What makes a good interpreter?

April 16, 2018 § 7 Comments

Dear colleagues:

Often when we attend a social event and start a conversation with people we do not know, but know about our profession, we are asked what makes a good interpreter. I know there are many answers to this question; all have value and are probably right. In my case, after being asked the same innumerable times throughout the years, in my personal and professional opinion, three things make a good interpreter.

First, the interpreter must be able to communicate concepts from a source language into a target language.  Webster tells us that an interpreter is one who translates orally for parties in different languages. The main goal is to make sure that a concept was conveyed in such a manner that the person receiving the information, who does not understand the language of the speaker, gets everything those who speak the main speaker’s language got.

To achieve this, the interpreter must understand what is being said in the source language, synthesize what was said, and orally convey it to the receiver with proper grammar and vocabulary in the target language, so it can be understood. Good interpreters “clean” the message so unnecessary words that may sound strange in the target language are eliminated. The good interpreter interprets the “meat” and gets rid of the “fat”. (I know this does not apply to some community interpreting, particularity to court interpreting where everything must be interpreted. This is a global answer, thinking of conference interpreting).  The good interpreter must understand, synthesize, and have command of grammar, culture, and vocabulary.

Second, a good interpreter must have a pleasant delivery that everybody understands. Good voice, décalage, volume, rhythm, pace. Listeners must be so comfortable they forget about the voice in their ear and concentrate in the speech. Voice modulation, clarity, enunciation, are a very important part of a rendition. Heavy breathing, coughing, slurping, rushing through the speech, and chasing speakers too close to what they just said make you look bad, even when you are a good interpreter.

Finally, my third attribute of the good interpreter is team work. The good interpreter lives in a conflict-free environment. They support their colleagues in the booth, are fair, and will go the extra mile to save a rendition. Often, a good interpreter who gets along with others is more desirable than a great interpreter who creates conflict everywhere. Do not misunderstand this attribute of a good interpreter. I never said that an interpreter willing to work more for less, or one who accepts deplorable work conditions, or a low fee are good interpreters. They are not. Easy going differs from easy to fool.

There you have it. To me a good interpreter then, is one who understands a concept, digests it, and conveys it to the client in a pleasant clear voice, so it can be understood by the foreign language speaker; and does it all while being a dedicated professional, good colleague, and decent human.

I now invite you to share with the rest of us your idea of a good interpreter.

Technology, modernity, and globalization are great for interpreters, it’s just that…

April 19, 2015 § 10 Comments

Dear colleagues:

We are very fortunate to live at a time when there are so many developments that make our lives more comfortable; this includes our profession. Most interpreters realize that there are many positive changes: From the way we now research our assignments, to the social media we use to get more clients, to the places where we work, to the things we now take to the booth. All improvements to the way we used to work just a few years ago.

Nobody wants to go back to the days when you had to go to the library to research and study for an assignment, we now google the subject matter, the speaker, and the venue where we are going to render our services, and we do it from our office, our home, an airplane, and even the beach. Our research library went from the nearby branch of the local library system to all of the Ivy League libraries combined. We now keep up with all developments in the profession, and with current affairs in general, by using the web, and particularly social media. We find out about conferences, online courses, webinars, and business trends with Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn, and many others that we also use for getting new clients and keeping the good ones we already have.

Many interpreters who did not have access to important assignments in the past, because of the place where they live, can now interpret remotely using a virtual booth without having to go to the big city or travel half way across the world. This has helped them become better interpreters and broaden their perception of the profession.

I don’t think anyone wants to go back to the days when we used to drag heavy suitcases full of dictionaries, glossaries, and textbooks to the booth. Now, if we have an I-Pad or a tablet in the booth, we have all the libraries in the world, everything the speaker ever said or wrote on a particular topic, and all the information on the subject matter of the presentation updated to the very last minute. Nobody wants to give this up.

You see my friends, interpreters want technology, and they want globalization, but we need to be very careful. I think that sometimes people get confused and mix two separate concepts: (1) Technology and those who create, develop, and improve it, and (2) The big language service providers who are in a race to get all possible benefits out of these developments and are ready to leave nothing behind for the human asset in this equation: the interpreter.

The creators, call them researchers, developers, scientists, or engineers who are constantly giving us new tools to make our lives and careers easier and more comfortable are not the enemy. They spend most of their time trying to find ways to deliver a quality product (or service) to those who are and could be our clients.  They are the ones who brought us all of the positive changes I mentioned above, and many more. This is a crowd we want to be with, we need to.

