Interpreters’ Identities: An Exploratory Study of Vietnamese Interpreters in Vietnam

This qualitative exploratory study of Vietnamese interpreters in Vietnam argues that the progressive dispelling of the interpreters’ invisibility myth must be accompanied by an increased importance paid to interpreters’ identities during their training. Indeed, the type(s) and extent of interpreters’ visibility depends on the type of identity(ies) they assume in interpreted-mediated events. The success of these events affects not only interpersonal relations but also the socio-cultural and economic development of nations, especially when developing countries are concerned.

only can interpreters not be invisible, they might very well need to be visible. Thus the question that should be raised is the type(s) and the extent of visibility interpreters may assume, and moreover may want to assume, in a given situation. For interpreters to be able to decide for themselves how to answer this question, they must first be given the opportunity to think about the situation. This paper purports to show why it is important to focus on interpreters' sociocultural and professional identities during their training.
To tackle this question, a brief review of literature is first helpful (1). Then, the importance of the issue is illustrated with a concrete case, Vietnam (2). It is followed by the presentation of the exploratory study: methodology (3) and results (4). The conclusion (5) puts forward the point that recognizing interpreters' visibility is only a first step in giving them the place they deserve.

Literature review
To give a general idea of why and how interpreters might be visible or not, this brief literature review deals with the types of situations in which interpreters operate, the types of translation they practise, and the types of roles they may choose to enact.
In her typology of interpreter-mediated events, Alexieva distinguishes between a number of parameters that belong to two large groups: mode of delivery and elements of the communicative situation. The mode of delivery can take four different forms. Simultaneous interpreting, common in international conferences, corresponds to a non-stop delivery achieved with the help of ancillary equipment such as microphones and headphones. It is characterized by a spatial distance between the primary participants and the interpreters who might not be in the same room. Chuchotage (i.e. whispering) is also simultaneous but it implies physical proximity between interpreters and addressees, as these must be able to hear directly what interpreters tell them. Consecutive interpreting is a direct face-to-face communication that differs from chuchotage first by its timing and second by its eventual use of ancillary equipment. In this case, the physical distance between participants and interpreters is greater than in chuchotage, but lesser than in simultaneous interpreting. Finally, liaison interpreting takes place in situations of spontaneous and improvised oral exchanges; it is consecutive, direct and not mediated by ancillary equipment. The elements of communication include: participants, topic, text type and text building strategies, spatial and temporal constraints, and goal of the event. Each of these elements presents different facets that are located along continuums of values and result in a "universal" vs. "culture-specific" situation:  "distance" vs. "proximity" (between speaker, addressee, and interpreter),  "non-involvement" vs. "involvement" (of the speaker as text entity);  "equality/solidarity" vs. "non-equality/power" (related to status, role and gender of the speaker's addressee, as well as to the interpreter);  "formal setting" vs. "informal setting" (related to number of participants, degree of privacy, and distance from home country);  "literacy" vs. "orality";  "cooperativeness/directness" vs. "non-cooperativeness/indirectness" (relevant to negotiation strategies);  "shared goals" vs. "conflicting goals". The interpreter-mediated events in which interpreters are most "present" are those for which the mode of delivery implies a direct and close contact with the participants (i.e. chuchotage, liaison interpreting, and consecutive interpreting when it does not involve the use of ancillary equipment), and in which the elements of communication tend to shape a more culture-specific situation.
A taxonomy of types of translation (i.e. renditions) is provided by Wadensjö in her study on interpretation as interaction. It is based on the assumption that interpreters would try to stay as close as possible to the original utterances. The comparison between authentic interpreted-mediated interactions and original utterances reveals that interpreters engage in various types of renditions:  Close rendition (same amount of explicitly expressed propositional content rendered in the same style);  Expanded rendition (including more explicitly expressed propositional content);  Reduced rendition (with less explicitly expressed propositional content);  Substituted rendition (combination of expanded and reduced renditions);  Summarized rendition (corresponding to two or more originals provided by one or more interlocutors);  Two-part or multi-part rendition (rendering of one original in two or more parts, the parts being separated by another original whose propositional content is not reflected in the rendition);  Non-rendition (interpreter's text, on the basis of the interpreter's initiative, that does not correspond to an original);  Zero-rendition (originals are left untranslated in part or whole). It appears thus that except in cases of close renditions, interpreters are always "visible".
