official bilateral meetings follow a precisely defined structure, the

diplomatic protocol. Diplomatic protocol has a very important role
and, to some extent, also determines how interpreting is organised at
official meetings. The protocol department is responsible for preparing
and organising visits and trips of high-​ranking state representatives to
ensure that everything runs smoothly. Everything is planned down to
the smallest detail and nothing is left to chance. The protocol depart-
ment arranges the dates and times of the visit, plans the schedule
in detail and provides the necessary logistics, as well as organising
catering or meals, receptions, and other events according to strictly
defined guidelines.
As a rule, security for state visitors is organised by the ministry
of the interior and the ministry of defence. Both guests of state and
accredited ambassadors can receive personal protection. Ministries
of defence usually maintain military diplomacy and security policy
relations at the global and local levels. At the global level, this includes
establishing military diplomacy relations, bilateral cooperation with
armed forces of other countries and managing cooperation in crises
and disasters, matters of transit and overflights, and military diplo-
matic courier services. Translators and interpreters are needed in all
these areas, as well as in early detection and conflict prevention, where
intelligence gathering is often involved. Many armed forces have their
own interpreting and translation staff, who are often members of
the military themselves, although some may be civilians as well. At
the local level, the tasks of the military include management of high-​
ranking visits as well as matters of military protocol and international
courtesy.
Diplomatic protocol provides the perfect framework and enables
a safe and pleasant atmosphere for political and diplomatic talks.
Diplomatic protocol usually fades into the background and is only
noticed in the event of mishaps or violations of protocol.
When German Chancellor Angela Merkel received her first state
visitor, the prime minister of Singapore, on 1 December 2005, he
was greeted with military honours. According to protocol, they were
supposed to halt in the middle of reviewing the guard of honour to
bow to the German flag before continuing. Chancellor Merkel did so,
but her guest, presumably unaware of the custom, continued without
stopping. She silently ignored this violation of protocol.

2.3 Contexts of communication and interpreting

In examining interpreting processes, it is important to distinguish the
type of discourse, i.e., whether the source text is monologic or dia-
logic in nature. Monologic texts are statements where one speaker
addresses their thoughts to several people, such as a speech, a lecture,
24 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy

or an address. They are typically planned in advance and speakers may

speak with or without a manuscript or teleprompter. For interpreters,
the most important characteristic of this type of text is that even when
speakers speak without a text, they try to adapt their expressions and
register to the level of written language. Another feature of importance
is that speakers are not interrupted, with the exception of perhaps the
phatic part of the speech, where they might be interrupted by applause
from the audience. However, there are exceptions to this practice; in
the British Parliament, it is customary to shout out one’s agreement or
disagreement with the person speaking, and interjections (and subse-
quent calls to order) are also common in other countries’ parliaments.
Dialogue, or discursive communication, in contrast, is characterised
by at least two people exchanging their thoughts on a topic over a
certain period of time, such as in discussions, conversations, or negoti-
ations. It may be prepared or spontaneous. This makes communication
thematically open and gives the participants opportunities to change
the direction of the dialogue to unexpected topics. An important part
of dialogue is nonverbal communication expressed through body lan-
guage; gestures, facial expressions, posture, and positioning are used
to react to the communicative situation and the other participant(s) in
the conversation.
Interpreters in politics and diplomacy work in different interaction
formats. This includes all areas in which representatives of different
countries or international institutions meet to establish, foster, or
redefine political or diplomatic relations and may range from mili-
tary and political to cultural and economic matters. At the multilateral
level, these are often conference-​like interaction formats where sim-
ultaneous interpreting is the predominant form of interpreting, while
bilateral meetings are often negotiations and discussions with consecu-
tive interpreting. What is unusual about them compared to regular
conferences and negotiations is that none of the persons involved
are speaking or acting on their own behalf but rather on behalf of
a political institution, a political party, or a state. Consequently, the
interpreter is not just facilitating communication between two people
speaking to each other, but between the political institutions they
represent.
The working methods of interpreters and the mode of interpreting
depend on the concrete situation and speakers, on whether they are
interpreting for one or several people, or how formal or informal
the meeting is. In negotiations or in meetings between two individ-
uals, only one interpreter is generally employed. In meetings where
two delegations face each other across the table, there might be one
interpreter for each delegation, as visiting delegations often bring
their own interpreter with them for the whole visit. Another setting is
official lunches and dinners, where both official speeches and private
 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy 25

conversations among delegates are interpreted. In addition to these

“official” communication situations, interpreters at state visits might
also be called upon to interpret conversations during a car ride or to
explain the plot of a play, opera, or ballet. Interpreters often take part
in the programme right from the start.
The interaction format can be that of a conversation or negotiations,
as is the case in private bilateral meetings between two heads of state
or government, bilateral talks with an extended range of participants,
or official lunches or dinners. These are settings where we use dialogue
interpreting. A statement by one person is generally followed by others
in response to it, and the main mode of interpreting is consecutive and
is usually done into both directions. However, the format can also be
that of a conference, e.g., the speeches or press conferences that often
follow international meetings. The communication situation in this
case is that of a text presented as a monologue at the conference, with
the speaker addressing several people at once. Communication in this
case is unidirectional, although it may be followed by questions or a
discussion, which is bidirectional. This can be the case at multilateral
meetings of representatives of different countries, such as at meetings
of EU institutions or UN organisations, as well as bilateral negoti-
ations or talks between individual representatives or delegations of
two states. Depending on the situation, both simultaneous –​in booths
for conference-​like formats or as chuchotage in dialogic settings –​and
consecutive interpreting –​in dialogic settings but also for speeches –​
may be used.
Interpreters have at least two (often more) working languages. The
International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) categorises
these into active and passive languages, with active languages being
those interpreters have an excellent command of and work into, and
passive languages being those they understand perfectly but do not
speak as well, and therefore do not interpret into. The interpreter’s
first language is referred to as their “A language,” other active working
languages are referred to as “B languages,” while passive languages
are “C languages.” Some international organisations, such as the EU
or the UN, prefer their simultaneous interpreters to work into their
A language. However, in dialogue settings, interpreters typically work
in both directions between their A and B languages. With increasing
mobility, migration, and multilingualism, the number of interpreters
with more than one A language is growing, as well as people whose
first language may have been replaced by another that they use pro-
fessionally. It is only a matter of time until the norms of professional
associations and international organisations will be updated to reflect
this new reality.
Consecutive interpreting remains the standard mode in dialogic
communication situations. In the consecutive mode, the interpreter
26 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy

first listens to the source-​language text given by the original speaker

and afterwards, i.e., consecutively, interprets it into the target lan-
guage. As the interpreting is done after the source text or at least part
of it is delivered, interpreters memorise it temporarily using specific
techniques. Memorisation is generally aided by notes. The sequence of
alternating between listening and interpreting is the key characteristic
of consecutive interpreting. Often, the speaker says everything they
intend to say before being interpreted, but sometimes a longer speech
may be divided into shorter segments. The statements to be interpreted
are complete units of meaning and can range in length from one word
or sentence to several minutes of speech.
Consecutive interpreting can itself be divided into different subtypes.
Which type is chosen depends on the type of communication (e.g.,
conversation, negotiation, or presentation) and the interpreting needs
of the participants. Dialogue interpreting is the original form of con-
secutive interpreting and this term is often used for distinction from
conference interpreting, which is predominantly monologic. Dialogue
interpreting generally refers to communicative situations in which
there is consecutive interpreting but that are not typical conference
settings. The situation is generally one of face-​to-​face communica-
tion where all participants, including the interpreter, are present in
the same room. Typical cases where dialogue interpreting is used are
negotiations and talks with a limited number of participants and
only two languages. In such small settings, interpreters often inter-
pret into both directions. However, there are also situations where two
interpreters are present. In this case, there is generally one interpreter
for each side and each interprets into one direction only –​usually,
but not always, into their A language. Even in multilateral conference-​
type settings, where simultaneous interpreting is the dominant form,
there are many situations where consecutive interpreting is preferred,
such as at small, formal events or if only one speech at the conference
needs to be interpreted. Here, too, the interpreter is physically present.
In contrast to dialogue interpreting, however, communication is not
bidirectional, and so interpreters generally only interpret in one direc-
tion, usually into their A language. The length of the source text can
vary here as well, ranging from complete uninterrupted statements to
long speeches that are divided into several segments with breaks for
interpreting. In the first case the interpreter provides a rendition of a
complete statement; in the other, the interpreter interprets segments
whose length is determined by the speaker.
In addition to consecutive interpreting with or without note-​taking,
political and diplomatic interpreting often uses the simultaneous mode
in the form of chuchotage. This has many advantages as it allows the
parties to the conversation to perceive both the verbal and the nonverbal
components of the message at the same time, it does not interrupt the
 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy 27

flow of communication, and it saves time. It is also popular in particu-

larly confidential meetings where no notes are allowed. In chuchotage,
the interpreter provides simultaneous interpreting by speaking in a
low voice directly into the ear of the person they are interpreting for
or using mobile interpreting equipment, which allows them to sit in
the same room and interpret in a low voice.
The choice of the interpreting mode depends on the number of
participants and the agenda; extended talks and official lunches
or dinners might be interpreted consecutively, while simultan-
eous interpreting is generally preferred for longer events, provided
interpreting booths or mobile interpreting equipment are available
(however, the focus of this volume is on interpreting outside the booth).
In some situations, one interpreter might interpret in both directions,
while in others, both sides might provide their own interpreter. The way
interpreting is organised in a given situation depends on the number
of interpreters and what the protocol requires. Some states consider an
interpreter an indispensable part of a delegation, while others do not
and might not bring their own interpreter. As a result, an interpreter
might end up interpreting both ways or only into their A language.
The number of interpreters and their nationality of course also
depends on the trust placed in them. Interpreters are sometimes
perceived as a security risk, especially in times of crisis, when their
task is to enable communication between parties on different sides
of a conflict. We shall illustrate this with some historical examples.
The US diplomat John A. Kasson, who served as envoy extraordinary
and minister plenipotentiary to Austria-​Hungary between 1877 and
1881, complained to Congress that national interests often had to be
entrusted to foreigners due to the lack of American interpreters or
people with the appropriate language skills. Another example of mis-
trust of interpreters is related by Paul Schmidt, chief interpreter at
the German Foreign Office between 1923 and 1945, in his autobiog-
raphy (Schmidt and Moorhouse 2016). In Nazi Germany, he was once
forbidden to hand over his notes of a conversation between Hitler
and the British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, to the latter,
which prompted the British to bring their own interpreter to the next
meeting. Until then, many representatives, both British and French,
had never brought their own interpreters to meetings with National
Socialist politicians and had always relied on the services of Paul
Schmidt, which he considered a mark of confidence.
A very different picture is painted by Ivan Ivanji (2007), the inter-
preter of the former Yugoslavian president Josip Broz Tito. In his
memoirs, he tells of the familiarity and trust that not only his head
of state but also foreign politicians and diplomats had in him. In the
1960s and 1970s, Ivanji accompanied President Tito to meetings with
politicians from the German-​speaking world.
28 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy

Photo 2.1 Differences and similarities in protocol. Arrival ceremony for Josip Broz
Tito at the White House with Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, 1978.

At the time, global politics was shaped by the East–​West conflict of

the Cold War, in which the United States and the Soviet Union, each
with their respective allies, watched each other suspiciously and built
up systems of nuclear deterrence. Yugoslavia was a socialist country
but not part of the Eastern Bloc –​in fact, it was one of the founding
members of the Non-​Aligned Movement. Despite being the head of a
comparatively small state, Tito was well respected internationally. His
firmly antifascist stance and biography made him popular with the
West, and he shared the commitment to a communist economy with
the East. His personality made Tito one of the most important
mediators between the blocs during the Cold War.
Austria was a neutral state shaped by its long-​ term chancellor
Kreisky, who headed the government from 1970 to 1983 and played
an active role in world politics, for example, by mediating in the
Middle East. Germany was still divided as a result of World War II.
While the Federal Republic of Germany (or “West Germany,” as it was
often referred to), which was oriented towards the West, experienced
an economic upswing, the German Democratic Republic (GDR, or
“East Germany”) was a satellite state of the then Soviet Union with
all the restrictions on civil liberties this entailed. Tito met with the
great statesmen of his time, such as West German Chancellor Willy
Brandt and Bruno Kreisky, but also with the GDR head of state Erich
Honecker. Ivanji was always at Tito’s side as his interpreter.
 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy 29

When we speak of interpreting in political and diplomatic contexts

we need to be aware that these contexts are highly complex, both in
terms of subject area and setting. Politicians do not speak about “pol-
itics” as a monolithic topic, but rather about a range of specialised
topics that concern politics and policies, such as the economy, national
security, health, education, agriculture, etc. With regard to settings,
politicians may meet in government or administration buildings, e.g.,
when the minister of economic affairs of one country welcomes their
counterpart from another country for bilateral talks at the ministry, or
when a head of state receives a state visit at the official residence. A visit
by a foreign delegation interested in the host’s healthcare system might
also include a visit to a hospital, or the minister of defence might travel
abroad to a country in which a civil war is going on to discuss support
for ending the war. In all these contexts, interpreters will be involved.
Interpreters may thus find themselves not only in meeting rooms, but
also in hospitals and schools, inside nuclear power plants and waste
treatment facilities, and even in war zones. This means that they need
to have the subject-​specific knowledge and terminology for the specific
topic and also be able to adapt to the respective situational demands.
During a state visit, everyone involved in the communication,
including the interpreters, can be expected to perform their tasks
in such a way that there is no visible power difference between the
interlocutors (in contrast to other institutionalised interpreting settings,
such as asylum authorities or the justice system, where this is fre-
quently the case). In politics and diplomacy, we can generally assume a
symmetrical communicative setting between –​at least overtly –​equal
partners. In the case of interpreting for institutions, one party usu-
ally leads the conversation and the exchange of information, so that
interpreters often have to balance extremely different expectations,
knowledge, and goals. Although power and positioning certainly play a
role in most dialogic situations, we can assume that it is not as obvious
in political or diplomatic interpreting, or that if there is a difference in
power or status between the parties, it is smaller. Heads of state or gov-
ernment, ministers, or diplomats participating in such meetings gener-
ally have the same or a comparably high-​ranking status and have the
same or similar knowledge. Shared knowledge of the interlocutors is
a fundamental prerequisite for successful negotiations and successful
communication. This shared knowledge, which ideally the interpreters
share as well, encompasses current and/​or historical events in inter-
national politics, knowledge of geopolitical factors, alliances and pos-
sible conflicts, the domestic politics of various countries, the subject of
the current meeting, and diplomatic protocol. It is also important for
all participants to be aware of the background, life, and work of their
interlocutors, as will be discussed in the section on preparation (6.1).
30 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy

2.4 Language and communicative behaviour

Communication defines and governs humans and their social
relationships. Language transports information and emotion and can
have a unifying or dividing power. We see language primarily as a tool
that we use to speak or write. What we say or write is constructed
following certain rules and allows us to present even complex matters
in their component parts in a way that allows the other person to
understand the meaning as a whole. The more specific language is, be
it because of the degree of technicality or convention, the stronger its
symbolic power. This manifests in text types and conventions. Text
conventions tell us how communication can, should, and must not
work, they tell us how to express ourselves in a given field of expertise
or situation, and they tell us what not to say.
What we say or understand can be viewed from different angles;
it can be similar or different. Language can be perceived as a spe-
cial form of action, not only in the context of politics and diplomacy.
The objective of communication is to influence thinking and action
in certain social relationships. Political and diplomatic communica-
tion have their own typologies, their own specific characteristics, and
their own discourse. Communication in this domain is shaped by cul-
tural references, linguistic conventions, and the individual styles of the
interlocutors. Originally, diplomatic and political communication was
concerned with defence or acquiring resources to overcome potentially
dangerous situations. The form of communication of each country
was and still is influenced by a country’s cultural self-​image and its
political system. Language is thus a dynamic part of communication
and interpersonal relationships.
Whereas politicians may sometimes speak aggressively or be openly
manipulative, diplomatic communication is tactful, sensitive, and cir-
cumspect. Words are not used carelessly in politics and diplomacy, but
rather chosen tactically to achieve a specific goal. Diplomatic speech has
a particular rhythm and specific manners and rhetorical devices, and
at times even a repetitive structure. The wording of diplomatic speech
preserves the face of the speaker’s counterpart so that they can react in
a suitable way, and at the same time it protects the speaker, the “mes-
senger” or ambassador, from having to assume responsibility for the
impact of their words. It transcends cultural boundaries and becomes
a new form of communication that not only conveys messages but also
charms, convinces, and persuades the interlocutor to find an agreement
with the speaker. Diplomatic communication attempts to highlight the
advantages of coming to an agreement and the disadvantages of a
failure to do so. In this respect, diplomats have much in common with
lawyers. As research in the field of court interpreting shows, there are
similarities between these two institutionalised types of interpreting
 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy 31

(politics/​diplomacy and courts), in particular in the use of language,

in the ritualised procedures and forms of communication, and in the
expectations these set for the interpreter.
The Ancient Greeks already placed much weight on the import-
ance of language in politics and diplomacy. Diplomats’ voices and
their style of speaking were so essential for the success of the mission
that they would also perform as actors, professional orators, and
entertainers. Aeschines (389–​314 bc), one of the greatest Attic orators
of antiquity, considered it the greatest shame for an individual and
a state if a diplomat could not express themselves well. This great
importance attached to oratory shows that the Greeks considered dip-
lomatic representatives not simply ambassadors, but something akin
to lawyers who could argue a point in front of the assembled citizenry.
Plutarch (46–​125 ad) called on rulers who were not linguistically
gifted to choose someone better qualified in this domain to accom-
pany them on diplomatic missions. This has not changed much over
the course of history –​language usage in diplomacy remains essential.
It is not just a simple means of conveying ideas, not just a method
of communication, but the main instrument of diplomacy. Words are
chosen deliberately, all nuances of meaning carefully controlled. Both
semantics (concerning meaning) and pragmatics (concerning the use
of language in context) have a stronger impact than in other areas of
communication.
Over time, a kind of universal language has developed in diplo-
macy that allows states to define relations and express the degree of
friendship, irritation, or annoyance with another state. To illustrate
this, we will look at the use of language and the possible ways of dealing
with a foreign ambassador. When a state invites a foreign ambassador
to a meeting, this is the gentlest form of criticism. It signals that the
receiving state sees a need for face-​to-​face communication, but does
not yet imply serious displeasure. By comparison, when the receiving
state summons an ambassador, this is an expression of severe dis-
pleasure. Summonses are rare and therefore noteworthy –​a clear indi-
cation that the receiving state is very irritated and displeased. The third
and final escalation stage in communication with the ambassador is
the expulsion of an ambassador or the instruction to the sending state
to recall the ambassador. This occurs extremely rarely, but is provided
for in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and any state
can declare a head of mission persona non grata.
While the receiving state has these three levels of communication,
the sending state essentially only has one way to express its dis-
pleasure, which is to recall its own ambassador. This form of pro-
test is an expression of serious displeasure and occurs rarely. A less
drastic measure would be to invite or summon the other state’s ambas-
sador in one’s own country. The last and strongest measure would be
32 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy

the complete termination of diplomatic relations, which is, however,

extremely rare.
A noteworthy characteristic of the language of politics and diplo-
macy is that not everything is said directly; it is a language of allusions
and nuances, figures of speech, and proverbs, which are part of the
permanent repertoire of politicians and diplomats. Politics and dip-
lomacy are closely connected to interpreting in several meanings of
the word. Interpreting, or understanding, the meaning of a message
is an integral part of the work of text-​based professions. This also
applies to the political and diplomatic professions, which seek to bring
different parties who have different positions and objectives together.
These activities are deeply embedded in communication processes, and
are close to the work of interpreters when it comes to cross-​lingual and
cross-​border communication. In this context, the function and respon-
sibility of the diplomatic interpreter is especially heightened.
Language frames diplomacy, shapes relations, and determines the
rules of the game. At the same time, language is created by humans and
influenced by historical changes, as well as cultural, social, and tech-
nical developments. Diplomats strive to use words that are acceptable
to both sides. People often say that politics and diplomacy are all about
words, and sometimes it can actually be about individual words. In
general, however, words cannot be considered in isolation, but should
always be seen as part of a (con)text, a discourse in a communicative
situation, in which they are ideally used to reach an agreement that is
acceptable to all sides.

2.5 Text, communication, and interaction

In specific communicative contexts, texts can fulfil various functions
and belong to various text types, or genres. Text typology has long
been an object of study in linguistics. In the 1930s, the Austrian linguist
Karl Bühler proposed the so-​called organon model, which shows three
functions of human language: representation, expression, and appeal.
Building on findings from the social sciences, the Russian-​American
linguist and semiotician Roman Jakobson expanded this model in the
1960s by adding the phatic function. This term had been coined in the
1920s by the functionalist Bronislaw Malinowski, who defined phatic
communication, or “phatic communion,” as a type of communication
where merely exchanging words, often pleasantries, creates common
ground and understanding.
Functional translation studies later adopted these models. Katharina
Reiß (2004) developed a translation-​specific text typology describing
the informative, expressive, and operative text types. Christiane Nord
(2005) expanded this typology by adding the phatic type. This typ-
ology, which was originally developed for translation, can largely also
 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy 33

be applied to interpreting. The text type is determined by the commu-

nicative goal, and the text function determines how the form and con-
tent of the text are shaped. We will therefore look at the language of
politics and diplomacy first as a text that can be classified according to
its communicative purpose; is it primarily about discussing facts, is it a
question of style, or is the purpose to convince or persuade someone?
If an issue is discussed at a bilateral or multilateral meeting based on
technical and factual arguments and the participants are jointly trying
to find solutions, the text is predominantly informative. Informativity
in communication can fulfil one or several functions. It can report a
phenomenon or an event, describe or explain it, or give an instruction.
From the domain of politics, oral and written texts related to protests
can be given as examples. A report about a demonstration or a polit-
ical rally in a town can have a reporting or a describing function. If it is
combined with an analysis which deals with the history of protests, the
text has an explanatory function. A text informing on the correct way
of registering a rally has an instructive function, and a decree which
prohibits a demonstration has a declarative function.
Expressiveness is manifested in the (highly socio-​ culturally
conventionalised) linguistic behaviour with which speakers express
their social relationship with their addressees/​communicative partners.
The degree of expressiveness concerns the intensity of the expressed –​
subjective or non-​subjective –​attitudes, wishes, emotions, or passions.
The main feature of predominantly expressive communication is that
it includes a large amount of individual, subjective, playful, or artistic
elements and expresses, above all, emotions of the speaker.
An appeal is often included, albeit implicitly, in expressive and
informative texts. The main aim of appeal-​ dominant communica-
tion is to make the receiver/​addressee react in a specific way to the
sender’s message. An example could be speeches during electioneering
campaigns with which people are to be won over to cast their votes for
a specific political party. Another example is a call to order in parlia-
ment, with which the implementation of behaviour is regulated.
The phatic function co-​ occurs with the informative, expressive,
and appellative functions. Phatic communication defines the relation-
ship between the communicative partners. Its degree depends on the
communicative aim and on the interpersonal relations of speaker and
addressee.
Based on these definitions, we can now describe the factors that
contribute to the success of communication in political and diplomatic
settings. Successful communication in these settings has a specific struc-
ture, consisting of an initial phase, usually phatic in nature, leading to
the core of the conversation, where information and arguments are
exchanged, usually with a persuasive touch. Here we have alternating
sequences whose language use follows certain conventions: small talk,
34 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy

speaking, listening, dialogue, possibly also monologue. Finally, the

conversation or negotiation is concluded using ritualised language,
similar to the beginning, with the relationship level reflected in the
phatic content.

2.6 Interpreter alignment
Any interpreted event happens in a particular context, which means that
interpreting is a socially situated practice, a socially situated communica-
tive event. The interpreter is a participant in the communication but not
a primary communicator. Nevertheless, the interpreter also contributes
to the social interaction and construction of meaning, equally in polit-
ical and diplomatic contexts. The meanings of words and utterances are
constructed by the listener as the result of the intentions and strategies of
the speaker. In interpreted face-​to-​face interactions, interpreters switch
constantly between being a listener and a speaker.
The social dimension of interpreted interactions has been of interest
to interpreting researchers over the last decades. Such research focuses
predominantly on dialogue interpreting, where there tends to be
more social interaction between the participants than in conference
interpreting. To ensure successful communication, different social elem-
ents of a communicative situation need to be considered –​especially the
possibilities and limits of interpreters’ action space. Interpreters make
communication possible by performing two actions at once: trans-
ferring the content into another language and coordinating the con-
versation implicitly or explicitly. The presence of an interpreter turns
an interaction between two parties into one between three, referred
to as a triad. The interpreter is not merely a go-​between or conduit
between the two primary communicators but a supporting actor in
the communication. Their task is a different one than that of the pri-
mary communicators, but they too use communication strategies and
have some power in the situation. They cannot influence the conver-
sation by adding or changing topics, asking questions of their own,
expressing their opinion, or giving advice, but they are nevertheless
part of the communication process and, for example, ask questions or
intervene in ways that are necessary to make communication possible.
One of the difficulties lies in determining the degree of involvement
that is acceptable and necessary. There is a certain ambiguity to this;
on the one hand, interpreters risk not meeting the needs of either party
if they do too little; on the other, they have a certain degree of power
insofar as they can influence the direction and outcome of the con-
versation. Interpreting, like translation, can be described as a specific
kind of (inter)action, and each action has its specific purpose. This is
captured in Holz-​Mänttäri’s concept of translatorial action. Instead
of referring to a prescriptive “role” of the interpreter, the work and
 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy 35

behaviour of interpreters can be described as taking place within action

spaces. The action space is the framework in which an interpreter
moves throughout the interaction and presents the source-​language
information in a way that ensures comprehension and smooth com-
munication, moving between preserved and customised interpreting
as needed. Always taking into account the current situation and
developments, the interpreter coordinates their own action plans with
those of the other participants. This includes not just the rendition
of the source text in the target language but rather the interpreter’s
ability to assess where individual actors are behaving or acting in
ways that are not comprehensible to those who speak a different lan-
guage, and to present the information and emotions conveyed therein
in a way that is functional and appropriate. The concept of role space
(Llewellyn-​Jones & Lee 2013) takes into account that interpreters are
constantly making decisions that depend on the situation, the com-
municative context and the participants. Throughout an interpreted
interaction, they move in the dimensions of self-​referential action and
interaction management, always taking into account the communica-
tive needs of the participants in a multipartial way, as will be discussed
below (our terminology differs here from that of Llewellyn-​Jones and
Lee, who speak of presentation of self, interaction management, and
participant alignment). When an interpreter asks someone to repeat
something or manages turn-​taking, they are managing the interaction.
Self-​referential action is when the interpreter introduces themselves or
says something as themselves rather than interpreting the words of a
participant, for example, when communicating their own needs and
asking for support. Self-​referential action also includes actions that
are part of the interpreter’s preparation for an assignment, such as
research or briefings before the assignment. The latitude interpreters
have in each of these dimensions depends on the situation. In a highly
formal setting, for example, the interpreter may have very little leeway
for interaction management, but might still ask for clarification,
while in the relaxed atmosphere of an informal dinner where people
are talking over each other, the interpreter may do more to manage
interaction. Self-​referential action in the interpreting situation is usu-
ally limited to communicating one’s needs and asking for support for
one’s work. There is usually little space for self-​referential action in
the interpreting situation proper, but interpreters may be expected to
engage in small talk or answer questions before or after interpreting.
Throughout the interaction, interpreters move within the space created
along these dimensions. No matter what the exact setting or configur-
ation of participants, interpreters always have a multi-​party alignment
in that they share responsibility for the communication in the overall
setting and, therefore, consider the communicative interests of all
participants equally.
36 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy

In most areas where dialogue interpreting is used, such as negoti-

ations, interviews, and interrogations, the interaction structure is that
of a triad. While this is a common constellation in political and dip-
lomatic interpreting as well, it is not the only one. A bilateral meeting
can take place between two interlocutors or two larger delegations.
Triads and tetrads have a different flow of communication, and
different interpreting modes can be used. The number of parties can
also be larger, resulting in various multi-​party constellations.
In triads, where one person interprets during a conversation, the
interpreter can either interpret consecutively in both directions or alter-
nate between consecutive interpreting and simultaneous chuchotage.
In constellations where each side brings their own interpreter, they
divide the labour in such a way that they support and complement
each other. The advantage of having two interpreters present at a pol-
itical or diplomatic meeting is that each one interprets for only one
party, i.e., in one direction. It also adds a sense of security for the
interpreters, who know that their colleague across the table can take
over or help out in an emergency. Typically, each one will interpret
consecutively into one language, although it is also possible for both to
do chuchotage, or for one to do consecutive and the other chuchotage.
The latter situation is common at press conferences given after high-​
level meetings, where the visiting dignitary’s words are interpreted into
the host country’s language consecutively for the press, while the host’s
words and press questions are whispered simultaneously for the vis-
itor. It can also be used when one side consists of a larger delegation
and only one person on the other side needs interpreting.
Settings in diplomacy and politics vary considerably. Bilateral or
multilateral talks can take place with just one interpreter, as in the
case of peace talks where the politicians on both sides of the conflict
speak the same language and the mediator speaks a different one. In
this case, we have a tetrad consisting of two conflict parties, a medi-
ator, and an interpreter. Multilateral talks with a number of partici-
pating states but only two languages are also possible, such as talks
between Latin American countries, where Spanish and Portuguese are
spoken. Here, we would also have several parties at the table and only
one interpreter.
The constellation can also become larger by adding more interpreters.
For example, one of the diplomats interviewed for this volume
explained that trust and familiarity with terminology were among the
reasons why using two interpreters was sometimes preferred.

Communication via interpreters is very much a matter of trust and

I’ve often seen that two interpreters were organised, for example,
when you have talks about cross-​border cooperation (…) I often,
even if the other side offered good interpreters, opted to bring our
 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy 37

own interpreters who we trust and who also know our internal
terminology.

In literature we often read about the “impartiality” of the interpreter.

We prefer to speak of multipartiality, with the interpreter being on
everyone’s side equally. Interpreters act in the interests of all parties to
the discussion without becoming personally involved, and may some-
times coordinate or moderate to ensure fair communication, without
directing the communication towards a specific goal. By maintaining
a professional distance and presenting everyone’s viewpoint equally,
interpreters inspire confidence and gain the trust they need. The greater
the trust, the wider their scope for action.
As speakers, interpreters produce texts that are appropriate for the
specified purpose and in compliance with the norms of the target lan-
guage, with a focus on function and interaction, and also take on a
coordinating role in the conversation. This complex activity can influ-
ence the course and content of the interaction, regulate it, create a
common focus for the interaction, etc. Only in a functioning triad or
tetrad can successful communication take place. Meaning is created
together rather than by a single speaker. The meaning of communi-
cation or speech requires the mutual understanding between those
involved in the communicative event. Thus, utterances always have
several functions, which they fulfil in different interaction contexts. The
basic assumption here is that communication has a specific function
within a system, which fulfils specific tasks within that system and is a
prerequisite for stability in communication. The success of communi-
cation is regarded as a common achievement or product. At the same
time, however, interpreters generally do not engage at the interper-
sonal relationship level, leaving it to the primary communicators.

Study activities
1. Research which professional associations exist in your home
country and in the country/​ countries of your other working
language(s). When were they founded? What are their main aims
and activities?
2. Explore how the diplomatic service is structured in your home
country and in the country/​countries of your working language(s).
Who is responsible for organising interpreting services?
3. Familiarise yourself with the content of the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations. What does it say about diplomatic protocol,
and what consequences does this have for interpreting?
4. Research which bodies in the country/​countries of your working
language(s) are responsible for arranging the programme of a state
visit, including providing for the security of the visitor.
38 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy

5. We referred above to a relief scene from the tomb of Pharaoh

Horemheb in Memphis, which shows the interpreter as a dual
figure that faces both ways. Search for a photo of this tomb and
for other depictions of interpreters and discuss what image of
interpreters they signal.
6. Working in groups of at least three, play out small scenarios that
can occur in diplomatic interpreting, such as bilateral talks during
state visits, negotiations, and formal or less formal dinners. Try
out different constellations: two parties and one interpreter; two
parties and two interpreters; multiple parties and one or more
interpreters. How do the dynamics change depending on the con-
stellation? How do the interpreters cooperate and interact in a
tetrad? Is this different if the relationship between the parties is
friendly or adversarial? When is consecutive interpreting more
suitable, and when can you use chuchotage? How does this affect
the dynamics?

Sources and further reading

Baigorri-​Jalón, J. (2000) “Two Centuries of Diplomatic Interpreting: From
Top Hat To Short Sleeves Diplomacy,” UN Chronicle, 37(1), pp. 84–​85.
Baigorri-​Jalón, J. (2017) “Autobiography or History? Ji Chaozhu, an
Interpreter in Mao’s China,” in Andres, D., Kaindl, K., and Kurz, I. (eds),
Dolmetscherinnen und Dolmetscher im Netz der Macht: Autobiographisch
konstruierte Lebenswege in autoritären Regimen. Berlin: Frank & Timme,
pp. 253–​274.
Baker, M. (2010) “Interpreters and Translators in the War Zone: Narrated and
Narrators,” The Translator, 16(2), pp. 197–​222.
Baranyai, T. (2011) “The Role of Translation and Interpretation in the
Diplomatic Communication,” Journal of Translation and Interpretation,
5(2), pp. 2–​12.
Berezhkov, V. M. (1994) At Stalin’s Side: His Interpreter’s Memoirs from the
October Revolution to the Fall of the Dictator’s Empire. New York, Carol
Publishing Group.
Bowen, D. and Bowen, M. (eds) (1990) Interpreting: Yesterday, Today, and
Tomorrow. Binghamton, NY, SUNY Press.
Bühler, K. (1934) Sprachtheorie. Jena, Fischer.
Grünberg, M. (2002) “Konsekutiv und hochoffiziell. Diplomatisches
Dolmetschen,” in Kurz, I. and Moisl, A. (eds), Berufsbilder für Übersetzer
und Dolmetscher: Perspektiven nach dem Studium. Vienna, WUV-​Univ.-​
Verl, pp. 165–​169.
Holz-​Mänttäri, J. (1984) Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode,
Helsinki, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Ivanji, I. (2007) Titos Dolmetscher. Als Literat am Pulsschlag der Politik.
Vienna, Promedia.
Jakobson, R. (1960) “Linguistics and Poetics,” in Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in
Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 350–​377.
 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy 39

Ji, C. (2008) The Man on Mao’s Right: From Harvard Yard to Tiananmen
Square. My Life Inside China’s Foreign Ministry. New York, Random House.
Kadrić, M., Kaindl, K., and Reithofer, K. (2019) Translatorische Methodik.
Basiswissen Translation. Vienna, Facultas.
Kadrić, M. and Kaindl, K. (eds) (2016) Berufsziel Übersetzen und Dolmetschen.
Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
Kadrić, M. (2017) “Dichter, Diplomat, Dolmetscher: Titos Dolmetscher Ivan
Ivanji,” in Andres, D., Kaindl, K., and Kurz, I. (eds), Dolmetscherinnen
und Dolmetscher im Netz der Macht: Autobiographisch konstruierte
Lebenswege in autoritären Regimen. Berlin, Frank & Timme, pp. 193–​211.
Kadrić, M. (2019) “ ‘According to the Protocol, We Were Invisible’: The
Dynamics of Interpreters’ Visibility in Politics and Diplomacy,” in RUDN
(ed.), Society and Languages in the Third Millennium: Communication.
Education. Translation. Moscow, RUDN, pp. 113–​121.
Kelly, M., Footitt, H., and Salama-​ Carr, M. (eds) (2019) The Palgrave
Handbook of Languages and Conflict. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan.
Korchilov, I. (1999) Translating History: 30 Years on the Front Lines of
Diplomacy with a Top Russian Interpreter. New York, Simon and Schuster.
Kučerová, H. (1990) “Diplomatic Interpreting in Czechoslovakia,” in Bowen,
D. and Bowen, M. (eds), Interpreting: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.
Binghamton, NY: SUNY Press, pp. 37–​39.
Lee, R. G. and Llewellyn-​Jones, P. (2011) “Re-​Visiting Role: Arguing for a
Multi-​Dimensional Analysis of Interpreter Behaviour,” paper presented
at the Supporting Deaf People Online Conference. Available at http://​
clok.uclan.ac.uk/​5031/​1/​Lee%20and%20L-​J%202011.pdf (accessed 11
January 2021).
Llewellyn-​Jones, P. and Lee, R. (2013) “Getting to the Core of Role: Defining
Interpreters’ Role Space,” International Journal of Interpreter Education,
5(2), pp. 54–​72.
Lung, R. (2011) Interpreters in Early Imperial China. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia,
PA, John Benjamins.
Malinowsky, B. (1923) “The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages,”
Supplement 1 to Ogden, C. K. and Richards, I. A., The Meaning of Meaning.
London, Kegan Paul, pp. 296–​336.
Mason, I. (ed.) (2001) Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting.
Manchester, St. Jerome.
Mason, I. and Stewart, M. (2001) “Interactional Pragmatics, Face and the
Dialogue Interpreter,” in Mason, I. (ed.), Triadic Exchanges: Studies in
Dialogue Interpreting. Manchester, St. Jerome, pp. 51–​70.
Monod De Froideville, G. and Verheul, M. (2016) An Expert’s Guide to
International Protocol: Best Practices in Diplomatic and Corporate
Relations. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press.
Nord, C. (2005) Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and
Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-​Oriented Text Analysis.
Amsterdam, Rodopi.
Nord, C. (2018) Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches
Explained, 2nd edn. London, Routledge.
Obst, H. (2010) White House Interpreter: The Art of Interpretation.
Bloomington, IN, AuthorHouse.
40 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy

Palazchenko, P. (2009) My Years with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze: The

Memoirs of a Soviet Interpreter. University Park, PA, The Pennsylvania
State University Press.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004) Introducing Interpreting Studies. London, Routledge.
Reiß, K. (2004) “ ‘Type, Kind and Individuality of Text: Decision Making in
Translation,’ ”, in Venuti, L. (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader. London,
Routledge, pp. 168–​179.
Reiß, K. and Vermeer, H. J. (2014) Towards a General Theory of Translational
Action: Skopos Theory Explained. London, Routledge.
Roland, R. (1999) Interpreters as Diplomats: A Diplomatic History of the Role
of Interpreters in World Politics. Ottawa, ON, University of Ottawa Press.
Rivett, R. (2018) Diplomatic Protocol: Etiquette, Statecraft & Trust.
Dunbeath, Whittles.
Rothman, E. N. (2009) “Interpreting Dragomans: Boundaries and Crossings
in the Early Modern Mediterranean,” Comparative Studies in Society and
History, 51(4), pp. 771–​800.
Ruiz Rosendo, L. and Persaud, C. (eds) (2016) Linguistica Antverpiensia.
Special issue on Interpreters and Interpreting in Conflict Zones and
Scenarios: A Historical Perspective, 15.
Schmidt, P. and Moorhouse, R. (2016) Hitler’s Interpreter: The Memoirs Of
Paul Schmidt. Stroud, The History Press.
Sixiang, W. (2014) “The Sounds of Our Country: Interpreters, Linguistic
Knowledge, and the Politics of Language in Early Chosŏn Korea,” in Elman
B. A. (ed.), Rethinking East Asian Languages, Vernaculars, and Literacies,
1000–​1919. Leiden, Brill, pp. 58–​95.
Song, K. (2001) The Study of Foreign Languages in the Chosŏn Dynasty
(1392–​1910). Seoul, Jimoondang Pub.
Takeda, K. and Baigorri-​Jalón, J. (eds) (2016), New Insights in the History of
Interpreting. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins.
Thiéry, C. (1990) “Interprétation diplomatique,” in Lederer, M. (ed.), Études
traductologiques: en hommage à Danica Seleskovitch. Paris, Minard,
pp. 45–​60.
Torikai, K. (2009) Voices of the Invisible Presence: Diplomatic Interpreters in
Post-​World War II Japan. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins.
Wadensjö, C. (1999) Interpreting as Interaction. London, Routledge.
Zhan, C. (2012) “Mediation through Personal Pronoun Shifts in Dialogue
Interpreting of Political Meetings,” Interpreting, 14(2), pp. 192–​216.

Online sources
International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) (n.d.) Available at
https://​aiic.org/​site/​world/​about/​profession/​abc (accessed 11 January 2021).
Ng, T. (2018) “Xi and Trump: A Beginner’s Guide to Translating Chinese
Diplomatic Speak,” South China Morning Post, 12 January. Available at
www.politico.com/​story/​2018/​12/​01/​xi-​jinping-​donald-​trump-​meeting-​
diplomacy-​1005042 (accessed 11 January 2021).
 Interpreting in politics and diplomacy 41

shz.de (2016) “Die Sprache der Diplomatie –​Was hinter den Botschaften der
Botschafter steckt,” 9 June. Available at www.shz.de/​regionales/​schleswig-​
holstein/​panorama/​was-​hinter-​den-​botschaften-​der-​botschafter-​steckt-​
id13930752.html (accessed 11 January 2021).
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) Available at http://​legal.
un.org/​ilc/​texts/​instruments/​english/​conventions/​9_​1_​1961.pdf (accessed
11 January 2021).
3 
Communication
between conventions
and creativity

Communication in political and diplomatic settings is governed by a

number of written and unwritten rules. Even the choice of the mode of
communication or the language is determined by power dynamics and
diplomatic considerations. Throughout history, different languages
have been preferred for diplomacy in different epochs and regions.
Such a common diplomatic language, or lingua franca, would be used
throughout the region for diplomatic communication in that era. In
Mesopotamia, for example, Arcadian held the status of diplomatic
lingua franca for a long time until being replaced by Aramaic. In the
Roman Empire, Latin was used for communication both among its
provinces and with other peoples. It was not until the Renaissance and
the emergence of humanism that French began to play an important
role in diplomacy due to the intellectual and later also political domin-
ance of France in Europe. It remained the preferred language of diplo-
matic communication until the late 19th century. With the emergence
of the United States as a player on the world stage and the influence
of the United Kingdom, French began to lose some of its status in
the first half of the 20th century, and was gradually pushed aside by
English after World War II. Although French still plays an important
role in international diplomacy, English is increasingly becoming the
prevailing lingua franca.

3.1 Language as a tool and a symbol

However, diplomatic talks are not always held in a lingua franca. As
each diplomat is free to choose which language to use, there can be
any number of language combinations. Various constellations are pos-
sible; one party might decide to speak the language of the other, which
might put them at a disadvantage unless they speak that language very
well, and they might willingly accept this disadvantage. The second
option is that both parties agree to communicate in a third language
that is not the first language of either. In this case, neither party is at
an advantage or disadvantage, although misunderstandings may arise
if either of them is not sufficiently proficient in the language. The two
parties might also use a language that is one party’s first language and
a lingua franca for the other. Another option is to use interpreters. In
 Between conventions and creativity 43

this case the parties either do not have a common language or have
decided not to use it. Interpreters can also be asked to be on standby,
e.g., when one party wants to speak the language of the other but is
not fully proficient in it. In such an event, the interpreter only interprets
when that person has difficulty understanding or wording something
and explicitly asks the interpreter for assistance, and may at times
only be asked to supply individual words. Finally, we have the case
where interpreters are used but they do not cover both participants’
languages; instead, they interpret into one participant’s first language
and into a lingua franca for the other. This might be the case for a state
visit from a country for whose language it is difficult to get an inter-
preter in the host country. If the visiting delegation does not include an
interpreter, interpreting may instead be provided into a lingua franca,
such as English, French, Portuguese, Russian, or Spanish.
Language has a number of different functions, and we use it for
different purposes. Language is a tool that humans use to commu-
nicate with, influence, and manipulate those around them. Language
can also be used as a symbol in the interaction of humans with their
environment. The decision of which language to use in political and
diplomatic communication is often political and symbolic.
Naturally, most people prefer to communicate in their first language,
as they are more aware of the often hidden connotations of expressions
and the linguistic nuances than in a foreign language, and would rather
not be at a disadvantage in communication. However, speaking one’s
own language and using an interpreter can also be a way to empha-
sise the (perceived) superiority of one’s own language or country. For
example, when Cato the Elder (234–​149 bc) was a Roman military
tribune in Greece, he decided to address the Athenians through an
interpreter despite being bilingual because he despised people who
only spoke Greek. When Hannibal and Cornelius Scipio spoke after
the Battle of Zama (fought in 202 bc), they communicated through
their interpreters out of national pride despite both being fluent in
Greek. The foreign minister of the German Third Reich, Joachim von
Ribbentrop, spoke English fluently but refused to use it in diplomatic
negotiations with the British, who considered this a lack of diplo-
matic tact. In contrast, Neville Henderson, the British ambassador in
Berlin from 1937 to 1939, preferred to speak German, even though
he did not speak it well, which the German interpreter Paul Schmidt
considered a friendly gesture (Schmidt and Moorhouse 2016). Indeed,
even simply greeting someone in their language is often interpreted as
a sign of goodwill, politeness, and respect. In this phatic part of com-
munication, which is not yet about the actual subject of discussion
but about building and maintaining relationships, the use of a certain
language can be an expression of goodwill and respect –​or a strategy
to create a positive atmosphere that might benefit the negotiations.
From the memoirs of Tito’s interpreter Ivan Ivanji (2007), it appears
44 Between conventions and creativity

that the former Yugoslavian president, who spoke German, Russian,

and English, used this to his advantage by using his interlocutors’
languages for small talk and only using interpreters when the talks got
down to business.
For career diplomats, who often speak multiple linguae francae,
if not the host country’s language, the choice of language is often a
pragmatic decision. All diplomats we interviewed preferred to use
whatever language their interlocutor was most comfortable with. One
ambassador told us:

When a new ambassador arrives, he or she pays courtesy calls to

all the colleagues in town (…) the first phrases that you exchange
are to check what language would be most appropriate for the
conversation. So I just had a courtesy call that was carried out
in English although my interlocutor also spoke German, I offered
German but she said “I’m also comfortable with English,” so we
spoke English.

