Linguistic shibboleths are words, phrases, or pronunciations used to distinguish members of one group from another, often based on regional, ethnic, or social differences.

The term comes from the Book of Judges in the Bible. After a battle, the Gileadites identified fleeing Ephraimites by asking them to pronounce the word shibboleth. Ephraimites, who spoke a similar dialect to the Gileadites’ but were unable to pronounce the “sh” sound, said sibboleth, and were instantly killed.

There are numerous examples of linguistic shibboleths used to identify – and often eliminate – outsiders throughout history. 

During the Second World War, English-speaking staff in Europe often used passwords including “w” sounds – which are pronounced “v” in German – and “th” sounds – a sound that does not exist in the German phonological system. For example, after D-Day, US forces used the password sequence “Flash” – “Thunder” – “Welcome”. 

More recently, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian word palyanytsya (a type of bread) has been used to identify Russian infiltrators who claim to be Ukrainian. While Ukrainian and Russian are mutually intelligible languages, there are certain phonological differences, some of which – the pronunciation of the last two syllables – are made apparent by this shibboleth. 

Shibboleths can also be culture-related: take the example of the letter “Z”, which was used to identify US citizens who fled to Canada to escape the Vietnam war draft in the 1950s and 60s. While the letter is called zee in the United States, its name in Canada is zed. 

Likewise, knowledge of how “Magdalen Street” and “Madgalen College” in Oxford are pronounced distinguishes locals from non-locals: while the former is pronounced MAG-de-lin, the latter is pronounced MAUD-lin.

More horrifically, members of the Al-Shahaab terrorist group who attacked the Westgate Mall in Nairobi in 2013 spared those hostages who were capable of reciting Islamic phrases like the shahada, the Muslim profession of faith. Those who were unable to do so were deemed to be infidels and executed. 

Shibboleths thus constitute markers of identity, and thereby instantly also criteria for exclusion: they are a way to detect those who lack the necessary knowledge to be part of an inside group. 

Translation, and specifically legal translation, is rife with linguistic and domain-specific shibboleths. Firstly, legal terminology varies significantly across jurisdictions and there are many false friends (which we have discussed before). For example, the failure to render the English consideration into French as cause in a civil law context would immediately give away the translator as an outsider to the legal domain. 

Indeed, legal false friends can be found even between different varieties of the same language: in the UK, without prejudice protects settlement communications from being disclosed in court. In the US, however, it refers to a case dismissal that allows for re-filing in the future. Misuse of the phrase in the wrong context would reveal insufficient knowledge of the relevant legal terminology. 

Introducing vagueness where there is none is another failure to pass the shibboleth test: for example, when inadequately translating shall into a language – like German or French – where modal verbs do not have the same specific force. 

Finally, literal translation is sometimes another shibboleth failure: as when translating plea bargain, which is specific to the US legal system, for jurisdictions that lack this legal figure, like many European countries. In this case, full knowledge of both legal systems would be proven by careful explanation or adaptation, not literal translation.