Introducing insults, offensive and taboo language in the Court interpreting classroom

Translation, Interpreting and Intermediation in Legal and Institutional Environments Edited by María Pilar Castillo Bernal Carmen Expósito Castro Translation and Interpreting Series Volume II Chief-editors Anne Martin Concepción Otero Moreno Advisory Board Mona Baker (University of Manchester) Anabel Borja Albi (Universitat Jaume I) Jorge Díaz Cintas (University College of London) Amparo Hurtado Albir (Universidad de Valencia) Carme Mangiron Hevia (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) Translation, Interpreting and Intermediation in Legal and Institutional Environments Edited by María Pilar Castillo Bernal Carmen Expósito Castro Translation, Interpreting and Intermediation in Legal and Institutional Environments. Edited by María Pilar Castillo Bernal and Carmen Expósito Castro. — Córdoba: UCOPress. Cordoba University Press, 2018. (Translation and Interpreting Series; vol. II.) Publisher: UCOPress. Cordoba University Press Campus de Rabanales. Ctra. Nac. VI, km. 396, 14071 Córdoba (Spain) http://www.uco.es/ucopress/ — [email protected] Printer: Gráficas Minerva de Córdoba s.l. Cover design by Manuel Marcos Aldón ISBN: 978-84-9927-432-4 DL: CO 2.259 - 2018 © UCOPress © The authors All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in any retrieval system, nor transmitted in any form without written permission from the Publishers. Printed in Spain 7 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9 Introducing insults, offensive and taboo language in the court interpreting classroom CORAL HUNT-GÓMEZ ............................................................................................. 11 Le notaire et l’accès au droit des citoyens flamands au 19ième siècle MARIE BOURGUIGNON ............................................................................................. 29 Description of hyperonym-hyponym relationships in contracts for translation purposes LETICIA MORENO-PÉREZ ....................................................................................... 43 Sworn translation for veterinary academia: lexical and cultural challenges in training and professional certificates MARÍA LUISA RODRÍGUEZ MUÑOZ ....................................................................... 57 Dealing with clients’ codeswitching in interpreted lawyer-client interviews HAN XU ........................................................................................................................ 87 Interdisciplinarity in Translation: Rendering Legal Content in Marvel's Daredevil Series ROBERT SZYMYŚLIK .................................................................................................. 101 Deontic values in online legal texts: Conditions Générales d'Utilisation and Condiciones generales Mª AZAHARA VEROZ GONZÁLEZ ........................................................................... 113 Les termes du droit de la famille en français et en géorgien : formation et traduction KETEVAN DJACHY ..................................................................................................... 139 Contents 8 ‘Eurolect’ and Spanish legal discourse: a contrastive corpus-based analysis of EU directives and national implementing legislation on environmental issues ISABEL VAQUERO GARCÍA DE YÉBENES .............................................................. 151 A contrastive traductological analysis of a civil and a criminal judgment based on a practical case: The murder of James Bulger VERÓNICA PÉREZ GUARNIERI ................................................................................ 171 Traduction (français/ arabe) spécialisée : combinaison verbe et préposition « sous » ou « sur » RANDA KALAMOUN .................................................................................................. 185 11 Introducing insults, offensive and taboo language in the court interpreting classroom Coral vy Hunt-Gómez Universidad de Sevilla 1. Introduction In view of ever-increasing globalisation and the multiplication of digital possibilities, court interpreters are needed more than ever. The number of academic courses in the field has grown exponentially and given that appropriate training is a factor which promotes field professionalisation, it could be thought that court interpreting has started to become professionalised. Currently, despite the right to the presence of an interpreter in legal proceedings being guaranteed by many legal instruments1, in Spain there is still insufficient specific training and a lack of standardised certification. Nonetheless, in courtroom settings, the performance of interpreters is paramount, as they must provide an adequate service in order not to violate an individual’s right due to their incompetence. However, it can be a complex task to define what a competent interpreter is. More than 20 years ago, Schweda Nicholson (1994: 82) stated that, in accordance with their courtroom players, interpreters must provide ‘a straightforward, unedited