The diplomats interviewed all emphasised that communication was

the priority, and direct communication was preferred.

I wouldn’t address a crowd in Austria in Spanish; it wouldn’t make

sense because I want to pass my message on (…) if I want to have
my message conveyed to the Austrian community then I would
speak German, not Spanish.

The choice of language can also be influenced by trying to create equal

conditions for both participants. An experienced diplomat told us:

You use a lingua franca when there’s equality of arms, so to say.

If that is not the case, if one side finds it more difficult to use that
lingua franca, then you will tend to use an interpreter. (…)
It’s also a question of politeness. Forcing someone to use a lingua
franca if I know that person doesn’t speak that lingua franca well is
impolite because I would be forcing the other person into a worse
communication situation.

This may also mean that sometimes a language that both participants
speak as a second language is preferred over a language that is a second
language for one and the first language for the other, as one English-​
speaking diplomat said.

It’s a blend of different reasons. Sometimes it’s just because it’s a

neutral language and it’s fun to practise, sometimes it’s because
that’s the best match of abilities that you have (…) suppose I’m
 Between conventions and creativity 45

speaking to the Chinese ambassador, to him I always speak German;

for example, he can speak English but his German is better so we
speak German; my Chinese is non-​existent.

However, this is different when working in a multilateral environ-

ment, such as the OSCE, the UN, or the EU, where interpreting is
routinely provided. While smaller working groups may have just one
working language –​often English or French –​plenary meetings are
interpreted simultaneously into multiple languages, and all diplomats
and politicians interviewed said they spoke their own language in
these settings. One reason they gave for this was that speakers at the
European institutions are asked to speak their first language where
possible to make the interpreters’ work easier. This is the case, but
although interpreting a non-​ native speaker with an imperfect
command of a language makes the interpreter’s task harder, it is not
the only reason for this language policy, particularly in the European
Parliament, where interpreting is provided for all 24 official languages
to ensure true representation, as running for the European Parliament
should not be contingent on language skills. It is different at the
European Commission, where the majority of people are civil servants
who are proficient in several of its working languages. Both the current
and the previous European Commission presidents have highlighted
the multilingual character of the EU by switching between languages
within the same speech –​a powerful symbol, though challenging for
the interpreters.

Photo 3.1 Multilingualism and interpreting. Ursula von der Leyen presenting her
vision to Members of the European Parliament prior to her nomination as
European Commission president, 2019.
46 Between conventions and creativity

The two Spanish-​speaking diplomats we interviewed also said it was

their task to promote the use of Spanish in multilateral organisations
and preserve their multilingualism.

Whenever you have the possibility of speaking your own language,

especially in the UN system, we choose to speak Spanish because
we want to maintain the multilingual capacity of the UN system
and other systems. It’s the same in the EU: the working language
is English but when it’s a formal meeting you can speak in Spanish
and we choose to do this.

But this does not always mean they listen to the interpreter working
into their own language. At international organisations, much of
the work in committees and negotiations is generally done in one or
two working languages. One diplomat told us that she used English as
a working language at the OSCE but had to use Spanish when taking
the floor in assembly. This also meant that she had to prepare Spanish
terminology for technical matters although she was more familiar with
the English terminology.

So it is important for us to be prepared and to have the vocabu-

lary at hand and the expressions at hand that we know correspond
exactly to the vocabulary and expressions that are being used in the
actual negotiations. (…) But because you know the colleagues and
you have been discussing with them in English, you always have the
tendency to listen, if possible, in the original. Because this is when
you take notes. And only when a colleague takes the floor in a lan-
guage that I don’t understand, for example, at the OSCE this would
be Russian or Italian, then I would switch to Spanish. (…) Even
though my job is to promote Spanish, I am aware of this contradic-
tion, but this is a matter of practicality. It is much more effective to
listen to the original (…)

While career diplomats are usually highly proficient in multiple

languages, this is not always the case for politicians. Apart from
the difficulties the use of English as a lingua franca (ELF) can cause
for interpreters –​such as higher cognitive load and a higher risk of
misunderstandings (Ehrensberger-​Dow et al. 2020) –​it can also be
harder to understand even for people who are proficient in English.
While face-​to-​face communication allows the speaker to repeat things
and the listener to ask questions to clear up misunderstandings, this
is not possible in monologic situations such as talks or statements
in plenary discussions. There is evidence that listeners understand
interpretations better than speeches in ELF (Reithofer 2013) and,
indeed, when a matter is complex and precision is required, even
 Between conventions and creativity 47

some of the diplomats we interviewed prefer to speak their own

language.

Even if you speak the language and you’re really trying to be precise
and to get the point across, you still might need an interpreter either
for a speech or for writing a formal letter where you want to make
sure that you don’t make a mistake.

Another said:

If you are talking to a ministry of environmental affairs or a min-

istry of transportation (…) or border guards, or representatives of
the police in the ministry of the interior or other security matters,
military things, even if you speak a common language, both sides
prefer to be interpreted to ensure precision.

This can also change within the same meeting. Interpreters are often
on stand-​by in other contexts as well, such as courtroom interpreting.
Stand-​by interpreting means that the interpreter is present and actively
listening, but only interprets when needed.

People will bring an interpreter because they’re not confident but

will then speak the other language and ask the interpreter once in a
while “how do I say this?” I’ve seen this often that people will speak
a lingua franca or mix languages out of ease of communication even
when there are interpreters present and then ask the interpreters
when they get into the details, and sometimes when they get tired
after talking for a while they let themselves be interpreted.

There is a difference in communication between career diplomats and

the institutions of the receiving state and high-​level diplomatic visits
by foreign dignitaries. While ambassadors might occasionally use their
own language in a very formal setting, their choice of language is gen-
erally pragmatic and communication-​oriented. In some cases, embassy
staff or even diplomats might act as interpreters to enable communi-
cation where no common language is found. However, this is different
with state visits. Most diplomats interviewed said it was common
practice to use an interpreter for high-​level visitors, such as ministers
or heads of state or government. The reasons for this generally go
beyond language skills and into the realm of politics and symbolism.

3.2 Political communication and choice of language

While politicians, like diplomats, sometimes use another language
out of courtesy in more informal settings, they generally prefer their
48 Between conventions and creativity

own language at official functions where they represent their states.

A common language, after all, is one of the most important factors in
shaping a common identity –​something that is expressed clearly when
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau uses both of his country’s
official languages in his public addresses. One politician, a former
mayor of a country’s capital, said that although he spoke English, he
used his own language as a matter of principle when hosting events at
City Hall, and that this was common practice internationally. An inter-
national example of this is Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi,
who insists on speaking Hindi rather than English, despite appar-
ently speaking the latter well. One of his predecessors, Prime Minister
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, apparently would speak English in diplomatic
contexts when his interlocutor also spoke English, with an interpreter
on stand-​by, but would speak Hindi with interlocutors who spoke
their own language. In the case of India, the use of Hindi instead of
English, which is widely spoken and used for official purposes but
bears the legacy of colonialism, has, of course, powerful symbolism.
The choice of language –​whether it is the official language or a
minority language of one’s own country, the language of the host
country, or a common lingua franca –​is always a political statement.
Speaking the host country’s language in an official setting can be used
to great advantage, as Vladimir Putin did in 2001 when he became the
first Russian head of state in the history of Russo-​German relations
to address the German parliament, the Bundestag, in German. Both
the choice of language and content were remarkable. At the time,
Putin had been in office for less than two years. The Russian army
was waging war against Chechnya, which had declared independence.
While this war had increased Putin’s popularity in Russia, it had been
widely criticised in Europe.
The European Union had been discussing the imposition of sanctions
against Russia since the beginning of the war. Germany was reluctant
to do so, and Putin may have chosen to speak German to generate
goodwill. His 26-​minute speech in German –​he used Russian only
for the opening words –​was met with great applause and made inter-
national headlines.
There are many other examples in politics and diplomacy that
demonstrate awareness of the enormous importance of interper-
sonal relationships. In both informal and formal settings, politicians
often try to break the ice with humorous remarks, often using their
interlocutor’s language to build trust and express respect. An example
of this comes from the 2016 G20 Summit in China, where German
Chancellor Angela Merkel, who speaks good Russian due to having
grown up in the GDR, greeted Putin with “Доброе утро” (“good
morning”). However, the meeting began before dawn, prompting
Putin to answer in German “Noch nicht” (“not yet”).
 Between conventions and creativity 49

Photo 3.2 Using the counterpart’s language can strengthen interpersonal

relationships. Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin in Germany, 2018.

When Angela Merkel was awarded the US Presidential Medal of

Freedom in June 2011, President Barack Obama finished his remarks
at the Official Arrival Ceremony by saying, in German, “So, herzlich
willkommen” (“We bid you a warm welcome”). On her part, Merkel
finished her response speech, which was delivered in German, by
switching into English for the last three sentences.
We see in this an echo of what a diplomat told us about choosing the
language the other person feels most comfortable with.

I paid a courtesy call to my Portuguese colleague a couple of

weeks ago. I love to speak Portuguese; I was posted to Brazil
where I learned Portuguese and I love to practise Portuguese when-
ever I get the chance. But my interlocutor was extremely keen on
speaking Spanish so I said “okay, let’s speak Spanish” because he
spoke perfect Spanish. So it’s really up to my interlocutor. For me
the most important thing is to make my interlocutor feel at ease.

Another example is a speech by Pascal Lamy, then the European

commissioner for trade, which he gave in May 2002 at Humboldt
University in Berlin. Lamy started by speaking German for the first
four paragraphs, and then continued as follows.

A whole speech in German would be quite an exhausting experi-

ence –​for speaker and audience alike! So now that I have thor-
oughly mangled the language of Goethe and Schiller, allow me to
switch to English.
50 Between conventions and creativity

Because political and diplomatic events are very much in the public
eye, such decisions need always to be well considered, as their impact
can be considerable. In this finely nuanced form of communication,
even the choice of language carries meaning –​and it is precisely the
deviation from the norm that widens the scope of action.
The choice of the language a politician uses for a speech can also be
a politically sensitive issue. For example, there has been a continuous
debate on the use of the German language by German politicians on
state visits to Israel. Some Israeli parliamentarians protest the use of
the German language in the Israeli parliament, the Knesseth, arguing
that speaking in German would be an insult to Holocaust survivors.
It was not until the year 2000 that a German head of state, President
Johannes Rau, gave a speech in the Knesseth. He spoke in German,
which caused an uproar. In his speech, Rau asked the Israeli people
for forgiveness for the Holocaust. He also referred to the sensitiv-
ities around the use of the German language, acknowledging that this
might hurt the feelings of some in the audience. Controversial debates
and requests for German politicians to deliver their speeches to the
Knesseth in English have continued since. Most recently, being aware
of these sensitivities, German President Frank-​ Walter Steinmeier
decided to deliver his speech at the Fifth World Holocaust Forum at
Yad Vashem in Jerusalem on 23 January 2020 in English. He was the
first German head of state to speak at Yad Vashem, with the audience
including Holocaust survivors and heads of state of other countries.
He acknowledged the historical guilt of Germany and promised to
continue to fight against antisemitism.

Here at Yad Vashem, I renew this promise before the eyes of the
world. And I know that I am not alone. Today we join together to
say: No to antisemitism! No to hatred!

He began his speech with a sentence in Hebrew, something politicians

often do during state visits abroad, as we have seen above. In this spe-
cial case, however, it goes beyond a rhetorical strategy or polite ges-
ture –​it is a political statement and a sign of respect for the victims of
the Nazi regime and their descendants.

3.3 Political speeches for different purposes:

Informative, expressive, appellative
There are several types and subtypes (genres) of political speeches, each
one with its specific function depending on the context, audience, and
purpose. Politicians may give speeches at home (e.g., speeches to the
national parliament, New Year’s addresses) or abroad (e.g., speeches
during state visits to another country, addresses to international bodies).
 Between conventions and creativity 51

In both contexts, speeches can have a dominant function, although it

is rarely the only one –​very often several functions are combined. An
address by a head of government to the national parliament (e.g., the
annual State of the Union address of US presidents to Congress) informs
parliamentarians (the main addressees) of the current situation in the
country and reports on decisions taken or to be taken by the govern-
ment. The main addressees of a New Year’s address are the national
public in general, and it has informative, expressive, and appellative
functions combined. That is, such an address contains information about
achievements of the last year and challenges that lie ahead. At the same
time, the speaker uses expressive and emotive language (e.g., formulations
such as “I know that many of you have struggled”; “on this New Year’s
Eve, I especially thank those who…”) and also appeals to the audience,
often couched as joint responsibilities (e.g., “good new things can arise
when we believe in our values and implement our ideas vigorously”).
New Year’s addresses normally end with an explicit request (“I wish you
and your families all the best for a healthy, happy and blessed new year”),
which also has a phatic function. Another example of this category is the
video message of US President-​Elect Joe Biden and his wife in November
2020 on celebrating Thanksgiving safely during COVID-​19.
Another type of speech which is delivered at home and mainly
addressed to the national audience in a general sense is the inaugural
speech of a president and the similar speech of a politician after they
have been elected to their post. Such speeches are informative as well,
but they have more expressive and appellative elements. A specific fea-
ture is the use of personal pronouns, where often “I” and “we” mix,
and the “we” is often ambiguous and can refer to the government,
the nation, or those present (e.g., “we are going to restore trust in our
democracy”; “we will fix the crisis”). Both “we” and “I” are often
combined with verbs which refer to a future act or to an intention, thus
signalling the actions associated with the political role and not with the
individual person. If we take Boris Johnson’s first speech as UK prime
minister on 24 July 2019, we notice this combination of “I” and “we”
as well (e.g., “I am convinced that we can do a deal”). In addition, he
repeats the phrase “my job is” several times in close proximity (“my
job is to serve you, the people; my job is to make your streets safer; my
job is to make sure you don’t have to wait three weeks to see your GP;
my job is to protect you or your parents or grandparents from the fear
of having to sell your home to pay for the costs of care; my job is to
make sure your kids get a superb education”). A similar stylistic fea-
ture of repetition is found towards the end of the speech, this time with
a dominant persuasive function, addressing the audience more directly
(“so let us begin work now to create freeports (…); let’s start now
to liberate the UK’s extraordinary bioscience sector from anti genetic
modification rules, and let’s develop the blight-​resistant crops that will
52 Between conventions and creativity

feed the world; let’s get going now on our own position navigation and
timing satellite and earth observation systems (…); let’s change the tax
rules (…); let’s promote the welfare of animals (…); and yes, let’s start
now on those free trade deals”).
Speeches held at the UN General Assembly meetings in New York
or at sessions of the European Parliament also have a predominantly
informative function, although this can be combined with expressive
and appellative elements. The audience are the international members
of the respective institutions, and in such multilingual settings, sim-
ultaneous interpreting is normally provided in line with the language
policy of the institution (i.e., between the official languages of Arabic,
Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish for the United Nations,
and arrangements as needed for the specific event for the European
Union institutions in view of the official policy which accords all
national languages of the Member States the status of both official
and working languages).
Addresses or statements can also be made at a variety of bilateral,
multilateral, or supranational events devoted to a specific event, such
as anniversaries of the end of World War II, of D-​Day, or of historical
events which are of significance to an individual country. Such com-
memorative addresses also combine information (about the event),
expressions of emotions (e.g., formulations such as “let us for a brief
moment return in our minds to…”; “remembrance never ends”), and
appeal. Appellative elements can be addressed directly to the audience
in the form of a polite request, and are typically placed at the end of
the speech (e.g., “I ask you all to remember silently the victims”), or
they are phrased as indirect requests or orders (e.g., “We must not
allow this peaceful order to disintegrate before our eyes”).
At some such commemorative events, several politicians from
different countries are present and deliver speeches. One example is
the annual event held in Poland to commemorate the Warsaw Uprising
of 1944. On 1 August 1944, the citizens of Warsaw started a revolt
against the German oppressor, hoping that together with the support of
the approaching Russian Red Army, they would have a realistic chance
of overthrowing the German command. However, the Red Army
refused to support the Uprising, and within a few weeks the Germans
succeeded in suppressing the revolt, killing and wounding thousands
of Warsaw’s citizens. Immediately after regaining full command of the
city, the Germans deported the citizens from Warsaw and started to
destroy the city systematically. A ceremony took place in Warsaw on 1
August 1994, on the occasion of the commemoration of the 50th anni-
versary of the Uprising. The then Polish President Lech Walesa had
intended it to be an occasion for reconciliation and for establishing
new political relationships. For that reason, he had invited the former
allies and liberators (UK, USA, France), the former enemy (Germany),
 Between conventions and creativity 53

as well as Russia, which became the official liberator of Poland, but

(at least according to the Poles) had betrayed the Poles during the
Warsaw Uprising and, moreover, had become the new oppressor of
Poland from 1945 onwards. The challenges for the speeches by the
politicians present who represented their respective country and gov-
ernment were determined by their country’s role during the Uprising
and by its relationship with Poland in 1994.
The United Kingdom was represented by the then Prime Minister
John Major. His speech reflected the characteristic features of a com-
memorative address, both in content and in form, i.e., references to
the immediate public ceremony (e.g., “I am proud to represent my
country here”; “this evening we remember and honour those dead”),
to the event that is commemorated (“we commemorate the inspiring
but tragic events of 50 years ago”), and formal aspects of the genre,
such as ritual opening (“Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen”) and
declarative and commissive speech acts, especially promises (often
couched as declarative acts, e.g., “with your other friends, we are
taking part in the rebuilding of Poland”). Although the event was
held in Poland and broadcast live by Polish TV, the audience was an
international one since it included the representatives of other coun-
tries. Moreover, the international press reported about this event, and
politicians (especially opposition parties) and people at home also
had their own expectations of what their prime minister should say.
We thus have an example of multiple audiences, each with their own
knowledge of the event commemorated, the past and present political
relations, and attitudes and expectations. Speakers had to accommo-
date the changed political circumstances; the Soviet Union no longer
existed in 1994, and Russia was on the path to democracy. Britain and
Germany had been opponents during World War II, but by 1994 they
had been partners for decades, e.g., in NATO and in the EU. In other
words, former enemies had become friends and partners.
For the speakers it was therefore important to find a balance
between references to the allies and partners of the past and those of
the present and the future. This task was particularly challenging for
the then German President Roman Herzog. John Major was in a less
difficult position, although he, too, had to take the changed political
alliances into account. What we notice in his speech, then, is that he
avoids speaking explicitly about sensitive political issues. For example,
he does not speak about the relations between the UK and Poland
during the Cold War. He also does not explicitly mention the other key
players in the Uprising, i.e., Germany and Russia (or, rather, the Soviet
Union), nor does he mention their role for Poland during the Cold War.
He refers to them rather implicitly, using more general references and
abstract nouns. For example, he says “After the destruction of Warsaw
in 1944,” i.e., a nominal structure which avoids mentioning the agent
54 Between conventions and creativity

of the destruction. Similarly, in the sentence “But Poland’s tragedy was

that the outcome of the war and of the Uprising left her under another
occupation,” the Soviet Union as the power that had actively influenced
Poland’s political affairs is left implicit. Such communicative strategies
are motivated by the nature of the event; at a ceremonial commem-
oration, criticism is not opportune, and offence is not appropriate to
the occasion. Therefore, Major’s speech is characterised by diplomatic
indirectness and evasiveness. The commemorative events in Warsaw
on the occasion of the 60th and 70th anniversaries of the Warsaw
Uprising took place at times when the political relations had changed
again, which would have had an impact on the speeches delivered.
A comparative analysis of speeches held on these subsequent occasions
would result in interesting insights.
Commemorative addresses often attract the attention of a wider
audience, especially when the event is a politically sensitive one or when
the relations between the respective countries are delicate or problem-
atic. Another example of a commemorative address is the one delivered
by then US President Obama at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial on 27
May 2016. Obama starts the speech with the following words, which
are emotive and impressive.

Seventy-​one years ago, on a bright, cloudless morning, death fell

from the sky and the world was changed. A flash of light and a wall
of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed
the means to destroy itself.

This description is followed by the question: “Why do we come to this

place, to Hiroshima?” He then continues speaking about World War II,
other examples of violent conflict in the past, and what we can learn
from them. He then provides a kind of answer to the question asked
before.

That is why we come to this place. We stand here, in the middle of

this city, and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell.
We force ourselves to feel the dread of children confused by what
they see. We listen to a silent cry. We remember all the innocents
killed across the arc of that terrible war, and the wars that came
before, and the wars that would follow.

He then moves from reflecting on the past to our duty for the future,
saying:

Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering, but we have a

shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask
what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.
 Between conventions and creativity 55

He continues by giving examples of political decisions that can give

us hope, mentioning the alliance and friendship between the United
States and Japan, the Union built by the nations of Europe, liberation
won by oppressed peoples and nations, and institutions and treaties
established by the international community. He then warns that work
must continue to abolish nuclear weapons (“We can chart a course
that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles”) and, moreover, that
nations should aim at preventing any kind of conflict (“We must change
our mindset about war itself –​to prevent conflict through diplomacy,
and strive to end conflicts after they’ve begun; to see our growing
interdependence as a cause for peaceful cooperation and not violent
competition; to define our nations not by our capacity to destroy, but
by what we build”). He then gives examples of individual people’s
stories about the bombing of Hiroshima, highlighting the notion that
all people are equal (“we are part of a single human family”). He then
repeats the phrase “That is why we come to Hiroshima,” which is
immediately followed by another kind of answer: “So that we might
think of people we love.”
The speech moves then to the future again, to the lessons we can
learn and the duties of politicians, finishing with:

The world was forever changed here. But today, the children of this
city will go through their day in peace. What a precious thing that
is. It is worth protecting, and then extending to every child. That
is the future we can choose –​a future in which Hiroshima and
Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare, but as the
start of our own moral awakening.

Speeches delivered during a state visit can also belong to different

(sub-​)types and can have various functions. They can be delivered
to the parliament of the host country, or to the general public, or to
a smaller dedicated audience during a specific event (e.g., meeting a
smaller group of people, opening an exhibition, laying a wreath at a
memorial). At all those events, interpreting will be provided. In the
case of a public speech to a large audience, it might be that several
interpreters are involved. This happened, for example, when the then
US President Obama visited Germany in 2013. Among his activities
was a major speech he delivered in front of the Brandenburg Gate in
Berlin. This event was broadcast live by several German TV stations,
each of them with their own simultaneous interpreters. This example
also shows that political and diplomatic speeches can be directed
at several groups –​here, not only German politicians but also the
public –​and in the case of a politician like Obama, who is present in
the media globally, he is also addressing the world. In a setting like this,
the speech is predominantly appellative, characterised by the speaker’s
56 Between conventions and creativity

strong expressiveness and rhetoric, which gives the informative value

of the speech a new, more poignant tone. The interpreter would seek to
maintain this relative weight of the different functions in their rendi-
tion. When politicians appear on TV, they are also aware of the larger
potential impact of their speech, so they may speak differently in a
televised speech than if the speech were not televised. There are, of
course, also other interaction formats, for example, politicians being
interviewed on TV. In these cases, the language of the politicians may
be less formal and more colloquial, perhaps in an attempt to appeal
to the audience and with more appellative elements, and interpreters
adapt their renditions to the speaker’s style.

3.4 Comprehension and construction of meaning

As discussed above, we can distinguish texts by their primary pur-
pose –​providing information, expressing emotions or opinions,
appealing to or persuading the listeners or recommending a course
of action, or managing social interaction. If we use this typology
to divide utterances and statements into informative, expressive,
appellative and phatic texts, we will see that informative statements
describe a fact or an observation. To understand an informative text,
we need to comprehend its content and see the context in which the
facts are situated. These processes require several steps. First, we
need to hear the utterance correctly so that it can be processed. We
comprehend it by interpreting the new information against the back-
ground of our previous knowledge. These interpretations are mental
representations created by arranging sensory input and experiences
into meaning. In doing so, we draw on our own linguistic and cultural
experiences and world views, which means that the message we per-
ceive is always an interpretation. This interpretation shapes perception
and meaning as well as how we understand and assess other people’s
actions. As a result, our interpretation may differ from the speaker’s
intention. Linguistic ambiguity and differences in knowledge can lead
to misunderstandings. The verbal message can be complemented,
reinforced, or contradicted by eye contact and body language, and
nonverbal communication can also express the speaker’s emotions or
empathy. This applies especially to emotional moments of communi-
cation. These components, be they intentional or not, are part of the
message, and we usually interpret them consciously or unconsciously.
A meaningful interpretation of an action or message is only possible
if the context in which it takes place is understood. This is based on
the assumption that communication is based on cooperation between
speakers and listeners –​what Grice (1957, 1975) calls the cooperative
principle. Listeners apply what is referred to as the principle of charity,
 Between conventions and creativity 57

that is, the assumption that a statement is truthful, rational, and con-
sistent. Understanding the reasons for the action in context then
allows us to grasp connections. Thus, our interpretation of a statement
leads to the construction of meaning. Once the interpreter has fully
understood the original statement, they can interpret it into the target
language. Being aware of everything that goes into understanding a
statement can also help them interpret in a way that provides the con-
text necessary to ensure the person they are interpreting for can under-
stand the statement in its context.
This is good to keep in mind when speaking about the task of the
diplomatic interpreter and hearing the demand frequently made in
both literature and practice that the target text should correspond
exactly to the source text. This is usually taken to mean that every word
and nuance must be reproduced literally. However, for interpreters,
the linguistic material is only a part of the source text. Interpreting
considers not only the verbal elements but also the situation, time,
purpose, context, and culture-​specific aspects of the communication
act. Culture and related aspects are relevant in political and diplo-
matic meetings as well. Language is considered part of the culture of
a person. When people from different cultures come together and rely
on interpreters to meet their communicative needs, cultural differences
can be reflected both in the language and in the way of thinking and
behaviour of the participants. The language of diplomacy has many
facets, some of which transcend linguistic and cultural boundaries to
become a universal means of communication between experts in their
domain. Despite these cross-​ linguistic and cross-​cultural elements,
political and diplomatic communication is shaped by the languages,
cultures, and mindsets of the participants. Interpreting needs to take
into account the cultural backgrounds of the speakers and anticipate
the attitudes and possible emotions of the listeners. What, then, is the
interpreter’s scope of action for mitigating cultural differences, and
which strategies of translation and behaviour can they use?
The product of an act of interpreting is geared to the text recipients
and their culture; it is adapted to their expectations and communica-
tive needs, their (technical) language, and their socio-​cultural envir-
onment. This ensures that the message conveyed is understood. As
argued in functionalist approaches to translation and interpreting
(e.g., skopos theory), an interpretation must be coherent in itself.
(We discuss how interpreters deal with coherence in Section 4.3, on
modification.) Just as the source text is understood and its meaning
is interpreted by the source-​language audience and the interpreter, so
should the target text be understood by its recipients, i.e., make sense
to them in a given situation. The audience’s reaction shows whether the
message was understood correctly or not. The message is considered to
58 Between conventions and creativity

have been understood if it is coherent in itself and with the situation.

The functioning of the interpreting output in the target situation is
therefore of primary importance. The intention and function of the
interpreting output are determined by the purpose of the interpreting
act in the target language and target situation, embedded in a spe-
cific target culture. This functionalist approach considers interpreting,
like translation, largely as cultural transfer. What is interpreted in a
given situation and how is, in the broadest sense, guided by cultural
considerations. Interpreting strategies are thus not primarily based on
the words of the original statement, but to a large extent on meta-​
linguistic factors and the purpose of the interpreting product in a given
context.
On the other hand, both the speakers and the recipients of the
message understandably expect the message to arrive intact in
the target language. This implicitly includes the expectation that
the person conveying the message will not add their emotions or
attitudes to it. However, these expectations stem from the assumption
that it is possible to transmit the message without intervention –​as if
one were to pick up the information like a suitcase and simply carry it
across the border. The expectation also includes that no questions be
asked, nothing be added or omitted, and nothing changed, either in the
suitcase itself or its contents.
Although in diplomacy and politics, we can generally assume that
the parties are on equal footing in their communication, often also
being of equal status, that they have the same knowledge, and that
the context is very formal, political and diplomatic encounters never-
theless introduce their own cultural and political concepts, attitudes
and behaviour, which need to be taken into account for interpreting.
The cultural factors that influence interpreting can manifest both in
the language and in the behaviour of those involved. Such factors can
be general and individual. General factors relate to a country’s lan-
guage and speech conventions as well as the terminology linked to
its socio-​political system and culture; this can include numbers and
names, acronyms and abbreviations, salutations and titles, idiomatic
expressions and linguistic registers. Individual factors relevant for
interpreting are those that are particular to the speaker and distin-
guish them from others, such as the speed of speech, accent, prosody,
gestures, and facial expressions, as well as emotions and overall behav-
iour if they influence communication.
It is crucial to know how the strategic goals of the parties to the
communication differ and whether the talks are based on a desire for
understanding or conflict. In understanding-​ based communication,
both sides work to find a common solution that is acceptable to all.
For interpreting, this means that the relationship is strongly defined by
language and manifests itself through it.
 Between conventions and creativity 59

3.5 Interpreters’ (in)visibility
Interpreters are expected to remain invisible, not explain anything, not
favour one party over the other, and not mediate between parties. At
the same time, however, when negotiations grow heated and it seems
difficult to achieve the desired goal, interpreters are expected to calm
down the situation and smooth out tensions.
Although there is little research in interpreting studies on how
the presence of diplomatic and political interpreters in particular
influences the communicative situation, in respect to both interaction
management and interpersonal relationships, we know that face work
plays a significant role in interpersonal relationships, and is employed
by both the primary communicators and the interpreters.
Face-​saving strategies are an important aspect of human communi­
cation. The term face work, originating in the field of sociology (Goffman
1967/​2017) and adopted in interpreting studies (e.g., Wadensjö 1998),
includes all actions that counteract communicative actions that could
lead to a loss of face, or face-​threatening actions. Face-​ threatening
actions may harm someone’s reputation or cause embarrassment or
offence, and face work tries to prevent that. Face-​saving strategies are
used in negotiations and conflict resolution, as well as in interpersonal
relationships, e.g., when we pretend a mistake was ours rather than
someone else’s, or couch a rejection in a compliment. While the parties

Photo 3.3 Out of frame. Only the interpreters’ notepads, empty chairs, and water
glasses can be seen in this photo of Angela Merkel and Barack Obama at
the White House, 2015.
60 Between conventions and creativity

in a negotiation are likely to be using face-​saving strategies of their own,

they may not be aware of certain factors that could lead to a loss of face
in an interpreted interaction. Interpreters can contribute actively to face
work by rewording or modifying statements that could potentially lead
to loss of face. Research has examined this element of communication in
various settings (Brown and Levinson 1978/​1987). Face work is of par-
ticular importance in diplomatic interpreting, as diplomacy and diplo-
matic language is generally characterised by politeness and tact, and it is
often indirect and almost always tactical in nature. Diplomatic language
aims to save the face of the listener and protect the speaker –​who is
often only a messenger –​from the responsibility for their words. In situ-
ations where one party might lose face, interpreters usually act strategic-
ally. This may refer to any of the participants in the conversation,
including the interpreter.
One of the interpreters interviewed shared a personal experience
where his action was a face-​saving strategy. He explained that at a
meeting that required consecutive interpreting only in Chinese and
French, the two heads of the delegations exchanged a few words in
English whenever they felt like doing so. They switched to English
again when they were talking about trade, and the French speaker
used a false friend.

The Francophone speaker said: “we are friends, but also

concurrents,” and repeated it again, since the Chinese official did
not seem to understand. At this precise juncture, I had to intervene
and said it in Chinese: “竞争者” (competitors). As a result, both
sides seemed to be released from embarrassment. However, if the
word “competitor” had been said in English, the French-​speaking
diplomat might have felt corrected, if not offended.

Nevertheless, the image of the interpreter as a parrot or a machine is

still deeply embedded in the perception of interpreting. Interpreters
are seen as “mouthpieces” who translate literally from one language
into another –​the belief being that literalness ensures accuracy. The
interpreter is cast in the role of a non-​person. This term from the
world of theatre, which has found its way into interpreting studies
via sociology, refers to persons who participate in an event but are
not involved in it and are therefore not active actors. This includes the
people who are indispensable for the organisation of an event, but also
secretaries taking minutes at meetings, technicians or photographers
at public events, waiters at working lunches, or drivers. They are not
part of the “performers,” but support them in their work. They are
not allowed to contribute content to the interaction. They are not
visible to the outside world; they are not found in the minutes and
rarely in photographs. They become visible only when something goes
 Between conventions and creativity 61

wrong: if there is a breach of protocol, if the lighting fails, if a waiter

spills wine on a politician’s shirt or the driver is late. A similar role is
unfortunately still often attributed to the interpreter. This perception
is evident in a comment put forward by Ivan Ivanji (2007) when he
said that for the protocol, he might as well have been air, or perhaps
like a referee who is accidentally hit by the ball. Torikai (2009) says
that in Japan interpreters are commonly described as kurogo, liter-
ally meaning “black” (kuro), “attire” (go). (This comes from the trad-
itional form of kabuki theatre, where the stagehands wear black to
indicate they are not part of the action).
The idea of the interpreter as a mouthpiece or a non-​person is likely
rooted in the expectation and the wish that source-​language infor-
mation be conveyed in the target language faithfully and without
modifications, completely and correctly and without intentionally or
unintentionally adding any personal opinions or attitudes. These and
other metaphors for interpreters –​telephone, copy machine, conduit,
etc. –​all describe tools that transfer something without changing it.
A better image would be that of a supporting actor. Interpreters
may not play the starring role in communication, but without them
it would fall apart. The spotlight is not on them, but they are more
than extras or set dressing. The idea of interpreters’ “invisibility” may
be more rooted in the fact that they are rarely acknowledged by the
public or by protocol. Although interpreters may often stand next to
a politician and are thus visible to the audience, they are normally not
identified by name and their presence is not acknowledged. In official
documents, minutes of meetings, or transcripts of press conferences,
interpreters usually remain anonymous.
The significance and value of the work of interpreters is also rarely
addressed in the media, with films such as The Interpreter with Nicole
Kidman being rare exceptions. It is thus noteworthy that in an article
in The Atlantic, top-​level interpreters were described as “confidants,
fact-​checkers, and de facto diplomats.”
Perhaps interpreters also believe themselves to be less visible than
they actually are. In our interviews, some interpreters also told us they
are considered part of the team and respected for their work. As one
interpreter for English and German said: “Everyone I work with is
very considerate; they definitely try not to make my life difficult.” This
sentiment is echoed by another interpreter for Chinese and French,
who said “Dignitaries are above all humans, so just be confident and
feel at ease to be part of their team. You trust them and they trust you.”
The respect and appreciation was evident in the interviews with
diplomats and politicians. Due to their long experience with interpreters
and being interpreted, they generally try to speak in ways that make
the interpreters’ work easier and to provide information and material
ahead of time to allow interpreters to prepare.
62 Between conventions and creativity

3.6 Precision and meaning

The principal aim of interpreting is always to be as accurate as possible.
This refers to accuracy in how the speaker’s message and intention are
relayed. The interpreting output should elicit the same reaction from a
listener in the target language as the source text would from a listener
in the source language.
Literature on political and diplomatic interpreting and particularly
works written by practitioners often emphasise the need for accuracy
and completeness, claiming that the target text should be completely
and absolutely identical to the original, because every word and every
nuance counts. However, empirical dialogue interpreting studies in
judicial and administrative as well as social and medical settings since
the 1990s have shown that these prescriptive requirements do not cor-
respond to reality.
By taking into account the cultural aspects of language and behav-
iour in the interpreting process, the interpreter creates a cultural bridge
and a product that is tailored to the recipients, their knowledge, and
their socio-​cultural background. The interpreted rendition thus makes
sense to the recipients and can be understood in the target culture.
To ensure smooth communication and take the cultural background
into account, interpreters may go beyond “just” interpreting, acting as
transcultural communication experts.
The interpreter’s task is also to convey the concepts, images, and
intentions the speakers express through their linguistic strategies and
emotions. Purely semantic accuracy could even convey a false impres-
sion of the speaker –​the pragmatic level and the overall interaction are
equally important. Interpreters are trained to understand the pragmatic
meaning of the source text, i.e., to interpret the meaning of statements
in the given context among the particular persons involved, and to
render it in the target language in a way that conveys the intentions of
the speaker. Interpreting is not merely replacing source-​text utterances
with linguistic equivalents in the target language, because they do not
carry meaning in and of themselves; they acquire meaning and fulfil
their function only through interaction in a specific communicative
situation between specific persons with specific expectations, object-
ives, and interests. An example of this would be the British “how do
you do,” which is a polite greeting rather than a true question, with the
expected response being a simple repetition of the phrase.
Language is a part of the complex construct that is culture.
Interpreting researchers and practitioners therefore argue that
interpreters need to consider culture-​ specific aspects, eliminate
any misunderstandings, and adapt the target text to the cultural
expectations of the recipients. Since interpreted conversations are
usually an encounter between two or more different social, political,
 Between conventions and creativity 63

or religious systems, it is not uncommon for the textual and linguistic

expectations of the recipient to differ from the way the speaker
presents their message, which can lead to misunderstandings. The
way text is organised and expressed reflects a person’s cultural per-
spective, as do their expectations as a text recipient. The interpreter’s
task is to be aware of these differences, to understand the communi-
cative intention in the source language, and to express it adequately
in the target language, that is, in a quality which is appropriate to
its specified purpose.
Precision is particularly important in diplomatic interpreting.
Diplomacy requires a tactical and considered approach, and a dip-
lomat will often choose their words with precision to pursue a certain
strategy or goal. A speaker may use persuasive linguistic means, selecting
words and tone carefully and using ambiguities and insinuations art-
fully to convince, persuade, or reach an agreement with the other
party. The challenge for the interpreter is to understand the inten-
tion that lies behind the speaker’s words and to render it adequately
in the target language so that the effect is the same. The target text
should elicit approximately the same reaction from the addressees as
the original statement would have, had they understood it, with all its
nuances and the same degree of obliqueness or directness. In doing so,
the interpreter also conveys an image of the speaker. This means that
interpreting competence requires not just a solid understanding of all
working languages, but also of their communicative conventions, as
well as the ability to adapt one’s speaking style, as speaking style not
only conveys the speaker’s intention but also influences the perception
others have of them.
With this responsibility in mind, the interpreter may make decisions
at the translatorial and meta-​translatorial level to express meaning
more explicitly or vaguely, or to modify the expression to ensure it
evokes the intended reaction or to prevent it from triggering associ-
ations that were not intended by the speaker. This gives interpreters a
very dynamic and interactive role in the communication. They have a
strong impact on communication and can even influence its outcome.
At the fundamental level of approach, we can distinguish between
two ways of interpreting: preserved and customised interpreting. There
are situations in which the interpreter’s rendition should be as close as
possible to the original statement in form and content, reproducing
wording, content, style, and sometimes even the grammatical struc-
ture –​to the extent of preserving word order or parts of speech. When
negotiating agreements or discussing legal matters, for example, every
word and every nuance may be important and should be preserved in
the target text at the linguistic and pragmatic levels. Preserved, or “lit-
eral,” interpreting reproduces the content, cultural specifics, and lin-
guistic nuances of the source text using the grammatical and stylistic
64 Between conventions and creativity

means of the target language. In short, preserved interpreting centres

the text, even if it is incoherent.
Customised interpreting, on the other hand, reproduces the ori-
ginal utterance in a way that is appropriate for the context, recipient,
and target language. This may involve explaining a fact or concept,
or adapting the original expression in a way that is specific to the
situation. In customised interpreting, the source text can be regarded
as the material from which a purposeful, target-​oriented communica-
tive action is created for the given situation. In contrast to preserved
interpreting, customised interpreting centres the recipient of the text,
i.e., it seeks to present the information in a coherent manner.
For translation as well, a number of binary distinctions have been
suggested, based on different approaches and criteria, such as formal
versus dynamic equivalence (Nida 1964), semantic versus communi-
cative translation (Newmark 1988), overt versus covert translation
(House 1997), documentary versus instrumental translation (Nord
1997), and foreignisation versus domestication (Venuti 1995). Our
distinction between preserved and customised interpreting can most
closely be compared to Nord’s types since the differentiating criteria
are the situation and purpose of the communicative action.
The source text can be considered the raw material or input. In the
interpreting process, all aspects of the situation, the context, and the
text are taken into account and the relevant elements are rendered
in a manner appropriate to the purpose and situation. Depending on
the needs of the situation, the original statements are reproduced as
preserved interpretations or adapted as customised interpretations in
the target language.
For all that completeness, accuracy, and the communicative effect of
the interpreted message are regarded as the most important measures
of quality, they are by no means the only ones. There is no single def-
inition of quality in interpreting, as what can be considered a “good”
interpreting product varies depending on the situation, as we have
seen above. When interpreting a witness statement in a courtroom,
“good” is likely to mean accurate and complete, including any pauses,
hesitations, or self-​corrections the speaker may make; in a technical
working group, the main indicators of “good” interpreting are likely to
be accurate use of terminology, precision, and logical cohesion, while
fluency and elegant expression take a backseat; and when interpreting
an expressive speech at a ceremony, “good” can mean choosing
different expressions that evoke the same feeling in the audience, and
if the speaker hesitates and corrects themselves, the interpreter will
likely not reproduce the pause or self-​ correction but interpret the
corrected version only.
The matter of quality is complicated by the fact that user expectations
and assessments sometimes diverge from what interpreting researchers
 Between conventions and creativity 65

and practising interpreters consider quality. At times, this is simply

a different understanding of what “accuracy” means in interpreting,
but studies show that the subjective assessment of interpreting quality
by listeners is often influenced by other factors as well, such as the
fluency of the presentation, intonation, voice, or accent. Although
interpreting users will generally rank these factors lower in import-
ance than factors such as sense consistency, logical cohesion, or correct
terminology, experiments have shown that they can influence users’
subjective assessment. Interpreting users generally cannot determine
whether the meaning of the interpreted message is the same as the
original, as they are unlikely to understand both languages equally
well, even if they were listening to both. Instead, they appear to sub-
consciously use factors such as fluency, intonation, or style to judge
the “quality” of the interpreted rendition, and this impression can even
supersede other factors; in a simultaneous interpreting experiment
(Rennert 2019; 2020), users who listened to an interpreted speech
that had been manipulated to reduce its fluency by adding pauses,
hesitations, and self-​corrections believed they had understood less than
the control group, who listened to a more fluent version of the same
rendition by the same interpreter. Not only did both versions have the
exact same wording and content, but both groups also scored equally
well in a comprehension test they took after listening. Nevertheless,
those who listened to the less fluent version believed the interpreter
had done a worse job relaying the contents of the speech and felt they
had understood less.
This effect, of course, is not limited to interpreting; in communica-
tion in general, a confident, fluent, and elegant presentation will often
be more persuasive than a halting one, even if the latter has more
substance. Confident speakers are judged to be more knowledgeable
and accurate than insecure speakers (Holtgraves and Lasky 1999).
Interpreters need to be aware of the potential impact of such factors
on both the impression they give of the speaker and the impression
they give of themselves. Although conveying the message and intent of
the speaker accurately and making communication work remains the
top priority, fluency, intonation, and style are also important.
Choosing when to apply which interpreting strategy and pro-
viding an interpreting output that is correct in form, content, and
intent in a very formal setting, where everything has to be done
according to protocol, assuming their role in the communication
process, and at the same time remaining as inconspicuous as pos-
sible is a matter of practice and experience. In the next chapters,
you will find different approaches to issues that commonly arise in
diplomatic and political interpreting. It is important to understand
that there is never a one-​size-​fits-​all solution; interpreters always
consider the situation and its context to determine the appropriate
66 Between conventions and creativity

interpreting strategy. Therefore, some of these approaches may seem

contradictory, but they are all based in experience and interpreting
theory. As described in the introduction, we interviewed experienced
interpreters, diplomats, and politicians to learn their views of the
responsibilities of interpreters in politics and diplomacy and on
different solutions. We have selected suitable quotes and anecdotes
to illustrate some of the suggested strategies.
We were particularly interested in hearing how interpreters view
their work. Do they seek to deliver information that corresponds com-
pletely with the original text or do they deviate from the wording of
the source text to better express its (presumed) communicative intent?
Do they ever influence the interaction? How do they deal with con-
flict, do they coordinate the conversation, and do they explain cultural
concepts or omit statements that might cause unintended offence?
To complement the experiences and opinions of the interpreters,
we also wanted to learn what politicians and diplomats expect from
interpreters and how they feel about interpreters explaining, leaving out,
or correcting information, coordinating or moderating the communica-
tion, and reflecting speakers’ emotions. The opinions and experiences
of both interpreters and interpreting users are presented alongside each
other and illustrate the wide range of preferences and strategies.

