Am looking for parentheticals for situations in interpreted depos such as:

Translater translates, then check interpreter repeats the translation or clarifies the translation or corrects main interpreter in middle of translation.

Any ideas?

Views: 321

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I like this one you came up with:  (Check interpreter interjects in Japanese.)

Or you could do:

CHECK INTERPRETER:  (Conversing in Japanese.)

Sort of annoying I bet. 

Day 1 of 3.  Argh...

You have way more patience than I do.  Those interpreter depos, I can only stand about two days of them before I go nuts. 

Thanks for all the help.  I appreciate it.

I have never done any depos with a check interpreter.  Sounds annoying.

You will, Keith, especially when you get into the patent infringement jobs around here.  They fly the engineers over here for their depos and they don't speak English.  The other side doesn't trust the translation, so they get their own interpreters to check.  They are annoying, especially when you get the ones that will argue over stuff that doesn't matter; i.e., if the witness said, "I was at the meeting." 

CHECK INTERPRETER:  He said, "I was at the meeting that day."   So what???  You get a lot of this nit-picky stuff that is a waste of time and then the interpreters argue between themselves in their language, usually Japanese.  It gets REAL OLD!!

That is not the job of a check interpreter, something I have been doing a lot lately, He or she is to pay close attention and only speak on the record when and if absolutely necessary. 

You will probably be seeing more check interpreters and, unfortunately more incompetent interpreters and this is why: 

The California certification test was replaced in January of 2011 by a much easier consortium test.

I recently discovered the consequences of how much easier the new test is. Lately, was hired several times as a check interpreter for depositions where the interpreter was newly certified. I was appalled by their lack of skills and grammar, eye popping mistakes, and the low registry of their Spanglish.

Some examples include a newly certified interpreter interpreting a“blank paper” as a “white paper,” calling a civil defendant the accused and a total inability to conjugate perfect tenses in English, so when the LEP would say in Spanish I have not done that, it would be interpreted into English as I did not do that, completely changing the perception of the speaker. I heard “people is,” but most of all, I heard I do not understand both from the attorney and from the Spanish speaker.

I know of interpreters who had taken and failed the original exam over and over again but passed this one on their first try.

If unqualified interpreters are allowed to enter the profession, judges, juries, and attorneys cannot be sure communication is taking place. Witness testimony will be unreliable and meaningful language access will not be achieved.

In my twenty plus years of working full time as an interpreter, both civil and criminal, I have never been so shocked by the sheer incompetence of a “certified” interpreter.

This is an excerpt from an email exchange I had with a court reporter as she explained why she was looking for a federally certified interpreter:

“The State test is a joke. I know two people that tried nine times and could not pass it, moved to Nevada, passed theirs, and recently took the Consortium test, and they are in.”

Berta A. DeFrench 

Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR 11583)

Teri Szucs
323 251 3291
Federal and California Court Certified Spanish Interpreter

Just curious, did Berta write this or Teri? 

Never mind, just read the last paragraph and seen that was a question by Berta.


I quoted Bertha in my reply, but it was my post.

Teri Szucs
323 251 3291
Federal and California Court Certified Spanish Interpreter

Yes, I know.  I re-read after posting and seen it was a question Berta had written to you.  But thanks for responding.



© 2024   Created by Kelli Combs (admin).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service