Because of the dual role of the interpreter/translator- as a cultural and linguistic link between source and target- translation is often understood by means of metaphors such as 'building bridges ferrying or 'carrying across' ideas from one source to another(Hermans 2002:10). And also because of their elevated bicultural status, translators are often seen as inhabiting (a somewhat abstract) space between cultures. Narratives have been developed to portray the translator/interpreter as a disinterested peacemaker or mediator whose role is that of impartiality, whose wok is to interpret but not to formulate the message(Gentile, Ozolini and Vasikakos 1996:48).
This essay assesses the relevance of the above understanding of translation/interpreting by looking at some studies and articles that discuss the extent to which translators could mediate between language, cultures and ideologies. Before that task is accomplished, there would first of all be need to have an an over-view of what is involved in translation.
From the earliest known periods when people became bilingual or multilingual, and translation/interpreting became necessary, to the current times when translation has become a complex discipline, various conceptions of the translator have emerged. The most rudimentary view of the translator is that of a mouth-piece, a person who merely 'transfers' or conveys the message of another person from one language to another(Hermans 2002). This understanding of the translator begs the question as to whether the translator is a disinterested and mechanical device, that simply repeats 'his master's voice'. Interpretation has proved to be a delicate matter, as it transcends the 'texts', and also involves intercultural and ideological issues which the translator/interpreter must also confront(Baker 2006).
Over time and with more scientific methods in use today, translation/interpreting is not only serving a multiplicity of functions, but is also useful in dichotomies which mirror a polarised world of ideas, cultures, ideologies and orientations. For instance, just as different disciplines have developed appropriate definitions for the term culture, so has translation/interpreting been understood variously within disciplines. For instance, linguistics-based approaches define translation as transferring meanings by substituting source language(SL) signs with equivalent target language(TL) signs(Schaffner 2003). The source text(ST) when translated to the TL should be reproduced as closely as possible in both content and form . But, treating translation materials only as 'texts' may deprive the translated material of its original meaning. No wonder Text linguistic approaches define translation as source text induced target text(TT) production(Neubert 1985).
Depending on the objective and scope of translation, therefore, the translator may be called upon not just to serve the purpose of 'transference' of texts from one language to another, but also to perform the 'carrying across' of ideas which may involve cognitive and cultural concepts(Hermans 2002). Translation studies have come to the realization that interpreters/ translators (could) do more, for instance, by also mediating between different cultures(Katan 2003, 2004). If certain cultural considerations such as verbal, non-verbal and other elements are ignored, the interpreter/translator may cause much confusion or misunderstanding in the cause of their work. Therefore, there is need for translators to 'come across' to the target group appropriately and clearly , and convey the desired meanings from one culture and language to another. The interpreter/translator does this through the assumption that he has the privilege of being conversant with both languages and cultures.
However, as this essay will argue, there is only an extent to which the interpreter/translator may remain impartially 'in between' linguistic, cultural and ideological orientations. Furthermore, as the translation discipline becomes more 'liberalised' and 'industrialised', that is, becoming more group oriented than individual activity ethical issues have become less binding(Pym 2003). Thus, the translator as a result has been unconsciously or deliberately caught up in situations that raise questions about the romanticisation of their role as only peace-makers and intercultural mediators. By looking at some studies and publications this essay analyses both the popular and the contrary arguments about the way interpreters are viewed.
Translator/Interpreter's role as the 'bridge' between linguistic gaps
One way by which translation is understood as a 'bridge'between language gaps, is through the growing influence of cognitive linguistic approach in the discipline( Al-Harrasi 200; Cristofoli et al 1998; Schaffner 1997a, 1998). The main argument in this approach is that conceptual metaphors are a means of understanding one domain of experience(target domain) in terms of another(source domain). For instance, whereas many languages and cultures may universally conceptualise LOVE AS A JOURNEY, and ANGER may be understood in terms of PRESSURISED CONTAINER(Kovecses 2005; Lakoff & Johnson 1980), there are also variations on how ideas are conceptualised. Among certain Chinese dialects, for example, LOVE is conceptualised as A FLYING OBJECT(Yang 2002), other cultures in Africa see it as OBJECTS IN THE HEART(Taylor and Mbense 1998). Therefore, establishing the conceptualisation on which a particular metaphorical expression is based is relevant to translation of ideas from one language and culture to another. Translators of this school would strive to place themselves 'in between' and impartially understand the source concept and interpret them appropriately to the target audience.