Finally, a very useful taxonomy of interpreters' role is given by :  Translator: The interpreter minimizes her presence as much as possible. In this role she simply facilitates the communication process, not interfering with what the speaker says.  Cultural Informant: The interpreter helps the healthcare provider to better understand the patient. In this role the interpreter uses her knowledge of cultural norms and values.  Culture Broker or Cultural Mediator: The interpreter is a cultural informant but also a negotiator between two conflicting value systems or symbolic universes. In this role, the Culture Broker needs to enlarge, provide explanations or synthesize healthcare providers' and patients' utterances to help both parties arrive at a meaningful shared model (of care, of behaviour etc.).  Advocate: In a value-conflict situation, the interpreter may choose to defend the patient against the institution.  Bilingual Professional: The interpreter becomes the healthcare professional. She leads the interview in the patient's language and then reports to the healthcare provider. She can do this because of prior training in health care or, in a more limited way, because of her knowledge of institutional practices and routines. While Jalbert's (and Leanza's) work has borne on healthcare situations, there is a priori no reason why it could not apply mutatis mutandis to other types of situations. According to this taxonomy, the interpreter is "visible" in each role except for the "translator"'s one.
In sum, it appears that the taxonomies of interpreter-mediated events, interpreters' renditions and interpreters' roles point to interpreters' visibility and may make their "invisibility" the exception rather than the norm. In practice, while the great majority, if not all, translators might say that they are first "translators", and in that role try to give "close renditions", they also recognise that their work goes beyond that. Thus, instead of starting with the assumption that interpreters are invisible, it would seem much wiser to acknowledge their presence and active participation in the interactions, and therefore to put interpreters as "complete human beings" at the centre of interpreting studies and training.
The importance of interpreters is particularly felt in highly charged human interactions such as healthcare, court settings, and social and immigration services. It is thus no wonder that many recent studies on the role and place of interpreters relate to "community interpreters" who work in these types of situations (Angelelli (a), Brunette et al. and Roberts et al.). Without denying the social value of such studies in any way, there is however another domain where interpreting might carry an even greater significance: international and transnational relations. Indeed, these types of relations not only involve individuals who interact with each other, but also have consequences on the socio-cultural and economic development of nations, especially when developing countries are concerned. The rest of this paper relates to an exploratory study of Vietnamese interpreters in Vietnam.

Importance of interpreters in Vietnam
The importance of interpreters in any given country is partially dependent on that country's level of integration on the international stage. That itself results from historico-political and economical factors. In 1975, after several decades of war, Vietnam achieved its reunification. In 1986, it adopted its Doi Moi policy with a focus on economic reform. , and it is expected to benefit greatly from the development of international economic integration that WTO membership facilitates. This type of economic development takes place in a network of intercultural communication whose efficiency depends in great part on interpreters. Whatever their domain of work (e.g. diplomacy, cooperation, joint-ventures, tourism), Vietnamese interpreters contribute to a better understanding between individuals of different cultures and to the development of their country in general.
As of 12 December 2004, the 11 leading countries investing in Vietnam were (in decreasing order of importance of registered capital): Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, British Virgin Islands, France, The Netherlands, Thailand, Malaysia, and the USA. 2 In their mediation, the interpreters' task is particularly complex towards Western countries: to help attract and retain foreign investments, they are supposed to facilitate the activities of individual members of an individualistic (e.g. French / American) out-group within, and as representatives of, their own collectivistic (Vietnamese) in-group. Added to this difficulty is the fact that the out-group might represent a country with whom Vietnam has been at war not that long ago (e.g. France, USA). Vietnamese interpreters are thus at the hub of a complex intercultural and power relations network. Interpreters are at the centre of interpreter-mediated communication and their identities are a source of meaning for their interactions (Pym). When these interactions take place in a context of socio-cultural and economic inequalities, their identities become even more crucial (Navarro-Montesdeoca). Unfortunately, while a few studies have been conducted on the negotiation (Rudvin) and impact (Pöllabauer) of interpreters' identities, none has focused on their cultural identities from a systematic ethnographic perspective.

