Interpreting for poor speakers of English?

Maxi Schwarz wrote:
There was one exception. I was in the waiting room with the client, as we were kept waiting, and we conversed. It became apparent that I could only use simple words and simple sentence structure with her - comprehension was very limited. In the session we came to the legal preamble bit, which he read out from the sheet instead of me seeing a copy of it. It was especially complex and legalese. I asked his permission to paraphrase into simpler language, and was denied. As I went on, her face registered increasing incomprehension and anxiety. The examiner stood up, thanked me, dismissed us, and phoned the agency that had hired me saying I was incompetent since the client clearly didn't understand me. The agency had my back, especially after I explained the circumstance. Even if it had been read out to her in her own language, I don't think the client could have understood the content. Like, if you are an English speaker but unfamiliar with the law, a lot of the fine print we tend to get thrown at us is gobbledygook.

Phil Hand wrote:

I think this is true of translation as well. For me, the language is only a tool; we are there to get the message across. So in Lingua5B's situation, when interpreting for an audience of 1, I would (and have) adapt my production so that the audience could understand it - anything else would be failed interpretation, from the communicative perspective.

Nikki Scott-Despaigne wrote:

Lingua 5B, I have interpreted quite a bit on and off over the past 15 years. When interpreting (from French) into English, my native tongue, then it is quite possible that those who are non-native speakers of English will understand what I am saying less well than a native speaker of English would. A lot depends on context. In my experience, the following are some of the elements that come into play. I also interpret into French in interview question/answer situations. (I don't translate professionally into French).

Phil Hand wrote:

Maxi's example is an interesting wrinkle, because I do accept that lawyers (think that they) have a good reason for telling us not to adapt in any way: an interpreter presumably doesn't have the same level of legal knowledge as a lawyer, and so any adaptation we do creates a risk of a distorting the legal meaning through ignorance. Ultimately, I think this argument is incorrect, because every interpretation/translation is an adaptation. It's not like a translator who doesn't understand legal language can "get it right" by mechanically spitting out an "aforementioned liability" where the other language has some equivalent. We *always* have to understand the source (and the context that we are in); and given that we have to understand it, the client loses nothing (introduces no greater risk) by allowing us to make language-level adaptations in the way we express it.

José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:

Decades later, as a sworn EN-PT interpreter, I was hired for an arbitration hearing. Upon my arrival, I learned that I would be interpreting for two expert witnesses from overseas. One was an Italian who lived in Spain; the other was a German who lived in his home country.

Soonthon LUPKITARO(Ph.D.) wrote:

I am only hit by the word "arbitration." I understand that interpreters and translators can apply this procedure for effective settlements of disputes in jobs. Could you have some explanation regarding this point?

Soonthon L.