February 6, 2023 § Leave a comment
Because Americans love to bring up sports in a conference, and due to the acquired taste needed to enjoy a sport popular in the United States and few other places in the world, every year I write a post on the biggest sporting event: The Super Bowl.
On February 12 the United States will hold the most watched TV event in our country, a game played on an unofficial holiday, more popular than most holidays on the official calendar. The Super Bowl is the national professional football championship game in the United States of America; and it is not football… at least not THAT football played in the rest of the world. This popular sport in the United States is known abroad as “American football,” and even this designation seems troublesome to many who have watched a little American football and do not understand it well. Although it is mainly played holding a ball, the sport is known in the United States as football for two reasons: (1) Because this American-born sport comes from “rugby football” (now rugby) that came from soccer (football outside the United States) and (2) Because it is football, but it is not British organized football, which when American football invented was called “association football” and was later known by the second syllable of the word “association”: “socc” which mutated into “soccer.” You now understand where the name came from, but is it really football? For Americans it is. Remember that all other popular team sports in the United States are played with your hands or a stick (baseball, basketball and ice hockey). The only sport in the United States where points can be scored by kicking the ball is (American) football. So, even though most of the time the ball is carried by hand or caught with your hands, sometimes, a team scores or defends field position by kicking or punting the football. Now, why is all this relevant to us as interpreters? Because if you interpret from American English you are likely to run into speakers who will talk about the Super Bowl, football, or will use examples taken from this very popular sport in the U.S.
On Sunday, most Americans will gather in front of the TV set to watch the National Football Conference champion Philadelphia Eagles battle the American Football Conference champion Kansas City Chiefs for the Vince Lombardi Trophy (official name of the trophy given to the team that wins the Super Bowl) which incidentally is a trophy in the shape of a football, not a bowl. It is because the game was not named after a trophy, it was named after a tradition. There are two football levels in the United States: college football played by amateur students, and professional football. College football is older than pro-football and for many decades the different college champions were determined by playing invitational football games at the end of the college football season on New Year’s Day. These games were called (and still are) “Bowls.” You may have heard of the Rose Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and many others. When a professional football game was created to determine the over-all champion between the champions of the American and National Conferences, it was just natural (and profitable) to call it the “Super Bowl.”
The game, which involves two teams representing two regions of the country, will be played in Glendale, Arizona, near Phoenix. Every year the Super Bowl is played in a venue where the weather at this time of the year is more welcoming. There will be millions watching the match from home, and there will be hundreds of millions spent on TV commercials during the game.
As I do every year on these dates, I have included a basic glossary of English<>Spanish football terms that may be useful to you, particularly those of you who do escort, diplomatic, and conference interpreting from American English to Mexican Spanish. “American” football is very popular in Mexico (where they have college football) Eventually, many of you will face situations where two people will discuss the Super Bowl; as you are interpreting somebody will tell a football story during a presentation; or you may end up at a TV or radio studio simultaneously interpreting a football game for your own or another foreign market.
The following glossary does not cover every term in football; it includes terms very common, and where there were several translations of a football term, I selected the term used in Mexico by the Mexican media that covers the sport.
|National Football League||Liga Nacional de Fútbol Americano|
|American Football Conference||Conferencia Americana|
|National Football Conference||Conferencia Nacional|
|Regular season||Temporada regular|
|Standings||Tabla de posiciones|
|Field||Terreno de juego|
|End zone||Zona de anotación/ diagonales|
|Super Bowl||Súper Tazón|
|Pro Bowl||Tazón Profesional/ Juego de estrellas|
|Uniform & Equipment||Uniforme y Equipo|
|Special teams||Equipos especiales|
|Fair catch||Recepción libre|
|Possession||Posesión del balón|
|First and ten||Primero y diez|
|First and goal||Primero y gol|
|Line of scrimmage||Línea de golpeo|
|Neutral zone||Zona neutral|
|Long snap||Centro largo/ centro al pateador|
|Turnover||Pérdida de balón|
|Pass rush||Presión al mariscal de campo|
|“I” Formation||Formación “I”|
|Shotgun Formation||Formación escopeta|
|“T” Formation||Formación “T”|
|Wishbone Formation||Formación wishbone|
|Sidelines||Líneas laterales/ banca|
|Out-of-bounds||Fuera del terreno|
|Head Coach||Entrenador en jefe|
|Offensive Tackle||Tacleador ofensivo|
|Offensive line||Línea ofensiva|
|Wide Receiver||Receptor abierto|
|Tight end||Ala cerrada|
|Fullback||Corredor de poder|
|Quarterback||Mariscal de campo|
|Defensive end||Ala defensiva|
|Defensive tackle||Tacleador defensivo|
|Nose guard||Guardia nariz|
|Free safety||Profundo libre|
|Strong safety||Profundo fuerte|
|Punter||Pateador de despeje|
Even if you are not a football fan, and even if you are not watching the big game on Sunday, I hope you find this glossary useful. Now I invite you to comment on football, sports interpreting, or maybe you would like to share a “sports interpreting anecdote” with all of us.
January 25, 2023 § 2 Comments
In the past months, many of us saw our workload back to similar levels than before the Covid pandemic. As the population was vaccinated, travel restrictions were lifted, and people became less afraid of crowds, conferences, face-to-face business negotiations, diplomatic encounters, court trials, and many other events reconvened in many countries, the United States included. At first sight, it looked as if the pandemic was behind us and we were about to embark in business as usual. We were wrong.
