The Study of English-Arabic Simultaneous Interpreting Analysis of Culture-Specific Terms: US Presidential Debates as a Case Study

Abstract

This paper explores the issues and strategies involved in the simultaneous interpretation of culturally specific terms from English into Arabic in U.S. presidential debates. Qualitative and descriptive in nature, this study explores the interpretations of ten culturally embedded terms in two debates: the 2008 debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, and the 2016 debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. It implements Vinay and Darbelnet's (1958) strategies of translation, Newmark's (1988) taxonomy of cultural words, and Baker's (1992) strategies for dealing with non-equivalence. The results show the appropriate balance between linguistic and cultural comprehensibility where interpreters used literal translation, paraphrasing, adaptation, and clarification to different extents. While direct translations tend to retain rhetorical values, they might alienate audiences not familiar with U.S. socio-political contexts. While paraphrased and adapted interpretations are more accessible, they can also be distorting. This study shows the complexity of maintaining the balance among cultural sensitivity, linguistic accuracy, and real-time constraints during high-stakes political discourse. The findings in this paper add to Translation Studies the emphasis on the interpreter as a cultural mediator who needs to make dynamic choices of strategy in view of the needs of the intended audience and the communicative context. Future research could be done on audience reception and expand the analysis to diverse interpreting contexts.