Study activities
You can find links to repositories of speeches on the Routledge
Translation Studies Portal as a starting point for these study activities.

1. Find several examples of a type of speech (e.g., inaugural address,

New Year’s address) and compare how different politicians have
structured their speeches. For example, compare the inaugural
addresses by US presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden and dis-
cuss how they structured their speeches and which stylistic means
they used. Can you explain how the linguistic features are related
to their context and purpose of the speech?
2. Find a speech of a politician that was delivered at an event abroad.
Describe the context of this speech, the audience, and its aims,
and then analyse the structure of the speech (form of address,
introduction, topics addressed, arguments put forward, closing)
and the linguistic and stylistic means employed (e.g., metaphors,
keywords, repetitions).
3. Use the same speech and identify features that are of particular
relevance for interpreting it. Are there interpreting problems
which are different depending on the mode of interpreting, i.e.,
simultaneous or consecutive interpreting?
 Between conventions and creativity 67

4. Find a speech by a politician that was delivered during a visit

abroad. Check whether a transcript of the interpreted rendition is
available, or whether you can listen to the interpreter in a recorded
version of the speech. Discuss the strategies used by the interpreter.
5. Find an event that was held in a country of your working
language(s) (e.g., to commemorate a specific event in the history
of this country) at which representatives of different countries
delivered addresses. Compare these addresses and explain similar-
ities and differences in the speakers’ approaches (e.g., topic focus,
forms of interaction with the audience, explicit versus implicit
information, use of metaphors).
6. Search on the Internet for photos of politicians that indicate that
interpreting was involved (e.g., interpreters included in the photo,
politicians wearing headphones). Does the caption include a refer-
ence to the interpreter? Discuss the implications of such references
or their absence.
7. As we have seen, interpreters are often compared to parrots or
conduits. Check literature or information from professional asso-
ciations to find out which metaphors are used in the country/​
countries of your working language(s) and in the media. Discuss
what kind of image such metaphors construct. Do they construct
the interpreter in a more negative way, as acting in a passive role
(e.g., “parrot”), or a more positive way, as being an active partici-
pant (e.g., “bridge builder”)?

Sources and further reading

Abu Jaber, K. S. (2001) “Language and Diplomacy,” in Kurbalija, J. and Slavik,
H. (eds), Language and Diplomacy. Malta, DiploProjects, pp. 49–​54.
Albl-​Mikasa, M. (2010) “Global English and English as a Lingua Franca
(ELF): Implications for the Interpreting Profession,’ Trans-​kom, 3(2), pp.
126–​148.
Albl-​Mikasa, M. and House, J. (2020) Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca, Special Issue: English as a Lingua Franca and Interpreting and
Translation, 9(2).
Angelelli, C. (2004) Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference,
Court, and Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico and the United States.
Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins.
Archer, D., Aijmer, K., and Wichmann, A. (2012) Pragmatics: An Advanced
Resource Book for Students. London, Routledge.
Austin, J. L. (1955/​ 1975) How To Do Things with Words: The William
James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Baigorri-​Jalón, J. (2004) Interpreters at the United Nations: A History.
Salamanca, Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
68 Between conventions and creativity

Baigorri-​Jalón, J. (2010) “Wars, Languages and the Role(s) of Interpreters,”

paper presented at Les liaisons dangereuses: langues, traduction,
interprétation, Beirut, December. Available at https://​hal-​confremo.
archives-​ouvertes.fr/​hal-​00599599/​document (accessed 11 January 2021).
Baigorri-​Jalón, J. and Fernández-​Sánchez, M. M. (2010) “Understanding
High-​Level Interpreting in the Cold War: Preliminary Notes,” Forum, 8(2),
pp. 1–​29.
Baranyai, T. (2011) “The Role of Translation and Interpretation in the
Diplomatic Communication,” SKASE Journal of Translation and
Interpretation, 5(2), pp. 2–​12.
Beard, A. (2000) The Language of Politics. London, Routledge.
Beaugrande, R. de and Dressler, W. (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics.
London, Longman.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978/​1987) Politeness: Some Universals in
Language Usage. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Charteris-​Black, J. (2014) Analysing Political Speeches: Rhetoric, Discourse
and Metaphor. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Chilton, P. (2004) Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London,
Routledge.
Chilton, P. and Schäffner, C. (eds) (2002) Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic
Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam/​ Philadelphia, PA, John
Benjamins.
Collados Aís, Á., Fernández Sánchez, M. M., and Gile, D. (eds) (2003) La
Evaluación de la Calidad en Interpretación: Investigación. Granada,
Comares.
Collados Aís, Á., Iglesias Fernández, E., Pradas Macías, E. M., and
Stévaux, E. (eds) (2011) Qualitätsparameter beim Simultandolmetschen,
Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven. Tübingen, Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
Delisle, J. and Woodsworth, J. (eds) (2012) Translators through History,
revised edn. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins.
Donahue, R. T. and Prosser, M. H. (1997) Diplomatic Discourse: International
Conflict at the United Nations –​Addresses and Analysis. Greenwich/​
Connecticut/​London, Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Ehrensberger-​ Dow, M., Albl-​ Mikasa, M., Andermatt, K., Hunziker Heeb,
A., and Lehr, C. (2020) “Cognitive Load in Processing ELF: Translators,
Interpreters, and other Multilinguals,” Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca, Special Issue: English as a Lingua Franca and Interpreting and
Translation, 9(2), pp. 217–​238.
Ensink, T. and Sauer, C. (eds) (2003) The Art of Commemoration. Amsterdam/​
Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., and Hyams, N. (2003) An Introduction to Language.
Boston, MA, Thomson Heinle.
García Becerra, O., Pradas Macías, E. M., and Barranco-​Droege, R. (eds)
(2013) Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope, Volume 1. Granada,
Editorial Comares.
Gazzola, M. and Grin, F. (2013) “Is ELF More Effective and Fair than
Translation? An Evaluation of the EU’s Multilingual Regime,” International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(1), pp. 93–​107.
 Between conventions and creativity 69

Girardin, B. (2001) “Language Setting the Stage for Diplomacy; Diplomacy

Based on Interpretation, Rhetoric and Ethics; Philosophical Considerations,”
in Kurbalija, J. and Slavik, H. (eds), Language and Diplomacy. Malta,
DiploProjects, pp. 139–​152.
Goffman, E. (1967/​ 2017) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-​ to-​
Face
Behaviour. New York, Pantheon Books.
Goffman, E. (1979) “Footing,” Semiotica, 25 (1–​2), pp. 1–​30.
Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA, University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Grbić, N. (2008) “Constructing Interpreting Quality,” Interpreting, 10(2), pp.
232–​257.
Grice, H. P (1957) “Meaning,” The Philosophical Review, 66, pp. 377–​388.
Grice, H. P. (1975) “Logic and Conversation,” in Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L.
(eds), Speech Acts. Leiden, Brill, pp. 41–​58.
Grünberg, M. (2002) “Konsekutiv und hochoffiziell. Diplomatisches
Dolmetschen,” in Kurz, I. and Moisl, A. (eds), Berufsbilder für Übersetzer
und Dolmetscher: Perspektiven nach dem Studium. Vienna, W.U.V., pp.
165–​169.
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990) Discourse and the Translator. London/​
New York, Longman.
Hatim B. and Mason, I. (1996) The Translator as Communicator. London,
Routledge.
Holtgraves, T. and Lasky, B. (1999) “Linguistic Power and Persuasion,” Journal
of Language and Social Psychology, 18(2), pp. 196–​205.
House, J. (1997) Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited.
Tübingen, Narr.
Hosman, L. A. and Siltanen, S. A. (2006) “Powerful and Powerless Language
Forms: Their Consequences for Impression Formation, Attributions of
Control of Self and Control of Others, Cognitive Responses, and Message
Memory,” Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25(1), pp. 33–​46.
Ivanji, I. (2007) Titos Dolmetscher. Als Literat am Pulsschlag der Politik.
Vienna, Promedia.
Johnstone, B. (2018) Discourse Analysis, 3rd edn, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley-​
Blackwell.
Kadrić, M. (2011) Dialog als Prinzip: Für eine emanzipatorische Praxis und
Didaktik des Dolmetschens. Tübingen, Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
Kadrić, M. (2017) “Dichter, Diplomat, Dolmetscher: Titos Dolmetscher Ivan
Ivanji,” in Andres, D., Kaindl, K., and Kurz, I. (eds), Dolmetscherinnen
und Dolmetscher im Netz der Macht: Autobiographisch konstruierte
Lebenswege in autoritären Regimen. Berlin, Frank & Timme, pp. 193–​211.
Kadrić, M. (2019) “‘According to the Protocol, We Were Invisible’: The
Dynamics of Interpreters’ Visibility in Politics and Diplomacy,” in RUDN
(ed.), Society and Languages in the Third Millennium. Communication.
Education. Translation. Moscow, RUDN, pp. 113–​121.
Kalina, S. (2005) “Quality Assurance for Interpreting Processes’, Meta, 50(2),
pp. 769–​784.
Kirchhoff, H. (1976/​2002) “Simultaneous Interpreting: Interdependence of
Variables in the Interpreting Process, Interpreting Models and Interpreting
70 Between conventions and creativity

Strategies,” in Pöchhacker, F. and Shlesinger, M. (eds), The Interpreting

Studies Reader. London, Routledge, pp. 101–​119.
Kondo, M. and Tebble, H. (1997) “Intercultural Communication, Negotiation,
and Interpreting,” in Gambier, Y., Gile, D., and Taylor, C. (eds), Conference
Interpreting: Current Trends in Research. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA,
Benjamins, pp. 149–​166.
Kučerová, H. (1990) “Diplomatic Interpreting in Czechoslovakia,” in Bowen,
D. and Bowen, M. (eds), Interpreting: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.
Binghamton, NY, SUNY Press, pp. 37–​39.
Lee, J. (2011) “A Study of Facework in Interpreter-​ Mediated Courtroom
Examination,” Perspectives, Studies in Translatology, 21(1), pp. 1–​18.
Mason, I. (2000) “Audience Design in Translating,” The Translator, 6(1),
pp. 1–​22.
Mason, I. (ed.) (2001) Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting.
Manchester, St. Jerome.
Mason, I. and Stewart, M. (2001) “Interactional Pragmatics, Face and the
Dialogue Interpreter,” in Mason, I. (ed.), Triadic Exchanges: Studies in
Dialogue Interpreting. Manchester, St. Jerome, pp. 51–​70.
Mason, I. and Ren, W. (2012) “Power in Face-​to-​Face Interpreting Events,”
Translation and Interpreting Studies, 7(2), pp. 233–​252.
Munday, J. (2012) Evaluation in Translation: Critical Points of Translator
Decision-​Making. London, Routledge.
Newmark, P. (1988) A Textbook of Translation. London, Prentice-​Hall.
Nick, S. (2001) “Use of Language in Diplomacy,” in Kurbalija, J. and Slavik,
H. (eds), Language and Diplomacy. Malta, DiploProjects, pp. 39–​48.
Nida, E. (1964) Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to
Principles and Procedures involved in Bible Translating. Leiden, Brill.
Nord, C. (1997) Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches
Explained. Manchester, St. Jerome.
Nord, C. (2005) Text Analysis in Translation, Theory, Methodology, and
Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-​Oriented Text Analysis.
Amsterdam, Rodopi.
Nord, C. (2011) Funktionsgerechtigkeit und Loyalität: Theorie, Methode und
Didaktik des funktionalen Übersetzens. Berlin, Frank & Timme.
O’Driscoll, J. (2020) Offensive Language: Taboo, Offence and Social Control.
London, Bloomsbury.
Reiß, K. and Vermeer, H. J. (2014) Towards a General Theory of Translational
Action: Skopos Theory Explained. London, Routledge.
Reithofer, K. (2013) “Comparing Modes of Communication –​the Effect of
English as a Lingua Franca vs. Interpreting,” Interpreting. International
Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, 15(1), pp. 48–​73.
Rennert, S. (2019) Redeflüssigkeit und Dolmetschqualität: Wirkung und
Bewertung. Tübingen, Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
Rennert, S. (2020) “Impact of Fluency from a Listener Perspective,” in Barranco-​
Droege, R. (ed.), Solving the Riddle of Interpreting Quality: Dimensions
and Challenges. Granada, Comares, pp. 1–​23.
Roland, R. (1999) Interpreters as Diplomats: A Diplomatic History of the
Role of Interpreters in World Politics. Ottawa, ON, University of
Ottawa Press.
 Between conventions and creativity 71

Schäffner, C. (2003) “Framing the Past: An Analysis of John Major’s Address,”

in Ensink, T. and Sauer, C. (eds), The Art of Commemoration. Amsterdam/​
Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins, pp. 116–​140.
Schäffner, C. (2015) “Follow-​ Ups in Interpreter-​Mediated Interviews and
Press Conferences,” in Weizman, E. and Fetzer, A. (eds), Follow-​ups in
Political Discourse: Explorations across Contexts and Discourse Domains.
Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins, pp. 205–​229.
Schmidt, P. and Moorhouse, R. (2016) Hitler’s Interpreter: The Memoirs Of Paul
Schmidt. Stroud, The History Press.
Schneider, U. and Eitelmann, M. (eds) (2020) Linguistic Inquiries into Donald
Trump’s Language: From ‘Fake News’ to ‘Tremendous Success’. London,
Bloomsbury.
Searle, J. R. (1969) Speech Acts. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Spencer-​Oatey, H. (2007) “Theories of Identity and the Analysis of Face,”
Journal of Pragmatics, Special Issue: Identity Perspectives on Face and (Im)
Politeness, 39(4), pp. 639–​656.
Spencer-​Oatey, H. and Xing, J. (2009) “The Impact of Culture on Interpreter
Behaviour,” in Kotthoff, H. and Spencer-​Oatey, H. (eds), Handbook of
Intercultural Communication. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 219–​236.
Torikai, K. (2009) Voices of the Invisible Presence: Diplomatic Interpreters in
Post-​World War II Japan. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins.
Venuti, L. (1995) The Translator’s Invisibility. London, Routledge.
Vermeer, H. J. (1989) “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action,” in
Chesterman, A. (ed.), Readings in Translation Theory. Helsinki, Oy Finn
Lectura Ab, pp. 173–​287.
Vermeer, H. J. (1992) “Translation Today: Old and New Problems,” in Snell-​
Hornby, M., Pöchhacker, F., and Kaindl, K. (eds), Translation Studies: An
Interdiscipline. Selected Papers from the Translation Studies Congress, 9–​
12 September 1992. Philadelphia, PA/​New York, John Benjamins, pp. 3–​16.
Vermeer, H. J. (1996) A Skopos Theory of Translation (Some Arguments For
and Against). Heidelberg, TEXTconTEXT.
Wadensjö, C. (1998) Interpreting as Interaction. London, Routledge.
Wadensjö, C. (2008). “The Shaping of Gorbachev: On Framing in an Interpreter-​
Mediated Talk-​Show Interview,” Text & Talk, 28(1), pp. 119–​146.
Wadensjö, C. (2008) “In and Off the Show: Co-​Constructing ‘Invisibility’ in
an Interpreter-​Mediated Talk Show Interview,” Meta, 53(1), pp. 184–​203.
Wang, B. and Munday, J. (eds) (2020) Advances in Discourse Analysis of
Translation and Interpreting: Linking Linguistic Approaches with Socio-​
Cultural Interpretation. London, Routledge.
Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (2001) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.
London, Sage.
Wood, L. and Kroger, R. (2000) Doing Discourse Analysis. London, Sage.
Zanocco, G. (2017) Das fehlende Bindeglied in der Diplomatie: Die Rolle des
diplomatischen Dolmetschers am Beispiel der österreichischen Republik.
Master’s thesis, University of Vienna.
Zhan, C. (2012) “Mediation through Personal Pronoun Shifts in Dialogue
Interpreting of Political Meeting,” Interpreting, 14(2), pp. 192–​216.
Zwischenberger, C. and Behr, M. (2015) Interpreting Quality: A Look Around
and Ahead. Berlin, Frank & Timme.
72 Between conventions and creativity

Online sources
Der Bundespräsident (2020) Frank-​ Walter Steinmeier’s Speech at the Fifth
World Holocaust Forum at Yad Vashem, 23 January 2020. Available at
www.bundespraesident.de/​SharedDocs/​Reden/​EN/​Frank-​Walter-​Steinmeier/​
Reden/​ 2 020/​ 0 1/​ 2 00123-​ World-​ H olocaust-​ F orum-​ Yad-​ Vashem.html
(accessed 11 January 2021).
Graham, D. A. (2017) “The Strange, High-​ Pressure Work of Presidential
Interpreters,” The Atlantic, 7 July. Available at www.theatlantic.com/​inter-
national/​archive/​2017/​07/​trump-​interpreters/​532968/​?utm_​source=nl-​
atlantic-​daily-​070717 (accessed 11 January 2021).
Prime Minister’s Office (2019) “Boris Johnson’s First Speech as Prime Minister,”
24 July. Available at www.gov.uk/​government/​speeches/​boris-​johnsons-​
first-​speech-​as-​prime-​minister-​24-​july-​2019 (accessed 11 January 2021).
“Putins Rede im Bundestag auf Deutsch (2001) –​Alle sind schuldig, vor allem
wir Politiker,” YouTube, uploaded 9 December 2013, user “Viewpoint
East.” Available at www.youtube.com/​watch?v=9jyLQmyg9hs (accessed
11 January 2021).
Samanta, P. D. (2014) “No More English, Modi Chooses Hindi for Talks
with Foreign Leaders,” The Indian Express, 5 June. Available at https://​
indianexpress.com/​article/​india/​politics/​no-​more-​english-​modi-​chooses-​
hindi-​for-​talks-​with-​foreign-​leaders/​ (accessed 11 January 2021).
The Interpreter (2005) Directed by Sydney Pollack [Film]. United International
Pictures, Universal Pictures and Mars Distribution.
The White House (2016) “Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister
Abe of Japan at Hiroshima Peace Memorial,” 27 May. Available at https://​
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ ​ t he- ​ p ress-​ o ffice/​ 2 016/​ 0 5/​ 2 7/​ r emarks-​
president-​obama-​and-​prime-​minister-​abe-​japan-​hiroshima-​peace (accessed
11 January 2021).
4 
Managing information
Ways of rendition and degrees
of involvement

When asked about the tasks and the expectations of interpreters,

many diplomats and interpreters interviewed agreed with the prescrip-
tive view also held by diplomatic interpreters in autobiographies and
memoirs –​that the interpreter should not add or omit anything or
reword or summarise the message, that errors or inaccuracies are not
tolerated, and that adding or modifying the content in any way would
be a gross breach of their mandate. In addition, some say, the inter-
preter should remain impartial, follow the task strictly, and never let
their feelings show.
However, as we also see in many of the examples gathered in the
interviews, it can sometimes be useful or even necessary to deviate
from these rules. To do so in a way that is conducive to interpreting
requires a profound understanding of the rules and the ability to reflect
on one’s decisions and behaviour. Deviating from a rule may be the
best way to handle a specific situation, and so it gives the interpreter
a wider scope for action; however, the interpreter needs to assume
responsibility for their action and bear any consequences it may cause.

4.1 Expectations, rules, and exceptions

Interpreting, like any other profession, has an occupational profile
and is governed by norms and rules. There is a shared image of how
people in this profession should be or act. The function of rules is
to standardise methods and ways of acting and to correct deviations.
Standardisation defines a target state to be achieved, expecting the
practitioner to strive towards this state or maintain certain standards.
To productively deviate from a rule, the practitioner needs to first fully
understand the rule and assume responsibility for any consequences
that could arise from complying with or deviating from that rule.
Since a profession’s image is important, professions throughout
history have sought to describe their work systematically and define
quality standards as a foundation for the public’s trust in members
of the profession. For interpreting services, basic requirements and
recommendations for their provision are formulated in the standard
ISO 18841:2018. It covers matters such as interpreting protocols and
74 Managing information

codes of conduct, the conditions governing interpreting assignments,

qualifications and competences related to interpreting, the client’s and
interpreter’s responsibilities towards each other, and ensuring appro-
priate working conditions. For conference interpreting specifically, a
standard ISO 23155 is being developed, and AIIC expects to see it
published in 2021.
Standards are rules that are explicitly formulated, while conventions
are implicit rules that are applied in a certain social context. Neither
standards nor conventions are absolute, and neither tell us under what
circumstances they should be observed or when we can deviate from
them. This question can only be answered for each situation individu-
ally, depending on the purpose and the context. Sometimes it can be less
conspicuous to deviate from a rule than to comply with it. But how do
interpreters decide when to deviate from the rules? How can they rec-
ognise when a literal rendition is not appropriate and that rewording
the message would better communicate the speaker’s intent –​in fact,
how can they recognise the strategies and intentions hidden behind the
words of the speakers?
This requires comprehensive interpreting competence, at the heart of
which lies the understanding and ability to communicate phenomena
and concepts that are specific to only one of the cultures involved. In
interpreting and translation studies, this ability is often referred to as
cultural competence.
There are many different definitions and concepts of culture.
Cultural anthropology describes culture as structured beliefs,
attitudes, values, and concepts that are reflected in intellectual and
material products as well as people’s behaviour and actions. In add-
ition to this general concept of culture, there are elements of cultural
phenomena that are common to all of humankind, the so-​called cul-
tural or human universals. These include language, certain types of
customs and beliefs –​e.g., related to death, healing, or play –​religious
or moral values, and elements of society such as kinship structures,
hierarchies, and laws. These elements exist in all human societies but
take on different forms, sometimes even within a single society. They
can seem universal to members of a monocultural society, and only on
closer examination or when people from different cultures meet do the
differences become apparent. In translation studies, expressions for
culture-​specific elements are referred to as realia.
The material and immaterial elements specific to the culture or
cultures we live in shape our lives and experiences, and thus our thinking
and behaviour. These differences can lead to misunderstandings in
intercultural encounters, especially if one uses one’s own culture as
a benchmark or views another culture through its lens. Language, as
a manifestation of culture, influences all interactions and experiences
of a cultural group. Cultural identity is reflected not only in language
 Managing information 75

itself but in the way it is used, in the forms and customs of commu-
nication –​for example, whether small talk is considered polite or
silence is preferred, and whether exuberance or reticence, verbosity or
succinctness is considered a virtue. When people from different cultures
come together and communicate via an interpreter, the interpreter is
at the intersection of two or more cultural communities. Particularly
in political and diplomatic discussions, the parties to the conversation
may be reticent at the beginning, and misunderstandings may arise
from this cautious attitude. Culture-​specific behaviours and concepts
are therefore also relevant in the domain of politics and diplomacy.
The general expectation of interpreters, professional organisations,
and clients is that the interpreter provides a functional rendition
without getting involved in or influencing the communicative situ-
ation in any way. In practice, however, this prescriptive view of the
interpreter’s task does not match the realities of the interpreter’s work.
Research in various areas of dialogue interpreting for institutions –​e.g.,
courts, public authorities, and health and social services –​shows that
it is not a purely mechanical activity where interpreters automatically
transfer the statements of speakers from one language to another word
for word, are invisible, and are not part of the communication. Quite
the opposite –​interpreting is interaction, and the interpreter, though
not a primary communicator, is part of the communication. The many
ways in which interpreters manage information and expressiveness are
not exceptions to the rule but rather valuable tools the interpreter can
use to achieve the interlocutors’ communicative purposes.
It should also be noted that not all diplomats and politicians
interviewed expect interpreting to be word for word. One of the
diplomats we interviewed said, “Well for me that’s not very useful.
I prefer to convey the idea rather than word by word (…) Better to
listen a little bit and then to translate the idea.”
Even when people say they expect interpreting to be “literal,” they
do not necessarily equate this with being word for word, as these three
quotes from one diplomat show: “I would expect them just to liter-
ally translate the words or the sense of the words to the best of their
abilities”; “A really good interpreter will interpret the sense of what
is being said swiftly and accurately”; “Interpreting the meaning of the
communication that’s taking place, not all of which is oral, and making
sure that the recipient of your interpretation really understands the
full communication that’s being given is very important.” The seeming
contradiction in these quotes can more likely be attributed to an
unclear definition of what should be considered “literal.”
Professional codes tend to focus on the need for interpreters to be
accurate, to relay accurate renditions of a message, and to be neutral.
However, this often results in a tension between the prescriptive view
and reality, i.e., the actual function and behaviour of the interpreter.
76 Managing information

The main function of professional associations is to represent their

profession. They explain to the public how interpreting works and
what it requires, building trust in the profession and the interpreting
product. It can be difficult to explain all the nuances of decision
making in such a dynamic process as interpreting. Ultimately, every
interpreting situation is different, and the interpreter chooses the strat-
egies suited to the circumstances, setting, participants, and dynamics
of the interaction, often using several different strategies during one
assignment. Interpreters can modify or reword statements to adapt
them to situational and cultural conventions; they can explain concepts
or make implicit information explicit if they believe the recipient
would otherwise not understand the speaker’s meaning as intended.
They may choose to omit or modify face-​threatening expressions or
use face-​saving strategies. They may choose to omit repetitions and
redundancies from their interpreting output to allow for a more
dynamic interaction, or they might repeat something that was not
repeated in the original for better comprehension. If a party says some-
thing as an aside, off the record, they might not interpret it at all.
Interpreters can assist the other delegation’s interpreter or supplement
their interpreting if they believe something important is missing or
unclear to the primary communicators. All of these actions require
split-​second decisions informed by the goals of facilitating commu-
nication, coordinating interaction, preventing misunderstandings, and
supporting cultural and political understanding. At times, they may
even intervene actively.
In some cases, interpreters may discuss such tasks with their
clients in advance or during the conversation; others may see it as an
implicit responsibility. The interviews and anecdotes from the litera-
ture show that the parties to the communication often appreciate such
support, that it helps the precision and correctness of communication,
and that in some cases the interpreter’s active intervention to ensure
the success of the communication or protect the reputation of individ-
uals or institutions is appreciated or even expected.
Whenever the interpreter explains, expands, condenses, or other-
wise modifies an interpreting rendition, they do so based on their
expertise, ideally without introducing their own opinion. This allows
the interpreter to act in a multipartial way. We see this multipartiality
in the way interpreters manage information and expressiveness, both
verbal and nonverbal. Independent, multipartial interpreters are loyal
to all parties to the communication. Their personal distance from
the content they convey needs to be as evident as their interventions
are transparent, always making it clear when they are acting on their
own accord, based on their expertise. This multifaceted, seemingly
contradictory behaviour has also been noted in research on dialogue
interpreting in other settings. Interpreting is always negotiation of
 Managing information 77

meaning. Expectations and standards are normative, but when faced

with the realities of interpreting, a functional approach is common –​
after all, at the core of every communicative situation is its purpose.
Depending on the purpose, the participants will behave in more or
less culture-​specific ways. Their use of language and behaviour will
be influenced by their cultural background, political objectives, and
strategic actions. If the parties have shared or similar goals, there is
less tension and the atmosphere is positive, making it easier for the
parties to find common strategies and solutions, and their communica-
tive strategies will generally be easy to detect. If the parties have diver-
ging or opposing objectives and their communication is characterised
by arguments, disputes, and persuasion, their communicative strat-
egies will be more oblique and the situation more challenging for
interpreters. Of course, both common and conflicting objectives are
an essential part of all negotiations, and how they are approached
depends on political culture. However, the main part of every conver-
sation consists of the people involved, and their characteristics and
behaviour influence the course of the conversation. Their profession
and the status associated with it, their knowledge of their counter-
part and the expertise with which they conduct the conversation, their
passion for the subject, and many other factors play a role. All of this
ultimately determines the formality of the context and the conver-
sation strategy chosen. The boundaries between official and private
conversations are often fluid, which may result in changes in conver-
sation strategies.
The relationships and status of the parties to the communication –​
friendships, alliances, rivalries, or power relations –​also influence the
balance of power in the situation, and whether the atmosphere is tense
or relaxed. Generally speaking, we can assume that during a state visit,
the participants are on an equal footing and of equal importance, so
that there is little or no imbalance in terms of communicative power,
as is often the case in other institutional contexts. However, the rela-
tive economic strength or international influence of countries can still
result in differences in communicative power.
The interaction format can either be dialogic in nature –​discourse
formats such as conversations, small talk, or negotiations, where each
statement is usually followed by a response –​or monologic, such as
speeches or addresses where no reaction is expected.
The format and the social context of the interaction determine not
only the interpreting mode but also the approach of the interpreter.
They help the interpreter determine whether preserved or customised
interpreting is in order, and whether they might need to add, omit,
explain, replace, or change anything in their rendition. When dealing
with informative and expressive text types, many such adaptations can
be appropriate to ensure the communicative goals of the parties to the
78 Managing information

communication are met. The mode of interpreting influences the use of

strategies as well. It may be easier to pick up nuances and between-​the-​
lines messages in consecutive mode since interpreters have a bit more
time to analyse the message, with the additional benefit of notes taken.
Even interpreters and diplomats –​in literature and interviews –​who
have a strong prescriptive approach to interpreting and expect the
interpreter to “just” interpret implicitly expect some meta-​translatorial
support in the form of cultural mediation. That is, they expect the inter-
preter to point out misunderstandings, to explain cultural phenomena,
and so on. Others explicitly expect interpreters to contribute their
expertise –​again, mostly at a meta-​linguistic and meta-​translatorial
level relating to cultural, political, or social contexts. Interpreters have
various methods they can use to ensure communication is achieved as
best as possible. In this chapter, we will look at approaches that can
be used to get information across, while the next one will look at how
interpreters can manage idiomatic language, individual characteristics
of the speaker, and interpersonal communication in expressive texts.
We have illustrated these categories with examples from literature and
our interviews.
When it comes to managing information to ensure the recipient of
the target text understands it the way they would have understood the
source text if they spoke the language, there are a number of strategies
interpreters can use. We have divided these into explicitation, modifi-
cation, reduction, and interposition. These are not separate types of
interpreting but rather categories of intervention interpreters can use
to convey information and also manage expressiveness and interaction
(as covered in the next chapter) in a way that meets the communicative
needs of all parties.

4.2 Explicitation
Explicitation refers to elements in the interpreter’s rendition that are
not verbalised or not explicitly found in the original utterance. It is
used to clarify what is said without adding any new content, just
making the implicit explicit. To know when this strategy is needed
and employ it successfully, interpreters need to be aware of the polit-
ical, legal, and cultural backgrounds of the parties to the discussion,
as well as their different ways of thinking and expressing themselves.
Clarification may be necessary both with regard to factual information
and to the behaviour and attitudes of the speakers. In explicitation, the
interpreter adds no information that is not at least implicitly present in
the source text, but ensures that the recipient can understand the text
correctly. Explicitation is often needed when speakers refer to political,
historical, or cultural facts and phenomena to allow the recipients to
understand the full context and get a complete picture of what is being
 Managing information 79

said. Sometimes it is necessary to explain a specific characteristic of a

speaker that manifests in their attitudes and opinions, or to restructure
the interpreting output in such a way that the information implicit in
the source statement becomes explicit in the target text. These can be
simple things such as acronyms or abbreviations that are indecipher-
able if merely reproduced in the target language, such as adding the
information “Socialist Party” to “PS” when speaking about French
politics or saying “the Finnish Social Insurance Agency” rather than
just using the Finnish acronym “Kela.” A higher detail of explicitation
may be needed at other times, for example, when two countries do not
share the same cultural, political, legal, or economic system. In such
cases, it may be necessary to interpret something more explicitly to
ensure that it is understood.
The difference between explicitation and explanation can be very
subtle. In this book, we understand explicitation in a broader sense.
In respect of translation, Chesterman (2016) lists explicitness change
(i.e., making information more explicit or more implicit in the target
text) as a pragmatic translation strategy which he sets off from infor-
mation change as a separate pragmatic strategy that includes addition
and omission. However, terms used to categorise strategies, both for
translation and interpreting, are often ambiguous.
Realia that may typically require a brief explanation include special
characteristics or traditions of a country or culture, technical terms, or
certain historical events. Literary allusions, irony and jokes, idioms,
proverbs, and figurative expressions often also need to be explained.
Typical subjects of explicitation are food and elements of local trad-
ition that have a special name that would make no sense to the listener
otherwise, e.g., when the Austrian “Heuriger” is rendered as “a trad-
itional tavern that serves wine from its vineyard” or a dish is described
instead of giving its name. The more different and geographically apart
two cultures are, the more frequent the need for such explicitations.
Explicitations often occur in the less formal parts of assignments, such
as during meals or sightseeing, but may also be necessary for proper
names, terminology related to a country’s political or social system, or
concepts that do not exist in the target culture.
A typical example is provided by institutions and organisations,
which may require a description for which the interpreter may say the
full name instead of the abbreviated form speakers who are familiar with
them would use. An interpreter for English and German mentioned an
example from the Austrian Foreign Ministry, where the internal abbre-
viation “Expert Council” was used: “(…) so you say Expert Council
for Integration so they know what they’re talking about, because there
are so many experts.” Members of the ministry would generally use
the full name when communicating with external partners, but if they
forgot, the interpreter would substitute the abbreviation with the full
80 Managing information

name. An interpreter for Russian and German mentioned a similar

example, where the OSCE Forum for Security Co-​operation is intern-
ally referred to as “Security Forum” by the Russian delegation. She
said she changes this “automatically” when interpreting.
Explicitations can also be necessary for historical events. An inter-
preter who works between Bulgarian and English gave us the following
examples.

When Bulgarians speak of “the Liberation” they mean “the liber-

ation of Bulgaria from Ottoman domination in 1878.” Whenever
I could, I have tried to add at least once whatever I could of the
extra information, if the audience is not made up of historians.
Or the expression “baptising” –​meaning the conversion of the
Bulgarians to Christianity in the 9th century. The examples are
mainly in the Bulgarian-​to-​English direction because there is gener-
ally less awareness and information in English-​speaking audiences
about Bulgarian realia than vice versa.

Similarly, an Arab-​German interpreter mentioned Nakba (‫ )ةبكنلا‬as

a case where she tries to make the information explicit. It literally
translates as “disaster” or “catastrophe,” but is used to refer to the
expulsion and flight of Palestinians during the Palestine war in 1948,
when the state of Israel was established. This is commemorated by
Palestinians on 15 May, known as Nakba Day.
The career diplomats we interviewed said they tried to avoid using
expressions or references that were hard to interpret.

It’s not very useful and does not help the communication very
much if you have to explain this festival in your country once a
year (…) it deviates from the message you want to convey. So I try
to be short.

However, visiting dignitaries may lack this awareness.

One thing is to be an official posted here in Vienna and another is

to be an official coming from the capital, no matter what capital.
They come and they have a different speed when they speak, they
use different words, they have a different speech length, they tend to
speak a lot more (…) It is more difficult, I suppose, for interpreters
but it is also more difficult for us [when] we are trying to find the
key message.

A politician we interviewed said he tried to avoid dialectal expressions

abroad, but appreciated interpreters changing them in their rendition
when he did.
 Managing information 81

Art and culture are part of the programme of almost every political
and diplomatic visit. Although they are usually not the main subject of
political and diplomatic discussions, references to them are common,
requiring perhaps more knowledge than any other area of society. It is
an extraordinarily broad subject that regularly comes up in small talk
and less formal parts of the programme –​such as sightseeing tours
or visits to the theatre or museum –​and may be referenced in formal
speeches. Interpreters need a good understanding of works of art, lit-
erature, and music, as well as customs and cultural events of the source
and target cultures. Such terms are not always explained by the hosts,
so that interpreters, when faced with a reference to a specific play or
culture, might choose to explain their history or significance to allow
the listener to understand the reference. The degree of explicitation
may vary, sometimes going into the realm of adding culture-​specific
information, as in this example by an interpreter.

When I interpret into Arabic and a reference is made to a singer or a

concert I have to explain to the Arab delegations what it means and
what the context is. Sometimes I speak a little bit more to explain
to them (…) I elaborate when I know the subject (…) when I know
the context I am happy to explain who the person is they’re refer-
ring to.

While this interpreter feels it is clear to their audience which part is

their comment and which part was said by the speaker, a diplomat we
interviewed felt this should be made explicit.

I think they definitely should [explain] but they need to distinguish

between their comment and what’s being translated. Supposing a
person was translating from English into some other language and
somebody said “oh, that’s very pythonesque” you’d need to explain
what that meant to somebody who didn’t know about Monty
Python.

It is also possible that the interpreter themselves does not understand

a reference and interposes by asking the speaker for an explanation.
The use of a second language by one of the parties to the con-
versation can be an additional challenge. In the successor states of
the former Soviet Union, for example, Russian is spoken as a lingua
franca. Politicians from these countries often speak Russian when
abroad (usually for practical reasons, i.e., the better availability of
interpreters), so interpreting is between Russian and the host country’s
language. This can result in misunderstandings or communication
difficulties, as the following example shows. During a visit to an art
museum, the conversation turned to a Late Gothic wooden sculpture
82 Managing information

by the German sculptor and carver Michel Erhart named Vanitas –​

“бренность” in Russian. The word is rarely used in either language,
but was relevant to the conversation. The interpreter tells us: “I could
tell from his face immediately that he hadn’t understood the word
(…) so I interpreted it again, using different words: ‘преходящий
характер жизни,’ the fleeting nature of life.” In this case the interpreter
reworded the phrase herself instead of asking the speaker to do so.
This customised interpreting solution may also have been a face-​work
strategy to avoid drawing attention to the fact that the listener had not
understood the expression.
Social and religious customs may also require explicitation.
A Chinese interpreter told us of the following situation:

The members of a Chinese delegation were receiving gifts from a

European delegation; they expressed their appreciation but did not
open the gifts in front of the European delegation. In face of this,
I explained to the European delegation that opening a gift in front
of the gift-​giver is considered not courteous in China.

The above example is a case of explicitation but also of mediation

(discussed in the following chapter), as the goal of explaining the
custom is to avoid a cultural misunderstanding. When interpreters
are faced with realia or traditions such as these, their interpreting
output generally contains more explicitly expressed information than
the source text, as the explicitations are necessary to help the listener
understand what someone from the speaker’s culture might understand
implicitly. Explicitations thus tend to make the interpreting output
longer than the original, and it may be expedient to explain this to
the speaker so that they do not wonder about the discrepancy. As the
above example shows, explicitations are not limited to the linguistic
level. Interpreters’ intercultural and transcultural competence allows
them to identify elements of the conversation or behaviour that might
be unfamiliar, confusing, or lead to misunderstandings, and to address
these by explaining their significance. This is an example of how
interpreters interpret not just between languages but between cultures,
and can contribute to reducing intercultural misunderstandings. It is in
explicitations that interpreters’ cultural expertise becomes particularly
evident, and users may even explicitly ask interpreters to contribute
their expertise.
However, not all diplomats we interviewed would want interpreters
to explain things without asking.

I think it really depends on the context. I would rather have an

interpreter who sticks as much as possible to what has actually been
said and then lets the interlocutor ask the question if it’s necessary.
 Managing information 83

A good interlocutor, if not sure, would then raise their hand and
say “what do you mean by that?” if that is relevant to the conversa-
tion. But maybe that isn’t. It really depends on the context whether
really there needs to be a complete and full understanding of every
subcontext that is mentioned in the conversation.

Another diplomat said explanations should be given when necessary,

but clearly marked, as the interpreter’s comment: “I think they defin-
itely should, but they need to distinguish between their comment and
what’s being translated.”
Yet another diplomat felt it was better to provide cultural context in
advance if necessary and possible but also noted that diplomats posted
abroad did not always need such information.

(…) you learn a lot about the country before you even go, and so
you might need some explanation, but you’re working with an
interpreter in a country that you’re somewhat familiar with and
that’s part of our preparation before we become diplomats and get
assigned to a different country.
On the other hand, if (…) you’ve got an official visitor that’s
going to an embassy overseas, like when we host an undersecre-
tary or some other kind of expert, they may not be as familiar,
may not have ever travelled to that country before (…) I think
it’s very appropriate and helpful when an interpreter can give a
little bit of context or maybe ask one or two questions to offer
an explanation.

4.3 Modification
Modification refers to adjustments and changes made to the target
text. These can be words, phrases, or text segments that are used by
interpreters to replace something from the source text. Modification
both omits and adds something and is used to correct obvious
mistakes made in the original utterance, to express something more
appropriately or tone it down, or to erase false starts; for example,
if someone says “It is a great honour… I am very honoured to be
here,” the interpreter will usually interpret just “I am very honoured
to be here.” The intention of the original statement should not be
fundamentally changed. For simultaneous interpreting, one inter-
preter told us:

If I didn’t say the first one, of course I use the corrected version or
I do the same; I say “the speaker has restarted the sentence. He is
saying the sentence again” and I say the correct one.
84 Managing information

Although interpreters normally interpret in the first person, they

often use the third person to refer to the speaker to indicate that they
are speaking in their own voice. This is addressed in the sections on
moderation and coordination.
Another interpreter pointed out that when a speaker corrects
themselves, she deals with it differently depending on the mode of
interpreting.

If it is simultaneous and I didn’t notice the mistake and interpreted

it as is, then I follow the speaker and correct later on as well. If it is
in a consecutive mode, I only keep the correct version, there is no
need to mention the mistake.

The diplomats and politicians interviewed had different views on

modifications, including self-​corrections. While one would want
the interpreter to interpret the corrected version only, another said
it depended on the context. While it was not relevant for courtesy
phrases as the one above that do not carry much weight in the con-
versation, she argued for a preserved interpreting approach in more
sensitive situations.

For the sake of the conversation I would just go to the correct word,
not dwell on the hesitation (…) But in other contexts, where the
matter of the conversation is a more significant one, then the hesi-
tation might carry weight in the conversation (…) how the inter-
locutor hesitates between one word or another, depending on what
you are discussing, might carry a weight and in that situation it
would be important that every word is translated.

Others said self-​corrections were a natural part of speech and should

be rendered.
The most frequent reason for the use of modifications is to correct
obvious, involuntary mistakes, such as when the speaker confuses
the names of two countries or misspeaks. There are different ways to
go about correcting such mistakes. How the modification is made or
which interpreting strategy is actually chosen is likely to depend very
much on the situation and the people involved.
One of the interpreters interviewed mentioned problems caused by
the speaker’s pronunciation. During a session at the United Nations,
a diplomat from Namibia spoke of “The Namibian people’s yawning
for freedom,” uttered in his dialect. Moreover, this wording was also
used in the official written version of the speech that the delegation
had handed to the interpreting booth. What was actually meant was
“yearning,” and the interpreter used the correct word in his rendition
into Spanish.
 Managing information 85

A similar misunderstanding occurred at a press conference held by

the then US President Obama and German Chancellor Merkel in Berlin
in June 2013. A journalist had asked a question in German as a follow-​
up to the topic of the prison in Guantanamo, which the politicians had
addressed in their statements. She then continued as follows.

Ich habe eine Nachfrage zur NSA. Sie haben gerade auf
Deutschland verwiesen. Ist der Grund dafür, dass Sie besonders
Deutschland so ausspähen lassen, dass es auch hier ein besonderes
Gefährdungspotenzial gibt? (I have a follow-​up question on the
NSA. You have just referred to Germany. Is the reason that you
allow spying, especially on Germany, that the potential risk of
danger is particularly high here?)

The transcript of this press conference reports that the question was
rendered into English through simultaneous interpreting as: “And
now, as regards Asia, are you singling out Germany because there’s a
big risk here?”
The erroneous rendering of NSA as Asia could probably have been
caused by the interpreter not being able to hear the speaker very clearly.
When we watch the video, which is accessible from the website of the
German government, we notice that the journalist pronounced NSA
the English way. It may also be due to the acoustics that the function
of the follow-​up was not understood by the interpreter, who might
have assumed that a new topic was being introduced. The breakdown
in coherence prompted Obama to ask for clarification.

Let me see if I understood your question properly. The first question

was related to policies back home, related to Guantanamo or the
death penalty. And then you wanted to talk about drones, or did
you just want to focus on the drone question? I just want to make
sure that I’m responsive to your question.