We must engage these entrepreneurs because they know the science and the engineering, not because they are acquainted with the interpreting profession. We are the experts in this field, the ones they need to hear from, the ones they must listen to, the ones who will tell them what is needed and how. We cannot afford to ignore them, attack them, or dismiss them; we have to sit down and talk to them.

We also have to come to terms with globalization, and I believe that most interpreters have done so. Everybody understands that globalization is here to stay, we cannot (and should not) wish it away. We know that globalization broadens the pool of interpreters that can have access to an assignment, it opens all world markets to the profession. This translates into more opportunities for the good quality interpreter to have more and better work, and it gives the client the possibility to get the most knowledgeable interpreters in a particular field or subject matter, regardless of where they might be physically located.  Obviously, a clear effect of globalization is the ever increasing need to communicate with others who will often speak a different language, thus emphasizing the need for interpreters and translators. The verdict is in: Globalization is great for interpreters because it gives the client access to more and better professionals, and it allows us to get more complex, interesting, and profitable assignments. My friends, we face no threat from new technology or from globalization. Let’s not buy into this argument. We need to stop wasting our time fighting against windmills.  We must concentrate our efforts somewhere else:

We already know what many interpreting agencies are doing under the banner of globalization and technology: They want us to spend our energy fighting against them, they want us to look obsolete and reluctant to change, that is the image they are selling to their clients.  Why would they do that? Because it helps them. By silencing the interpreters’ voice, they get the clients’ undivided attention, and once they have the client in their pocket, they can convince them to do as they recommend. Their goals are different from ours. There is nothing wrong with that, as they owe their loyalty to their shareholders, and we cannot lose sight of it.  The large (sometimes publicly traded) language service agencies’ goal is to generate a big profit by minimizing their expenses as much as possible. They will spend huge amounts of money acquiring this new technology in order to lower their cost of operation. Once the new system is in place, technology will allow them to control the market and offer interpreters a very sad choice: “take very little money for your services, or get out of the way”.  They are banking on their clients’ trust (remember, they have their undivided attention) and they rely on new technology that will let them work with mediocre interpreters as these new technologies will do much of the work that interpreters used to do.  The result will be a very low quality service, but because of this strategy, the clients will never know, or at least it will take them a while to discover the poor choices they made.   Now, the agencies I usually work for do not fall into this category. In this article I am not talking about some big companies who work big conferences and events; I am not including some small agencies who do a great job and pay interpreters very well either. They all understand the importance and value of a quality interpretation.  Here I am referring to those enormous agencies that control a big chunk of the market, and hire thousands of interpreters for laughable rock-bottom fees every day. These are the agencies many of you reading this post work with on a regular basis.

I also want to make it clear that I am not calling them evil. They do what they are supposed to do, and do it very well. The important point for us, as interpreters, is to understand that we do have opposing interests in the profession, and with this realization, we must deal with them not as criminals or monsters, but as antagonistic forces in our professional market, who, in my opinion, bring in less value than the interpreter, as the profession can exist without them, but it cannot without us.

This is what major multinational language agencies are doing at this time. We should not take the bait. Instead of arguing against globalization and technology, we must change the debate and take it to the human talent: The interpreter.

You see, we need to have a two-front approach:

(1) We have to talk directly to those developing the technology, and we need to do it now before the agencies take ownership of the whole issue. The scientists and engineers will talk to us: We are the equipment users. We have to create forums where we can discuss interpreting technology with those developing it; we have to talk costs, service, preferred platforms, software, and many other things. We need to do it as soon as possible, and we need to do it in an environment free of the interests of the major language agencies. In other words, this will never happen if we believe that results can be achieved within an environment controlled by these language service providers. We cannot bring these issues to the table and speak directly to the scientists and engineers in events sponsored by the agencies. There cannot be real progress in a discussion panel where the moderator is the CEO of one of these huge agencies who clearly, and logically, have goals that are different from ours.  Does this mean that we will not sit down and talk to the agencies? Absolutely not. It is just that before we do that, we have to be in a better position to be able to negotiate from strength. The last thing we need right now is to hear fantastic stories from some of these agencies trying to convince interpreters that the technology they now use is great for us because “instead of having to drive downtown to do your work, and instead of having to sit down and wait for a couple of hours before interpreting, you can now devote forty five minutes to the interpreting task from your own home, and then do something else with the rest of your life like mowing the lawn or playing with your kids”.  Of course, this means that instead of paying the interpreter for a full day of work, their intention is to pay for forty five minutes of work. On top of being insulting to the professional interpreter, nobody can make a living that way. They are offering a salary lower than a fast food restaurant and they are doing it with a big smile on their face.