Methodology
In an exploratory study conducted in Hanoi in May 2008, seven Vietnamese interpreters answered questions on their professional and cultural identities in a semi-directed interview. The concept of identity is defined here in accordance with the Communication Theory of Identity (Hecht, Jackson and Ribeau). In this theory, identity comprises four interpenetrated layers: the personal layer (i.e. the individual as locus of identity), the enactment layer (i.e. identity is enacted in communication through messages), the relational layer (i.e. relationship is the locus of identity), and the communal layer (i.e. a group is a place where identity exists). Major questions relating to identity might thus be formulated as follows: how do interpreters define their roles (personal layer); how do interpreters interact with interlocutors A and B (enactment and relational layers); and, how do interpreters define themselves vis-à-vis the cultures of interlocutor A and interlocutor B (communal layer)? In this perspective, the questionnaire used in the semi-directed interviews (see appendix A) focused on interactions in interpreter-mediated events as seen from the interpreters' perspective: how they perceived the interactants' feelings and actions, and how they themselves felt and behaved during satisfactory as well as unsatisfactory tasks. "Satisfaction" was approached in terms of appropriateness (socio-cultural dimension), efficiency (practical dimension), pleasantness (affective dimension), and cultural knowledge (cognitive dimension). Other questions related to the interpreters' roles and cultural belongings. 3 The interviews took place in French or English (depending on the interpreters' working language) and lasted from 75 minutes to 105 minutes. All interviewees (four males and three females) are experienced interpreters working for foreign public or private institutions or the Vietnamese government 4 . They all hold university degrees and six received professional training in interpreting (four of them abroad -two others also studied abroad in a related domain). Their age ranges from early 30s to early 50s. Thus, the youngest ones were born around the end of the American war 5 when Vietnam was reunified, and the oldest ones were born around the end of the French colonial war. The circle of high-level interpreters being relatively limited in Hanoi, it has been deemed necessary to go beyond the usual measures of confidentiality required by university research ethics. Thus, all excerpts from the interviews are given in English only, and they were all edited to guarantee that the interviews' language (i.e. the interpreters' working language) cannot be guessed. It may seem paradoxical that in a qualitative study on interpreters' identities, basic methodological standards of participants' and data presentation (i.e. personal information on each participant, original language, no editing of any sort) are deliberately ignored. However, one must note that this affects only the presentation of data in this paper, not the analysis itself as it was done on the basis of the complete original transcriptions of the interviews.

Results
3 As defined by Jalbert; see above; see also question 10 of the questionnaire in Appendix A. 4 In Vietnam, it is uncommon for interpreters to do interpretation on a full-time basis. 5 Called "Vietnam war" in the USA.
The great majority of interpreter-mediated events described in the interviews involved chuchotage, liaison interpreting, or consecutive interpreting (with no use of ancillary equipment). The content of the interviews is presented around four major issues: the centrality of the interpreter as a human being (4.1), the types of rendition provided by the interpreters (4.2), the interpreters' professional roles (4.3), and their self-perceived cultural belongings (4.4).

