Frequently Asked Questions
Is there such a thing as a translation?
"Translation is impossible" according to Ortega y Gasset, a modern-day Spanish thinker. Yet, if different nations and cultures had not communicated their knowledge and experiences to one another across language barriers, civilization would be inconceivable. Ortega y Gasset's words underscore the difficulties of the task. Hence, the importance of expert translation.
Is it interpreting or translating?
Technically, translation refers to transferring ideas expressed in writing from one language to another, whereas interpreting consists of transferring ideas expressed orally from one language to another.
Notwithstanding the fact that the bench and bar, as well as the general public, often use the terms interchangeably, there are significant differences between translation and interpreting and the skill sets required for each.
The skill set required for translation of written documents primarily involves reading and writing skills. Interpreters rely on their listening comprehension and public speaking skills.
What are the main principles of translation?
Translations should use the full resources and vocabulary of the target language. In literary translation, some source language terms may be deliberately left in the original in order to provide the feeling of a foreign setting. However, such practice is not acceptable in the case of legal and technical translations. In many cases, there may not be an equivalent word or phrase in the target language for the given word or phrase in the source language. In such cases, the translator must translate the concept rather than the word or phrase.
It is our opinion that leaving the source language word in and adding a lengthy translator’s note is unacceptable. Such practice constitutes editorializing, in legal matters, it may be interpreted as emphasizing the proponent’s theory of the case, it may result in a prejudicial accented version of the source text or conversation, and it has a negative impact on the readability of the document or transcript.
Ideas, not words, should be translated.
Translations should neither add any facts or features to the original, nor omit them.
In sum, a translation should not sound like one - it should sound like the original.
What is a certified translation?
A certified translation is a translation which has been prepared by a professional translator to which a certificate, signed by the translator before a Notary Public, attesting to the accuracy thereof is affixed. Additionally, it is Master Translating Services’ practice to have all translations proofread and edited by a second professional translator.
Should I use my bilingual secretary to translate my corporate documents?
A "bilingual" person does not necessarily make a translator.
Bilinguals may speak two languages on various levels of proficiency, from the illiterate to the highly educated. But even a PhD. may not have the background, training or gift necessary to handle thorny linguistic problems. Everyone has seen examples of ludicrous translations in manuals and instruction sheets of foreign products that move one to laughter. There are many real life examples of how an incorrect translation can destroy the true meaning of a message.
A timely article in Miami Today warns about the danger one can face when communicating in foreign languages. Some of the situations can be quite humorous. Others can be extremely embarrassing and actually cost you business.
What documents must be translated for academic credential evaluation purposes?
- Any original transcripts in a language other than English for all coursework the applicant wishes to have considered in the application.
- All diplomas/certificates not in English.
- Academic course descriptions not in English. Course descriptions are required by the evaluator in order to determine if coursework taken abroad is equivalent in content to those offered at accredited institutions in the U.S.
What is simultaneous interpreting?
Simultaneous interpreting is a mode of interpreting in which the interpreter, equipped with a headset and microphone, and, if at a conference, in a soundproof booth, listens and renders the oral interpretation at the same time as the speaker, producing the target language version only seconds after the speaker provides the original source language.
In sum, simultaneous interpreting requires a special ability to listen and assimilate simultaneously the information in one language, analyze it, and render it in another language within a few seconds. A remarkable feat!
Why do I need two interpreters per language booth?
Simultaneous interpreters work in teams. The effort and concentration required in simultaneous interpreting is enormous and exhausting. After a half an hour of simultaneous interpreting, the quality begins to suffer and interpreters are more prone to make mistakes. Whether in a federal court setting or at a conference, in order to prevent or keep interpreter error and burnout to a minimum, professional interpreters will not work alone.
In fact, international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the United States Department of State require three interpreters in each booth. Businesses and universities use at least two interpreters per language to ensure quality.
Why do I need a soundproof booth?
