Corporate Blog of Elite - Professional Translation Services serving ASEAN & East Asia
一位经常合作的口译器材租借商说：“口译员很难搞的，好像大牌明星一样。”她所说的‘难搞’，是指价钱高，规矩多，不容易伺候。其实，我也认同他们有很多与明星相似的地方。比如说，明星要靠天生本钱，口译员也得靠本身卓越的语言条件，不但语言功力要深厚，双语精通程度得达到炉火纯青的境界，而且天生反应要灵敏，在‘卖相’上也必须让人有信心。
我所说的‘卖相’，倒不是指‘俊男美女’，而是打扮体面，谈吐大方，而且能于人亲切的印象。这是因为口译员是不同国籍人士之间的桥梁。他们必须在商业会议中的短短数小时内，帮助客户良好地表达看法，最终达到‘成交’或让对方‘满意’的终极目标，确实是像明星的现场直播节目。
有些客户听到口译员每小时收费从$100到S$200，无不吓得魂飞魄散。但就像我在前一篇文章所说的，真正了解行情的客户，都愿意付这个钱，只要质量好。因为相较于数十万甚至数百万的交易来说，几千块钱的口译费绝对值得。尤其像是新加坡这种国际大都会，各大跨国公司总部云集，经常举办大型的国际会议（最近的APEC峰会就让我们忙得团团转），高层次的商务会议、名人专访，跨国公司的董事会议等。这些汇集各国人士的交流场面，都需要口译员扮演沟通桥梁的角色。
但是根据我的体会，演员或歌星要成为炙手可热的超级巨星，除了‘演技’或‘歌喉’要好之外（唯一不同的是，口译行业只有实力派而没有偶像派），更重要的关键在于EQ （就像红遍中港台的志玲姐姐）。口译员也一样。翻译公司和口译员的关系，就像经纪人和明星。唯一较不同的是，翻译公司并不局限于非得要找某个口译员完成口译项目，口译员也可自由地和任何一家翻译公司合作，两者之间的关系较为松散无约束。正因如此，那些EQ超好、没有架子又好商量的口译员（尤其是价钱或者配合客户的要求），相信都会受到翻译公司的垂青。
作为‘经纪人’，让我最有成就感的，并非和那些‘红牌’或‘资深’口译员合作，而是能挖掘到具有潜质的口译人才，并将他们一手捧成能够胜任同步传译的优秀口译员（译力旗下就有这样一位从交替口译提升到同步口译的大将）。只要手中握有这些王牌，不但能够为公司赚到钱，也能承接多一些案子（因为红牌口译员的档期都很满，所以即使有生意上门，也不一定能配合到他们的时间）。我觉得这样不但能为市场注入更多新血，让新加坡的口译市场不被少数几位垄断，而且人才的辈出，也能更好地满足新加坡作为奖励旅游、商务会议以及博览会(MICE)举办首选地的需求，并让口译市场价格逐步调整至更多客户能够承受的水平。价钱趋于合理，也将让更多商家愿意付这笔钱任用口译员，最终达到大家开心的良性循环效果。
By
Hong Yin Yin | 方莺吟
Managing Director | 董事
Elite Bilingual Services Pte. Ltd
口译项目的管理秘诀 - （一）客户篇
Showing posts with label conference interpreters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conference interpreters. Show all posts
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
口译项目的管理秘诀 - （一）客户篇
Corporate Blog of Elite - Professional Translation Services serving ASEAN & East Asia
在我处理过的多种语言服务当中（笔译、口译、转录、撰稿），要数口译项目的挑战性最高，因为它和现场直播节目一样，不能有任何缺失或疏漏，更不能有任何“NG”。如此一来，后勤的准备功夫尤显得格外重要。口译项目也是最考功夫的，没有经验的项目协调员，若不严格遵照公司的服务原则行事，很容易就会答应客户一些做不到的事情，而往往得亏钱收场。译力两年前刚起步的时候，就曾接了一家大公司的案子，结果因为经验不足，无法坚持原则，而成了一次惨痛的教训。
做好口译项目的诀窍，在于‘知己知彼，百战不殆’。虽然译力在口译界里还只是个生力军，但是数十场的口译服务经验，也开始让我们总结出不同的客户类型，并能更准确地判断市场的需求和习性。今天我们就来谈一谈口译客户的基本类型：
1. 行家型：这一类懂行的客户通常都来自大公司或是活动策划机构，有接触过口译员的安排事宜，也了解专业口译员的一般价位。他们特别看重口译员的质量和经验，所以也通常会要求对口译员进行面试。
2. 智慧型：虽然这类客户没有接触过需要口译员的会议或活动，但是对质量要求仍然非常高，因为需要口译服务的会议对他们来说实在是太重要了，所以绝对不能有任何纰漏。为了确保一切顺利，他们在各种细节上都会尽量配合。
3. 一无所知型：对什么是交替口译(Consecutive Interpreting)和同步口译(Simultaneous Interpreting)都分不清楚。幸好，一些较有诚意的客户，都会谦虚地请教你该怎么做。在这个时候，我们都会好好把握机会向他们说明各种需要注意的细节。
4. 逛街型：这类客户通常爱货比三家，搜集各家翻译机构的价格。每次我们向口译员查问他们的时间时，他们都会说：“这个case 另一家翻译公司也有问过我咧！”
5. 火烧屁股型：明天需要口译员，今天才打电话来。接这种案子无疑是惹火上身，尤其是口译员比较少的语种，如西班牙语。好处是我们可以多收加急费。只要有十足的把握能安排到最优秀的口译员，还是可以做的。最近我们就为一家知名的服装品牌公司安排口译员，采访韩国著名影星元斌。下午两点钟的采访，早上九点钟才打来的电话！幸好我们的首席口译员高度配合，才能在短短一个早上轻松安排好一切，顺利完成任务。
接出不同类型的客户之后，我给自己总结了一个心得。所谓‘真金不怕红炉火’，只要我们所精挑细选的口译员的质量够硬，在安排后勤事宜上规划周详，在坚守一些行规和原则时毫不妥协，尽量保护我们最宝贵的资产 – 口译员，而且知道什么类型的客户会耍什么招数，成功的个案也会越来越多。
换句话说，成功安排口译项目的重点不在客户，而是我们背后的一张张王牌 – 口译员。这也将是我下一周的分享重点。
口译项目的管理秘诀 - （二）口译员
在我处理过的多种语言服务当中（笔译、口译、转录、撰稿），要数口译项目的挑战性最高，因为它和现场直播节目一样，不能有任何缺失或疏漏，更不能有任何“NG”。如此一来，后勤的准备功夫尤显得格外重要。口译项目也是最考功夫的，没有经验的项目协调员，若不严格遵照公司的服务原则行事，很容易就会答应客户一些做不到的事情，而往往得亏钱收场。译力两年前刚起步的时候，就曾接了一家大公司的案子，结果因为经验不足，无法坚持原则，而成了一次惨痛的教训。
做好口译项目的诀窍，在于‘知己知彼，百战不殆’。虽然译力在口译界里还只是个生力军，但是数十场的口译服务经验，也开始让我们总结出不同的客户类型，并能更准确地判断市场的需求和习性。今天我们就来谈一谈口译客户的基本类型：
1. 行家型：这一类懂行的客户通常都来自大公司或是活动策划机构，有接触过口译员的安排事宜，也了解专业口译员的一般价位。他们特别看重口译员的质量和经验，所以也通常会要求对口译员进行面试。
2. 智慧型：虽然这类客户没有接触过需要口译员的会议或活动，但是对质量要求仍然非常高，因为需要口译服务的会议对他们来说实在是太重要了，所以绝对不能有任何纰漏。为了确保一切顺利，他们在各种细节上都会尽量配合。
3. 一无所知型：对什么是交替口译(Consecutive Interpreting)和同步口译(Simultaneous Interpreting)都分不清楚。幸好，一些较有诚意的客户，都会谦虚地请教你该怎么做。在这个时候，我们都会好好把握机会向他们说明各种需要注意的细节。