4.1
Centrality of the interpreter as a human being Apart from the special skills and knowledge involved in the interpretation process, the person of the interpreter appeared central as illustrated in the following excerpts taken from the interviews. In (1), the interviewee underlines the interpreters' emotional hardship when interlocutors do not respect them and treat them as a "translation machine". The interpreters' emotional / psychological well-being matters as it necessarily has an impact on the approach interpreters adopt in their work towards the interlocutors (2, 3). In fact, it is likely to be the key element in the most satisfactory interpreter-mediated communicative events (3, 4).
(1) First, the X side must completely trust the [Vietnamese] interpreter, and then the Vietnamese side must also trust the interpreter, and respect him, especially respect him, because when the Vietnamese side does not, it is catastrophic for the interpreter. When the interpreter does not understand something and asks a question, if there is no respect from the Vietnamese side, *then they say:+ "you translate, that's it, I told you *to translate+". It is very hard. (IEE1) (2) Could we try to explore this idea a bit further? You are given an interpretation task. (4) During the discussions, when I think that one party or the other is lagging behind, is waiting, then I explain, including to the X party. I explain and the X party understands, it takes a different attitude towards the Vietnamese party and the Vietnamese party understands why I behaved this way. Without this respect, this mutual trust, it is impossible to work. (IEE1)

Renditions
As seen above, the interpreters' psychological / emotional well-being has an impact on the manner they approach and accomplish their work. The question of trust is of paramount importance (5).
(5) I am trusted when before going to a meeting I am told, look this is what we want, this is what we want to say. This is good for me to understand the picture; when I understand, I know the background better, I can interpret better. (IEE2) The interviews revealed that interpreters engage in expanded, substituted, summarized, zero-and non-renditions alongside close rendition. In the same assignment, they combine different types of rendition.
In expanded renditions, they add by explaining, by supplying information one of the interlocutors assumes to be shared knowledge (6).
(6) We give preliminary explanations before asking these questions [from the Vietnamese side to the X side]. Sir, the Vietnamese, the Vietnamese participants have questions for you, but they are somewhat personal questions. It is a Vietnamese custom to ask these questions because in Vietnamese, the system of address is very complicated, and we need to know people's age in order to know how to address them. For example, if you are older, then I need to use a different form of address. (IEE5) In substituted renditions, they adapt the original utterance most often for issues of politeness (7,8,9,10), sometimes at the demand of the interlocutor (8).
(7) It is the interpreter's task to evaluate the situation and eventually to adapt the [formulation of] propositions so that the Vietnamese party understands and does not take these propositions as orders. (IEE1) In summarized renditions, they adapt the propositional content to the interlocutors' level of interest and/or knowledge as they perceive it (11).
(11) Some of the participants are experts in their domain; they don't need the details, but only the core of the message, what is essential. As they don't have much time, it is better to skip the details and give them only the essential. If they need more, they will ask you questions. (IEE3) In zero-renditions, they omit parts of the original utterance to lessen risks of communication break-down (12, 13). In non-renditions, they engage in an active search for solution by giving explanations, advice (14, 15); sometimes, they even answer in place of the interlocutor (16).
(14) When a partner is wrong, really wrong, then we try to explain. We explain first to the other partners so that they understand and be tolerant, so they do not react right away negatively. We want to give them the possibility to choose, to choose the appropriate strategy. At the beginning, we don't answer directly. The first times, we ask the trainer and it is up to the trainer to answer. Then, after three or four days, the trainer simply tells us that for simple questions like that, we can answer directly. Otherwise, we always ask the trainer first. This is our task; in any case, we are not trained to be trainers. (IEE6) In all of these types of rendition, the interpreter is clearly involved, i.e. "visible", even if unbeknownst by the interlocutors. But what about close rendition? It appears in the interviews that interpreters engage in close rendition in three cases: in straightforward technical exchanges (17), at the express demand of interlocutors who display their lack of trust towards the interpreter (18) or whose primary goal might not be an harmonious communication (19) These examples illustrate that except for the case of "straightforward technical exchanges" (that may nonetheless cover the "bulk" of interpreters' renditions), close rendition does not amount to invisibility. The "visibility" of interpreters is even more apparent when one considers how they conceive of and fulfill their roles.

