1998-04-02
In practical terms, of course, much of this is post-mortem thinking to repapre future strategies. When push comes to shove, particularly in simultaneous, you often simply use the first passable solution that comes to mind. /MB, court int.
Interesting, though I'm not sure how far you can draw the comparison with second language learners; professional interpreters are supposed to master their working languages very well (often they interpret only to their mother tongue). But I agree that many interpreters, especially within community/liaison interpreting, are in fact still language learners. Thanks for the reading tip /Helge
You're absolutely right, but if you take the Polish market, for example, the situation looks different. I don't know the statistics, but I would risk to say that more than 90% of interpreting into foreign languages is done by natives of Polish. Reason? There are not enough native foreign language speakers based in Poland to do the job. So, willy-nilly, we interpret (translate) both ways. /Robert
You make a valid point, at least as far as simultaneous interpretation is concerned. However, in a consecutive setting, I have rarely seen unidirectional interpretation (and the exceptions had more to do with prestige and protocol than language capability); virtually all of the consecutive interpreters who support NASA-Mir are bidirectional. /AL, conf.
That's a very good point. However, Arabic escapes that rule, sincce Arabic Interpreters are required to go both ways all the time, the reason being that there are almost no non-arab interpreters who have Arabic as one of their working languages. Therefore ideally, an Arabic interpreter must be as close as possible to a perfect bilingual (usually with English or French being the second language), so that it is easy for the rest of the boots to relay off the Arabic boot, when the speaker is an Arab. That's the rason that in the U.N., while the English, French, Russian, and Spanish boots are always composed of two interpreters, the Arabic and the Chinese interpreters work in threes, since they never get to be mute./AE accred. int.
I am confused, as usual. Are you talking about interpreters or interpreter subjects? Do you just want to focus on minority community member interpreters? Are you comparing language attitudes of interpreters and their subjects and how this affects the interpreting situation? If so, I could speak volumes about that. But I will just say this: what you describe is what I call "the interpreter 'fights' with the interpreted subject". Classic examples I have found:
1. minority subject interjects dominant culture language terms into speech and interpreter, when interpreting back into subject's language, does not take advantage of 'knowing' the subjects idiolect; instead, interpreters uses hypercorrect term in minority language (which the subject probably doesn't use, and communication begins to fall apart). The interesting thing about this one is that in doing this,and in the case of multicultural languages like Spanish and English, the interpreter is more than likely going to pick a term that is not EVER used in that context by the subject's community of speakers of THAT variety of the minority language.
2. dominant culture language speaker interjects words of the subject's language, more or less mangled up, in an effort to appear 'tuned in' to the needs of the minority language speaker, a sort of 'reaching out'. Interpreter proceeds to 'fight' this subject as well, by either repeating the word all mangled up or by interpreting it, or by hypercorrecting it into the target.
This "hyperprescriptive" attitude in court interpreters is what I call "linguistic terrorism". It is usually found in very bad interpreters who perceive themselves as very good speakers of both languages. I have also found that very good court interpreters are very relaxed about language usage and have no "terrorist" attitudes about "good" and "bad" language. They just use it. /CC, court int. & teacher
In order of preference we are trained to use: 4, 2, 3, 1.
Omission is, in our work, only justified when the term is not understood but will be explained. In that case we may still choose to transliterate the term, interpret the explanation, then develop a "nonce sign", one which both we and the consumer understand is non-standard but temporary.
In contrast, when interpreting ASL to Spoken English, our order of preference changes. ASL uses classifiers to describe many things rather than develop a single noun naming the precise thing. For example, rather than use the single word TUMBLER to describe a waterglass, ASL uses classifiers to describe the approximate size and shape then context (washing dishes, drinking for it, etc) would be specify TUMBLER rather than TIN CAN. This allows for the construction of neologisms that are, perhaps, clarified in context. Since there is not a word-for-word correspondence between signs and words in ASL to English we tend to omit.
In this task our preference seems to run; 1, 2, 3, 4 and (additionally) to stop the speaker and check with a more standard sign for equivalence. /BK
When terps cannot find an equivalent, they may
-1. omit, indeed,
-2. try to substitute the spoken word or phrase by either "the sign that is more simple" like "ALTERNATIVE" being substituted by "two ways" OR another sign that is near to the meaning of the original word, but mouthing the source language word (you had this under point 2)
-3. explane the concept without using any of the words of the source language, which I call (in my field studies) wordindependent description (it's hard to translate my definitions in English)
-4) what you call neologisms (I would differ between the points):
4a) loan translation: existing signs are "glued" one behind the other, also known as transliteration
4b) direct loans: oral interpreting, which I also have found in my field studies
4c) Coining of new word, I guess by coining you mean a spontaneous creation? Could you please explain that to me?
Concerning Sign language ... I have found more strategies:
Using fingeralphabet, using only the first letter of the word and mouthing the word, mixtures of all the strategies!
Concerning minority groups: Certainly deaf poeople use a lot of loans as they don't have developed signs in all varieties of subjects up til now. But I can't comment on the interpreter's wish to "use pure native language". Certainly they would like to, but if there is no sign available, what shall they do?? /EV
Unfortunately, this a luxury you cannot afford as an Interpreter. You just have to do your best to get the idea accross. If you absolutely cannot find it, then try to explain it with your own words, and finaly, if you don't understand it yourself, then just skip it, as it is less harmful to leave a blank, than to missinterpret. /AE, accred. int.
Infrequent, but I seem to do it if it's onw of those "anticipation" situations, in which I anticipate that there is more info. coming that would allow me to come up with a better equivalente within the same paragraph (This is in simult.) /CC, court int., teacher
... I could never go for omission as a solution in my fields of interpreting (industrial/business troubleshooting and court/community). Stopping and asking for an explanation (can't remember having done this but I'm sure I have at least once) or for something to be repeated clearly (occasionally required, many barristers have a gift for mumbling) would be the only solution. /MB, court int.
My most frequent choice. Usually an equivalente that constitutes a change of register, but not meaning. If I can't come up with the "perfect" equivalente, that is usually the way I go in simultaneous, NOT in consectutive) /CC, court int. & teacher
... in court interpreting we CAN NOT give explanations of ANYTHING, unless it comes from the source. Here, we find ourselves at the edge of an ethical question which we do not wish to get into. We are not paralegals and our job is not to explain, only interpret source into target (I know this will open a can of worms, but so be it.) (IT, court int.)
I sometimes use this strategy for terms that are "native" of the original culture and do not have a direct equivalent in the target culture. An example of this is ''Affirmative Action'': When translating that into Portuguese, I use the expression ''Ação Afirmativa". The result of adopting this strategy is twofold: (1) People who do not know about that policy in the U.S. will require the same kind of explanation that the people in the U.S. had to have when first exposed to that term (since the English term is no more elucidative than the translated term). (2) People who know English and are familiar with that policy in the U.S., when confronted with a translated text containing that expression will immediately understand what it means.
Another example is ''polícia militar,'' which in Brazil is a police body under the State jurisdiction and is not the same as ''military policy'' in the U.S. and other countries, which refers to police under military jurisdiction, dealing exclusively with military personnel. In order to deal with this term in English, I have chosen the expression ''State Military Policy''. Those who know nothing about Brazil will require an explanation of it, of course. And those who know about Brazil will understand immediately what the term is referring to.
So, these are two examples of terms that don't have an exact equivalent in the target language. Instead of opting to use something close to it, or to give a definition of it, I have used a direct translation in the case of ''Affirmative Action'' and a supplemented direct translation in the case of ''Polícia Militar'' (State Military Police)--the latter for the sake of clarity. /PJ
This would be extremely ill advised, at least in my language combination. In simultaneous Interpretation, I use to train sometimes with 15 miunte chunks of news, which was extremely fast, and contains as much inforamtion as a 30 minute speech, therefore prompting me to think really fast. In order to do that, my personal trick was to imagine "Mustapha El Alaoui" and "Mounir Tahiri", two very famous newscasters in Morocco, (Arabic and French respectively), and remember how they would say certain things. The key is to "own" the speech, and express as if it was yours, in the target language. /AE
... I sometimes recommend that to my students for terms that are in widespread use among immigrants in the U.S. and are hard to translate consistently or accurately. The example that springs to mind first is "probation." It's not that there's no word for probation in Spanish (my other language), in fact there are too many terms and it's hard to be consistent (you never know what the defendant's last interpreter used). Because of that, I suggest using the English term "probation" in conjunction with a Spanish translation such as "libertad vigilada" the first time it comes up, in case the defendant recognizes the English term, and then using "libertad vigilada" alone thereafter. The Spanish term is self-explanatory and thus understandable to a person who has never heard it before, but I still think the English should be heard at least once to tie the term to a concept the defendant may be familiar with in this country.
... there is one yardstick we can use to determine whether to adapt something to make it more understandable to the listener: how understandable the term is in the source language. "Probation" is very commonly understood in English, so I think the interpreter is justified in finding a term that is equally accessible to the non-English speaker. In the case of a term like "allocution" (the subject of a recent debate on this list), the term is not in common usage and there is no reason to adapt it to make sure the defendant understands what it means.