(2) We need to educate the client by speaking directly to them.  Most clients rely on the agency’s knowledge and expertise as far as selecting the interpreters for an assignment. They never really stop to think what it is needed to properly interpret, and the agencies do not want them to spend much time doing that, as it would provoke uncomfortable questions about the quality, training, education, and experience of so many of the interpreters they presently offer to their clients, as these agencies make their decision to hire based on one issue alone: Who is willing to work for less money.

The client needs to know that a good interpreter has years of education and experience, and only after that, interpreters can deliver an impeccable, accurate, clear, and pleasant rendition; they need to be made aware of the fact that real professional interpreters do a comprehensive research of the subject matter, and do not take assignments two hours before the job when the agency representative calls them desperate because they cannot get anybody to cover the event. The client needs to hear how a really good interpreter goes beyond the rendition, works on problem prevention and solving during the event. Once the client understands that a good interpreter sells peace of mind, and especially after they realize that working with the interpreter directly, instead of through an agency, will be more cost-effective, as agencies pay rock bottom fees to the interpreter, while at the same time they charge their clients handsomely, they will become more knowledgeable and will demand good interpreters from the agencies. This is where you, my dear colleagues, need to hold your ground and demand top professional fees from these agencies. I suggest that as part of this education you target the legal department and insurance office of the client, and share with them some of the tragic results of hiring poor quality interpreters. We all know about these unfortunate incidents. I am convinced that these individuals will advise their clients to retain quality interpreters, as they will understand that good professionals are like an insurance policy: More expensive in the short run, but money savers at the end of the day.

Do not be shy about explaining to the client how it does not make sense to spend a lot of money hiring an expensive speaker for a keynote address, a top-notch caterer, and a beautiful venue, if at the end of the day the people who paid to listen to the speaker will not get much out of the presentation because they could not understand the foreign language speaking presenter due to poor quality interpreting.  Your job is to convince them that an expensive interpreter is not an expense, it is an investment.

Never forget that as the human talent in this operation, interpreters are indispensable to deliver the service, just like you cannot benefit from an MRI without a physician’s reading of the results, you cannot have quality interpreting without good interpreters. We can join forces with the technology provider and do a magnificent job. Agencies cannot do the same without good interpreters, unless we let them change the subject so that their client does not see the importance of our service. At this point we will have many options: we will be able to decide if we want to work with large agencies, smaller ones, directly with the client, and even as a professional group, association, or cooperative where we may be able to acquire the needed technology and offer our services bypassing the low-paying agencies.

At this time we will be ready to sit down and negotiate as equals with these gigantic agencies. They are doing a good job at what they are supposed to do; now it is our time to do the same.  Please share your thoughts on this extremely important issue, and when doing so, please abstain from mentioning all the things that agencies can do that we cannot, because we know the things they do, and we understand that although difficult, we could ultimately do them all.  I invite you to contribute to this discussion without defending the agencies. We all know there are already plenty of forums where they can defend themselves.

Beware of the bottom feeders of the profession.

May 27, 2014 § 9 Comments

Dear colleagues:

I was contacted by one of my friends not long ago; a colleague interpreter who wanted to share with me an all too familiar story about certain individuals that for years, I have referred to as the bottom feeders of the profession. I had heard similar stories, I am sure that you have heard them as well, and in fact, to illustrate the point, and because this is business, during my own professional career I have encountered some examples of these creatures here and there. It is not my intention to offend anybody, I just want to underline the contrast between these individuals and a good, responsible professional interpreter who understands that this is a business. I will describe the specimen in a moment, but to clearly explain the unique characteristics of these despicable beings, please let me share my friend’s story first:

“Once upon a time there was a penny-pincher language agency that had an event where some of the participants did not speak the native language, so the agency needed to hire interpreters. At the same time that the agency was learning the details of the event, a very good, hard working, and kind interpreter who was loved by her colleagues, admired by her peers, and sought after by her clients, was sitting in front of her computer invoicing some nefarious clients who just could not pay their bills on time because of religious reasons; you see: they were worshippers of the verb procrastination. While she wrestled with the idea of suing them or not, her phone rang. It was the penny-pincher agency. They asked her if she would be willing to provide her interpretation services for the event they just had booked that same morning. They explained that the event would be in a different town, and they offered to pay the same fee the good interpreter was paid on the last time they had retained her services. The good interpreter checked her agenda and noticed that she was available on the requested dates, and since the event that was described to her sounded pretty much like the one she had done for the penny-pincher agency before, she agreed to the same fee plus travel expenses. It was all good, friendly and civilized, so the penny-pincher agency asked the good interpreter for a referral for the second interpreter who would share the booth with the good interpreter. Because the good interpreter did not know the schedule of any other interpreter, she provided three names and contact information of colleagues she had worked with in the past and felt like she could recommend as good professional interpreters who would provide an excellent service. The penny-pincher agency thanked the good interpreter and hung up.