Simultaneous interpreters must listen and speak at the same time. In large settings such as conferences, the soundproof booth serves to keep the interpreter from being distracted by outside noise and sounds other than the speech being interpreted. Additionally, the soundproof booth prevents the sound of the interpreter’s voice from interfering with the conference audience’s ability to hear the speaker. Very often, the conference is being interpreted into multiple languages. Without a soundproof booth, the noise would render it impossible for the speaker, the audience and the interpreters to concentrate on what is being said. Furthermore, the interpreter must use headsets to prevent his own voice from interfering with his ability to concentrate.
In smaller settings, such as the U. S. Courts, booths are not made available for simultaneous interpretation. Therefore, in order to keep to a minimum the interference caused by the sound of their voices, court interpreters must resort to the whisper mode of interpretation while performing simultaneous interpretation in the courtroom.
What is consecutive interpreting?
Consecutive interpretation is a mode of interpretation in which the interpreter renders his target language interpretation after the speaker has stopped speaking. This is the most common form of interpreting for a witness in open court. This mode is also used at diplomatic and business meetings between two individuals or small groups. In addition to excellent linguistic skills, this mode of interpretation requires exceptional memory and superior note taking skills.
What is a Federally certified interpreter?
Federally certified interpreters (interpreters certified by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts) are those who have successfully passed a rigorous two part examination consisting of a written part and an oral part, testing their linguistic knowledge, ability to provide sight translation of written documents in open court and to render source language, both simultaneously and consecutively, into idiomatic English or target language without altering or adding to, or distorting the original in any manner. “With a 96 percent failure rate among test takers, no test is as stringent.” Berk-Seligson, Susan, The Bilingual Courtroom, The University of Chicago Press, (2002:218).
Additionally, Federally certified interpreters are often called upon to provide transcription and translation of forensic evidentiary recordings and translations of documents.
Furthermore, Federally certified interpreters must command a “high level [of] cross-cultural awareness and sophisticated skills, including the ability to manipulate dialect and geographic variation, different educational levels and registers, specialized vocabulary, and a wide range of untranslatable words and expressions.” Benmaman, Virginia, Legal Interpreting: An Emerging Profession, Modern Language Journal Vol. 76, No. 4 (Winter, 1992).
What is sight translation?
Sight translation is a hybrid skill between interpreting and translating and involves the oral translation of a written document in open court.
What are the main principles of forensic transcription/ translation?
- Competence
- Completeness
- Accuracy
- Impartiality
- Minimal Interference
- Confidentiality
Is forensic transcription/translation interpreting or translating?
Like sight translation, transcription/translation of recorded material is a hybrid skill involving elements of both translation and interpreting. The transcriber/translator must, from spoken utterances, produce a full, accurate and unbiased transcription in the source language as well as a full, accurate and unbiased written translation, in dialogue form, in the target language.
What is a Forensic Transcript?
A forensic transcript is a verbatim orthographic transcription or transliteration prepared from an evidentiary recording which constitutes an exact, complete and unredacted record of every word and sound contained on the recording, including repetitions, hesitations, false starts, background conversations and noises, with every participant identified.
Even when the source material is recorded in the English language, transcript preparation can be a tedious and lengthy process. When the recording is in a foreign language and/or contains code words, ciphers, various accents and code switching, the process becomes even more arduous.
The ability to prepare readable, admissible transcripts and the corresponding translations from evidentiary recordings presupposes some element of innate ability and requires, inter alia, a high level of proficiency in both the source language and English, superior listening and comprehension skills, the ability to understand the speaker’s perspective and to accurately render such perspective into the target language, the ability to concentrate, familiarity with the illicit affairs and culture of criminals and terrorists, experience in listening to undercover recordings and oral wire intercepts, and several non-linguistic skills including, but not limited to, analytical skills, knowledge of courtroom protocol and familiarity with the use of transcription equipment.
What is the recommended format for transcription/translation of evidentiary recordings?
Regarding the transcript format, many jurisdictions have adopted a three column style, with the first column being the speaker identification column, the second or middle column being the source language transcription column, and the third column being the target language translation column. This is the style utilized by Master Translating. This side by side transcription/translation style facilitates comparison of the transcription to the translation. Additionally, all transcriptions have a cover page which includes, inter alia, the case number, exhibit number, date of the original recording and lists the participants or provides voice identifications and a voice identification disclaimer, if required. Furthermore, a certification page is attached as the last page of every court-ready transcript.