Anyway, I think there are lots of instances when it is acceptable to leave the term in the source language, sometimes without any further qualification (e.g. "He is my 'compadre'") and sometimes with an additional qualifier (e.g. "the Cerveceria Azteca brewery"). /HM int., teacher
We interpreters are "word people" who take pride in knowing the equivalent word in two different languages. To go ahead and just say the word in the language that's aleady in use is "below us" ! However, sometimes the client's experience and language are so limited that he only knows the word in the "new language" , where he has been forced to confront it. An example here in Canada is the word "welfare" Another example would be "unemployment insurance". These terms are little used in some countries and to use them in pure language often leaves clients with little life experience totally "in the dark" - clueless. I have yielded to the current practise of my clients and simply leave the terms in English . It makes me feel a little tacky from a professional point of view, but I put communication first, and so I do what I have to do get the message across. /JR
Sometimes the correct term is so much longer than in the source language that a direct loan is more suitable - especially in the case of terms a client is likely to have encountered first in the source language. An example might be probation in English, which is liberta vigilita in Italian and becomes very long in certain cases when the probation service/officers/pre-sentencing reports etc. are concerned. Product approval regulations can present similar problems/solutions. This can make use of the correct term/an explanation followed by a direct loan the most effective choice. On other occasions a direct loan might be unsuitable because it has false friend associations in the target language, making a neologism preferable. /MB
Japanese, in my personal experience, is amazing in its modification and use of English words and phrases to communicate. Just yesterday, while having lunch with my Japanese conversation partner, he said something like, "... da-kara, guddo jabu desu." (.... and so, it's a good job.) Clearly, there are instances where this strategy is employed when speaking to an English speaker like me. However, I have heard this sort of thing between Japanese all the time. The question I guess becomes whether the use of English words is nothing more than the borrowing of a lexical item or phrase or idiom that has now become a Japanese word or phrase, etc. (phonologically altered to fit Japanese of course), or whether it is an on-the-fly kind of "patch" used in a translation.
A couple of months ago, I asked him how to say "discussion" in Japanese. The answer was only slightly complicated. There is a word in Japanese, "giron" which means something like "argument". I explained that I was looking for the English meaning of discussion when it does not carry the connotation of "argument", when it merely means the "verbal exploration of a topic." He said there was no word other than, you guessed it, "disukasshon". He told me the word is regularly used in conversation.
I believe that "disukasshon" is an example of a borrowed word, whereas "guddo jabu" in the first example is a translation strategy like the one you are looking for. Listen to any conversation between a Japanese and and English speaker and you are likely to find many more examples. In my experience, this is more common than, say, a Spanish speaker or a Russian speaker using English words here and there. /AP
As an interpreter of Vietnamese for the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Information Agency, I sometimes encounter the "4b" situation you describe. That is, a Vietnamese principal will use an English word or phrase for a specialized or technical concept where, if I were interpreting from English into Vietnamese, I would use a known Vietnamese word or a terse description (working consecutively) if I didn't immediately hit on an appropriate Vietnamese word. I have two observations on this situation that might be interesting to you.
First, in many cases I can trace the discrepancy between my and the Vietnamese principals' usage to the fact that I generally follow the usage norms of the overseas (exile) Nationalist Vietnamese, mostly Southern, whereas the Vietnamese principals generally follow the Northern, Communist norms. As I work more with Communists, I am gradually adjusting my usage (in interpreting, not "real life");...
Second, I have to admit that I've been completely thrown off at times when a Vietnamese principal uses an English term with Vietnamese pronunciation; I've thought I didn't understand a Vietnamese word. Here are two specific examples that I remember. At State, with the Governor of the Central Bank of the SRVN and the DAS for EAP/Economic Affairs, the Governor used the English term "World Bank," which I didn't understand. The man spoke abso-lutely no English, and there's a perfectly good, well-known VN term (Nga^n Ha`ng The^' Gio+'i), so with his VN-ized pronunciation I was thrown and had to ask for clarification -- somewhat lame and embarassing. Another time, interpreting for a delegation from the SRVN's Ministry of Science, Technology, and Environment visiting a huge waste water treatment facility in New York City, a VN principal used the English term "sludge", pronouncing it like [s^l^t], complete with very Vietnamese sounding level tone on first syllable, high-rising tone on second, checked syllable; and I couldn't understand the word and had to ask for clarification. I couldn't seem to believe that the man (who again spoke no English) would be using an English word rather than some sort of Vietnamese descriptive phrase or polymorphemic complex. /FS
As I always have my share of work cut out for me in Interpreting, I leave the coining to the language academies. (e.g. Arab Academic Centers in Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad, and Rabat, where new Arabic words are coined) /AE
Back to Helge Niska home page
Back to Paper
To appendix 2: Court interpreters survey