Court Interpreters - What do you think about... Thread poster: Josephine P (X)
|
|---|
Josephine P (X)
Local time: 20:53
English to German
+ ...
Dear Court Interpreters,
as I'm preparing an informative presentation about Court Interpreting for my fellow students I have some personal questions to you.
1. Have you experienced a situation at court in which you refused to interpret a statement? (E.g. it was too offensive or distressing for you or someone else?)
2. Have you once become the attachment figure for the speaker of a foreign language?
3. Have you once experienced a situation that strongly both... See more Dear Court Interpreters,
as I'm preparing an informative presentation about Court Interpreting for my fellow students I have some personal questions to you.
1. Have you experienced a situation at court in which you refused to interpret a statement? (E.g. it was too offensive or distressing for you or someone else?)
2. Have you once become the attachment figure for the speaker of a foreign language?
3. Have you once experienced a situation that strongly bothered you emotionally? How did you cope with it?
4. Is Court Interpreting simply a job for you or do you really enjoy doing it? Why?
5. How do you handle it, when you really feel great aversion to the person you have to interpret for? (E.g. because the person did something very bad to another person.)
The reason for these questions is, that a lot is expected from a Court Interpreter. And we, as students, want to know if we might be able to handle emotionally difficult or even disstressing situations and how professionals do cope with it.
Thank you very much!
Lots of greetings from Germany,
Josephine ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Hello, Josephine. I'm theoretically a court interpreter (apart from being a now-non-practising lawyer), no matter I have never interpreted in court. My experience is thus somewhat limited, but there are some points to be made.
1. You don't need to interpret everything that's ever said. You don't have to avoid literally any communication that's not interpreting in the narrowest sense. You can communicate your observations to the court. Thus, you could use reported speech and just men... See more Hello, Josephine. I'm theoretically a court interpreter (apart from being a now-non-practising lawyer), no matter I have never interpreted in court. My experience is thus somewhat limited, but there are some points to be made.
1. You don't need to interpret everything that's ever said. You don't have to avoid literally any communication that's not interpreting in the narrowest sense. You can communicate your observations to the court. Thus, you could use reported speech and just mention that an expletive was used or threat made and describe it rather than quoting verbatim. A Polish court would most probably not have any problem with that.
5. Just like judges and, to a lesser extent, everybody else. The interpreter's job is to provide competent intepreting, just like a defence lawyer's is to defend, not to judge the case or prosecute it. Just because you aren't bringing that guy to the book doesn't mean the court isn't. You just need to let go and realise that you can't carry the burdens belonging to everybody else in a court trial. Tasks are divided, just like a good process line in translation involves separate proofreaders and editors even if the translator is a highly qualified professional that writes well and correctly. Let the robes do their jobs.
[Edited at 2013-06-04 16:05 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | papybrico
France
Local time: 20:53
Romanian to French
Sorry for my English version...
I had to act as interpreter for a court in the context of an indictment by video conference. (ro / en and fr / ro)
I found very interesting experience both in the procedure and the method, simultaneous translation of documents and declarations is very gripping and tiring (I was required as a translator, to replace a failed translator, I am not professional ).
The translation is not word for word but the exact meaning. I was stuck with slang and... See more Sorry for my English version...
I had to act as interpreter for a court in the context of an indictment by video conference. (ro / en and fr / ro)
I found very interesting experience both in the procedure and the method, simultaneous translation of documents and declarations is very gripping and tiring (I was required as a translator, to replace a failed translator, I am not professional ).
The translation is not word for word but the exact meaning. I was stuck with slang and figurative (eg the accomplices had the name of the 7 Dwarfs Snow White).
french:
J'ai eu à servir d'interprète pour un tribunal dans le cadre d'une mise en accusation par vidéo conférence. (ro/fr et fr/ro)
J'ai trouvé l'expérience fort intéressante tant dans la procédure que dans la méthode, la traduction simultanée des actes et déclarations est très prenante et fatigante (j'étais été requis comme traducteur, pour remplacer un traducteur défaillant, je ne suis pas professionnel).
La traduction n'est pas du mot à mot mais plus dans la signification exacte. J'ai été bloqué par des expressions argotiques et figurées ( ex: des complices avaient le nom des 7 nains de Blanche Neige).
Ps: I agree entirely with Lukasz ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
1. Thus, you could use reported speech and just mention that an expletive was used or threat made and describe it rather than quoting verbatim.
5. Just like judges and, to a lesser extent, everybody else. The interpreter's job is to provide competent intepreting, just like a defence lawyer's is to defend, not to judge the case or prosecute it. Just because you aren't bringing that guy to the book doesn't mean the court isn't. You just need to let go and realise that you can't carry the burdens belonging to everybody else in a court trial. Tasks are divided, just like a good process line in translation involves separate proofreaders and editors even if the translator is a highly qualified professional that writes well and correctly. Let the robes do their jobs.
[Edited at 2013-06-04 16:05 GMT]
I agree with these comments.