Interpreters' roles
Just as types of rendition may vary within the same assignment and among assignments, so does the interpreters' role (22, 23). A strong consensus emerged among all interviewed interpreters in favour of their roles of translator (25), cultural informant (23) and cultural mediator (25), and against the role of cultural advocate (23). They were in disagreement about the role of bilingual professional (22, 23, 26).
(22) My position as an interpreter can change depending on the task, but I am never an independent expert. (IEE3) (23) First, translator, of course, and linguistic communicator, for sure. Cultural informant: in many cases, yes, when we need to explain whether it is culturally appropriate in Vietnam or in X. Cultural mediator: yes, sometimes we need to negotiate, for example we need to ask whether a partner accepts to answer a question [when the question is not culturally appropriate]. Cultural advocate: I think not because I only explain the situation and we respect the different cultures; if you do not want to answer, you do not answer; if you want, you do; that's it. Bilingual expert: yes, sometimes, because when we translate, in many cases we need to ask questions from our own; sometimes we are not sure we translated clearly; for example, sometimes we realize that a partner's answer does not correspond to the other partner's question. (IEE6) (24) In many occasions, I would see myself as a translator, frankly. *<+ we are only the go-between, a very important role but a go-between. As interpreters, we cannot make any decision; we can only have the conversation, the discussion, go through. (IEE2) (25) The role of cultural mediator is everywhere, whatever the situation. *<+ We are cultural mediators; cultural mediator, it means that we try to adapt our messages from one culture to the other. Thus, the message can pass; it must be compatible. When it passes, it means that it is compatible with the culture of the other. (IEE1) (26) There is one role that is not possible. It is that of bilingual expert, that is when from my own initiative, I ask questions and give answers; that, I cannot do. Except for the case when I am already involved in the project, when I have a good understanding of it; then, I can allow myself to add questions to the X expert's questions in order to make the situation clearer, because I also want to understand the situation better. Otherwise, I do no allow myself to ask questions. (IEE7) The three roles most strongly acknowledged by interpreters (i.e. translator, cultural informant and cultural mediator) are those that place interpreters in the most delicate positions as intermediaries. In the most strongly rejected role of "cultural advocate", interpreters clearly take a stance for one culture against the other, and in the disagreed upon role of "bilingual professional", interpreters act in the name of their professional knowledge in a manner they consider independent from the cultures in contact. As "translators", interpreters may be engaged in exchanges where the question of cultures in contact has little relevance, but when this is not the case, they have to remain "neutral" following their own or the interlocutors' wishes, however difficult this might be. As cultural informants or cultural mediators, they act as "human bridges" between two cultures. Thus, the question of interpreters' self-perceived cultural belonging(s) warrants closer examination.

Cultural belongings
Although not pertaining to cultural identity stricto sensu, Jackson's Cultural Contract Theory is useful in the investigation of cultural belongings. In this theory, intercultural communication takes place within three types of contract: ready-tosign contracts in which others are expected to conform, quasi-completed contracts where there is room for partial negotiation of identities, and co-created contracts that are completely negotiable. The interviews seem to indicate that all three types of contract are encountered by interpreters.
In a work environment that implies a constant passage from one culture to another, the importance of having a strong "home base" is particularly felt. This strong "home base" is then being complemented by an openness and adaptability to other cultures ; this would correspond to quasi-completed contracts. However, the "in-between" situation in which interpreters work may still feel quite uncomfortable at times (29-31). One way to opt out of this uneasiness is the adoption of ready-to-sign contracts that may take different forms. Some choose to separate their personal and professional lives along cultural lines (32). Others opt for geographical limits when it comes to deciding who needs to adapt to what (33). And still others try to evade the choice between one or the other culture by situating themselves "above" in the "higher domain of intercultural exchanges" (34), i.e. akin to the situation of co-created contracts.
It is important to note that interpreters do not necessarily adopt the same attitude for each of their interpreting assignments. The three different types of cultural contract (i.e. ready-to-sign, quasi-completed, co-created) have a different impact on the interpreters' approach to their tasks and ultimately on the interpreter-mediated communication. They depend on the understanding interpreters have of, primarily, their cultural belongings, and secondarily, of the purpose of their work in the general socio-cultural context.

