Rearrangement of the Speech

The transfer from one language to another sometimes imposes the necessity of rearranging the original speech, of reclassifying the ideas contained in it, of presenting some of its ideas in a different way. The practice current in some English-speaking countries of expressing the same idea three times in succession, first very briefly to announce it, second in detail, and third to sum up, often proves disconcerting to Latin audiences, all the more so if, in the third statement, the ideas are given in the reverse order, as many speakers like to do. Conversely, when translating from Latin languages into English for the benefit of an audience which is partly or wholly American, it may be desirable to give a brief summary of the whole speech after the full translation is finished.

The people of some countries are more apt to follow analytical reasoning while others are more accessible to synthetic, and it may be advisable, in some cases, for the interpreter to shift from the one to the other.

Such changes, however, are rather in the nature of acrobatics, and the interpreter should only indulge in them in fairly small groups, when he is a past mater of his art, when he knows both the subject matter and the speaker sufficiently well, when he has the full confidence of the original speaker, and when there is no risk of twisting the idea expressed. The confidence of the speaker is a sine qua non, because otherwise he may get worried if he hears some of his ideas expressed before others have been translated which came first, and he may interrupt and correct, which is worse than the disadvantage which the interpreter had tried to avoid.

Poetry

There are delegates who will occasionally quote poetry, and then wink at the interpreter and wait and see what he will do with it. If the gods are with the latter, it may happen that another member of his team is a poet and may find time to write out a translation which sounds more or less like verse, and he will then read it out, to the amazement of the audience. But in a deplorably overwhelming majority of cases, the only thing to do is to confess one’s inability: “Mr. N. quoted in this connection a poem of... which I am sorry I cannot translate extempore.” As a matter of fact, no system of interpreter’s notes, however perfect it may be, will permit the taking down verbatim of more than a couple of lines. The awkward impression created may be somewhat palliated by giving the name of the poet, and also the country or the century in which he lived, especially if the speaker omitted to do so.

When the speaker reads his speech:

When the speaker reads out his speech, the problem facing the interpreter varies according to circumstances. There are several types of cases:

a) The interpreter has been given a copy of the speech beforehand, and is expected to supply a very full interpretation.

He should then follow the speech on the written text, putting in meanwhile all the additions, alterations and deletions made by the speaker. He should also write on the text, either between the lines or in the margin, appropriate words and phrases which come to his mind as the speech proceeds. It also helps if he can, by means of lines drawn across the paragraph, bring sections of long sentences into the order in which they will have to be translated. When interpreting from the German for instance, the final verb should be brought back into the place it will take in English or French.

b) The interpreter has been given a copy of the speech beforehand, and is expected to give only an abbreviated translation.

This is the most difficult case to handle, and considerable psychological gifts are required, because the views of the speaker who claims to be fully translated and those of the chairman who wishes to save time can hardly be reconciled, and the chairman, in this case, is not always as outspoken as he might be. It is better to leave aside the written text and to take notes from which to interpret, but this should he done as inconspicuously as possible – and as likely as not the speaker will feel frustrated.

c) The interpreter has not been given a written text by the time the speech begins.

He should then always proceed as if he were not to get the text, and rely only on his notes. It is quite within the bounds of possibility that the paper from which the speaker reads is a perfectly undecipherable manuscript; that it is incomplete; that the speaker alters it while reading, or adds to it without any symptomatic change of inflection; or that, for some reason or other, he merely feels disinclined to lend it. In such a case, the interpreter who has taken no notes will feel most embarrassed and will have no excuse.

The reading of the notes:

While he reads his notes, the interpreter will feel much happier if he can decipher one section while he speaks out the translation of the preceding section. This splitting of the power of attention can be achieved comparatively easily with practice.

Make sight translation of the text: