Narelle Fletcher is a professional French-English translator and also lectures part time in French at the University of Technology, Sydney. She is a member of the Interdisciplinary Genocide Studies Centre in Kigali, Rwanda and has collaborated extensively with investigative journalists and legal firms providing translations in the areas of human rights and development in Rwanda and the DRC.
ABSTRACT for the Synergise! Conference:
Translating the unspeakable: testimonies of the Tutsi genocide in Rwanda and the role of euphemisation
The genocide which occurred in Rwanda in 1994 has had profound and ongoing social, political and judicial repercussions both within the country and throughout the international community. The trials of those accused of genocide continue to be held today in 2010 at both the ICTR, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda located in Arusha, Tanzania, and through the traditional ‘gacaca’ court process within Rwanda itself. Victims and witnesses are called on to give their testimonies of the events and in the vast majority of cases they express themselves in their mother tongue, Kinyarwanda. Testimonies have also been translated into other languages for the world press, appearing in articles, monographs and websites.
This paper will raise an important issue concerning these testimonies and how they are interpreted and translated into French and English: the role of euphemisation. As professional interpreters and translators, one of our stated ethical obligations is to render the source text accurately and impartially into the target language. However, in the specific case of genocide testimonies, euphemisation is already visible within the Kinyarwanda language itself, where often no actual terms exist to describe the atrocities that have been committed. In addition, the relationship between witness and interpreter in particular, despite the awareness of the need for professionalism, is in practice frequently characterised by an appreciable degree of empathy. Interpreters do not simply convey the message; they also inevitably have an emotional response to the details they must convey in the target language and this can consciously or unconsciously affect their choice of terminology.
On another level, within the very specific context of genocide testimonies, euphemisation can paradoxically be seen as a necessary tool in order to fulfill the objective of telling the story as accurately as possible. In the face of truly ‘indescribable’ violence and cruelty, a common reaction among those hearing or reading the accounts is to reject the information as being exaggerated or simply unbelievable. To counter this problem, emotional language is often replaced with more objective terminology that effectively makes it more palatable for the target audience.
This paper will therefore reflect on ethical questions of professional practice in this unique context and on how the relationship between witness and interpreter/translator exemplifies an equally unique form of synergy that is created to tell a story that must be told.
| 
__________________