4. 逛街型：这类客户通常爱货比三家，搜集各家翻译机构的价格。每次我们向口译员查问他们的时间时，他们都会说：“这个case 另一家翻译公司也有问过我咧！”
5. 火烧屁股型：明天需要口译员，今天才打电话来。接这种案子无疑是惹火上身，尤其是口译员比较少的语种，如西班牙语。好处是我们可以多收加急费。只要有十足的把握能安排到最优秀的口译员，还是可以做的。最近我们就为一家知名的服装品牌公司安排口译员，采访韩国著名影星元斌。下午两点钟的采访，早上九点钟才打来的电话！幸好我们的首席口译员高度配合，才能在短短一个早上轻松安排好一切，顺利完成任务。
接出不同类型的客户之后，我给自己总结了一个心得。所谓‘真金不怕红炉火’，只要我们所精挑细选的口译员的质量够硬，在安排后勤事宜上规划周详，在坚守一些行规和原则时毫不妥协，尽量保护我们最宝贵的资产 – 口译员，而且知道什么类型的客户会耍什么招数，成功的个案也会越来越多。
换句话说，成功安排口译项目的重点不在客户，而是我们背后的一张张王牌 – 口译员。这也将是我下一周的分享重点。
By
Hong Yin Yin | 方莺吟
Managing Director | 董事Elite Bilingual Services Pte. Ltd
口译项目的管理秘诀 - （二）口译员
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Statement to the Profession
by Dr. Erik Camayd-Freixas
From: The Translation Journal
On June 13, 2008 I finished an essay, Interpreting after the Largest ICE Raid in US History, and circulated it among my fellow interpreters who worked on the court cases in Waterloo, Iowa from May 12-22, 2008.
I did not speak for the migrants. I spoke for democracy, due process, constitutional rights, and the dignity of the federal court, as is my obligation to do. |
Within two weeks, through the online grapevine, the essay, which was no longer mine if it ever was, had reached Congress and the media.
Aside from my Waterloo colleagues, I initially sent the essay to the American Translators Association to be considered for publication by its trade journal, The ATA Chronicle. I did not foresee that the essay would spread like wildfire over the internet. Numerous friends and colleagues, as well perfect strangers, urged me to permit its distribution far and wide. That is when I decided to send the essay to The New York Times.
My intention, when I sent it to my colleagues and the Chronicle, was only to debrief emotionally with those who were there, after the trauma of Postville, and to publish in a trade journal. It was an educational case study in interpreter ethics for my fellow linguists, nothing more. Hence the title and focus of the essay, addressed to the professional readership of the ATA.
When I sent the essay to the Times, my intention was for them to conduct an investigative report on some of the problems mentioned therein. Instead, the Times journalist decided--which is her prerogative--to write an article about my speaking out, more than about the contents of my message. As such, the Times article raised a question that needed to be asked and answered before one could discuss the real issues documented in the essay. That question regarded the propriety of my decision to speak out despite the confidentiality clause in the interpreters' code of ethics.
By so doing, the Times article adopted a polemical strategy designed to spark a general readership's interest, but not specifically addressed to the professional. As a result, it answered only partially the question it raised, and lacked the rigor that an interpreter readership would require.
No article, in any case, can release me from owing a direct explanation to my colleagues and students, about a decision which reflects on the entire profession and its public image. Therefore, once the Times of July 11 elevated the matter from private e-mails to a very public focus on the interpreter's role in the judiciary, I did not want to delay this explanation. My intention now, in writing this ethical analysis of my decision, is to call on NAJIT to review the case. My justifications follow.
