Saturday, April 23, 2005
On Language 4/20: Filming ‘The Interpreter’
Interpreters, translators play vital but different roles
Chicago Tribune, April 20, 2005
By Nathan Bierma
temp.link/perm.preview
Before you make a movie called “The Interpreter,” you have to get one thing straight. An interpreter is not the same as a translator.
That’s what the makers of “The Interpreter,” which opens Friday, learned as they made the first movie filmed at the United Nations in New York.
“After they understood the difference between interpreters and translators, they stopped calling us translators,” says Brigitte Andreassier-Pearl, the UN’s chief of Interpretation Services, who consulted with director Sidney Pollack and actress Nicole Kidman in the making of “The Interpreter.”
Interpreters are in charge of interpreting spoken communication as it happens on the UN floor. Translators work with written documents, under far less time pressure. ...
Kidman, cast as a UN interpreter who accidentally overhears a secret threat on an African president’s life, had her definitions down when she arrived at UN headquarters to observe interpreters at work. She spent a morning in the glass booth of the Security Council, studying the interpreters and asking them questions. Then she sat down to interview Andreassier-Pearl, a French native with a PhD in French literature who has worked at the UN for 34 years.
This story prompted the below e-mail:
The April 20 interview with the Head of Interpretation Services at UNHQ has ruffled some feathers among UN translators. It’s funny, but while your main header says it all, translators are nowhere to be found in your article. While there may be “no antagonism” between us in general, the comments you printed could well cause friction, so I thought it would be a good idea to ask for space to respond, so you can “hear translators tell it”.
Of course we translators are all fully aware of the “scary” nature of the interpreter’s task and of the sometimes impossible demands placed on them, in particular by speakers who insist on reading very fast from a text they have not had the courtesy to provide; many of us admire them greatly for being willing to expose themselves in a way we translators would not dream of doing. Some translators can switch to interpreting, and I’m sure all of us consider it from time to time, but the nature of the work is indeed very different and the jobs must appeal to different basic personality types - and that’s the point: they aren’t really comparable except insofar as they both involve bridging the gap between two languages while striking a balance between speed, accuracy and good style.
I wonder if Ms. Andreassier-Pearl has listened to many UN translators recently: times have changed. Sure, the words stay put and we can consult colleagues, dictionaries, the Web or specialist glossaries when we need to,
but productivity quotas are a reality in the UN and the deadlines are often tight, with last-minute submissions and conference-room papers being required fast, if not yesterday. Even if a document will not be required
in the meeting room for another 10 weeks, it still needs to be off our desks on time so as not to hold up the rest of the production process and then be sent out to conference participants in advance.Now that things are in perspective, we can turn to the key fact, which is that interpreters and translators alike are part of a vast team, a chain of production that starts with the submission of a document by a Member State
several months before a conference and ends with discussion of that document in up to 6 languages in the meeting room.Consider: what sources do UN interpreters use? Aside from glossaries and terminology standards - produced by the UN terminologists and refined using feedback from translators and interpreters - which they use for their
research and preparation, they also rely, during the meeting itself, on none other than the different language versions of the meeting documents, produced by… yes, translators - and not always at a “leisurely pace”,
particularly for the Security Council - documents for which we have often needed to do intensive and thorough research, discussing the most pernickety nuances ad nauseam with colleagues, or trawling the Web for the
technical references we seek and their equivalents. A good thing for everyone that the words stay put for translators to pore over!Conversely, where we translators are required to attend and write up meetings, we rely on the interpreters if a speaker is using a language we don’t cover. When they are fluent and on top of the material we are just so grateful and some of us make it a point to tell them so.
Ultimately, you see, as colleagues in the same workplace, we depend on each other. I hope this will set the record straight, not only for your readers, but also perhaps for our interpreter team-mates.
Yours sincerely,
Nigel Lindup
English Translation Section
United Nations Office at Geneva.Disclaimer: Please note that the views expressed in this message are personal and do not necessarily represent the views of the Organization.
Brigitte Andreassier-Pearl responds:
Dear Nigel,
I have read your piece with great interest and would like to mention a couple of things, if I may.
The introductory phrase “To hear interpreters tell it, the difference between interpreting and translating is like the difference between auto racing and a stroll” has the effect of putting words into my mouth that I did not utter.
The “auto racing"and “stroll” imagery was entirely the work of the author of the article and was simply his way of putting a colourful gloss on my straightforward, factual and uninflammatory description of the difference in the work of translators and interpreters.
It should also be pointed out that the context of the article was a movie called “The Interpreter” so I was simply responding to a direct question about the difference between translators and interpreters and for the same
reason Mr. Bierma’s article cannot be fairly criticised for failing to mention or describe the work of “translators”In the nature of things, simultaneous interpretation from its inception has always been more “glamorous” and has attracted much more public and media attention than the work of translation. The downside has always been that
simultaneous interpretation has always been a much more vulnerable function and mistakes, real or imaginary, venial or culpable, are always much more likely to bring down serious enbarrassment and public criticism on an
interpreter’s head.I am sorry if my interview has ruffled some feathers among UN translators. It certainly was not my intention. We depend a great deal on each other as you mention and should you find yourself in NY, please do not hesitate to give me a call and we can talk it over.
Best regards
Brigitte Andreassier-Pearl