ESSAYS
ON INTERPRETING
by Vadim Doubine
Preparation for five
assignments
(1) When I was given an
English-Russian interpreting job at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre
(Sydney, Australia), I was not provided with any
background information. So I had
only a vague idea of what might expect me there: a situation with an
illegal immigrant. But how, why
and who exactly? I did not even know the precise location of the place.
Finally, thanks to the telephone numbers provided by Telstra
and my close examination of the
Street Directory I learnt where I would be heading the next
day. It seemed to be an isolated place with few clear
signs so I decided to be there half an
hour
before the appointment at 9 am. And I did not regret the decision as I had to
go through a maze of signs, barracks and camps, and only at 8.50 I was
at the door and was let in by the security guards.
I entered the detention camp with some trepidation, but my nerves were
calmed down
when I saw people in
civilian clothes and with ordinary haircuts who were moving around the camp
with
little restriction. I was
introduced to an officer who, in turn, introduced me to the detainee. I
was asked to do some sight translation for him, and then I did consecutive
interpreting for an interview conducted by
two
immigration officers. As the day before I had read the immigration legislation
and studied my immigration and legal glossary, I was adequately
equipped for the task. I was also prepared to take
notes, and I needed a note-book and pen
more than once. It was a successful interview for me, and the
subsequent interviews were equally successful, perhaps they were
even easier, because I had extensive
background knowledge.
(2) When I was given a job at the Family Court in the
city
(Sydney,
Australia)
,
I read the relevant family
legislation
and prepared myself psychologically for a tough session. I thought it was going
to be a court
hearing but it was a counselling session concerning child access for a
divorcing couple. However, I was correct
in assuming that it was going to be tough. It lasted
longer than many other court
hearings. I was assertive, and I knew that I must be
objective. I interpreted
everything without favouring any of the parties,
although the husband expected me to take his side.
Perhaps he thought that I would display 'male
solidarity'.
On another occasion, it was the wife, a beautiful lady, who expected me to
succumb to her charms. But on both occasions I
acted as an interpreter, as my task was to
facilitate communication and not to take sides, and I am glad that in
the end both parties
understood my
position. And of course, my knowledge of the terminology, note-taking
techniques and ethics of the profession were
essential for the success of the assignment.
(3) The Bondi Branch
(Sydney, Australia)
of the Housing Department
block-booked Russian interpreters for
three hours on Monday and Thursday mornings. When I
was first given an assignment
there,
I looked through the housing terminology and several acts on public housing.
Psychologically I was prepared
for a busy day with little rest. In fact I interpreted for many people on that
day. Most of them were disgruntled in one way or another, because they all
wanted accommodation immediately and did not want to
wait, or considered their waiting
time
excessively long. So I had to deal with an avalanche of negative emotions, but
I
showed detachment and concentrated
on my task, patiently interpreting their irritable, emotional and
repetitive questions. Several of them refused to
believe the officers and tried to trick them using cross-examination
tactics. I was glad that the vast majority of the Department's staff
were patient and answered the questions without
irritation or rudeness. During my subsequent
assignments, although I knew the answers to many questions, I never
attempted to
substitute the officer:
I did the interpreting only.
(4) My job in a doctor's surgery
was different. The atmosphere was friendly and the
patient looked upon me as her
helper. The doctor was understanding, spoke in short
passages, and I did not use my
note-book. I sat beside the patient, a little bit behind her, to
encourage eye-contact and direct
communication between the doctor and the patient. I learnt
in advance that it was going to be
a cardiologist, so naturally I refreshed my medical
vocabulary and also read about
heart conditions. I also examined cardio-vascular charts in
a medical dictionary. I was also
prepared for a quiet session where my tone of voice and
confidence would help. And it
worked: I believe I did help the doctor, and the patient's initial
nervousness was gone eventually.
I also had to bridge a communication gap between them,
when the patient mentioned a
Russian medicine unknown in Australia but very popular in
Russia. I helped the patient to give
clear explanations, and the doctor allowed her to continue
using the Russian tablets in
addition to the new ones he prescribed.
