The Pragmatic Study Of Hedges In Diplomatic Interpreting

Diplomatic language is polite, euphemistic, eclectic and politically sensitive(黄金祺,2004;任小平,2000). Hedges are often used by diplomats to make thelanguage politer so as to reduce face threats to “other” while protecting the face of“self”. Appropriate handling of hedges is conducive to successful diplomaticinterpreting. Many studies have been carried out on professional interpreters in thisaspect. But there has been barely any empirical study exploring the performance oftrainee interpreters.This study aims to explore what features student interpreters present whiledealing with hedges in diplomatic interpreting, the pragmatic effects created by suchmethods and the reasons behind their choices. The “Face Theory” and “PolitenessPrinciple” are applied to support the discussions. Altogether20trainee interpretersfrom GDUFS were invited to do C-E consecutive interpreting. The experimentalmaterial was from authentic diplomatic occasion. At the end of the experiment,stimulated recall and interviews were conducted to explore the reasons for theirchoices. The interpreting renditions of the subjects and the interview were recordedfor later analysis.Based on the experimental data, the following findings are made:1) The20subjects omitted or preserved the hedges in the ST, and they also added hedges in theTT. Over half of the hedges in the ST are omitted. The left half are preserved andrelatively less hedges are added in the TT.2) Preservation is the method that costs noor minor changes in the pragmatic functions of hedges. Frequent omissions can reducethe degree of politeness and increase the risk of face threats to either or both sides,which is not in accordance with the features of diplomatic language. Appropriateadditions can reduce face threats. However, the subjects often add hedges to make thestatement politer to the “other” while distorting the political stances or harming theface of the speaker. This goes against the nature of diplomacy.3) The possible reasons behind their choices can be concluded from two aspects: interpreting attitude andinterpreting competence. According to the interview, most of the subjects considerhedges as unimportant or unnecessary. Omitting or adding hedges will not make a bigdifference in the TT. This reflects their inadequate knowledge of hedges and thesensitivity of diplomatic language. As for interpreting competence, a small part of thesubjects tend to omit hedges under time pressure while listening, memorizing ortaking notes. Sometimes they add hedges as time fillers while organizing language.