Hi, all,
I am editing my first job, and finding quite a few spots where I don't know how the transcript should read. First of all, the interpreter kept saying, "Pardon the interpreter." Sometimes he would clarify in English to the witness. Sometimes it was because the witness had corrected him, in English. Should I put those in there every time he says it? And then re setup the Q&A? Would it look like:
THE INTERPRETER: Pardon the interpreter.
THE WITNESS: (In English)
THE WITNESS: proceed with the answer?

Here's a couple examples. What do you think?
A It's in the city of Norwalk.
THE WITNESS: (In English)No.
THE INTERPRETER: Pardon the interpreter.
THE WITNESS: It's in the city of Rancho Santa Margarita.
Is that right? then re setup the by line?

Another one,

A My little girl is Ana Ruby Morales. She is two years of age --
THE INTERPRETER: Oh, pardon the interpreter -- 12 years of age.

Should I put "12 years of age" on a new witness line?

and finally, my favorite.
I wrote, and he clearly says on my audio, "...and my two nephews from the husband of my wife."
In Spanish, the applicant said from my bother and his wife.
I think this makes it look like I messed up. Should I put a parenthetical that says (as interpreted)?
I know there's a lot of stuff here. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
THANKS!

Views: 92

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Oh, yeah, one more thing.
There is a discussion on the record later when the witness does say something about how the interpreter is confusing him because sometimes he says words that he knows are different than what the attorney is saying. He says he does speak English, just not well enough to do his deposition. This will help my case with the (as interpreted).
Thanks
I think where the interpreter is correcting something, it all should follow on the interpreter line and let the next one be the question or if the witness actually says something in spanish that is translated. Put everything in. It sounds like there is going to be an issue later with the interpreter not being competent, which could skew the case. Keep the audio and put everything in. I like the (as interpreted). I would use that if it looks completely odd. It's like (sic), but it delineates that the interpreter said it as such as opposed to it being something you didn't understand. Hope this helps.
Hi Paige. I know I recommended that you use [sic] when we talked last night, but looking at what Veronica wrote, I like her reasoning for using the (as interpreted) blurb like you suggested.
My advice is to say no to interpreter depos!
Deborah, love that advice. If only we could! They do make me crazy sometimes.
If it is your agency who booked the interpreter, I would give them some feedback about him. Let them know that he hindered rather than helped the process. I think agencies want to know these kinds of things because the reporters, interpreters, videographers that they send are a direct reflection on them.

And Paige, I posted a question about formatting in a similar interpreter situation about two months ago. That interpreter was actually really good, but I just didn't know how to reflect in the transcript that the interpreter said "interpreter correction" in the middle of the answer. So you encountered something in your first job that I didn't encounter for a year and a half. We're all in this together, aren't we?
Thanks, Sharla!
I will look at your post. I turned it in yesterday. I just put a little thing in the note section that said something like, a couple problems with interpreter colloquy. Put it all in. I think if they read the transcript, they'll see that he was really a hindrance in the process.
Glad it came up now, so I know, mostly, how to handle it. If there was a break, maybe I could have said something to him. Learned something for next time.

RSS

© 2022   Created by Kelli Combs (admin).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service