rendition of questions and answers across two languages’. In the case of Spain, court interpreting is not professionalised and, as a result, many court players are unfamiliar with the interpreter’s role. This situation leads many to still share the traditional view described above. Yet, from an academic perspective, the role of the interpreter has recently been defined as a seeker of pragmatic equivalence: the interpreter’s duty in this setting is understood to consist of ensuring that the parties’ joint work towards the accomplishment of their interactional goal is not hampered by the bilingual nature of the encounter (Pérez 2016: 392). While accuracy and completeness are always objectives in interpreter-mediated communication, in the field of court interpreting producing an accurate and complete rendition is cardinal, especially when dealing with insults or offensive language. This importance arises from the possibility that the uttered insults may be considered to constitute the offence of injuria [defamation] or calumnia [defamatory allegation of criminal offending], included in the Spanish Criminal 1 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Directive 64/2010 on the Rights to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings, the Spanish Constitution and the Spanish Criminal Code, among others. Coral vy Hunt-Gómez 12 Code at sections 206 and 208, respectively. Also, insults and offensive or taboo language can be deemed an aggravating feature pursuant to section 22.4 of the same Code. Thus, the Spanish Professional Association of Court and Sworn Interpreters and Translators (APTIJ) states that interpreters must interpret accurately and in full, ‘without changing the content or intention of the message’. Schweda Nicholson and Martinsen (1995: 264) are more specific and stipulate that ‘emotion and tone of the original must be maintained and conveyed in the target language.’ Additionally, they instruct that ‘offensive and/or vulgar language must be preserved.’ This article explores the ways in which Spanish-speaking students who are proficient English users and have received general interpreting training convey insults, offensive language or taboo language into English when they act as interpreters using reality-based specific court interpreting training material2. The results appear to indicate that offensive or taboo language should be included in future court interpreting training programmes, as it is an issue that requires particular attention. 2. Relevant theory regarding court interpreting pragmatics, court interpreting training and teaching impoliteness 2.1. Offensive or taboo language and insults in education Until recently, the use of formal and polite registers has been encouraged when learning a language in a formal context. Polite and educated people should not use certain expressions, vocabulary or even refer to certain topics (Chiclana 1990: 83). Consequently, language teachers, despite their own language use, believed that students should not be taught to swear or express possibly offensive or violent intentions (Dewaele 2008: 262). Lehmonen & Keturi (2011) attribute this absence to three main factors: teachers are not confident enough with their own knowledge in that particular field; offensive language, taboo language or insults are not included in second language curricula and are avoided as the polite form is always preferred; and teachers’ personal beliefs or limitations. Still, students show an interest in acquiring taboo or offensive language and insults as soon as they start learning a foreign language. This curiosity is often satisfied with non-official teaching materials or in informal contexts. Despite some emphatic calls to include taboo and offensive language in the EFL curricula (Horan, 2013; Mercury, 1995; Mourat, 2004; Mugford, 2008), teachers are usually conservative. It was suggested that: Teachers need to take the lead by preparing learners to communicate in pleasant, not so pleasant, and even abusive interactional and transactional 2 See Hunt-Gómez (2013). Introducing insults, offensive and taboo language in the court interpreting 19 1.10 Have you ever said to her expressions like you are a bullshit of a mother ? Meaning is not adequately conveyed. •Inadequate choice of term. The intended meaning is not completely conveyed. No. Table 1: Analysis of the interpreted utterance Le pregunte que si le ha dicho expresiones como ‘ eres una mierda de madre ’. Que se lo vaya traduciendo: ‘ eres una mierda de madre ’. Only two out of ten renditions were considered acceptable (1.1, 1.4), even though in one of them the emotional load is slightly changed by the use of pauses (1.1). If we take a closer look at the non-acceptable utterances, we find that three of them do not convey the original meaning because students do not have enough linguistic-pragmatic knowledge when using insults in English (1.7, 1.19, 1.10); one of them softens the emotional load by intentionally using a euphemism (1.3) or by adding parts of speech to hide the offensive element. However, in the rendition 1.9, when repeating the insult, a euphemism is used. Conveying a higher emotional load and then softening it by using a euphemism appears in two renditions (1.8, 1.5). It is noteworthy that on one occasion (1.2) the intensity is increased, passing from too low an intensity (very mild) to one that is higher but still unable to convey the meaning. 