Page 423 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

Power and dominance in intercultural communication 401

The following reflections are based on the material and analysis in Mattel-
Pegam (1985). The material consists of a transcription of the discourse at a Ger-
man prison between an Italian prisoner, his German lawyer and an interpreter of
German nationality. The Italian has been sentenced to seven years in prison for
robbery. The lawyer is preparing an appeal. The consultation occurs at the
client’s request. In the following section of the transcript, the Italian client is –
for about the third time – trying to get across the reason for which he wanted to
see his lawyer: As the appeal is not looking too good, the Italian wishes to in-
quire whether there is the possibility of a provvedimento, an extra-judicial
means that could be used in his favour. (I: Interpreter; L: Lawyer; C: Client):

(39) I: Un altro avvocato non/
Another lawyer, not/
(40a) C: Ma io non ho detto altro avvocato
but I haven’t said different lawyer
(40b) C: di prendere provvedimento
use a means
(40c) C: Capisce provvedimento.che signific/
Do you understand provvedimento.what that mean/
(41) I: No.
No.
(42a) C: Di fare ancora qualcosa.
To do something else.
(42b) C: Di scrivere a qualche pubblico ministero più interessante
To write to some public ministry that’s more interested
(43) I: I see … a mediator.
(44) L: The only one to decide about this is the Fourth Panel of the Federal
Court and nobody else, isn’t it?
(45) I: C’è soltanto la corte suprema … nessun altro.
There’s only the Supreme Court … nothing else.

The interpreter – whose performance throughout the exchange is not impres-
sive – does not understand the crucial term provvedimento (see Spencer-Oatey
and Xing in this volume on interpreter behaviour). This has – prior to the section
quoted here – already caused some annoyance on the lawyer’s part, who came to
believe that his client wanted a second lawyer. In this section, the client can fin-
ally identify the problem, raise it as a problem (40c) and provide some knowl-
edge to make the term less problematic (42a–42b). The interpreter begins to
understand (43), but the lawyer, who has got some Italian too, cuts the conver-
sation short by stating that there is only the institutionally provided path and no
other. Mattel-Pegam writes (1985: 312; her emphasis):
The prisoner clearly has some idea about the meaning of the term [i.e. prov-
vedimento]. But in his view it is up to the expert to give the term precise mean-