JAIS

Essay

The In-house Interpreting Environment: ‘Issues galore’
Michael GurnerBusiness Interpreter
This paper focuses on 3 real life issues relating to business interpreting in an
in-house environment: interpreter integrity, the right to information, andhindered communication. These 3 issues were chosen as they are somewhat
challenging and awkward with no easy solutions; but, on the other hand, if notaddressed make life very difficult for the interpreter and in some cases could set a
precedence in the in-house interpreting environment. The paper argues that theinterpreter needs to be in charge in all interpreting situations to drive themeeting, and needs to uphold the principles of the art of interpreting while at thesame time maintain interpreter integrity. Furthermore, in light of the fact that
more and more foreign companies are ‘doing deals’ with Japanese companies, goodinterpreters could be said to be in demand. Hence, addressing these issues andmaintaining the quality of the service is of utmost importance.

Introduction
Many people face a range of issues in their daily working and private life andinterpreters are no exception. Do you or don’t you correct a speaker, even when
you know he/she has clearly got it wrong; explain and clarify for the speaker oraudience cultural issues and/or implications that may not be clear to the
speaker/audience as they present themselves? -- etc. What do you do when yourintegrity as an interpreter is at stake? I will paint some pictures of real life
in-house interpreting situations where these types of challenging and quite
problematical issues arise, and propose logical solutions. 1)

Interpreter integrity at any cost?
To use or not to use a digital voice recorder . . .

Michael Gurner, “The In-house Interpreting Environment: Issues galore.”
Interpretation Studies, No. 1, December 2001, pages 111-119.
(c) 2001 by the Japan Association for Interpretation Studies

111

Digital voice recorders, for the purpose of recording meetings and those usedby journalists have since, on becoming available in the market place, taken off
quite rapidly amongst those who know their potential. They have become more
lightweight and portable, and the change from tape recorder to digital now
allows the user to deploy data into a PC and edit, store, file, print and e-mail thatdata.
The recorder can be used for recording yourself when interpreting so as toallow you the opportunity to play back your own voice and improve intonation.
You may also pick up on bad habits you may have when speaking. It also allows
you to identify problems in your understanding of the topic as well as
excessively slow speech or word repetitive type problems, etc. If used discreetly,
it can also be used to protect interpreter integrity. In the Australian Institute ofInterpreters and Translators (AUSIT) code of practice, it states that:
Interpreters and Translators shall maintain their integrity and independence at all
times. 2)
For an interpreter, using a recorder at a meeting, even with the permission of
the participants, can be a turn-off for those participants. Participants are often
cautious and sometimes negative at the thought. People are also hesitant inhaving their words recorded, I believe, for the following reason:•

In an in-house environment where there are fewer formalities, the speakers
are more often than not unprepared when they verbalise their thoughts.
Their thoughts are sometimes not completely formulated and in no logicalorder. It is possible that they also believe that a recorded version of theirwords may be used against them at a later stage. This theory is still notproven because if they were to clearly state that this is their concern, it
would bring doubt onto themselves, as they may be seen to be trying tohide the truth.
This phenomenon is less likely to occur in an international or large conference

situation where those presenting have more often than not pre-prepared theirspeech, and recording is somewhat common practice.
In the in-house business interpreting environment, many meetings are with a112

customer, and much of the discussion is kept behind closed doors. Money isbehind a lot of deals, and the situation can be very sensitive. Here I would liketo paint my first picture.
The setting: A meeting with representatives of a company and their customer.
Style of interpreting:Key:

Consecutive/non technical subject matter(J) = Japanese speaking audience*(E) = English speaking audience/person

One Interpreter (native English speaker)

In this commonly seen setting, it is quite possible that both parties in various
forms and levels will disclose sensitive information. Usually for this reason,recording of the meeting is not allowed in the event that information is
purposely or accidentally leaked. However,Disclosure of information may be permissible with client’s agreement or whendisclosure is mandated by law. 3)
In the course of the meeting, a point is made by one of the participants in
English, and then later on, clarification of this point is requested by a Japaneseparticipant through the interpreter who’s native language is English. Theinterpreter interprets the (J) participant’s request. The original speaker, uponhearing the interpreter, denies having made the original comment, regardless ofthe fact that the interpreter has taken notes.
In this scenario, it is unlikely that the interpreter misunderstood a point madein his/her native language, so it can be said that either the participant making
the original point, forgot that he/she made it, or it was a slip of the tongue,
which to the fortune of the original speaker could be covered up and blamed ona mis-interpretation. In this case, the interpreter’s integrity is at stake.
Interpreter integrity is important for the following reasons:

113

1.

On the whole, interpreters are employed to bridge the communication gap
between parties with different languages and cultures. If the interpreter isto effectively carry out the role, he/she needs to be trusted by those they
provide a service to, as without this trust, the interpreter’s task ofbridging the gap of communication is blanketed in a veil of scepticism
towards

theinterpreter,

which

does

not

make

for

effective

communication.
2.