In this case, the mistake was so obvious that Obama was able to ask
for clarification –​less discordant mistakes can go unnoticed.
One of the main reasons for interpreters to modify messages is as
a face-​saving strategy, which is also reflected in some of the possible
strategies, such as correcting the mistake without asking, rephrasing
to avoid repeating a mistake, asking the speaker to confirm, or gently
pointing out the mistake (the latter two strategies will be discussed
further on). Some examples may serve to illustrate these.
One interpreter told the story of how a visiting dignitary had said at
a banquet of the Austrian president, “I am happy to be in Germany.”
The interpreter decided to correct the obvious lapse and said “I am
happy to be in Austria,” thus conveying the obvious intent of the
86 Managing information

speaker, if not his exact words. Another possible solution would have
been to replace the name of the country with a locative adverb: “I
am happy to be here.” Another interpreter took a different approach
when a speaker confused Iraq and Iran and asked for confirmation
in the course of her interpreting act: “The situation of the talks
concerning … was that Iran?”, to which the speaker replied “Yes,
I misspoke.” In this case, the speaker noticed and admitted his error,
but this strategy is also a face-​saving offer that allows the speaker to
pretend –​or even believe, if unaware of their mistake –​that it was
the interpreter who had not understood it properly. Another one of
the interviewed interpreters also argues that the strategy depends
on the interpreting mode.

In simultaneous, I would translate everything. In consecutive,

I would usually interpret only the corrected version. (…) Naturally,
an interpreter cannot ask presidents and other dignitaries for
clarifications –​except perhaps in emergencies.

Another interpreter said she corrects the speaker’s mistakes overtly.

I immediately correct and say “I think he meant the opposite” or

“I think he meant yes” or “I think he meant this year and not that
year.” Sometimes I correct and sometimes I just say “according to
the speaker” so it shows that obviously it’s not the right number.

Most other interpreters, however, preferred to use more face-​saving

strategies. One interpreter said she usually double-​checks with the
speaker if she believes there has been a mistake. However, she occa-
sionally corrects obvious mistakes.

There was a situation when the speaker used the wrong title for a
Chinese guest. Yet I managed to correct that, and no one noticed.
The original phrase was “Mayor of XX (a city’s name).” I expressed
it as “XX市书记” (Party Secretary of XX).

For all that it may often seem easiest to simply correct a mistake
without asking, there are also risks involved in this; the point that was
corrected might come up again later and then lead to great confusion,
or the interpreter might make a mistake in their correction.
The views on such corrections differed between the diplomats
and politicians interviewed. One diplomat said she would prefer
interpreters to correct minor mistakes.

I always prefer to deliver as simple and fast a message as I can. If

the interpreter has to ask if I want to correct something that he or
 Managing information 87

she realises that I [said wrong] I prefer that they go straight ahead
to correct a minor mistake.

The same diplomat would also greatly appreciate an interpreter

covering up a potentially embarrassing or offensive statement, as in
the Austria-​Germany example described above: “I suppose my best
scenario would be that the interpreter would say Austria instead of
Germany. And I would owe her or him a big favour.” A politician
agreed with this view, saying he expected a “good, trustworthy inter-
preter” to correct obvious lapses.
Another diplomat, who had trained and worked as an interpreter
before entering the diplomatic service, had the opposite view.

An interpreter should translate what has been said even if there is a

mistake. (…) if you make a faux pas like this, it’s your faux pas, it’s
not the interpreter’s. If you make that sort of mistake it also tells a
lot about the person, and if it’s really a slip of the tongue, then the
interlocutor (…) must know how to take it and how to read it, but
I think it’s not up to the interpreter to correct that. I understand that
in the situation the interpreter might feel compelled to do it because
it’s so obvious but still, if I were the interpreter, I would translate
what the person said and not correct it.

She said a staff interpreter who knew the speaker well might ask
them if it was a mistake but “if it’s an interpreter who doesn’t
have any particular relationship with the speaker then I would just
translate.”
Other diplomats said they would prefer to be asked. An ambassador
with decades of experience said:

I would prefer it to have the interpreter check back with me because

it’s very easy when you’re under pressure it’s very easy to say just
the wrong word and not notice you’ve said it.

Another diplomat agreed with this stance.

I think it depends but I would prefer to have it pointed out, politely

of course. There may be situations where you want to let it go but
I think it’s better to try to be as accurate as possible. (…) if you
know as an interpreter that the person that you’re interpreting for
means something else than what they’re saying you can say “what
you just said is X, did you mean Y?” just to clarify.

Another added that the interpreter would have to be confident the

speaker really had made a mistake in order to correct it, as there were
88 Managing information

times when what seemed like a mistake could be an intentional provo-

cation or an attempt to make a point. Yet another diplomat emphasised
speaker intent in this context.

It depends on how well you know the speaker. If you know this
person likes to express themselves this way, or Mr Trump wants the
other side to hear this more direct language, then you will use that
language. But if you know someone usually speaks a certain way
but now they’re angry and maybe something unacceptable slips out,
you might either soften it in translation or avoid the word or ask
them. That’s my experience, but this is very rare.

However, he had experienced it in simultaneous settings.

If they are calling each other names and you realise they want
to do so, then you should use that language. That can happen at
the United Nations or international conferences in particular that
someone wants to make their feelings clear to the other side, that
does happen.

Modifications can also be used to manage cultural differences in

the style of communication to express the message more appropri-
ately. For example, the concept of politeness and how it is expressed
in language differs greatly between cultures. One Arabic-​German
interpreter said that the often quite direct rejections uttered by
speakers of German could be perceived as very rude in Arabic, so
she expresses them in a more indirect way when interpreting into
Arabic, and conversely modifies indirect rejections to be more
explicit and direct when interpreting from Arabic into German.
By doing so, the interpreter ensures that the message (rejection) is
received clearly without causing offense or confusion not intended
by the speaker. Another Arabic interpreter said she sticks to the text
in such cases, though she might mitigate it a bit if it seems very
blunt. A diplomat said it was very important to express things the
way they were usually expressed in the target language, particularly
when it came to greetings.

For greetings, use the expressions that are commonly used in that
language even if it’s expressed differently in the other language. (…)
typical language usage is expected to create a suitable atmosphere
for the talks, and every language expresses it differently.

Another area where misunderstandings can easily occur if no

modifications are made is phatic communication, where the meaning
of commonly used phrases is often not literal. An example from
 Managing information 89

everyday communication would be the UK use of courtesy phrases

like the above-​mentioned “How do you do” or “You should come for
dinner sometime,” which could easily be taken as a concrete invitation
(even by English speakers from other countries) but is, in fact, just
a polite way of ending a conversation. Another example are culture-​
specific ways of addressing a communicative partner. As one inter-
preter for Arabic and French told us:

Arab delegates often say mister or madam followed by the first

name of the person. This can be very misfitting in French, so it is
always good to remember the family names of the French delegates
to put them back when interpreting from Arabic into French.

A politician who had been active both at the national and the EU level
said she would appreciate the interpreter’s insight in such a situation,
but preferred the interpreter pointing it out rather than modifying it
without asking.

Yes, I think that would be good, though I can’t remember having

experienced such a situation. But imagining it, I think it would be
important that the interpreter say, “this image can’t be translated
or this would be inappropriate,” I’m sure you’d be grateful in that
situation.

A career diplomat pointed out that they made regular use of the cul-
tural expertise of the staff at the embassy –​several of them trained
interpreters or translators –​by asking them if certain ways of
wording something were alright, and that this could also be applied
to interpreting: “I think the advantage of having interpretation is that
they can bridge the cultural gaps.” She would prefer the interpreter to
“fill in the cultural gaps you have” and then explain the reason for the
modification to her. However, she did add, “but that is me; perhaps
somebody is furious that they changed the meaning of what they say.”
Another diplomat had the opposing view.

I think for me that’s one of the aspects of professional interpreters,

that they don’t intervene unless the building’s on fire, unless there’s
an emergency, and they will not get involved in the exchange, they
would keep themselves in the background. I’ve often been with (…)
amateur interpreters who will start saying “what he’s meaning to
say is this” and will even start taking over the conversation, which
is very unsatisfactory on the whole.

He would not want the interpreter to modify a direct “no” into a more
culturally appropriate form.
90 Managing information

I would expect them to say “no” because that’s what I’ve said and
I think once they get into trying to interpret what the other side is
saying then you’re getting into quite deep water.

However, he said the interpreter could explain this, as long as it was

made clear it was an aside.

It would be possible for the interpreter to add in an aside, maybe

afterwards, or if there’s enough time possibly during the thing,
to say “he said this but as you know in this culture it usually
means that.”

As these contrasting opinions show, interpreting strategies are often a

matter of preference, and interpreters who work with the same client
regularly will be familiar with their preferences.
Although there are many reasons for the use of modifications, they
can change the perception listeners get of the speaker. If interpreters
correct mistakes or slip-​ups, modify statements, or render statements
more coherently, the listeners’ assessment of the speaker may be more
positive than without these corrections. To the extent where it simply
serves to make communication successful, interpreters may decide if
it is worth it as a face-​saving strategy. However, larger modifications
that veer into the realm of obfuscating the speaker’s (intention-
ally or unintentionally) offensive statements can be questionable,
as they may give the listener the impression that the relationship
is more positive than it actually is. If spotted, such modifications
may make the interpreter seem biased and cause the other party
to distrust them, but interpreters we spoke to also mentioned such
modifications being welcomed when they were used to avoid offense.
This is what we call moderation, and it is discussed in more detail in
the next chapter.
An example of a considerable modification as a moderation strategy
is an often-​cited anecdote about a meeting between UK Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher and the Communist president of former French
Congo. According to her foreign policy advisor Charles Powell, she
opened the meeting by saying “I hate Communists,” which the French
interpreter rendered as “Prime Minister Thatcher says that she has
never been wholly supportive of the ideas of Karl Marx.”
An interpreter for Chinese and English mentioned much smaller
modifications that nonetheless were likely just as important in diplo-
matic terms as the above example. Due to the dispute between China
and Taiwan, she sometimes modifies terms so as not to cause offense.

For instance, when interpreting terms used for some issues being
disputed, e.g., “country” or “jurisdiction”, “regional” leaders or
 Managing information 91

“national” leaders, which have something to do with geographic

reasons as well as political and historical events.

She cites an example of interpreting from English into (Mandarin)

Chinese, when she expressed the original phrase “National Taiwan
University” as “台湾大学” (Taiwan University).
An interpreter for French and German described a very delicate
situation that occurred at a press conference of a Swiss foreign min-
ister in Vienna. The minister had used German –​which, like French,
is one of Switzerland’s official languages –​in the preceding talks, but
decided to speak French at the press conference. He said something
the interpreter was sure he could not have meant the way he said it.
The interpreter decided to rephrase the original statement, which she
described as a “political bomb,” and weaken it in her rendition. In her
opinion, French-​speaking journalists would have been able to place
the statement in the appropriate cultural context, but others would
have likely misunderstood the intent, potentially causing a political
incident with ramifications for both the minister and his country.
Particularly in situations where a statement and, consequently,
the interpreter’s decision on how to handle it can provoke different
reactions, the question of whether the interpreter should modify or
tone down a potentially offensive or risky statement is difficult to
answer. In this case, the decision was apparently the right one: “The
press officer, the press attaché, the Swiss ambassador and the Austrian
ambassador (…) all came and thanked me on their knees for doing
so,” the interpreter tells us.
A noteworthy detail in the above example is language use; by
switching from German, the host country’s language, which he
obviously spoke well enough to hold talks in it without needing an
interpreter, to French for his press appearance, the minister appears
to distance himself from his audience. Instead of speaking their lan-
guage, he speaks through an interpreter. Although we do not know the
reasons for this decision, the effect is one of distancing or avoidance of
direct communication.

4.4 Reduction
We use the term reduction when parts of the original –​units of
meaning, not merely filler words –​are summarised, rendered only
partially, or left out entirely in the interpreting output. This is rarely
done in political and diplomatic interpreting, especially in high-​level
meetings, which are carefully choreographed by diplomatic protocol,
but it may be necessary or desired in certain situations.
Repetitions and redundancies in the source text can be left out
to save time –​a method that is particularly used in simultaneous
92 Managing information

interpreting but is also employed in dialogue interpreting. However,

when repetitions are used for rhetorical effect, they are often rendered
by the interpreter as well. Reductions may be necessary for linguistic
or cultural reasons, e.g., where the target language has a single specific
word for something that needs to be expressed with an entire sentence
in the source language. The inverse can also be true, where the target
language requires a more complex or circuitous way of expressing
what is one word in the source language.
Reductions are more common in informal settings than formal ones.
In lively, fast-​paced conversations, reductions can help save time and
keep the flow of conversation going. Informal conversations, e.g., at less
official get-​togethers or private meetings, may also be characterised by
people interrupting each other or forgetting to wait for interpreting, so
interpreters may need to adapt to ensure everyone can follow the con-
versation, even if less important details may fall by the wayside. As one
interpreter said: “Sometimes I’ll summarise a bit so it’s faster because
the conversation is exciting and people grow impatient.” This is a good
example of multipartial action on behalf of the interpreter; nothing is
lost, and she considers the communicative needs of all participants.
However, the need for reduction may also occur in formal situations,
particularly in political settings, e.g., when speakers –​e.g., Members
of Parliament –​with limited time try to get all their points across by
speaking very quickly and condensing the information. In such a situ-
ation, the interpreter may not be able to take complete notes (or keep
pace in simultaneous mode) and may have to summarise the informa-
tion. In this case, the interpreting output will not completely reflect the
source text.
A diplomat we interviewed agreed with this approach: “It’s difficult
because when they are talking very fast, the interpreter cannot stop
them. In such a case they have to resort to summary, telegraphic infor-
mation: ‘they are arguing about deadlines’.” Another said: “I think it’s
difficult when someone is speaking very quickly and you’re trying to be
precise and you start to get behind. I think that’s a situation that you
really want to avoid and it’s better to just say ‘could you repeat that?’.”
A politician we interviewed said he appreciated the interpreter
summarising his speech when he got carried away with technical
details in committee meetings: “I was very grateful to the interpreter
that she summarised it and boiled it down to the essentials.”
One of our interpreters mentions that he reduced a speech by a dip-
lomat in a UN committee meeting when he went on and on thanking
a chairman. The interpreter commented:

I just let him rant away and, when my Latin American audience
(whom I knew well) looked up at me to see if I was still alive,
I opened the mike and uttered “Thank you… A lot!”
 Managing information 93

He added that the audience then struggled to hide their laughter.

It should be noted that this is not something interpreters do regularly,
nor would it always be advisable or appropriate to do so. However,
an experienced interpreter with a certain status (in this case, the head
of the interpreting unit) who knows their audience well will be able to
judge whether it is appropriate.
Reductions of this kind are less common at state visits, where a
member of staff or protocol officer would generally intervene.
As a rule, reduction should not lead to any loss of information or
misinterpretations. However, in practice, interpreters sometimes com-
pletely omit something from the interpreted rendition. When it happens,
it is generally done as a face-​saving strategy, where interpreting every-
thing could be detrimental to the speaker or the institution or state
they represent, e.g., when the speaker says something offensive. If it
is unintentional (e.g., because the speaker lacks the cultural know-
ledge to understand that it would be offensive in the target culture or
misspeaks), leaving it out would be in line with the speaker’s intention.
However, we also find examples of interpreters censoring intention-
ally offensive statements, like the following. An interpreter for French
and German accompanied a delegation to a North African country.
A member of the Austrian delegation made a vilifying and insulting
remark about Israel in his speech. The interpreter did not interpret
that part: “I omitted it, I left it out, I absolutely left it out.” She was
well aware that her decision was risky and could have had negative
consequences for her. In this case, however, the head of the delegation
thanked the interpreter on the flight back home for not interpreting the
delegation member’s insulting remarks. Technically speaking, deciding
not to interpret these words is a full reduction, but at the same time
leaving them out is an act of mediation and conflict avoidance.
Sometimes speakers ask the interpreter explicitly not to interpret
comments that are “off the record” or internal conversations between
the members of a delegation: “For example, in bilateral negotiation
sessions. I was asked not to interpret what was discussed among my
clients, but to interpret only what they said to the other side.” A similar
strategy is used by another interpreter: “I just say that the delegation is
having an internal conversation.”
One of the interpreters interviewed commented on how she finds it
“highly annoying” when a speaker says something inappropriate and
then asks her not to interpret it, particularly if the original statement
contained internationally comprehensible words and body language
that gave the intent away: “I have tried on several occasions to think
of some neutral sentence involving the international word(s), just as
neutral filler –​with dubious success, I must admit.”
A diplomat interviewed felt it was not fair and dishonest to change
one’s mind mid-​sentence and ask for it not to be interpreted and
94 Managing information

would rather prefer the interpreter convey the original and the change
of mind, especially as her language, Spanish, is often understood by
others. A politician agreed: “If I don’t want something interpreted,
I shouldn’t say it.”
Interpreters encounter this situation in virtually all face-​ to-​
face
settings. Deciding how to deal with it, i.e., whether to honour the
speaker’s request or to interpret everything, depends on the setting,
what has been agreed with the client and the interpreter’s task in the
given situation.
In diplomatic interpreting, such reductions are often justified. What
is important is that they are not arbitrary, but follow certain rules
and can be explained. After all, the communicative goal of diplomatic
talks is generally to find common ground and develop joint solutions
rather than have a confrontational discussion. Furthermore, when
interpreters are part of a delegation, they may have other tasks in
addition to interpreting (which can include the explicit request not to
interpret some utterances).
One diplomat said this was a common procedure and that espe-
cially interpreters who were part of a delegation were used to such
requests.

If you are having an exchange among the delegation but you are
not talking to your interlocutor, it is completely normal to ask the
interpreter “please do not translate this, give us a moment and then
we will tell you to go on.” Because you are still negotiating. But that
is normal practice, I don’t think interpreters would be surprised.
Especially if they are part of your delegation, part of your staff.

Another diplomat pointed out that it was unlikely for such internal
conversations to be about truly secret or sensitive matters.

That happens frequently, but usually the volume already shows

what should be interpreted and what not and you usually don’t
even have to tell the interpreter “don’t interpret this please.” You
whisper or do something where it’s clear that it’s internal communi-
cation. People who speak dialects often use those.
(…) but you have to expect that the other side understands at least
some of it, you won’t be talking about confidential matters when
the other side can hear you, either you whisper in someone’s ear or
write it down (…) and the interpreters are used to only interpreting
what you communicate when you look at the others.

A politician with years of experience in international politics also told

us she considers it a valid request even when her words were directed
at the interlocutor, also when it is her interlocutor who does so: “I
 Managing information 95

think that’s part of the autonomy of the speaker to say that, or to

utilise the fact that something you’ve already said has actually, in a
way, not been said yet.”

4.5 Interposition
Interposition serves the purpose of improving and aiding the com-
munication. The interpreter pauses the rendition of the source con-
tent to ask her own questions that are necessary to ensure successful
interpreting. While explicitations, modifications, and reductions are
made during the act of interpreting, generally without those involved
in communication noticing, an interposition disrupts the usual flow of
the interpreted conversation with a question or request, making the
interpreter more visible.
Misunderstandings and faux pas are part of language and commu-
nicative behaviour. They can be caused by slips of the tongue, high
speech rate, pragmatic mistakes, or inappropriate word choice or
behaviour, often out of ignorance. Depending on the situation and
the people involved, such gaffes may cause hilarity or tension. This
is, of course, not limited to political and diplomatic meetings, but
may be of greater consequence there than in other settings. To miti-
gate the damage and enable smooth communication, other parties to
the communication may use face-​saving strategies in such situations
by ignoring the slip-​up or intervening. In interpreted interactions, this
may fall to the interpreter. Some ways of intervening were mentioned
earlier in this chapter, such as using reduction or modification strat-
egies. Interpositions are a more visible and drastic measure. They
are rare and generally only employed in extreme cases. Interpreters
interpose directly above all when it is necessary to establish suitable
working conditions or to clarify mistakes and misunderstandings.
An interpreter shared what she called a “scary experience” in this
respect. She had accompanied the Bulgarian foreign minister to the
United States. The minister, an old acquaintance, wanted the inter-
preter to accompany her to help with more difficult expressions, as
she spoke some English but was more comfortable with Spanish. At
a working lunch in Washington, DC, she was listening attentively but
unobtrusively while the minister spoke, keeping in the background
but ready to answer any questions that might arise –​an example of
stand-​by interpreting. At one point, the minister used a false friend
from Spanish, where “pretender” means to aim or to intend to do
something.

“We pretend to do this, we pretend to be that …” Repeated several

times. Not everyone at the table was favourably disposed, I saw
glints in the eyes of several people and imagined the newspapers
96 Managing information

on the next day. (…) I blurted from the end of the table: “With
all due respect, Minister, there is a minor linguistic interference in
what you just said, we don’t pretend, we are all these good things.”
Anyone who has been in a similar situation can understand the
shock I provoked and I could have kissed my diplomatic passport
goodbye, if the minister had not reacted adequately. Startled and
uncomprehending for a second, she smiled her charming smile and
said: “Of course. Thank you, [name].” The eyes of the US party
were then turned to my name plate, seeing that the minister had
used a short form of my first name. The blunder and scandal were
avoided.

The diplomats and politicians interviewed have different views on this.

While some said they considered it the task of the interlocutors to
clarify questions or misunderstandings, another diplomat said:

I would prefer they intervene. I understand that the interpreter is

there to help communication and to help get the message back and
forwards. So if there is a problem with the speakers or the inter-
preter or the message or the translation it’s better to have it out in
the open with all the parties because it’s difficult to negotiate, it’s
difficult to convey messages in the same language, it’s more difficult
to have it in a third language.

If a speaker speaks too rapidly or for too long, or the next speaker
responds without giving the interpreter an opportunity to interpret,
according to protocol it is the responsibility of the protocol officer to
intervene and ask the speaker to speak more slowly or make breaks to
allow the interpreter to interpret. Several diplomats agreed with this
stance, and one diplomat told us that when high officials visited, they
prepared them on how to speak to make interpreting easier, and if they
forgot, it would always be better to signal the protocol officer or other
staff, as it was easier for them to address the speaker, especially if the
interpreter was not on staff.

If I [as an interpreter] had a high official in a very heated debate,

I would try to look at him and to ask him with the eyes to please…
If I am not in his staff, I would ask somebody in his staff to make
him calm down or speak slowly.

Although longer segments require more cognitive effort to interpret,

they allow the speaker to develop their point in full, whereas splitting
up a thought into several segments could cause the listener –​and even
the interpreter –​to come to erroneous conclusions before having all the
facts. Especially very short segments –​e.g., sentence by sentence –​can
 Managing information 97

be more difficult to interpret due to lack of context than coherent

segments of several minutes. If a text is very long or the speaker wishes
the interpreter to interpret more frequently –​e.g., at a public address,
where it is easier to keep the audience’s attention if neither original nor
interpreted segments are too long –​it is advisable to pause after com-
pleting a thought in full.
If the text is very long, dense, or is delivered very fast so that it
becomes impossible to provide good interpreting and the protocol
department does not stop the speaker, the interpreter might decide to
interpose in some way. This may be more acceptable in less formal
settings, such as a conversation over dinner, but the interpreters
interviewed are all hesitant to do so even in informal settings. They
prefer not to interrupt the natural flow of the conversation. As one
interpreter said, if it does become necessary, it would be “in a most
understanding, helpful and civilised manner.”
One strategy that can be used without interrupting overtly is to
start interpreting when the speaker makes a short pause; however, the
interpreters interviewed considered even this to be a risky strategy.
In contrast, by not interrupting, the interpreter risks delivering a less
accurate or detailed rendition. Interpreters weigh the risks of all strat-
egies when deciding on one in a concrete situation. Here are two
different examples of approaches from interviews with interpreters.

… and he began to talk and forgot that I was standing next to him
(…) and he talked and talked and talked (…) in such situations
I don’t interrupt and I don’t want to interrupt either (…) especially
in Arab countries there is a very strict hierarchy in such official
situations.

This interpreter waits for explicit permission to interpret, while the

one in the following quote grasps the opportunity when it presents
itself.

And if I see, for example, that a representative of the Austrian gov-

ernment is just speaking and speaking and speaking and speaking
and does not want to stop and I would like to interpret, I might
start interpreting when he pauses for a moment.

Most diplomats we interviewed found it acceptable to be interrupted

if necessary, e.g., if no staff was present who could intervene, but
recommended interpreters explain their needs in advance and avoid
frequent interruptions.

The interpreter is working to convey your message to another lan-

guage that you don’t speak so you have to help him do the work.
98 Managing information

I think it’s best when you establish the rules at the beginning: “Please
speak slowly, look at me, if you change your mind let me know,
look at me if you are speaking too low and I cannot hear you. If you
[have] very long sentences, it’s more difficult for me.”

Another diplomat and former interpreter said it should not be a

problem.

If they don’t understand then I think they should ask. There are
people who are difficult to interpret (…) and we need to be aware of
that and one of my concerns when I was working with these issues
was to ask the speakers to articulate and to speak slowly because
I have been an interpreter myself and it is very difficult to interpret
someone who doesn’t speak clearly. (…)
Then the interpreter might have to request that the speaker speaks
slower or in a more articulate manner or to repeat something.
I think people are aware of that and that shouldn’t be a problem.

Yet another diplomat even viewed it as solely the interpreter’s job to

interrupt if necessary.

I think it depends on the degree of formality of the situation, but

very often it will be correct for the interpreter to interrupt and
say could you just hold on for a minute so they can complete
their interpretation. I see the interpreter as in most cases some-
thing of a figure of power in these situations because they’re a
professional who is making the whole thing possible and they
should have the power to be able to interrupt the principals if the
principals are not making it possible for them to interpret. I’ve
very often been in situations where (…) you would have some-
body who was not used to interpretation who would just talk
and talk and would maybe talk for 10 minutes or 15 minutes if
they weren’t urged to stop so that the interpreter could read from
their notes and interpret the last bit. (…) I do think they often
have to interrupt.

Both interpreters and speakers were generally more receptive to

interpositions when they were about asking the speaker to repeat what
they said –​e.g., if background noise made it hard to understand –​or
asking a specific question regarding a detail the interpreter missed or
did not understand.
This is, of course, not possible in simultaneous interpreting. As one
of the interviewed interpreters said, “I just let my audience know that
I am at a total loss or warn them that mine is but a hypothetical rendi-
tion.” He added that his audience always understood.
 Managing information 99

The interpreter’s task is to enable communication and to avoid

misunderstandings. Therefore, asking for clarification regarding
expressions, numbers, or names they did not hear properly or are
unfamiliar with aids communication. Numbers in particular can rarely
be deduced from context and are difficult to interpret. Although they are
unique and therefore easy to understand, processing and remembering
them requires higher cognitive effort than most other elements of
speech. Writing them down eases the load on working memory, but
note-​taking itself also requires cognitive effort. Interpreters usually
take notes on their notepad in consecutive interpreting, but in particu-
larly sensitive or confidential situations they may be required to write
on paper provided for them, destroy their notes afterwards, or work
without notes altogether.
If the interpreter makes a mistake or causes a misunderstanding,
they correct it as soon as they become aware of it. This interrupts the
flow of the interpreting but is necessary to ensure the functioning of
the communication. It is often done in the third person, a strategy that
is discussed in more detail in the next chapter.
Misunderstandings can be due to linguistic and cultural reasons –​
such as the meaning or usage of a word, a cultural reference, or behav-
iour –​or technical and political reasons, such as factual knowledge,
the parties’ opinions and expectations of the meeting, the topic at
hand, and the relationships of the parties to each other.
From the interviews it appears that it is generally easier to
decide to interpose when there is an obvious misunderstanding.
Misunderstandings happen even between people who speak the
same language, and they will generally correct them as soon as they
notice. The same principle applies in interpreted interactions, but here
the interpreter is the only person who understands all parts of the
conversation, and so they are often the only person who is able to
notice that there has been a misunderstanding. The misunderstanding
may have been caused by the interpreter, by cultural differences, or
by differences in background knowledge –​the cause may determine
how it is handled. As discussed above, an interpreter would generally
address a misunderstanding caused by themselves directly, whereas
cultural differences may require an additional explanation –​here, the
interpreter can either offer one, provide one without asking, or leave
it up to the communication partners to resolve the issue. The latter
method may also be the most appropriate one in cases where there is
no misunderstanding as such but rather a lack of understanding –​if
one speaker mentions a technical aspect of something that the other
is not familiar with, they can ask, as they would in a conversation
without an interpreter. Pretending to misunderstand one’s counterpart
can be a negotiation tactic, in which case interposing to remedy the
misunderstanding would run counter to the speaker’s intention.
100 Managing information

One of the diplomats interviewed was of the opinion that it should

not be the interpreter’s job to point out misunderstandings or cultural
cues that the speakers (or VIPs, short for “very important person” and
used here for high-​level politicians) missed.

There are some specific aspects of specific cultures that might not
be understood, but in these cases in very high-​level conversations,
apart from an interpreter, you have a team beside you and in this
team there is always the ambassador to that country and he is the
better placed person to convey that sort of message to the VIP (…)
if the ambassador feels that the VIP is not getting that message and
that is relevant to the conversation, like a sense of the other person
being uncomfortable or trying to show some distance or something
like that. I think that would be up to the people present in the dele-
gation, those who know the receiving culture so to say.

Some methods for dealing with mistakes made by the speaker have
been discussed above. The interpreter may not always have enough
information to correct a mistake directly, or they may not feel that it
is appropriate. In such cases, interposition is often used. This can take
the form of a question, e.g., asking the speaker to repeat a number that
does not seem plausible (while we can generally expect the speaker to
know what they are talking about, slips of the tongue such as using
the wrong order of magnitude or saying the wrong century do occur).
If a misunderstanding concerns a political or technical issue, its
potential impact is considerably larger.
Baker (1997) cites the example of an interpreted interview with the
former dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. The interpreter interrupted
Saddam Hussein in the middle of a sentence to make sure he had
understood a particular word correctly, although this was a situation
in which the interpreter was least expected to interrupt the speaker.
Interpreting for Saddam Hussein was particularly stressful, so the
interruption was a risk mitigation strategy. Powerful –​especially
feared –​politicians and significant events place enormous responsi-
bility on interpreters and make them anxious about making serious
mistakes.
Although active interpositions by the interpreter are often not
welcomed in political and diplomatic settings, the interpreters and
many of the diplomats interviewed said it would be ill-​advised to
attempt to interpret the meaning of an unclear utterance by oneself.
Here, asking for clarification or repetition for the sake of accuracy and
clarity may take precedence over the strict protocol of the setting. One
interpreter told us: “If possible and necessary, I will attempt to ask for
clarification from the speaker before interpreting.”
 Managing information 101

Diplomats agreed with this approach. As one said, “You have the
possibility to ask so it’s better to ask than interpret it the wrong way.”
Others emphasised that it aided communication and precision.

Better to say “let’s repeat that, is this what you mean?” because you
really don’t want a misunderstanding. The common goal should be
to make sure that the point gets across to the audience (…) if you’re
doing a one-​time high-​level negotiation, that’s where the precision
can get particularly important and I would always encourage an
interpreter to check in with the person in advance if they have that
opportunity.

Another diplomat said he found it best to address issues directly

and encouraged interpreters to ask him if they had any questions or
concerns.

With regard to misunderstandings, you should address those dir-

ectly, really tell both sides “I think…” or ask the person you’re
interpreting “did you mean it this way, can I say it like this.” Here
I would advocate for open communication with the source you’re
translating. (…) Especially if it’s anything to do with content, really
ask the source first before you say it rather than communicate it
differently than it was said because there might be certain nuances
that the interpreter is not aware of because she’s not as familiar
with the topic.
I always encourage interpreters to ask me if they’re not quite
sure, also because I sometimes don’t speak clearly so I tell them, “if
you don’t understand it ask me and I’ll repeat it.” And also if there’s
some technical or other reason why you don’t understand some-
thing, don’t make something up, just ask.

In some cases –​particularly highly technical discussions –​the

participants might even expect the interpreter to ask questions.
Although interpreters have the ability to understand and speak on
technical matters with adequate preparation, they are not themselves
experts in those fields. One of the interpreters interviewed told us of a
bilateral meeting with a highly specialised subject where each delega-
tion brought their own interpreter. After a while, the interpreters asked
them to explain certain technical terms. It turned out that the experts
had been expecting the questions.

They thought it was strange that we were interpreting and seemed

to understand everything and started to doubt that we really under-
stood it because we weren’t experts.
102 Managing information

Interpositions can also be made by the primary communicators or

another interpreter.
One of the interpreters interviewed who used to interpret between
Bulgarian and German for the leaders of the former Communist
Parties tells a story of an official meeting involving several participants
from Bulgaria and the former German Democratic Republic. During
the discussions between the two heads of government and additional
experts and officials, at which consecutive interpreting was used, the
demanding situation had led them to repeat the text in the source lan-
guage (Bulgarian) instead of rendering it into German. The head of the
German delegation then touched them by the elbow, which made all
others present laugh. How such a way of interfering (in this case by a
partner of the communicative event) is perceived depends on the inter-
personal relationships, including the relationship the participants have
with the interpreter and mutual trust.
In situations where both parties bring their own interpreter,
the interpreters generally help each other out if their colleague
misunderstands something, does not know a word, or leaves some-
thing important out. Although the interpreters have a certain control-
ling function with regard to each other, their cooperation is generally
mutually supportive. Minor issues mostly do not warrant corrections,
but if it is necessary to ensure the success of communication, the
colleague might interpose. An example mentioned by one of the
interpreters was a high-​level meeting where she helped out the other
interpreter, who did not know the target-​language word for “para-
trooper,” and corrected her when she pronounced the Russian acronym
for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, ШОС, the same way as
in Russian, “shos,” rather than using the German abbreviation SOZ.
In his memoirs, Tito’s interpreter Ivan Ivanji (2007) tells the story
of a high-​level meeting between Yugoslavian and Austrian dignitaries
in 1965, where he interpreted the words of the Yugoslav foreign min-
ister into German. However, his colleague struggled to interpret the
Austrian delegation’s words and made several mistakes and omissions.
In the end, the Austrian chancellor asked Ivanji to interpret in both
directions.
The examples of interpositions in cases of factual mistakes and poten-
tial misunderstandings show that interpreters as well as diplomats and
politicians prioritise mutual understanding and successful communi-
cation over the expectations they or others have of the role of the
interpreter, and are in favour of acting directly to avoid delivering an
incorrect interpreting. This is in line with findings from other areas
of dialogue interpreting research, in particular public service and
court interpreting, but also interpreting in political meetings. It can be
more difficult in monologic or very formal situations, such as public
speeches. One diplomat said it could be done if absolutely necessary,
 Managing information 103

i.e., if the question is so important the interpreter feels it would be

irresponsible not to clarify it. However, she also noted this should be
done sparingly, even more so in speeches than in conversation: “If
the interpreter keeps asking questions during a speech or conversation
the speaker would really have to be very bad, otherwise you might
start doubting their professionalism.”
With globalisation and the spread of linguae francae, it is not
uncommon for one party to understand the language of the other
party, especially where widely spoken languages are concerned. In such
a case, the listener may react to what has been said without waiting
for the interpreter to speak. In one-​on-​one meetings or if everyone in
their delegation understands the source language, this may lead to uni-
directional interpreting, where each person speaks their own language,
but the interpreter interprets only into one direction. However, it can
cause problems if the other speaker has an imperfect command of the
language and misunderstands a statement, or if there are other people
present who do not understand the language. Usually, the protocol
officer would be expected to intervene and ensure that the interpreter
can interpret, but in some cases the other members of the delegation or
even the interpreter might have to insist on an interpretation to ensure
mutual understanding.
A French interpreter interviewed related a typical example. During a
visit to Vienna a French politician who spoke German always wanted
to reply immediately, so the interpreter was forced to interrupt him
every time because the rest of his delegation would not have under-
stood the German-​language statements. In such cases, the interpreter
takes on a coordinating function, which is discussed in more detail in
the next chapter (5.5).

4.6 Methods and approaches

When US President Richard Nixon met Japanese Emperor Hirohito
in 1971, the latter responded to a question with “I will think
about it” rather than “No” –​a polite form of rejection in Japanese
(Delisle and Woodsworth 2012). However, this subsequently led to
a misunderstanding, as the interpreter had opted for a preserved
interpreting approach. We do not know whether this decision to dis-
regard the target language conventions was intentional or born out of
ignorance and lack of intercultural competence, although the former
is more likely; Emperor Hirohito would not have used a direct “no”
not only because courtly etiquette forbids it, but also because of the
fact that the use of a direct “no” is perceived as offensive in Japanese
culture. The interpreter may have been hesitant to “interfere” in any
way in such a formal and high-​level political meeting between two
104 Managing information

important men and thus chose the “lesser evil.” It is also impossible to
say whether it would have been better for the course of the conversa-
tion if the interpreter had chosen a customised interpreting style and
expressed a clearer but still polite rejection in English.
Representatives of different countries often have different opinions,
mentalities, outlooks, or expectations of the meeting or their
counterparts, which can lead to difficulties in communication and
misunderstandings. Interpreters may decide to mediate between the
parties to resolve such misunderstandings (discussed in Section 5.5, on
mediation), or they may opt to let the participants handle it on their
own by simply interpreting both perspectives as they are. An example
of such an approach is an interpreter’s story of a visit of Latin American
and Caribbean ambassadors to the Austrian parliament. A Member
of Parliament asked one of the ambassadors about the integration of
asylum seekers in his country. The response was “We take them in
and they start working.” The Austrian, speaking from the Austrian
perspective where asylum seekers are not allowed to work until they
have been granted refugee status, asked, “But how can they do that?”
The ambassador, in turn, did not understand what he meant by the
question. They went back and forth several times until the Austrian
gave up. The interpreter simply interpreted without intervening in
any way, but explained to the Austrian Member of Parliament after-
wards that the misunderstanding had been caused by different legisla-
tion. This illustrates the point made earlier that cultural and political
facts both influence and reflect our world view and values. Here, the
political and legal realities of their respective countries manifested in
their outlook; for the Latin American ambassador it was natural that
asylum seekers are allowed to work, so he did not understand the
question, whereas the Austrian Member of Parliament did not con-
sider this possibility and was therefore confused.
Realia are reflected in our actions and behaviour. Due to the com-
plexity of our ways of thinking and how they are expressed through
language, a complete and exact interpreting at the linguistic level is not
always enough to convey the idea, as the subject of interpreting is not
simply words but their meanings and connotations, ways of thinking,
and ideas. Misunderstandings can occur not only at the linguistic or
content level but also at the relationship level. The inability or unwill-
ingness to adopt the perspective of one’s counterpart and to acknow-
ledge other opinions or attitudes makes mutual understanding difficult
and leads to misunderstandings.
The situational context of course plays an important role in
interpreting –​this includes the level of formality as well as the size
of the venue and seating arrangements. The interpreter who related
the above situation said that she might have interposed to resolve the
 Managing information 105

misunderstanding in a smaller setting, but did not feel she was able to
do so in as large a setting as the parliament.
Any form of intervention carries the risk of misinterpreting the
speaker’s intention or the meaning of the original statement, or even
changing the other parties’ view of the speaker. As we see from the
interviews, interpreters have different approaches when it comes to
using intervention strategies.
Political and diplomatic meetings are often brief and may be the
only time two particular people meet. They can often be characterised
by tensions and sensitive topics, with political and diplomatic sensibil-
ities making the already difficult task of the interpreter even harder.
There is little room for flexibility, as interests of national or even inter-
national significance are often at stake. This is probably the reason
why, particularly in this field, interpreting is often perceived as an
automatic transfer of words and the interpreter is seen as a device into
which speech is input and which produces a “direct translation” in the
desired language as output. Ultimately, however, it is the interpreter’s
responsibility to decide whether to use a preserved or customised
interpreting approach, and when to switch between the two. The
responsibility for the content is always borne by the parties to the
discussion.
Although interpreters only intervene in communication in emergen-
cies, they do so in various ways. They may interpose directly by asking
the speaker to repeat if they did not hear something well; they may
ask a question if they do not understand something or if an expres-
sion is used in an unusual way, is ambiguous, or has several meanings.
They may explicitate by making implicit information explicit; they
may modify, reduce, or even omit parts of the source text. Although
all the interpreters interviewed stressed that it is of utmost importance
to render the source text accurately and completely, they also report
exceptions, where the circumstances required them to interpret outside
the norm, by adding explanations, leaving things out, or rewording
the original utterance. Although protocol and prescriptive literature
do not allow interpreters to intervene in managing information, the
situation sometimes demands they do.
It can also be a challenge for interpreters to manage their participa-
tion in the communicative situation. Sometimes, they are approached
as parties to the conversation, e.g., by journalists asking them about a
politician’s statement after a press conference. In such a situation, the
journalist expects the interpreter to engage in the conversation (e.g.,
by confirming “yes, the president did say.”) rather than relaying the
question to the party who made the original statement and whom the
journalist would have presumably asked for clarification had it not
been interpreted.
106 Managing information

In such situations, the participants in the conversation see the

interpreters as interlocutors. Interpreters can deflect politely or agree
to this change in function by reacting to such questions or statements
instead of relaying them to the party they are interpreting for. In that
case, interpreters are responsible for their own words and reactions.
The tendency to address the interpreter and to regard them as a
party to the conversation is known from other dialogue interpreting
settings, i.e., triadic or multidimensional exchanges. It is generally not
the responsibility of interpreters to answer such questions, and they
usually relay them to the primary communicators. However, people
familiar with communication in political and diplomatic contexts
are aware of this. If they, contrary to conventions, see interpreters
as potential conversation partners, then this is a conscious choice.
This may take the form of small talk as part of normal interpersonal
communication (which draws the interpreter into a position of self-​
referential action) or they might deliberately address the interpreter if
the person they would otherwise ask is not available, prompting the
interpreter to act in communicative alignment. In general, everyone
involved in communication is available for communication. A dip-
lomat we interviewed remarked that the boundaries between work
and small talk can sometimes be fluid, e.g., at working lunches.

The interpreter should not become actively involved in the discus-

sion, they should just interpret, because a working lunch, even if
there is small talk, which may be good for the atmosphere, remains
a working lunch. Unless the speaker explicitly asks you to leave the
position of interpreter. Otherwise it becomes difficult (…) to tell
whether this thought the interpreter expressed, is what the speaker
said or is the interpreter’s opinion. (…) but you can invite the inter-
preter to participate in small talk, about culture or lifestyle in the
country, but it also has to be clear when you return to the content,
to the actual purpose of the meeting.

Interpreters have control over the languages used in the communi-

cation situation and (textual) conventions. They also have their own
understanding of accurate interpreting and of the form of communi-
cation participation. Should there be a contradiction, interpreters act
professionally from the translatorial point of view and at their own dis-
cretion, which is sometimes perceived from the outside as undue inter-
ference. The interpreters’ action space with regard to the principals
involved in a communicative event is constantly changing. With regard
to expectations others have of interpreters, their job alternates between
rendering the message and mediating cultural matters; interpreters
are sometimes also explicitly requested by their clients to fulfil this
dual task. Interpreters are experts who do not simply passively pass
 Managing information 107

on information but who use their linguistic, socio-​cultural, organisa-

tional, and contextual knowledge –​in short, their interpreting compe-
tence –​to act appropriately in a given situation.
Correct interpreting is the basis for mutual understanding, but
can also cause misunderstandings, e.g., if one of the parties does not
understand a certain technical term or acronym, if there is ambiguity
in the wording, or if the parties have different cultural assumptions.
As we have seen, interpreters may choose to intervene in such situ-
ations or choose a customised interpreting strategy, or may simply
interpret all mistakes (preserved interpreting) and let the parties clear
up the misunderstanding themselves.
A common approach to dealing with obvious misunderstandings or
mistakes is to ask the parties involved in the discussion, for example,
when the interpreter identifies a number, name, or event as conspicuous
or incorrect. In such a case, the interpreter intervenes in the conver-
sation, thereby not only ensuring accurate interpreting and perfect
understanding, but also helping to save the face of the parties to the
conversation and doing face work. The degree to which interpreters
are involved depends on the situation and the individual, but in polit-
ical and diplomatic interpreting it always requires a particular sensi-
tivity to the particularities of the environment.

Study activities
You can find links to repositories of speeches on the Routledge
Translation Studies Portal as a starting point for these study activities.

