Book review
Moira Inghilleri. Interpreting Justice. Ethics, Politics and Language
New York: Routledge, 2012. xi + 156 pp. ISBN 978-0-415-89723-5 $150 (hb)/ 978-0-415-82169-8 $48.95 (pb)

Reviewed by Andrew Chesterman
Helsinki

Table of contents

This reads more like a pamphlet than a book: it is a series of arguments in favour of broadening the traditional code of ethics in interpreting, which is based on the values of fidelity and impartiality. Inghilleri’s perspective is openly prescriptive: reforming the code of ethics is something that should be done. In a nutshell, the author wants interpreters to be allowed more space to act in accordance with their personal ethics, especially when these conflict with the traditional professional ethics of interpreting. This would mean giving interpreters the right to intervene more freely, in order to ensure that their clients (in asylum-seeking cases, for instance) are treated fairly. Such interventions underline the way people in general try to understand one another via dialogue and cooperation, in a dialectical process that can often be fragmented and incoherent.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Davidson, Donald
1986 “A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs.” In Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, ed. by Ernest Lepore, 433–446. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael
1986 “ ‘A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs’: Some Comments on Davidson and Hacking.” In Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, ed. by Ernest Lepore, 459–476. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August
2000Translation and Relevance. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Malmkjaer, Kirsten
1993 “Underpinning Translation Theory.” Target 5 (2): 133–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1998Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
[ p. 318 ]