2. La pregunta es que si él en alguna ocasión, bien de palabra bien por mensaje, le ha dicho a ella: ‘ eres una mierda de madre ’. The prosecutor articulated the second rendition studied. Again, he repeated the same insult ‘eres una mierda de madre’ [you are a shit mother]. The analysis of the renditions produced in this second approach to the same insults is interesting as its results allow us to check if students have maintained their renditions or have altered them (see Table 2). Utterance Strategy used Acceptable 2.1 The question is [ehhh] if by telephonic conversation or text message, have you called her that she is a shit as a mother? Maintaining the emotional load. Yes. A pragmatic equivalent is used. 2.2 The question is if you in any occasion [ehhh] have you …have you told her that she is… she is a… terrible mother ? In text messages or email or…? Softening the emotional load. •Using a lower intensity insult (very mild). •Adding hesitations. No. 2.3 He says that the question is if [ahhh] you 1. Softening the No. Coral vy Hunt-Gómez 20 have told her that she is a horrible mother, that she is a crap as a mother ? It doesn't matter if it is by messages or text messages or just said. emotional load. •Using a lower intensity insult (very mild). •Adding hesitations. 2. Maintaining the emotional load. 2.4 The question is that if he has told her anytime that she is a… a shit of a mother? Maintaining the emotional load. The intended meaning is not completely conveyed. No. A pragmatic equivalent is used. 2.5 The question is [ehhh] have you told her [ehhh] by text message or by [ehh] oral expression, directly, that she is a… shit of mother or something like this? Maintaining the emotional load. •Slightly softened by adding hesitations. Yes. A pragmatic equivalent is used. 2.6 [Ahhh] the point is not that. I want to know if he… he sometimes [ahhh]… said to her… in a text message or in voice that… she… was [ahhh] [incomprehensible swearing] a bad mother . Softening the emotional load. •Using a lower intensity insult (very mild). •Adding hesitations. •Adding swearing in Spanish. No. Lack of professionalism. 2.7 The question is if you have ever told her by word or by text message she is a bullshit mother ? Meaning is not adequately conveyed. •Inadequate choice of term. The intended meaning is not completely conveyed. No. 2.8 The question is if in any occasion, have you told to your wife via… via text message or orally you suck as a mother? Maintaining the emotional load. Yes. A pragmatic equivalent is used. 2.9 [Uhhh] The question is if you insulted her or not via sms or just voice. Omitting the emotional load by avoiding repeating the insult. No. 2.10 The question is if you have ever said to her that she is a bullshit of a mother ? Meaning is not adequately conveyed. •Inadequate choice of term. The intended meaning is No. Introducing insults, offensive and taboo language in the court interpreting 21 not completely conveyed. Table 2. Analysis of the interpreted utterance La pregunta es que si él en alguna ocasión, bien de palabra bien por mensaje, le ha dicho a ella: ‘ eres una mierda de madre ’. In this case, four students selected a pragmatic equivalent. Despite that, only three renditions were acceptable (2.1, 2.5, 2.8), as one of them lacked information (2.4). Only two out of ten renditions were acceptable (2.1, 2.4). As shown in Table 1, two students produced non-acceptable utterances because of lack of insultrelated linguistic knowledge (2.10, 2.7). In this second appearance of the term, three students intentionally used euphemisms (2.2, 2.6, 2.3), even if one of them rectified and regained the emotional load. One student avoided repeating the insult and referred to the action of insulting (2.9). 3. Yes, she is a shit mother, yes. In this rendition, the interpretations of which appear transcribed in Table 3, the interpreter now has to change direction and produce a satisfactory utterance in Spanish. The context of the question is the following: the defendant answered the question, ‘La pregunta es que si él en alguna ocasión, bien de palabra bien por mensaje, le ha dicho a ella: ‘eres una mierda de madre’ [The question is if he has told her, orally or by text message, ‘you are a shit mother’], which was put by the prosecutor. In this particular rendition, the defendant deliberately repeats the insult- ‘Yes, she is a shit mother, yes’ - and he does it using the present simple tense to state clearly his opinion that she is a shit mother. This intentionality should be maintained in the students’ renditions. Utterance Strategy used Acceptable 3.1 Sí, es una mierda de madre . Se lo ha dicho. Maintaining the emotional load. Yes. A pragmatic equivalent is used. 3.2 Sí, sí que se lo ha dicho. Omitting the emotional load by avoiding repeating the insult. No. 3.3 Dice que sí. Que ha dicho que es una mierda de madre . Maintaining the emotional load. Yes. A pragmatic equivalent is used. 3.4 Sí. Omitting the emotional load by avoiding repeating the insult. No. 3.5 Sí, le he dicho que era una mierda de madre . Maintaining the emotional load. Temporal aspect is changed as the verb is used in the past. Yes. A pragmatic equivalent is used for the insult but part of the temporal aspect is lost. 3.6 Sí. Sí, se lo he dicho. Omitting the emotional load by avoiding No. Coral vy Hunt-Gómez 22 repeating the insult. 