1. Find a recording or transcript of a speech delivered by a politician

and interpret it. Work in groups, with one student doing simultan-
eous interpreting, another one consecutive interpreting, and one
holding the speech, if necessary. Record your interpreted versions
and then compare the output of the different modes. Reflect on
potential reasons for the differences noticed.
2. Find a recording or transcript of a speech delivered by a politician
and interpret it. Work in groups, with one student doing simultan-
eous interpreting, another one consecutive interpreting, and one
holding the speech, if necessary. Record your interpreted versions.
Analyse the interpreting output to find examples of explicitation,
modification, and reduction. Were these strategies used more or
less often in one of the two modes? If yes, what could the reasons
be? Discuss motivations for these strategies and potential effects
on the audience.
3. Working in groups of at least three and using two languages, play
out small scenarios that can occur in diplomatic interpreting, such
as bilateral talks during state visits, negotiations, and formal or
108 Managing information

less formal dinners. Introduce some of the difficulties mentioned

in this chapter, such as implicit information, cultural references,
mistakes, or misunderstandings. The student interpreting between
the parties can try out different strategies to cope with them.
Discuss which ones worked well –​this may be different in different
scenarios, so play out scenarios of different levels of formality and
friendly or adversarial relations between the interlocutors. You
can repeat this exercise with multiple interpreters who each take
turns trying out solutions. In this case, the interlocutors should
always be played by the same students, and their behaviour and
words should not change –​only the interpreter’s strategies change.
4. In this chapter, we referenced the anecdote of Prime Minister
Thatcher’s interpreter changing her statement “I hate Communists”
into a more palatable wording. Discuss whether you think this
modification was appropriate. What are the positive outcomes of
this change and what are the negative ones? How would you act
in this situation? If you were her counterpart, would you have
appreciated the interpreter mediating in this way or would you
have preferred to know how she felt? You can also play out this
scene using the method in Activity 3.
5. Find videos of high-​level interpreted events, such as state visits,
receptions, or public appearances of visiting dignitaries where
your working languages are spoken. Analyse the interpreting
output and the interpreters’ body language. Do the interpreters
make any modifications, explicitations, or reductions? How do
they make them? Are there any parts where you think one of these
strategies would have been beneficial to the communicative situ-
ation? Do the interpreters interpose at any point, or are there situ-
ations where you think they should have done so? How do they
do it? Act out these scenes as in Activity 3 and try out different
strategies.
6. As we have seen in this chapter, explicitation is a frequently used
strategy. It was also said that interpreters are not expected to add
any information. Can you think of criteria to clearly differentiate
explicitation from addition? Or is it rather difficult to draw a line?
For example, we illustrated that one interpreter explained to the
audience the reasons why members of a Chinese delegation did
not open the gifts they had received in front of their hosts. Is this
still explicitation, or a case of addition, or rather an example of
interposition?
7. We have seen that interpreters, politicians, and diplomats may
have different opinions as to the use of explicitation, modifica-
tion, reduction, and interposition. Reflect on potential reasons for
such differences.
 Managing information 109

Sources and further reading

Abu Jaber, K. S. (2001) “Language and Diplomacy,” in Kurbalija, J. and Slavik,
H. (eds), Language and Diplomacy. Malta, DiploProjects, pp. 49–​54.
Anderson, R. B. W. (1976/​2002) “Perspectives on the Role of Interpreter,” in
Pöchhacker, F. and Shlesinger, M. (eds), The Interpreting Studies Reader.
London, Routledge, pp. 209–​217.
Baker, M. (1997) “Non-​ Cognitive Constraints and Interpreter Strategies
in Political Interviews,” in Simms, K. (ed.), Translating Sensitive
Texts: Linguistic Aspects. Amsterdam, Rodopi, pp. 113–​131.
Baranyai, T. (2011) “The Role of Translation and Interpretation in the
Diplomatic Communication,” SKASE Journal of Translation and
Interpretation, 5(2), pp. 2–​12.
Bassnett, S. and Lefevere, A. (eds) (1990) Translation, History and Culture.
London, Pinter.
Bassnett, S. and Lefevere, A. (1998) Constructing Cultures. Essays on Literary
Translation. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.
Bogner, A., Littig, B., and Menz, W. (2014) Interviews mit Experten.
Eine praxisorientierte Einführung. Reihe Qualitative Sozialforschung.
Wiesbaden, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Chesterman, A. (2016) Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in
Translation Theory. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins.
Delisle, J. and Woodsworth, J. (eds) (2012) Translators through History,
revised edn. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins.
Grünberg, M. (2002) “Konsekutiv und hochoffiziell. Diplomatisches
Dolmetschen,” in Kurz, I. and Moisl, A. (eds), Berufsbilder für Übersetzer
und Dolmetscher: Perspektiven nach dem Studium. Vienna, W.U.V., pp.
165–​169.
Hofstede, G. (1980/​ 2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values,
Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., and Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and
Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd edn. London, McGraw-​Hill.
ISO 18841:2018 (2018) Interpreting Services: General Requirements and
Recommendations. International Standards Organization. Available at
www.iso.org/​standard/​63544.html (accessed 11 January 2021).
Ivanji, I. (2007) Titos Dolmetscher. Als Literat am Pulsschlag der Politik.
Vienna, Promedia.
Kadrić, M. (2009) Dolmetschen bei Gericht. Erwartungen, Anforderungen,
Kompetenzen. Vienna, W.U.V.
Kadrić, M. (2011) Dialog als Prinzip: Für eine emanzipatorische Praxis und
Didaktik des Dolmetschens. Tübingen, Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
Kadrić, M. (2014) “Giving Interpreters a Voice: Interpreting Studies Meets
Theatre Studies,” Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(3), pp. 452–​468.
Kalina, S. (1998) Strategische Prozesse beim Dolmetschen. Theoretische
Grundlagen, empirische Fallstudien, didaktische Konsequenzen. Tübingen,
Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
Katan, D. (2003) Translating Cultures, An Introduction for Translators,
Interpreters, and Mediators. Manchester, St Jerome.
110 Managing information

Kirchhoff, H. (1976/​2002) “Simultaneous Interpreting: Interdependence of

Variables in the Interpreting Process, Interpreting Models and Interpreting
Strategies,” in Pöchhacker, F. and Shlesinger, M. (eds), The Interpreting
Studies Reader. London, Routledge, pp. 101–​119.
Kohn, K. and Kalina, S. (1996) “The Strategic Dimension of Interpreting,”
Meta, 41(1), pp. 118–​138.
Kondo, M. and Tebble, H. (1997) “Intercultural Communication, Negotiation,
and Interpreting,” in Gambier, Y., Gile, D., and Taylor, C. (eds), Conference
Interpreting: Current Trends in Research. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA,
John Benjamins, pp. 149–​166.
Kučerová, H. (1990) “Diplomatic Interpreting in Czechoslovakia,” in Bowen,
D. and Bowen, M. (eds), Interpreting: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.
Binghamton, NY, SUNY Press, pp. 37–​39.
Maitland, S. (2017) What is Cultural Translation? London, Bloomsbury.
Maletzke, G. (1996) Interkulturelle Kommunikation. Zur Interaktion zwischen
Menschen verschiedener Kulturen. Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag.
Mason, I. (ed.) (2001) Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting.
Manchester, St Jerome.
Nick, S. (2001) “Use of Language in Diplomacy,” in Kurbalija, J. and Slavik,
H. (eds), Language and Diplomacy. Malta, DiploProjects, pp. 39–​48.
Reiß, K. and Vermeer, H. J. (2014) Towards a General Theory of Translational
Action: Skopos Theory Explained. London, Routledge.
Roland, R. (1999) Interpreters as Diplomats: A Diplomatic History of the Role
of Interpreters in World Politics. Ottawa, ON, University of Ottawa Press.
Schäffner, C. (2015) “Follow-​ Ups in Interpreter-​ Mediated Interviews and
Press Conferences,” in Weizman, E. and Fetzer, A. (eds), Follow-​Ups in
Political Discourse: Explorations across Contexts and Discourse Domains.
Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins, pp. 205–​229.
Schmidt, P. and Moorhouse, R. (2016) Hitler’s Interpreter: The Memoirs Of
Paul Schmidt. Stroud, The History Press.
Shlesinger, M. (1991) “Interpreter Latitude vs. Due Process: Simultaneous and
Consecutive Interpretation in Multilingual Trials,'” in Tirkkonen-​Condit,
S. (ed.), Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies.
Tübingen, Narr Francke Attempto Verlag, pp. 147–​155.
Sidiropoulou, M. (ed.) (2005) Identity and Difference: Translation Shaping
Culture. Bern, Peter Lang.
Spencer-​Oatey, H. and Xing, J. (2009) “The Impact of Culture on Interpreter
Behaviour,” in Kotthoff, H. and Spencer-​Oatey, H. (eds). Handbook of
Intercultural Communication. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 219–​236.
Stenzl, C. (1983) Simultaneous Interpretation: Groundwork towards a
Comprehensive Model. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of London.
Tosi, A. (ed.) (2002) Crossing Barriers and Bridging Cultures. Clevedon,
Multilingual Matters.
Wadensjö, C. (1999) Interpreting as Interaction. London, Routledge.
Waller, V., Farquharson, K., and Dempsey, D. (2016) Qualitative Social
Research: Contemporary Methods for the Digital Age. Los Angeles, CA/​
London/​New Delhi/​Singapore/​Washington, DC, Sage.
Wohlrab-​Sahr, M. and Przyborski, A. (2008) Qualitative Sozialforschung: Ein
Arbeitsbuch. München, Oldenbourg.
 Managing information 111

Zanocco, G. (2017) Das fehlende Bindeglied in der Diplomatie: Die Rolle des
diplomatischen Dolmetschers am Beispiel der österreichischen Republik.
Master’s thesis, University of Vienna.
Zhan, C. (2012) “Mediation through personal pronoun shifts in dialogue
interpreting of political meetings,” Interpreting, 14(2), pp. 192–​216.
5 
Managing expressiveness
and interaction
Ways of rendition and degrees
of involvement

Paul Mantoux, who was French Prime Minister Clemenceau’s inter-

preter at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, was said to be able to
completely assume the personality of the speaker and reproduce their
thoughts and feelings. Supposedly, he was able to adopt each speaker’s
particular style of speech and thought, as well as unusual expressions
and facets of their personalities when interpreting between French and
English. Doing it to this extent is difficult to achieve and indicates excep-
tional talent, but other interpreters, in memoirs and interviews, also
recall situations in which they tried to convey the message in as weighty
a tone as possible, with all the emphasis and modulation. The inter-
preter is not the speaker’s “double” who mimics their every behaviour,
but rather embodies them as a way of conveying their expressiveness.

5.1 Dimensions of expressiveness
Expressiveness is highly individual and is characterised by someone’s
personal style and their linguistic, cultural, and socio-​political social-
isation. It provides information about the speaker’s background and
adds context that can help the listener understand the speaker’s intent,
infer meaning, or resolve ambiguities. In linguistics, this function of
language is referred to as pragmatics. To fully reproduce such a specific
characteristic of an individual in another language is near impossible,
but it can be necessary or expected to attempt to convey some aspects
of it when interpreting.
In communication, not everything is expressed directly –​instead,
messages are conveyed through ambiguities, allusions, metaphors, or
tone of voice. This may be particularly true for the often circumspect
and polite ways of diplomatic communication. If the elegant meta-
phor a speaker constructs is not conveyed in the interpreting output,
the speaker’s rhetorical prowess and perhaps a nuance of meaning is
lost, while a more elegant rewording in the interpreting may evoke an
image of the speaker that is unjustified. It is therefore unsurprising that
accuracy and sensitivity are among the top expectations of political
and diplomatic interpreters.
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 113

Communication consists of verbal and nonverbal elements. The

verbal message, i.e., the words we speak, does not exist in a vacuum –​
it is complemented by nonverbal communication, which can be visual
or nonvisual in spoken language (in signed language, paralanguage is
visual as well). Paralanguage is vocal (nonvisual) nonverbal communi-
cation and encompasses all factors that transmit information through
our voice without being verbalised, such as intonation, stress, tone of
voice, speech rate, or pauses. The two visual nonverbal forms of com-
munication are kinesics, which includes facial expressions, gestures,
gaze, and posture, and proxemics, which refers to physical interaction,
spatial behaviour, etc. All of these add context to the verbal message;
the messages we send and receive are a composite of these auditory (in
spoken language) and visual elements, with additional input from our
general appearance, clothes, and other visual cues. In order to fully
understand what someone is saying, we need to be able to observe and
interpret the nonverbal elements of their speech. Nonverbal signals
can be deliberate or unintentional, and they are in large part decoded
subconsciously, which also means they generally do not add to the
cognitive load of an interpreter. While prosodic signals (e.g., timing,
pitch, or emphasis) are part of the message, other nonverbal elements
can exist independently of the content of a statement, e.g., someone’s
posture. They can also serve as turn-​taking cues, indicating who will
speak next, such as when someone leans forward or clears their throat
in preparation for speaking, or when the previous speaker indicates
with their gaze or a gesture that it is the next speaker’s turn.
Nonverbal elements of communication serve various purposes. They
convey emotions, especially through posture and voice, and they can
express the speaker’s attitude towards their interlocutor through prox-
imity, gaze, behaviour, facial expressions, and tone of voice. They can
reinforce the linguistic message, e.g., through eye contact, or contra-
dict it, e.g., through hesitation in expression or tone of voice. In add-
ition, nonverbal elements can be part of the individual expression of
the speaker and play a strong role in phatic communication; especially
in greetings and goodbyes, nonverbal elements are often more prom-
inent than verbal ones. Gestures, in particular, can also duplicate infor-
mation that is also expressed in words, and this redundancy can be
helpful in understanding the message even when it is not heard clearly.
There are also indications that gestures may be helpful in allowing
interpreters to anticipate the message in simultaneous interpreting,
which is a strategy that is particularly helpful when interpreting
between structurally different languages. It is therefore important
for interpreters to see all speakers to ensure they perceive the entire
message. As the interlocutors, even in consecutive settings, may not
always have a good view of the interpreter or may not be looking at
them, interpreters often have to use more nonvisual cues, e.g., using
114 Managing expressiveness and interaction

tone of voice or stress to convey a message that they might otherwise

convey via gestures, or even verbalise the speaker’s nonverbal visual
cues. This is particularly the case when a nonverbal message might
be misunderstood, as nonverbal expressions are not the same in every
culture. An example would be the way Bulgarians express “yes” and
“no,” which is different to the Western nod and shaking of the head for
“yes” and “no.” However, as one interpreter explains, it is not simply a
reversal of the two, but rather a more specific use of head movements.

The Western yes is with a vertical movement downwards, whereas

the Bulgarian no is again with a vertical movement, but upwards,
often accompanied with a click of the tongue. The Western no is
expressed nonverbally with a static head in a vertical position that
turns about 90º to the left and to the right, whereas the Bulgarian
yes is expressed nonverbally by tilting the head to the left and to the
right several times.

She added that in a communicative event, confusion may be exacerbated

when some Bulgarians try to act nonverbally as Westerners. However,
this difference in nonverbal expressions is becoming less of an issue,
because most Bulgarians react like Westerners.
For interpreters, an understanding of nonverbal communication
is invaluable. Although many signals are subtle and often not delib-
erate, they nevertheless help understand the message of the speaker.
Interpreters therefore greatly benefit from being able to understand
the nonverbal messages contained in facial expressions, gestures, gaze,
posture, or spatial behaviour and knowing when and how to render
them in the target language.
Some elements of expressiveness are determined by the context –​
where diplomatic communication often aims to keep the peace by
using allusions and being politely vague, avoiding harsh words or clear
statements, political communication uses words and catchphrases that
stoke emotions in their listeners or evoke certain associations. Others
are rooted in cultural or linguistic conventions, ritualised communica-
tion, or traditions and may be used purposefully to set oneself apart
from a group or demonstrate belonging. Such conventions all influ-
ence us to some extent, but each speaker has their very own personal
style of speaking.
This personal style is especially apparent in the use of idioms,
proverbs, jokes, metaphors, rhetorical stylistic devices, and idiosyn-
cratic expressions. To the extent necessary to convey the specificity
of speech and personality, an interpreter may indeed consider every
word, every nuance and the intensity of every expression in order to
provide a rendition that corresponds to the original in both linguistic
and pragmatic terms.
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 115

Interpreting style is instrumental in whether the image that a

speaker conveys or wants to convey of themselves through emotions,
expressions, and rhetorical devices is conveyed faithfully or distorted.
Interpreters are responsible for the communication as a whole, so it
is not enough to focus on the words; instead, they are always on the
lookout for communicative challenges and may need to verbalise a
nonverbal expression to ensure the success of the communication.
One of the interpreters interviewed shared an example of her personal
experience when she was interpreting simultaneously at a web-​
streamed meeting at the European Parliament and where there was
good visibility from the booth. When she saw the chairperson making
an unmistakable gesture of “I don’t know” in response to a question
asked into a microphone from the room, or saw her waving her hands
to express “no,” she verbalised these nonverbal expressions. She also
said that she did so in a rather natural and automatic way. Another
interpreter told us that “Chinese people often use one finger to express
a number between 0 and 9. If this hand gesture is used, I will interpret
by saying the number out loud.”
A diplomat we interviewed agreed with the approach of verbalising
gestures when necessary, citing a typical Argentine gesture where the
fingers and thumb of the right hand are held together pointing upward
and the entire hand is moved up and down from the wrist.

Normally when you’re working with them they mimic your body
language (…) They try to bridge a cultural gap and sometimes it’s
helpful because we Argentine people especially have a lot of hand
communication and sometimes gestures are different from one
country to another, so perhaps they also translate the gestures. (…)
for example this [makes hand gesture] is a very confusing gesture.
For us this means “what?!”, for other people it means “a lot,” for
other people it means something different.

But is it always right to verbalise nonverbal signals? Should the inter-

preter convey a speaker’s insecurity, emulate their stuttering, or explain
every gesture? What if a speaker behaves in a too-​familiar way for the
target culture or likes to make jokes and puns?
This chapter will look at degrees of involvement of the interpreter
in managing interaction and how different forms of expressiveness
can be addressed in interpreting. We will look at factors such as style,
rhetorical devices, linguistic register, speech pathologies, metaphors,
nonverbal signals, and behaviours, the use of the first and third person
in interpreting as an expression of the interpreter’s degree of participa-
tion, and emotions. After a discussion of examples from the world of
politics and diplomacy, we will look at the ways of rendering expres-
siveness and managing interaction.
116 Managing expressiveness and interaction

5.2 Emotions and style

When formulating messages and statements, politicians and diplomats
usually have some basic rules of communication in mind, which are
of particular importance in the political and diplomatic context and,
therefore, also to interpreting in these contexts. Every message is lin-
guistically designed to achieve the following goals: to be comprehen-
sible to all (potential) recipients; to be effective, i.e., memorable to the
listeners; and to be connected with experiences and emotions. This last
requirement, in particular, can be difficult to implement.
Speakers in diplomatic settings generally reveal little of their nega-
tive feelings, irritation, or nervousness, thanks to diplomatic protocol.
A balanced vocabulary and moderate tone are at the core of diplomacy
and diplomatic language. Diplomacy means saving face and seeking
solutions that are acceptable to all sides. This is where diplomacy and
politics differ. In politics, emotions and even insults can be used and
some politicians use negative language with gusto.
We have already reported on linguistic slips, inappropriate behav-
iour, and pragmatic mistakes. Such deviations from routine and
expectations seem to be increasing, especially in political discourse.
The former US president is a case in point; Donald Trump would regu-
larly contradict himself and change his line of argumentation in the
course of one speech. Such lack of rational behaviour makes a speaker
hard to predict. Interpreting such speeches requires the utmost concen-
tration. Just think of the first US presidential debate of 2020 between
then-​President Donald Trump and challenger Joe Biden. It was quite
chaotic since the speakers kept interrupting each other, and both
politicians and the moderator often spoke simultaneously. This debate
was televised live in a number of countries, including some Asian coun-
tries, where the debate was shown live with simultaneous interpreting
and with different interpreters rendering the messages of Trump,
Biden, and the moderator. The South China Morning Post reported
that “audiences and interpreters alike were left astonished, bewildered
and stressed” and that the interpreters “quickly found themselves
speaking and shouting over each other, mirroring the debaters.” They
also reported that one of the interpreters who interpreted the debate
into Mandarin had actually exclaimed live on air “I have not often
come across this kind of situation!”
If a speech does not follow the usual structure and logic, interpreting
it requires greater cognitive effort as interpreters try to ensure they
have understood it correctly. This is especially true when politicians act
cynically, which interpreters do not normally expect. A vivid example
of this is provided by former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi,
who, after an earthquake, said that Italians did not mind living in
tents because they were used to that from their vacations. Moreover,
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 117

with politicians who contradict themselves or say things that do not

conform to their roles, there is always a certain risk that listeners will
attribute such deviations from the norm to the interpreter and assume
it is their mistake, because they cannot believe the speaker would say
such a thing.
Especially in political and diplomatic interpreting, individual
expressions, style of speaking, and emotions can be used consciously
and strategically. Expressiveness also helps to shape recipients’ image
of the speaker and the message itself. Interpreters often try to repro-
duce the style and rhetoric of the speakers accurately, sometimes even
down to the exact choice of words. If the speaker uses simple lan-
guage, they render it in a similar style in the target language, while
sophisticated words and an eloquent style are similarly reflected in the
interpreting output.
The repetition of words can be a conscious stylistic device, a rhet-
orical move that ensures the message is more memorable or emphasises
certain elements of the speech. At other times, repetitions and redun-
dancies may be unintentional or even a sign of nervousness, and, as
we saw in the previous chapter, an interpreter might choose to omit
them, although interpreters are reluctant to do so. As one interpreter
said: “Generally, I try to be as close to the original as I can. Skipping
repetitions makes the target text much shorter and that might make
the listeners uneasy or suspicious.”
However, where repetition has a rhetorical function, it is generally
reflected in the interpreting as well, as this example from a Spanish
speech illustrates. The speaker was talking about the complicated
image of trade unions: “Repito que los sindicatos son, no sé qué, y
claro los sindicatos no sé cuántos, y los sindicatos es que.” The inter-
preter in this case emphasised that it was obvious to her to use the
word “trade unions” as the equivalent to sindicatos several times in
the target text as well. First of all, the recipients might be taken aback
if they heard the Spanish “los sindicatos” five times but there was no
repetition in the target language, in this case German, possibly under-
mining the interpreter’s credibility. On the other hand, the repetition
of the term in the target text was necessary to respect the intentions of
the speaker, who had used repetition consciously.
An interpreter for Arabic told us of interpreting an Arabic-​speaking
head of state simultaneously into French.

He was very difficult to interpret because he used to speak very

slowly and repeat every sentence two or even three times. I remember
him saying “We’re not asking for the moon,” pointing his finger up,
“we’re not asking for the moon, we’re not asking for the moon”
and I was repeating it in French, which seemed a bit awkward to
people who were listening to me.
118 Managing expressiveness and interaction

The responsibility for the style of speaking remains with the speaker.
From a communicative point of view, conveying repetitions is one pos-
sible approach –​as stated above, the repetition of a word, perhaps
even in a single sentence, could also be caused by nervousness, and
some interpreters might choose a different strategy.
In informal settings where everyone knows each other and has
worked together regularly for a long time, different rules may apply.
When interpreting at a higher level, however, interpreters generally
leave the responsibility for both speech and speaking style to the
speaker and reproduce any repetitions in the target text in the same
way. Exceptions may be made on a case-​by-​case basis if leaving out
some repetitions makes the content more coherent so that interaction
is smoother.
Although interpreters generally aim to facilitate understanding,
speakers sometimes use vague or ambiguous words or expressions
deliberately. This is not uncommon in the language of politics and
diplomacy. In such a case, interpreters generally prefer to reproduce
the ambiguous word or expression in the target language with the
same level of ambiguity, without asking the speaker for clarification
or attempting a clarification of their own. Of course, this may lead
to misunderstandings, and there may be exceptions, but generally
speaking, the responsibility for the ambiguity lies with the speaker.
Interpreters have a number of strategies available to manage expres-
siveness and interaction, which we have categorised as expression,
moderation, coordination, and mediation. They supplement the strat-
egies for managing information described in the previous chapter,
and there is also some overlap among the categories. They illustrate
interpreters’ scope of action, describe the tools at their disposal, and
show the considerations that go into choosing a specific strategy.

5.3 
Expression
Languages have different categories for what we have termed expres-
sion: linguistic varieties. This umbrella term encompasses both the
standard variety of a language and deviations from it, e.g., in pro-
nunciation, preferred or special vocabulary, preferred grammar, or
even grammar variations. Language variations can be associated with
geographical factors (e.g., dialects), age, gender, etc. (e.g., sociolects).
Language style can denote membership in a group or profession or
beliefs. The way of speaking and writing that is typical for a certain
area of communication or purpose is called register. The variation,
style, or register someone uses can tell us something about their pro-
fession or social class at the phonetic, syntactical, and vocabulary
levels. This is in contrast to jargon, which is defined solely by the
criterion of a group-​or subject-​specific vocabulary and is often not
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 119

understandable to outsiders, such as youth slang or language for spe-

cial purposes. While the term dialect is sometimes used pejoratively
and speakers are seen as less educated, dialects can themselves have
multiple lower and higher registers, and using dialect expressions or
pronunciation can sometimes even give speakers a degree of authenti-
city –​something often employed by politicians to present themselves
as “people like you and me.”
An analysis carried out by Schäffner (2008) using transcripts of
a press conference by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the
former US President George W. Bush published on the websites of the
respective governments shows the differences in speaking conventions
and styles. While the German version emphasises factual informa-
tion and linguistic correctness, the English version has more features
of spoken language. The reason for this is that the English version
reflects the exact words used by the interpreter. Hesitations, additions,
repetitions, or meta-​translatorial comments made by the interpreter
were retained in the transcript. It can be concluded from this that
the public is presented with two different images of the politicians
concerned and the press conference. On the American side, the
informal, colloquial style stands out and the emphasis is on spoken
communication and friendly interaction, while on the German side,
the focus is on facts and linguistic correctness.
An important pragmatic aspect that is relevant for interpreting is the
register and communicative style of the primary communicators. Which
register is used in which situation depends, of course, on the form of
interaction, but also on the situation: whether the parties are meeting
for the first time, whether they already know each other or are per-
haps even friends, whether they share the same political or diplomatic
position, etc. Jokes, idioms, proverbs, metaphors, and even irony are
examples of highly expressive language where customised interpreting
is often used. Expressive language is often determined by speaking
style and paraverbal behaviour, although it can also be determined
by the personality of the speaker and cultural and linguistic factors.
In addition, there are other culture-​specific or personal behaviours
that may require mediation. One example is a state visit of a former
Brazilian president to Austria. While walking, the Brazilian president
hooked his arm into the interpreter’s arm and invited the Austrian
president to do the same. The interpreter thus ended up walking arm
in arm with the two presidents instead of walking a few steps behind
them, as protocol required. She had to explain to the Austrian federal
president that this form of physical gesture was considered an act of
particular friendliness in Brazil. The meaning of the gesture may have
seemed self-​evident here, and the Austrian president with his decades
of experience in international politics and diplomacy was probably
able to interpret it correctly, but the situation nevertheless required
120 Managing expressiveness and interaction

the interpreter to explain and verbalise the Brazilian president’s body

language. In this case, where the interpreter was directly and physic-
ally involved in the situation, it was appropriate for her to act self-​
referentially to explain.
The use of idioms, quotations, and references derived from litera-
ture, sports, or religion requires interpreters to have extensive know-
ledge and think quickly. Idioms often require modification in order to
be understood in the target culture. If, for example, an English speaker
says “he’s hit it out of the park” (a baseball metaphor denoting
great success), a German interpreter could use a bowling metaphor
instead: “alle neune,” which refers to all nine pins being knocked
down with one throw. A Chinese interpreter told us:

Chinese speakers like to use poems and idioms. In this case, if they
are translatable, have equivalent expressions in the target language,
or do not require the knowledge of Chinese history (or something
alike), I usually interpret them.

As an example, she mentions a Chinese idiom that references a

famous historical figure: “I rendered a Chinese idiom ‘班门弄斧’ as
‘teach fish to swim’.” A literal translation would make no sense in
such a case, and would require extensive explanations. By substi-
tuting it with an idiom with equivalent meaning, the interpreter not
only conveyed the speaker’s message, but also preserved some of
their personal style.
A similar example is provided by another Chinese interpreter,
referring to an international meeting at which the emphasis was on
achieving positive results.

In reacting to that situation, a Chinese speaker quoted an idiom: 我

们不能尽讲过五关斩六将，还得讲讲走麦城！This idiom referred
to the legendary General Guan Yu in the “Romance of the Three
Kingdoms.” He bravely crossed five passes by defeating six generals.
However, he had to withdraw to Maicheng after heavy military
losses at a late stage, before being captured and executed. In terms
of simultaneous interpreting, it did not make sense to embark on
storytelling. The intention of the speaker was by no means to invite
the meeting to explore the cultural, historical, or literary contents
of this idiom, he simply meant: taking stock not only from success,
but also from failure.

Colourful expressions and personal style are often a challenge for

interpreters, especially if they include intertextual references or come
from areas that are not the primary subject of conversation and which
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 121

they themselves are not very familiar with. Sports, as in the example
above, is used in many metaphors. Language varieties also pose a
challenge. While the diplomats we spoke to said they tried to avoid
regional expressions, not everyone has that awareness, as this example
from the European Parliament shows. A former Austrian Member of
the European Parliament tells of a speech by the Austrian prime min-
ister at the time.

He used the expression “Pallawatsch” [“chaos,” “mess”] and

I didn’t realise at first because I was listening to the original but
then I realised that the MPs who had listened to the interpretation –​
apparently the interpreters told them “I did not understand that,
that has to be some kind of special Austrian expression.”

She said that if the interpreter understood such terms and could think
of an equivalent, they should maintain the register, which in the case
of “Pallawatsch” is somewhat colloquial.

Yes, as much as possible, because it gives the whole thing a different

spin if a head of state or government calls something a “mess” or
a “major diplomatic crisis,” that makes a difference in the message
and also in how big they consider the problem to be.

Expressiveness is not only related to the particularities of a language

and culture; it is also very individual. Metaphors and imagery are often
part of someone’s style of speech and carry a meaning of their own. If
the interpreter can understand them and render them accordingly in
the target language, they can achieve the intended effect or evoke the
intended image in the listeners’ minds.
The diplomats interviewed were aware that it was difficult to find
an equivalent idiom quickly, but appreciated it when interpreters
managed to do so.

I think you need to be extremely quick and extremely good at your

job to know the exact equivalent of that sort of saying. (…) every
language has a way to convey that idea but the choice of words is
completely different (…) a direct translation would make no sense
in Spanish.

Although most interpreters said that they try to find a target-​language

equivalent for idioms, proverbs, and imagery, an interpreter for Arabic
and German said that she reproduces the very flowery and vivid Arabic
expressions in German, which is appreciated by the listeners. Another
interpreter said she had recently encountered a situation where she
122 Managing expressiveness and interaction

could not think of a suitable idiom in her target language, so she had
interpreted “don’t put all your eggs in one basket” literally, counting
on the image being so clear that it would be understood. The use of
a different metaphor can be seen in an interpreted press conference,
where the interpreter had rendered the German metaphorical expres-
sion “Das ist kein Spaziergang” (“This is not like going for a walk”)
to illustrate difficult political debates as “This is not a piece of cake.”
Often, interpreting idioms and puns is difficult because of the
differences between languages. Therefore, they often have to be
explained. In this context, the use of English as the lingua franca is
interesting. When people speak English as a lingua franca, they will
sometimes use literal translations of typical idioms and metaphors
from their own language and culture, which they may then explain
or not.
An important aspect of the interpreter’s style is how they reproduce
the speakers’ expressiveness. Here, again, we can use preserved or
customised interpreting. The preserved interpreting strategy would
be to reproduce the speaker’s style, including semantic, syntactic,
phonetic, and paralinguistic elements. This would mean that a lively
speaker would be interpreted in a lively manner, while a speaker
with a cold or serious demeanour or a monotonous style of speaking
would be interpreted accordingly. Customised interpreting in this
context would be to interpret with little or no expressiveness, even
if the speaker is lively, passionate, hesitant, or gives an ironic note
to the speech. This target-​language-​oriented interpreting style with
little expressiveness allows the interpreter to distance themselves and
set themselves apart as a person who relays the words of others.
Any changes or adaptations can influence the perception of the
parties to the discussion. When speakers repeat themselves, for
example, to reinforce what they say, leaving out the repetitions in
the rendition, correcting the content, or presenting it more coher-
ently could give the listener a different impression of the speaker and
their intention. As mentioned above, not including the repetitions in
the interpreting output could even harm the credibility of the inter-
preter. Rendering the speaking style correctly conveys an authentic
image of the speaker. One interpreter described herself as a “mirror
of the speaker.” Several interpreters emphasised that it is not they who
write the speeches of politicians and diplomats and that it is therefore
not their job to change the style between the source and target texts.
On the other hand, reproducing speech pathologies when interpreting
is unnecessary, as they are not part of the speaker’s message.
As one diplomat said:

I think the translation, the sense of it is the core business, I guess

you wouldn’t want to put too much of your own character into
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 123

improving somebody else’s language nor would you wish deliber-

ately to make mistakes on their behalf to echo the fact that they
were making mistakes. I guess you just have to take a middle path
on that.

Another diplomat found repeating speech impediments or linguistic

tics unnecessary.

It’s not a good idea to repeat this all the time because it’s a speech
impediment (…). I don’t know if you need to have all these lan-
guage tics or mispronunciations or peculiar accents.

The intention that speakers wish to express through their personal

style of speaking is rendered in the target language. Interpreters aim
to convey not only the semantic meaning of the message, but also
the pragmatic one. Of course, choice of words is very important, so
interpreters need to grasp nuances of words accurately to render them
correctly. The way the interpreter expresses themselves determines
the perception of the parties to the interaction. It makes a difference
whether an interpreter interprets “only” the contents of the source text
or also conveys the expressions and emotions of the parties, which play
an important role in interpreting. A politician we interviewed stressed
the importance of relaying not just the meaning but the emotional
content of his words, remarking that this was a reason he preferred
to work with interpreters who were familiar with him and therefore
better able to read and convey his emotions.

It’s also about the feeling that I’m conveying to the German speakers
and about authenticity. That is a huge asset in politics, most people
underestimate it. It’s important to deliver that as well, otherwise
things get difficult.
(…) especially in face-​ to-​face meetings it is important that
interpreters know the person they are interpreting for well and
convey the emotional content of what they’re saying, that is essen-
tial for the effect.

With regard to expressing emotions, there are different opinions and

strategies. In the interviews, there was a general distinction between
positive and negative emotions. In general, all of the interpreters
interviewed noted that state visits rarely lead to strongly negative emo-
tional situations. In the rare cases where disputes occur, differences
of opinion are usually presented politely and insulting words are the
exception. On the other hand, speakers openly show positive emotions
by showing feelings such as confidence, enthusiasm, joy, etc. through
their words, behaviour, and voice. Positive remarks are generally
124 Managing expressiveness and interaction

interpreted the way they are, although the interpreter may choose to
adapt particularly florid expressions to the target language. Interpreters
often emulate the speaker’s tone of voice to show some of the same
emotions as the speaker. However, even when they are positive, this can
bear the risk of inadvertently seeming like a caricature of the speaker.
The diplomats and politicians interviewed, on the whole, viewed
this neutrally or positively: “Sometimes you can hear the emotions of
the speaker, he’s agitated or he’s very excited and sometimes the inter-
preter tries to mimic that excitement or that voice or to simply say
‘well he’s very excited about this’.”
A former Member of the European Parliament viewed it as part of
the interpreting process.

Especially in simultaneous interpreting you have to go along with

that to keep up with the speaker. I would see that in the booths,
when a speaker got really excited about something, in order to keep
up with the rhythm the interpreter has to tune into that situation, a
bit toned down of course but you also convey it a bit.

Another diplomat said: “I absolutely love it when interpreters use the

same tone as the speaker, I think it’s great, I love it. I love to listen to
interpreters who transform themselves into the person and yell or ges-
ticulate, I love it, I think it is fantastic, I love it!”
Others would prefer some moderation in such cases.

There’s a sort of line between if the person is getting very enraged –​

let’s say it’s Nikita Khrushchev’s speech at the UN where he’s banging
his shoe on the table, then it’s difficult not to inject some of that into
the way you’re interpreting it. At the same time, it would be absurd
if the interpreter was putting all of that into his or her translation,
so I think it’s a matter of degree.

As a side note, there are some claims that Khrushchev’s interpreter

Viktor Sukhodrev, who was known for interpreting the speakers’
expressiveness to a large extent, followed suit –​while others claim the
incident never happened in the first place. Sukhodrev confirmed the
incident in an interview for a 2003 opinion piece in The New York
Times but did not mention how he interpreted it. Regardless of the ver-
acity of the claims, this example does paint a good picture of extreme
emotion on behalf of the speaker and how that might be interpreted.
A politician agreed that relaying the speaker’s body language should
be done in moderation.

If they completely mirror the speaker it seems over the top, like
theatre. Just speaking neutrally would be my preference, I can see
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 125

him and I can understand his body language, as opposed to the rest
of his language. And after all, you prepare for meetings, not just for
the content but also your interlocutor.

He added that as an internationally active politician, you learned to

keep your gesturing to a minimum.
Although it is not as common an occurrence, strategies for dealing
with anger, irritation, or insults should nevertheless be discussed. Using
a calm tone of voice and presenting the content factually and object-
ively is one such strategy. It distances the interpreter from the message
and positions them as someone who is just relaying information. Some
interpreters said they tend to soften the message a bit, while others
convey the content but not the emotionally charged voice –​as one
interpreter said, the emotions become visible on their own.
This view is confirmed by a former minister, recalling an unpleasant
meeting with a foreign official in an extradition matter. She said that she
had not minded that the embassy staff member who was interpreting
seemed to tone down her interlocutor’s words.

Those were always very unpleasant meetings where I was actually

quite happy that I didn’t understand everything. He looked very
angry because we were refusing the extradition, so if he said some-
thing harsher than came across in the interpretation –​that’s fine.

Other interpreters, however, consider it essential to convey the

speaker’s emotions, as the following example recounted by Torikai
(2009) shows. At a meeting in Japan in 1975, to which the Asian
Parliamentarians’ Union had invited a congressman from South
Vietnam, the speech by this congressman was interpreted simultan-
eously. Suddenly one interpreter stood up, walked to an interpreter’s
booth, and scolded the interpreter (who happened to be her daughter).
She felt that the interpreter should have embodied the sadness and
hurt of the speaker whose country was on the verge of collapse. She
believed being able to convey the speaker’s feelings, be it joy or hurt,
was a fundamental part of interpreting.
Another interpreter told us of an emotional moment at the UN,
where victims of antipersonnel mines were invited to speak. He said
that once a speaker had burst into tears and become inaudible. Since
every participant could see this, he said that “in this case, silence in the
booth appeared to be the best attitude to observe.”
Interpreting humour and jokes requires a very good command of
both languages. To understand jokes and convey them in the target
language, it is necessary to understand all nuances and to be able to
express oneself idiomatically. If it is not possible to convey a joke in
the target language directly and there is no equivalent expression,
126 Managing expressiveness and interaction

the interpreter may have to add an explanation to explain the “joke”

behind the joke and thus make it understandable. This is particularly
important when the languages and cultures are very different. Sarcasm,
on the other hand, is often easier to convey in interpreting, as it relies
on tone as well as on words. As one interpreter told us:

Generally, I try to reflect sarcasm, irony or whatever the original

speaker dishes out, but in slightly lower key. In simultaneous it is
easier, because you can use only intonation. However, in consecu-
tive it is important not to overdo it and steal some of the show from
the speaker.

A diplomat agreed: “Irony is better than sarcasm because you don’t

need to bridge so many cultural gaps. The irony has to be translated.”
She added that saying “the speaker said this ironically” would also be
acceptable. A politician said that although he tried to avoid sarcasm
and cynicism in international settings it happened occasionally. At a
public discussion with an EU commissioner, he had cynically remarked,
“oh, I hadn’t noticed” when the commissioner said he was responsible
for a certain area: “It was interpreted correctly. Afterwards we weren’t
such great friends anymore. It caused some hilarity.” He confirmed
that he was satisfied that his tone had been interpreted properly,
as that was his intention. Had the interpreter decided to tone it down,
they would have acted against the speaker’s intent.
A common setting for humorous remarks are dinners, particularly
less formal ones, such as after the conclusion of talks. One diplomat
told us of interpreting strategies he had observed in such situations.

You’re all sitting there at dinner and there might well be speeches
and small talk, badinage, and (…) I’ve often seen interpreters in
these circumstances who are looking at the two principals for
whom they are interpreting and trying to, sort of, emote a bit their
emotions and to make clear when it’s a joke (…) maybe by the
expression on their faces and so on.

The diplomats interviewed were aware of the difficulties of interpreting

humour, especially in simultaneous situations. A diplomat told us of
OSCE meetings where some colleagues would use jokes or expressions
that were apparently hard to interpret.

I remember once, we never found out what the joke was about but
the translations were all hilarious in themselves because they didn’t
mean anything. It was something about the garden of a cousin or
a neighbour and it just didn’t make any sense in any of the other
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 127

languages, so we were staring at each other trying to figure out

what the (…) colleague had just said, and we were looking at the
interpreters and the interpreters were just looking at us like [shrugs]
this is the best we can do, we don’t really know how to translate this.

Some of the interpreters interviewed shared the opinion that they

would try to retell a joke if it was pragmatically translatable, or inter-
pret it literally and explain the meaning, but that they would not
say something like “This joke is untranslatable” to their audience.
In the case of a joke being told to a multilingual audience (e.g., at
the UN or the European Parliament), those members of the audience
would naturally understand the joke and laugh. As one interpreter
explains, “If the rest of the audience laughed, I let mine know what
was going on, which would normally elicit their laughter.” Another
interpreter cautions that the timing of jokes can be a problem in con-
ference settings.

At a big conference with a large English-​ speaking group of

participants I was very proud that I had found a funny transla-
tion, complete with puns, to some joke that the chairperson told.
However, my brilliance took a little longer than usual, there was
a time lag of a few seconds, the English audience were laughing
their heads off at the awkward moment when the [country’s delega-
tion] were standing up to commemorate colleagues who had passed
away since the previous congress. The chairperson’s poor sense of
timing and lack of awareness of the needs of interpretation is a lame
excuse.

A former member of the European Parliament described how, due to

the use of relay interpreting, people listening to different interpreted
renditions would laugh at different times.

You could really see the order of interpreting. You say something
funny and it reaches the first languages it’s being interpreted
into fine, with just a small time lag, but then by the time that
is interpreted into Latvian or Finnish, you as the speaker have
moved on and then suddenly someone somewhere in the room
will laugh.

As we see, expression has many facets and interpreters have a wide

scope for action. Here, even more so than in the strategies for man-
aging information, we see that there are very different approaches and
they need to be considered carefully for each situation.
128 Managing expressiveness and interaction

5.4 Moderation
Moderation is a key element of communication situations with mul-
tiple participants. Moderation is organising and structuring the
discussion and ensuring it flows well. Interpreters and moderators
both have the responsibility to be multipartial in communication
and are generally hardly noticed as long as everything goes well.
In any lengthy political or diplomatic negotiation, interpreters will
find themselves performing typical moderating functions. The task
of the moderator is to steer the communication process as necessary
without expressing their own opinion, to summarise if necessary,
to highlight the main messages, and to guide the speakers from one
part of the programme to the next. In interpreted communication
processes, such moderation tasks often fall automatically to the
interpreter as an external player who does not contribute their own
opinion and has no interests to promote in the communication; as
such, they are the logical choice to direct the flow of conversation
between two or more participants.
When interpreters act as moderators, the things they say have no
source text. Instead, these contributions arise out of the situation
and previous communication. It is important to distinguish such
contributions from interpreting proper so as not to create any con-
fusion as to whether the interpreter is speaking as, for, or about a
party. As a general rule, interpreters speak in the first person and use
direct speech –​e.g., “I am pleased to welcome you,” not “He says he
is pleased to welcome you.” The interpreter is, as it were, the voice of
the speaker in the target language, and speaks from the perspective of
the speaker. For languages in which gender is morphologically marked
(e.g., French or Russian) the interpreter would apply the grammat-
ical rules based on the gender of the speaker. A male voice could thus
convey information with verbs being marked as female –​which would
also be another instance of making interpreters visible. However,
there are exceptions to the rule, and if the interpreter is speaking self-​
referentially –​rather than conveying the words of someone else –​this
should be made clear to all participants to avoid misunderstandings.
The interpreters interviewed confirm that they generally speak in
the first person, and some said it helps them remain impartial and
not insert their own opinions. It also removes them from responsi-
bility for the content of the words. However, they all said they use the
third person, reported speech, or impersonal expressions under certain
circumstances.
The diplomats and politicians interviewed had all encountered this
strategy and agreed with it. As one said: “They sort of put it in inverted
commas, what would be an author’s note if it were in writing.” Another
emphasised the importance of this: “You’ve got to separate out what
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 129

the interpreter is saying as interpreter and what the interpreter is

saying the other guy has said.”
Moderation can serve to involve or exclude (potential) parties to the
communication and to organise its content in a way that allows listeners
to follow without misunderstandings. This organising function can be
used in situations where several people speak without leaving time to
interpret, or where there is a brief back-​and-​forth between two people
(e.g., interviewer and interviewee, with the interviewer interrupting to
ask a brief clarifying question). Here, the interpreter might make small
additions such as “the second question was…” or “the next speaker
says,” they might gesture towards each speaker before interpreting
their statement in the first person, or they might even say the speaker’s
name or function if needed for clarification (“Ms Smith says”; “The
Chair says”). This involves the audience in the interaction and allows
them to understand the situation better, and is discussed further in the
next section (5.5).
Other such additions that are not present in the source text but can
help organise the target text are “as you know…” as an introduction
for an explicitation or “as mentioned” when the interpreter repeats
something to ensure it is understood although it was not repeated in
the original. In such a case, the redundancy has a moderating function
rather than an explanatory one. If the interpreter asks one of the
speakers to clarify a question, they will usually tell the other speaker
what they asked to ensure transparency. This, as well as explaining why
an interpreted rendition is much longer than the original statement
(e.g., due to a necessary explicitation) can also be seen as moderation.
It ensures that nobody is excluded from the communication.
Interpreters may be implicitly expected or explicitly asked to per-
form moderation tasks. Many are never recognised or worded as
such by the speakers, the audience, or sometimes even the interpreter.
Moderation can also take on more obvious and impactful forms.
In crisis talks and conflict resolution, the discussion can get heated.
Culture-​specific and individual attitudes and behaviours tend to be
more prominent in such situations than in the usual bilateral and multi-
lateral meetings. Such talks can devolve into arguments and insults,
making interpreting considerably more difficult or even impossible.
In such cases, interpreters often remove themselves from the situation
to some extent by adopting an unobtrusive attitude and tone of voice
and letting the speakers’ volume, tone, and behaviour express their
emotions, by shifting to the third person (“he says you are…”) or even
by narrating more generally without reproducing the words (“They
are now insulting each other massively,” as one interpreter said). This
changes the text function. What is, in the source text, an expressive text
type with an emotive function now becomes an informative text type
with a reporting function. This strategy is also known in other areas
130 Managing expressiveness and interaction

of interpreting, particularly dialogue interpreting, where interpreting

someone’s (e.g., traumatic) experiences may make it necessary for the
interpreter to distance themselves in this way.