Events in need of interpreting popped up all over the place, but clients and organizers were not asking for the same service we were offering before Covid. We soon learned that in many cases, the request was for us to interpret hybrid events with some speakers, and many attendees, joining from different locations. Many conferences went back to in-person only, and others kept the virtual, distance interpreting model.
Hybrid events generate situations consultant interpreters must consider: The length of a conference day must be carefully evaluated to find the right balance between an in-person audience wanting longer days, and virtual attendees’ expectations for shorter sessions at somewhat convenient times of the day in the part of the world they are located. These variations, non-existent in pre-pandemic events, mean more interpreters in the same language combinations must be added to the roster. Some for in-person work, others for remote interpreting, and hours in the booth must be adjusted depending on the type of interpretation (not to mention fee calculation depending on what would be considered a full day in each case). Technical support also became an issue. Unlike traditional events, the new formats required of technicians physically at the venue, technicians dedicated to the distance interpreting service, and technicians on call for irregular, or after hours (in that part of the world) sessions.
Because the pandemic is still with us, essential planning now includes a roster of on call and back up interpreters to substitute in-person and remote interpreters who may contract covid right before, or during the event. I saw this first hand three times last year. In one of them we called nine substitute interpreters. I am sure court interpreters and other community-based work face the same problem. You cannot afford to stop a jury trial in progress when one or more interpreters get Covid. Even though we are back to a workload similar to what we were used to in 2019, our clients’ expectations and demands are now different. Many times, we will deal with events where a hybrid format will need of in-person and remote interpreters working under the appropriate conditions to their work, which are different; and regardless of the format, interpreters will get sick, and immediate substitutions will be needed. Creativity, adapting to the ever-changing circumstances, and tons of patience will be needed when planning a post-pandemic assignment. We need to be aware of it, share it with the client, and our fees must reflect it. We will continue to enjoy our work; it will just be done a little differently.
December 30, 2022 § 4 Comments
Now that 2022 ended and we finally got back some normalcy in our lives after the long confinement, it is time to assess what we learned during the past 12 months. As interpreters we are constantly learning, and from talking to many of my colleagues, 2022 was better than the previous two years. It was a year of some change and many adjustments to a new professional lifestyle.
Last year was the year when we were boosted to continue the fight against Covid. Sadly, some of our colleagues, among them great interpreters, continued to leave the profession overwhelmed by technological changes, market uncertainty, and aggressive, ethically questionable practices by some language service providers.
2022 was the year when our profession finally settled in our new professional model of hybrid and in-person events with a constant and steady presence of distance interpreting assignments. It also became evident that remote interpreting from a hub will stick around as a popular choice in some parts of the world, but the home interpreting practice without colocation will reign supreme in many regions, especially where interpreters are scarce, technological infrastructure is poor, or market conditions have rejected the hub model. In the year that ends, most working interpreters became knowledgeable and technologically savvy, and incorporated technology to their continuing professional development permanently. Because learning and adapting is always good, these were the brightest highlights of the year.
Unfortunately, not everything was good. Change continued to bring along unfairness, abuse, and deception. The same changes that helped us adapt to the post-Covid world, provided the right circumstances to harm our profession.
As it has happened throughout history, today’s changes have brought a wave of bad practices that financially benefit some of those with the loudest voice while hurting conference interpreters and the users of their service. Some distance interpreting providers have ignored ethical and professional rules by welcoming inexperienced, unqualified individuals, often from other fields of interpreting, whose main credential is to provide interpreting services for a ridiculously low fee and to do it under very poor conditions. By recruiting these interpreters and diverting the clients’ attention to technology instead of service quality, the post-pandemic market continued to offer conference interpreting on-demand: interpreters on standby, willing to start an assignment with a couple of hours’ notice, without time to prepare, often working alone from their home thousands of miles away, and doing it during the night. Some unscrupulous providers continued to offer insulting fees paid by the minute or by the hour. It is now common practice to attend a professional conference and find remote interpreting platform representatives luring university students and recently graduated interpreters to work for the platform for free or for a scarce pay, with the excuse they are helping them by letting them “practice” with their platform. I have now seen this practice in three continents.
2022 continued to change the way we use professional social media. It still is a self-promoting infomercial by the big service providers where unsuspecting colleagues harm their image and reputation daily by bragging about working for these low-paying, ethically questionable, providers.
Going back to the positive, I congratulate those professional associations that held their conferences in-person or as hybrid events. This will be the new normal for professional conferences. A special mention to ITI for its spectacular conference in Brighton. This live event in the U.K. was my first in-person conference since 2019. OMT in Guadalajara, and NAJIT in Florida held big, high-quality conferences using creativity, technology, and thinking of their members’ health. FIT and ATA also gathered in big conferences in Varadero, Cuba, and Los Angeles respectively, and they welcomed colleagues from all over the world. My recognition also goes to all smaller associations with conferences in-person. Regardless of the conference you attended in 2022, they were all special, as they were filled with the human warmth that seeing, hugging, and talking to friends and colleagues after all this time generate. They will all be unforgettable.