I have been a court interpreter since 1981, was federally certified in 1985, and have practiced in eight states and hundreds of cases. Never before have I made any public comment about a case. The Postville case was an extreme situation, with exceptional attendant circumstances of force majeure.
I do not advocate any intervention by other interpreters in a case, except as a last resort in extremely extenuating circumstances--and then, only if no one else can assume that burden. Moreover, before intervening, the interpreter must know exactly in what manner and how far to intervene, and must previously discharge the obligation of consulting with colleagues.
My decision met all of these requirements and more.
In this case, as I explain in my essay, only an interpreter was in the unique position both to be impartial and to participate in all aspects of the proceedings. There was no one else. I could not look for any of the other interpreters to assume this burden, which evidently entails a significant professional risk. I, on the other hand, was in a better position than most to do so.
Being a professor of interpreter ethics, director of a major T&I university program, and an internationally recognized authority in the field, I knew exactly what I was doing, as well as how and why. I could not expect others to take the lead, nor was I about to let diffusion of responsibility result in no action being taken where action was due. It was clear to me that this was my unavoidable responsibility, and that my colleagues would unequivocally support me.
Still, the first thing I did was extensive research on the legal issues and problems at the core of what appeared to be an inescapable ethical conflict. The second thing I did after writing the essay was to share it privately with a U.S. District Court judge and with my Waterloo interpreter colleagues before releasing it to any non-court personnel.
Only when I saw that the judge did not admonish me, and that I had strong consensus and support from my colleagues, did I approve distribution and eventual publication of my personal account to the general public.
However, the Times article's suggestion that I "broke" the confidentiality code in order to speak up for migrants is both technically and factually inaccurate. First, I did not speak for the migrants. I spoke for democracy, due process, constitutional rights, and the dignity of the federal court, as is my obligation to do. Everything else in my essay is qualitative and quantitative documentation, description, and analysis in support of my expert testimony.
The interpreter code of ethics, in particular the clause of confidentiality, has as its meaning and rationale that the interpreter must not influence the outcome of the case. The Postville case had been closed, and its 10-day deadline for appeal had expired before I even began the essay. I do not mention any names and aside from anecdotal information of a general nature, all the facts mentioned are either in the public record or freely available on the internet. So I was careful not to break the code of confidentiality.
Moreover, confidentiality is not absolute. There are other ethical requirements which override confidentiality. For example, a medical interpreter, in whom a patient confides that he has an epidemic disease, has the obligation to report it because it is in the public interest to do so. Similarly, in the Postville case, there were higher imperatives arising not only out of public interest but also out of the legal role of the court interpreter.
The court interpreter is defined in the federal rules of procedure as both the court's expert witness as well as an officer of the court. Rule 604 of the Federal Criminal Code and Rules (1989) states: "An interpreter is subject to the provisions of these rules relating to qualifications as an expert." Rule 702 states that an expert witness "may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." In regard to the role of officer of the court, the interpreter is bound by the same duties as other such officers: "One responsibility officers have is that they must reveal anything that could affect their fairness and impartiality. Above all, the court officer is sworn to uphold the truth and never to perpetrate a fraud upon the court. Officers must also be candid with the court at all times" (Dueñas, Vásquez, and Mikkelson, 1991, p. 160).
Dueñas et al. (1991) state that "Rule 604 is not clear as to whether the interpreter is an expert witness at the start of proceedings, or only if there is a challenge to an interpretation." However, this is not actually the case. In the absence of specifically limiting language, the interpreter is always both an officer of the court and an expert witness (e.g., the interpretation can be impeached at any time). I believe the Postville case sheds clear light on this issue. As an expert officer of the court, the interpreter has a constant obligation to bring to the attention of the court any source of miscommunication, error, or misunderstanding, which may compromise the integrity of the record or the administration of justice, regardless of whether an interpretation is challenged. That is, the interpreter never ceases to be the court's expert witness, and never ceases to be an officer of the court.
Further, the rule of impartiality dictates that the interpreter may never be an expert witness for either the defense or the prosecution, but only for the judge.
In the case at hand, magistrates, judges, and other officers of the court participated in only one aspect of the judicial process and were unaware of the unfolding consequences. For instance, the magistrates never knew that the denial of bail would contribute down the line to a coerced guilty plea. Only the interpreter was present throughout the entire process, from beginning to end, to be able to follow the chain of cause and effect.
Both as an officer of the court and as the court's expert, I had the obligation to be candid with and inform the court of my expert observations and opinions. That is exactly what I did, acting in the best interest of the court. I talked to a judge then and there, but at that point I was only able to give sketchy information, and I understood that the judge had no discretion to stop the judicial freight train that had been set in motion. There were many complicated issues. So I had to wait until the case was closed, conduct extensive research, and finally write a fuller account of my expert observations and opinions. Then I sent it to the judge and to the other interpreters who could corroborate the different aspects of my observations and personal account. At that point the case was closed and there was nothing that the court could do, so my account became a matter for public and, ultimately, congressional inquiry.
As the Clerk of Court would often say, "This is a learning experience for all of us." For ICE and the DOJ, of course, it was a resounding success. But this was not the court's crusade. For the court, all that mattered is that we get the job done in a fair manner and with due process of law. It was indeed a learning experience for all of us, but the judges were unable to judge the results of that experience, because they were not there at every step of the way. That is why, as a court expert with specific relevant knowledge of the case, I had an obligation to inform the court so that it could evaluate the outcome of this new and ambitious "fast-tracking" enterprise.
My expert opinion, however, was that, as it turned out, this was an experiment gone awry. What was most peculiar about the Postville case is that, on paper, everything seemed to be following the law, but in actual practice there were shortcomings in due process at every step of the way (see my Statement to Congress of July 24, 2008). Each shortcoming, taken by itself (which was how other officers of the court would see it) did not appear so monumental, but put together (as the interpreters saw it), led to the most unjust results. If following the law step by step leads to such absurd consequences, then the scope of the law needs to be changed, making this a matter for Congress.
But whatever my duties as an interpreter, I had an overriding responsibility as a citizen. Having served in federal and state courts as an expert witness in forensic linguistics, my essay presents authoritative evidence regarding grave matters of public policy in areas that are currently of vital national interest; namely, immigration enforcement and immigration reform. The public good outweighed any personal or professional consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Erik Camayd-FreixasJuly 16, 2008
Appendix: Some Questions and Answers
Q: Will this lead to interpreters telling on attorneys if they believe that attorneys are not doing their job?
A: I never spoke against any individual or group, only against a broken system and lack of due process. On the contrary, I have publicly defended attorneys, judges, ICE agents, and prosecutors, stating that all were doing their duty, in the absence of immigration reform.
Q: Why did you not withdraw, but rather continued on the case, when you realized that you might have a possible conflict?
A: As I explain in the essay, I did not have enough evidence to determine if a conflict of interest existed. I did, however, determine that my impartiality would not be affected, and it was not affected. All my determinations and findings were arrived at from an impartial perspective (judges and juries do not cease to be impartial once they make their findings and judgments). Finally, I expected that the entire systemic problem with fast-tracking could be corrected at sentencing. So it was not until I saw that judges had no sentencing discretion that the conflict situation appeared in full view. By then I was only a day or two from finishing the two-week assignment.
Furthermore, it was the court's conflict, not my own. In accepting to conduct its continuity of operations exercise at ICE's expense, the court unwittingly acquired a conflict of interest. The overt manifestation of this conflict came when the court worked double shift to meet habeas corpus and accommodate ICE prosecution, raising the question of whether it was quid pro quo and a patron-client relationship had been established. Also, the court was co-opted into an ICE-led operation, failing to maintain physical and operational independence from ICE prosecution. This resulted in a failure to maintain the appearance of impartiality. This created instead the appearance that the court was an extension of ICE, which led some clients to distrust even their own defense attorneys, thinking that they were part of the same system.
Q: Did I break attorney/client privilege in discussing individual cases or even by speaking of the case in general, since people might be able to identify who the judge and defendant were?
A: There were 306 defendants in this case. I mentioned no names. The cases were already closed and the appeal period expired. I did not compromise the defense's case in any way; quite the contrary. And I knew from the outset that my actions were not detrimental to any individual on either side. Whether people can identify the judge is immaterial: the judge's previous rulings referenced in the essay are a matter of public record.
Q: Why did I not report to the judicial council?
A: I reported to the presiding judicial officer. In so doing, I fully discharged my obligation. Reporting to the judicial council is the prerogative of judges and attorneys, not of the interpreter. The interpreter only reports to the judge. In this case, the judge had no discretion to amend the proceedings, much less after the cases were closed. This made it all the more evident that the criminalization of migrants was not a legal decision, but rather a public policy decision made without congressional approval, which lay outside the purview of the judicial branch and within that of the legislature. The public interest aspect of the Postville case was reinforced by the fact that it had clear, direct, and serious implications for immigration reform, which is urgently in the national interest. In short, public interest in this case far outweighed individual and professional considerations, and this interest extended well beyond the judiciary.
Q: The essay indicated that individuals were not guilty, which is an opinion that an interpreter cannot give.
A: It is not an opinion; it is a conclusion of fact. The interpreter is the court's expert witness, and Rule 702 states that an expert witness "may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." The elements of the crime described in the plea agreement included the elements of "knowingly" and "with intent to deceive." In my expert opinion, five out of nine defendants we interviewed in depth did not know the meaning of a Social Security number. This finding rendered their guilt a logical impossibility. Given that this result was obtained from a random sampling of defendants, it can be stated with a high degree of statistical confidence that some of the 300 defendants were not guilty. How many, we will never know, because they were forced to plead guilty anyway, without describing the individual circumstances of each case. Finally, my opinion is legally irrelevant because their innocence need not be proven: the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
Q: Prosecutors always overcharge to obtain a plea. What was different about this case?
A: Any criminal defendant has a 6th Amendment right to reasonable bail. These common workers were denied bail hearings because of their underlying immigration detainer. The combination of no bail, no speedy trial, overcharging, and holding their children's survival ransom equals coercion and subornation of plea.
Q: Defendants are frequently shackled. What made this worthy of special attention?
A: Defendants are shackled in court only when they pose a danger, either because they are presumed to be violent criminals, or because they are brought to court in groups. In this case, they were brought to court in groups, but they were individual cases. Their right of severance was violated. Single, non-violent defendants are also allowed to come to court in business suits, even if they are in detention. In this case, the shackles were unwarranted for safety, and only served to label the defendants as criminal aliens. The words "presumption of innocence" were utterly meaningless when spoken to defendants in shackles, without bail, and fast-tracked without consideration of individual circumstances. They understood correctly that they were presumed guilty because of the fact that they were illegal workers. One of the prisoners interviewed was working with a consular ID from the Guatemalan consulate, not with false US resident papers. As the men were charged, they were bused to different county jails. The last three groups they brought in were females. By then, all or most of the men had already left the compound. These women posed no threat, but they were shackled just the same, even though some of them were under severe emotional distress.
Q: LEP individuals and/or non-LEP do not always understand what is going on in our judicial system. Interpreters encounter these issues all the time. Attorneys also encounter similar problems with their English-speaking clients. What was different about this case?
A: There were 306 defendants, 17 cases per attorney, being fast-tracked from arrest to sentencing in 4 to 10 days. There was little time or privacy for attorneys to meet with clients individually. Normally, defendants are few, they have an opportunity to present their circumstances at least via the probation report or presentence investigation, and they have plenty of time to consult with their attorneys about anything they do not understand. That was far from the case here. Many of these people were illiterate newcomers, who needed much more time and individualized legal counsel than was provided.