It is in the interpreters own interest to have a strong trust relationshipwith the buyer of interpreting services, as a trusted interpreter has abetter chance of obtaining follow up work than one who has lost trustwith the customer.

There is no way to prove that the interpreter is innocent unless . . . a
recording of the meeting was made. 4)This is the first moral question thatinterpreters must ask themselves. Should the use of digital recorders be allowed
in order to ‘play back the point’ when this type of discrepancy occurs (which
could make the original speaker in some cases appear foolish) or should theinterpreter accept the responsibility to save face for the participant and hence,in some cases, lose ‘trust’ with the customer . . . resulting inevitably in
professional suicide?
I believe that without the customer’s trust, it is only a matter of time before
the interpreter is replaced. In a business environment, interpreting incorrectly
can mean a mistake, in some cases worth a considerable amount of money. It isin the interpreter’s interest that he/she is trusted by the customer and by allparticipants. Interpreters can very easily become a scapegoat and so must standby their integrity. If this means recording a meeting in case discrepancies arise,then this can be deleted at the conclusion of the meeting in the presence of theparticipants. This should be strongly but discreetly proposed for the benefit ofall.

The right to information
For the benefit of perspective, this illustration is one that relates to thefundamental right to information by all participants in a meeting.
The setting:

A meeting with Japanese and their Western counterparts.

Style of interpreting:Key:

Consecutive/semi technical(J) = Japanese speaking audience(E) = English speaking audience/person114

* Interpreter (native English speaker on right)* Interpreter (native Japanese speaker on left)

In this scenario, the chairperson is aware that some people in the audience
understand English to different degrees, and for the purpose of saving time,chooses not to have English to Japanese interpreting provided for the Japaneseaudience. (This is a real life example whereby the interpreters were asked tointerpret into their non-native language.)

Key: * (E-J) = Interpreter asked not to interpret.

It is most probably the case that those who understand English can pick up
parts of the conversation but not all. To deny interpreting into Japanese denies
the participants the right to information.

115

I believe that in this case (which I have faced in my experience), theinterpreter has an obligation to ensure that all participants present have thesame access to information, but this is only half the battle. The interpreter
shouldensurethatthechairperson

allowstheparticipantstorequestinterpreting if necessary; however, this should not be a decision made solely by
the chairperson. The interpreter knows more about the intricacies andcomplexities of communication in this environment, presumably better than thechairperson, and should set the scene for the meeting.
A simple example of this is: A lawyer presumably knows more about the law
than his/her client. It would not be expected that a lawyer would take theadvice of his/her client and act from it simply because the client is paying them.
The lawyer is seen to be the law professional, and presumably knows best whenit comes to law; hence the lawyer takes charge of the situation. This should be
no different in the case of an interpreter. 5)
Unfortunately, in reality, the chairperson is rarely fully aware of interpreting
issues, and hence cannot make correct decisions when it comes to judging thenecessity for interpreting. Also, in most cases, the Japanese participants do notfrankly reveal their level of English, and give vague nods, which to thechairperson means that they understand, when in actual fact there may be times
when they don’t. It is part of an interpreter’s expertise to judge from theparticipants’ body language and level of participation as to whether or notinterpreting is required; however, this is in some cases denied by thechairperson. There should be no exceptions, and it is an unfortunate interpreter
who is put in this situation.
I would like to conclude with an illustration of one more ‘challenging’ issue.

Hindered communication
The diagram below describes this phenomenon, which is on the rise in thebusiness world amongst Japanese business people.
Background:

In this day and age, more and more Japanese business people

are dealing with western English speakers. There are Japanese business people
who are very proficient in English and those who are not. Japanese businesspeople in some cases look forward to speaking with their western counterparts
as a way of brushing up their English skills in the workplace. This works
reasonably well when the Japanese Manager and western Manager speak one toone. In most cases, both parties do a lot of guess work to fill in the parts thatthey did not understand, and it could probably be said that both parties do notunderstand each other 100%. In this illustration, the Japanese business person’s
English is mediocre.

116

Style of interpreting:Key:

Consecutive/semi technical(J) = Japanese speaking audience(E) = English speaking audience/person* Interpreter (native English speaker on right)

The above diagram paints a picture of a Japanese Manager A who can speak
mediocre English, and his Japanese associate B, speaking with the western
Director in an in-house situation. The Japanese Manager calls the meeting andrequests the presence of the interpreter. The Japanese Manager wants to take theopportunity to speak in English to brush up his skills, and commences speaking.
As it is dialogue interpreting, the interpreter tries to interpret in the whisperingmode for B. However A’s English is broken, and the interpreter struggles tounderstand the points clearly enough to interpret in this mode for B. The
western Director, out of politeness, does not interrupt A and presumably only
understands about 60% of the English.
Issue:In this case, the interpreter is struggling to interpret broken English

into Japanese. This is a sensitive situation for all, because the Manager’s (A)English is on display and to disrupt the discussion to have A speak in Japanese
instead could be embarrassing.
However, I believe that in this case the interpreter should be able to step inand stop the conversation, as adequate interpreting cannot be provided to theassociate B who, as in issue 2, has the right to access information being aparticipant in the meeting. Practice of English by Japanese Managers and staff
can be educational for the speaker themselves, but a nightmare for theinterpreter. The interpreter is in the awkward position of having to either