Another wonderful gesture that showed professional solidarity was the decision by many professional associations and individual interpreters to volunteer their services to assist the people from Ukraine, both inside their country and abroad. Once again, interpreters showed their humanity and solidarity in the face of this terrible and unfair invasion of a peaceful nation. We proved to ourselves once again that interpreters are resilient, able to adapt to adversity to survive, and good humans.
We now face a year with less uncertainty, full of adjustments and plenty of changes and opportunities. Our resiliency, adaptability, courage, and recognizing that even after the worst days of the pandemic, many things have changed, but many others stayed the same. Let’s all focus on the good things to come while we guard against the bad ones. I wish you all a prosperous and healthy 2023!
Recorded Renditions, Intellectual Property, Some Interpreters’ Great Contributions, and Some Unfortunate Ones.
December 22, 2022 § 3 Comments
When it was announced that Zoom had added a function to automatically record the interpreter’s rendition without prior notice, consent, or agreement on royalties, I originally decided not to write on this issue as it seemed in good and able hands who understand the implications, have the “know how” to address the needed changes, and can clearly communicate our professional needs to the platforms and others. My view has not changed, but I jumped in due to some remarks I have seen in social media and elsewhere. To contribute to the better understanding of the problem by many of our colleagues, I decided to encapsule the current situation in three main points: (1) What is happening; (2) What is protected; and (3) What needs to happen (and in fact is already happening).
- What is Happening. A couple of months ago Zoom introduced a new function that allows the recording of everything said during a meeting (or conference) including the interpretation of the original speech. This is done automatically, and lets the host of a recorded event go back to the video and toggle between the original sound and its interpretations into other languages. These recorded renditions remain available as a separate audio, leaving the host with the option to widely share the interpreters’ rendition without them even knowing. Notice, consent, and a royalty agreement are not needed to “benefit” from this function, leaving the interpreters, real owners of the interpretation, in a vulnerable position.
- What is protected. An interpretation is the product of an intellectual task protected by International Law as a property right. Human progress and evolution need the intellectual contribution of scientists, engineers, artists, and other individuals who create something of value. Such creations are considered intellectual property and include patents, trademarks, and copyrights, which include the work product of interpreters and translators. These rights are protected by (A) International Conventions, such as the Universal Copyright Convention, adopted in Geneva in 1952, and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886 (amended in 1979); (B) Bilateral Agreements between sovereign nations, such as trade agreements which often include provisions, and even entire sections dedicated to the protection of Intellectual Property Rights; and (C) Domestic Legislation applicable to all activities within a country, as it is the case of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution which gives Congress the power to “promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” And its secondary law: The Copyright Act of 1976 (Title 17 USC). Therefore, in most countries in the world, a rendition by an interpreter is considered their property and protected as copyright. This means that a rendition cannot be legally reproduced or shared by anybody, unless the interpreter, who owns the interpretation, agrees and consents to it; and even in this case, it can only be reproduced according to the limitations set by the interpreter (how many times, in what market, by what means, and for what compensation). The agreement to record and replay a rendition must include a compensation provision establishing amount to be paid and form of payment to the interpreter: a percentage as royalties, a lump sum before recording, or a donation of the royalties by the interpreter when they consider it appropriate (charity work, research, education, religious, etc.)
- What needs to happen. It is clear that Zoom (and perhaps other platforms when catching up) incorporated this function to its platform to make it more attractive to its users and consumers. The idea was to solve a problem: How to reach those individuals watching a recorded event, after its original broadcast, who do not share the speaker’s language. Zoom learned in the past that the platform was more competitive when it reached a worldwide audience, regardless of language limitations. They tried to remove the language barrier by launching their original interpretation function. Later, the listened to their customer’s needs and to the interpreters’ expert feedback and improved the functionality several times. No doubt the results pleased them. They noticed how their competitors also made those changes to remain viable in the market. Unless Zoom acted out of character, or there is an anomaly I am not aware of, it is obvious to me that they never considered breaking the intellectual property laws. They meant no harm to their clients or to the interpreter community.
From the interpreters’ perspective the solution does not seem complicated. A toggle button permitting activate and deactivate the recording function would bring them in compliance with the law, but changes to a platform are not cheap and they require of more than a simple patch in the software. Everything I have heard to this point is encouraging. Some of the most serious professional associations that protect service quality and working conditions of conference interpreters, and some very able, capable, and knowledgeable colleagues have initiated an ongoing dialogue with the platform, and if the past is any indication of the future, in time this problem will be resolved.
What to do meanwhile? The answer is simple, we must continue to include in our contracts the same recording provision we have inserted for years, even when our concerns had to do with being recorded in the booth. Those who have never included such protection clause, and I must confess I find it amazing that interpreters agree to sign contracts lacking any agreement on recording their rendition, start now; insert a clause that clearly states that no recording shall be possible without all interpreters’ consent in writing, detailing all negotiated conditions, including the payment of royalties. There are model contracts you can use as a starting point, and I suggest you talk to an attorney. As for negotiating with the client or event organizer, read and learn about intellectual property, and use AIIC’s memorandum concerning the use of recordings of interpretations at conferences of 2016. It will give you plenty of arguments to negotiate with your clients. Litigation is expensive and lengthy, and should be kept as a last option, but these negotiations and a good contract will also act as a deterrent.
