Frequently Ask Questions

Why do interpreters need remote equipment; why can’t they just sit next to the person and whisper?

Imagine if you had to whisper your entire message or presentation to a participant while at the same time listening while someone else speaks. Whispering into someone’s ear is very tiring for more than a short while: the interpreter is forced into an awkward physical position, arched over someone else’s shoulder; only one ear faces out to the well of the room, so the interpreter has to strain more to hear the original; often the speakers have their backs to the interpreter; the interpreter’s close physical proximity to participants causes a false impression of intimacy and partiality; and the interpreter is more likely to be interrupted by the listener with questions, comments, or attempts to engage the interpreter in casual conversation.

Remote equipment has many advantages: the interpreter has an unobstructed view of the speakers; the interpreter can move if there are audibility problems; the interpreter is free to concentrate on the message without interruption or distraction; and the team can function smoothly by relying on the microphone at convenient times. In addition, if the listener is hard of hearing or needs to amplify the sound of the interpreter’s voice, he can do so by adjusting the volume control on the earhooks/headphones, without affecting others in the room.

In short, remote equipment is a boon to interpreters because it permits them to do their job more efficiently. Also, since the equipment can transmit on many channels, up to eight different languages can be broadcast at once (with a separate interpreter in each language), and there can be more than one person listening.

What is a certified interpreter?

The term "certified" is often used as a catch-all phrase to refer to any interpreter who works in a courtroom, but standards are far from uniform, and court interpreting is still partly an unregulated profession. State and federal courts have different qualification procedures and different performance standards.

Properly speaking, a certified interpreter is one who was passed an examination mandated by legislation to assess competency for court proceedings.

On the federal level, the Court Interpreters Act of 1978 mandated that a national certification examination be developed to test for knowledge of both languages and interpreting skill, administered through the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The federal interpreter testing program was developed in 1980. Interpreters of all languages are qualified differently in each district, due to the fact that there is no nationally recognized court interpreter test in most languages.

Currently the states have several different kinds of interpreter testing, but not all tests are recognized by law as certification tests. In New York state, interpreters who work full time or per diem are tested and approved by the state, but the state does not certify interpreters. New York state currently tests in 12 language combinations. New Jersey also has a program for qualifying interpreters, but it is not a certification exam.

Other states, such as California and Washington state, do have interpreter certification exams in many languages.

Sign language interpreters are tested through their professional association, the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.

Why aren’t the state and federal courts moving to develop more interpreter tests or to agree on uniform testing?

Interpreter exam development and administration is costly, and testing programs have been affected by political priorities and budgetary constraints. Different jurisdictions have different language needs, and interpreters are relative newcomers to the court system. The professionalization of the field is only 25 years old.

In federal court, how are interpreters qualified in languages that are not certified?

Interpreters for in-court proceedings are screened by the Chief Interpreter, or their qualifications are determined by the presiding judge. In some districts, such as SDNY, an in-house test is administered to interpreters of many, but not all language combinations. Those that are currently tested in the SDNY include: Russian, Polish, French, Italian, Mandarin or Cantonese, Fuzhou, Arabic, Greek, Portuguese.

What is the difference between interpreting and translating?

Interpreting is the conversion of speech (spoken language) while translation is conversion of text (written language) from one language into another. However, many people use these terms interchangeably, as in "The interpreter will translate the document out loud to the witness." (The correct term of art would be "sight translation" because the interpreter is reading a written text and translating it on sight rather than in writing. A written text is much more dense than a spoken utterance. If you want a document read to your client, the interpreter can be more accurate by doing a sight translation rather than simultaneously interpreting your reading of the text.)

Can’t all interpreters translate documents , and all translators interpret orally?

No. Translation and interpretation are different skills, though both language-related. An analogy would be that a criminal attorney does not necessarily know patent law well enough to practice it tomorrow morning. A ballet dancer does not necessarily dance swing. Some, but not all, interpreters are well versed in written translations as well; however, most professional translators have never worked as interpreters. Competency examinations test for different skills in each category. (For example, at the United Nations, the Interpretation Department is a wholly separate entity from the Translation Department.) For court work, the lines are not so clearly drawn, but it depends entirely on the nature of the assignment. For example, tape transcripts are a hybrid form, part oral and part written, and some interpreters specialize in preparing them. But one cannot assume that any interpreter will be able to produce a good transcript.

Different areas of the brain are used in these disciplines. People who are fast thinkers and fast reactors tend to prefer interpreting, in which decisions about language, structure and meaning have to be made in split seconds. More logic-loving, scholarly, detail-oriented people prefer translating, which takes place in isolation, and gives the translator the ability to consult many dictionary sources before making a final decision.

What is the difference between simultaneous and consecutive interpreting?

The main difference lies in the time lag between the original speech and the interpretation into the foreign language. Simultaneous is "continuous flow" whereas consecutive has a "stop-and-go" rhythm. It is comparable to the difference between doing consecutive and concurrent time.

Simultaneous is real-time interpreting: speakers talk as they normally would, without pause, as the interpreter listens to one language and speaks in another, all at the same time (hence the term simultaneous), with the voices overlapping, though the speaker’s voice is dominant and the interpreter whispers into a microphone. It is also known as U.N.-style interpreting. Simultaneous interpreting is the only way to provide a running rendition of everything said without requiring the original speaker to stop after every sentence. Few people can interpret simultaneously at a high level of accuracy (80% or better), regardless of their ability to speak the two languages in question. Simultaneous interpretation calls for concentration, mental flexibility, and wide-ranging vocabulary in both languages. Research has shown that 23 cognitive skills are involved in simultaneous interpreting. Current neurological research reveals that interpreting draws heavily upon both left-brain and right-brain functions.

Consecutive interpreting involves a pause between language conversions: first the interpreter listens to the entire original phrase or passage, and then interprets it into the other language. This mode is used for Q & A of non-English speaking witnesses, and requires more waiting time. It is important for the interpreter not to be seen whispering to the witness, for that would convey intimacy or collusion to the jury. It is equally important for anyone else in the courtroom to hear the interpreter’s choice of words so that the transparency of the proceedings be evident.

Consecutive interpreting calls for excellent short-term and long-term memory, note-taking skills, a grasp of subtle nuances in both languages, and a mastery of speaking styles so as to preserve the "flavor" of the testimony.

Which is harder to do, simultaneous or consecutive?

It is a matter of preference, skills and practice. Simultaneous involves more diverse brain functions and most people need special training and much practice to acquire the skill. However, consecutive, especially at the witness stand, is not easy, either, and is more stressful because everyone is watching and the interpretation is always open to criticism.

In some situations, interpreters may use a combination of both techniques so as not to lose the flow of natural conversation. However, it is difficult to interpret simultaneously without equipment, because at close quarters, both voices overlap, and it will be hard to hear either the original or the interpretation.

Talk & Listen Kit®

CSG - Voice Silenced Communication