Seems pretty simple right? When I first walked in I thought “how could they spend an entire day on interpreting?”. I mean I know interpreting is hard work, and something I probably wouldn’t want to do because I don’t like switching between languages quickly, but even as an ASL minor I didn’t think there was that much to discuss about interpreting. I quickly learned how wrong I was.
Take this one real life example we discussed at length:
Two Deaf Vietnamese want to get a divorce, but they need an interpreter to do so. To get permission to have an interpreter at court the need to get the head of the deaf association to write a letter requesting an interpreter, which then has to be approved both by the government and the judge. Then both parties are represented by one interpreter, who they didn’t necessarily pick. Granted she’s considered the best interpreter in Hanoi, but when there are only 6 interpreters your pickings are slim. Furthermore she’s the younger sister of one of the board members, and is heavily involved in the deaf community. She’s heard all the gossip: the rumors that he cheated, the accusations that she wasn’t a good enough wife. She probably has some pretty strong opinions about the situation herself. And to top it all off she has never received any professional training in interpreting or legal language and is less the 30 years old.
There are a huge number of problems here. First the two deaf individuals should have the right to pick their own interpreters. It’s extremely important that they have a high degree of trust in their interpreter because having a good working relationship with their interpreter could make or break their case… which means they should be able to pick the interpreter who they trust most. However if there are only 6 interpreters to chose from, and three other people have to approve your choice, then this right is heavily violated.
Second there should be two interpreters involved in the case. Having one interpreter for both defendants is like having one lawyer working on both sides of the case. There is bound to be some sort of conflict of interests. Furthermore the interpreters shouldn’t have a relationships with the other party. If they are pre disposed to the other parties interest then their interpreting might be effected.
Third the interpreters should be professionally trained; both in Vietnamese sign language and in legal Vietnamese so that they understand the rules of the court and can accurately explain the process to their client. They should be certified by a national board that has a common code of ethics, including the requirement that they maintain the confidentiality of their clients.
Finally the interpreters should have some kind of professional training to deal with difficult situations. Because interpreters are required to maintain confidentiality they need to learn ways of dealing with the stress of work without venting to another person.
While the problems seem huge, there are many examples of countries that have managed to overcome them. The Register of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) in the US was only set up in 1964 and as of 2009 had 2,484 members. However, perhaps more pertinent to the case of Vietnam, the lecturer discussed in detail how Kosovo was able to go from no interpreters to enough interpreters for deaf individuals to enter universities in only 5 years. I think the board members learned a lot form that presentation (I certainly did), and I was very happy when “O” asked me if I could help explain it to the rest of the club at a later date.
The problem you're describing here is actually a fairly common one, even in developed countries like Australia, for translators. I believe Auslan is a particular problem, since there are no training courses. One of my high school friends (who, incidentally, like you is also not a fan of bits of Leviticus and also, is one of those awful 'hearing' people) is training to be an Auslan interpreter.
ReplyDeleteI believe the number of Auslan interpreters in Sydney is not so different from the number of VSL interpreters in Vietnam.
Insofar as the rules for admission of interpreters, there is no requirement that they be legally trained - just that they can adduce evidence they are able to speak both languages. This is for two reasons - firstly, the witness (or client) himself cannot understand legalities, so why is it really necessary that the interpreter should? Secondly, if that were the case, a witness' mother would be unable to interpret.
There are also interesting issues surrounding the 'competence' (a legal term) of deaf witnesses. All witnesses must be able to swear that they can understand questions put to them and give an answer in reply. We inserted the phrase "and that incapacity cannot be overcome" into the Evidence Act to account for any incapacity to understand or answer questions due to deafness.
Of course, the laws may be different in the US. And, no doubt, being the US, they will be slightly wackier and crazier in ways that no sane mind could comprehend.