Two days later, while the good interpreter was at her attorney’s office waiting to talk to him about suing some of the members of the procrastination cult, she got a phone call from the penny-pincher agency. She was told that the interpreters she had suggested had been contacted but that they were too expensive. They told her that instead of the colleagues she had recommended they had found this other individual who was willing to work for a much lower fee. The penny-pincher agency said that they would rather hire this person, but they wanted to know first if the good interpreter knew the individual and if this was a person she would feel comfortable with. When the good interpreter heard the name of the less-expensive individual she almost fell to the ground. They were asking her to work with pariah-interpreter, a person who was well-known for charging very little and delivering even less. The good interpreter immediately explained her concerns; she informed the penny-pincher agency that pariah-interpreter was not a conference interpreter; that people like pariah-interpreter puffed-up their credentials by including community interpreting as conference work in their resume. The good interpreter even explained that interpreting at a church meeting or a community center with a microphone on top of a table with no booth, no power point, no presenters or speakers, was an honorable job, but it was light-years away from being conference interpreting. She even conveyed to penny-pincher agency how pariah-interpreter was regarded as a terrible professional by all reputable interpreters, and how she would always work with mediocre people in order to avoid scrutiny by real professional interpreters. The good interpreter even provided the names of other good reliable colleagues who lived in the town where the event was to take place explaining to penny-pincher agency that this way they could save money on travel costs and still get top-quality interpretation. She even brought up the fact that pariah-interpreter would have to travel to the place of the event because she lived in a different state. Penny-pincher agency thanked the good interpreter and hung up. A week later the good interpreter was notified by email that her services for that event were no longer needed. That was it.

Good interpreter was not happy about the whole thing, but after all, a seasoned experienced professional that she was, she knew that these things happen when you get pariah-interpreter and penny-pincher agency together in the same project. Fortunately for her, it turned out that she was retained for another assignment that actually paid better and was on a more interesting subject matter. Because the world of language services is so small and so well-communicated, it wasn’t long before the good interpreter found out that penny-pincher agency had hired pariah-interpreter and one of her peers: earthworm-interpreter to do the job; that they had paid for the services of both of this “exceptional” individuals less than the fee they were going to pay for the good interpreter, and that despite the complaints and bad reviews by the people who attended the event and required of interpretation services, penny-pincher agency was happy with the services of pariah-interpreter and earthworm-interpreter because they met the requirement of having two interpreters in the booth, and sooner or later those attending the events would have to get used to the “natural” limitations of the interpreters who “after all are humans.” So goes the story dear friends and colleagues: penny-pincher agency lived happily and richer but not ever after, only until a conference organizer sued them for hiring the lowest of the low professionals, and took them to the cleaners.   The good interpreter continues to work for a professional fee, takes care of her clients, and she now refuses to waste her valuable time trying to convince the likes of penny-pincher agency that you cannot get wine from a rock. Oh, and pariah-interpreter, earthworm-interpreter and the rest of their clan continue to live happily ever after, as long as your definition of happiness includes working for peanuts, being ignored by all real professional interpreters, and having an empty bank account. The end.”

Of course my friend did not tell me the story this way, but I wanted to have some fun with these despicable characters. These are the bottom feeders in my book. I have discussed them and mentioned them many times in this blog and during my lectures, workshops and presentations; many of you know that they forever have a special place on my “Ten worst” lists, and those of you who know me in person know how I try to interact with them as little as possible.

Let’s make it very clear that I am against working for peanuts, I oppose lowering fees for the sake of getting the client; but I am also a teacher and a colleague, and as many of you know, I spend hours with new and reluctant colleagues trying to explain to them the economics of the profession and the adverse effects of working for rock bottom fees. I would never classify one of these colleagues as a bottom feeder unless he or she earns the title.

I am sure that as you read the story above, you immediately identified the bottom feeders in your environment and made a mental list. That is great. I encourage you to do so, but first look with objectivity at each individual, and then make your decision. It is a detailed process but it is one we all need to do, and we must do it without any emotional consideration. This is a business-related exercise.