(5) When I was given a job to interpret for the Legal
Aid Commission, I did not know what
the topic of the discussion would be, as topics vary a
lot. So I
prepared
myself psychologically for an unusual situation and, of course, I refreshed my
knowledge of general legal
terminology. As usual, I came 10 minutes earlier. The client
was a lady in her late thirties or early forties who
was interviewed by a young male lawyer
with
an ear-ring and a trendy beard. The client was nervous and did not feel comfortable.
It was obvious he did not believe her story of rape, and rather reluctantly
gave her the necessary
information:
how to fill out the forms, what procedures for claiming compensation to
follow, etc. She was somewhat disappointed. However,
I did not show approval or disapproval of
his or her acts or words. Also, I was psychologically prepared for an
unusual situation I
remained calm
and concentrated on interpreting and not on judging. I was ready to take notes,
but I used my note-book only twice when numbers were mentioned; the discussion
was very emotional, heated and very fast.
Background knowledge for
three difficult assignments.
(1) When I received a CES (Commonwealth
Employment Service) assignment, I knew the discussion could be complicated
because of the client's specific
occupation. Many technical terms could be mentioned. So I
went to a CES office and took as many leaflets as
possible on different occupations: fitter,
carpenter,
builder, electrician, school teacher, etc. I also got an illustrated technical
dictionary. As I had three days before the job,
each evening I would sit at my desk and
study those materials. I compiled my own glossary and learnt all the
terms. It helped a lot
because the
client turned out to be a carpenter and mentioned such words as 'wedge', 'saw
carriage' and 'trimming table' during the
interview. I fulfilled my task quite competently as
I knew those words both in English and in Russian.
(2) One of my assignments
involved gastroendocrinology terminology. As I was not well
familiar with this field, I
decided to read the corresponding articles of the Macquarie Home
Guide to Health & Medicine, a
very handy book for such cases. I always work with a pen
and a note-book open, and as soon
as I come across a new and important term I put it down in my glossary. I also
studied charts in the Macquarie Guide and in The Family
Medical Reference Book for Australians (
ed. by Dr
J. Wright), and during the interpreting
such
words as 'flatus', 'oesophageal varices' and 'hepatomegaly' did not petrify me.
(3) The Consumer Claims Tribunal deals with very
difficult cases, and knowing that, I
decided to look through different legal materials I
had at my disposal. I studied the
corresponding
leaflets included in the EAC (Ethnic Affairs Commission) folder lent to us
after the orientation course in
December
1995, the sections on consumers of the Macquarie Easy Guide to Australian Law
and Handbook for Legal Interpreters (by Ludmilla
Robinson). It was not an easy task to
study
all the relevant terminology and procedures, but I had a few days before the
hearing,
so it was manageable. (By
the way, the knowledge acquired in the process helped me in other
situations later on as well). It was indeed a
difficult case: the parties were bitter and hostile to each other, they
often tried to speak before I could interpret and
the real estate agent was using a language
quite different from what is called 'plain English'. His very purpose
was to confuse the other party and me, he was obviously enjoying his linguistic
'superiority'. However, I
did the
best I could, and although I was not 100% satisfied with the final result
(due to psychological rather than linguistic factors),
I knew that without the prior
preparation
I would have failed. The important thing was that I managed to deliver the message,
and I am glad that both the judge and the other party were aware of the trick
the R.E. agent was playing on them.
Solving problems in three
difficult assignments
(1) One of my Legal Aid
assignments was an interview with a mother and a daughter, both of whom were
mentally disturbed, as I soon
realised. Their entire experience in Australia consisted of
arrests, detentions and AVOs (Apprehended
Violence Orders). They were even in a way proud of it and showed it to me. The
daughter
was
particularly unstable, her mood was switching from happiness and content to
misery and
aggression.
They were stubborn and illogical. They denied some obvious things
already established by the court.
They also tended to speak at the same time, over each other. I interpreted
everything
I
heard and did not fall into the temptation to side with the very rational and
logical
lawyer.
I was polite and neutral to everybody, and although that couple fell out with
the lawyer in the end, I did not
take sides or express any surprise, and I interpreted their
final rude words as exactly I could. The next time
when I interpreted for them, already
with
another lawyer, they did not have hard feelings against me, and because the
lawyer
knew they had a mental problem (she
read the psychologist's diagnosis to them which they took well (!)),
she coped with the situation much better and they
were grateful to her. She
was firm
and competent, and achieved her goal of making them follow the proper procedure.
I did not express any bias or surprise either and just did my job. I was not
upset as I was not there to
make any
judgment. I was there to make communication possible, which I did.
(2) When I interpreted at a counselling session in the
Family Court, the separated couple was
agitated and spoke very fast and
in long passages. The counsellor and I tried to call them to
order, but soon I realised that the
best way to cope with the situation was to interpret
simultaneously. It had a calming
effect on the speaking party, as it was hard to speak when
there was so much noise. So they started
using shorter sentences. However, for me it was easier to interpret
simultaneously because they would often confuse
things, start a new sentence
without finishing the previous one, it was all raw emotions.
By interpreting simultaneously I
was able to transfer as much information as possible and as
accurately
as
possible, and it
also revealed to the officer the exact nature of the dispute. Neither
party objected to this mode of interpreting, which I personally do not
particularly
favour in such situations (my
idea of simultaneous interpreting is to work in a sound-proof booth with
appropriate equipment: headphones, a microphone,
etc.). But we, interpreters, have to use this technique
sometimes to achieve better results. I couldn't
have interrupted them twenty times, could
I?!
(3) During business talks a
shower of unknown complicated personal names, names of companies, information
on financial and commercial deals was poured onto me. I felt
really bad because I could not do
my job properly and the clients did not seem to
understand my problem. One party
even showed irritation on several occasions. I almost felt sick. So I decided
to interrupt them and inform them of my problem. They stopped, I
wrote down those frequently
mentioned names and they started to use a simpler language. I
was able to finish the assignment,
and the parties came to an agreement. When saying
goodbye to me, one of the clients
said that I did my job superbly, particularly
considering that I lacked any
background knowledge. However, I was not pleased with the
result and I regretted the fact
that I had accepted this assignment at such a short notice (at a two hours
notice in fact). I had been assured it was going to be a general discussion,
and probably it was for
the
clients, but not for me. I can imagine now what their specialised discussion
might be!
Objectively,
it was not my fault that I could not do my job 100%, and what I was pleased
with was my assertiveness
-
that I
interrupted them and got the information that allowed me
to do my job adequately, and this is the minimal
requirement for an interpreter.
Dealing with nervousness in
front of an audience (three situations)
(1) When I was asked to interpret a lecture on
psychology before an audience of 50
students from Russian into Spanish I accepted the job
as I like the challenge. But soon I realised how difficult
the topic was and how much
preparation I needed. I studied the corresponding chapter of a
text-book, compared the texts in
both languages, and learnt the essential vocabulary.
However, I felt quite nervous
before the 50 pairs of eyes who put trust in me expecting me to
bridge the communication gap and
supply them with the necessary information for their
course. I was lucky that the
lecturer was a friendly middle-aged man who started with a
joke and the ice was broken. Also, his way of
presentation was excellent, he made the required pauses and chose simple but
exact words to deliver the message. My nervousness
was gradually disappearing, and it was completely gone 15 minutes after,
when he spoke on
four types of
temperament (sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric and melancholic) and on the
Pavlov's conditioned reflex. The topic had always
fascinated me, I felt inspired and did a
good job. The lecturer and the students were pleased.
(2) When I was interpreting
(Spanish-Russian) in an art museum for a group of tourists I overcame the
initial shyness and nervousness, as I submerged my mind in the ancient and
glorious culture
represented
by the objects described by the guide; I was removed from reality and had the
tourists as a vague background
only. The admiration for the national history and culture,
people who lived in that epoch and
the masterpieces created by them inspired me, my
speech flowed, I found the right
words, and I think the guide and I made a good team
together. The tourists applauded
at the end of the tour.
