Note: All the text of the introduction to the Sight Translation chapter of The Interpreter's Edge, Third Edition, is reproduced here. No attampt has been made, however, to make the HTML version look like the page layout of the book.
| Go directly to sample Sight Translation lesson | Go back to Interpreter's Edge product description |
|---|
Sight translation is often given short shrift in court interpreter training; because it appears to be such a simple task, not much attention is devoted to it. In fact, sight translation is just as difficult as simultaneous interpretation, and involves some of the same mental processes. In the case of sight translation, the input is visual (the written word) rather than oral (the spoken word), but the interpreter still has to process a thought in the source language and generate the target language version of that thought while simultaneously processing the next source language thought, and so on. Some interpreters find sight translation more difficult than the other modes of interpreting because they have more trouble focusing on meaning rather than words--the essence of proper interpretation--when the message is written in black and white on a piece of paper. Reading comprehension is an important element of sight translation, and the need to improve and maintain reading comprehension is one reason why court interpreters (and prospective court interpreters) should read as much and as widely as possible.
Another aspect of sight translation that should be emphasized is delivery. It is very important that the interpreter speak loudly and enunciate clearly, with proper intonation and voice modulation. Smooth pacing is also essential; sudden starts and stops and long pauses while the interpreter figures out a difficult translation problem are distracting to the listener. Ideally, a sight translation should sound as if the interpreter were merely reading a document written in the target language.
The texts contained in this chapter are designed to help you develop the skills you need for sight translation. Most of them are typical of the texts you will be required to sight translate in the courtroom. A few (the essays, in particular) are included because they illustrate a specific problem in sight translation. Different type faces and formats have been used so that you will become accustomed to dealing with different types of documents. In general, the texts that court interpreters are called upon to sight translate from English to Spanish contain bureaucratic language, which is characterized by technical jargon (that of the police, the courts, public agencies, etc.), abbreviations, long adjective-noun clusters, and the passive voice. The texts to be sight translated from Spanish to English are generally of two types: legal documents from other countries, characterized by long, convoluted sentences and technical legal terms; and handwritten or crudely typed documents written by unsophisticated people who are unfamiliar with the rules of grammar and punctuation in Spanish.
The first two texts, "Rights Concern Misplaced" and "Evitar los accidentes de bicicleta," are intended for public speaking practice preparatory to beginning sight translation. First, read them aloud (each in its original language) to practice your delivery (voice projection, enunciation, etc.). The essay in English is an opinion piece that forcefully presents a point of view; make sure you read it convincingly, even if you disagree with it. Next, paraphrase each text; that is, change the wording as much as you can without altering the meaning.
Paraphrasing is a helpful exercise that develops the mental agility you need for sight translation. It forces you to read ahead and solve problems quickly; it also helps you focus on meaning rather than words, thus avoiding stilted, literal translations. Paraphrasing is a good vocabulary-building exercise that you should continue to do periodically even after you feel you are adept at sight translation (during a break in court, pick up a magazine or newspaper and paraphrase an article). Moreover, paraphrasing is a good problem-solving technique; if you have trouble translating a phrase in a sight translation text, try paraphrasing it mentally in the source language first, and it may trigger a solution in the target language. It is important to remember, however, that paraphrasing is a valuable learning tool and mental exercise; court interpreters should never paraphrase when they are actually interpreting in court.
The remaining 22 texts are for sight translation practice. Try to sight translate them as smoothly as possible, solving problems as best you can. After you have completed the entire text, look up the terms you had trouble with.
When performing all of the exercises in this chapter, both the public speaking texts and the texts intended for sight translation, make sure you do them out loud, even if you have no audience. Record yourself on audio or video tape so that you know how you sound (and look, if you use video) to your audience.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled last week that Spanish-speaking prospective jurors can be barred from serving on juries that are expected to hear the interpreted testimony of Spanish-speaking witnesses. Reactions from civil rights groups, particularly those most closely associated with the Hispanic community, were immediate, loud, and overwhelmingly negative.
"The Reagan-Bush right-wing kangaroo court has once again shown its complete contempt for the rights of Hispanic Americans," said Consuela M. Jimenez-Kunstler, chairperson of United Citizens of Latin Extraction (UCLE) immediately after the court's decision was announced.
At first glance, one might be tempted to agree with Ms. Jimenez-Kunstler. But let's stop and consider whose rights are actually at stake here. Jury duty, as its name may suggest to those who are paying attention, is a duty, not a right. Spanish-speaking citizens do not have a right to be empaneled as jurors. They, like their less fortunate monolingual fellow citizens, have an obligation to serve on a jury when called upon to do so. This obligation arises out of a defendant's right to a jury of his (or her) peers and to a fair trial in general. Thus, the rights of Spanish-speaking citizens are not even at issue in this decision in so far as the citizens in question are members of the pool of prospective jurors and not themselves defendants.
But what of the defendant's rights? Without going into the specifics of the case upon which the court's decision was based, it's fairly easy to surmise that cases in which testimony will be given in Spanish will often (though by no means always) be cases involving a Hispanic defendant. Are the rights of such a defendant infringed upon by the exclusion of Spanish-speaking persons from his or her jury? Clearly, as courts have long ruled, the exclusion of persons from juries based on race, ethnicity, or skin color is unacceptable. Certainly the systematic exclusion from a jury of persons who share the defendant's ethnicity would tend to deny the defendant a fair trial.
But the court's recent ruling applies not to race or ethnicity, but to language. "Pshaw!" Ms. Jimenez-Kunstler might well reply--the distinction is nothing more than a flimsy veil for blatant racism. But is it? What legitimate purpose might be served by barring speakers of a particular language from serving on a particular jury?
The same purpose that is served by barring a realtor from serving in a case involving real estate fraud or a nuclear physicist from serving in a case involving nuclear power plant safety--that is, no juror must have, or believe himself to have, superior independent knowledge of the subject matter of the trial. Jurors are required to render their verdicts based exclusively on the evidence presented at the trial and upon the judge's instructions regarding the law. The legal process will be corrupted, and the defendant's rights infringed, if one juror attempts to sway others based on his or her supposed knowledge of, for example, the relevant law or of the character of certain witnesses.
The same principle applies in cases where testimony is to be given in a language other than English and then interpreted for the court. English-speaking jurors have only the interpreted testimony to consider. The official record of the trial contains only the interpreted testimony. Yet a Spanish-speaking juror (assuming the testimony in question is given in Spanish) attends to both the original testimony and the interpreted version.
Such a juror may disagree with the interpreter's rendering of certain testimony. Such a juror may feel that he or she has detected inflections or nuances in the original testimony that are lost in the interpretation, even where the interpreter is perfectly competent. And such a juror may of course be correct (just as a given realtor may in fact be more conversant in the relevant property law than the presiding judge).
But it is simply not acceptable in our system of law that one or more jurors should be privy to relevant information not available to all jurors. And it is even less acceptable that such jurors should be allowed, even in a well-intentioned attempt to be helpful, to sway their fellow jurors with what amounts to inside information.
In the best of all possible worlds, we would all speak each other's languages, and interpretation would not be an issue. On a more practical level, it might, in some jurisdictions, be easier and fairer to bar English-speaking jurors than to bar Spanish-speaking jurors. But in any case, the Supreme Court was correct in holding that all the jurors in any given case must hear exactly the same testimony.
Back off, Ms. Jimenez-Kunstler.
| Go back to the beginning of the sample lesson | Go to the top of this section. |
|---|---|
| Go back to Interpreter's Edge product description | |