It is with this group of translators in mind that Katan(2003, 2004) may have developed a teaching material for translators/mediators that is based on cognitive semantics ideas. These ideas may have been based on the conceptual narrative(Somers and Gibson 1994) that believe that cultures, like World Civilisations, may be geographically determined(Baker 2005).This categorisation of cultures is closely linked to how ideas are understood or framed. The frames semantic theory is derived from Fillmore's(1982a) argument that a 'speaker's words and constructions evoke an understanding or a frame; a hearer invokes a frame upon hearing it in order to understand it'(Fillmore 1982a cf Croft & Cruse 2004:8) ).
In line with the theory of frames, Katan(2004) sees linguistic meanings in terms of cultural frames, and urges the enhancing of cultural awareness in the training of language mediators. Culture and language are not only understood in cognitive terms, but also seen within the notion of a geographical orientation. Thus he argues that there is a 'culture-bound mental map of the world'(Katan 2004). Therefore,he continues to develop his argument, that for each of the many 'arrays' of cultural and language frames in existence, there are different communication orientations. Thus, when translators are trained to understand the cultural frames and the communication orientations, they would be better placed to act as ' building bridges' between cultures.
Perhaps based on this model of the role of mediation, Schaffner(2004) uses an example of how conceptual metaphorical ideas are used by a translator to 'bridge' understanding between two languages and cultures. Comparing Helmut Kohl's(former German Chancellor) two speeches on two different locations and occasions, Schaffner discusses how the post-World War II 'Berlin Airlift' metaphor is conceptualised in English and German languages. Chancellor Kohl's first speech was made during the conferment of the Honorary Freedom of the City of London upon him (18 February 1998), and the second was made at the ceremony at Tempelhof Airport to commemorate the Berlin Airlift on the occasion of the visit of President Clinton (14 May 1998). The two speeches and their interpretations form German to English are shown below(the metaphoric expressions are given in bold) :
Wir wollen die Bru¨cke u¨ber den Atlantik auf allen Gebieten-Politik und
Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft und Kultur-festigen und ausbauen.
'We aim to strengthen and widen the transatlantic bridge in all spheres, in politics and commerce, science and culture.'
So sind die amerikanischen Soldaten ein wichtiger Teil der Freundschaftsbru¨cke u¨ber den Atlantik geworden.
'The American forces in Germany are thus an important component of transatlantic friendship.'
In her analysis of the speech, Schaffner(2004) notes that at the London speech, the 50th anniversary of the Airlift is briefly mentioned by Chancellor Helmut Kohl, though it is not the actual topic of his speech. In the Tempelhof speech, however, the Luftbru¨cke ' bridge in the air' is the actual topic, and it is used frequently in the short text, thus contributing to the structure of the text. In these two examples, a German metaphorical conception(Luftbrucke-bridge in the air) and an English metaphorical expression (Airlift- Transport domain) is used by the translator/interpreter.
Schaffner(2004) appropriately notes that the German metaphor Luftbrucke 'bridge in the air', an Architectural structure as source domain, conveys a more permanent structure compared to the English equivalent Airlift, a Transport domain. She further notes the use of two different conceptual metaphors when translating from the original message may have contravened Newmark's(1981) translation procedure which advocates for metaphor to metaphor reproduction from source to target language. However, the divergent linguistic conceptions('bridge in the air' and 'Airlift') have been subsumed under one conceptual idea of A STATE IS A PERSON AND INTIMACY IS CLOSENESS through the historical action of the Berlin airlift. The German concept of Luftbrucke 'bridge in the air' as used by Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and the English understanding of 'Airlift' are now conceptualised as the means by which the UK/USA and Germany are linked.
In the above example, the interpreter has, consciously created a 'bridge' between the two languages(German and English) by reconceptualising 'Airlift' and 'Luftbrucke' from their source domains of Transport and Architectural domains respectively, to the target domains of transatlantic bridge/transatlantic friendship which may be understood under one conceptual metaphor A STATE IS A PERSON AND INTIMACY IS CLOSENESS(Schaffner 2003).
However, the role of the interpreter/translator has not always been clear cut as will be shown in the next paragraph . The narrative that has been developed of the role of the translator/interpreter as an 'etheral' being 'in between' , a detached and disinterested bicultural mediator of peace and and harmony, has been called into question(Baker 2005)
The translator's/Interpreter's Cultural and Ideological Orientation: challenging the popular view
Arguing that either through unconscious proliferation of narratives that the interpreters themselves have propagated, or by being ideologically inclined, Baker(2005) suggests that interpreters in many instances have escalated conflicts or created conceptual narratives that have informed opinions and policies of institutions and governments.
