Accurate Interpreting

        Suppose the local police are in pursuit of a red Ferrari suspected of illegal road racing.  "Suspect vehicle in sight and in pursuit.", reports one officer.  "Vehicle is heading south along Nathan Road, making a left turn towards Salisbury Road and appears to be approaching the Harbor tunnel heading towards Hong Kong island.".  "Entering tunnel and continuing pursuit.".  "Exiting tunnel and heading eastbound towards Aberdeen...".

        "Suspect vehicle did not enter the Harbor tunnel.", cuts in another officer.  "Vehicle is heading towards East Kowloon and is now at the Science Museum on Chatham Road.".  " Vehicle license number is ZZ 167.  Over.".  The first officer only managed to keep up with the Ferrari for a brief moment before losing sight of it.  Instead of reporting factually the officer made assumptions and provided misleading and useless information.  Luckily, the second officer was able to keep up with its quarry.

        Let's take another scenario where a local newsreader is providing live broadcast commentary for a chess game between a visiting and local grandmaster.  "Visiting grandmaster makes the first move.".  "He moves a piece in front of the piece that has a cross on the top.".  "Black blockades the challenge with his own man.".  "White then moves a piece that looks like a horse".  While it is obvious the commentator knows nothing about chess, his descriptions are accurate.  How is it that a person can convey accurate yet information of low value?  Does this sort of thing happen in conference interpreting? 

        I would suggest the above situations occur more frequently than most people think.  It happens when the audience has to rely on interpreters and there is nobody to monitor the quality of interpretation.  It seems that having a verbose interpreter speaking non-stop does not guarantee fidelity in interpretation.  In the first scenario, when the speaker is reading too quickly or just happens to speak at breakneck speed, some interpreters are unable to catch up and start making wild guesses about what is being said.

        The second scenario reflects the interpreter's lack of familiarity with the subject material.  They can barely make out what is being said, but can not make sense or reason of the material.  In the case of the  chess commentator, he should be able to call out the proper names of pieces, names of openings, names of variations, important similar games etc.  Likewise, the interpreter should be familiar with technical terms, abbreviations used in the industry (EBITDA, ARPU, CAGR), names of government and international agencies etc.

        In my teaching experience, students have focused solely on language skills.  While this is understandable, progression to a higher level of proficiency requires a totally different approach.  As in the car chase and broadcast commentary example, verbal skills are not enough.  One needs to have good shadowing skills and sufficient speed to keep up with quick speakers, and one should also possess relevant technical knowledge in order to interpret special material.

        This is why, in my view, practicing interpreters should teach practical courses.  Practicing interpreters have a wealth of experience in dealing with the circumstances I mentioned previously, and have devised methods to cope with them.  Theoretic, historic, pedantic material can be left for other courses.

First published 12 August 2007.  Copyright of Pierre Wong