1. Your job is to interpret what the foreign-language speaker is saying, so you can't decide you're not going to interpret something you don't like. However, there is a difference between substantive and peripheral utterances. If someone uses a swearword that is everyday in their culture but would be frowned upon in the foreign context, that can be rendered in a culturally-appropriate form (which may mean not at all), unless it is a substantive part of their evidence. If you consider it has to be conveyed, then you can distance yourself from it by saying 'the speaker says...'.
2. As the only person who speaks the foreign-language speaker's language, it is natural for them to look to you as the only friendly face. You have to manage that by making clear, without aggravating their sense of isolation, that you cannot advise them or help them beyond facilitating communication.
3. At times I've had to interpret some harrowing discourse; I find that I can easily switch off at the time, and only be affected by it later. I've been advised to seek counselling in some cases, in order to unload it, but I've never got round to that.
4. I love it; it's the challenge of interpreting between institutional and colloquial discourse, and of facilitating the administration of justice.
5. The same as no. 2: you're there to provide a service, not to find friends.
[Edited at 2013-06-04 17:47 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Liviu-Lee Roth
United States
Local time: 14:53
Romanian to English
+ ...
| ... dissenting opinion ... (US based) | Jun 5, 2013 |
[quote]Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
1. You don't need to interpret everything that's ever said. You don't have to avoid literally any communication that's not interpreting in the narrowest sense. You can communicate your observations to the court. Thus, you could use reported speech and just mention that an expletive was used or threat made and describe it rather than quoting verbatim. A Polish court would most probably not have any problem with that.
Sorry, but this stance is totally unacceptable in the US. The interpreter is the ”voice” of the speaker, therefore, he interprets EVERYTHING ... and obviously in first person. If the LES (Limited English Speaker) starts swearing, the interpreter does the same. A judge or the jury want to know the way the speaker feels about certain things.
Now, answering your questions (basically the same as John's responses):
1. If you were a surgeon, would you refuse to do the surgery because you don't like it?
If we consider ourselves "professionals," then we must do our job.
2. Most LES that appear in court think that you are their attorney and most of the time
they ask for your opinion on how they should answer. The interpreter must explain
from the very beginning that he is not their attorney.
3. Never. I have been a court interpreter for more than 15 years and never got
emotionally attached to the case although sometimes you may feel the urge to "strangle" the prosecutor, judge or defense attorney for uttering really stupid things, or cringe when the police officer takes the witness stand and you realize that he is lying through his teeth.
4. It is my job, and I LOVE IT !
5. If you start having an aversion towards an individual, you are biased and you cannot
perform as an interpreter. Very often I have to deal with certain individuals for whom stealing is a normal occurrence, and when I worked as a prosecutor in my country of origin I was very tough on them. As an interpreter, I am neutral (basically, I don't care).
Good luck,
Lee
[Edited at 2013-06-05 01:00 GMT]
| | | | Ulrica d'Orey 
Portugal
Local time: 19:53
English to Portuguese
+ ...
| My experience | Jun 5, 2013 |
1. Once, a condemned prisoner answering for a prison offence, and probably thinking he had nothing to loose, insulted the judge in a very offensive manner. As most judges in Portugal understand English, I looked at the judge and asked her if she wanted me to translate it, which I would have, but she told me it wouldn’t be necessary.
2. Yes, we are their voice.
3. I try to keep a distance.
4. It’s a job, but I love doing it.
5. My role is a neutral one.
| | | |
lee roth wrote: Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
1. You don't need to interpret everything that's ever said. You don't have to avoid literally any communication that's not interpreting in the narrowest sense. You can communicate your observations to the court. Thus, you could use reported speech and just mention that an expletive was used or threat made and describe it rather than quoting verbatim. A Polish court would most probably not have any problem with that.
Sorry, but this stance is totally unacceptable in the US. The interpreter is the ”voice” of the speaker, therefore, he interprets EVERYTHING ... and obviously in first person. If the LES (Limited English Speaker) starts swearing, the interpreter does the same. A judge or the jury want to know the way the speaker feels about certain things.
As a criminal law scholar I can respect that view. I only worry if it isn't a bit too total, i.e. if doesn't contain a certain degree of exaggeration in being so absolute. There used to be a school of interpreting that required the interpreter to replicate all the emotions and perhaps even gesture. Khrushchev's interpreter would need to thump his shoes too under that school.
Personally, I believe translators and interpreters (as well as judges and recorders) should develop thicker skins and above all stop censoring slang and colloquial language. Shades of meaning are important indeed. On the other hand, if the drunken sailor's mouth is a feature of the speaker's idiolect, then I don't think it's necessary to reflect all that, but neither is it actually possible to do. In fact, expletives are culturally dependent and don't have clear equivalents from one language to another, which forces the interpreter to build up equivalent tension rather than actually rendering the content. For that, a description would be enough. The aforementioned problems make the interpreter's exercise in professional swearing (i.e. not just a couple of 'f words' that don't need detailed attention) a futile one, while he obviously can't be lecturing the judge and jury on whatever cultural factors underlie the speaker's interjections and expletives of choice (camels, fleas and whatnot). And if he could, that couldn't be done in the first person and would not be a rendition of the speaker's speech.