Q: What about Canon 6: Restriction of Public Comment - "Interpreters shall not publicly discuss, report, or offer an opinion concerning a matter in which they are or have been engaged, even when that information is not privileged or required by law to be confidential"?
A: Again, canon 6 refers to public comment that may conceivably affect the outcome of an ongoing case. For example, the interpreter has participated in a previous, related case and gives statements to the press, which may find their way back into court and affect the outcome of the ongoing case. That was not the case here: the cases were closed, and I was not involved in any new, related case. Furthermore, canon 6 conflicts with other responsibilities of the interpreter as expert officer of the court, as outlined above, and also conflicts with canon 9: Duty to Report Ethical Violations. Finally, canon 6 does not survive the final disposition of a case. It is a limited restriction, not an absolute prohibition, and therefore cannot be construed as requiring perpetual or indefinite secrecy on the part of the interpreter about every case in which she or he has been engaged. After the case is closed and the interpreter contract ends, canon 6 becomes subordinate to every citizen's first amendment right to free speech.
[See Standards for Performance and Professional Responsibility for Contract Court Interpreters in the Federal Court (http://www.uscourts.gov/interpretprog/interp_prog.html).]
I would of course be happy to answer any other questions from translation or interpreting professionals in writing.
In closing, I want to emphasize that my report offers strictly impartial expert and eye witness evidence of violations of due process, constitutional rights, democratic principles, and human rights, without espousing any social or political agenda, and regardless of the nature or status of the parties involved.
Editor's P.S.: At the 49th Conference of the American Translators Association, held in Orlando, FL November 5-8, Dr. Camayd-Freixas held a session dedicated to the controversy surrounding his report on the Postville raid. Dr. Camayd-Freixas's presentation was followed by a questions-and-answers session and a lively discussion.
P.P.S.: The members of the Inttranet™ (http://www.inttra.net/linguists_of_the_year/, the global network of professional interpreters and translators, have nominated Dr. Erik Camayd-Freixas as their "Linguist of the Year" for 2008. The honorary Inttranet Linguists of the Year Awards recognize the struggle—and sometimes the personal sacrifice—of linguists both alive and dead who have been the focus for media attention during the past year, and have increased public awareness of the importance of linguists and languages as a result.
Corporate Blog of Elite - Professional Translation Services serving ASEAN & East Asia
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The Benefits of Using a Language Interpreter
English has rapidly become the major language of international politics, trade and commerce. However, this does not mean it is the world language. It still competes with other major languages such as Spanish, French and Arabic.
In the business world, using interpreters to overcome the language barrier is a necessity. Even if there are common languages between business people, interpreters are still preferred for a number of reasons.
Interpreters offer the following advantages:
- .Interpreters are trained professionals in specific languages, meaning they can ensure communication between sides is as clear as possible.
- Having an interpreter allows you to speak in your native language, ensuring you express yourself succinctly.
- Using an interpreter helps minimise possible costly misunderstandings.
- For tactical reasons in negotiations an interpreter can help you bide time to formulate responses.
- If properly briefed, an astute interpreter can help you with presentations and negotiations by working with you to achieve goals.
- Interpreters assist in overcoming cross cultural differences and can act as guides in cross cultural matters.
If you are planning to use an interpreter, the following guidelines should be considered prior to any business taking place:
- .Fully brief your interpreter - inform them of who you will be meeting, the issues that will be discussed, any technical language that will be used and any potential uncomfortable situations that may arise.
- Discuss your aims and objectives for any meeting or negotiations with the interpreter and your strategy.
- If you are using an interpreter for a meeting then provide them with an agenda and talk them through it.
- If you are giving a speech, provide a copy of the speech and ensure they understand any complicated language.
- Speak slowly and clearly as this gives the interpreter time to digest your words.
- Take breaks in your speech regularly, for example at the end of each sentence or statement.
- Avoid long and complex sentences.
- If you plan on making a joke, check it is culturally transferable with the interpreter.
- Avoid slang, metaphors and colloquial expressions.
- Try to let the interpreter finish before commencing the next point.
- Maintain eye contact with the audience or group and not the interpreter. However, periodically check your interpreter is keeping up and is comfortable.
Interpreters should not be viewed solely as language assistants. In addition to helping you overcome the language barrier they can also assist in many other areas such as organisation, formulating strategies and advising on cross cultural differences. It is critical to see interpreters as not working for you but with you.
Friday, October 17, 2008
How To Become An Interpreter
Develop a magpie instinct, picking up pieces of knowledge no matter how obscure, from Middle High German proverbs to solar panel technology, from condom thicknesses to mother boards.
Have a few stock quotes from the Bible and Shakespeare at your fingertips, as clients are fond of displaying their erudition (King Lear, Act One, Scene Four’s “Striving to better, oft we mar what’s well” an excellent solution for the perennial brain bender “the good is the enemy of the best”) and a few innocuous “filler” phrases when you need to play for time, taking that split second to dredge up the choice piece of vocabulary from the depths of your memory (a favourite of some being “We ignore this at our peril”). Avoid Spoonerism-prone expressions, such as “shed light on”. Once the penny has dropped, you will experience a pre-emptive shudder of mental mortification every time you contemplate using it.
Be prepared for the frustration of outsiders (especially those who should know better as they depend on your services on a daily basis) assuming that anyone with the most superficial of nodding acquaintances with languages being capable of doing your job. You may have a doctorate in nuclear physics (one of my colleagues does), but you are still pigeonholed as a linguist and looked down on accordingly. Of course, they are secretly jealous that they have been excluded from such a “cushy number”. “I could do that,” the glittering Eurojugend clones with their instilled sense of entitlement and superiority secretly believe behind their strained smile of absolutely insincere politeness. Whereas in truth even the perfectly bilingual are less likely to possess the rarefied aptitude than those brought up without such an advantage. This attitude is exacerbated by the fatuous claims printed as a marketing ploy on learning discs (“Learn Hausa in a week!”) so popular at the moment as holidaymakers contemplate alternative sunny climes. Worse, you are a parasite, an expensive frippery, a drain on taxpayers’ money, a glorified secretary, a menial to be shunted off to a cheap hotel miles away from the venue whilst those on an equal (or greatly inferior) footing in the official hierarchy are allocated doubles in situ (the cost of hiring fleets of coaches to ferry you back and forth is somehow mysteriously omitted from the calculation, what counts is the genuflection towards economising).