As a practical matter, I also suggest you do what I do: Take advantage of the dry run session to bring up the subject with all present; briefly explain what you need (that no recordings be shared without your consent and compensation) the risk of breaking Intellectual Property Law, and the message you are part of their team, and are trying to protect them by pointing out these scenarios before it is too late. Then, on the day of the event, let the host know that at the beginning, as they are explaining how to use the simultaneous interpretation function, you will post a message to all those attending, reminding them that sharing the recording of an interpretation violates the law, even if the platform technically lets you do it. It has always worked for me.
I cannot end this posting without mentioning that despite all great letters and conversations our professional associations and some of our distinguished colleagues have held with Zoom, directly and on social media, there are some unfortunate comments and postings by others that hurt our efforts because they perpetuate the stereotype that we are not really professionals. I am referring to some comments on line about the “damage to us as interpreters” the “burden it creates” or the threats to “bring a class action lawsuit” against Zoom.
I say to all of you, even though these platform changes can impact all interpreters who use Zoom as a tool, it is really conference interpreters who could see a quantifiable effect in their professional practice. Court interpreters’ rendition is part of a public record, and healthcare, school meetings, client-attorney virtual meetings, and other community interpreting services, could have a confidentiality/privilege problem, an unrelated issue to recording an interpretation in a conference, but their interpretation do not face the problem these posting deals with.
Professional communications, as the ones required in this case, should focus on the task and show the perspective of all involved. Complaining about how a recording will hurt you, and asking the platform to solve your problems and protect you because of “poor me” do not help one beat. Fighting words directed to the platform because now you “have to write a contract to protect you” do a disservice to the profession; Talking about class action lawsuits without knowing what is required, how complex, expensive and lengthy they are is just another way to show you are not acting like a professional well-informed in the business world. In conclusion, I am fine, I believe there has been progress that will eventually solve this issue, and the involvement of those participating in the dialogue has been very good.
November 23, 2022 § 4 Comments
We commemorated International Conference Interpreters Day on November 20. The date was selected because on that date in 1945 the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg started the trial of those charged with war crimes in Europe, using simultaneous interpretation for a matter relevant worldwide for the first time. Much has been written and researched about the trial, the interpreters, and the birth of simultaneous rendition as we now know it. For years I observed the date remembering these important circumstances that gave birth to the modern version of our profession, but I always wondered about the trials against the war criminals in the Pacific theatre of operations; there seemed to be little information available about the interpretation, the interpreters, and what really happened in Tokyo after World War II. As November 20 was approaching, I decided to find out what happened in Japan, and why these trials were left out as part of the birth of modern conference interpreting. This is what I learned:
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) was convened on April 29, 1946, over five months after the Nuremberg tribunal was established, to try Japanese political and military leaders for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Twenty-eight Japanese citizens were tried, the tribunal had broader jurisdiction than its counterpart in Germany, as it covered the invasion of Manchuria and World War II, and the proceedings ended on November 12, 1948, making these Tokyo trials almost twice as long as the process in Nuremberg. No defendant was acquitted, but charges were dismissed against one of them because he was found mentally incompetent. Seven defendants were sentenced to death and executed.
Judges represented ten countries (Australia, Canada, China, France, India, The Netherlands, New Zealand, The Philippines, United Kingdom, and United States) with Sir. William Webb, Justice of the High Court of Australia presiding. Most of the prosecution was presented by American prosecutors, but prosecutors from the other nations represented intervened for certain witnesses, defendants, and charges. The defendants were represented by more than one hundred attorneys from Japan and the United States, and the official languages of the trial were English and Japanese.
Trying monolingual Japanese defendants who committed the atrocities on trial under a culture, and using a language so foreign to the members of the tribunal, presented challenges not found in Nuremberg where all languages involved were European, and all crimes had been committed by individuals who shared culture with the judges and attorneys.
There were no English-Japanese interpreters in the West and there were no interpreters in Japan, period.
To solve this problem, the Tribunal hired twenty-seven Japanese citizens fluent in English who knew Japanese culture, history, and traditions, but they were not interpreters; they had no formal training, they had no experience as empiric interpreters either, and unlike the situation in Nuremberg where the interpreters were citizens of the allied countries, these individuals were from the same country as the defendants. It was decided to hold some “auditions” as mock trials to select the interpreters. Legal knowledge or aptitude to learn and understand legal proceedings was an important consideration also. Those selected were hired by the Language Division of the IMTFE. Because these ad-hoc interpreters were Japanese, the Tribunal established the position of Monitor. These individuals were American citizens children of Japanese (Kibei Nisei) who were proficient in both languages. There were four of them. Their job was to supervise the rendition by the Japanese interpreters, and amend the record when needed, due to the lack of experience and technique of the Japanese interpreters. During the War, these monitors: David Akira Itami, Sho Onodera, Hidekazu Hayashi, and Lanny Miyamoto, worked for the Allied Powers’ Translation and Interpretation Section (ATIS) and as children they all attended school in the United States.