...Hence, I believe we're just a little in disagreement as to how far the interpreter should avoid distancing himself from the speaker, since I have trouble believing it to be as absolute as you say in the US... I mean, come on, most English expletives are not directly translatable, which should mean that they can't really serve as good translations of foreign ones, either.
[Edited at 2013-06-05 12:38 GMT]
| | | | Josephine P (X)
Local time: 20:53
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Thanks a lot for all your answers! | Jun 5, 2013 |
You gave me arguments one can think about a lot. Where's the border and when does an interpreter go beyond it? It is difficult to find the perfect answer, isn't it? Well, if I got it right, a professional just has to translate what was said and find a way for him- or herself how to cope with difficult situations.
Once a court interpreter told me that she truly did experience distressing situations. A policeman was shouting so badly at an asylum seeker that she also started having t... See more You gave me arguments one can think about a lot. Where's the border and when does an interpreter go beyond it? It is difficult to find the perfect answer, isn't it? Well, if I got it right, a professional just has to translate what was said and find a way for him- or herself how to cope with difficult situations.
Once a court interpreter told me that she truly did experience distressing situations. A policeman was shouting so badly at an asylum seeker that she also started having tears in her eyes and it gave her stomach ache. So she asked the police officer for a pause and took him aside. She told him, that she wasn't able to translate this situation because it made her feel sick. Then the police officer calmed down a bit and they carried on with the case together...
Are there any strategies to keep the emotional distance to the LES when you sart feeling attached, sad or distressed? Something like avoiding to look in their eyes...?
It is a very good argument, that everybody has to do her or his job. No matter if surgeon, interpreter, psychologist or whatever. And everybody has to find a way to cope with it.
It is wonderful that you all love your jobs! Every day is another challenge, isn't it?
Thank you for your comments!!! ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Liviu-Lee Roth
United States
Local time: 14:53
Romanian to English
+ ...
| ... I stand by my previous comment .... :-)))) | Jun 5, 2013 |
"...Hence, I believe we're just a little in disagreement as to how far the interpreter should avoid distancing himself from the speaker, since I have trouble believing it to be as absolute as you say in the US... I mean, come on, most English expletives are not directly translatable, which should mean that they can't really serve as good translations of foreign ones, either.
[Edited at 2013-06-05 12:38 GMT] [/quote]"
Since I practiced criminal law for over 12 years, I am not ... See more "...Hence, I believe we're just a little in disagreement as to how far the interpreter should avoid distancing himself from the speaker, since I have trouble believing it to be as absolute as you say in the US... I mean, come on, most English expletives are not directly translatable, which should mean that they can't really serve as good translations of foreign ones, either.
[Edited at 2013-06-05 12:38 GMT] [/quote]"
Since I practiced criminal law for over 12 years, I am not going in to a futile debate about what should be interpreted or not. Here is a short excerpt from The Code of Ethics for Court Interpreters in the US:
63.01 Accuracy and completeness
Interpreters shall render a complete and accurate interpretation or sight translation by reproducing in the target language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, without altering, omitting, or adding anything to the meaning of what is stated or written, and without explanation.
Comment
Interpreters have a twofold role: 1. to ensure that court proceedings reflect, in English, precisely what was said by persons of limited English proficiency; and 2. to place persons of limited English proficiency on an equal footing with persons who understand English. This creates an obligation to conserve every element of information contained in a source language communication when it is rendered in the target language.
Therefore, interpreters are required to apply their best skills and judgment to preserve, as faithfully as is reasonably possible and without editing, the meaning of what is said, including the style or register of speech, the ambiguities and nuances of the speaker, and the level of language that best conveys the original meaning of the source language. Verbatim, "word for word," or literal oral interpretations are inappropriate when they distort the meaning of what was said in the source language. However, every spoken statement, even if it appears non-responsive, obscene, rambling, or incoherent should be interpreted. This includes apparent misstatements.
Interpreters should not interject any statement or elaboration of their own. If the need arises to explain an interpreting problem, such as a term or phrase with no direct equivalent in the target language or a misunderstanding that only the interpreter can clarify, the interpreter should ask the court’s permission to provide an explanation.
Spoken language interpreters should convey the emotional emphasis of the speaker without reenacting or mimicking the speaker’s emotions, or dramatic gestures. Sign language interpreters, however, must employ all of the visual cues that the language they are interpreting for requires—including facial expressions, body language, and hand gestures. Judges should ensure that court participants do not confuse these essential elements of the interpreted language with inappropriate interpreter conduct. Any challenge to the interpreter’s conduct should be directed to the judge.
Best,
Lee ▲ Collapse
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Court Interpreters - What do you think about... | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
