Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 30:4 (2020) ► pp.459–484

Parliamentary impoliteness and the interpreter’s gender

ORCID logo | University of Silesia in Katowice

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

Keywords: impoliteness, face-threatening acts, simultaneous interpreting, mitigation, genderlect, European Parliament
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Impoliteness
  • 3.Parliamentary impoliteness
  • 4.Gendered language and (im)politeness
  • 5.Gender factor in interpreting
  • 6.The study
    • 6.1Methodology
    • 6.2General results
      • 6.2.1Qualitative analysis
      • 6.2.2Quantitative analysis
    • 6.3Results considering the interpreters’ gender
  • 7.Discussion and conclusions
    • 7.1Mitigation as a norm in conference interpreting
    • 7.2Mitigation as self-censorship
    • 7.3Mitigation as the interpreter’s intervention
    • 7.4Final conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 26 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18064.bar
References
Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge
2006 Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona, and Andrew Chesterman
2008 “Ethics of Renarration. Mona Baker is Interviewed by Andrew Chesterman.” Cultus 11: 10–33.Google Scholar
Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
2016 Face Threats in Interpreting: A Pragmatic Study of Plenary Debates in the European Parliament. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
Beaton, Morven
2007 Intertextuality and Ideology in Interpreter-mediated Communication: The Case of the European Parliament. PhD diss., Heriot-Watt University.Google Scholar
Ben-Ari, Nitsa
2010 “When Literary Censorship is not Strictly Enforced, Self-censorship Rushes in.” TTR 23 (2): 133–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul
2004 Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cosmidou, Olga
2013 “The European Parliament: A Temple of Multilingualism, a Pioneer in Interpreting ‘exploits’.” Gramma 191: 129–132.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 251: 349–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Impoliteness: Questions and Answers.” In Aspects of Linguistic Impoliteness, ed. by Denis Jamet, and Manuel Jobert, 2–15. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2016 “Impoliteness Strategies.” In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, 421–445. Berlin: Springer International. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Marta
2007 “Are Genderlects Universal?” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 1241: 49–50.Google Scholar
2012 “Gender and Positive Politeness in Facebook Communication.” Armenian Folia Anglistika 1–2 (10): 7–20.Google Scholar
Duflou, Veerle
2012 “The ‘first person norm’ in Conference Interpreting (CI) – Some Reflections on Findings from the Field.” In Interpreting Brian Harris: Recent Developments in Translatology, ed. by María Amparo Jimenez Ivars, and María Jesús Blasco Mayor, 145–160. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
2009 Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Revised Edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, John
1992 Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus: A Practical Guide to Improving Communication and Getting What You Want. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Gentile, Adolfo, Uldis Ozolins, and Mary Vasilakakos, M.
1996 Liason Interpreting – A Handbook. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra and Jemina Napier
2013 Research Methods in Interpreting. A Practical Resource. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hampel, Elisabeth
2015 “ ‘Mama Zimbi, pls help me!’ – Gender Differences in (Im)politeness in Ghanaian English Advice-giving on Facebook.” Journal of Politeness Research 11 (1): 99–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Handke, Kwiryna
2006 “The Language of Polish Women.” Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej 411: 83–94.Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra
2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse and Society 12 (4): 451–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbert, Jean
1952 English Translation 1956. The Interpreter’s Handbook: How to Become a Conference Interpreter. Geneva: Librairie de l’Université.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet
1995 Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia
2001 “Unparliamentary Language: Insults as Cognitive Forms of Confrontation.” In Language and Ideology, Vol. II. Descriptive Cognitive Approaches, ed. by René Dirven, Roslyn Frank and Cornelia Ilie, 235–263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Roderick
1998 Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Kahane, Eduardo
2007 “Interpreters in Conflict Zones: The Limits of Neutrality.”, [URL] (accessed January 29, 2016).
Kamińska-Szmaj, Irena
2007 Agresja językowa w życiu publicznym. Leksykon inwektyw politycznych 1918–2000 [Linguistic aggression in public life. A lexicon of political invectives 1918–2000]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.Google Scholar
Katan, David
2011 “Interpreting as Intervention: Norms, Beliefs and Strategies.” In Interpretazione e mediazone: Un’opposizione inconcilabile?, ed. by José Francisco Medina Montero, and Sarah Tripepi Winteringham, 33–66. Rome: ARACNE.Google Scholar
Karwatowska, Małgorzata, and Jolanta Szpyra-Kozłowska
2010 Lingwistyka płci. Ona i on w języku polskim [Gender linguistics. She and he in Polish]. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMSC.Google Scholar
Knapp-Potthoff, Annelie
2005 “Secondhand Politeness.” In Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice, ed. by Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide, Konrad Ehlich, 203–218. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1975 Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