Acquire a taste for gin and tonic and always make sure you order doubles when it is your round. Insist on more than one slice of fresh lemon being slipped into the glass, even if the barmaid has to go to the fridge and retrieve the dimpled citrus.
Always respect the Magnus Magnusson principle (“I’ve started so I’ll finish”). If you embark on a sentence you are committed to finishing it or else you will undermine the confidence of your listeners. This is why it is never a good idea to echo the speaker when she or he says “We have a saying in Estonian that goes something like this and I’m not sure about the English equivalent…” (the advice in paragraph one notwithstanding). Waiting for a few seconds will allow you to determine whether a similar phrase does indeed exist in the target language and save you much grief. However, your voice must not waver in the meantime. Waiting just long enough without creating the impression you have lost the plot is a skill that can only be acquired with practice. Hesitation is not automatically equated with incompetence, but the line between keeping and losing your audience’s faith is fine indeed. If the chairperson is champing at the bit to grab the mike you can omit the last sentence or two provided they are merely closing platitudes and do not contain any information of substance. Alternatively, if you know the chairperson is listening to you direct you can pointedly carry on to the bitter end. Discretion is called for and familiarity with the chairperson’s personality does not do any harm.
Judicious editing is one of the most important aptitudes at your disposal and should be nurtured accordingly. Interpretation is not a mere slavish rendition of every word, but a distillation of the message, a processed essence purified of all extraneous verbiage, a concentrate of the speaker’s intentions. Ideally every utterance should be faithfully rendered (and the true interpreter will capture the speaker’s style and delivery as well as content), but this is not always possible. In that sense, interpretation is a highly pragmatic art. No matter how repugnant the views articulated might be to you personally, your presence is required as a conduit, a filter of concepts, a role, which does not entitle you to distort or maliciously interfere with the original message. The phrase “says the speaker” is handy in two instances: firstly as an exclamation mark to dissociate yourself with the content when the speaker has made a glaring error of substance (so that listeners are alerted to the fact that a lack of comprehension on your part is not to blame) and secondly to distance yourself from the most repellent of statements (although the latter should be used sparingly and many would argue that it is never acceptable to deploy it to voice a distaste, which is incompatible with our professional ethos). You communicate the thoughts and thought processes of others: you are only a participant in proceedings by default or proxy, an impartial witness, an arbiter of content at a linguistic level, but not a judge. If all else fails and you really have not understood either because the acoustics were poor (the sound cuts out with monotonous regularity or the expatiating customer has an irritating habit of turning round to joke with his friend in the row behind and the mike does not pick up the words clearly) or the point genuinely went over your head, there are two fallback tactics, leaving the offending word or phrase out altogether (which can prove fatal or impossible if everything hinged on that one component – all too often the case) or bluffing with a meaningless substitute (the indispensable padding phrase again). Clarification can always be requested by the delegates themselves. They have the advantage of being in a position to ask. You don’t. The true last resort is tactical mumbling. Speaking indistinctly won’t endear you to colleagues depending on your for relay, but mumbling the names (the problem usually arises because the individual giving the floor mangles the pronunciation so badly that only the most mentally agile, seasoned interpreter who can reel off the list of members of the body in question has a remote hope of deciphering them) or making a valiant attempt to mimic accurately the sound emanating from the chairperson’s lips at least opens the possibility that someone out there might be able to put two and two together.
In a spirit of collegial solidarity when (as will inevitably occur, and in the overwhelming majority of occasions unfairly) accusing eyes peer in the direction of the booth because a delegate regrets a slip of the tongue or unguarded remark and prefers to deflect attention onto the interpreters (in the knowledge that we are not allowed to answer back or rebut the charge), replace the “I heard over my headphones” or the “The interpreter fucked up” with “I’m sorry, but I must have misheard you” or “A wire got crossed somewhere” or “I don’t think I understood you correctly”. Never give them ammunition.
Always modulate. There is nothing more dreary than hearing a bored voice drone on through the headphones. Even if the topic is accrual-based accounting systems remember it is your duty to make it sound interesting. It will warm the cockles of some little stuffed shirt’s heart. You are the speaker for the duration. If she is angry, you must convey that rage. If she speaks with passion, you must reflect that enthusiasm. Your voice is your precious instrument, your greatest asset. Flaunt it.
Resign yourself to never being able to read a newspaper again (not even in your mother tongue) without underlining interesting or unfamiliar words. Tabloids are every bit as useful as broadsheets in this respect, as you can stripmine them of vocabulary items in a different register. The printed columns are a tool, not only in terms of gathering information, but also in terms of providing you with the basic raw materials of your craft.
If you are young, female and straight either resign yourself to permanent celibacy, serial affairs conducted on mission with married colleagues or import a partner or lover to Waffle Central with you. Love seldom blossoms at work. The hours are too irregular for a social life or any kind of fixed routine. Our profession, reputed to be the second oldest, is too often confused with the oldest. You will be deluged with unwanted and unsolicited propositions from all and sundry until you hit forty as of when you will no longer be noticed, considered out of the running (which may be a source of blessed relief or resentment, depending).
Cultivate a neurosis, such as fiddling with the light bulbs or haranguing the maintenance men about the inadequacies of the air conditioning. It will help you to fit in and give boothmates something to bitch about other than your imperfect grasp of the past historic whilst you fetch them a lait russe as a bribe to look upon your shortcomings with less acerbity.
