Role playing "Pumpkin"

In an article a decade ago, Mikkelson (2000/2001) looked at the literature on ethics in interpreting and concluded that concern over ethics is concentrated in particular areas of interpreting work – in legal and medical areas, as well as in sign language interpreting, but that “in conference interpreting […] ethics does not appear to be a focal issue” (Mikkelson 2000/2001: 49). She surmises that this is “perhaps due to the sensitivity of the personal issues that arise in medical, legal, and sign language interpreting as opposed to the work of conference interpreters” (ibid.). Subsequent literature has, on the one hand, thrown doubt on seeing conference interpreting as being ethically unproblematic, with accounts of the degree of agency exercised by EU interpreters and their ethical issues (Beaton 2007), a close look at accuracy and ethics in simultaneous interpreting (Seeber and Zelger 2007) and problematic issues where conference interpreters work in the field in various conflict situations ( The Translator 2001). On the other hand, concern over ethics in community interpreting situations has increased. This field has witnessed some remarkable consistency in setting down basic ethical rules in various codes, but with little consistency in theoretical underpinnings of ethics, and only a patchy recognition of how ethical issues are being played out in practice. Pöchhacker in 1999 accurately described the field of community interpreting as being one of “getting organized”, with identifying basic needs in service provision, developing language services, commencing some training, developing embryonic professional associations, and establishing “an authority-driven or profession-based system of accreditation or certification more or less specifying standards of practice and professional ethics” (Pöchhacker 1999: 125).