5.5 Coordination
Coordination is similar to moderation in that it involves interpreters
intervening for the purpose of steering the discussion, and there is
some overlap between these categories. We will look mainly at turn-​
taking and the flow of communication and how interpreters deal with
unexpected changes in speakers, interruptions, and situations when
speakers speak too quickly or too long, several speakers speak at the
same time, speakers start speaking without waiting for the interpreter,
or when there is rapid back-​and-​forth between two or more speakers.
If more than one person is speaking at once, it may be necessary
to choose one speaker to interpret, especially in simultaneous mode.
In very dynamic conversations where the speaker changes frequently,
especially if two people speak the same language but a third person
relies on interpreting, the interpreter may not always have the oppor-
tunity to interpret after each utterance. In such cases, interpreters often
switch to the third person or reported speech, as continuing to inter-
pret in the first person may leave it unclear who is being interpreted
and cause misunderstandings. This allows the listeners to ascribe the
words to the correct speaker and respond to the right person. The
interpreter can indicate explicitly who is speaking –​e.g., “Mr Smith
says…” –​or can use nonverbal signals such as gesturing towards
the current speaker with a nod or a hand gesture if the listeners are
watching the interpreter’s body language. Intonation and pauses can
also be used to indicate a speaker change in interpreting. Speaking in
the third person and using nonverbal elements can also be used to dis-
tance oneself from the speaker or the content of the message, which is
discussed in more detail in the next section.
In a study on diplomatic negotiations, Zhan (2012) found that turn-​
taking is usually very clear and structured, with few overlaps or long
pauses. This may be due to the high degree of formality as well as the
status of those involved in communication. This results in very con-
sistent turn-​taking patterns that leave room for interpreting, with the
host opening the talks with introductory words, being interpreted, and
then giving the floor to the guest. The host and head of the delegation
also moderates the discussions and determines who speaks when and
for how long. Otherwise, the parties to the discussion always give each
other the floor, and are generally of an equal standing. This is the ideal
structure for an interpreted conversation, with each statement followed
by its interpreted rendition and then a clear change in speakers. The
formal nature of communication in high-​profile political discussions
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 131

and the strict diplomatic protocol reduce the likelihood of unexpected

speaker changes, overlaps, interruptions, or long pauses. However,
there are exceptions: if the situation becomes emotional, especially
if the parties disagree with each other, or when one party understands
the source language and reacts immediately without waiting for the
interpreter. Ideally, the head of protocol would intervene in such a
case and remind the parties of the need for interpreting, restoring the
proper flow of the conversation, as discussed in the previous chapter.
In such formal settings, it is not the interpreter’s place to decide or
influence who gets to speak next; either the speakers give each other
the floor or a third party is responsible for coordinating turn-​taking.
In practice, however, interpreted conversations are complex activities
and we observe that speakers do not always take turns in an orderly
fashion and are not always hierarchically equal. When several parties
to a conversation speak at the same time or interrupt each other, or
when someone speaks too quickly or for too long, it becomes difficult
for the interpreter to fulfil their task. A situation where the speakers
do not consider the interpreter’s needs by speaking over each other
or not leaving time for the interpreting might force the interpreter to
act and attempt to restore structure to the interaction. This can also
be necessary to avoid cognitive overload. Strategies the interpreters
interviewed use in practice include: interrupting speakers implicitly by
starting to interpret without waiting for a pause, or interposing by
asking to be permitted to interpret; ignoring an interjection by another
speaker for the time being but remembering it and interpreting it after
completing the statement they were actually interpreting; ignoring the
interjection completely, or not interpreting an interjection but trying
to get the interrupting speaker to repeat it after the previous statement
has been interpreted. Nonverbal communication is generally a good
way of interrupting a speaker, but at times it can be necessary to do so
verbally. This may even go so far that the interpreter invites someone
to take the floor if the interpreter is certain that one of the parties to
the conversation would like to react to a certain statement. However,
such active and overt coordinating actions remain the exception, as
using them may influence the direction or even the outcome of the con-
versation. One of the interpreters interviewed said that in the case of
simultaneous interpreting from a booth, he always warns his audience
that he cannot interpret if the interlocutors ignore turn-​taking cues or
interrupt each other, hoping that the audience would point that out
to the speakers. He also said that he would explicitly interpose when
“speakers speak away from their mikes or background noise impedes
understanding, or speakers machine-​gun their utterances at such a
speed that no summarising will do.” Another interpreter recounted the
following experience of a conference at which she was interpreting
simultaneously.
132 Managing expressiveness and interaction

After several requests for slower delivery, one speaker at a time,

during a hitch with the slide projector, I told speakers talking over
one another: “Interpreters have many talents and skills, but ven-
triloquism is not yet one of them. We are working on it, but we’re
not there yet. Kindly speak one at a time, please.”

The diplomats interviewed felt that although it was acceptable for the
interpreter to interrupt if necessary, such moderation tasks should be
carried out by the protocol officer or other staff.

I think the members of the staff, if present, should try to remind

their bosses that they need to wait for the interpreter to convey the
message before interrupting. Or if the interpreter is in a desperate
situation, maybe the interpreter him-​or herself should raise their
hand and say “help here, I need you to wait for me because other-
wise I won’t be able to interpret.” It also depends on whether there
are two interpreters for the two languages, that makes things easier.
If there is only one interpreter, it’s mission impossible.

A politician we interviewed said that they should not need to manage

the flow of conversation, as it was the responsibility of the speakers,
and that he had on occasion done so himself: “It’s happened that
someone who spoke a bit of German interrupted the interpreter, and
then I’d intervene and say ‘let him finish interpreting and we’ll discuss
it afterwards’.”

5.6 Mediation
In general parlance, mediation refers to settling existing or emerging
conflicts. The function of the mediator is to be an independent and
multipartial third party who directs the communication process in a
balanced way so that the parties can resolve their conflict. The medi-
ator is a facilitator who enables productive communication but is not
responsible for the content of the discussion; the parties themselves
are solely responsible for resolving any potential conflict they have
through communication.
It is not the interpreter’s place to mediate between different points
of view or resolve conflict. As discussed in the previous chapter, many
interpreters also say that they do not intervene to avoid or resolve
misunderstandings that are not caused by their interpreting rendition,
expecting the speakers themselves to react if something is unclear,
unexpected, or contentious. The interpreter is, after all, no more
responsible for the content of the discussion than a mediator.
However, some modifications, explanations, and interpositions,
as described in the previous chapter, serve the purpose of avoiding
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 133

conflict that is not the speaker’s intention. For example, if a German-​

speaking party declines something directly, one interpreter interviewed
would express it in a lengthier, more indirect way in Arabic, as it
would be considered rude otherwise. This could be seen as mediating
between the parties to avoid conflict, but could be considered justified
if the German speaker had no intention of causing offense. In doing
so, the interpreter is acting in line with the speaker’s communicative
intentions and ensuring that the target text has the same communica-
tive effect as the source text. This highlights once again the import-
ance of understanding and reproducing speakers’ communicative
intentions.
During a visit to Moscow in January 2017, the then foreign minister
of Austria Sebastian Kurz met his Russian counterpart Sergej Lavrov,
and a recording of the meeting was posted online by the Russian
Foreign Ministry. It is a typical diplomatic meeting, with the usual
expectations of courteous conduct and formality. In the video, the
host, Minister Lavrov, greets his guest and speaks positively about the
close cooperation of their countries and his meetings with Austrian
presidents. His language is polite and respectful, using the formal form
of address. However, Minister Kurz responds using the informal form
of address, which is as impolite in German as it is in Russian. This
does not appear to be a slip of the tongue, as he uses it three times. The
interpreter obviously decided to modify this to avoid offence, using
the formal personal pronoun for “you” instead of the informal one
twice (i.e., translating the German “Du” as “вы” rather than “ты”)
and leaving out the pronoun completely in one instance, changing “to
be here as your guest in Moscow” to “to be here in Moscow.”
A diplomat we interviewed considered mediation for the purpose of
avoiding conflict a core task of interpreters.

In general, it is always good if the interpreter considers herself a

communication element, and if she does so she will try to make
sure communication moves in an area where communication is still
possible and where you don’t have to expect the other side to cease
talks. As an interpreter you are a communication factor and as such
you have an interest in continuing communication and might sand
off rough edges, things that would end the talks or cause a bad reac-
tion that was not intended by the speaker if they were interpreted
literally. So toning some things down can be necessary; you should
have an interest in maintaining communication even if it is emo-
tional and even if certain aggressions are visible, but making sure it
remains civilised.

Interpreters sometimes also use mediation strategies to explain behav-

iour and avoid unintentional offense, as the following ­example shows.
134 Managing expressiveness and interaction

At a formal dinner gala, a Chinese investor (male) made a toast

and asked a European guest (female) to bottom up (“把这杯干了”
(“Let’s empty the glass”)). I immediately explained to the guest
by saying that this was just to show the warm hospitality of the
investor, no offense intended here.
(…) The guest seemed relieved and took a sip of her liquor (over
50% alcohol content). I explained to the investor “bottom up” is
not their culture and he understood right away.

Here, the interpreter mediated in both directions, explaining each

party’s behaviour to the other and thus preventing either of them from
being uncomfortable or taking offense. A politician said that although
he appreciated interpreters mediating in such cases, it was ultimately
the speaker’s responsibility to prepare and familiarise themselves with
their counterpart’s culture.

Even if you prepare well for a meeting you can still make a mistake
(…) In such cases I was always glad when the interpreter adapted
it. If you’re not prepared and commit one gaffe after the other, the
best interpreter can’t do much. But you can’t blame the interpreter
in that case, you have yourself to blame.

One interpreter said that if comments may be offensive to the recipient,

the interpreter could turn to the speaker and enquire whether they are
indeed expected to interpret them. This can also deliberately be used
as a de-​escalation tactic, as a diplomat said:

Better ask “should I really translate this” and then the speaker has
the opportunity to think about it and might say “no, no, say…”
Asking for confirmation is a technique I’ve observed in some cases
(…) It’s also a de-​escalation tactic. Because the interpreter’s task is
communication, not ending communication.

As mentioned in the previous section, interpreters sometimes switch

from first to third person and from direct to reported speech for stra-
tegic reasons. This can create distance, both between the interpreter
and the message or between the parties. It can be useful, for example,
when a speaker says something purposely insulting. When the inter-
preter starts with “he says…,” it is made clearer to the listener that the
interpreter is merely transmitting the message and is not responsible
for its content. Switching to third person makes the interpreter more
visible, removing the illusion that the two interlocutors are speaking
directly to one another. It can also be used to paraphrase when a
preserved rendition could lead to conflict. One interpreter recalled a
situation where the foreign ministers of two countries had met before
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 135

but the guest did not recall having met his counterpart and greeted
him as one would greet someone one is meeting for the first time. The
interpreter, who was aware of the previous meeting, smoothed things
over by switching to the third person and said “He is pleased to see
you” instead of “I am pleased to meet you.”
The third person can also be used to correct mistakes made by the
interpreter; by explicitly stating “the interpreter apologises for the mis-
take, the correct number is …,” the interpreter can remedy a mistake
while making it clear that it was the interpreter’s mistake and not the
speaker’s. Using the first person in such a case could create the impres-
sion that it was the speaker who was apologising. Instead, the inter-
preter actively assumes responsibility for their mistake.
Another, slightly less explicit, form of creating distance is the use of
the passive voice and impersonal forms in languages where these exist.
While using the active voice emphasises someone’s responsibility and
agency, the passive voice downplays the responsibility or ascribes it to
unspecified external circumstances. The use of the passive voice can
also be a distancing strategy on behalf of the interpreter.
As these examples show, the interpreter has a certain degree of
(potential) power in the communication; the interpreter is the one
who places the source text in a linguistic, cultural, and social context
and decides how to render it in the target language. Despite not being
interlocutors, they have an active role in the interaction in that they
enable communication between the primary communicators. Because
they are also in close proximity to the communicators in dialogic
settings, they may try to improve communication not only at the lin-
guistic level but also by trying to influence the atmosphere of the social
interaction. This may be intentional or unintentional, and may have
positive or negative consequences. One interpreter recalled doing so at
a visit of a Russian dignitary, who expressed admiration of the works
of art on display at the museum he was visiting together with his host.
When the host said “we have a lot to offer,” the interpreter added
приезжайте, which means “come visit again.” Although on the face of
it, the interpreter exceeded her competences by inviting the guest to
return, this could also be seen as an example of positive mediation, as
it is polite in Russian to use this expression when you get along with
someone.
Some diplomats also expect interpreters to contribute to a positive
atmosphere, indicating that interpreters are sometimes even seen as
active participants in the communication.

We do expect that the interpreters improve the communicative

atmosphere. In the past, we often experienced that traditionally
trained interpreters, especially in Communist countries, interpreted
in a very wooden way and that did not create a good atmosphere for
136 Managing expressiveness and interaction

talks, while today interpreters with more modern training manage

to create an atmosphere that makes it easier to talk about factual
matters because the atmosphere is more relaxed. It is partially a
question of personality whether interpreters are able to improve the
parties’ willingness to communicate, but apparently it is in part also
training to be able to create a relaxed, polite atmosphere between
the communicative partners, especially if you notice there’s some
friction.

How interpreters interpret the meaning of a statement and how they

choose to render it tells us something about their degree of participa-
tion and attitudes towards the primary communicators and the things
they say.

5.7 Possibilities and limits

As speakers, interpreters produce texts that work in the respective
situation and may take on a steering function in the conversation.
Interpreters have ways of signalling their “impartiality” (or rather
multipartiality) and distancing themselves from the expressed content.
The more formal the context, the more the interpreters interviewed
remain discreetly in the background: “The less you are noticed, the
better the communication flows,” as one interpreter said. However,
when it is necessary, interpreters may deviate from this expectation
and let their voice be heard or influence the flow of conversation.
These are, however, exceptions, particularly in the specific context of
diplomacy and politics, where words are chosen carefully and a wrong
or inaccurate rendition may have serious consequences. Not only
language, but also the social context is relevant for interpreting. All
of these factors determine whether the interpreter keeps in the back-
ground and makes themselves inconspicuous, or becomes more visible.
They adapt their speaking style, rhetoric, and voice to the communica-
tive situation and the goals of the conversation they are interpreting.
This aids the understanding between the primary communicators, but
can influence the perception the parties to the conversation have of
each other, and interpreters weigh the benefits and risks of using such
strategies carefully.
Although everyone interviewed agrees on the importance of
rendering the message precisely, many of the interpreters interviewed
tend towards a mediating attitude with the aim of contributing to
successful communication and agreement between the parties. Some
even said interpreters should express a positive attitude to influ-
ence the atmosphere of the talks. Expressiveness and emotions can
be conveyed both in the interpreter’s voice and intonation and in the
choice of words. As one interpreter said, “when choosing an adjective,
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 137

you have a wide range, so that you can choose a strong, a moderate, a
neutral, or a weaker one.” The degree to which interpreters empathise
with the speakers differs –​while some take on the speaker’s opinions
in that moment and convey their emotions and expressiveness as
strongly as the speaker, others prefer to stay in the background and
convey the message in a neutral tone, leaving the listener to read the
emotions in the speaker. It is interesting to note that the interpreters
interviewed tend to treat positive and negative emotions differently,
often expressing positive emotions as they are but softening negative
emotions.
This is perhaps not so surprising when we hear that interpreters
feel responsible for the success of communication and identify with
speakers. When they do render emotions, the interpreters interviewed
not only imitate the speakers, but identify with the content, including
the emotions. They generally consider positive emotions part of the
message and therefore convey them so that not only the content but
also the emotions of the message are reproduced in the target lan-
guage. However, it is not logical to distinguish between positive and
negative emotions in the interpreting process, and tone down nega-
tive remarks and behaviour. The argument that negative emotions
need not be incorporated into the interpreting output because they
can be identified from paralinguistic signals of course applies to posi-
tive emotions as well –​after all, the listeners perceive the speakers’
laughter or smiles as easily as they do their frowns or shouting.
This distinction made by practising interpreters indicates that they
have a multipartial and multidimensional perspective on communi-
cation and are committed to making communication work –​other-
wise they would deal with all the emotions of all the participants
in the interpreted event in the same way, i.e., either tone everything
down or express everything. This is but one example where we see
a difference between expectations and practice. Interpreters in pol-
itics and diplomacy appear to have a strong desire to keep the peace,
which may explain the reluctance to reproduce negative statements
but not positive ones. However, toning down the words of a speaker
can mean that the other party does not get a full picture of what the
other person is saying.
The examples in Section 5.6 on mediation show what can con-
tribute to the success or failure of communication. In particular, not
interfering when there is a misunderstanding hinders communicative
success –​a case where deviation from the expected norm may not
only be common but expedient. The action and inaction of the inter-
preter can change the flow of communication, how the points of one
party are presented to the other, and the impression the other party
has of them. Like with all other strategies, interpreters need to weigh
whether mediation is the appropriate strategy in a given situation –​for
138 Managing expressiveness and interaction

example, in the case of deliberately complex or ambiguous statements

mediation might ruin the desired effect.
Despite all these considerations, meaning and the success of com-
munication are always constructed jointly and cannot be attributed
exclusively to a single speaker. For a conversation to be successful,
there needs to be mutual understanding between those involved in
it. Therefore, utterances always have several functions, which they
fulfil in different social contexts. Interpreters are located in a social
space and always take into account the situation-​ specific factors.
Every interpreting assignment or communicative context has its own
characteristics. Interpreters adapt their behaviour to the context and
the people involved in the interaction –​by aligning themselves to the
communicative needs of the participants, they act multipartially, not
just in the ethical sense but in their common action space.
Although it is hard to draw a clear distinction between politics and
diplomacy, the examples provided by the interviewed interpreters
reveal different images of politicians and diplomats. While the lan-
guage of diplomacy is moderate and balanced, the language of pol-
itics can sometimes be harsh and emotional. The experience of the
interviewed interpreters in terms of word choice is that the language
of diplomacy remains appropriate even when there are differences of
opinion and that any disagreements are discussed politely; this is not
always the case in politics.
In speeches by politicians and diplomats, it is generally easy for
interpreters to anticipate the next points and follow the flow of logic,
as they generally act and communicate rationally, and surprises are
rare. Politicians like former US President Donald Trump or former
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi are the exception. They are
difficult to interpret because they are unpredictable, which is chal-
lenging for interpreters. This is compounded by vulgar and abusive
language. We have discussed some ways of dealing with insults and
vulgar expressions. One of the interpreters interviewed said that when
Berlusconi made a highly inappropriate joke before his speech at an
international conference, she refused to interpret it.
Another strategy is to interpret insults and vulgar expressions as
they are and let the listeners address them. This seems to be particularly
common in speeches with a large audience where it is likely that part
of it will understand both languages, and thus point out any censoring
of such statements –​although this is particularly difficult if the target
culture places particular emphasis on politeness in communication.

Study activities
You can find links to videos with interpreters on the Routledge
Translation Studies Portal as a starting point for these study activities.
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 139

1. Working in groups of at least three and using two languages, play

out small scenarios that can occur in diplomatic interpreting, such
as bilateral talks during state visits, negotiations, and formal or
less formal dinners. Introduce some of the expressive elements
mentioned in this chapter, such as emotions, humour, nonverbal
communication, repetitions, use of idioms, or a distinctive style.
The student interpreting between the parties can try out different
strategies to cope with them. Discuss which ones worked well –​this
may be different in different scenarios. You can repeat this exercise
with multiple interpreters who each take turns trying out solutions.
In this case, the interlocutors should always be played by the same
students, and their behaviour and words should not change.
2. Working in groups of at least three and using two languages, play
out small scenarios that involve some of the elements mentioned
in this chapter in which interpreters sometimes use moderation,
coordination, or mediation strategies, such as people speaking
over each other or not waiting for the interpreter, displaying con-
flict and strong negative emotions, or expressing inadvertent or
deliberate insults. The student interpreting between the parties can
try out different strategies to cope with them. Discuss which ones
worked well –​this may be different in different scenarios. You can
repeat this exercise with multiple interpreters who each take turns
trying out solutions. In this case, the interlocutors should always
be played by the same students, and their behaviour and words
should not change.
3. Find videos of high-​level interpreted events, such as state visits,
receptions, or public appearances of visiting dignitaries where
your working languages are spoken. Analyse the participants’
verbal and nonverbal communication and the interpreting output.
How do the interpreters deal with emotions, humour, or style?
Do they use moderation, coordination, or mediation strategies?
Are there any parts where you think one of these strategies would
have been beneficial to the communicative situation, or where you
would have done something differently? Act out these scenes as in
Activities 1 and 2 and try out different strategies.
4. Find a video of a tense or adversarial discussion (e.g., an election
debate) in one of your working languages. The participants can
speak the same language. If you had to interpret it into a different
language, e.g., for television, what strategies would you use to
convey expressiveness? Assuming the participants spoke different
languages and you had to interpret between them, what strategies
would you use?
5. Find codes of conduct of professional associations of translators
and interpreters and see what they say about how interpreters
140 Managing expressiveness and interaction

should deal with emotions. How would you deal with emotions,
for example, in some of the situations mentioned in this chapter?
What are the pros and cons?
6. Find a video recording of a speech delivered by a politician for
which you can also listen to the interpreter’s rendition. Pay specific
attention to intonation, stress patterns, and body language of the
speaker and check how the interpreter has dealt with them.
7. As we have illustrated above, the degree to which interpreters
empathise with speakers differs. While some take on the speaker’s
opinions in that moment and convey their emotions and expres-
siveness as strongly as the speaker, others prefer to stay in the
background and convey the message. Discuss with your fellow
students what the effects of these differences in behaviour are for
the communicative partners.
8. We have seen that interpreters and politicians/​ diplomats may
have different opinions as to how interpreters should deal with
emotions expressed by a speaker. Reflect on potential reasons for
such differences.

Sources and further reading

Abu Jaber, K. S. (2001) “Language and Diplomacy,” in Kurbalija, J. and Slavik,
H. (eds), Language and Diplomacy. Malta, DiploProjects, pp. 49–​54.
Argyle, M. (1988) Bodily Communication, 2nd edn. London, Routledge.
Baker, M. (1997) “Non-​ Cognitive Constraints and Interpreter Strategies
in Political Interviews,” in Simms, K. (ed.), Translating Sensitive
Texts: Linguistic Aspects. Amsterdam, Rodopi, pp. 113–​131.
Baraldi, C. and Gavioli, L. (eds) (2012) Coordinating Participation in Dialogue
Interpreting. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins.
Baranyai, T. (2011) “The Role of Translation and Interpretation in the
Diplomatic Communication,” SKASE Journal of Translation and
Interpretation, 5(2), pp. 2–​12.
Blommaert, J. (1991) ‘How Much Culture is There in Intercultural
Communication?” in Blommaert, J. and Verschueren, J. (eds), The
Pragmatics of Intercultural and International Communication. Amsterdam,
John Benjamins, pp. 13–​31.
Blum-​Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. (eds) (1989) Cross-​Cultural
Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ, Ablex.
Grünberg, M. (2002) “Konsekutiv und hochoffiziell. Diplomatisches
Dolmetschen,” in Kurz, I. and Moisl, A. (eds), Berufsbilder für Übersetzer
und Dolmetscher: Perspektiven nach dem Studium. Vienna, W.U.V., pp.
165–​169.
Halliday, M. A. K (1978) Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation
of Language and Meaning. London, Edward Arnold.
Kadrić, M. (2011) Dialog als Prinzip: Für eine emanzipatorische Praxis und
Didaktik des Dolmetschens. Tübingen, Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
 Managing expressiveness and interaction 141

Kadrić, M. (2014) “Giving Interpreters a Voice –​Interpreting Studies meets

Theatre Studies,” Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(3), pp. 452–​468.
Kadrić, M. (2017) “Dichter, Diplomat, Dolmetscher: Titos Dolmetscher Ivan
Ivanji,” in Andres, D., Kaindl, K., and Kurz, I. (eds), Dolmetscherinnen
und Dolmetscher im Netz der Macht: Autobiographisch konstruierte
Lebenswege in autoritären Regimen. Berlin, Frank & Timme, pp. 193–​211.
Kadrić, M. (2019) “ ‘According to the Protocol, We Were Invisible.’ The
Dynamics of Interpreters’ Visibility in Politics and Diplomacy,” in Society
and Languages in the Third Millennium. Communication. Education.
Translation. Moscow, RUDN, pp. 113–​121.
Kövecses, Z. (2005) Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (2003) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL/​
London, University of Chicago Press.
Merlini, R. and Favaron, R. (2005) “EXAMINING the ‘Voice of Interpreting’
in Speech Pathology,” Interpreting, 7(2), pp. 263–​302.
Moser-​Mercer, B. (2005) “Remote Interpreting: Issues of Multi-​ Sensory
Integration in a Multilingual Task,” Meta, 50(2), pp. 727–​738.
Nick, S. (2001) “Use of Language in Diplomacy,” in Kurbalija, J. and Slavik,
H. (eds), Language and Diplomacy. Malta, DiploProjects, pp. 39–​48.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004) Introducing Interpreting Studies. London, Routledge.
Poyatos, F. (1987) “Nonverbal Communication in Simultaneous and
Consecutive Interpretation: A Theoretical Model and New Perspectives,”
TEXTconTEXT 2, 2(3), pp. 73–​108.
Poyatos, F. (ed.) (1997) Nonverbal Communication and Translation: New
Perspectives and Challenges in Literature, Interpretation and the Media.
Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins.
Poyatos, F. (1997) “The Reality of Multichannel Verbal-​ Nonverbal
Communication in Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpretation,” in
Poyatos, F. (ed.), Nonverbal Communication and Translation: New
Perspectives and Challenges in Literature, Interpretation and the Media.
Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins, pp. 249–​282.
Rennert, S. (2008) “Visual Input in Simultaneous Interpreting,” Meta, 53(1),
pp. 204–​217.
Rogatchevski, A. (2019) “Interpreting for Soviet Leaders: The Memoirs
of Semi-​ Visible Men,” Translation and Interpreting Studies, 14(3), pp.
442–​463.
Roland, R. (1999) Interpreters as Diplomats: A Diplomatic History of the Role
of Interpreters in World Politics. Ottawa, ON, University of Ottawa Press.
Schäffner, C. (2008) “ ‘The Prime Minister said...’: Voices in Translated Political
Texts,” in SYNAPS Fagspråk, Kommunikasjon, Kulturkunnskap 22/​2008.
Bergen, University of Bergen, pp. 3–​25.
Schäffner, C. (2017) “Self-​ Awareness, Norms and Constraints: Dealing
with Metaphors in Interpreter-​Mediated Press Conferences,” in Biagini,
M., Boyd, M. S. and Monacelli, C. (eds), The Changing Role of the
Interpreter: Contextualising Norms, Ethics and Quality Standards. London,
Routledge, pp. 149–​172.
Schmidt, P. and Moorhouse, R. (2016) Hitler’s Interpreter: The Memoirs of
Paul Schmidt. Stroud, The History Press.
142 Managing expressiveness and interaction

Torikai, K. (2009) Voices of the Invisible Presence: Diplomatic Interpreters in

Post-​World War II Japan. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins.
Viaggio, S. (1997) “Kinesics and the Simultaneous Interpreter: The Advantages
of Listening with One’s Eyes and Speaking with One’s Body,” in Poyatos,
F. (ed.), Nonverbal Communication and Translation: New Perspectives
and Challenges in Literature, Interpretation and the Media. Amsterdam/​
Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins, pp. 283–​293.
Wadensjö, C. (2000) “Co-​ constructing Yeltsin –​Explorations of an
Interpreter-​Mediated Political Interview,” in Olohan, M. (ed.), Intercultural
Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive
Aspects. Manchester, St Jerome, pp. 233–​252.
Zanocco, G. (2017) Das fehlende Bindeglied in der Diplomatie: Die Rolle des
diplomatischen Dolmetschers am Beispiel der österreichischen Republik.
Master’s thesis, University of Vienna.
Zhan, C. (2012) “Mediation through Personal Pronoun Shifts in Dialogue
Interpreting of Political Meetings,” Interpreting, 14(2), pp. 192–​216.
Zimányi, K. (2009) “On Impartiality and Neutrality: A Diagrammatic Tool as
a Visual Aid,” Interpreting & Translation, 1(2), pp. 55–​70.

Online sources
Giustini, D. (2019) “Confusion of Donald Trump’s Italian Interpreter Goes
Viral –​Why Some Jobs are Meant to be Invisible,” The Conversation, 22
October. Available at https://​theconversation.com/​confusion-​of-​donald-​
trumps-​italian-​interpreter-​goes-​viral-​why-​some-​jobs-​are-​meant-​to-​be-​
invisible-​125593 (accessed 19 October 2020).
Hooper, J. (2009) “Berlusconi: Italy Earthquake Victims Should View
Experience as Camping Weekend,” The Guardian, 8 April. Available at
www.theguardian.com/​world/​2009/​apr/​08/​italy-​earthquake-​berlusconi
(accessed 30 October 2020).
“Merkel sagt ‘Dobroe utro’, Putin antwortet ‘Noch nicht’ (G20-​
Gipfel in China),” YouTube, uploaded 5 September 2016, user
“Deutschland+Russland.” Available at www.youtube.com/​watch?v=QcW_​
qjqBtco (accessed 25 November 2020).
Ryal, J., Thomas, C., and Ng, S. (2020) “US Election: Trump-​Biden Debate
Bewilders Interpreters, Viewers in Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam,” South
China Morning Post, 30 September. Available at www.scmp.com/​week-​
asia/​politics/​article/​3103748/​us-​election-​trump-​biden-​debate-​astonishes-​
bewilders-​viewers (accessed 25 November 2020).
Taubman, W. (2003) “Did He Bang It?: Nikita Khrushchev and the Shoe,”
The New York Times, 26 June. Available at www.nytimes.com/​2003/​07/​
26/ ​ o pinion/​ I HT-​ d id-​ h e-​ b ang-​ i t-​ n ikita- ​ k hrushchev- ​ a nd- ​ t he- ​ s hoe.html
(accessed 9 January 2021).
“Переговоры С.Лаврова и С.Курца | Sergey Lavrov –​Sebastian Kurz talks,”
YouTube, uploaded 18 January 2017, user “Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Russia.” Available at www.youtube.com/​watch?v=ZHswBy7OG0A
(accessed 25 November 2020).
6 
Interpreting as a
situated practice

Politics and diplomacy have developed their own forms of communi-

cation whose purpose is to avoid or mitigate conflicts wherever pos-
sible, and to build and strengthen international relations. Therefore,
the conventions of diplomatic language are built around a lack of spe-
cificity that leaves room for interpretation. When a statement can be
understood in more than one way, points of view may diverge and
all parties can interpret the meaning of the conversation the way
they want, and come out of it without losing face. Face-​saving com-
munication strategies help prevent disagreements from developing
into conflicts. Diplomatic and political talks can be considered
institutionalised face-​to-​face settings, with face work as an integral
component of interaction.
The formality of the communication context influences the degree
to which interpreters are involved in the interaction. The more
formal the context, the more interpreters are in the background. In
institutionalised settings, such as international conferences or nego-
tiations between politicians from different countries, the interpreters’
action space is therefore limited. However, they regularly find them-
selves in situations in which they become an active and independent
third party that exerts a significant influence on the communicative
situation. As we have seen in the previous chapters, interpreters may
then act independently to add, explain, or leave out information in
order to prevent or rectify misunderstandings between the parties to
the interaction. As such, interpreters are not only conveyors of other
people’s words, but also mediators between different points of view,
assumptions, and expectations. Going about this cautiously and
asking for confirmation where needed reduces the risk of providing
inaccurate or insufficient information in the act of interpreting.

6.1 Qualifications and skills

Diplomatic and political interpreters are not the protagonists and their
work or behaviour is expected not to disrupt the proceedings, but, as
we see from the many examples in the previous chapters, neither are
they extras. They need a number of skills and qualifications to perform
144 Interpreting as a situated practice

their demanding work. While factual knowledge and language skills

are certainly important, they are by far not the only requirements.
Interpreters are expected to be open and communicative, unafraid
of speaking in front of an audience regardless of its size, to speak
loudly, clearly, and distinctly, and to remain calm under pressure and
not be shy, even when faced with famous people. Not everyone can
live up to these high expectations in difficult situations. Irena Dobosz,
interpreter for the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission, which
monitored the armistice after the Korean War in the 1950s, said in an
interview (Bowen, Bowen, and Dobosz 1990) that she was kept on as
interpreter in Panmunjom for a year and a half because interpreters
who were brought to replace her mumbled, got confused, lost the
thread, did not finish their sentences, sweated, and stammered, and
were thus unsuitable despite their excellent language skills. Of course,
we cannot say whether this was due to insufficient strategy, a lack
of speaking and presentation skills, or nerves, but there are various
reports of such occurrences. Tito’s interpreter Ivan Ivanji (2007) also
writes of nervous colleagues in his memoirs.
In our interviews, several people echoed this sentiment. An inter-
preter said: “Interpreters have to remain calm, to be zen (…) all
interpreters should have this, should know how to be strong, not to
lose their temper. They have to stay calm and impassive.” There are
also high expectations for appearance and conduct, as a diplomat said:

The behaviour and the presence of the interpreter is also important.

So of course the interpreter should be dressed in a manner that
doesn’t attract too much attention, should be discreetly dressed, in
a proper manner that is consistent with the way the VIPs there are
dressing, so not too informal, not too formal and also to be dis-
creet in their behaviour. I think that is important at VIP meetings.
(…) But normally I have never encountered a situation where
this has not been the case because normally VIPs have their own
team of interpreters and they are always perfectly trained and per-
fectly aware.

Another diplomat described two –​in her opinion, excellent –​

interpreters she had encountered while posted at an embassy overseas
as “very punctual, pleasantly present, and unobtrusive at once, never
taking centre stage.” As we saw in the previous chapter, this view is not
shared by everyone, and it is best to discuss such expectations before-
hand. As one diplomat said:

If you’re working with an ambassador in a country where they don’t

speak the language, I think getting to know that person, finding out
their preferences and speaking style would be very helpful.
 Interpreting as a situated practice 145

Political and diplomatic interpreting differ from other settings in

that the demands placed on interpreters are higher, both in terms of
interpreting and communicative skills. In contrast to many other dia-
logue interpreting settings, they interpret for experts of comparable
status and knowledge and are themselves present as experts in their
own right. It is not the task but the degree of expertise that makes
them more invisible.
It goes without saying that interpreters need not only excellent lan-
guage skills, but also a good knowledge of the countries and cultures
where their working languages are spoken, including the geographical,
historical, economic, and national characteristics, as well as being up
to date on their politics, current affairs, and world politics.
An understanding of the subject of negotiation is an indispensable
prerequisite for interpreting. There is wide agreement in academia
and among practitioners that knowledge of the subject matter is one
of the most important competences of (not only) political and diplo-
matic interpreters. Without this knowledge, the best language skills are
worth little. Interpreters are involved in a wide variety of negotiations,
on topics ranging from nuclear energy to fishing rights to healthcare,
and they need to not only know the terminology and how to express
it in the particular domain, but also to be able to communicate with
experts in the field.
In the interviews, both diplomats and interpreters mentioned know-
ledge and curiosity as the top requirements for interpreters. A dip-
lomat said:

(…) translators and interpreters do not only need to know the lan-
guage; they also need to know about the topics that they trans-
late. Because that’s the only way to perform a good translation. So
I would encourage them to get acquainted with the topics, and to
be conversant in the topics as well, not only in the language itself.

One of the interpreters interviewed would give aspiring interpreters

the following advice.

To be curious about everything, to listen a lot to the news, to read the

newspapers, to listen to reports, to documentaries, listen to debates.
I have done this all my life; it has been very useful. (…) They have
to know every single thing. For instance, once I came to a normal
meeting, I don’t know which organisation, and the day before there
had been a big football match and they started speaking about
football and about techniques of football so they really have to be
aware of everything, not only the sport and who was playing against
whom (…) They need to be curious about everything and interested
in everything. (…) They have to know because everything is related.
146 Interpreting as a situated practice

As another interpreter noted, however, there are limits: “We can

mediate culture, we can mediate languages, we can mediate content,
but we cannot be specialists for everything.” The same, of course,
applies to the primary communicators, as the same interpreter said:

They may be head of the government, but they cannot know every-
thing. If they don’t have a background in the field, or if I think they
don’t have it, then I try to repeat the point or add something, maybe
even twice, rather than leave it out and risk them not understanding.

Interpreters cannot be experts on everything, but they can build on

their existing knowledge in a wide variety of fields to prepare for spe-
cific events. Knowing how to prepare for assignments is an important
skill for interpreters in any field. As noted above, interpreters working
in politics and diplomacy need to keep abreast of current events,
both international affairs and domestic news of all countries where
their languages are spoken. This includes cultural affairs, economic
developments, sports events, and other news alongside political
developments to provide a sound foundation for interpreting between
representatives of these countries, as any of these topics may come
up in small talk or in the context of a political matter. This general
awareness of developments is then complemented with targeted prep-
aration for specific topics, e.g., for negotiations focusing on a par-
ticular technical matter or a visit to a historically significant site. While
high-​level negotiations used to revolve around general political issues,
politics and diplomacy today need to deal with technical matters such
as fishing rights or emissions trading. This requires more and more
in-​depth preparation and an understanding of a broad range of issues
from all participants, including interpreters. A diplomat interviewed
stated these expectations clearly.

My expectation is that the interpreter will be able to deal with all

situations, including technical situations. So in the case of Hong
Kong we were negotiating on complex economic issues, or on issues
of sovereignty or law, or in the case of Argentina we were negoti-
ating about migration of squid stocks between different territorial
waters, and so I would expect the interpreter to have studied before
the event for these technical terms.

Another diplomat remarked positively on the high degree of profes-

sionalism displayed by two freelance interpreters she worked with
regularly at the embassy, who prepared in detail for every assignment.

Both (…) were probably in their sixties and had a lot of professional
experience but you still never had the feeling they approached the
 Interpreting as a situated practice 147

situation like “it‘ll be fine, we‘ll swing it somehow.” They displayed

the same high degree of professionalism every time.

Research and terminology management skills are an important part

of the interpreter’s skillset. Modern technology increases access to
information and allows interpreters to look up terminology quickly
online –​even in the booth –​but, as noted above, interpreters also
need to know how to speak in a particular domain; technical lan-
guage (or language for special purposes) has different communication
conventions in different domains, and to communicate the meaning of
the speaker’s words, interpreters need to understand them. Preparing
for an assignment involves much more than terminology research –​
interpreters may of course also need to read long documents to gain
a sufficient understanding of the matter at hand. Ministries and
departments often have a terminology service that compiles termin-
ology lists or databases and glossaries. To prepare for an interpreting
assignment, the interpreter reads up both on the subject matter and
the speakers or participants, as this can provide important context
for their interpreting. Are they experts on the subject matter or might
they need explanations? What are their (or their countries’) policies?
Which opinion are they likely to hold? Have the participants met
before? What is the relationship between the countries? Are there
currently other talks underway at the bilateral or multilateral level
in which both countries are involved, and are they on the same or on
opposing sides in the matter? Have there been any significant political
or personal life events that might come up in small talk? Often, there
are also video or audio recordings available on the Internet that can
help the interpreter get an impression of their speaking style, accent,
and other characteristics.
Several diplomats pointed out that when posted abroad, communi-
cation with host country institutions was often very different from the
glamorous idea many people have of diplomacy, and that interpreters
also had to deal with topics that had seemingly nothing to do with
diplomacy at all.

We as diplomats work in so many different contexts, it’s not just

political. One example I could give was when I was in Berlin, I was
in the management office. I had discussions with landlords and
companies that we were procuring things from. That is a completely
different kind of conversation than negotiating a treaty.

This diplomat had also served at the visa window in the consular
department on her first tour, where she would sit side by side with an
interpreter all day. Another diplomat said communication was “often
very similar to that between bodies of public administration.”
148 Interpreting as a situated practice

The examples given in this book show that successful interpreting is

not only relaying text, but requires constant balancing and intervention
in the interaction in order to coordinate the communication. The two
main tasks of dialogue interpreters, relaying the message and coordin-
ating communication processes, are inseparably interlinked; they are
mutually dependent on each other. Research on dialogue interpreting
in different settings shows that the interpreting performance influences
communication at all levels and can also have an impact on the entire
course of the interaction. Activities that go beyond the narrower defin-
ition of translation and occur regularly in practice are an integral part
of the interaction and are necessary for successful communication,
and range from managing turn-​taking or topic changes to interposing
to avoid misunderstandings, explaining background information,
rewording and repeating, leaving out superfluous information, and, as
we have seen in the interviews, sometimes even censoring or refusing
to interpret certain utterances. This highly participatory translatorial
action means that the interpreter is constantly contributing to the dis-
course. Depending on the context, interpreters decide to what extent
they need to steer, mediate, negotiate, and coordinate in order to recon-
cile their own communicative goals and identities with those of the pri-
mary communicators. It follows that in a typical dialogic interpreting
constellation the interpreter can speak as, for, or about the primary
communicators and, at times, themselves. This actively influences the
course and content of each interaction. Furthermore, this means that
the interpreter’s action space may be wider or narrower depending on
the situation. Being able to negotiate these situations and settings and
make split-​second decisions on strategies is another important part of
the interpreter’s skillset.

6.2 Conditions and constraints

Spatial positioning is important in interpreting, particularly in dialogic
settings. In diplomatic interpreting, it is often determined by protocol
or availability of space. When the delegation is seated, the interpreter
may be seated at the table to the left of the head of delegation, or behind
and to the side. The latter is often used for chuchotage. When standing
or walking, the interpreter is often a few steps behind the person they
are interpreting for. Sitting or standing behind the delegation is uncom-
fortable for the interpreters, as they have to bend forward to whisper,
have no table to take notes on, may have trouble hearing everything,
and may be in the way of waiters, as Ivanji (2007) describes from a
dinner of the former communist leaders Tito, Honecker (from East
Germany), and Brezhnev (from the Soviet Union). In Ivanji’s particular
case, however, this seems to have been the exception; the descriptions
of his other interpreting assignments for Tito make it sound more like
 Interpreting as a situated practice 149

a working relationship between partners. The book cover of Ivanji’s

memoirs shows a photo of Ivanji sitting at a table with Tito, the former
West German Chancellor Willy Brandt and two other politicians.
There is not even a visible distance to the primary communicators to
indicate that Ivanji is not an active participant in the conversation.
Harry Obst (2010) gives an example of the converse situation
during a state visit of the then US President Jimmy Carter to Germany
in 1978. This visit included a speech by Carter at the Airlift Memorial
Square in Berlin. A podium had been set up for the speakers, but sep-
arate microphones for the interpreter to use were placed about 40
feet away. This spatial arrangement made it difficult for him to under-
stand the president’s words. Obst says that he had actually prepared a
written translation into German on the basis of the draft of the speech,
but Carter unexpectedly began reading out the names of war veterans
attending the event. Due to his position, he was unable to understand
half of them, and had to write them down frantically. If he had been
standing next to the president, he could simply have read from the
same list.
While interpreters are sometimes placed in positions that are uncom-
fortable and make it hard to follow the conversation they are to inter-
pret –​especially if there is background noise –​they may also be given
a seat next to the primary communicators from where they can follow
the conversation easily and react quickly. People used to working with
interpreters will often consider them in the seating arrangements, as a
diplomat told us.

