… and other less busy ones in Scotland.
Author: Kuba Hiterski Photo: Jane McPhelim
Continued from part 3 (You can also find the whole article on our blog here.)
…
7) ‘Tell him that…’ OR we’re only here to help
Occasionally I am asked ‘to interpret every single word’ or worse still ‘tell him (the accused) that XYZ will happen if…’ In other words, court staff vary a great deal in their understanding of how interpreting works just as interpreters vary in their skills and experience (see point 3). This is very important because the expectation is there that we do our job properly but not necessarily with a true understanding of what properly delivered interpreting assignment means. Some court administration staff or indeed legal professionals, judges included, may not know or remember everything we interpreters do know about our job. Again, demonstrating pragmatism and maintaining trust is critical to a successfully completed assignment. To that end we have to ensure that we do indeed interpret everything that is said, ideally having explained to the parties that we may need to omit some words whilst doing so without any adverse impact to any of the parties. Likewise, we should explain if necessary that when we interpret we speak in the 1st person.
Of course, we are hired to assist the court not to make things unnecessarily more complicated or peculiar. This means that occasionally we can’t do everything ‘by the book’ and it takes a lot of practice to know when to act strictly according to our code of ethics and professional conduct and when to use ‘an unorthodox approach’. Good example of the latter will be using appropriate body language such as a hand gesture when mere oral communication during solicitor’s consultation with her or his client is insufficient. This, however, must be exercised with caution as the fundamental rule is that we interpreters must keep our egos in check.
8) Technology and human skills are both essential in the Digital Age.
The legal profession is changing slowly but consistently with efforts being made on an increased digitalisation (see excellent article by Max Walters on ‘online courts’) including online dispute resolution and more frequent occurrence of witnesses testifying via video links. This in turn will have its impacts on court interpreting services, which includes an increased likelihood of utilising remote interpreting technology (which I personally commend so long our fees remain at a level expected by a professional). There are also numerous new opportunities arising associated with the development of artificial intelligence which could indeed be of tremendous assistance. Whilst many interpreters and indeed ‘outsiders’ of the translation industry are often quick to conclude the interpreting profession will soon cease to exist, I suspect we are far from it.
TBC