Some clients prefer the middle column to contain the English language translation and the last column to contain the original transcription. Master Translating has received requests for the second format from some of its clients in the New York United States Attorney’s office.
DEA has adopted a four column format in which the first column and the third column serve as speaker identification columns. The second column is used for the source language transcription and the fourth column for the English translation. In our opinion, this is the least desirable format from a readability point of view.
Is it okay to use italics, bold or other form of differentiation on court ready forensic transcripts?
Foreign words, mispronunciations, drug code, ciphers and slang are transcribed as they are heard. Do not use italics or other form of differentiation which may constitute editorializing. Although the use of italics, bold, quotation marks or capitalization used as emphasis may be acceptable in transcript preparation for other purposes, it is not acceptable in a transcript destined for evidentiary use in court. The use of such emphasis may be construed as reflecting the theory of the case of the party proffering the transcript. For example, in United States v. Gonzalez-Maldonado, 115 F. 3d 9, 17 (1st Cir. 1997), the appellate court held that the trial court improperly allowed the government to submit to the jury transcripts that had the words “ticket” and “accident” in quotes, allegedly referring to money and arrest, respectively.
Is it okay to use parentheticals and footnotes on final transcripts?
For purposes of this writing, parenthetical remarks are defined as the transcriber/ translator’s own words enclosed in brackets such as [sic] and do not refer to markers for non-lexical events, non-human vocalizations and background noises enclosed in parentheses.
Vocalized non-lexical events such as coughing, whistling, etc. and markers or indicators for background noises such as overlapping voices, music, phone ringing, etc. and non-human vocalizations such as dog barking or birds chirping, are not considered translator notes or interjections but merely markers or a depiction of the environment in which the conversation is taking place. Same are depicted in parentheses. Brackets are reserved for translator interjections such as [sic].
Based on case law and our experience, parentheticals are more of a hindrance than a help in the transcripts. A transcript filled with parenthetical translator notes, which are in effect interjections by the transcriber/translator, detract from the readability of such transcript. Additionally, Master Translating respectfully submits that when a translator provides multiple choice translations by way of parentheticals or footnotes, he has not done his job. The translator should select the best word or phrase in order to provide the correct shade of meaning. The goal is to provide the dynamic and legal equivalent of the source language in the target language. It is our practice not to use parenthetical translator notes at all on court-ready forensic transcripts.
“Unlike in monitoring logs, there should be no parentheticals [translator interjections in brackets] or other editorial comments in the final transcripts.” William P. Schaefer, Assistant United States Attorney, Organized Crime Strike Force, Northern District of California, “Supervising and Litigating a Foreign Language Electronic Surveillance Interception,” United States Attorney’s Bulletin, Vol. 45, No. 06, (November 1997) Electronic Investigative Techniques II.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 604, “[a]n interpreter is subject to … the administration of an oath or affirmation to make a true translation.” Thus, as a general rule, if the literal translation of the word or phrase does not make sense and the transcriber/translator has sufficient experience dealing with drug slang to qualify as an expert, the transcriber/translator should provide a translation based on such experience, using the equivalent English language slang. For example, words like manteca, perico and marimba do not require decoding or code-cracking to understand their meaning within the context of a drug deal, they only require knowledge of common street drug slang to understand that they refer to heroin, cocaine and marijuana and should be translated using the equivalent English street slang smack, blow and pot. However, if not, the transcriber/translator should provide a translation that is as close to the literal meaning as possible, lard, parakeet and marimba. The intended meaning, within the context used, will be presented through expert testimony and subject to cross-examination.
Like court interpreters, transcribers/translators “may explain or clarify the meaning of a word or phrase only when directed to do so by a judge [through expert opinion testimony] or according to standards promulgated by the Administrative Office of the Courts.” Berk-Seligson, Susan, The Bilingual Courtroom, The University of Chicago Press, (2002:259). Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the transcriber/translator should not attempt to analyze, explain, judge or interject his opinion by way of translator interjections or footnotes.