1989 “The Limits of Politeness: Therapeutic and Courtroom Discourse.” Multilingua 81: 101–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laskowska, Elżbieta
2008 “Między językiem ideologii a językiem agresji [Between the language of ideology and the language of aggression].” In Reverendissimae Halinae Satkiewicz cum magna aestimatione, ed. by Grzegorz Dąbkowski, 185–193. Warsaw: Plejada.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
2014 The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Łyda, Andrzej, Alina Jackiewicz, and Krystyna Warchał
2010 “Agentless Structures in the Interpreter’s Output: Looking into the Gender Factor.” Linguistica Silesiana 311: 193–208.Google Scholar
Łyda, Andrzej, Krystyna Warchał, and Alina Jackiewicz
2011 “Managing Criticism and Praise by Trainee Interpreters: Looking for Gender Differences.” In Individual Learner Differences in SLA, ed. by Janusz Arabski and Adam Wojtaszek, 161–183. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magnifico, Cédric and Bart Defrancq
2016 “Impoliteness in Interpreting: A Question of Gender?” Translation & Interpreting 8 (2): 26–45.Google Scholar
Marcjanik, Małgorzata
2007 Grzeczność w komunikacji językowej [Politeness in linguistic communication]. Warsaw: PWN.Google Scholar
Marzocchi, Carlo
2005 “On Norms and Ethics in the Discourse on Interpreting.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter 131: 87–107.Google Scholar
2017 “Norms Revisited”. In The Changing Role of the Interpreter. Contextualising Norms, Ethics and Quality Standards, ed. by Marta Biagini, Michael S. Boyd, and Claudia Monacelli, 219–227. New Yok and London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Marianne
2008 Courtroom Interpreting. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Mason, Ian, and Miranda Stewart
2001 “Interactional Pragmatics, Face and the Dialogue Interpreter.” In Triadic Exchanges. Studies in Dialogue Interpreting, ed. by Ian Mason, 51–70. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Mills, Sara
2003 Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 “Gender and Impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research 1 (2): 263–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monacelli, Claudia
2006 “Implications of Translational Shifts in Interpreter-mediated Texts.” Pragmatics 16 (4): 457–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Self-preservation in Simultaneous Interpreting: Surviving the Role. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakane, Ikuko
2008 “Politeness and Gender in Interpreted Police Interviews.” Monash University Linguistics Papers 6 (1): 29–40.Google Scholar
Napier, Jemina, and Roz Baker
2004 “Sign Language Interpreting: The Relationship between Metalinguistic Awareness and the Production of Interpreting Omissions.” Sign Language Studies 4 (4): 369–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogiermann, Eva
2008 “On the Culture-specificity of Linguistic Gender Differences: The Case of English and Russian Apologies.” Intercultural Pragmatics 5 (3): 259–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez de Ayala, Soledad
2001 “FTA and Erskine May: Conflicting Needs? Politeness in Question Time.” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2): 143–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plug, H. José
2010 “Ad Hominem Arguments in the Dutch and the European Parliaments. Strategic Manoeuvring in an Institutional Context.” In European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices, ed. by Cornela Ilie, 305–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polkowska, Laura
2014 “Naruszanie zasad etyki poselskiej w latach 2001–2012 [Breaking the rules of MP ethics in the years 2001–2012].” Poradnik Językowy 11/2014: 61–70.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
2004 Introducing Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöllabauer, Sonja
2007 “Interpreting in Asylum Hearings: Issues of Saving Face.” In The Critical Link 4. Professionalisation of Interpreting in the Community, ed. by Cecilia Wadensjö, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, and Anna-Lena Nilsson, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Römer, Ute
2005 “ ‘This seems somewhat counterintuitive, though…’ – Negative Evaluation in Linguistic Book Reviews by Male and Female Authors.” In Strategies in academic discourse, ed. by Elena Tognini Bonelli, and Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti, 97–115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santaemilia, José
2008 “The Translation of Sex-related Language: The Danger(s) of Self Censorship(s).” TTR 21 (2): 221–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian
2017 “Interpreting at the European Institutions: Faster, Higher, Stronger.” CLINA 3–21: 73–90.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1990 You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria
2007 Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1998 Interpreting as Interaction. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J.
2003 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weatherall, Ann
2002 Gender, Language and Discourse. Hove: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wilkoń, Aleksander
1987 Typologia odmian językowych współczesnej polszczyzny [Typology of linguistic varieties of modern Polish]. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.Google Scholar
Zwischenberger, Cornelia
2017 “Professional Self-perception of the Social Role of Conference Interpreters. In The Changing Role of the Interpreter. Contextualising Norms, Ethics and Quality Standards, ed. by Marta Biagini, Michael S. Boyd, and Claudia Monacelli, 52–73. New Yok and London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar