Interpreting: February 2009 Archives

I was introduced in this Coordinator's Meeting as a researcher looking at "how we can cope with our language system." This is the first time I've heard someone here characterize my research: that statement boils it down quite nicely!

Coordinator's meetings occur just prior to Committee Meetings with the goal of delineating in advance the lines of engagement from each political group in the imminent debate. Every political group selects an individual to become the group expert on work being done in each of the Parliament's permanent or temporary working committees. Someone (an MEP not present in this meeting) likened the role of a Coordinator to the position of a political commissar in the old Soviet system.

In this particular Coordinator's meeting there were six men and eleven women from various countries, no simultaneous interpretation. The Chair (a position that rotates among the Coordinators - at least in this case) provided an overview of the agenda and invited questions and input. Not everyone spoke, but of those who did their English was readily understandable despite accents, except for one person whose accent became more prominent for a few phrases. In my notes, I recorded this incident as "lapsed into thicker accent, hard to follow (for me)." I remember that I was listening without extra effort, suddenly lost comprehension for a brief span (probably less than ten seconds), and then the words became distinctly audible again. I was not taking content notes at the time, which is why I added the caveat "for me" - someone who was really following the message, and/or knows this person well or is used to their style, and/or knows the topic in detail, may not have experienced a comparable disconnect. No one asked, so I have to presume I was the only one who struggled in that moment - or that there is a culture of not asking, or some criteria as to when one asks and when one does not ask.

A Coordinator provided some background on dynamics between his group's Shadow Rapporteur and the Rapporteur of one of the Reports on the agenda, explaining that there is deviation from usual practice in terms of procedures (respective to the field addressed by the report) and that the Rapporteur is not engaging with the Shadows as much as last year's Rapporteur had done, which this Coordinator characterized as "strange."

Note: The role labels are fantastic, aren't they? The Rapporteur is the person responsible for writing the final Report, which means he or she must coordinate the organization of required data and - especially - the negotiations among the different political parties about differing viewpoints, strategies, and concerns. The Shadow Rapporteurs work as liaisons between the Rapporteur and each political group. As a team altogether, the Shadows and the Rapporteur work out kinks or at least clarify exactly where the sticking points are and what they consist of. The Shadows are specific liaisons from a political group to a particular Report, whereas the Coordinators are liaisons from the political group to a Committee as a whole. (Right? Usually Coordinators are not also Rapporteurs or Shadow Rapporteurs, but sometimes two roles may be assigned to a single person.)

The Coordinators specified what's missing in the current version of the Report that still needs to be addressed, emphasizing the stance of their political group and pointing out which areas are sensitive but nonetheless need to be pressed. A particularly harsh criticism from . . . (I think it was from the European Commission, who is an institutional partner in the crafting of legislation) . . . was noted as "not balanced" and "unacceptable." In short, "we will have to make many amendments."

Another topic was highlighted by the Chair as the one that might become "the most politically sensitive." It was unclear to me, later, whether this same issue was characterized as "the hardest topic" or if that description was being applied to a different - although related - matter. Some praise was given for previous accomplishments that can now be built upon. The praise may have been prelude for mentioning an area that will prove challenging: "I know we won't agree on this, but I put it out." Background information was added on "an on-going thing, not here in the report. I tell you in case it comes up in discussion . . . we fear the usual suspects will bring it in . . ." and an assertion that the point-of-view of those most closely involved is that "we feel no foul play." Finally, a new/breaking concern was shared, including references to previous similar situations and the warning, "this will be the hottest topic for the next months."

While the general conversation was conducted all in English, there were a few side conversations that occurred periodically around the table in other languages. No one was perturbed; I noticed these asides because of the dilemma that kind of interaction sometimes poses for signed language interpreters... when a side conversation is loud enough for many in the room to overhear, do you interpret into signed language so the Deaf person(s) present are privy to the same information? And (more sticky, given the general imbalance of power), do you interpret into spoken language the side conversations among Deaf persons that can be seen and understood by other signers in the room? The twin dilemma of accessibility/power centers around the interpreter's forced choice between the general conversation and the side conversation: which is most important/relevant to be conveyed? Is the interpreter the individual best suited to make this judgment call? And - if not the interpreter, then with whom does the responsibility rest?

As with the Intergroup Meeting I observed, the absence of simultaneous interpretation did not seem to adversely the communication of the group in the immediate interaction, but I wonder about the ripple effect of the loss of contextual information to the interpreters which shapes the nuances and subtleties of the utterances they interpret. Interpreters can hardly orient an interlocutor's text to a precise reference point that the interpreter does not know is implied, such as:

• deviations from past practice


• predictions of political sensitivity or particular difficulty


• issues not in the report but expected to be raised


• perceptions or conclusions regarding those issues


• the intended target of amendments being the continuation of an historical stance or to soften criticism or to provide balance

My sense of urgency about coming to grips with transformations within the field of possibilities for professional interpretation is promoted by various factors, some of which I hope are transient while others are reaffirmed on nearly a daily basis.

One of these days a chapter will be published concerning a dominant theme of interpreter discourse four years ago at the European Parliament, "A Discourse of Danger and Loss: Interpreters on Interpreting for the European Parliament." This year, Members of the European Parliament also refer to "bad English," but few of the Members seem actually upset by it. The neutral label is "Brussels English." The growth of a new argot arising from the interaction of various "Englishes" is inevitable; arguing against it is an outlet for frustration that does little to stop the erosive effect on conference interpreting in this exceptional house.