(3) Once in a Sydney court I met a
very hostile defendant and I felt the hostility of many people in
the audience. They were her
friends and relatives, as I soon realised. I was upset initially,
but I remembered all the
requirements of our profession and concentrated on the job only, on
the words, and not on the people
in the courtroom. My emotions were separated from my
mind and I interpreted (English-Russian)
in a methodic and dispassionate manner. I did not pay much attention to all
those
tears
and cries, I did not allow to interrupt myself, and soon the defendant
understood my
attitude
and concentrated on the substance of the case instead of the personality of the
interpreter.
I brought the assignment to an end without any major problem.
Ten situations when my
professional ethics could have been compromised, and how I responded in
three of these
situations.
(1) In an office of the NSW Department
of Housing a client was very angry with the allegedly negligent
attitude of the officers. He
began shouting, and used foul language but, thinking I was on
his side, asked me not to
interpret obscenities. I ignored his request and interpreted
everything. The interview was
cancelled. By using this sort of language he showed
disrespect both towards the
officers and myself.
(2) After a Consumer Claims
Tribunal hearing, one of the clients said that he was very
happy with my work and offered me a lift, obviously in
the hope of obtaining some additional
information
and possibly using me for some other purposes. I declined explaining that we
were not allowed to do so.
(3) After a court hearing, a client, in the hope that
I would do a better job for her, as the
hearing was to last several days,
said that she had wonderful recordings of modern Russian songs and marvelous
films on video tapes and that she would like to share it all with me: I could
contact her at any time and she would be most happy to oblige. I replied that
such contacts were considered unethical for professional interpreters.
(4) After an ORP (On-Shore Refugee Program) interview,
the Immigration officer asked me for my opinion about what I had just heard in
the room and whether I believed the applicant was eligible for a refugee visa. I was very
surprised, however I said very politely that I was not there to make any
decision or judgement but I could brief him (without any personal comments) on
the general ethnic situation in this post-Soviet republic on the basis of the
information provided by the media. And I briefed him at his request. He was
satisfied with my behaviour. The next time I interpreted for him he did not ask
me for my opinion.
(5) When I completed a medical assignment, the patient
said that she liked me very much and she would like to recommend me to her
clients without using this 'stupid agency'. She asked me for my personal phone
number. I said that although there was no perfect organisation on this planet, I
did not think badly of this particular agency. And certainly I could not give her
my personal phone number because at that moment I was representing the agency,
and not myself as a private practitioner. However, I said that we were allowed
to give the agency's number and she could try to book me for the next
assignment. But I warned her that there was no guarantee that I would be sent
to interpret for her as it was not me who allocated interpreting assignments.
The lady liked this detailed and definite explanation, and we parted on
friendly terms.
(6) After an assignment, the client started to make negative
comments about the interpreters who had been with him before. He called them
incompetent and arrogant, but, he added, I was different from those
'good-for-nothing lazy-bones'. I explained that that particular agency applied
strict criteria when recruiting interpreters, they were all NAATI accredited
and they had had specialised training. However, if he did not like a particular
interpreter he could lodge a complaint which would be carefully considered by
the agency. He changed the topic, and we said good-bye to each other.
(7) During a Housing Department assignment a client,
when the officer went to get her file,
asked me to read the information
on the computer screen. I refused and explained that we were
not allowed to do this.
(8)
During another Housing Department
assignment (I work there frequently), a client,
when the officer was absent looking for her file and
making photocopies, asked me to tell
her 'the
truth'. Obviously she did not believe the officers and said to me that I knew
more
about the real situation with allocation
of flats. I refused to give her such information and
suggested that she
ask
the
officer when he came back.
(9) When in a hospital a patient
was given a form to fill out, she asked me to do it for her. I
refused because we were not
allowed to do so, but I said she could ask the nurse to help
her and I would be interpreting.
The patient was happy with the arrangement, and when the
nurse returned she willingly
filled out the form asking the patient the relevant questions
which I interpreted.
(10) When I came for a home visit
assignment, the patient realised that I was the interpreter and invited me
inside for a cup of tea with delicious chocolates. I thanked her and declined
politely. I explained that I was
allowed to enter a private flat only together with the nurse.
The patient was not offended, and
when the nurse came we entered the flat together and
had a friendly conversation with
the patient.