The interpreters, and their monitors, worked in a booth; they worked in teams of two or three; they had a rotation according to an established schedule, and they used the same IBM simultaneous interpreting equipment used in Nuremberg,
There was no simultaneous interpretation during the Tokyo trials. Interpretation was rendered as follows:
All written opening statements, closing statements, charging documents, etc. were translated, and when attorneys or judges read them for the record, the translations were read simultaneously by one of the four monitors;
All witness examinations, cross-examinations, and re-direct examinations were interpreted consecutively by the Japanese interpreters. Attorneys and witnesses were instructed to speak clearly, slowly, and to pause frequently to give the interpreters a chance to catch up. Whenever an interpreter fell behind a speaker, the monitor would signal the court so the speaker stop and even repeat what was said. Monitors also assisted interpreters with note taking of names, addresses, figures, etc. Preserving an accurate record was a priority.
When a witness or a prosecutor spoke in a language other than English or Japanese (all defense attorneys spoke English or Japanese) other interpreters would participate. Beside the twenty-seven English-Japanese interpreters, there were seven Chinese, six Russian, six French, and one Dutch interpreters. Relay interpreting was used when one of these languages was spoken in the courtroom.
Because Japanese was not widely known in the West at that time, and because knowledge of Japanese culture was practically non-existing, there was the possibility of conflicting interpretation of terms or concepts. To prevent this from happening, the IMTFE created a system of checks and balances by establishing a Language Arbitration Board to settle matters of disputed interpretation. Once the dispute was resolved by the Board, the arbitrated rendition had to be used for the rest of the trial. This process was used both ways: To solve interpreting issues into Japanese and into English.
After the trial all Japanese who worked as interpreters went back to their prior occupations. None pursued a career as a professional interpreter; however, two of the monitors continued to work (at least occasionally) as interpreters, one for the Japanese diplomatic service, and another one for the emperor.
The trials did not give birth to our profession in Japan; there were no simultaneous interpreters yet, and the equipment had been used for other purposes (synchronized reading of translated texts, and consecutive interpretation from the booth). After learning these facts, it became clear to me why the International Military Tribunal for the Far East is not considered as the birth of modern simultaneous conference interpreting. The Tribunal did all it could to ensure the administration of justice and to preserve the record, but it did not have professional interpreting services, the IBM equipment was not used as it was in Nuremberg, and the trials did not contribute to the development of simultaneous interpreting in Japan.
October 31, 2022 § 2 Comments
During Halloween season we may interpret in events, usually in the private sector, where well-known horror movie themes are played during the breaks, and even to introduce some speakers. One of such events motivated me to dedicate my annual Halloween post to the music that makes the hair stand up on the back of one’s neck. I know there are many great scores and theme songs, but these are the ones I immediately associate with horror films:
The Thing (1982). John Carpenter reached out to Ennio Morricone to score this tale of frozen fear with pulsing and terrifying sounds.
The Creature from the Black Lagoon (1953). This 3-D Universal movie announces the arrival of the creature with the chilling Bah, bah, bahhhh, three-note-motif by Henry Stein, part of the score by Henri Mancini, making this cult-classic beauty and the beast tale directed by Jack Arnold unforgettable.
The Shining (1980). The synthetic sounds created by electronic music innovators Wendy Carlos and Rachel Elkind’s makes this Stanley Kubrick’s movie a true horror classic, enhanced by all these avante garde sounds.
Jaws (1975). This John Williams’ master piece is one of the most recognizable movie themes of all times. People immediately associate it with sharks, and danger in general. Even today, after almost 50 years, you can still hear somebody humming the theme at the beach. It is also one of the most popular cellular phone rings of all time.
The Omen (1976). Jerry Goldsmith turns Gregorian chants into some of the scariest music ever heard. The opening song, “Ave Satani” will keep you awake in a lonely night.
Dracula (1931). The grandfather of all horror films and pioneer of sound films, produced by Tod Browning, starring Bela Lugosi, has no movie score, and there are silent moments throughout the movie as a reminder that this was not a silent film and for that reason it did not need music throughout; However, this Universal classic, starts with a rendition of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake and elevates the tension and anxiety in an audience waiting for Bram Stoker’s creature.
The Exorcist (1973). Mike Oldfield’s Tubular Bells contributed to the hysteria and popularity that surrounded the opening of this scary movie that ushered the era of demonic possession and rogue priests’ stories.
Ringu (1998). “The Ring”. Original Japanese version. This classic Japanese horror movie, copied and remade in the west more than once, became a sensation worldwide because of the story, the main character, and Kenji Kawai’s mysterious music.
The Bride of Frankenstein (1935). The music of this horror favorite was composed by Franz Waxman. It includes dramatic music, followed by sweet music, as this is a love story in a horror movie that evokes the loneliness of Mary Shelley’s creature, the fears of Dr. Frankenstein, and the evilness of Dr. Pretorius.
Rosemary’s Baby (1968). Perhaps the most unsettling opening theme in history. Krzysztof Komeda’s score is not really creepy, but it scares the listener, creating the perfect background for this Roman Polanski’s film.
El Vampiro (1957). “The Vampire” a horror black and white Mexican movie with a great music score by Gustavo César Carrion transports us to the horrors of the hacienda where the vampire lives.
Halloween (1978). John Carpenter directed, produced, and co-wrote Halloween, but he also wrote the world-famous score that immortalized those piano and synthesizer notes that scare the willies out of millions. Because of its simplicity, this score is memorable, easy to reproduce with any piano anywhere, and it stays in your head forever.