An announcement about interpretation was included in the "buro telegram" distributed within political group meetings last night:

In order not to prolong the chaos surrounding the 23 different official languages (largely underused) at ACP/EU meetings, a compromise has been reached between the General Secretariat and members of the assembly: translation will be carried out in 6 languages - English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese (+ where necessary, the language of the Council presidency). Interpreting into a particular language will only be carried out if at least 3 of the MPs in question confirm their attendance at the latest 2 weeks before the meeting.

My attention is drawn to two features of the language used in making this announcement: negative framing and conflation. "The chaos surrounding . . . largely underused [languages]" continues the negative framing of simultaneous interpretation services in the Parliament (and, by extension, within the European Union as a whole). The conflation caused by using the generic term "translation" to refer specifically to the provision of simultaneous interpreters is a lapse in diction at best, a foreshadowing of the extension of this limited regime to the actual provision of translated documents at worst.

Meanwhile many of the Members that I've spoken with describe constraints on the provision of interpretation services to working groups and delegations, and most are unaware of an experimental initiative piloted last year aimed at providing "personalized interpretation" to rapporteurs. I wonder how many Members may have asked their respective rapporteurs to use this service in order to develop understandings, negotiations, and compromises on matters relevant to their Committee work? I am also curious where the interpreters are in promoting assignments to these smaller-scale venues? The absence of interpreters in the "compromise" statement above may not indicate their literal absence from those negotiations (via appropriate representation), but it certainly reflects the low regard given institutionally to their professional expertise: if they did participate in the decision-making process, this is not transparent.

Please note that I specify institutional regard in the preceding statement! Members are generally satisfied with the high quality of service that is provided by interpreters at the European Parliament and appreciate the incredible task of coordination organized by the Interpreting Directorate. As far as being a tool, the system of simultaneous interpretation in its formal deployment seems to function as well as anyone expects it to. My questions and concerns have more to do with the dynamics surrounding talk about interpretation, and how these dynamics reflect societal trends concerning languages and multilingualism in general.

For instance, I was struck by two behaviors of language use that I observed in the political group meeting that I was allowed to attend. Overall, three languages were primary - French, English, and Italian. I would estimate that each language was used for roughly the same amount of time. Turn-taking was orderly; every now and then interjections were made into a Member's speech, and on a few occasions there was a low-level background murmur as Members dis-attended the designated speaker to conduct private conversations with colleagues. The language of interjections did not always match the language of the designated speaker, nor was there any obvious pattern in the ways languages changed between speaker turns: sometimes Members used a language different than the speaker just before them and sometimes they used the same language as the speaker they followed. With more observation and attention to these details there may be patterns with significant implications. For now I will just mention the possibility of a relation between the two particular aspects that leapt into awareness as I listened.

First was the use of English to assert control. The meeting was called to order in English, and once most Members were paying attention the chairperson then switched to speaking in French. Later, when there was a spurt of quick interjections and repartee, the chair shifted back to English and continued in English, as did Members speaking from the floor, until the burst of energy was contained. English was used a third time in the group to overcome a rising tide of murmurs that swelled into the background during a Member's somewhat lengthy turn (compared with the average time spent speaking up until that point, again estimated rather than timed).

This last occurrence caught my attention, because it was the first time I heard this particular speaker use English instead of Italian. The vice-chairperson had already spoken several times. I had at first assumed she was speaking French (and perhaps some of her turns at the very beginning while calling the meeting to order were in French), but as I watched the working interpreters (behind glass in their booths overlooking the room) I realized she was speaking Italian. It was a bit of a departure then, when she took up her turn following the colleague's long statement and used a combination of the choice of English and a slight increase in volume to quiet the group and draw everyone back to the central, shared task.

Prior to the collective re-focusing of the group, I had noticed that the murmuring - which became louder and more pervasive than any which had preceded it - occurred while the language being spoken was English. As the side conversations increased I wondered - is there more permission and/or ability to be distracted during colleague's use of English than during the use of other languages that may require Members to use the interpretation services? I noticed that very few of those present had their headphones on during this particular turn, and of those that were wearing them it is difficult to confirm whether they were actually listening to the interpretation or not, as the headphones were worn half-cocked (one ear on, one ear off) and/or their attention was directed to a laptop.

I will need to observe more frequently to confirm the following intuition, as there are competing possibilities for the significant drift of concentrated focus, such as disinterest in the particular topic being spoken about or a disaffection for the particular Member speaking, to name the two most obvious possibilities. Perhaps my assumption that the side conversations were deviations from the official topic is completely mistaken and the murmuring constituted serious consultation with colleagues concerning the nuances of the issue as Members thought through their own stances in relation to it?

I think the matter is worth much closer examination, because if the Members were talking about other issues than the one officially on the floor, and the reasons were not explicitly due to the nature of the topic or the speaker, then something peculiar may come into view concerning English as a language of control:

• English is used authoritatively to command attention and


• English is most readily escaped as the locus of attention.

I speculate: is it possible that the widespread familiarity with English - which allows one to avoid the headphones (and therefore any/all interpretation) - also enables the drifting of focused attention? If so, then one of the reasons for choosing interpretation over un-interpreted listening is to enhance individual commitment to the group task.