3.7 Sí, sí que le ha dicho que es una mierda de madre . Maintaining the emotional load. Yes. A pragmatic equivalent is used. 3.8 Sí. Sí, así es. Omitting the emotional load by avoiding repeating the insult. No. 3.9 Sí. Cero que no es una buena madre. Softening the emotional load. •Using a lower intensity insult (very mild). No. 3.10 Sí. Que es una mierda de madre , sí. Maintaining the emotional load. Yes. A pragmatic equivalent is used. Table 3 Analysis of the interpreted utterance ‘Yes, she is a shit-mother , yes’ Five students used a pragmatic equivalent when interpreting the insult (3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.10). Rendition 3.5 changed the temporal aspect from the present to the past. Four students avoided repeating the insult (3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8). These avoidances seem to be intentional as the insult ‘madre de mierda’ was previously included in the prosecution questions. One student softened the emotional load by using the expression ‘no es una buena madre’ (3.9), which is a mild insult, if one at all. 4. Que si le ha dicho la palabra ‘mentirosa’ y ‘zorra gorrona’, mentirosa y zorra gorrona, que si se lo ha dicho la palabra ‘mentirosa’ y ‘zorra’. The last studied rendition was put by the prosecutor in Spanish and had to be interpreted into English. In this case the judicial agent specifically emphasised two insults ‘mentirosa’ [liar] and ‘zorra gorrona’ [sponging slut]. As the prosecutor specifically highlighted them through his intonation and due to the repetition of the specific terms, the interpreter should be especially careful when translating them. ‘Mentirosa’ can be considered very offensive and zorra gorrona is an extremely strong insult. Utterance Strategy used Acceptable 4.1 [Hostia] have you called her a liar and a … slut… that is taking profit of you? Have you used these words? Liar and slut [ummmh] that is taking care of you ? Maintaining the emotional load. •Paraphrasing. The original meaning is not adequately conveyed. No. [Lack of professionalism, swearing in Spanish at the beginning] In the first part the intended original meaning is conveyed. However, in the second part, where insults are repeated, Introducing insults, offensive and taboo language in the court interpreting 23 the student conveys completely the opposite meaning. 4.2 [Ummmm ahhh]… have you… have you said [ahh]... to her if she is a liar of [ahhhh]… bitch … a sloppy bitch ? Softening the emotional load. •Using a lower intensity insult (strong). No. 4.3 He is asking of you have told her liar and… and… whore ... and bitch? 1. Maintaining the emotional load. 2. Softening the emotional load. •Using a lower intensity insult (strong). The original meaning is not adequately conveyed. No. 4.4 [Ahhh] Ask him if he has ever told her she is a liar and… and a whore. Maintaining the emotional load. •Some minor hesitations are added. The original meaning is not adequately conveyed. No. 4.5 [Ummm] have you told her [ehhh] the words liar or… or… or bitch or any expression similar, any similar expression? Softening the emotional load. •Using a lower intensity insult (strong). The original meaning is not adequately conveyed. No. 4.6 [Laughs] [ehhh] I want to know if you have said to her that… You are a liar and you are a bitch [laughs] Softening the emotional load. •Using a lower intensity insult (strong). •Some minor hesitations are added. The original meaning is not adequately conveyed. No. Lack of professionalism. 4.7 Have you ever… said to her… that she is a liar and a bitch ? Softening the emotional load. •Using a lower intensity insult (strong). •Some minor No. Coral vy Hunt-Gómez 24 hesitations are added. The original meaning is not adequately conveyed. 