Psycho (1960). Arguably, Alfred Hitchcock’s master piece, with the most famous scene of all time, needed a score that projected all the fear and suspense of the story. It got it in the screeching, high-pitch notes composed by Bernard Herrmann. The score starts somewhat unassuming, but it all changes with the stabbing during the shower scene. The strings stab right along with the knife, and sends this movie score to the top of the list, creating a style and genre that others have tried to imitate ever since. I know there are many other great horror movie scores, but these always come to mind when I am in the booth during Halloween season, and the lights are dimmed while one them plays in the room. I now invite you to share with the rest of us some of your favorite scare movie theme songs.
October 5, 2022 § 8 Comments
Court interpreting in the United States, and probably elsewhere, is facing its biggest crisis since the courts worked with professional, certified and accredited interpreters half a century ago. Ignorance and lack of empathy in the court system has created a group of professional, highly specialized interpreters expected to work for subpar fees in both, State and Federal Courts.
Interpreters have been ignored and disrespected in several State systems where court interpreter pay is close to an unskilled worker’s, and has remained unchanged at such levels for years. Answers such as lack of resources, having to wait several budget cycles for the issue to be considered, have no credibility when wages of other officers of the court such as judges, State attorneys, and court reporters are raised and adjusted to inflation.
Spanish language federal court interpreters, arguably the most qualified group of court interpreters in the United States, have not seen a raise for many years, and have been ignored by the Judiciary when two letters signed by most interpreters were answered by the courts sending new contracts to these independent contractors at the same pay as every year for some time; not a word on a raise, or even an inflation cost of living adjustment. Many interpreters did not return the signed contract, others, changed the fees before signing it, and some signed and sent it back with the idea of not accepting any work as long as the fees issue remains unattended. We have learned that Washington, D.C., instead of contacting the various States, took the easy way, and it has been contacting several interpreters to discover what States pay for interpretation, instead of researching what the private sector pays.
This is important because for years, many of the most qualified, sought after, certified court interpreters have been ignoring the call of the courts, choosing instead the more profitable practice of interpreting for private attorneys, arbitrations, and depositions where they can make twice as much as what Federal Court pays. Sometimes even more.
The judiciary expects top-tier interpreters to work under abusive conditions, such as the federal cancelation policy. A few weeks ago, a federal judicial district issued a communication looking for federally certified court interpreters for a trial, the pay would be the same one interpreters are refusing to work for already. The communication stated the following as the court’s cancellation policy: “Because of the nature of the proceedings, in the federal courts, early terminations may occur. An interpreter is not entitled to a cancellation fee or additional compensation if the court gives the interpreter 24-hour notice that a trial will end early…” No compensation if notified 24 hours ahead of time! The court expects interpreters in high demand to set aside one or more weeks for a trial, and then leave them out in the cold if the parties settle, there is a plea agreement, the trial is continued, or the defendant pleads guilty. What individual in their right mind would agree to such terms? Only those who have to take the offer because they can get no work elsewhere. These will be rarely the best interpreters around.
This tendency is growing nationwide, and it is leaving the court system with a limited number of certified interpreters, some who stayed and work for little money because of the service they believe needs to be provided to a vulnerable population nobody in the system seems to care about, and those who cannot get work in the more competitive private sector because of their skill or lack of flexibility to travel or work long hours.
Many hearings, especially the short ones, and other interpreter services usually provided by certified interpreters, will continue to go to untrained, unskilled non-certified interpreters and paraprofessional bilinguals who will put non-English speakers at a disadvantage in their court proceedings. Sometimes, some courts, especially at the State level, may even use interpreters from another State, or those living in a foreign country who provide their services remotely, without a certification, and who gladly accept the low fees because their home country’s economy differs from the United States’.
Some certified court interpreters are even entering the conference interpreting field with no preparation, under the wrong assumption that certified court interpreters can interpret a conference. This complicates the landscape as interpretations in these conferences is deficient, and gives unscrupulous platforms and agencies some resemblance of legitimacy when they advertise the quality of their interpreters.
The constitutional mandate to have court interpreters may be at increasing risk every time judicial authorities remain inactive when interpreters, with justice and equity on their side, demand long overdue work conditions commensurate to the specialized service they provide, including fees that reflect this, and cost of living adjustments every year. Unless something is done to remedy this embarrassing issue, the administration of justice will be unequal, and the victims will all be humans: the litigants and others who appear in court, and the long ignored, and disrespected court interpreters.
August 9, 2022 § 2 Comments
The best part of having a well-established professional practice is that your client portfolio is already developed. After years of collaboration, you come to know your clients and they know you. Tensions, concerns and uncertainties about policy, practices, and the relationship, are no more. My preference is to keep my clients and rarely work with somebody I do not know.
Unfortunately, sometimes a project is so interesting, or the conditions are so attractive that you take a chance and try a new client. As you all freelancers know, sometimes this strategy works, sometimes it does not.
A collaboration on a multi-day assignment that was both, interesting and well remunerated came along; it was with someone I did not know and I moved forward. At the time of the preliminary, planning stages of the event things seem fine, although there were some revealing clues I missed, but things did not get truly uncomfortable until the start of the assignment.
