IHSS Lingustics Blog - Anderson Walsh

The article I chose for my blog was "Trump and Putin: why interpreters should never be called to testify".  In this article they are discussing the dialogue that was used during President Trump's meeting with Prime Minister Putin. There was a section of dialogue where The President used a double negative in a sentence which made it unclear as to whether The President condemned or refuted the claim that Russia interfered with the 2016 election process. Another problem was the only people present during this time where the two leaders and their respective interpreters. As an attempt to see what was really said Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen asked Marina Gross (President Trump's interpreter) to testify before The Congress. But all interpreters fall under a rule of needing to be confidential at all times, if they weren't it could drastically change the outcomes of many international meetings. If she had shared the information it would've been extremely detrimental to every interpreter. When the idea for Gross to testify was released it was seen by many different groups of interpreters including The International Association of Conference Interpreters. This caused many people to share there views about how this was a bad idea because it could break years of trust. Since the times of WWI and WWII all interpreters where seen as allies and non-hostile to both sides so they where a strong and trustworthy way to communicate. This made them crucial to making steps towards world peace and agreement.  

I found this article very interesting because I had never thought about the true power and trust that the interpreters for both sides have. In this particular meeting a lot of weight was rested on the shoulders of these interpreters because it was a very important meeting. Similar to when President Trump visited North Korea and became the first President to ever step foot in the communist country. In that confrontation their where interpreters present they had a very important job because this was a high risk confrontation and if they had translated something poorly the future of both countries would be at stake. Asking an interpreter to testify is like asking a Chaplain or a doctor to share information about other patients and other people, it breaks a trust that is expected to be there. Chaplains have to take an oath to keep all of their conversations with the people they help confidential because without that confidentiality they would not be trusted and people wouldn't really open up to them. 

I have had some personal experience having to interpret with other people from other countries. When I went to the World Scout Jamboree (WSJ) every single day I had the opportunity to talk with people from all over the world. At one point I might be talking to someone from South Africa and in another I might be talking to someone from Brazil. I talked with so many different people throughout the jamboree and I learned so much about their language, culture and country. I found when talking to other countries you would always rely on the people that knew your language. Sometimes it was hard and other times it was easy and a lot of fun. I recall one time when I was talking with someone from South Korea and there was a serious language barrier but one person in their troop could speak English so we would speak to each other through that person. Granted that was just a calm and kind conversation and didn't carry much weight but it was still important for information to be transferred clearly (Especially when trading). 

If interpreters can't be trusted it will be the end of calm trustworthy conversation between two people that speak two different languages. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cultural Anthropology

Further Investigation of Immigration

Thoughts on Engagement