Anyone bilingual can interpret – right?  
 

Migrants form a large proportion of New Zealand’s population, and many are competent bilingual speakers.  So when you need an interpreter, why not just grab anyone you can find with the language you need?  Just what is the fuss about using people who are trained?


In a previous newsletter (#2) we advised against using family members or friends, and some of those reasons also apply to using any other untrained person.  But we’re not just talking about remaining impartial or keeping things confidential (although they are still vital) – there are other skills that trained interpreters need and which aren’t usually found in the general population.
 
Let’s assume for a moment that a bilingual speaker is fully proficient in both their own language and English, and that they have a broad general knowledge.  Exactly what other skills are needed?  Remember:  the task of the interpreter is to find an equivalent in the target language that matches the original message both in content and intention.    So, for every utterance, the interpreter needs to:
 

1. Have a precise understanding of the message.  This includes understanding the context in which the message is given, the linguistic structure, and any cultural aspects behind it.  Then there are paralinguistic signals such as tone, inflection and emphasis, all of which can alter the intent of the message.  

2. Retain every detail of that message, including the way it was delivered (e.g. hesitantly, angrily).  This requires great sensitivity, as well as an excellent memory and effective note-taking skills.

3. Find exact equivalents in the other language.  To do this well, the interpreter needs to have an excellent general vocabulary and good research skills – preparation for any job is an important part of it.  The ability to paraphrase is also essential since at times it may not be possible to find an equivalent word or a ready-made phrase to convey the message exactly.

4. Structure the message in an idiomatic way so that when his/her reformulation of the message in the target language is delivered, it is done in a smooth, natural flow.

 
All of the above has to be done in a matter of seconds, so that neither of the other parties feels that their conversation is being hindered by the interpreter’s intervention.
 
Interpreting New Zealand has been training interpreters for 21 years.  We have found that even though we test language proficiency before accepting people on our course, there are those who don’t or can’t manage to put into practice the interpreting skills needed to do this job effectively.  Over the last 6 years, we have averaged a pass rate of 70% - meaning that 30% of those we train cannot demonstrate sufficient ability in interpreting to be safe enough for us to employ them. 
 
Not every bilingual speaker can interpret:  make sure you use people who have been both trained and assessed as fully competent.  If you’re not sure, ask for evidence.

Interpreting word for word
 

The view that word for word interpreting is possible is not uncommon. This is probably because people think that translation (interpreting is oral translation) is the process of changing the sound of one word for the sound of that word in another language.  Pretty much like speaking pig Latin. Just move the first consonant of a word to the end and add the suffix –ay. So “pig Latin” translated becomes “igpay atinlay”.
  

However, interpreting from one language into another is a much more complex thing. As one example, a word for word attempt to translate a text could make English speakers sound completely trigger happy, and not just when translating a press release from the American National Rifle Association.  In English we are happy to shoot at everything.  In bars - tequila shots; in clinics - flu shots; on sports fields -penalty shots.  Fans go potty when they see celebrities shot on location. In broad daylight, tourists take shots of everything in sight with gusto. Even when we are not sure if it is the right thing to do, people encourage you to “just give it a shot, mate!”
However, this ballistic impression of the English language is only a problem if we believe that words by themselves carry meaning. Meaning has to be constructed by the people taking part in an exchange.  That’s why interpreters need knowledge of the real world to be able to create meaning out of the words a speaker says. A computer program cannot determine which of these two sentences is correct: “the pen is in the box” and “the box is in the pen”. Actually, neither could we if we didn’t know that the exchange is not about a writing device but about a place to keep livestock.
Moreover, words are not a direct representation of reality. Spanish speakers use the same word to refer to the traces of ink on a personal letter written in a nicely shaped round hand, a University degree in Gothic black lettering, or the chicken scratches of a doctor’s prescription. Despite the fact that from age five my parents made me skip many football matches to slave at my desk learning to write “proper”, up until university my teachers complained about my horrible “caligrafía”.  To an English speaker “horrible calligraphy” is an oxymoron. But to a Spanish speaker if it is written by hand it is “caligrafía”. Not that they cannot appreciate the different aesthetic effects in different writing styles. It is just that Spanish doesn’t have direct equivalents for the words “calligraphy”, “penmanship” or even “script”. If pushed to be specific, I could translate these terms as “caligrafía artística” (artistic calligraphy), “buena letra” (good lettering) and “sistema de escritura” (writing system).  And this specificity shatters the illusion of the viability of word for word translation.
Each culture views reality in a particular way. Consequently, the language a culture uses reflects this cultural view of the universe. As the Latin American poet Jose Antonio Ramos Sucre said “a language is the universe translated into that language”. Languages don’t translate the universe using the same words. Not only do they differ in the sounds they use to refer to the universe, but also in the concepts they use to express the universe. So a word for word match is serendipity.