On the first day of the event, this person I had never worked with before, a monolingual individual in a position of power who apparently has traveled little, quickly assessed the foreign language speakers and made an instantaneous judgement call that would affect everybody participating in the event, including the interpreting team.
Before 6 in the morning of the second day of the assignment I received a message on my phone informing me, and the rest of the team, that our interpreting services would be needed no longer because everybody in attendance seemed to have an acceptable level of fluency in English. Shortly after, I received an email with my plane ticket to go back home.
Because of a good contract, our fees were not a problem; there was no financial damage derived from this decision, but the process was unprofessional and the way it was handled was disrespectful.
I find it difficult to believe that an individual with no knowledge of foreign languages can conclude that everyone in the audience is fluent in a language that is not their first, and this can be done after observing about two hours of a conference where the audience is mostly listening, and the few questions asked during such a period of time come from people who are confident enough on their foreign language skills to ask them directly, without interpretation, even if they fumble with the words, apply grammar incorrectly, and use false cognates.
The interpreters learned the decision was made to save money (we got paid because of a good contract, but other expenses as lodging, per diem, transportation, etc. would be saved) but no one was ever consulted. Not the interpreters, who know the working languages in the event, and also know, from experience, that as peer-pressure shrinks, attendees use their native languages, especially to ask questions. The audience was never polled to see if they needed interpretation. The decision was based on a single opinion from a monolingual individual whose only goal was to save (little) money, apparently a priority as it became clear when I analyzed all circumstances surrounding the job. Things that seemed irrelevant at the planning stages now made sense: Booking plane tickets on an airplane grounded for 24 months after 2 fatal accidents in one year, because they were cheap; offering a welcome reception with sub-par food and even worse service at a place no-doubt chosen because of the price.
The contract terms protected the interpreters, and even freed our time to work on other assignments on the cancelled dates, but that we were never approached in person to tell us face to face of this decision to dismiss the team, that there was not even a greeting other than a message early in the morning when you are still in bed, and to leave the attendees without the benefit of interpreting services, without even polling them to discover their needs, is inappropriate, unprofessional, and frankly disrespectful. The lesson learned was that you can try new clients when protected by a good, solid contract, and the benefit from this situation was that I did not have to continue my collaboration with such a difficult, one-track mind individual. I now invite you to share with the rest of us your stories about good contracts that protected you from difficult clients, or bad experiences where you lacked said protection.
July 18, 2022 § 9 Comments
When interpreters you never heard of take to social media, even LinkedIn, to talk about their many RSI assignments, bragging about how they work long hours at odd times of the night, just to be “congratulated” by others doing the same thing, and by people known for hiring interpreters for little pay and poor working conditions, and next you look at what our European Parliament colleagues are doing, you must conclude it is admirable, and worthy of our full support.
These brave interpreters are fighting to protect their health and to work under the conditions previously agreed to, but they are also fighting for the profession. If an institution like the Parliament gets away with violating a collective agreement, and resorts to hiring cheap interpreters, even from places outside the Union, all other interpreters will be next. Those of us who mainly work in the private sector, and as individual contractors with some institutions, must understand that the rules broken somewhere else, and the disregarded agreements, will happen in our market not long from now. These are some of the reasons why we should all support our EP colleagues; but there is another reason we should admire them, respect them, and use them as an inspiration and role model: They understand the value of the service they provide, and they use it as a tool to protect the profession.
It is funny how at the same time these colleagues are fighting this battle, many others have quit, decided not to act, or chose a strategy that does not let them negotiate as equals with those who impact their interpreting practice.
Recently, the court interpreters of an American State, who have been paid one of the lowest professional fees in America, and have not seen a fee raise or cost of living adjustment for years, asked for a $10 USD per hour fee increase, set a deadline for the authorities to respond, and threatened with a walk off if those dates were not observed and their demand for a raise was not honored. First, the action had a lot of support, it got precious media coverage locally and nationwide, but a few days later, after the State gave them questionable reasons, basically denying the raise and telling them they would “consider” their petition for the 2024 budget, despite the determination of some interpreters to go ahead with the walk off, most interpreters gave in and continued to work. They feared not being scheduled to work (for peanuts) anymore.
A few weeks ago, a nationwide association of judicial interpreters held a conference in the United States. Among the guests to speak about their successes on language access to the courts, an individual who has repeatedly lowered court interpreters’ work conditions in one of the States in America was scheduled to participate and praise the accomplishments of the program he is responsible for. I learned of this situation when an interpreter who works in that State reached me in Europe to share the news and to ask me why in my opinion that person had been invited to speak, despite his actions as an administrator which have resulted in leaving approximately 20 or so state-certified court interpreters (a considerable number in a small State like this one) out of work, because of his practice of hiring interpreters without a court certification, and interpreters from other States who work for a pay lower than the one State court interpreters must get paid.
I immediately suggested all interpreters in the State take this opportunity, when the interpreting universe of the United States is paying attention to this conference, to publicly denounce these practices for the world to know. In other words: to bombard the conference Twitter account with stories of how the practice of these government officials is not to observe court interpreter state policy, and to deny court work to those who complain. Even though this was a unique chance to pressure the State, except for a few colleagues, who I salute, the rest of the interpreters decided not to go to war with the State government to protect their profession. They feared retaliation and not being “called to interpret anymore”.