Find your pariah-interpreters and translators and ice them. Do not work with them; do not invite them to any professional activities. Remember: They would take any opportunity to associate with you even if it is to have a photo-op or a name association that they will be able to exploit later on. You do not need them; they are not your competition. They do not play in the same league that you do. Their clients are not, and will never be, your clients. You don’t look for a brand new Ferrari in a junk yard. Leave the junk yard to them. If you ignore them they will not hurt you professionally, and hopefully you will soon forget them, but if out of pity or misunderstood “compassion” you continue to look for them, their fame and reputation will stain your name. Beware of the bottom feeders.

I now invite you to share your ideas as to how to shield yourself from these hazardous individuals, and please abstain from comments defending these individuals. This forum will not give them a voice.

Why not a less expensive good new interpreter?

January 23, 2013 § 5 Comments

Dear colleagues:

When I recently wrote about the difference between hiring a less expensive interpreter instead of paying for a good seasoned experienced one, some colleagues raised the scenario where a new interpreter could be good but newer to the profession. The issue was that this new colleague could be as good as an experienced interpreter minus the years in the booth. If a client can retain the services of such a professional for less money, why bother with a more expensive interpreter who would be charging more just because of the years of professional work.

It seems to me that this is a very valid point and worth of analysis. It is a well-known fact that there are many extremely good interpreters entering the market every year. I know it because I have worked with some of them. They are good, professional, reliable, and they charge less than a well established top-level interpreter. The perfect answer to a client’s need!

However, and there is always a “however,” the business of interpretation is much more than booth performance and professional attitude. It is my personal experience that the client wants a one-stop all-inclusive service that frees him to do everything else needed to have a successful event. When a client is paying top money for an experienced interpreter he or she expects a professional who knows about booth location, interpretation equipment, and much more. They want an interpreter who is able to suggest equipment, technician, protocol, and many other things. My clients hire me because of my booth performance, but they also know that they can count on me for all dealings with the rest of the interpreters, tech support, booth location, speaker orientation, and the intangibles like the best coffee shop near the convention center, the closest Ipad charging station at the airport, a good restaurant suggestion at the conference site, and tons of other things that they expect the good interpreter to know. I know that many of my colleagues have seen the sign of relief on a client’s face when you tell them that you know the technician, that you have worked with him; or when you arrive at the hotel or convention center and the local staff greets you as an old friend. They love it when you can get the extra wireless microphones, or the additional thirty minutes of conference room after they were told it was impossible to do it. Well, this is why the client is paying the experienced interpreters’ fees. If a short-sighted client wants excellent work in the booth and nothing else, a new good and inexpensive interpreter is an attractive option, but if the client was to forget about interpretation and concentrate on everything else, she or he will happily pay for the services of a one-stop high-quality seasoned well-known interpreter.

I personally believe that a good solution is a mix of several top-notch interpreters and an all-star team of newcomers. I have always loved to teach everything I know to the new generation, and I know I am not alone; many of you do the same. Therefore, my answer to those who contacted me after my previous posting is: There is a difference between great new interpreters and great experienced interpreters that goes beyond the fee we charge. Let’s build the next generation of interpreters by working together, teaching them the many nuances of the profession, and showing them that a good interpreter should never charge little money. I would love to hear your comments.

When the client realizes that a cheap interpreter is not the same as a good interpreter.

August 27, 2012 § 15 Comments

Dear Colleagues,

Yesterday I received a phone call from a client asking me to interpret a high-profile conference for their organization. Several months earlier this same client had discarded me as a potential interpreter stating that I wanted too much money to do my job.

This is how it all started: When this client, who I will refer to as “Client A”, first won a contract to provide interpretation services for a big company, they contacted those interpreters who had previously worked interpreting for the same big corporation under the agency who had the interpretation contract before “Client A” ousted them during the bidding process for a new contract.   I still remember the first time “Client A” called me. After telling me how they had looked into my professional background and how happy they would be if I were to agree to work for them under this new contract, the person from the agency told me: “…but you are not one of those interpreters who want to charge $600 per day, right?…” Of course I immediately replied: “Of course not. I used to charge that, but it was many years ago when I was not well-known in the industry. Now I charge plenty more.”

Needless to say, after a few months of a little song and dance, I learned through another colleague that they had already retained the services of other interpreters, relatively new to the field, and definitely new to the company the interpretation services were to be provided for.  That was it. I did not dwell on it, and I frankly forgot about the incident.