4.8 Have you ever told her the word liar or even… bitch … [ahhh]. Softening the emotional load. •Using a lower intensity insult (strong). •Some minor hesitations are added. The original meaning is not adequately conveyed No. 4.9 [Ummm] Have you… [uhhh] called her… a liar and a fucking whore [oohh]? Intensifying the emotional load. •Using a higher qualifier that over-increases the intensity of the insult (fucking). The original meaning is not adequately conveyed. No. 4.10 Have you ever said to her liar or fucking bitch [high volume]? Intensifying the emotional load. •Using a higher qualifier that over increases the intensity of the insult (fucking). •Raising the voice. The intended meaning is not completely conveyed. No. Table 4 Analysis of the interpreted utterance ‘Que si le ha dicho la palabra ‘ mentirosa ’ y ‘ zorra gorrona’ , mentirosa y zorra gorrona , que si se lo ha dicho la palabra ‘mentirosa’ y ‘zorra’’. In all cases, finding a pragmatic equivalent for mentirosa was not a problem, all students properly used liar. However, it was very difficult for the students to find a pragmatic equivalent to the second insult, zorra gorrona. This difficulty has a double origin: first, there are many synonyms (varying in intensity) for the word puta (prostitute, whore, bitch, slut, tart, hooker, trollop, strumpet, and so on) but they are not adequately learnt within a pragmatic context; the second difficulty was that the vast majority of students did not know how to translate gorrona. Thus, only three students adequately conveyed the meaning of puta (4.1, 4.4, 4.9) and only two students adequately conveyed the meaning of gorrona (4.1, 4.2). Introducing insults, offensive and taboo language in the court interpreting 25 None of the students gave a pragmatic equivalent for the complete utterance analysed. One student produced a rendition close to a pragmatic equivalent by paraphrasing for gorrona but, unfortunately, the uttered sentence may be confusing for the average English-speaker, and also that person repeated the paraphrasing and changed it from ‘that is taking profit of you’ to ‘that is taking care of you’; none of the options provided conveyed the meaning adequately (4.1). In three cases, students could not control their reactions and showed a great lack of professionalism. One student added some swearing in Spanish at the beginning of the interpretation to express surprise (4.1); another student laughed during the intervention (4.6), and a third made noises to show astonishment (4.9). When in court, all three of those reactions are highly unprofessional and inappropriate. 5. Conclusions This is an example of the importance of a pragmatically adequate rendition when dealing with offensive language, taboo language and insults. The study has illustrated that even if students have a good command of English and have received some interpreting training, specific court interpreting training is needed. In view of the fact that offensive language, taboo language and insults can amount to discrete criminal offences, in such a sensitive context a qualified interpreter must be able to opt for an adequate rendition, that is, a pragmatic equivalent. Some aspects should be considered. Generally, when learning a second language, the use of formal or polite registers is encouraged while other registers are considered insufficiently polite or even injurious. Paradoxically, despite the extended use of insults, offensive and taboo language and the interest the area stimulates in students, they are not usually included in second language curricula. On the other hand, in the field of court interpreting, accuracy and completeness are essential. Consequently, there is a need to convey all aspects of the original rendition and, at the same time, overcome the specific added difficulties of the activity and context, that is, to maintain emotional stability, immediateness, dealing with unpleasant topics, and lack of professionalisation, among other things. Despite the increase in court interpreting training, guidelines on offensive language, taboo language and insults, if included in the curriculum, only appear incidentally and in a theoretical fashion, embedded in professional ethics explanations. Two hypotheses have been proved. The first formulated hypothesis stated that students with no specific training in how to deal with this particular kind of language would be unable to produce pragmatic equivalents. Given that 77.5% of the renditions analysed were not considered to be acceptable, this first hypothesis can be deemed partially proved. The second hypothesis attempts to explore the origin of the following fact: many students with interpreting training and who are proficient speakers in both languages fail to convey a pragmatic equivalent when Coral vy Hunt-Gómez 26 dealing with offensive or taboo language or insults in a courtroom. Unsurprisingly, results indicate that, on many occasions, finding a pragmatic equivalent which adequately conveys this kind of term or expression poses an elevated degree of difficulty for students because of their lack of knowledge in this specific language area. On the other hand, a not-so-expected result was that the influence of personal or cultural limitations leads to huge impediments to the production of a pragmatic equivalent, with examples being the intentional avoiding of insults or taboo or offensive terms in speech, and their conveyance using a milder emotional load. When considering the obtained results, it becomes clear that there is a need for specific practical training for court interpreters in order to achieve the best possible utterance