Conclusion
The study presented above is exploratory. It gave a very general picture of highlevel Vietnamese interpreters working in Vietnam in French or English. It appeared that this picture is not fundamentally different from the one described by Angelelli (a) in her study of community interpreters working with immigrants in an American healthcare centre. The stakes however differ: uniquely national in community settings vs. national and international in the case of Vietnamese interpreters in Vietnam. Thus, to the question of "individual pride" (i.e. self-perception as an individual) is added that of "national pride" (i.e. self-perception as a member of a national society) in a more significant manner; in complicating the situation, this heightens the crucial need to pay more attention to interpreters' identities. Training in intercultural communication for interpreters has already been advocated and it is certainly supported here. However, it would seem appropriate to add systematic training that would help interpreters discover who they are, who they want to be, what role they want to play in their interlocutors' exchanges, and how they want these exchanges to have an impact on lives at the personal, local, national and international levels, because each of these questions has an impact on the type and quality of interpretation. Concurrently, more research needs to be conducted, for example, on the impact of interpreters' chosen cultural belonging(s) on interpretermediated events, and more concretely on the personal, contextual and cultural (group) characteristics that will have an impact on the interpreter's choice (a) to step from a cultural mediator's role into a bilingual professional's role, (b) to voluntarily "disengage" from an interpreted communicative event, or (c) to differentiate between their cultural identities along the lines of personal / professional, here / there, national cultures / intercultural sphere.
The purpose of this paper has been to submit that the progressive disappearance of the interpreters' invisibility myth must be accompanied by an increased attention paid to the "person" of interpreters. It is recognised that most interpreters may not suffer from big pangs of conscience about their cultural belongings and conception of the overall value of their work; nonetheless, a better awareness of these issues would enable a better control of the situation, and thus would certainly help improve the quality of interpreter-mediated events and result in enhanced intercultural relations. Indeed, if experienced highlevel interpreters qualify situations in which they may find themselves from time to time as "very delicate", it is reasonable to think that the issue is even more sensitive for interpreters at early stages in their careers.
Note: The authors most sincerely thank the interpreters who participated in this study for their trust and generosity. They also gratefully acknowledge the help of 5. How do you personally evaluate the manner in which Anglophone/Francophone and Vietnamese partners interact with each other, and how you do your own interpretation work? 6. Are the cases you have just told us about representative of your work as an interpreter in general? If no, how do they differ from it? 7. How do you evaluate your work conditions as an interpreter (in terms of language difficulties, context, clients, etc.)?
Synthesis: Interpreter's role 8. Can you tell us of cases when you had the impression that a. one or both parties trusted you to the point of letting you know of their goals and letting you take initiatives so that they would reach their goals? b. one or both parties kept information for themselves that might have been useful for you in your work?  How do you explain such situations? What was the outcome of these interactions? 9. In your interpreting assignments, would you say a. you are working for the party that hired you (i.e. pays your salary)? b. you are working for both parties? c. you are working as an independent professional? d. you are working in any other capacity? Which one?  Does your position change depending on your assignment? How?
10. Do you see your role as one of a. translator: you facilitate the linguistic communication process and try not interfere with what the parties say; b. cultural informant: you help one party better understand the other by using your knowledge of cultural norms and values; c. cultural broker or cultural mediator: you are a cultural informant and also a negotiator between two conflicting value systems; d. advocate: in a value-conflict situation, you choose to defend one party against the other; e. bilingual professional: on your own, you take the initiative to ask questions to one party and then reports to the other party.