If we have a working lunch (…) say we have ten people, then the
interpreter would sit next to the VIP and everyone is served –​usu-
ally they don’t have time to eat (laughs) but we try to make sure
everyone has a chance. (…) There you have consecutive interpreting,
the VIP will speak, then the VIP gets to eat, then the counterpart
responds.

This diplomat said her team always ensured the interpreter sat next
to the VIP in negotiations as well, and when visiting a museum the
interpreter would walk with the VIP and the curator and interpret the
latter’s explanations. Interpreting while standing or walking can make
it more difficult to take notes, which may require the interpreter to
adapt their interpreting strategy, e.g., by switching to chuchotage or
interpreting without or with fewer notes.
In situations where interpreting is not needed all the time, e.g., at
receptions, while travelling, or after formal events, interpreters will
often wait nearby until they are needed again. The diplomat quoted
above highlighted that she appreciated it when interpreters remained
alert to see when they were needed, and stayed close by.
150 Interpreting as a situated practice

When an embassy organises an event the interpreter will usually

have a contact person. Say I’m accompanying the minister, then that
would be me. And if I see we need interpreting again in a mobile
setting, say a meeting where people are standing or a reception,
then it’s difficult if we have to go looking for them because we don’t
want to go far from the person we’re accompanying. So I want to
be able to make eye contact with [the interpreter] and tell them to
stay close by.

In some cases, the interpreter may be asked to remain at a discreet

distance when not interpreting, but as the above diplomat said, “in
such a setting you’d have to go somewhere else to have a really private
conversation –​the interpreter can determine herself where she feels
comfortable, as long as she’s nearby.”
When interpreting for meetings of larger delegations, which often
take place in large, magnificent rooms, such as a parliament or a
president’s residence, the two delegations may at times be seated far
apart, facing each other across a grand table, which makes interpreting
considerably more difficult –​despite the fact that each delegation often
has its own interpreter. As in other settings, positioning can have a sig-
nificant influence on the interpreting act. When a protocol department
or speakers are aware of this importance, they generally pay attention
to the good positioning of interpreters.
There are also other factors that can make the interpreter’s work
more difficult. For example, one interpreter interviewed told us of a
situation in which a politician had prepared a written speech which he
intended to read from. The interpreter had prepared a written transla-
tion of this speech to use. When the politician was supposed to begin,
he said unexpectedly that he would speak without his notes, which put
additional demands on the interpreter’s attention and cognitive load.
It can also happen that there is insufficient planning for interpreting
needs. One example of this is a press conference which the then
US President Obama held on 19 January 2011 in Washington, DC
with the then President of the People’s Republic of China Hu Jintao.
Simultaneous interpreting was provided for the initial statements by
the two politicians. When the question-​answer session started, the first
question came from a journalist of the Associated Press, directed to
both Obama and Hu. First, Obama gave a relatively long answer to
the question asked by the American journalist. When we watch a video
of this press conference, we can hear somebody speaking in Chinese at
this stage, and a few seconds later we hear a voice-​over from another
speaker informing us in English that “The question is translated.” In
the video, we can see a man (one of the interpreters?) going to President
Hu and whispering something in his ear, but only for a few seconds
before he disappears again. Obviously the simultaneous interpreting
 Interpreting as a situated practice 151

had stopped after the statements. The whole press conference then
continued with consecutive interpreting, both for the journalists’
questions and the politicians’ responses, which made the whole event
rather long. There was even debate in the media on President Hu sup-
posedly not having answered the first question addressed to him, and
he was characterised as unresponsive and uncooperative.
Such constraints also influence the work of politicians and
diplomats, not only interpreters. These constraints are particularly
significant when negotiations are conducted in a climate marked by
extreme tension, distrust, and verbal confrontation. This is illustrated
in a project by Baigorri-​Jalón and Fernández-​Sánchez (2010) exploring
high-​level interpreting during the Cold War (1946–​1991), focusing on
interpreted events between top-​level politicians of the United States of
America, the former Soviet Union, and China. They explore the back-
ground of the interpreters, the problems they faced in communicative
situations which were strongly biased from an ideological standpoint,
and how they accomplished their task. The Chinese interpreters in
their study served in the translation services of the ministries of for-
eign affairs, and their recruitment had required proof of their loyalty
to the political regime.
Having to interpret on short notice can also pose a problem, even for
experienced interpreters. One diplomat told us: “Sometimes you just
have to jump in and there’s not a lot of preparation, even for the inter-
preter. You know, they call, ‘show up, we have a meeting tomorrow
and we’re going to need some help’.”
This example illustrates how difficult it can be to prepare appro-
priately for an assignment and shows why only highly qualified
interpreters with extensive background knowledge are well suited for
interpreting in politics and diplomacy.

6.3 Briefing and team alignment

To properly prepare for an assignment, it is important for the inter-
preter to have access to any available information about their
assignment: the participants, the occasion, the agenda, the subject(s)
of discussion, any written material that is available to the parties.
People who are not used to working with interpreters sometimes do
not understand why they ask for such information, and may be hesi-
tant to share confidential documents. They might not even have any
information on the contents and topics of the meeting, and may be
reluctant to ask the speakers for speech manuscripts, presentations, or
other documents, as they might only be responsible for informing the
interpreter of the place and time and perhaps participants and topic of
the meeting. In addition to confidentiality concerns, this is often due to
a lack of understanding of the interpreter’s work. The assumption of
152 Interpreting as a situated practice

people who are not used to working with interpreters is often that the
interpreter merely needs to be present and “just interpret what is said,”
without awareness of the background knowledge and preparation
necessary to accomplish the job. However, our interviews showed that
people who have a lot of experience in working with interpreters or
being interpreted themselves are very aware of interpreters’ needs and
more open to giving interpreters access to the documents necessary for
preparation, as they are aware that this makes the interpreter’s work
easier and often see the interpreter as part of the team. Although none
had received specific training in how to work with interpreters, they all
had received some general advice, either during their training or during
postings at multilateral organisations. One recalled being taught “just
the basics: please speak slowly, be clear, don’t go too fast,” and to use
standard pronunciation. Another said it was good for diplomats and
others who work abroad to know what challenges interpreters face.

(…) realising that making a pause once in a while –​which I’m very
bad at (…) and hopefully you give them some time to digest what
you’re saying (…) but it’s really helpful to get at least a little bit of
training on how to make it easier on the interpreter and to know
what they’re going through so that they can provide the best inter-
pretation possible. In my case, having worked with an interpreter
so early on, I learned it pretty quickly, but I think it’s good to be
prepared and to know what kind of training an interpreter has gone
through too.

One diplomat had trained and worked as an interpreter before

becoming a diplomat, and another told us that although he received
no specific training on how to work with interpreters, he had to do
consecutive interpreting as part of his language exam.

I should perhaps mention that in our Foreign Office language exam,

if you do the C2 exam, that includes a consecutive interpretation
task, interpreting both ways for about 15 minutes (…) you only get
taught it in as much as you do a lot of practice sessions before you
do the exam but that’s because that’s one of the tasks that you often
have. If you’re, say, an ambassador or an official and you’ve got a
visitor who doesn’t speak the language and you do, you might often
try and do a bit of amateur interpreting.

Many of the diplomats we interviewed had had to interpret occa-

sionally for guests, which gave them an appreciation for the work of
interpreters. Accordingly, diplomats also try to speak in a way that is
conducive to interpreting.
 Interpreting as a situated practice 153

I am very conscious to try not to use very specific or difficult words

that cannot be translated, not to use (…) faux amis, words that
sound similar (…). So when you have a translation, simultaneous
or not, you try to keep it very simple: short message, try to pause,
and I rarely use slang or very Argentine expressions or even very
Spanish (…) it’s like I speak in a neutral Spanish.

Whether or not a briefing takes place ahead of an interpreting

assignment seems to depend on factors such as topic, type, and signifi-
cance of the event, the experience with or knowledge of interpreters’
work, and whether or not the interpreter is a staff or freelance inter-
preter. In diplomatic and political interpreting, as in most other fields,
many interpreters are freelancers and may work in other fields as
well. However, there are also different forms of employment. Many
embassies employ local staff for translation and/​or interpreting, often
alongside other tasks; in some cases, they are trained interpreters or
translators. Some countries –​and even some major cities with a high
degree of international contacts –​have language services departments
with a pool of interpreters and/​or translators, such as the Interpreting
Division of the Office of Language Services of the US State
Department, the Language Services Division of the German Foreign
Office, or the interpreting cadre of the Indian Foreign Service, which
trains Foreign Service officers as interpreters. Such pools are often a
mix of permanent staff for frequently needed languages and freelance
staff (often for languages for which there may be less interpreting
demand or to cover peak demand). Interpreters from these pools
will generally be required to go through a security clearance process
(although in cases where interpreters are officers of a foreign service
or the military, they will generally already have a previous security
clearance, perhaps even at a higher level). They interpret at meetings,
negotiations, or incoming state visits and may accompany politicians
abroad or be posted at embassies. International organisations often
also work with both permanent and freelance staff. Language ser-
vices departments may also have their own terminology department
to ensure a consistent use of terminology specific to the country or
organisation.
When an interpreter travels abroad with a delegation, they are
generally considered part of that delegation, which may mean that
they have additional tasks, but can also change the interactions they
have with the rest of the delegation –​several diplomats we spoke to
distinguished between interpreters who were part of a delegation and
those who were not, with delegation members providing information
about a city they were visiting or being drawn into chats. A former
ambassador said:
154 Interpreting as a situated practice

We had this in Uruguay with a minister and that worked beauti-

fully. We had a very experienced interpreter and she was with us on
the minibus that took us to the ferry. She was nice enough to tell us
about the architecture and the city of Montevideo. So you see it’s
not always that simple in such cases, these people are part of the
delegation like me, so of course you start talking.

A former mayor of a capital told us that in addition to the city’s

interpreting department, he had several staff in the mayor’s office who
accompanied him on trips abroad as interpreters.

Interpreters are indispensable for us, for the city’s foreign policy
and international activities and activities in the context of inter-
national organisations (…) When I travelled I always had someone
along to interpret. I had an employee in my office who (…) spoke
all Slavic languages and Hungarian (…) and always accompanied
me when I travelled to Eastern Europe, and others accompanied
me to Western Europe and international organisations (…) And my
international officer in the mayor’s office is a sinologist and spoke
perfect Mandarin.

He emphasised the importance of having interpreters who knew

him and were able to understand and convey his intent. In terms of
briefing and preparation, he would give the interpreter his speech in
advance and discuss it if necessary.

For an official speech at a conference or congress you need to pre-

pare a speech anyway. The interpreter would then get the speech
from me a few hours in advance so he could prepare for interpreting
it, and if he came to me and said “this expression doesn’t have an
equivalent in English or French” then we’d look for a different way
of saying it in German that could be interpreted without a loss of
information.

This example of working with the interpreter to ensure the best possible
delivery of an interpreted speech shows how experienced interpreting
users are often aware of the importance of aligning the roles of all
participants working as a team with the interpreter. As a diplomat
said: “You need to be aware that your statement is a unit that consists
of two parts: what you say and what is interpreted.”
In our interviews we got very different responses regarding briefings,
with some interpreters saying that it was not common for there to
be an in-​person briefing ahead of time, with communication through
phone calls or email only, and that they might get some last-​minute
information from the protocol officer just before the event, while some
 Interpreting as a situated practice 155

embassies go through the programme for a visit with the interpreters

in minute detail.

The embassy goes through the programme with the interpreter, you
discuss it, the interpreters write down where to meet, can they ride
along in the car to the event or do they meet there, is it the whole
day or just parts. So the interpreter asks for information and is
briefed by the embassy, that’s the only way it can work without a
hitch, if every puzzle piece –​we’re all puzzle pieces, the ambassador
has his role (…) and the interpreter has his. And then we discuss the
choreography in a final meeting so nobody is put in an awkward
situation. The interpreter also wants to do the best possible job like
everyone else in this puzzle so of course he needs the best possible
information on what the programme of the visit is.

However, the lack of briefing does not always mean that the embassy
staff is not aware of interpreters’ needs. As one experienced diplomat
explained, a detailed briefing is often not necessary for meetings of
high-​level dignitaries because they usually have a staff interpreter
as part of their delegation, and when the embassy hires an external
interpreter, they usually choose one they know and trust. However,
when they do work with someone they do not know, they will try to
brief them.

If you engage somebody already there in the field, not somebody

who is travelling with the delegation but somebody whom you are
locally engaging, then you try to talk to the person prior to the
meeting that is going to be interpreted to get the person acquainted
with the topics that are going to be dealt with. Normally, profes-
sional interpreters know that and they ask you beforehand: “What
are the topics, what do I need to know, do I need to check on any
particular area of knowledge?”

This diplomat also noted that she sometimes briefs interpreters on spe-
cific terminology in areas where the choice of words is particularly
important, such as legal or human rights matters. This also applies
to internal parlance. The diplomat told us that a certain concept in
Austrian labour law, where employers pay into a severance pay fund
for each employee that the employee takes with them throughout their
entire working life, had no equivalent in Spanish labour law.

There is no such a thing in Spanish labour law, so the term that we

use is “mochila austríaca” [“Austrian backpack”] (…) So you need
to tell the interpreter: “Whenever this word is used in German, this
is the mochila austríaca in Spanish.” (…) In some cases you do need
156 Interpreting as a situated practice

to have a little talk before so the interpreter is aware of those small

nuances.

Diplomats were all very used to interpreters requesting information

and expected them to do so: “When we work with interpreters, they
ask us for documents, they ask us for a lot of information, and they
research a lot before they translate or they do their interpretation.”
They also recommended talking to the speaker before the event to see
what their preferences in interpreting are, and, in the case of consecu-
tive interpreting of long speeches, to discuss section lengths: “if it’s a
prepared speech or [the speaker] has speaking notes, it’s no problem to
say ‘up to here,’ to just coordinate a bit.”
Another diplomat tried to give interpreters information even if no
texts were available, and recommended interpreters ask for informa-
tion themselves, such as the number of participants, the setup of the
room, or the topic of the meeting.

We weren’t usually able to give them texts in advance but we could

at least give them an outline of who the visitors we’re going to be
meeting with will be, and what the general topic will be, and who
the participants will be so that if you’re trying to interpret for a
panel of experts on secondary education you can familiarise your-
self with some of those things in advance (…)

Interpreters can also meet or speak with the interpreter of the other
delegation to discuss language direction and mutual support. One dip-
lomat said:

You often have the option that the other side also brings an inter-
preter and that your interpreter communicates with the other
one and they call each other, and you try to give them documents
for preparation if they aren’t confidential or include them in the
preparations so they can prepare for the terminology.

Several diplomats noted that they sometimes brief high-​level digni-

taries on how to work with interpreters.

This is also what we do when we have high officials that need

translators or interpreters. We coach them on how to (…) not what
to say, but how to approach a conversation that is going to be
interrupted and has to have at least three people.

Of course, interpreting can be perceived as an interruption of the

flow of communication by parties, and interpreters are aware of this.
However, as other examples show, this interruption is also sometimes
 Interpreting as a situated practice 157

appreciated as an opportunity to think about one’s response. A former

ambassador remarked: “I’ve noticed VIPs often use that time to focus
on what they will say next, so it can be a very fruitful division of tasks.”
One diplomat had been responsible for working with the interpreters
for her language at a multilateral organisation. She maintained a
good working relationship with them, kept them informed about the
topics, and, when possible, distributed speeches and other documents
in advance. She also relayed their concerns and needs back to her
delegation, such as asking them to speak slowly or to avoid certain
expressions that might be confusing.
When interpreters are considered part of a team, regardless of
whether they are freelance or staff interpreters, the other team members
align with them to ensure everyone can do the best job they can.

6.4 Trust and confidentiality

An extremely important element of political and diplomatic
interpreting is the trust placed in the interpreter and the confidenti-
ality required in situations where interpreters become witnesses to
top-​secret discussions. The degree of trust necessary to feel comfort-
able with an interpreter’s presence in such a situation is that afforded
to trusted colleagues. Accordingly, professional codes of ethics and
standards of practice emphasise the principle of confidentiality –​of
course, an interpreter must always keep any information they receive
in the context of an assignment confidential, regardless of the setting,
but it becomes crucial when they might be privy to state secrets. At
times, additional safeguards, such as non-​disclosure agreements, may
be introduced by clients, but even in their absence, the ability to keep
secrets is one of the most important meta-​translatorial skills of dip-
lomatic and political interpreters, and the foundation for the trust
placed in them.
In the case of Tito’s German interpreter Ivan Ivanji (2007), Tito
apparently trusted him so much that he asked him to write reports
on conversations from memory afterwards for meetings in which Tito
was speaking German himself. Such important tasks are usually only
given to highly trusted staff. Ivanji even accompanied Tito to the 1979
Summit of Non-​Aligned States in Havana, where English and Spanish
were the conference languages. Here Ivanji prepared summaries for
Tito of the meetings and talks of Yugoslav politicians.
Although in diplomatic settings each delegation usually has its
own interpreter, there are exceptions. Russian-​ English interpreter
Viktor Prokofiev tells of Joe Biden’s 1988 visit to Moscow, when, for
reasons unknown to him, the US delegation had not brought an inter-
preter, so he interpreted into both directions. In his memoirs, Tito’s
interpreter Ivanji (2007) describes that several German-​ speaking
politicians, including former German Foreign Minister Hans-​Dietrich
158 Interpreting as a situated practice

Genscher, explicitly asked him to interpret for them. According to

Ivanji, Genscher’s reasoning was that Ivanji interpreted convincingly –​
although Genscher did not himself understand the source language.
Once, Genscher even declined to take his own interpreter along on
a yacht trip on the Adriatic Sea, preferring his host’s interpreter.
Of course, we do not know whether this was indeed due to Ivanji’s
interpreting skills; it is also conceivable that the conversation was too
confidential for Genscher’s interpreters to hear. As Ivanji was a confi-
dant of Tito’s, it may have felt safer to only bring him.
Harry Obst (2010) also gives examples of how close political leaders
feel to their interpreters. For example, at the 1983 Economic Summit
in Williamsburg, French President François Mitterand wanted to have
a chat with the UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during a coffee
break. Although an interpreter came to help, Mitterand kept Thatcher
waiting until his preferred interpreter, Christopher Thiery, had been
called from another room.
In contrast, a conversation that might not have taken place at all if
an interpreter had been present occurred at a disarmament summit in
South Korea on 26 March 2012. The then US and Russian presidents
Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev were speaking to each other
before a press conference and believed the microphones were still off.
Leaning to Medvedev, Obama was overheard saying that he did not
have much leeway in negotiating missile defense during the election
campaign, saying “This is my last election. After my election I have
more flexibility.” Medvedev replied, also in English, “I understand.
I will transmit this information to Vladimir and I stand with you.”
The politicians noticed too late that the microphones were already
on and journalists had heard their conversation. In the interviews we
conducted, several interview partners also mentioned that particularly
sensitive informal conversations might be held without an interpreter.
The case of US State Department interpreter Marina Gross shows
that interpreters take their confidentiality seriously. Following the one-​
on-​one meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Helsinki
in July 2018, Democrats in the United States Congress demanded she
testify before Congress on the contents of the talks, and attempted to
subpoena her notes. This caused an uproar in the interpreting commu-
nity, who defended the confidentiality and trust placed in the profes-
sion. Ultimately, the subpoena motion failed.
The experience of the interpreters interviewed shows that politicians
and diplomats who choose their words carefully expect them to be
interpreted precisely and accurately. Occasionally, politicians or
diplomats who speak the other language well may correct the inter-
preter or make additions. One interpreter even mentioned a situation
where she was corrected for saying “this is important” rather than
“very important.”
 Interpreting as a situated practice 159

Photo 6.1 Off the record? Dmitri Medvedev and Barack Obama in Moscow in 2009.

Diplomats consider accuracy an important measure of confidence in

an interpreter, as one told us:

A really good interpreter will interpret the sense of what is being

said swiftly and accurately and you will have total confidence in
them. And the moment where you lose that confidence you are in
deep trouble.

He said he had often witnessed situations where one of the speakers

understood the other language and would correct the interpreter
repeatedly.
Another diplomat told us of a frustrating experience with a member
of the translation service of a multilateral organisation, who changed
the word for “unemployment” in a document that was the result of
negotiations between the EU and representatives of Latin American
and Caribbean countries from its Latin American form (“desempleo”)
to the word used in Spain (“paro”).

(...) we had to argue this completely and say this is the word, this
is not a Spanish document, this is an EU and Latin American docu-
ment so it has to be understandable for everyone because (…)
“paro” in Latin America is a strike.

A different diplomat said that she had been in charge of supervising

and certifying translations into Spanish done by the staff translators.
She also said that particularly at high-​level bilateral meetings and press
conferences following them, it was not uncommon to have someone
160 Interpreting as a situated practice

on the staff listening to the original and the interpreter to check for
accuracy.

(…) At a press conference you really want to make sure the

choice of words (…) because that is what is going to appear in the
newspapers and on TV and you want to make sure that the choice
of words is the correct one, one that corresponds exactly to what
the person has said.

While she considered staff interpreters trusted members of staff who

could be relied on to know their job, she said it could be necessary to
listen to external interpreters.

When you need to work with external interpreters then you pay
more attention to how they translate and how they conduct them-
selves, and then you might be interested in listening to how they are
translating in order to be sure that your choice was the right one.
I have very rarely encountered problems where I was not particularly
happy with the translation and then I’ve had a word with the inter-
preter to check that he or she was understanding correctly and that
he or she was aware of the terms that were more correct in Spanish.
(…) normally when this has happened I was not the interlocutor;
there were two VIPs talking to each other and I was listening to
them. So I have tried to signal it discreetly to the interpreter without
interrupting and I have taken advantage of a pause in the conver-
sation to have a word with the interpreter without interrupting the
conversation.

Apart from the trust in the interpreter’s professional skill, there is also
the dimension of trust in their discretion, where concerns might arise
that interpreters would purposely twist the words or divulge confiden-
tial information.
A diplomat we interviewed said she fully trusted the freelance
interpreters she had worked with to keep confidential information to
themselves, while a politician said that she generally trusted profes-
sional interpreters, but not always embassy staff, especially in delicate
situations as the extradition negotiations mentioned above in the con-
text of expression: “Well, of course when it’s embassy staff you don’t
always know (…) you can’t verify that they translated my words cor-
rectly or told me exactly what he said.”
An interpreter told us of several occurrences where she felt one
party did not trust the interpreters, who had been provided by the
other party. In one case, three people were sitting taking notes of
everything the interpreters said and even asked them to repeat things.
In another, the speakers would listen to the simultaneous interpreter
while speaking. However, the interpreting into English –​the other
 Interpreting as a situated practice 161

language they understood –​was via relay, so they would say a sen-
tence, wait while it was interpreted into the relay language, and then
listen to the English sentence. She experienced this as very frustrating,
also because it made interpreting difficult.

This is very annoying. First of all, they have to trust the organisa-
tion and interpreters! And especially nowadays when everything is
recorded so they can go back and listen. But at the same time you
can’t wait for every sentence to be said exactly how you imagine it.
And then the interpreter has to wait for you to speak.

Other diplomats said that trust was also the reason why they some-
times preferred to use two interpreters.

Communication via interpreters is very much a matter of trust and

I’ve often seen that two interpreters were organised, for example,
when you have talks about cross-​border cooperation (…) I often,
even if the other side offered good interpreters, opted to bring our
own interpreters who we trust and who also know our internal
terminology.

Trust is one of the fundamental values of interpreting, along with

clarity, truth, and understanding (Chesterman 2016). Interpreting
requires multidirectional trust, where ideally all participants trust each
other. From a multi-​party perspective, the interpreter also needs to be
convinced of the content and form of the interpreting output, e.g., if
they have ethical concerns about the text. In Section 4.4 on reduc-
tion, we cited an example where the interpreter censored part of the
text because it was discriminatory and she decided it did not merit
interpreting.
In some cases, interpreters are not only employed to interpret, but
may also act as intelligence officers or analysts, as was the case with
Tony Bishop, a Russian-​ English interpreter who worked for eight
British prime ministers, as one diplomat told us.

He was famous for adding interpretation of what somebody was

meaning, including from gestures or facial expressions or from just
hearing what the Russian side were whispering to each other and he
would add that but he would clearly separate it out from what he
was saying in the interpretation, so he was helping comprehension
of the British side.

Tony Bishop also wrote reports for the British intelligence ser-
vices based on his observations and overheard conversations of the
Russian side. In light of this, this diplomat might have confidence in
162 Interpreting as a situated practice

an interpreter’s skill in situations with a potential for spying but not

trust them in other ways.

Very often you’ll have one interpreter who is interpreting for both
sides but that interpreter comes from one side or the other. I mean
typically if you go to Moscow there’ll be a Russian interpreter
or you’re in Britain you’ll have a British interpreter or you may
have two interpreters; it just depends on the circumstances (…)
I wouldn’t trust them not to listen to me while I was having my
lunch but I would trust them to interpret accurately because why
would they not.

In fact, this diplomat even has an expectation of interpreters

reporting back.

Oh well yes, in international negotiations, assuming that you’re

there with a live interpreter in the same space as you, then you
would certainly assume that the interpreter (…) might conceivably
want to report back to one side or the other, depending on who was
paying them.

Another experienced diplomat spoke about this particularly in

connection with autocratic states, recalling his posting in Romania
during Nicolae Ceaușescu’s regime. He said it was common to employ
local staff who would be with the embassy for years.

You work with them for years and that creates mutual trust, which
is particularly important in some states where you have to expect
there to be an intelligence service, and interpreters are of course
particularly popular targets for intelligence services to get access to
information and are targeted for recruitment.

He said being aware of the fact that employees would likely be

pressured to share information and communicating about it openly
was paramount. He told of a long-​term employee who worked as a
telephone operator at the embassy, where he was sure from the start
that she was a high-​ranking member of the Romanian domestic intel-
ligence agency Securitate but decided to employ her anyway, and came
to an understanding with her.

Her predecessor was independent but would be pressured by the

Ministry of the Interior in certain things and was scared to say any-
thing, while this one was high up in the system so you could assume
she had a degree of autonomy. So I hired her and it worked out, she
worked there long after the regime change as well, as interpreter
 Interpreting as a situated practice 163

and telephone operator. (…) We had an agreement that she could

monitor the phone and did all the interpreting, but if I ever saw her
trying to get any kind of access to political information it would
end right there. And we worked together well on that basis.

Another diplomat agreed that this risk did not prevent them from
working with local staff.

It’s completely normal to have a high proportion of local staff in

embassies around the world. There are certain types of information
that can only be seen by staff who have been cleared to a certain
level, and certain levels of clearance are reliant on your nationality
and that’s very normal and standard practice.

As we see, there is a high degree of trust in interpreters. However,

we must not forget that this applies to peace times and “business as
usual” –​in times of crisis and in conflict zones, the situation is often
different. In times of war, the relationship between interpreters and
those they interpret for is often characterised by mistrust, betrayal,
and secrecy, as in the world wars or the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq,
and the Balkans, to mention just a few cases.
The divergent opinions of diplomats and politicians do not permit
us to define general rules for decision making in interpreting. Rather,
as the interviews with interpreters show, interpreters need the space to
make decisions and act independently, or may even actively expand
their action space when they need it.
Standards and professional codes strengthen the public’s awareness
of and confidence in interpreting, improve the credibility of and
respect for interpreters, and help create adequate expectations of their
work. The image of the profession and individual interpreters build
and strengthen trust in them among everyone involved.

6.5 Interpreters in diplomatic mission

Interpreters are directly involved in the diplomatic and polit-
ical processes they interpret. It is remarkable how confidently the
interpreters we interviewed assert their role and maintain loyalty to
their clients and their interlocutors, and how they are prepared to
assume responsibility and bear the consequences of their decisions.
In this respect, political and diplomatic interpreting is not funda-
mentally different from other dialogic settings. However, due to the
participation of high-​ranking figures and the palpable consequences
for millions of people, for example, in the case of peace negotiations,
political and diplomatic interpreting has gained a glamourous repu-
tation in the public eye.
164 Interpreting as a situated practice

Because of the importance of interpreting in making international

diplomatic communication possible, some interpreters –​perhaps inad-
vertently –​take on a diplomatic role.
Harry Obst (2010), the interpreter for several US presidents,
recounts a story which happened at the Final Summit of the 35-​nation
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, when the Final
Act was signed in Helsinki in 1975. In the afternoon of the first day
of the summit conference, an outdoor cocktail reception had been
arranged for the leaders, predominantly the heads of state or govern-
ment and members of their delegations. When the then US President
Gerald Ford arrived, he was looking around to spot a familiar face.
The first familiar person he saw was the Russian interpreter Victor
Sukhodrev who was waiting for the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev,
and immediately introduced him to his family and began a long con-
versation, ignoring the surrounding heads of state and government in
favour of an interpreter he knew well from previous interactions with
Soviet leaders.
A familiar interpreter can be an icebreaker, and as we have seen
in some of the interviews, interpreters may sometimes be expected to
actively foster a positive communicative atmosphere.
Interpreters are, however, sometimes also used as scapegoats. In
some cases, misunderstandings or mistakes may be attributed to the
interpreter rather than the speaker –​either by participants or the inter-
preter themselves, as part of face work, as the following example shows.
At a summit between George Bush Senior and Mikhail Gorbachev,
the United States and the Soviet Union were negotiating arms control.
At the time, the two sides had completely different views on many
details. In particular, they were not able to reach an agreement on who
should provide the aircraft used to monitor the other side’s territory,
which involved two very similar words: the verifying (“проверяющая”)
and the verified (“проверяемая”) party. Gorbachev pronounced the
word indistinctly, swallowing the ending, and the interpreter mis-
understood him, interpreting the opposite of what he meant. The
Americans were delighted with this reversal of the Soviet position,
but wanted to confirm it to be on the safe side. Gorbachev repeated
his point of view, namely that “проверяемая,” i.e., the verified party,
should provide the aircraft, revealing the misunderstanding. Bush was
of course not happy to hear this, but reportedly told the interpreter
afterwards: “Well, that’s the bad news. But don’t worry, the good news
is you didn’t start World War III,” placing the blame for the miscom-
munication on the interpreter rather than Gorbachev’s pronunciation.
A rather more dire outcome is described in an (uncorroborated)
report by a South Korean newspaper. After the failed second summit
between the then US President Donald Trump and North Korean
leader Kim Jong-​un in February 2019, a South Korean newspaper
 Interpreting as a situated practice 165

Photo 6.2 The fourth man. Interpreter Pavel Palazhchenko stands by as Mikhail
Gorbachev meets with Richard Nixon and George Bush Senior, 1988.

reported that the interpreter present at the talks had been sent to a
labour camp for making an interpreting mistake –​reportedly neglecting
to convey a last-​minute offer of Kim Jong-​un’s.
There is little doubt that for interpreters, situations with a high
degree of public attention or assignments involving extraordinary
political events and persons are a particular challenge. Baker (1997)
examined an interpreted interview with the then President of Iraq
Saddam Hussein, which had been broadcast by the British channel
ITN in 1990, i.e., during the tense period after the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait and before the start of the first Gulf War. In this interview,
Hussein interrupted and corrected the interpreter, which caused a cer-
tain amount of psychological stress. Baker concluded that interpreting
for senior politicians is associated with increased stress rather than
cognitive load. The performance of interpreters in such situations is
not only observed by those involved in the communication, but is
often followed by a large audience, such as the viewers or listeners
of live coverage. The viewers or listeners perceive and judge linguistic
performance as well as gestures and facial expressions. In addition,
interpreting for political leaders, especially in times of international
crises, is associated with a high level of ethical and historical responsi-
bility. A third factor that increases the pressure on interpreters is that
in such constellations, the parties to the discussion often have a hostile
attitude both towards each other and towards the interpreters. The
tension can therefore be very high and interpreters may find themselves
166 Interpreting as a situated practice

in a conflict situation without hope of reconciliation but with a real

risk of escalation. For all these reasons, interpreters in such situations
tend to take the approach of preserved interpreting, i.e., providing a
mostly literal and detailed rendition that covers all the semantic facets
of an expression. The fear of misunderstandings and the responsibility
for the wording of the interpreting output play a decisive role in this.
The more that is at stake in a situation, the higher the importance of
words, as they can cause misunderstandings and upset if they are not
interpreted and reproduced correctly. Here, the expectation for dip-
lomatic and political interpreters to provide a rendition that exactly
matches the original utterance is understandable –​there are situations
in which every word and every nuance needs to be reproduced and the
target text needs to correspond exactly to the original utterance on a
linguistic and pragmatic level.

6.6 Ethics and responsibility

As we have seen, interpreters do much more than simply convey what
is said by the primary communicators. Interpreters have an active
and dynamic part to play and mostly determine their own participa-
tion status. Just like the speakers whose statements are interpreted,
interpreters are constantly making decisions. There are situations in
which interpreters decide to leave out parts of the original speech or
add to it, change the tone, or interrupt the speaker. There are many
reasons for such actions, such as avoiding conflict and contributing to
the de-​escalation of communication, and the underlying motivation
is usually multipartial communication, which requires interpreters to
switch between text alignment and listener alignment. In any case,
interpreters always have a range of actions and a variety of tools at
their disposal. The decision for a course of action is always also an
ethical decision.
We mentioned an example where the interpreter censored the
speaker’s remarks. However, cases where the interpreter leaves some-
thing out completely, as in the case where the interpreter did not
include the insults against Israel, are rare. The interpreter in question,
who was among those with the longest interpreting experience, said
she had done it “twice in forty years.”
Changes to the source text have to be justified. Paul Schmidt
(2005) tells of his colleague, chief interpreter Georg Michaelis, whose
ill-​considered choice of tone cost him his job. During a meeting on
reparations after World War I, German Chancellor Wilhelm Marx
quietly and cautiously suggested that they would also have to talk
about the Ruhr area –​a point of contention between Germany and
France. In his rendition, Michaelis said with great emphasis that they
 Interpreting as a situated practice 167

would of course also have to talk about the Ruhr. This is a classic
example of interference and partiality that has no place in interpreting.
Such forms of intervention are not tolerated and can lead to a loss of
confidence in interpreters.
This example also highlights that impartiality as demanded by pro-
fessional codes of conduct may come into conflict with interpreters’
own identity, their life history, or their own ideological position. At
least in dictatorships or the former communist countries of Eastern
Europe, interpreters were vetted for their own ideological position to
ensure they were faithful to the political party in power and its ideology
before they were employed. In their assignments, the interpreters were
serving the politician, and thus by extension the aims and ideology
of a political party or a government. Baigorri-​Jalón and Fernández-​
Sánchez (2010) illustrate this political commitment of interpreters
from China and the Soviet Union and argue that although they were
not impartial but working for their party, they worked accurately and
without misrepresenting the other party, as this was the best way of
conveying both parties’ messages. This reflects the sentiment of some
of the diplomats cited in the previous section.
In formerly communist countries in Eastern Europe before the end
of the Cold War, interpreters were even openly encouraged to act as
political agitators, especially when they were employed to accompany
a visitor or a delegation. It was argued that since foreigners often got
their first personal impression of the country through an interpreter,
a poorly performing interpreter could cause political and economic
damage. It was thus required for an interpreter to demonstrate in any
personal communication with foreign visitors that they were a worth-
while representative of the state who aligned themselves with (the
policy and ideology of) the state and who would use every opportunity
to help present a realistic image of their country.
Ethical questions always play a role in translatorial decision making,
but they are generally only noticed when there is a visible discrep-
ancy between source and target text. With the emergence of new pol-
itical currents and a new type of politician, we are seeing brasher and
more populist styles of communication. As this style finds its way into
the daily life of interpreters, it will make their work harder. We have
already stressed that settings with a large audience or with very well
known politicians pose a particular challenge. This is compounded
when that politician has controversial views or uses harsh words, as
our examples showed. In the interview with the then dictator of Iraq,
Saddam Hussein (Baker 1997), the interpreter interrupted Saddam
Hussein in the middle of a sentence to make sure he had understood
a particular word correctly, although this was a situation where the
interpreter was least expected to interrupt the speaker. Interpreting for
168 Interpreting as a situated practice

Saddam Hussein was particularly stressful, so the interruption was a

risk mitigation strategy. Famous –​especially feared –​politicians and
significant events place great responsibility on interpreters and make
them fear serious mistakes.
A contemporary approach to ethics consists in finding a balance
between the ethic of responsibility and the ethic of conviction. Coined
by the German sociologist and political economist Max Weber, to
follow an ethic of responsibility is to consider the circumstances and
anticipate the consequences of one’s actions, and to choose the solu-
tion that ensures a result that is acceptable and responsible. The older
concept of the ethic of conviction, which is derived from Kant, is more
oriented on the values of the person acting, without as much regard
for the consequences. Weber discusses these concepts in the context
of politics and politicians, but they are relevant to other areas as well.
An interpreter following the ethic of conviction would follow their
rules and principles of interpreting strictly, without regard for the out-
come, while applying the ethic of responsibility would be to weigh the
consequences and adapt the interpreting approach to reach a better
outcome. Of course, an interpreter cannot be expected to weigh up
the possible consequences of every interpreting decision and to throw
all their professional principles overboard for a certain outcome,
but when there are two acceptable ways of action, they may weigh
the consequences of both. A responsible approach to professional
ethics would be to have one’s own professional ethics and adhere to
them where possible, but to be willing to deviate from them if the
consequences merit it.
In fact, these two ethical concepts are not as different as they might
seem at first glance. It can be part of one’s ethic of conviction to seek
balance or to consider the consequences of one’s actions. Conversely,
two people might come to very different conclusions in the same situ-
ation as to what the right decision is in terms of ethic of responsibility,
depending on what they consider a good outcome.
Interpreters act as multipartial communicators who speak as, for, or
about primary communicators, but also themselves. They have agency
in their interpreting process, where they act independently, reflect on
their actions, and are committed to enabling dialogue. Interpreters
fulfil different tasks and have different functions and thus multiple
identities. The tasks and functions depend on the situation and are
constructed in interactive contexts. Interpreters usually decide them-
selves how much they are part of the communication. Interpreting
is a tightrope walk between preserved and customised interpreting,
between conformity and nonconformity, partiality and impartiality,
but interpreters are never neutral. The trust that is afforded them is
based on their personality and expertise, and they are seen as part of
the (negotiating) team.
 Interpreting as a situated practice 169

Study activities
You can find links to videos with interpreters on the Routledge
Translation Studies Portal as a starting point for these study
activities.

1. Find videos of high-​level interpreted events, such as state visits,

receptions, or public appearances of visiting dignitaries. Although
the actual talks at state visits are not open to the public, there is
usually a press opportunity which is often also interpreted. These
videos do not need to be in your working languages. Observe the
interpreters: where and how are they sitting or standing? If the
primary communicators move, where is the interpreter and how
do they move with them? What modes of interpreting do they
use? How do the interpreters interact with each other and the pri-
mary communicators, is there eye contact, do the speakers signal
for them to interpret, or do they start interpreting on their own?
How do they behave and what is their body language like –​do
they stay in the background, or do they visibly play an active part
in the communication? Discuss your observations. If you find
examples of different behaviour in similar situations, discuss their
advantages and disadvantages in such a situation.
2. As we have heard from diplomats, it is not uncommon to have
someone on the staff checking that the interpreted rendition is
accurate, particularly at high-​level bilateral meetings. How do you
think this practice might influence the interpreter’s work?
3. As we have seen, interpreters sometimes try to reduce tensions
between communicative partners and contribute to calming down
a tense atmosphere. Discuss whether this action is in line with
professional codes of conduct and whether it is appropriate for
interpreters to do so, or in which situations.
4. Working in groups of at least three, play out some of the
scenarios referenced in this chapter, or come up with your own
scenarios related to trust, confidentiality, or situations where the
interpreter’s needs were not considered in the planning. The stu-
dent interpreting can try out different ways of addressing them.
Discuss which ones worked well. You can repeat this exercise with
multiple interpreters who each take turns trying out solutions. In
this case, the interlocutors should always be played by the same
students, and their behaviour and words should not change.
5. Working in pairs or groups, create interpreting assignments for
each other, determining the participants (preferably real people),
the occasion, the setting, and the topic of the meeting. Then pre-
pare for the assignment given to you by researching terminology
and background information on the topic, information about the
170 Interpreting as a situated practice

participants, their relationship, and the relationship of the coun-

tries they represent.
This exercise can be used as preparation for interpreting exercises
(either recordings of authentic meetings or scenarios played out
in class), but can also stand on its own. Interpreting instructors
can adapt it for group discussions by giving all students the same
assignment and holding a discussion on preparation strategies
in class.
6. Professional codes of ethics and standards of practice emphasise
the principle of confidentiality. Research the case of Katharine
Gun, who worked as a translator for the UK’s Government
Communications Headquarters and leaked top-​secret information
to a British newspaper. Discuss this action in relation to the ethic
of conviction and the ethic of responsibility.
7. In an article, Rogatchevski (2019: 444) asks: “Is the interpreter’s
role in enabling a head of a totalitarian state to achieve an
important international objective any different from doing the
same for the head of a democratic state? Does assisting a dic-
tator affect the interpreter’s work ethic?” Reflect on potential
answers to these questions and the consequences of interpreters’
decisions.
8. Interpreting in political contexts can also mean interpreting in con-
flict zones, e.g., on battlefields or in peacekeeping missions. In such
contexts, both politicians or diplomats and interpreters face real
dangers to their lives. To acknowledge the dangers in such conflict
situations, a proposal for a AIIC UN Resolution for the Protection
of Civilian Translators/​Interpreters in Conflict Situations was sub-
mitted by Red T (a non-​profit organisation for the protection of
translators and interpreters in high-​risk settings), the International
Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC), the International
Federation of Translators (FIT), the International Association of
Professional Translators and Interpreters (IAPTI), Critical Link
International (CLI –​International Council for the Development
of Community Interpreting), and the World Association of Sign
Language Interpreters (WASLI). Research what the current status
of this proposal is.

Sources and further reading

Ammann, M. (1990) “Fachkraft oder Mädchen für alles? –​Funktion und
Rolle des Translators als Dolmetscher und Begleiter ausländischer
Delegationen,” in Vermeer, H. J. (ed.), Kulturspezifik des translatorischen
Handelns: Vorträge anläßlich der GAL-​Tagung 1989. Heidelberg, Abt. Allg.
Übersetzungs-​u. Dolmetschwiss. d. Inst. für Übersetzen u. Dolmetschen,
pp. 15–​30.
 Interpreting as a situated practice 171

Baer, B. J. and Schäffner, C. (2019) “Ethics in Socialist Translation Theories,”

in Koskinen, K. and Pokorn, N. K. (eds), The Routledge Handbook on
Translation and Ethics. London, Routledge.
Baigorri-​Jalón, J. and Fernández-​Sánchez, M. M. (2010) “Understanding
High-​Level Interpreting in the Cold War: Preliminary Notes,” Forum, 8(2),
pp. 1–​29.
Baker, M. (1997) “Non-​ Cognitive Constraints and Interpreter Strategies
in Political Interviews,” in Simms, K. (ed.), Translating Sensitive
Texts: Linguistic Aspects. Amsterdam, Rodopi, pp. 113–​131.
Baranyai, T. (2011) “The Role of Translation and Interpretation in the
Diplomatic Communication,” SKASE Journal of Translation and
Interpretation, 5(2), pp. 2–​12.
Biagini, M., Boyd, M. S., and Monacelli, C. (eds) (2017) The Changing Role
of the Interpreter: Contextualising Norms, Ethics and Quality Standards.
New York, Routledge.
Bowen, D., Bowen, M., and Dobosz, I. (1990) “The Life of a Diplomatic
Interpreter: An Interview with Irena Dobosz,” in Bowen, D. and Bowen,
M. (eds), Interpreting: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Binghamton, NY,
SUNY Press, pp. 23–​33.
Chesterman, A. (2016) Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in
Translation Theory. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins.
Ivanji, I. (2007) Titos Dolmetscher. Als Literat am Pulsschlag der Politik.
Vienna, Promedia.
Kadrić, M. (2011) Dialog als Prinzip: Für eine emanzipatorische Praxis und
Didaktik des Dolmetschens. Tübingen, Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
Kadrić, M. (2014) “Giving Interpreters a Voice: Interpreting Studies meets
Theatre Studies,” Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(3), pp. 452–​468.
Kadrić, M. (2017) “Dichter, Diplomat, Dolmetscher: Titos Dolmetscher Ivan
Ivanji,” in Dörte, A., Kaindl, K., and Kurz, I. (eds), Dolmetscherinnen
und Dolmetscher im Netz der Macht: Autobiographisch konstruierte
Lebenswege in autoritären Regimen. Berlin, Frank & Timme, pp. 193–​211.
Kondo, M. and Tebble, H. (1997) “Intercultural Communication, Negotiation,
and Interpreting,” in Gambier, Y., Gile, D., and Taylor, C. (eds), Conference
Interpreting: Current Trends in Research. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia, PA,
John Benjamins, pp. 149–​166.
Obst, H. (2010) White House Interpreter: The Art of Interpretation.
Bloomington, IN, AuthorHouse.
Pöchhacker, F. (2006) “Interpreters and Ideology: From ‘Between’ to ‘Within’,”
Across Languages and Cultures, 7(2), pp. 191–​207.
Prokesch-​ Predanovic, M. and Reithofer-​ Winter, K. (2016) “Arbeitsfeld
Europäische Union,” in Kadrić, M. and Kaindl, K. (eds), Berufsziel
Übersetzen und Dolmetschen. Tübingen, Narr Francke Attempto Verlag,
pp. 221–​232.
Rogatchevski, A. (2019) “Interpreting for Soviet leaders: The Memoirs of Semi-​
Visible Men,” Translation and Interpreting Studies, 14(3), pp. 442–​463.
Schäffner, C. (2015) “Speaker Positioning in Interpreter-​ Mediated Press
Conferences,” Target, 27(3), pp. 422–​439.
Schmidt, P. (2005) Statist auf diplomatischer Bühne 1923–​1945. Erlebnisse des
Chefdolmetschers im Auswärtigen Amt mit den Staatsmännern Europas.
172 Interpreting as a situated practice

Von Stresemann und Briand bis Hitler, Chamberlain und Molotow.

