Issues in Translation and Interpretation

Researchers such as Temple (1997, 2002), Temple and Young (2004) as well as Wong and Poon (2010) highlight how the issue of translation is given little attention in social research and stress the importance of some methodological reflections in cross-language research . My research involved conducting interviews in one language and presenting the findings in another as well as the use of interpreters during the interviews. The Ethiopian stowaways were interviewed in the official language of Ethiopia, Amharic, which I simultaneously translated into English during transcription. Therefore, I assumed both a researcher and a translator role at the same time in this case. However, as Temple and Young (2004) note, this does not necessarily entail the final text being closer to the ‘truth’ as the ‘socio-cultural positioning’ (Temple and Young, 2004) and ‘intellectual biography’ (Temple 1997) of the researcher/translator are introduced in the translation process. According to Birbili (2000), the linguistic competence of the translator, the translator’s knowledge of the culture of the population being studied, the autobiography of the translator as well as the circumstances in which the translation takes place are among the factors that influence the quality of translation.

I was well positioned to produce a translation of the accounts of this group of stowaways in relation to Birbili’s criteria. I was confident in my linguistic competence to undertake the translation from Amharic to English and took caution to faithfully translate the

35

stowaways’ accounts. Furthermore, the issues explored with the stowaways were largely confined to the maritime industry to which I am an insider as a former seafarer. Having worked on-board ships, having docked frequently in a port regarded as a ‘home port’ by the national shipping line I was working for (a port from which the Ethiopian stowaways stowed away), and originating from the same country as the stowaways allowed me to grasp the ‘cultural context’ as well as the terminologies they used during the interviews. I could easily understand what they were referring to when they were discussing port security issues at the port of Djibouti using ‘esoteric’ expressions or when they were detailing their hiding places on board. For instance, two of my participants talked about hiding inside what they referred to as the ‘white round JRC’ in reference to the INMARSAT antenna on board. I also attempted to keep the translation as verbatim as possible, only adding clarifications in brackets when the terminologies used became very ‘esoteric’ to provide the reader with clarifications.

However, an interpreter was required when interviewing Tanzanian stowaways in South Africa. Edwards (1998) and (Temple 2002) do not regard interpreters as neutral conduits of information. Instead, as Temple (2002, pp.845-846) contends, they are active producers in the research process whose ‘socio-cultural positioning’ (Temple and Young 2004) and ‘intellectual biographies’ (Temple 1997) always leave a mark on the research (Temple and Young 2004). This is clearly demonstrated by the exercise carried out by Wong and Poon (2010) in which three translators with different backgrounds emphasised different aspects when translating the same interview account.

Hence, Edwards (1998), Temple (2002) and Temple and Young (2004) propose interviewing the interpreters to assess how their world views, lived experiences and intellectual biographies impact upon the interpretation as well as engaging in discussions about the interpretation process with the interpreters. This is particularly important when the interpreters have significant differences from the interviewees despite speaking the same language. For example, in the work of Temple (2002), the interpreters had marked differences from the interviewees in the fact that the former were born and educated in England while many of the interviewees were recent migrants who probably possessed views that were significantly different from the interpreters.

The interpreter I used to interview the Tanzanian stowaways, Mohab, was, however, an insider to the group as he was a stowaway himself. He was also the first person I interviewed among the Tanzanian stowaways. Furthermore, he also had a previous experience in

36

interpreting for a journalist who acted as my gate keeper to the group. The fact that the interpreter hailed from the same place as the stowaways, had experience in interpreting and, furthermore, was a seasoned stowaway himself made him most suited for the task. I sat down with him first to explain how the interpretation should proceed before conducting the interviews. He was instructed to interpret the interviewees’ accounts as verbatim as possible. If the interviewees’ accounts prompted him to add his own account, he was told to do that separately after the interpretation of the particular segment is completed and only after explicitly pointing out that the subsequent account was his own. The fact that the majority of the Tanzanian stowaways interviewed could hear and understand what was being said in English made it possible for them to monitor that their accounts were accurately interpreted. Most often, I commenced the interviews without the aid of my interpreter to assess if the stowaways were able to articulate themselves in English. When I felt that they were able to articulate themselves comprehensibly, I let the interviews proceed without resorting to the aid of my interpreter. However, the interpreter stepped in to assist when they struggled. Whenever I assessed that the interviews would be impaired rather than be enhanced by their direct accounts, I always resorted to using my interpreter. Nonetheless, most of my participants occasionally switched to speaking in English at various stages during the interviews which is reflected in the quotes in the subsequent chapters.

I was initially nervous when my interpreter chose to listen to the interviewees’ accounts for what seemed to me an extended period before proceeding with the interpretation. However, I noticed he always gave signals to the participants to pause their narration when he felt he had heard enough to interpret. Hence, I allowed him to carry out the interpretation at a pace he felt comfortable with. In addition, the use of the interpreter also created the opportunity to expand the interview into a three-way format at times where more details were revealed. He also added his own account in some occasions following up on his interpretation of the participants’ accounts which enriched the data further. Nonetheless, he was always careful to point out that the information he was adding was his own and always did that after completing the interpretation of the specific segment in accordance with my instruction to him regarding the interpretation process.

Interpretation through two Chinese colleagues of mine was also used when interviewing two Chinese seafarers. Similar to the case with stowaways, one of the interpreters was a former Chinese seafarer who had had a stowaway experience and was also interviewed as part of this research. In addition, he was also a social scientist who had extensive experience

37

in interviewing Chinese seafarers and translating interview accounts into English in his own research. Hence, he was suited for the task and, similar to my Tanzanian interpreter, he undertook the interpretation at a pace he felt comfortable with. He preferred interpreting accounts in shorter segments and was also instructed to interpret accounts as verbatim as possible. In this case, the fact that all three of us had experiences of working on ships and were ‘insiders’ to the wider shipping context enabled a smooth interpretation process. However, I had to seek the assistance of another colleague for an interview with another Chinese seafarer as the aforementioned interpreter was not available. Although the second interpreter did not have a seafaring experience, she, nonetheless, had interviewed Chinese seafarers and translated their accounts in her own research. There were a few instances in this case where the interpreter struggled with specific words, such as port names and parts of the ship, as she did not have a seafaring background. However, I was able to easily understand what she was referring to due to my experience as a former seafarer. I could also hear the technical words the interviewee was using at the time. In addition, the Chinese seafarers were also able to understand English and were only constrained in their abilities to speak which made possible a level of oversight on the interpretation process. I did not observe any serious issues during the interpretation process throughout this research that would have led me to conclude the use of interpreters had had inadvertent effects on the quality of the data.

Edwards (1998) argues that interpreters should be rendered visible in research outputs and suggests some strategies to do so. She suggests making interpreters use third person pronouns when interpreting and using a similar approach when quoting from the transcript. I have embraced this position and the interpretations were done in third person pronouns. Furthermore, quotes from these interview accounts in the subsequent chapters also render the interpreters’ presence visible through the use of third person pronouns and pointing out that the specific account was solicited through interpretation by a particular interpreter in each case.