117

choose to ‘live with it’ or embarrass the speaker by having him/her change tohis/her native language. 6)
Unfortunately, in some cases, the interpreter can also hinder communication
by not preventing a discussion from going around in circles, in the example
where the interpreter can see that two parties are not picking up each others’
points. In the AUSIT code of practice, however, it states that:
Interpreters and translators shall not voice an opinion, solicited or unsolicited,on any matter or person in relation to an assignment. 7)
It could be argued that an interpreter’s role is to assist, not hinder
communications, and hence this is rule is to harsh, but much debate is requiredby the interpreting industry if this fundamental rule is to be amended toperhaps read: Interpreters and translators shall generally not voice an opinion
on any matter or person in relation to an assignment, unless the interpreter
believes that the parties require assistance in order to progress communication.

Conclusion
Interpreters are faced with morally challenging situations that are not simple
to deal with. Business interpreters in in-house interpreting situations areworking at the grass roots level where things are often gray. However it is theobligation of the interpreter as a ‘communications specialist’ to make a
judgment on what is required in a situation, and this should be demonstrated in
the case of all three issues raised. If the interpreter is in a situation where
integrity is at risk, and does not completely attempt to fulfil his or her role withregards to communication, then the interpreter in my view is not doing justiceto the job. The topic of recording meetings will not come to a conclusion
overnight, and may not be able to be justified. Instead, perhaps those using
interpreters must be de-briefed by the interpreter whenever possible oninterpreting and the interpreter’s role, at least so the participants are aware ofpossible issues.
In the case of the right to access information, it could be said that
‘interpreters know best.’ If they don’t, as part of interpreter training andeducation, these types of role plays and scenarios could be very beneficial inenlightening the budding interpreter to the complexities of the role of in-houseinterpreter.
Access to information should not only be the right of the participants.
Interpreters require information and pre-study material and should not be
expected to spontaneously ‘fit in’ with a companies’ directive in all cases. As aninterpreter has a job to do, preparations should not fall victim to company

118

chaos.
Most business discussions have a money factor, and this can influencebudgets and decision-making. An interpreter in an in-house interpreting
situation is ‘hired’ for a period with a contract in place and a figure. Howeverinterpreters are sometimes not used to their full potential and the reasons canbe political. These types of issues have no easy answer and should be taken up
as issues of the utmost importance for interpreters in an in-house situation by
those both practicing in the interpreting field and by interpreter education
specialists. Steps should be taken to create standard interpreting rules forbusiness interpreting in an in-house situation especially.
To my knowledge, there are no guidelines as such in place in the interpreting
industry in Japan. As more and more Japanese and their western counterparts
conduct deals in and out of Japan, the importance of standard guidelines forinterpreting is increasing. The lack of understanding by the business world
regarding interpreting just highlights the necessity for these issues to be
discussed by a wider body of interpreters and business people, so thatinterpreters are allowed to do what they do best and customers reap the benefits
creating a win-win situation.

Michael Gurner（ マ イ ケ ル ･ガ ー ナ ー ）：ビ ジ ネ ス 通 訳 者 。専 門 分 野 は 情 報 技 術 や オ
ー ス ト ラ リ ア・日 本 政 治 関 係 。〒 132-0031 東 京 都 江 戸 川 区 松 島 2 丁 目 36 番 5 号 － 102
Fax 03-3674-9267

E-mail: <gurner@athena.ocn.ne.jp>

Notes:
1) These issues are addressed at not only buyers of interpreting services, but also
other non-in-house interpreters. This is because, without the understanding andassistance from the service buyers, interpreters in the in-house environment
alone cannot implement the required solutions easily, and interpreters who are
not in the in-house interpreting environment may not be able to give
constructive advice to their peers if they are not made aware of the issues.
2)

The National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters. (1995).
Canberra ACT. Australian institute of Interpreters and Translators (AUSIT).
Code of Practice. Pg 3; Professional Conduct (ⅳ ).

3)

The National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters. (1995). Codeof Practice. Pg4; Confidentiality (ⅱ ).

4)

The assumption here is that no one in the meeting is willing or able tocomment.

119

5)Interpreting is still not seen in the Japanese society (and some other societies)
as a profession equal to the law or medical fields. The debate as to whether itshould be also exists, and this is an issue that unfortunately is unable to begiven due consideration in this paper.

6)

I believe that this requires further examination by interpreters in the field, anda policy on interpreting in the in-house environment or set of interpreter
guidelines to be created by interpreters, which can be used to educate buyers ofinterpreter services.

7)

The National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters. (1995).
Code of Practice. Pg5; Impartiality (ⅱ ).

120