Finally, a few days ago I was asked to sign a petition to the authorities asking for a fee raise for a group of specialty interpreters in the United States. These are the only interpreters authorized to practice at this level; they are an elite group, and considered among the best in their field. Unfortunately, they are also known as the interpreter group that has not seen a raise, or cost of living adjustment in over 6 years. Even though I knew from the start I would sign the letter in solidarity with my colleagues (I rarely work in that system because they pay very little), I read the letter and was sad to see it was a very timid letter applying no leverage. My first reaction was: Why is a government agency that has not cared enough about its interpreters for so many years going to change policy after reading a letter with no teeth? Unlike the interpreters’ letter in the first case above, which at least had a deadline and a threat of strike, these federal court interpreters exercised no leverage. They put no pressure on the authorities.
The European Parliament interpreters showed us the value of our work. If the interpreters in other organizations or public service agencies stopped working, the system would be crippled. The authorities know this and know they would need to avoid such labor stoppage no matter what. All government agencies in the world operate within a budget and it takes time to modify it, but all government agencies in the world have additional emergency funds to be used to keep the government running. Had these interpreters exercised their leverage, their raises would be coming right now.
Interpreters everywhere must understand that communication among those who don’t share a common language is impossible without their services. They need to see there is a great demand for what we do elsewhere; that during the time of a stoppage they can interpret in other fields and venues, especially in these days of distance interpreting. The day most interpreters shake off their fears, doubts, and lack of confidence, and do as our European Parliament colleagues did, their fees and work conditions will finally be as they should. It is a matter of understanding they need us more than we need them.
Like President Franklin D. Roosevelt said: “The only thing to fear is fear itself”.
July 5, 2022 § Leave a comment
Interpreting is subject to many external factors that can affect the event to be interpreted. Rescheduling and cancelations are not uncommon. Natural disasters, political crises, financial problems, participants’ illness, transportation issues, and even a pandemic can postpone or scratch a conference, a filed motion, a plea agreement, or a dismissal can continue or cancel a court hearing, and technical issues can interrupt, postpone, or cancel any remote event or RSI interpretation.
Most interpreters, and many clients, understand that interpreters sell their time, and the professional-personal nature of the service makes it impossible for an interpreter to work two assignments at the same time. Because postponements and cancelations are common, and this understanding of how interpreters work and generate income is widely known, practically all interpretation agreements have a cancelation clause.
Unfortunately, there is no cancelation policy uniformity. Most interpreters, and their clients, understand that interpreters must be compensated for a last-minute cancelation, fewer agree this compensation should cover more than last-minute changes.
Because interpreters need to prepare for an assignment, a cancelation impacts interpreters beyond missing a day of work; an interpretation quoted fee represents more than the 3 days of interpreting during the conference or trial, it includes the compensation for the time an interpreter devotes to research, study, planning, and practice for the event. The compensation amount must be linked to the time already spent on the assignment. Complex cases require more preparation, so the compensation must reflect it. Let’s see: A three-day technical, scientific, or specialized conference canceled four weeks before the scheduled start should command higher compensation than a routinary three-day conference, on the same topic, held every year. On the first case a fair compensation could be eighty percent of the agreed fee. Compensation for the second conference, with the same advanced notice, could be fifty percent of the originally agreed fee. Cancelation of a scheduled interpretation received by the interpreter over eight weeks before the event should carry no monetary compensation unless the subject of the conference caused interpreters to begin preparations before that date.
In all cases, the client needs to reimburse the interpreter for all disbursed expenses to the notice of cancelation. This includes airplane or train tickets, hotels, car rentals. Immunizations, Covid tests, photocopies, printing of materials, long distance phone calls, etc.
The situation is more complicated when clients, in good faith, because they want to keep the professional relationship with the interpreter, send a notice of cancelation of the event, and send notice of another assignment for the same dates of the now cancelled event. Under this scenario, clients expect interpreters to cover assignment two on the same terms they were originally retained to interpret assignment one. Clients believe they have protected the interpreter because no work day was eliminated. Many interpreters think the same way.
That is not the case: Although the interpreter will work on the same dates and will make the same money he was expecting from interpreting assignment one, the interpreter needs to prepare for assignment two, a different conference requiring research, study, planning, and practice. The originally quoted fee included preparation for that assignment. Using the same fee for assignment two would mean that the interpreter will now research, study, plan, and practice with no compensation. This is unacceptable.
Interpreters need to understand that the original agreement, the meeting of the minds on services and fees, ended with the notice of cancelation. Even though the client has proposed a different job for the same dates, the interpreters are entitled to compensation for their preparation for the original conference and to reimbursement of expenses. The client has now made a new offer for a different assignment, and fees must be negotiated from the beginning. Once the interpreters assess the complexity of assignment number two, they can quote a fee for that interpretation. The fee should factor in there were no vacated dates from the first assignment, but it has to include preparation tasks for the new event. Once the parties agree, there will be a new interpreting services contract for the second assignment. If the interpreter is hired for the second conference, an adjustment to the cancelation fee for the original contract reflecting there were no vacated dates is appropriate. The goal is to be compensated for all work performed inside and outside of the booth (or virtual booth) and to respect the client by negotiating in good faith and only charging for professional services rendered.