SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETATION

THE FOLLOWING IS AN ARTICLE THAT WILL APPEAR IN THE OCTOBER 2010 ISSUE OF REG-QUEST,

A NEWSLETTER ON REGULATORY OFFENCES FOR LAWYERS. IT HAS BEEN ADAPTED FOR THIS BLOG.

 What You've Always Wanted To Know About 
Simultaneous Interpreting,

But Were Afraid To Ask  

Evelyn Chau
(Cantonese Interpreter) 

(Evelyn Chau has been interpreting at Ontario Provincial Courts for more than five years. This article does not reflect the professional views of the author or official policies of the Ministry of the Attorney-General)
 

     As Canada welcomes more and more immigrants each year, the courts in major cities reflect this reality in real time. Interpreters are needed in court to assist those accused, sureties and witnesses who don't speak enough English to understand court proceedings. There are currently about 800 interpreters representing 108 languages used at the Provincial Courts in Toronto and vicinity. In other urban centres the numbers are smaller but no less significant.

     Interpreters have become a fixture in all levels of the criminal justice system. They are not only a conduit in communications between the mainly English-speaking judiciary but a cultural bridge as well. Language and culture are inextricably woven together. How an Ethiopian expresses his thoughts has everything to do with how he views the world. The job of an interpreter is to translate the words and the thoughts behind them to accurately express both sides of the communication. It is not usually an easy thing to do in a split second, having to first comprehend the legal terminology from the judiciary, translate the words and put them in the correct order for the mother tongue, say them in an understandable way to the person in front of the court. The sequence is then done in reverse for the reply.

     It is a common misconception that an interpreter only has to interpret whatever he or she hears, and accurately translate court proceedings word for word. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Anyone who has had exposure to a second language, such as French, would realize that the "word for word" instruction is neither possible nor very useful.  A Tamil sentence, for example, is arranged quite differently from an English one.

     Here is a comparison between English and Tamil syntax[1]:

English syntax: SUBJECT, PREDICATE, OBJECT

Tamil syntax: SUBJECT, OBJECT, PREDICATE

English prepositions: Before the noun  (on the table)

Tamil prepositions: After the noun  (table-on)

English adverbs: Before or after the verb (Barking dogs seldom bite; We moved slowly) 

Tamil adverbs: Before the verb

English gender:  e.g. friend, cousin (common gender)

Tamil gender:  Gender must be ascertained before interpretation

     Behaviour that seems odd to an English-speaking court usually has a cultural explanation.  Examples that spring to mind include seeming avoidance of a straight answer, lack of eye-contact and speaking out of turn. A court that is informed in cultural differences enables proceedings to go ahead in an effective, smooth and just manner.

      Here is what lawyers and agents should have in mind when using an interpreter in court:

     * Do speak in a clear, audible voice. It helps to listen to the flow of the interpreting periodically. If the interpreter seems to be behind, just take a breath and let him or her catch up. There is actually no need to slow to a snail's pace, however, because interpreters are trained professionals. Some sympathetic lawyers or prosecutors make frequent stops in one sentence only to see interpreters waiting for them to finish so they can make sense of it all.  Without the complete sentence,  the interpreting would be incoherent and incomprehensible.

      * Do break down long sentences into segments, or better still, express your ideas one by one.

     * Do slow down rapid exchanges with the Crown over procedures because the speed and tone make these very difficult to interpret.

     * Do let interpreters have copies of relevant material such as case laws or transcripts.  When something is read out in court, the word count per minute is usually above 170, which is the normal speed that allows for accurate and comfortable interpreting.

     * During a long trial, let the interpreter have breaks. These are necessary for both the voice and the brain. Long days that lead to the exhaustion of the interpreter are counter-productive.  There are at least twenty-two cognitive skills which interpreters have to use when doing their jobs. Conference interpreters are given breaks every forty-five minutes to allow them to stay fresh.  It would be beneficial if the courts would see fit to do the same.

     * Don't just use acronyms in court assuming that everyone knows what they stand for.  Spell out CAMH, or other organizations, when you first mention them.

     * Don't (or try not to) use acronyms such as YUPPIE without explanations because they are unique to the North American culture and are almost untranslatable.

     In his book "Liberating Voices: A Pattern Language for Communication Revolution (MIT Press), co-author Douglas Schuler says this about translation, which is equally true for interpreting:

"Totally accurate translation is impossible but imperfect translation is ubiquitous - and essential."[2]

     Martin Luther (1483-1546) reportedly took up to four weeks researching a single word while translating the Bible.  Even if 'perfect interpreting' of every single word is possible in the seconds a court interpreter has during a witness testimony, it would not be ideal.  Why?  The effort it takes to be absolutely correct by the dictionary may mean omitting or sacrificing other parts of the speaker's message.[3] This is especially true with complex syntax or when the message is meant to be ironic, resigned or humorous, which brings us to context.

     Interpreting requires empathy. It means understanding the speaker's intent and point of view.  For any given word in Portuguese, there can be several possible equivalents in English, depending on the context. An interpreter with a wide range of word options can be more nimble in conveying the exact meaning of the speaker, whether that is the judge, lawyer, or accused. That is also why interpreting can never be done by machines.

     Using numbers to gauge interpreters' performance in court is akin to using machines to interpret human languages. James Nolan, in his article "Translatability and Untranslatability in Simultaneous Interpreting", raises this point:

"In some simultaneous interpreting examinations a passing performance is 'getting 70% of the meaning across'. But what if the 30% that was lost in an interpreter's 'passing performance' contained some of the speaker's main points (for example, because they came at the end and the interpreter fell behind while struggling with details)?" [4]
  

     The answer to this may not be music to the Court's ears.  An interpreter must exercise editorial judgement to convey the meaning and intent of the speaker while omitting what can be safely left out.  This kind of judgement comes with practice, experience and motivation to do one's best under trying circumstances.   While not striving to be 100% word perfect, an interpreter should always try to convey 100% of the speaker's meaning by focusing on the main ideas even if it means condensing, abridging and cutting out repetitions. The Court, in the meantime, should give interpreters the leeway to do so.  Mutual trust and respect can only help in an environment such as a criminal court where adversarial positions are the order of the day.

 Evelyn Chau 2010-09-02

Source material:

---

[1] Tamil Interpreters' Letter to the Premier of Ontario (2010-07-15)

[2] Schuler, Douglas

[3] Nolan, James: Nolan, James. Translatability and Untranslatability in Simultaneous Interpreting (The ATA   Chronicle/July 2010)

[4] Nolan, James: Ibid.