Pursue an outside interest, preferably one that can shield you from the burden of unwanted conversation with colleagues you despise. Being cooped up in a confined space day after day takes its toll and the chemistry just isn’t there with everyone. Aversions can be so strongly felt that the interpreter sitting next to you might disinfect the headphones with alcohol and a paper handkerchief rather than don headphones that could have been polluted through contact with your auditory organs – nothing elicits disgust liked caked-on earwax. Especially if it originated from your sworn enemy.
Learn to ignore the implied insult of clients adjusting their toupees in the pane of glass separating you from them as if you were not there. Like it or not you are part of the furniture, part of the technical equipment and what you do is as enigmatic to them as how a mobile phone functions or how a Jumbo jet manages to haul its astounding bulk into the air.
Do not be alarmed at the shift in perceptions that comes from being exposed to an uninterrupted stream of sound day in day out. A person’s attractiveness will be conditional on the quality of their voice. Nothing will put you off a person more than a shrill, hash or in any way grating vocalisation. Your tolerance for extraneous noise will gradually diminish the longer you are bombarded with other people’s utterances. This is an occupational disease and will sneak up on you unnoticed. It may even extend to music.
Finally, one ineluctable paradox is built into the very nature of our art. We have to process complex information instantaneously. We must have honed analytical skills. We must have a flair for communicating across cultural barriers. In order to perform our job well we must possess an innate creativity that must always be harnessed in the service of those who by definition cannot appreciate our flashes of brilliance. We might pull off a linguistic salto mortale every second sentence without the reward of applause. We might unravel the most tortuous logic with perfect clarity yet our efforts go unnoticed. The brutal truth is that if they could appreciate us they wouldn’t need us. We only ever impinge on their consciousness if something goes wrong. If you are expecting gratitude or admiration in exchange for your intellectual fireworks, for the sheer amount of mental and emotional energy expended you will be sorely disappointed. The primary compensations are to be found in being present whilst history is made (or at least having a ringside seat whilst the swarms of journalists hang around the bar for the merest scrap of what you have heard in detail, although our “superiors” are currently plotting to deprive us even of that minor satisfaction) and the more modest consolation of being able to walk away at the end of the session and leave the day’s work behind you.
by Chameleon Lite
Have a few stock quotes from the Bible and Shakespeare at your fingertips, as clients are fond of displaying their erudition (King Lear, Act One, Scene Four’s “Striving to better, oft we mar what’s well” an excellent solution for the perennial brain bender “the good is the enemy of the best”) and a few innocuous “filler” phrases when you need to play for time, taking that split second to dredge up the choice piece of vocabulary from the depths of your memory (a favourite of some being “We ignore this at our peril”). Avoid Spoonerism-prone expressions, such as “shed light on”. Once the penny has dropped, you will experience a pre-emptive shudder of mental mortification every time you contemplate using it.
Be prepared for the frustration of outsiders (especially those who should know better as they depend on your services on a daily basis) assuming that anyone with the most superficial of nodding acquaintances with languages being capable of doing your job. You may have a doctorate in nuclear physics (one of my colleagues does), but you are still pigeonholed as a linguist and looked down on accordingly. Of course, they are secretly jealous that they have been excluded from such a “cushy number”. “I could do that,” the glittering Eurojugend clones with their instilled sense of entitlement and superiority secretly believe behind their strained smile of absolutely insincere politeness. Whereas in truth even the perfectly bilingual are less likely to possess the rarefied aptitude than those brought up without such an advantage. This attitude is exacerbated by the fatuous claims printed as a marketing ploy on learning discs (“Learn Hausa in a week!”) so popular at the moment as holidaymakers contemplate alternative sunny climes. Worse, you are a parasite, an expensive frippery, a drain on taxpayers’ money, a glorified secretary, a menial to be shunted off to a cheap hotel miles away from the venue whilst those on an equal (or greatly inferior) footing in the official hierarchy are allocated doubles in situ (the cost of hiring fleets of coaches to ferry you back and forth is somehow mysteriously omitted from the calculation, what counts is the genuflection towards economising).
Acquire a taste for gin and tonic and always make sure you order doubles when it is your round. Insist on more than one slice of fresh lemon being slipped into the glass, even if the barmaid has to go to the fridge and retrieve the dimpled citrus.
Always respect the Magnus Magnusson principle (“I’ve started so I’ll finish”). If you embark on a sentence you are committed to finishing it or else you will undermine the confidence of your listeners. This is why it is never a good idea to echo the speaker when she or he says “We have a saying in Estonian that goes something like this and I’m not sure about the English equivalent…” (the advice in paragraph one notwithstanding). Waiting for a few seconds will allow you to determine whether a similar phrase does indeed exist in the target language and save you much grief. However, your voice must not waver in the meantime. Waiting just long enough without creating the impression you have lost the plot is a skill that can only be acquired with practice. Hesitation is not automatically equated with incompetence, but the line between keeping and losing your audience’s faith is fine indeed. If the chairperson is champing at the bit to grab the mike you can omit the last sentence or two provided they are merely closing platitudes and do not contain any information of substance. Alternatively, if you know the chairperson is listening to you direct you can pointedly carry on to the bitter end. Discretion is called for and familiarity with the chairperson’s personality does not do any harm.
