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 (67)
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
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Chai, Ting & Junxia Hou
2024. Scrambling for power or cooperation for stability: A case study of mother-in-law and daughter-in-law relationship in China. Discourse Studies DOI logo
Franceschi, Valeria
2024. Disalignment in the EU. Journal of Language and Politics 23:2 ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Acosta Vicente, Carmen
2023. A Literature Review on Gender in Interpreting: Implications for Healthcare Interpreting. In New Trends in Healthcare Interpreting Studies [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Dayter, Daria, Miriam A. Locher & Thomas C. Messerli
2023. Pragmatics in Translation, DOI logo
Saleem, Aisha, Tahir Saleem & Asif Aziz
2022. A pragmatic study of congratulation strategies of Pakistani ESL learners and British English speakers. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 7:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.