Now, back to the present, the client started the phone conversation telling me how sorry they were that they had not hired me for these assignments.  He explained their reasons, all of them financial, and then briefed me on the events the less-expensive retained interpreters had done so far.  I learned how the quality of the service was not at the level this big company was used to; I heard how the big company executives had complained about the interpreters, and how they had asked for me by name.  Finally, the client told me that they really wanted me on board; he asked me to name my “price” (fee) and asked me to have lunch with them.

Of course, this was music to my ears!  Yes I was happy to get the contract under favorable terms, but the thing that really made my day was to see the clients’ realization that as a general rule, quality costs money.   I took advantage of this great opportunity to educate the client about our profession, and I was very pleased to see how this client had finally “seen the light”.  I know this issue is a constant struggle for most of my colleagues. For this reason, it is important to hear your comments and stories about other clients who may have learned their lesson as well.

When law enforcement agencies do everything they can to avoid hiring a real interpreter.

August 17, 2012 § 9 Comments

Dear Colleagues,

The other day one of my colleagues asked my opinion about the quality of the Spanish a police officer was using during a recorded interview.  This colleague had been retained by the defense to analyze and transcribe the video of a police interview by a police woman in a very small town in the Midwest. As I sat there and listened to the nonsensical utterances that were emanating from this officer’s mouth, I went down memory lane and lived through them all again. I will never forget the police department that used a monolingual (in English) Hispanic woman as an interpreter for all of their investigations because “she grew up 20 miles from the Texas-Mexico border…(and that)…was enough to assume she spoke enough Spanish to communicate with the suspects…”  and how could I forget the police station that hired as interpreters all those who had failed the court interpreter certification test because “…they were cheaper and knew about the same…”  Never mind the disastrous results like the time when a little girl who had been the alleged victim of sexual abuse was considered to be a liar because the police interpreter did not know how to say “Christmas tree” in Spanish.  And the time when the “interpreter” referred to the pedestrian charges as the “pedophile charges”.  And yes! There was the man who interpreted the polygraph tests into Spanish and explained how to wear the wires by lifting, holding, bending, and stretching the suspects.  Hulk Hogan would have been proud of his technique.

During all my years as an interpreter, and specifically through my work as a court interpreter, I have learned that the common denominator among most police forces in the country seems to be their desire to save money on interpretation.  Apparently the fact that the investigation is jeopardized by using the services of unqualified or under-qualified linguists is not a concern.  Even in those towns where cases are systematically dismissed by the prosecution, or dismissed by the judges, because of violations to the rights of the defendant, or where indictments are based on faulty testimony, all due to a lack of communication between the English speaking authority and the non-English speaker defendant, victim, or witness,  because of poor interpretation, chiefs of police,  budget analysts, and city administrators are choosing the cheaper service provider over the sound and accurate legal investigation.

We all know that a dollar saved on a bad interpreter will translate on thousands of dollars spent on a new trial, an appeal process, or a brand new investigation.  Every time I have a chance, I talk to law enforcement administrators and try to explain how a real interpreter costs more, but at the same time she saves you money.  A $100.00 per hour interpreter will do her job correctly in two hours, while a mediocre $40.00 per hour individual will take longer, as he struggles to understand the language, comprehend the process, and communicate the concepts to both, police officer and non-English speaker.  After 8 long hours with a bad “interpreter”, the investigation moved very little, the legal process was violated several times, the cheap interpreter cost $320.00, and he has to come back the next day to finish the interview.  There were no savings.

So, as I sat there watching this video, looking at my colleague working so hard, writing down the mistakes of the interpreter doing the interview, making footnotes of her omissions, charting the additions she volunteered into the interview, and listening to my interpreter friend telling me how this police woman, part-time “interpreter” had already caused the dismissal of many cases because of her lack of skill and knowledge, I came to a strange realization:  The good interpreters are losing these police assignments to the bad ones, but because of this policy by the police departments, these good interpreters are now working as expert witnesses and linguistic advisors to the parties.  Therefore, at the end, the good interpreter wins because it is more lucrative to be the expert witness or advisor. But wait; what about the defendant, the victim, and society at large?  They may all get their justice in the long run after a lengthy legal process of appeals and re-tried cases, but in the meantime the victim will not feel safe, the innocent defendant will sit in a cell, and society will pay a hefty legal bill. All because the police department wants to save by hiring the bad interpreter.  I would like to read your comments and experiences about this topic.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with good interpreter at The Professional Interpreter.