Munich, Europäische Verlagsanstalt.
Schmidt, P. and Moorhouse, R. (2016) Hitler’s Interpreter: The Memoirs of
Paul Schmidt. Stroud, The History Press.
Wadensjö, C. (1999) Interpreting as Interaction. London, Routledge.
Weber, M. (2011) Politik als Beruf, 11th edn. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot.
Waters, T. and Waters, D. (eds) (2015) Weber’s Rationalism and Modern
Society: New Translations on Politics, Bureaucracy, and Social Stratification.
New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Zanocco, G. (2017) Das fehlende Bindeglied in der Diplomatie: Die Rolle des
diplomatischen Dolmetschers am Beispiel der österreichischen Republik.
Master’s thesis, University of Vienna.
Zhan, C. (2012) “Mediation through Personal Pronoun Shifts in Dialogue
Interpreting of Political Meetings,” Interpreting, 14(2), pp. 192–​216.

Online sources
“As Govt Uses More Hindi, Interpreters in Foreign Ministry Shine,” Hindustan
Times, 22 August 2018. Available at www.hindustantimes.com/​india-​
news/​as-​govt-​uses-​more-​hindi-​interpreters-​in-​foreign-​ministry-​shine/​story-​
dvwL90Aarv5cmUpST3DqVJ.html (accessed 11 January 2021)
Auswärtiges Amt (2020) Der Sprachendienst des Auswärtigen Amts/​
The Language Services Division of the Federal Foreign Office. Berlin,
Auswärtiges Amt. Available at www.auswaertiges-​amt.de/​blob/​2290918/​
4a290462e4071ee72dce84b9828d39bb/​sprachendienst-​data.pdf (accessed
11 January 2021)
Cochrane, E. (2018) “Who Heard What Trump Said to Putin? Only One
Other American,” The New York Times, 19 July. Available at www.nytimes.
com/​2018/​07/​19/​us/​politics/​trump-​putin-​interpreter.html (accessed 25
November 2020).
Gaouette, N. and Labott, E. (2018) “Trump’s Helsinki Performance Puts
Translator in the Spotlight’, CNN Politics, 19 July. Available at https://​
edition.cnn.com/​2018/​07/​18/​politics/​trump-​russian-​translator-​spotlight/​
index.html (accessed 25 November 2020).
Grewal, K. (2019) “All the PM’s Interpreters: The Select IFS Officers Who
Translate and Keep Many Secrets’, The Print, 26 October. Available at
https://​theprint.in/​india/​all-​the-​pms-​interpreters-​the-​select-​ifs-​officers-​
who-​translate-​and-​keep-​many-​secrets/​310930/​ (accessed 11 January 2021).
“ ‘I Was There.’ Meet the Interpreter Who Translated for Joe Biden during
his 1988 Meeting with the Soviet Leadership,” Meduza.io, 11 November
2020. Available at https://​meduza.io/​en/​feature/​2020/​11/​11/​i-​was-​there
(accessed 11 January 2021).
McCurry, J. (2019) “US Checking Reports North Korea Executed Envoy,
Says Pompeo,” The Guardian, 31 May. Available at www.theguardian.
com/​world/​2019/​may/​31/​north-​korea-​executes-​envoy-​to-​us-​after-​trump-​
summit-​failures (accessed 11 January 2021).
 Interpreting as a situated practice 173

“Obama’s Open Mic Slip on Missile Defense System,” YouTube, uploaded 27

March 2012, user “CBS.” Available at www.youtube.com/​watch?v=keXx
0zxTarE (accessed 8 January 2021).
US Department of State Office of Language Services (n.d.) Available at www.
state.gov/ ​ b ureaus- ​ o ffices/ ​ u nder- ​ s ecretary- ​ f or- ​ m anagement/ ​ b ureau- ​ o f-​
administration/​office-​of-​language-​services/​ (accessed 11 January 2021).
Robbins, J. (2004) “Translation Trouble at Top-​Level Talks,” BBC News, 24
January. Available at http://​news.bbc.co.uk/​2/​hi/​uk_​news/​3426257.stm
(accessed 11 January 2021).
Schneider, R. (2019) “Nordkorea: Dolmetscherin Shin Hye Yong wegen
Übersetzungsfehler in Arbeitslager?” UEPO.de, 1 June. Available at https://​
uepo.de/ ​ 2 019/ ​ 0 6/​ 0 1/​ n ordkorea-​ d olmetscherin- ​ s hin- ​ h ye- ​ y ong- ​ w egen-​
uebersetzungsfehler-​in-​arbeitslager/​ (accessed 11 January 2021).
7 
Political and diplomatic
interpreting
Strategies and developments

It is impossible to draw a clear line between politics and diplomacy as

domains of interpreting, as diplomacy supports politics; politics takes
centre stage, while diplomacy happens in the background. As we have
illustrated in this book, a special characteristic of political and diplo-
matic meetings is that none of the people involved are acting on their
own account, but rather as representatives of political institutions or
states. Accordingly, the interpreter is interpreting not (only) between
two or more individuals, but between the institutions they represent.
As we have seen in previous chapters, the social circumstances, culture,
and status of the parties to the conversation influence the interpreter’s
work in various ways. The formality of communication during state
visits requires that interpreters remain as unobtrusive as possible and
do not intervene too actively in negotiations, while a more active
role may be accepted or even expected in working meetings or at less
formal events. The behaviour of the parties and the interpreters is
heavily guided by diplomatic protocol, which determines the modal-
ities of interpreting and how visible the interpreters are. We see that
the social context of the interpreting assignment influences the status
and level of participation of the interpreters involved in the commu-
nication. The level of participation, in turn, determines the extent to
which interpreters contribute to the communication through additions,
reductions, rewording, or changes in style.

7.1 Interpreting in political and diplomatic settings

as a “tightrope walk”
As we have seen in the previous chapters, there are a number of
expectations of what the interpreter’s tasks are and how they should
interpret. We have also seen that interpreters sometimes deviate from
these –​often unwritten –​rules, but that this is generally done in the
interest of what they consider their highest priority: enabling communi-
cation. The interpreter’s job is to interpret source-​language statements
accurately and completely so that the listeners understand the message
as it was meant. This includes not only the accurate rendering of the
semantic content of the message, but also of the emotions, the style
 Strategies and developments 175

of speech, the register, and, above all, the intention of the speakers.
Despite the often carefully considered choice of words in the language
of diplomacy, an accurate and complete rendition is not the same as
a literal reproduction of the source message. Rendering the content
and meaning of the source text accurately and completely does not
mean that every word contained in the source text automatically has
an equivalent word in the target text. We know from research in other
dialogue interpreting settings that a detailed and superficially accurate
interpreting output is not always the one that works best, and this is
likely true of politics and diplomacy as well.
So when we hear that the interpreter should make no changes to
the source text, not add or omit anything, not intervene in the com-
munication, and not let their personality show in their rendition, we
need to consider the exceptions where doing so may be the best way
of enabling communication. However, in general, interpreters remain
in the background. Although they are an important part of the com-
munication process, they nevertheless try to draw as little attention to
themselves as possible.
Peacekeeping is at the centre of international political and diplomatic
interactions. As we have seen in the discussion of different strategies
for managing information and expressiveness, interpreting influences
and regulates interaction. In triadic, tetradic, and multi-​party settings,
a common denominator for interaction is created for the purpose
of successful communication. The interpreters interviewed compare
interpreting in the diplomatic field to a “tightrope walk,” where “sensi-
tivity” and “tact” are necessary characteristics. They use this sensitivity
to judge how to interpret someone’s thoughts as expressed in the con-
text and atmosphere of the conversation. Sensitivity helps interpreters
to determine their action space and the appropriate degree of fidelity
and accuracy in terms of content and speaking style. On the other
hand, politicians and diplomats expect interpreters to understand and
relay their statements correctly. Interpreters have a great responsibility
in this respect, as they have only moments to decide whether to, e.g.,
make a statement clearer or leave its meaning up to the listeners to
interpret.

7.2 Impartiality versus multipartiality

The influence of interpreters naturally also depends on whether
interpreting is performed in dialogic or conference settings –​their phys-
ical presence at the negotiating table automatically gives them a greater
part in communication than is the case in the simultaneous booth. As
we have seen, interpreters can influence the atmosphere of commu-
nication. The interpreter’s action space is more limited in diplomacy
than in other interpreting settings, and the visibility of interpreters is
176 Strategies and developments

also comparatively low. Nevertheless, they do have some influence on

the interaction, as we have also identified in the interviews conducted.
At the pragmatic level, which is defined by the expressiveness of the
parties to the conversation, especially the emotions, speaking style,
and rhetoric of the primary communicators, the interpreters also try
to convey intentions and thus the overall picture.
If an interpreter makes a mistake, they try to correct it as soon as
they become aware of it –​even if the conversation or speech has moved
past that point. This is important not only for successful communica-
tion but also for the reputation and credibility of the interpreter.
A good flow of conversation and orderly turn-​taking are central to
smooth communication and equally to interpreting. When difficulties
arise due to the pace of speech or different opinions, expectations,
or perspectives of the speakers, we see from the interviews that the
style of the interpreter and the strategies used differ depending on
the situation, the interlocutors, and on their degree of responsibility.
Interpreters can use their style to positively or negatively influence the
impression people get of a speaker. The degree to which interpreters
reflect the intention expressed by the speaker also varies. This is par-
ticularly evident when linguistic strategies and emotions are conveyed
differently in the interpreted rendition. The interviewed interpreters
occasionally expressed messages more neutrally, smoothed issues over,
explained things, or modified texts because they did not fit the situ-
ation at hand or contained conflict potential. If a speech has a pri-
marily informative function, the main focus in interpreting it is what
is said, while stylistic aspects are secondary. However, style is often
an important factor when the text has an expressive or appellative
function. Communication is also about achieving understanding and
embedding images in the audience’s memory.
In order to fulfil their main purpose, which is to ensure understanding
between the parties and smooth communication, the interpreters
interviewed sometimes leave the safety of their “invisibility” to influ-
ence interaction in a more visible, and usually positive, way. Sometimes
this even goes beyond facilitating understanding and more in the direc-
tion of facilitating agreement. This has been observed by interpreting
researchers in other areas of interpreting, and seems to be the case
for political and diplomatic interpreting as well. This is particularly
striking in the way the interpreters interviewed deal with emotions.
Dealing with emotions is an important factor with which interpreters
influence communication. When interpreters ignore or tone down
negative emotions, they are using their monopoly on the means of
communication to steer the interaction towards reason and moder-
ation and act as covert mediators between the parties to the discussion.
By doing so they guide the interaction towards a more positive out-
come. By acting in this way, interpreters may influence the perception
 Strategies and developments 177

the parties involved have of each other. Although emotions are also
expressed through voice or facial expressions, interpreters can have
a significant influence on the communicative situation if they ignore
the tense atmosphere of a conversation, tone down negative emotions,
and focus on a calm presentation of the content. This can reduce
tensions between the parties and contribute to steering the interaction
into calmer waters. As we saw from the interviews with diplomats and
politicians, interpreters may sometimes even be expected to do so.
Alternating the use of direct and indirect speech is one of the tools
in the interpreter’s toolbox. They indicate the attitude of the inter-
preter and their degree of participation, and their distance from or
agreement with statements made by the parties to the communication.
This is a way for interpreters to make their position known without
ever expressing it overtly on the surface of the text. To cope with a
tense atmosphere or a very dynamic interaction, the interpreter may
decide to use the third-​person singular to create a distance to (and
between) the parties to the conversation. This results in more time
passing between utterances and positions the interpreter as a third
party who can coordinate the interaction, facilitate understanding, or
reduce tension. The norm, however, is the use of the first person.
Indirect speech, as we have seen, is suitable for coordinating the con-
versation. When several speakers are speaking at once, the interpreter
may have to choose one of them to interpret and identify the speaker
clearly to the audience. This helps avoid misunderstandings that could
arise from constantly speaking in the first person in such a situation, as
listeners might not be able to distinguish between speakers and could
ascribe a statement to the wrong person. The interpreter can also influ-
ence the speaker’s speed if they are speaking too quickly or too long
for accurate and comprehensible interpreting to be possible. On the
one hand, interruptions can have a negative effect on the speaker’s
thought process and presentation of information, but on the other,
the time spent on interpreting gives the next speaker the opportunity
to think longer about their response or even the current speaker time
to reflect what they will say next. Whether interpreters openly act as
an active party or deliberately do not intervene, they interact with
others in both cases and speak as, for, or about others and, at times,
themselves.
In some cases, interpreters may ask a speaker to repeat a word they
did not hear clearly, or, if necessary, to explain a concept they do not
understand. They can also do so if the speaker makes a mistake, be it
factual or a slip of the tongue. As we have shown, such questions can
be worded in a way that saves face for the speaker.
As experts who work equidistantly with at least two parties at the
same time, interpreters have obligations to these parties that may not
always be compatible. It is difficult to define the function of interpreters
178 Strategies and developments

comprehensively in a way that covers all conceivable options and com-

binations. Instead, interpreters often define their task and function ad
hoc. They are –​even in the very formal setting of diplomatic and pol-
itical interpreting –​active participants in the communication process
that can influence the direction and outcome of the interaction. The
(inter)action of the interpreter is both transcultural and interpersonal;
they have a communicative relationship with each party to the inter-
action. They are inconspicuous but by no means invisible actors, they
can play an active part when necessary, and they can have consider-
able influence on the communication. However, clients do not expect
interpreters to be visible in this way. Especially in the case of diplomatic
interpreters, the expectation is that they remain “invisible” and should
not give any explanations or “interfere” in any way. However, it is pre-
cisely the demand for accuracy and completeness and clients’ expect-
ation that everything be interpreted literally, that nothing be added,
and that the interpreting process remain as inconspicuous as possible
that obliges interpreters to intervene in the conversation as soon as
ambiguities or misunderstandings arise. Although interpreters have a
narrow action space in political and diplomatic settings, they need
the same working conditions as interpreters in other dialogic settings.
Perhaps the most important conclusion is that the way interpreters
work in the political and diplomatic domain does not differ signifi-
cantly from other dialogic interpreting settings.
In order to be able to act appropriately in any situation and not to
stumble on the delicate terrain of political and diplomatic interpreting,
it is important for interpreters to not only be able to think politically
and act diplomatically, but also to keep up to date with current polit-
ical and cultural developments. One or perhaps even the central task
of international politics and diplomacy has long been the avoidance
of wars, or, to put it positively, the securing of peace. Since Kant’s
“Perpetual Peace” this has also had philosophical underpinnings.
Politics and diplomacy are thus constantly occupied with the avoidance
and de-​escalation of conflicts and the cultivation and expansion of
friendly relations. Interpreters’ work is part of this framework. The
higher goal of peacekeeping plays a role in all decisions that are taken
in interpreting in political and diplomatic contexts.

7.3 Interpreting in a changing landscape

In this volume we have tried to approach the tasks and functions of
interpreters in political and diplomatic settings, to categorise phe-
nomena that occur regularly, and to present strategies for dealing with
them. We have complemented this with interviews with interpreters,
diplomats, and politicians in order to obtain the broadest possible
picture of this interpreting setting. Coming back to the thoughts in
 Strategies and developments 179

the introduction, we see that diplomacy and interpreting do indeed

overlap to a large extent. Both professions assist politics; they mediate,
have a balancing effect, and try to prepare the ground for top-​level
politicians to do their work. The tasks and overarching objectives of
politics, diplomacy, and interpreting are closely interlinked, and so
interpreters are directly affected by changes in the conditions under
which political and diplomatic life takes place.
After centuries of failure by politics and diplomacy to achieve lasting
peace, the 20th century saw the creation of international organisations
as strong players in peacekeeping. While the League of Nations was
short-​lived, the founding of the United Nations after World War II
created a more or less successful global peacekeeping institution.
Now, the United Nations has numerous organisations that deal with
a variety of issues, and many other international and supranational
organisations have been established on all continents and have become
important political and diplomatic fora. They have changed the face
of political interpreting and at the same time have created an enor-
mous demand for bilateral and multilateral interpreting. Multilateral
interpreting, which was in previous centuries used only at compara-
tively rare peace conferences, emerged as a permanent fixture of
interpreting with the founding of the League of Nations and later the
United Nations. The emergence of new states has also contributed to
the increased demand for bilateral and multilateral interpreting.
Like politicians and diplomats, interpreters today are no longer pri-
marily concerned with conflicts between states, but increasingly with
intra-​state conflicts and civil wars. The Syrian war and the emergence
of the so-​called Islamic State (IS, or Daesh) alone has set a gigantic
machinery of political and diplomatic efforts in motion that require
interpreting support. Terrorism, which also existed in the 1960s and
1970s but was not a matter of concern for most interpreters, is now
the topic of intensive negotiations at the international and intergov-
ernmental levels and creates an additional need for interpreting.
The content of diplomatic and political discussions is constantly
changing; interpreters therefore need to keep up to date with political
and current affairs via both traditional and new media and familiarise
themselves with new topics and discourses. Supra-​and international
negotiations today often consist of crisis intervention and crisis
meetings; as an example, consider the large number of meetings on
the Greek financial crisis at bilateral, European, and international
levels, or the many virtual conferences, meetings, and press briefings
during the COVID-​19 pandemic –​with the added difficulty of remote
interpreting. These new realities directly affect the daily work of dip-
lomatic and political interpreters. The crisis scenarios discussed at pol-
itical and diplomatic level have changed in recent years. Today it is
increasingly a question of financial sector regulations, climate change,
180 Strategies and developments

migration, and, as mentioned, terrorism. In addition to states and

international organisations, NGOs and civil society institutions are
increasingly entering such negotiations as participants and thereby
also contributing to the changed conditions with which interpreters
are confronted.
Finally, other major factors that are changing the modern world of
diplomatic and political interpreting are globalisation, new technolo-
gies, and digitisation. Technological development and new media have
a strong impact on how we communicate. The Internet and especially
email and social media have led to an enormous increase in the volume
of communication and to an acceleration of diplomatic and political
life. Politicians have Twitter accounts and use them to comment on
political negotiations and events virtually in real time. Interpreters
cannot escape this intensification and acceleration of negotiations.
They are under increased pressure and face greater challenges than
ever. At the same time, the Internet and new media make it easier for
interpreters to obtain information and quickly acquire the knowledge
they need. New technological tools are also being used in interpreting,
from the use of terminology databases in the simultaneous booth,
to note-​taking apps, to smart pens that enable the use of sim-​consec
interpreting, as described in Chapter 2. All these changes require
interpreters to be more flexible. The demands on basic translator and
interpreter training are increasing and the need for lifelong learning is
rising.
With regard to being prepared for interpreting in diplomatic settings,
an interpreter said:

While the interpreter is often indispensable and the most important

person in a meeting, objectively speaking, “social distancing”
is essential. Try to improve your working languages, prepare for
interpreting assignments, be careful not to make a comment,
however deserved, before an open microphone that may not be
your own.

This applies to politicians, diplomats, and interpreters alike, and each

profession needs to be aware of the roles and tasks of the other for
the success of an interpreted event. As we have seen in this book,
the expectations of politicians and diplomats, on the one hand, and
interpreters, on the other, coincide in some aspects but differ in others,
and are not necessarily cohesive within either group. They all agree,
however, that they are mutually involved in interpreted events and that
successful communication requires trust and cooperation. Interpreters
appreciate receiving information and documents in advance so that
they are well prepared for their job. As one interpreter interviewed
said: “Interpreting out of the blue can only harm the results of the
 Strategies and developments 181

talks.” The interpreters also commented that it would be useful for

politicians and diplomats who do not yet have much experience
in working with interpreters to learn more about the specifics of
interpreting and adapt their behaviour accordingly. For example, one
interpreter said that it would be helpful if English-​speaking diplomats
and politicians understood that English is a more compressed language
than most of the languages they work with. It would thus be helpful
if they spoke slowly, or “count to three at the end of each sentence for
the interpreter to catch up.” Successful interpreting also depends on
appropriate environment and tools, such as appropriate positioning of
the interpreter(s) in relation to the interaction partners and ensuring
high sound quality and visibility, conditions for which very often
local officials or members of the protocol department are responsible.
Several diplomats also said that although they had learned on the job
how to work with interpreters, some prior training and advice would
not go amiss.
As we have said repeatedly in this book, interpreters in political
and diplomatic contexts need to have professional competence to per-
form their tasks successfully. Such competence is developed in training
programmes. However, interpreting courses are not normally focused
specifically or exclusively on politics and diplomacy, but rather
train students in various settings so that they can become aware of
the context-​specific requirements and appropriate interpreting strat-
egies and learn to apply them. A general interpreting competence is
thus essential, or, as one interpreter put it, it needs to be developed
first before students are taught protocol. The advice the interpreters
interviewed would give students or young interpreters starting a career
in diplomatic interpreting is therefore, not surprisingly, of a more gen-
eral nature and concerns language and cultural competence as well as a
critical attitude to their task. The following quote from an experienced
interpreter interviewed summarises this advice very well.

Be a master of your active languages, acquire as wide a general cul-

ture as possible, be aware of the stakes and the situation coordinates,
and, above all, listen critically; try and understand not only what is
being said, but what is actually going on. And, also, bear in mind
not only what the speaker says, but what he or she means to say, on
the one hand, and, on the other hand, what your audience is really
interested in understanding, what is their purpose in understanding.
That is the strategic compass that ought to govern all your
choices: literalness and completeness, summarising, actively and
overtly or covertly manipulate, explain, or simply say nothing at all.
Remember that your audience is not simply listening, but working
at understanding. Inordinate speed impedes or simply prevents rele-
vant understanding. Speak so as to be relevantly understood.
182 Strategies and developments

Political and diplomatic interpreting is done in service of a cause. The

strength of interpreters in the performance of their duties is based on
their competence, their autonomy, their independence, and, above all,
their multipartiality.
Glossary

action space
the space in which the interpreter moves during the interaction and coordinates their
own actions with those of the participants to ensure smooth communication. The
interpreter’s actions include constantly assessing whether someone’s behaviour or
words have to be conveyed in a different way to ensure they are comprehensible to
those who speak a different language.

anticipation ​
a strategy particularly relevant in simultaneous interpreting, in which the interpreter
makes an educated guess on what (word or phrase) the speaker will say before
they do so and includes it in their interpreted rendition. This anticipation of what the
speaker will say can be necessitated by differences in the grammatical structures in
various languages (e.g., word order) and can also be supported by gestures.

appellative (or: operative) texts ​

texts which focus on the communication of content with a persuasive character
and intend to induce behavioural responses on the part of the receivers.
Examples: inauguration addresses, speeches during electioneering campaigns,
and advertisements or propaganda.

chuchotage (from the French chuchoter –​“to whisper”) ​

a form of simultaneous interpreting in which the interpreters whisper their rendition
to their audience (usually just one or two people in that case) or using mobile
interpreting equipment, which consists of a highly sensitive microphone and
headsets with infrared receivers.

consecutive interpreting ​
a mode of interpreting in which the interpreter reproduces the message in the target
language after the speaker has finished the original message. It can be supported
by notes taken during the speaker’s turn.

coordination ​
a strategy used to manage interactions, covering ways in which interpreters
intervene for the purpose of steering the discussion. Examples: managing turn-​
taking, dealing with interruptions, situations where speakers speak too quickly or
too long, several speakers speak at the same time, rapid back-​and-​forth between
two or more speakers. Strategies interpreters use in practice include: interrupting
speakers implicitly by starting to interpret without waiting for a pause, or interposing
explicitly, by asking to be permitted to interpret; ignoring an interjection by another
speaker for the time being but remembering it and interpreting it after completing
the statement they were actually interpreting.
184 Glossary

customised interpreting ​
a user-​oriented type of interpreting in which the original utterance is rendered in
a way that is appropriate to the context, recipient, and target language, resulting
in a purposeful, target-​oriented communicative action for the given situation. The
content remains unchanged.

dialogue interpreting ​
a form of consecutive interpreting typically used during conversations or
negotiations, as is the case in bilateral meetings between two heads of state or
government, bilateral or multilateral talks with an extended range of participants,
or official lunches or dinners. Interpreters work in both directions (also called
bidirectional or bilateral interpreting; opposite: monologic interpreting).

diplomatic protocol​
the etiquette of diplomacy and affairs of a state. The protocol describes how an
activity in international politics should be performed.

ethic of conviction ​
oriented towards the values of the person acting, without much regard for
the consequences, following one’s rules and principles strictly (cf. ethic of
responsibility).

ethic of responsibility ​
oriented towards a consideration of the circumstances and anticipation of the
consequences of one’s actions, adapting one’s approach and choosing the solution
that ensures a result that is acceptable and responsible (cf. ethic of conviction).

explicitation ​
a strategy used to manage information to ensure appropriate comprehension; a
category of intervention in which the interpreter makes information which is implicit
in the original utterance explicit in rendition.

expression ​
a strategy used to manage expressiveness, covering ways in which interpreters
deal with speakers’ emotions, nonverbal communication, personal speaking style,
and linguistic varieties in languages, such as dialects (variations associated with
geographical factors), sociolects (variations associated with sociological factors,
e.g., age, gender), language style (denoting membership in a group or profession
or beliefs), register (ways of speaking and writing typical for a certain area of
communication or purpose), jargon (group-​or subject-​specific vocabulary often not
understandable to outsiders, e.g., youth slang or language for special purposes).

expressive texts ​
texts that focus on the communication of thoughts and emotions in an artistically
shaped way and speakers express their social or emotional relationship with their
communicative partners or the subject matter. In expressive texts, the choice
of words can be more important than the content. Examples: speeches at
commemorations, emotionally charged statements.

expressiveness ​
characterises someone’s personal style and their linguistic, cultural, and socio-​
political socialisation. It provides information about the speaker’s background and
emotions and adds context to the verbal message. Expressiveness also helps
 Glossary 185

to shape recipients’ image of the speaker and the message itself. Examples: a
speaker’s use of idioms, jokes, metaphors, style, rhetorical devices, linguistic register,
nonverbal signals, and behaviour.

face work ​
strategies in interpersonal relationships to promote both the other’s and one’s own
sense of self-​esteem and to counteract communicative actions that could lead to
a loss of face (face-​threatening actions, which may harm someone’s reputation
or cause embarrassment or offence; opposite: face-​saving strategies). Interpreters
can contribute actively to face work by rewording or modifying statements that
could potentially lead to loss of face.

informative texts ​
texts whose focus is the communication of content (facts, situations, events,
etc.). In informative texts, the content is most important, and the use of language
reflects that (precise wording, technical terms). The style is factual; elegant wording
or idiomatic expressions are secondary. Examples: rapporteur’s reports, working
group meetings.

interaction management ​
a dimension of action space where the interpreter acts in a way that benefits or
coordinates the interaction; for example, when an interpreter asks someone to
clarify a statement or manages turn-​taking.

interposition ​
a strategy used to manage information to ensure appropriate comprehension; a
category of intervention which serves the purpose of improving and aiding the
communication. Interpreters pause the rendition of the source content to ask their
own questions that are necessary to ensure successful interpreting and to clarify
mistakes and misunderstandings. An interposition thus disrupts the usual flow of
the interpreted conversation and makes the interpreter more visible.

intervention strategies ​
strategies used by the interpreter to manage information, expressiveness, and
interaction. For information management, the intervention is related to the meaning
of the utterances (cf. explicitation, interposition, modification, reduction). For
expressiveness and interaction management, the intervention influences pragmatic
aspects of the communication and the flow of the interaction (cf. expression,
moderation, coordination, and mediation).

lingua franca ​
a language used for direct communication in a particular context between people
who do not share a native language. French was the preferred lingua franca of
diplomatic communication until the late 19th century, gradually replaced by English
after World War II. Today, there is a range of world languages besides French and
English that are used in diplomatic, political, and economic communication as
linguae francae, among them Arabic, Chinese, Portuguese, Russian, or Spanish.

mediation ​
a strategy used to manage interactions, covering ways in which interpreters settle
existing or emerging conflicts, directing the communication process in a balanced
way. For this purpose, interpreters may use modifications, explanations, and
interpositions.
186 Glossary

moderation ​
a strategy used to manage interactions, covering ways in which interpreters organise
and structure the discussion, steer the communication process, and ensure it flows
well. Examples: additional information provided by the interpreter, explicitations,
shifting to the third person.

modification ​
a strategy used to manage information to ensure appropriate comprehension; a
category of intervention in which the interpreter makes adjustments and changes
to the target text. It can be used to correct obvious, involuntary mistakes made in
the original utterance, to express something more appropriately or tone it down, or
to erase false starts, thus also functioning as a face-​saving strategy.

monologic interpreting ​
a form of interpreting often used at conferences or conference-​like settings where
the texts are monologic, e.g., statements where one speaker addresses their
thoughts to several people, such as a speech, a lecture, or an address. Interpreters
typically work unidirectionally, i.e., only into one language (also called unilateral
interpreting; opposite: dialogue interpreting).

multipartiality​
(term used instead of impartiality) interpreters align themselves equally with
everyone, acting in the interests of all parties to the discussion. By maintaining a
professional equidistance (or equiproximity) and presenting everyone’s viewpoint
equally, interpreters inspire confidence and gain the trust they need. Multipartiality
centres the user and their communicative needs.

multi-​party constellation ​
a setting with several participating parties speaking two or more languages and
using more than one interpreter (cf. triad, tetrad).

participant (or conversational) alignment ​

a dimension of action space where the interpreter acts in a user-​centred way, for
example, reacting to something a specific speaker says, addressing them directly,
or ensuring something is presented in a way the participant understands.

phatic communication ​
parts of conversation that shape the relationship between the communicative
partners, building and maintaining relationships. Example: ritualised language to
start or end a conversation or personal words that only fulfil a social function.

preserved interpreting ​
type of interpreting in which the content, cultural specifics, and linguistic nuances
of the source text are reproduced using the grammatical and stylistic means of the
target language. Used in situations in which the interpreter’s rendition should be as
close as possible to the original statement in form and content, for example, when
negotiating agreements or discussing legal matters. Preserved interpreting centres
the original text or statements, even if they are incoherent. (Opposite: customised,
i.e., user-​oriented, interpreting).

public diplomacy ​
coined in the 1960s, this term describes diplomatic communication that is primarily
geared towards the general public of a different country. The purpose is to improve
 Glossary 187

the image of one’s own country in the eyes of foreign audiences, and it has varyingly
been considered propaganda, public relations, cultural diplomacy, or the fostering
of international relations.

realia ​
expressions for culture-​specific elements, special characteristics, or traditions of a
country or culture. They are often explained in interpreting contexts (e.g., using the
strategy of explicitation).

reduction ​
a strategy used to manage information to ensure appropriate comprehension; a
category of intervention in which the interpreter summarises, renders only partially,
or leaves out entirely parts of the original in the interpreting output. This may occur
with repetitions and redundancies in the source text.

role space ​
a concept which highlights that the tasks and functions of the interpreter change
during the course of an interaction. Interpreters are constantly making decisions
that depend on the situation, the communicative context, and the participants.

self-​referential action ​
a dimension of action space where an interpreter communicates their needs
and requests support for their work, for example, when an interpreter introduces
themselves or says something as themselves rather than interpreting the words of
a participant.

simultaneous consecutive, or sim-​consec ​

a hybrid form where the interpreter takes consecutive notes with a smart pen or
app that also records the sound, allowing the interpreter to switch between the
consecutive and simultaneous mode while interpreting after the speaker.

simultaneous interpreting ​
a mode of interpreting in which the interpreter conveys the original speaker’s
message in the target language with a short time lag (décalage) while the speaker
is still speaking.

tetrad ​
a constellation with four participants, e.g., a bilateral meeting where each side
brings their own interpreter, who divide the labour in such a way that they support
and complement each other (cf. triad, multi-​party constellations).

triad ​
a setting in which one person interprets during a conversation between two
interaction parties (cf. tetrad, multi-​party constellations).
Index

accuracy 60, 62–​65, 75, 87, 100, misunderstandings 78, 95–​96,

105–​107, 118, 159, 162, 167, 99–​100, 102, 104, 107, 143, 178
174–​175, 178 Clemenceau, G. 112
action space 34–​35, 50, 57, 106, codes of conduct 74–​75, 157,
138, 143, 148, 163, 175, 178 163, 167
active participants: interpreters as cognitive load 46, 96, 99, 113, 116,
61, 63, 75–​76, 135, 143, 166, 168, 131, 150
177–​178 coherence 57–​58, 64, 90, 118, 122
AIIC 21, 25 communication 23–​34, 44, 56–​58,
alignment 34–​35, 105; listener 166; 65–​66, 77–​78, 104, 116, 176;
multi-​party 35, 138; participant diplomatic 30–​32, 42–​43, 47,
35; team 151–​157; text 166 57, 112, 114, 130, 147, 164;
anticipation 113, 138 face-​to-​face 26, 31, 34, 46, 94,
appellative text 33, 50–​56, 176 123, 143; interpersonal 78, 106,
178; multipartial 36, 128, 166,
Baigorri-​Jalón, J. 19, 151, 167 175; phatic 32–​34, 43, 51, 88,
Baker, M. 100, 165, 167 113; political 30, 32, 47, 57, 114;
Berlusconi, S. 116, 138 see also nonverbal communication
Biden, J. 51, 116, 157 communicative action 59, 64
Bishop, T. 161 communicative behaviour 30, 95
body language 24, 56, 93, 115, 120, communicative context see
124–​125, 130; see also nonverbal communicative situation
communication communicative effect 64, 133
Brandt, W. 28, 149 communicative goal see
Brezhnev, L. I. 148, 164 communicative purpose
briefing 35, 151–​156 communicative intent 34, 63,
Bush, G. Sr. 164–​165 66, 133
Bush, G. W. 119 communicative interests 35
communicative needs 35, 57, 78,
Carter, J. 28, 149 92, 138
Carter, R. 28 communicative power 29, 34, 77, 135
Ceauşescu, N. 162 communicative purpose 33, 75, 77,
Chamberlain, N. 27 94, 148
Chesterman, A. 79, 161 communicative setting see
chuchotage 18, 25–​27, 36, 148–​149 communicative situation
clarification: asking for 34–​35, communicative situation 24, 26, 29,
81–​83, 85–​87, 95, 98–​103, 32, 34, 36–​37, 59, 62, 75, 77, 102,
105, 107, 118, 129, 177; of 105, 136, 138, 177
 Index 189

communicative strategy 34, 131, 133, 138; of interpreter 58;

43, 54, 77 of listeners 57, 114
competence: cultural 74, 181; ethics 157, 161, 165–​168
intercultural 82, 103; interpreting explicitation 63, 76, 78–​83, 105, 129
63, 74, 107, 145, 181; expression: facial 24, 58, 113–​114,
professional 181; transcultural 82 165, 177; see also nonverbal
comprehension 35, 56–​58 communication
confidentiality 151, 157–​158, expressiveness 33, 56, 112–​115,
160, 163 117–​127, 136–​137, 176
conflict resolution 3–​7, 21, 23, 27, expressive text 32–​33, 50–​56, 64,
36, 59, 129, 132, 163, 166, 175, 77–​78, 176
178–​179
conventions 74; communicative 33, face saving strategy 30, 59–​60, 76,
63, 114, 147; cultural 76, 114; 82, 85–​86, 90, 93, 95, 107, 116,
linguistic 30, 33, 58, 103, 114, 143, 177
119, 143; text 30, 106 face-​threatening action 59, 76
coordination 34, 37, 76, 103, face work 59–​60, 82, 107, 164
130–​132 false friends see faux amis
cultural mediation 20, 78, 106 faux amis 60, 95, 153
Fernández-​Sánchez, M. 151, 167
décalage see time lag Ford, G. 164
diplomacy 1–​14, 19–​25, 31–​32, 63, functional interpreting approach 32,
146–​147; bilateral 1, 3, 21, 25, 35, 57–​58, 77
26, 52; cultural 8, 22; linguistic
conventions of 30, 116, 118, Genscher, H.-​D. 158
136, 138, 143, 178; military gestures 24, 58, 113–​115, 125,
23; multilateral 1, 3, 6, 13, 21, 129–​130, 161, 165; see also
24–​26, 36, 45–​46, 52; public 12; nonverbal communication
sports 9–​10 Goffman, E. 59
diplomatic interpreting 20–​21, 29, Gorbachev, M. 164–​165
32, 36, 59, 60, 62–​63, 94, 107, Grice, H. P. 56
117, 145, 148, 153, 163, 176–​180 Gross, M. 158
diplomatic protocol 13, 22–​23, 27,
29, 61, 65, 91, 93, 96–​97, 100, Habermas, J. 3–​4
103, 116, 119, 131, 174, 181 Henderson, N. 43
diplomatic relations 9–​13, 21–​22, Herzog, R. 53
31–​32; Vienna Convention on Hirohito 103
11, 21, 31 Holz-​Mänttäri, J. 34
diplomatic service 10–​13, 21–​22 Honecker, E. 28, 148
discourse 23–​24, 30, 116; dialogic Hu Jintao 150–​151
24–​26, 29, 34, 77, 135, 148, 163; humour 48, 79, 114–​115, 119,
monologic 23–​26, 34, 46, 77, 102 125–​127
Dobosz, I. 144 Hussein, S. 100, 165, 167–​168

emotions: conveying in idioms 58, 78–​79, 114, 119–​122,

interpretation 35, 58, 62, 66, 115, 125
123–​126, 136–​137, 174–​177; impartiality see multipartiality
expressed by speaker 30, 33, information management 35, 61, 64,
51–​52, 56, 113, 115–​117, 129, 66, 75–​107, 143, 148, 154
190 Index

informative text 32–​33, 50–​56, 77, language-​specific examples: Arabic

129, 176 80–​81, 88–​89, 97, 117, 121, 133;
interaction: formats 22–​25, 77; Bulgarian 80, 114; Chinese 60,
management 35, 39 82, 86, 90–​91, 115, 120, 134;
interpersonal relationships 102 English 60, 62, 80, 86, 89–​91,
interposition 81, 95–​105, 131–​132, 95, 103, 120, 122; French 60,
148 89, 91, 117; German 79, 82, 102,
interpreting: bidirectional 25–​27, 120–​122, 133, 155; Japanese 103;
36; bilateral 21, 24–​25, 36, 101, Portuguese 119; Russian 80, 82,
159, 179; conference 26, 34, 74; 102, 133, 135, 164; Spanish 95,
consecutive 18, 21, 24–​27, 36, 117, 155, 159
60, 78, 84, 86, 113, 126, 149, Lavrov, S. 133
152, 156; customised 35, 63–​64, Lee, R. G. 35
77, 82, 104–​105, 107, 119, 122; Leyen, U. von der 45
dialogue 25–​26, 34, 36, 62, 75–​ lingua franca 42–​48, 103, 122
76, 92, 102, 106, 130, 14, 148, Llewellyn-​Jones, P. 35
175; monologic 26, 46, 77, 102;
multilateral 21, 24–​26, 36, 101, Major, J. 53–​54
152, 157; preserved 35, 63–​64, Mantoux, P. 112
77, 84, 103, 105, 107, 122, 134, Marx, W. 166
166; relay 127, 160–​161; sight 18; mediation 82, 93, 104, 118–​119,
simultaneous 18, 21; sim-​consec 132–​138, 148, 176
18–​19, 180; stand-​by 47–​48, 95; Medvedev, D. 158–​159
unidirectional 25, 27, 36, 103; memorisation 18, 26, 99
whispered see chuchotage Merkel, A. 23, 48–​49, 59, 85, 119
interpreting performance 148, metaphor 112, 119–​122
165, 167 Michaelis, G. 166
interpreting quality 63–​65, 73 Mitterand, F. 158
interpreting strategy 58, 60, 63–​66, moderation 37, 66, 90–​91, 128–​130
76–​78, 118, 148–​149, 176, 181 Modi, N. 48
intervention 34, 60, 76, 78 89, modification 60–​63, 76, 83–​91, 105,
95–​96, 104–​105, 107, 130–​132, 132–​133, 176
148, 167, 174–​178 multipartiality 35, 37, 76, 92,
invisibility 59–​61, 75, 145, 176, 178 128, 132, 136–​138, 166–​168,
Ivanji, I. 27–​28, 43, 61, 102, 144, 175–​178
148–​149, 157–​158 multi-​party constellations 36, 175

Johnson, B. 51–​52 neutrality see multipartiality

Nixon, R. 9, 103, 165
Kant, I. 3–​8, 13–​14, 168 Nord, C. 32, 64
Kasson, J. A. 27 nonverbal communication 24, 26,
Khrushchev, N. 124 56, 113–​115, 130–​131
Kim Jong-​un 19, 164–​165 note-​taking 18–​19, 26–​27, 78, 92,
Kreisky, B. 28 98–​99, 148–​149, 158
Kurz, S. 133
Obama, B. 49, 54–​55, 59, 85, 150,
Lamy, P. 49 158–​159
language: A, B or C 25, 26; see also Obst, H. 149, 158, 164
nonverbal communication omissions see reduction
 Index 191

Palazhchenko, P. 165 semantics 31, 62, 64, 122–​123,

partiality 167 166, 174
phatic text 24, 32–​34, 43, 51, 56, skopos theory 57
88, 113 small talk 33, 35, 44, 75, 77, 81,
political interpreting 20–​21, 36, 59, 106, 126, 146–​147
62–​63, 107, 117, 145, 153, 163, spatial positioning 148–​151
176–​180 speaker intention 34, 56, 62–​66, 74,
Powell, C. 90 76, 83, 85, 88, 91, 93, 99, 105,
pragmatics 31, 62–​63, 95, 112, 114, 112, 117, 120–​123, 126, 133–​134,
119, 123, 166, 176 154, 175–​176
precision 46–​47, 62–​65, 101 Steinmeier, F.-​W. 50
preparation 35, 61, 101, 146–​147, style of speaking 30–​31, 56, 63, 65,
151–​156, 180 112, 114–​123, 136, 144, 147,
primary communicator 34, 37, 59, 174–​176
76, 98, 102, 106, 119, 126, Sukhodrev, V. 124, 164
135–​136, 146, 148–​149, 166,
176 team: interpreters as part of a 61,
professional codes see codes of 144, 151–​157, 168
conduct tetrad 36–​37, 175
Prokofiev, V. 157 text function 32–​33, 50–​56,
prosody 58, 113; see also nonverbal 129, 176
communication text types 32–​33, 77, 129; Thatcher,
Putin, V. 48–​49, 158 M. 90, 158
Thiery, C. 158
Rau, J. 50 time lag 18, 127
realia 74, 79–​80, 82, 104 Tito, J. B. 27–​28, 43, 102, 144,
reduction 91–​95, 105, 174 148–​149, 157–​158
redundancy 76, 91, 113, 117, tone of voice 112–​114, 124–​126,
129 129, 137; see also nonverbal
register 24, 58, 115, 118–​119, communcation
121, 175 Torikai, K. 61, 125
Reiß, K. 32 triad 34, 36–​37, 106, 175
Rennert, S. 65 Trudeau, J. 48
repetition 30, 46, 51, 55, 62, 76, Trump, D. 19, 116, 138, 158, 164
91–​92, 100, 117–​119, 122, 129, trust 13, 20, 27, 36–​37, 48, 61, 73,
131, 146, 148 76, 87, 90, 102, 151, 155,
responsibility 10–​13, 32, 35, 60, 63, 157–​163, 168, 180
66, 73–​74, 100, 103, 105–​106, turn-​taking 35, 113, 130–​132,
115, 118, 128, 132, 134–​135, 137, 148, 176
153, 165–​168, 175–​176
Ribbentrop, J. von 43 Vajpayee, A. B. 48
role space 35
Wadensjö, C. 59
Schäffner, C. 119 Walesa, L. 52
Schmidt, P. 27, 43, 166 Weber, M. 168
self-​correction 64–​65, 84
self-​referential action 35 Zhan, C. 130