Judicious editing is one of the most important aptitudes at your disposal and should be nurtured accordingly. Interpretation is not a mere slavish rendition of every word, but a distillation of the message, a processed essence purified of all extraneous verbiage, a concentrate of the speaker’s intentions. Ideally every utterance should be faithfully rendered (and the true interpreter will capture the speaker’s style and delivery as well as content), but this is not always possible. In that sense, interpretation is a highly pragmatic art. No matter how repugnant the views articulated might be to you personally, your presence is required as a conduit, a filter of concepts, a role, which does not entitle you to distort or maliciously interfere with the original message. The phrase “says the speaker” is handy in two instances: firstly as an exclamation mark to dissociate yourself with the content when the speaker has made a glaring error of substance (so that listeners are alerted to the fact that a lack of comprehension on your part is not to blame) and secondly to distance yourself from the most repellent of statements (although the latter should be used sparingly and many would argue that it is never acceptable to deploy it to voice a distaste, which is incompatible with our professional ethos). You communicate the thoughts and thought processes of others: you are only a participant in proceedings by default or proxy, an impartial witness, an arbiter of content at a linguistic level, but not a judge. If all else fails and you really have not understood either because the acoustics were poor (the sound cuts out with monotonous regularity or the expatiating customer has an irritating habit of turning round to joke with his friend in the row behind and the mike does not pick up the words clearly) or the point genuinely went over your head, there are two fallback tactics, leaving the offending word or phrase out altogether (which can prove fatal or impossible if everything hinged on that one component – all too often the case) or bluffing with a meaningless substitute (the indispensable padding phrase again). Clarification can always be requested by the delegates themselves. They have the advantage of being in a position to ask. You don’t. The true last resort is tactical mumbling. Speaking indistinctly won’t endear you to colleagues depending on your for relay, but mumbling the names (the problem usually arises because the individual giving the floor mangles the pronunciation so badly that only the most mentally agile, seasoned interpreter who can reel off the list of members of the body in question has a remote hope of deciphering them) or making a valiant attempt to mimic accurately the sound emanating from the chairperson’s lips at least opens the possibility that someone out there might be able to put two and two together.
In a spirit of collegial solidarity when (as will inevitably occur, and in the overwhelming majority of occasions unfairly) accusing eyes peer in the direction of the booth because a delegate regrets a slip of the tongue or unguarded remark and prefers to deflect attention onto the interpreters (in the knowledge that we are not allowed to answer back or rebut the charge), replace the “I heard over my headphones” or the “The interpreter fucked up” with “I’m sorry, but I must have misheard you” or “A wire got crossed somewhere” or “I don’t think I understood you correctly”. Never give them ammunition.
Always modulate. There is nothing more dreary than hearing a bored voice drone on through the headphones. Even if the topic is accrual-based accounting systems remember it is your duty to make it sound interesting. It will warm the cockles of some little stuffed shirt’s heart. You are the speaker for the duration. If she is angry, you must convey that rage. If she speaks with passion, you must reflect that enthusiasm. Your voice is your precious instrument, your greatest asset. Flaunt it.
Resign yourself to never being able to read a newspaper again (not even in your mother tongue) without underlining interesting or unfamiliar words. Tabloids are every bit as useful as broadsheets in this respect, as you can stripmine them of vocabulary items in a different register. The printed columns are a tool, not only in terms of gathering information, but also in terms of providing you with the basic raw materials of your craft.
If you are young, female and straight either resign yourself to permanent celibacy, serial affairs conducted on mission with married colleagues or import a partner or lover to Waffle Central with you. Love seldom blossoms at work. The hours are too irregular for a social life or any kind of fixed routine. Our profession, reputed to be the second oldest, is too often confused with the oldest. You will be deluged with unwanted and unsolicited propositions from all and sundry until you hit forty as of when you will no longer be noticed, considered out of the running (which may be a source of blessed relief or resentment, depending).
Cultivate a neurosis, such as fiddling with the light bulbs or haranguing the maintenance men about the inadequacies of the air conditioning. It will help you to fit in and give boothmates something to bitch about other than your imperfect grasp of the past historic whilst you fetch them a lait russe as a bribe to look upon your shortcomings with less acerbity.
Pursue an outside interest, preferably one that can shield you from the burden of unwanted conversation with colleagues you despise. Being cooped up in a confined space day after day takes its toll and the chemistry just isn’t there with everyone. Aversions can be so strongly felt that the interpreter sitting next to you might disinfect the headphones with alcohol and a paper handkerchief rather than don headphones that could have been polluted through contact with your auditory organs – nothing elicits disgust liked caked-on earwax. Especially if it originated from your sworn enemy.
Learn to ignore the implied insult of clients adjusting their toupees in the pane of glass separating you from them as if you were not there. Like it or not you are part of the furniture, part of the technical equipment and what you do is as enigmatic to them as how a mobile phone functions or how a Jumbo jet manages to haul its astounding bulk into the air.
Do not be alarmed at the shift in perceptions that comes from being exposed to an uninterrupted stream of sound day in day out. A person’s attractiveness will be conditional on the quality of their voice. Nothing will put you off a person more than a shrill, hash or in any way grating vocalisation. Your tolerance for extraneous noise will gradually diminish the longer you are bombarded with other people’s utterances. This is an occupational disease and will sneak up on you unnoticed. It may even extend to music.
Finally, one ineluctable paradox is built into the very nature of our art. We have to process complex information instantaneously. We must have honed analytical skills. We must have a flair for communicating across cultural barriers. In order to perform our job well we must possess an innate creativity that must always be harnessed in the service of those who by definition cannot appreciate our flashes of brilliance. We might pull off a linguistic salto mortale every second sentence without the reward of applause. We might unravel the most tortuous logic with perfect clarity yet our efforts go unnoticed. The brutal truth is that if they could appreciate us they wouldn’t need us. We only ever impinge on their consciousness if something goes wrong. If you are expecting gratitude or admiration in exchange for your intellectual fireworks, for the sheer amount of mental and emotional energy expended you will be sorely disappointed. The primary compensations are to be found in being present whilst history is made (or at least having a ringside seat whilst the swarms of journalists hang around the bar for the merest scrap of what you have heard in detail, although our “superiors” are currently plotting to deprive us even of that minor satisfaction) and the more modest consolation of being able to walk away at the end of the session and leave the day’s work behind you.
by Chameleon Lite
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
