Lesson 7: Language, Translation, and Interpretation

In some contexts, calling someone a “friend” might signal warmth; in others, it could imply obligation or irony. In Trinidadian English, “‘to friend’ means to have sex with someone” or being “in a relationship other than marriage.” (Miller, 2011:10) As linguistic anthropologists have long shown, language is never a neutral vehicle for conveying information; it is always embedded in social relations, shaped by context, and saturated with cultural meaning. If we treat it as a transparent window, we risk reproducing our own assumptions rather than attending to how people actually make sense of their worlds. Terms of address, euphemisms, jokes, metaphors, and even silences (Basso, 1970) can carry deep social significance.

This is why ethnographers often flag loaded or ambiguous terms in their fieldnotes. When an interlocutor uses a word like “community,” do they mean social ties, geographic proximity, or political solidarity? Ethnographers also tend to record how people respond to particular words—through laughter, discomfort, silence, or repetition. A term like “development,” for instance, might spark pride in one setting and cynicism in another. These responses are part of what language does, not just what it means.

As ethnographers, our task is to attend to language as action. Words are not simply referential; they are performative. Translation, in this context, is not a mechanical task of converting one language to another. It is an interpretive act that reveals what is valued, obscured, or assumed to be shared. Translation can expose cultural logics, indicate social positioning, and illuminate what a language makes visible or keeps hidden. And translation doesn’t only happen across languages; it is also required when decoding local jargon, bureaucratic euphemisms, or institutional dialects. Even when speaker and ethnographer ostensibly share a language, the meanings of words can diverge significantly across contexts.

To demonstrate the complexity of translating meaning, ethnographers often use ‘layered translations.’ This technique preserves the original phrasing and adds an interpretive gloss: “The data is ‘noisy’, the lab director told me, pointing to the display” can be followed by “by which she meant the data is statistically unreliable.” Or, “The zoning document listed ‘public nuisance’ violations” can be layered with “a term that, in practice, targeted homeless encampments.”

Another strategy is to juxtapose official and unofficial terms: “The policy promised ‘streamlined procedures’—what staff called ‘rushing the paperwork.’” Or, another example: “The head of the research team described the paper’s findings as ‘robust’. Grad students joked that while the paper seemed ‘impossible to kill,’ reviewers always found a way.”

Euphemisms can also be unpacked narratively. Rather than “the store manager called it an ‘area of improvement,’” consider: “‘Area of improvement’—a phrase heard over the PA system or in-ear communication devices (“area of improvement in Aisle 2”), but never used by store workers, who called it ‘when there’s puke, urine, or another disgusting fluid that needs to be cleaned asap.’”

You can also use brief in-text clarifications or ‘sidebars’ to unpack jargon: “‘Stakeholder engagement’ (a term that, in this context, meant lobbying groups drafting legislation).”

Across these examples, the guiding principle is the same: approach language not as a transparent reflection of reality, but as a site where social life and power are actively negotiated. Meaning emerges through use, and even seemingly ordinary words—like “friend,” “good,” or “development”—often do unexpected work. Some words defy easy translation because they index local metaphors, relational norms, or culturally specific ways of organizing experience. Your task is not to flatten these meanings into easily digestible explanations, but to preserve and explore the complexity they carry.

In many field settings, linguistic forms such as hyper-specific detail, numeric precision, or matter-of-fact tone are not only about factual accuracy—they are also social styles that perform credibility, intimacy, or expertise. For instance, in many courtroom settings, hyper-specificity (“At 2:03 PM, he entered the store using the ‘exit only’ door that was left ajar.”) functions as a marker of ‘truthfulness’. Attending to these registers of speech helps reveal shared norms about what kinds of knowledge matter and how they should be performed.

Ethnographic writing, then, must be attentive to form as well as content. Syntax, cadence, repetition, and register can all help you evoke the felt quality of language in use. If someone speaks in looping repetitions, resist the urge to clean it up; use sentence rhythm to reflect their style: “She said no, no, it wasn’t like that, no, no, it was more like she was asking me to tell others about it.”

You can also mark register shifts: “The doctor switched from medical jargon to ‘your girl’—a deliberate slippage into intimacy.”

Also, quotations can be crafted with subtle shifts in tense or tone. Present tense for immediacy: “She says, ‘This land eats people.’”; past tense for reflection: “The metaphor framed migration as predation.”

Finally, sometimes, leaving terms untranslated can preserve their affective or relational force: “’Amoo Jaan,’ he called his uncle, who helped him financially when he wanted to open his small business.”

Rather than rushing to paraphrase or translate, practice writing that foregrounds the ambiguity, play, and friction of language. Language does not merely reflect social life; it participates in it. Ethnographic writing that attends to this dimension can better illuminate how meaning is made, contested, and lived.

Focus

Attend to what words do in context—terms of address, euphemism, metaphor.

Learning Goals

Activities

Back to the list of all lessons

Open Field: An open approach to teaching anthropology and ethnography