when dealing with offensive or taboo language and insults. References Ávila-Cabrera J.J. (2016): “The treatment of offensive and taboo terms in the subtitling of Reservoir Dogs into Spanish”, Trans, 20, 25-40. Building Mutual Trust (2010): A Frame Work Project For Implementing EU Common Standards In Legal Interpreting and Translating, Middlesex: University of Middlesex. Chiclana, A. (1990): “La frase malsonante, el insulto y la blasfemia en el ámbito lingüístico cultural”, in: II Encuentros complutenses en torno a la traducción. Readers, M & Conesa, J. (eds), Madrid: Complutense, 81-93. Claire, E. (2000): Dangerous English 2000! An indispensable guide for English language learners and others (3rd ed.), McHenry, IL: Delta. Dewaele, J. M. (2008): “Appropriateness” in foreign language acquisition and use: Some theoretical, methodological and ethical considerations”, IRALInternational Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46. (3), 245–265. Hale. S. B. (2004): The Discourse of Court Interpreting. Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Hatim, B. & Mason, I (1990): The Discourse and the Translator, London: Logman. Horan, G. (2013): ‘‘You taught me language; and my profit on't/Is, I know how to curse’: Cursing and swearing in foreign language learning”, Language and Intercultural Communication, 13 (3), 283–297. House, J. (1977): A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, Tübingen: Narr. Hughes, G. (2006): An Encyclopedia of Swearing: The Social History of Oaths, Profanity, Foul Language, and Ethnic Slurs in the English-speaking World, Armonk, US: Routledge. Introducing insults, offensive and taboo language in the court interpreting 27 Hunt-Gómez, C.I. (2013): Aplicación de las nuevas tecnologías a la formación de intérpretes en los nuevos tribunales de justicia, Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada. Hunt-Gómez, C.I. & Gómez-Moreno, P. (2015): “Reality-based court interpreting didactic material using new technologies”, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (2), 188-204. Hunt-Gómez, C.I., Hernández-Morin, K. & Lomeña-Galiano, M (2014): “Estudios de reacciones de intérpretes noveles ante la expresión de violencia física y verbal en el juicio penal”, in: Valero-Garcés, C. (ed.) (Re) considerando ética e ideología en situaciones de conflicto=(Re) visisiting ethics and ideology in situations of conflict: Recurso electrónico, Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá, Servicio de Publicaciones. 38-48. Ivarsson, J. & Carroll, M. (1998): Subtitling, Sweden: Simrishamn. Ivy. Interpreting in Virtual Reality (2011): Interpreting in Virtual Reality. EU Lifelong Learning Progamme, Project 511862-2010-LLP-UK-KA-KA3MP. Keturi, S., & Lehmonen, T. (2012): Thou shalt not write about …: A study of taboo content in Finnish EFL textbooks for upper secondary school, (Master's Thesis), Finland: University of Jyväskylä. Lung, R. (1998): “On mis-translating sexually suggestive elements in EnglishChinese screen subtitling”, Babel, 42, 97-109. Linkterpreting (2012): Linkterpreting. Recursos para la interpretación de enlace, Vigo: Universidad de Vigo. McEnery, T. (2006): Swearing in English. Bad Language, Purity and Power from 1586 to the Present, London/New York: Routledge. Mercury, R. E. (1995): “Swearing: A ‘bad’ part of language; a good part of language learning”, TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 13 (1), 28–36. Mourat, C. A. (2004): Pragmatic knowledge and subjective evaluation in the acquisition of English taboo language, (Master's Thesis), Florida: University of Florida. Mugford, G. (2008): “How rude! Teaching impoliteness in the second-language classroom”, ELT Journal, 62 (4) 375-384. Pérez González, L. (2006): “Interpreting strategic recontextualization cues in the courtroom: Corpus-based insights into the pragmatic force of nonrestrictive relative clauses”, Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 390-417. Rojo López, A.M. & Valenzuela Manzanares, J. (2000): “Sobre la traducción de las palabras tabú”, Revista de investigación lingüística, 1 (III), 207-220. Coral vy Hunt-Gómez 28 Schweda Nicholson, N. (1994): “Professional ethics for court and community interpreters”, in: D. L. Hammond (ed.), Professional Issues for Translators and Interpreters. ATA Scholarly Monograph Series, vol. VII, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 79–97. Schweda Nicholson, N. & Martinsen, B. (1995): “Court Interpretation in Denmark”, in: S.E. Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour & D. Steyn (eds), The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 259-270. Spanish Professional Association of Court and Sworn Interpreters and Translators (APTIJ) (2017): Code of Ethics for Court and Sworn Interpreters and Translators. Available at: <http://www.aptij.es/img/doc/CD%20APTIJ.pdf>. Valero-Garcés, C. (2006): “El impacto psicológico y emocional en los intérpretes y traductores en los servicios públicos. Un factor a tener en cuenta”, Quaderns. Revista de traducción, 13, 141-154.