Statement (1): “I want a lawyer, dog”
Statement (2): “I want a lawyer dog”
are only unequivocally different after someone writes it down. Why did the courts not resolve the ambiguity in the defendant’s favour? The same could happen any time someone makes a statement that could be interpreted in two different ways, and the translator has to make a decision.
I don’t have much to add, but I was once a juror on a trial with where we heard testimony from a witness who spoke only Thai. The witness was asked to describe a car at the scene. It seems that Thai does not have any direct names for colors, so the translator told us that the color was that of the clear sky, or some such. (Other testimony established that it was a light blue Mustang).
Well, the ones I’ve seen in court seem to be doing simultaneous translation without all that. Maybe it’s technically something else.
Their oath says they will translate faithfully what the witness does say, not wants to say.
My ex-wife went to school to become a court reporter almost 40 years ago, but was never able to achieve the necessary speed and accuracy to graduate/become certified. But the court stenograph machine only had 22 keys so the reporter used a machine shorthand to phonetically record what is being said.It is my understanding that when the real-time record was officially transcribed it was actually translated from the machine shorthand into the appropriate written language. Of course, that was then and may be somewhat different now.
I would call that chuchotage, or whispering interpreting. Probably whispering into a microphone while the witness speaks without a microphone. It is done in real time while the speaker speaks, so I can get along when you call it simultaneous, but technically, indeed, it is not. It is not the ideal mode of interpreting for a tribunal, but it is comparatively cheap, and courts are usually on a small budget.
We are always called to interpret what the speaker means, and that is subjective. I don’t work for tribunals, though.
There was an interesting case in Ireland recently. The defendant was on trial for murder and was claiming self-defense. A witness whose first language was French testified that the defendant was “énervé”. The interpreter translated as “he was really pissed off”.
The judge had to intervene and instruct the jury that the word “énervé” does not at all carry the same meaning or force as “really pissed off” and that the witness had not used any qualifier or intensifier that could justify adding the word “really”.
This was a potentially very serious incident in my opinion. The interpreter’s choice of words could have swayed the jury regarding the defendant’s intent in the moments before the shooting, which was key to the question of his guilt or innocence. Had the witness been testifying in a language that is less well known in Ireland than French, the mistake might not have been caught and the erroneous translation would have been allowed to stand.
There is a world of difference between “they literally interpret” and “they interpret literally”.
Bravo!
From The Gods Must Be Crazy:
JUDGE: How plead you? Guilty or not guilty?
NARRATOR: Mpudi found it difficult to interpret because, in his language, there was no word for "guilty. " Finally he asked, “Did you shoot an animal?” Xi said, "Yes, I did, but that man took it. He did not want to share it with me. "
JUDGE: Well, what does he plead?
MPUDI: Not guilty.
In Florida, criminal court proceedings of all types are digitally recorded via microphones placed around the room. If a party orders a transcript, it is typed up via reference to the recording.
(It is rare, although not unheard of, for a party to also have a stenographer in the courtroom)
Incidentally, each courtroom has a graphic of a man speaking into a microphone which blinks when the recording isn’t active, and illuminates solid blue when we are “on the record”. The colloquial term for it is the “blue man”, as in “Judge, we need to turn on the Blue Man before we get started.”
Those are exactly the same thing. And I think the raining cats and dogs example shows it clearly, when you think of it. Let me guide you through the process from my point of view:
The speaker to be interpreted says: “It was raining cats and dogs when it happened”. The interpreter will analyze those words and try to understand what they mean. It rains at a certain moment. It rained a lot. I can say that in many ways in another language, let’s assume German. What does the speaker want to say? Would he say, if he spoke German as good as me, or in other words, if I were in his place, would I say:
I would probably go for the second option, with or without the buckets, or with the fourth option, if I felt a dry rendering of the original was better. And that is how I interpret what the speaker says, by guessing what he wants to say and how he would do it, if he could. As he can’t it is up to me to make this decision. And I do it by putting myself in his place.
That is a very serious mistake. Shit happens – shit is remembered. And in this case I suppose that court reporters everywhere would write what the interpreter said and what the judge observed, both faithfully. Thus shit is not only remembered, but also quotable. In a way, shit becomes precedent.
It is endlessly fascinating to me the broad variety of ways that courts are run in different places. Thanks for sharing this!
Yes. “Literal interpretation” is a technical term, using an older meaning of “literal” that modern folks aren’t familiar with (many folks would assume “literal” means “actual” or “factual” (though it’s easy to see how people would adapt “literal” in a metaphorical way to mean “actual”). “Literal translation” means (roughly) “word for word translation” - so translating “nagelneu” as “nail new” or “petitio principii” as “begging the question” are literal translations.
But what I’d want an interpreter to give is an idiomatic translation, that conveys the meaning of the foreign language in the analogous meaning in English (so “brand new” for “nagelneu” and “assuming what you’re supposed to be proving” for “begging the question,” etc.
In Canada, I think the only courts that do true simultaneous translation are the federal courts.
At least, I’ve never seen it in a provincial court.
I suppose ideally what your mother should have done (not that I am in any way blaming her) would be to tell the court that she was unsure of the word and have judge or the examining lawyer the witness through her.
messed up editing to late to correct. Should be
tell the court that she was unsure of the word and have judge or the examining lawyer ask the clarifying question to the witness through her.