| Well, now the police knows too | Dec 6, 2008 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
I was thinking of a hypothetical situation where, for example, the police ask the kid to describe what happened, you interpret for the kid, the kid says nothing, so the dad says "come on princess, tell the policeman what you saw" and the kid says "why don't you, you saw it too" and you think 'ah, the police don't know that'.
(My kid is at an age where he sees no point in me asking him to do stuff if he thinks I can do it for him, hence this example springing to mind!)
So, clearly you would stop and tell the officer.
Absolutely.
It is not a question of stopping, simply, the interpretation would include "come on princess, tell..." and the kid's reply, "why don't you, you saw it too".
Tough!
I have a feeling that perhaps this kind of interpreting work, apart from all the skills of interpreting, may also require a certain type of personality. The discipline to just be invisible unless it is absolutely essential you intervene. The ability to fight the urge to "help", because your "help" mght be misplaced and mess up an investigation. I'm not sure I could do that, and apart from simply admiring the skill of interpreters as interpreters (which I also can't do), I now have increased admiration for the work.
You are very perceptive.
The urge to intervene is great, but an inner alarm should ring: you would be interfering, don't you dare!
When combined with the feeling of being able and wanting to help, it makes it more difficult; after all, you mean well, and your help could be useful. However, because you are unlikely to know the whole picture, and your ideas of help are based on presumptions, it is better not to.
Strictly speaking no, you don't do it, especially not during a formal interview.
Even the slightest, well-meaning help can cause trouble.
Many years ago, I had to produce the transcript of a lengthy interview about a serious incident, and re-translate it. The quality of the interpreting was good, but in one answer the interpreter "helpfully" inserted the name of a location already mentioned in the interview. What he said was factually correct, but it was not in the actual answer, and the police officer's attention was diverted by it. He reacted, and the next question focused on that aspect of the answer. The interviewee was thrown and did not understand how and why the next question came about. In turn, the police officer did not understand his confusion. Disaster!
Sometimes they ask, or it may be possible to offer some help "off line", not during the interview, by highlighting cultural differences, by stating simple facts - but not opinion - to the police officers, when the other party is not present.
("In that country it is customary to use poppy-seeds for culinary purposes; they would buy a pound or two for the filling of a special Christmas roll every family bakes this time of the year.")
Then it is up to the police to take it on board if they wish.
When the discussion is not so formal, the interpreter can ask permission to highlight something (blatantly obvious to him or her, but not necessarily for those not understanding the other's language and culture).
Having said that, it is much better, when possible, to phrase or emphasize a translated question or answer - with a quizzical face, if you like - to make the other party aware of the differences, misunderstandings, and react to it on their own accord. Then they usually manage to sort out the problem by probing and explaining.
[Edited at 2008-12-06 20:46 GMT]
| | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