How are speaker errors handled on court ready transcripts?
Speaker errors “speak” for themselves, and they do not need to be highlighted for the jury on the transcript. The jurors will read the transcript with the equivalent error in the translation and can determine, on their own, the significance, if any, to be ascribed to such verbal error, very often stemming from code-switching or the use of an incorrect word. When the transcriber/translator encounters code-switching or other linguistic phenomena, he should not use italics or any other form of punctuation that may constitute editorializing. (See Santana v. New York City Transit Authority, 505 N.Y.S.2d 775, 778-79 (Sup. Ct. 1986).
Errors that are difficult to translate, such as the addition of a diphthong to the word diferencia (diferiencia), in general, do not affect the meaning of the utterance. In such cases, the potential prejudice of translator interjections greatly outweighs the potential benefit of parenthetical translator explanations and, additionally, same have a negative impact on the readability of the transcript.
As in the case of court interpreting, the transcriber/translator is required to convey source language meaning through his interpretation, including speaker errors, and the significance of such errors should be left to the jury.
In conclusion, an attempt by the transcriber/translator to explain source language errors, other than through his translation, constitutes an unnecessary interjection by the transcriber/translator, and an intrusion into the matters reserved for the jury.
Do you use abbreviations on final forensic court ready transcripts?
On call summaries and investigative transcripts it is acceptable to use abbreviations such as MV1 to depict the speakers or (UI) for “unintelligible.” However, on the final court-ready transcripts submitted to the client same should be avoided. Abbreviations have a negative impact on the readability of the transcript and may be confusing for the jury. When depicting speaker turns, VOICE 1: rather than MV1, etc., should be used because clients will often request that same be replaced with the speaker’s actual name or alias, this will leave enough room on the transcript for the name and facilitates the effectuation of a universal search and replace rather than having to reformat the transcript to make room for the change. However, it must be noted that if the client requests that the voices be identified by name, the transcriber/translator must include a voice identification disclaimer on the cover page. Same should be a simple statement such as: “VOICE IDENTIFICATIONS PROVIDED BY DEA.” Remember, “An abundance of words leads to transgressions.” If any lengthy explanations are necessary, they should be provided during expert testimony, subject to cross-examination, and not on the transcript.
Additionally, on the final court-ready transcript any unintelligible words or portions should be clearly indicated by using the entire word “unintelligible.” Very often it is impossible to be sure how many unintelligible words constitute the unintelligible portion on the recording so using dots or dashes in brackets to represent unintelligible portions is unnecessary and very often inaccurate. The use of abbreviations such as (UI) instead of (Unintelligible) tend to diminish the significance of the unintelligible portions of the conversation. Intelligibility of the recording is a significant consideration for the judge during an audibility hearing and for the jury during the trial; therefore, on the final court-ready transcript, unintelligible portions should be clearly indicated as such. On the other hand, on investigative transcripts, it is acceptable to use (UI) or other abbreviations to indicate same because of the speed required in cotemporaneous note taking and immediate preparation of a draft transcript for law enforcement during the course of a Title III wire intercept.
In reviewing the proponent’s transcripts, the opposing party may wish to use some of the foregoing points in arguing against the accuracy of and any potential bias in the proponent’s transcripts. Therefore, the transcriber/translator must strive to prepare transcripts that are as legally sound as possible and must be prepared to defend same in court.
What is wire monitoring?
A task related to, but different from, transcription/translation is wire monitoring. Wire monitoring is, like transcription/translation of recorded evidence, a hybrid skill involving elements of both translation and interpreting. The monitoring process, like transcription/translation, may be summarized under two underlying skill-sets: the listening comprehension skills of the interpreter and the written expression skills of the translator. However, one major difference is that monitors are required to extract and summarize what is pertinent from a given conversation.
Unlike the wire monitor, document translators, interpreters and forensic transcribers/ translators are not required to spot the significant but, instead, are required to render the source conversation or document in its entirety.