Grounding her argument on Somers and Gibson's(1994) definition of conceptual narratives: '...concepts and explanations that we construct as social researchers' (1994:62), she explains how, for instance, Raphael Patai, a renowned cultural anthropologist and accomplished interpreter, shaped the policies of neo-conservatives in America through his book The Arab Mind(1973). In this book, Patai constructs the image of an Arab as a person who only understands force and whose biggest weakness was shame and humiliation(Baker 2005). The fact that Raphael Patai's book informs military and political decisions in Washington negates the popular but naive view of the interpreter as the detached 'in between' being.
Translators/interpreters may unconsciously 'fuel' conflict rather than foster peace through misrepresentations of verbal and non-verbal communications( Baker 2006). The interpreter's cultural orientation may cause them to overlook certain cultural imperatives of the source language and thereby unconsciously misinterpret ideas. Although interpreters have been characterised as impartial, this has not always been the universal practice as the example of Patai(1973) shows. Furthermore, interpreters/translators may, as professional practitioners, be influenced by their cultural and ideological orientation. Baker(2003) claims that there are those 'ideologue-translators' whose work is to deliberately 'misinterpret' source languages and cultures for purposes of indoctrination. Baker(2003) describes how these translators' interpretation of ideological and political ideas are informed by what she refers to as defining features of narratives(Somers and Gibson 1994) : relationality, causal emplotment, selective appropriation and temporality.
'Relationality' describes a situation whereby an event is interpreted as part of a larger configuration of events, not in isolation. Thus an event is rationalised within similar(however unrelated)events composed from symbolic, institutional and material practices(Somers 1997:82)of these groups. An example of relationality may be how, for many years acts of terrorism were quickly blamed on the Alquaida without verification, by simply relating the current act to their past acts of terror. Causal emplotment on the other hand,"gives significance to independent instances, and overrides their chronological or categorical order" (Somers 1997: 82). It is causal emplotment that allows someone to make moral sense of events, because they are able to account for why things happened the way a given narrative suggests they happened. Thus,there may be agreement on a set of 'facts' or independent events but a disagreement may occur on how different people interpret them . Still using the example of an organisation like the Al Qua-Ida , causal emplotment may link them to a bomb explosion because a suicide bomber was involved, since Al Quaida's modus operandi is 'suicide bombing'.
Ideologically inclined interpreters may perform 'selective appropriation' of a set of events or elements from a vast array of open ended and overlapping events that constitute experience . In order to elaborate a coherent narrative, these interpreters deliberately exclude some elements of experience are and give others prominence. This way, only 'selectively appropriated' elements would be repeatedly forced into public consciousness by powerful institutions like governments or media. This leads to what is referred to as 'narrative accrual'(Bruner 1991: 18). Thus 'narrative accrual' is the process of repeated exposure to a narrative or set of narratives leading to the shaping of a culture, tradition, or history. An example is what is described in law as 'precedents. It is evident, therefore, that interpreters are not always neutral instruments in the act of interpretation.
As illustrated in the last paragraph, interpreters/translators, may be powerful tools in the hands of certain institutions in perpetrating conflicts rather than peace-making(Tymoczko 2003). Whereas there may be few translators who may be located in an idealised no-man's land lying 'in between' cultures and ideologies, majority are found consciously supporting 'cultural' groupings based on national, religious or gender affiliation(Baker 2005). Tymoczko 2003) sees the popular narrative of a translator as located 'in between' cultures and committed only to peaceful intercultural mediation agenda as elitist and unrealistic. The argument is that it is highly unlikely that interpreters could be divorced from any cultural or ideological affiliations. Portraying them as impartial and culturally detached elevates them to the level of romantic poets, a position which gives them the aura of geniuses(Tymocszko 2003:199).
The final paragraph examines the question of ethics and translation, and how the goals of translation and stake-holders in translation work have affected the traditional view of the translator/interpreter, and influenced how translation is done.
Ethics and the interpreter
In the preceeding paragraphs the traditional view of the translator/interpreter and his true praxis have been discussed. It is apparent from the foregoing discussion that translator's role is governed by many paradigms created by the translator himself, his ideological orientation and the demands of the target audience. In this paragraph the ethical issues within the translating field are examined and how they affect the traditional view of translation.