One professional situation
when I felt prejudiced towards another person
The client I once had was
smelling strongly of sweat, was scruffy and was picking her nose
- an
abhorrent
sight for me. I felt antipathy towards her, but when the time for interpreting
came
I suppressed my senses and
feelings and concentrated on the job which I did adequately.
However, I was relieved when it was over and
treated myself to an expensive lunch as a reward.
Three situations where I had
to explain the cultural significance of certain comments or
behaviours
(1) One of the Housing Department officers was very
annoyed when he saw the client from
whom
he expected a letter and not a personal visit. He said those people were
wasting his time and he had such a tight schedule! I explained to him that
because of their experience
with the Soviet
bureaucracy many people from the former Soviet Union considered that any matter
of some importance should not be dealt with through correspondence or
telephone;
they were sure that only a live
conversation could solve their problem. They were prepared
to wait patiently for hours on end, whereas the
vast majority of Australians would be indignant if this were to happen. When I
explained this to the officer, he changed his
attitude and listened to the client without any visible irritation.
(2) After a consultation, the lawyer saw the client to
the door and, when the client was just
outside
the room, was intending to shake hands with him. But the client refused, and
making a gesture,
invited the lawyer
to go out of the room. The lawyer thought that the man was going to
play a trick on him which was clearly incompatible
with the lawyer's dignity. He stopped
smiling
and was about to say something rude to the client. To save the situation, I had
to
intervene. I explained that some
Russians considered it a bad sign if they shook hands
over the threshold: they thought they would quarrel
with this person or have a bad day.
So
the man was not playing a trick on the lawyer, he was prepared to shake hands
anywhere but not over the threshold. The lawyer
was relieved and did what the client
wanted
with laughs and funny comments.
(3) When a Russian male client
saw an Anglo-Australian female lawyer take a heavy box
with papers and carry it to
another room, he rushed towards her and most resolutely
grabbed the box from her. She
felt offended, as she thought he was bossing her.
She considered this behaviour an
expression of male chauvinism. I intervened and explained
that Russia was not that advanced
in feminism, and over there it would be considered
unmanly for a male to act in a
different manner: 'strong men' were expected to help 'weak women' and women
would be grateful to men for such assistance and would consider it a
most natural behaviour. The lawyer
let the box go and with some amusement, but no
longer indignation, saw the
client bring his plan to a successful end. I am not sure whether
she liked the situation but at
least the interview did take place and she did not show any
bias.
One professional situation when a
complaint was made against you
So far no complaints have been
made against me (fortunately for me as an interpreter but
unfortunately for this section of
examples). However, I
decided
to make something up in order to anticipate the danger.
The interpreter is sick but,
afraid of the consequences for his career, does not cancel the job
and goes to the courtroom.
Naturally he does his job badly, as he's unable to concentrate.
The judge adjourns the hearing
and complains to the interpreting agency. The interpreter is
reprimanded and removed from the
assignment. The agency loses trust in him and from
now on watches his behaviour with
suspicion. His chances of promotion are reduced. He
realises that the consequences now are much more
severe than if he had cancelled the
appointment
producing a medical certificate. He has learnt his lesson.
Comments on agencies
(1) Consumer Claims Tribunal
Very stressful. Enormous amount of information unknown
to me. Sometimes unfamiliar
names
are mentioned, and technical terms and a lot of numbers. Note-taking is of
paramount
importance.
The interpreter often has to remind the parties that they should make pauses to
allow for
interpreting.
Some clients want to maintain contact with the interpreter outside the
courtroom, and the interpreter
should be assertive in this situation and refuse to do that.
(2) Family Court
Also stressful, but the situation is more predictable;
at least the interpreter does not have a headache
because of an avalanche of new
names, technical terms and numbers. Note-taking is less
important than in the Consumer
Claims Tribunal.
In
all situations, we should stick to the AUSIT Code of Ethics (it is quite
explicit, and I do
not
think it is appropriate for me here to describe its provisions), come to the
assignment
psychologically
and linguistically prepared, and if possible, with some background
knowledge (to be briefed by the
doctor or lawyer, to have read the materials of the
case, etc.). However, we should
be prepared for the worst and deal professionally with
difficult and unexpected
situations.
Copyright@1996 Vadim Doubine