The ethics of translation is founded on the idea of fidelity to the source text, author and to the intention of the text or author(Pym 2003). The implication of this in terms of translation may be multiple. First of all, the interpreter/ translator may, as often happens, seek the permission of the author to translate the work in a way that suits the translator's objectives. If this is granted, the translator may proceed as they wish as long as they make a disclaimer that this is not the author's original work. This happens in adaptations of written work for stage or film. The other implication is that the interpreter/translator may interpret a source material to the target audience as appropriately as they could within a wide scope of meanings as long as it does not illegally or commercially misrepresent the author. This latter action requires the interpreter to take full charge and responsibility for such adaptations or interpretations.
However, the translator nowadays rarely has any scope for independent action. His action is governed by a set of factors which mainly affect the end-product. Firstly translation projects(particularly the written) are increasingly done in teams, taking away the translator's control of the final product. Moreover, the ethics of fidelity is growing less fashionable in translation, because it is argued that that translation is now governed by 'Skopostheorie' which states that translational action is determined by its purpose(Reiss & Verneer 1984:10). Therefore, because a translator/interpreter may hide under the 'law' of 'Skopos' he has a wide area of operation and may interpret as he wishes.
Notwithstanding the so-called fidelity in translation is the longstanding belief that translation has never really been neutral activity(Hatim and Mason 1997:145). Many scholars acknowledge that translators have always fallen between two extremes: the 'free' and the 'liberal'(Hatim and Mason 1997). Moreover, it is difficult for a translator to avoid ideological leanings, which is determined by the translator's social background and orientation. Thus, the traditional view of a translator/interpreter as a neutral functionary in his profession seems to far-fetched.
In view of this open-ended role of a translator/interpreter, the idea of 'loyalty' has been suggested to complement the notion of Skopostheorie(Nord(1997, 2001) .'Loyalty has been about the idea of being committed to those fundamental issues which affects the texts, of what is written or said and also concerning the relationships that exists between the translator and other stake-holders. Nord stresses that translator's major obligation is towards the socio-professional relations with the clients and text-users, the people who actually have particular need of the translation. It is evident, therefore, that there are many issues that (still) govern translation work, and that translators/interpreters though idealised are not the innocent practitioners they are purported to be .
To the extent that the praxis of translation has emphasised the end-product and the needs of the supply end of the interpretation, it would seem that much as practitioners would want to play by the rules of ethics as stated by Pym(2003), they would rather adhere to the law of the 'piper who calls the tune'. Thus, translation work will be guided more by the law of supply and demand rather than its original ethical guidelines.
In conclusion, the key features of this essay are recouped and summarised as follows. In order to evaluate the relevance of popular narrative of the translator as the 'bridge' between cultures and peace-makers, the essay begins by laying the foundation for a contrastive discussion. This is done firstly, by illustrating one conceptualisation of an interpreter as the 'bridge' between cultures and languages. Using the translation of former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl's conception of the Berlin Airlift as the 'bridge in the air' and its English equivalent 'Airlift', Schaffner (2003) illustrates how the conceptual metaphor theory has played a crucial role in the interpretation and understanding of concepts from two languages. Furthermore, the essay also discussed how the idealised role of translators as 'mediators' or 'peace-makers' may be made easier by training translators on understanding the concept of the mental map of world cultures(Katan(2004). In other words, it is assumed that once they understand the geographical cultural frames of the world they would make better translator/interpreters.
These goals, however, may be too idealistic. As so often happens, the translator may fall prey to ideological and cultural leanings(Baker 2005, 2006). Through the citation of the work of Somers and Gibson(1994), Baker(2006) demonstrates that translators/interpreters are not the neutral facilitators of 'intercultural harmony' they are purported to be, but active perpetrators of conflicts in the society. Tymoczko(2003) seem to concur and argues that the role of translators has always been romanticized, and that the narrative of the translator as the disinterested and neutral mediator is too elitist.
Finally the essay discussed the effects of ethics on translation and how this has contributed to translators'/interpreters'integrity as professionals. Pym's (2003) analysis of the more liberalised translation field and the erosion of ethical standards in translation work have contributed to the changing role of the translator.
Thus, the extent to which the translator may remain neutral during translation work depends upon their integrity , their cultural and ideological orientation.
