JAITS

Presentation

Interpreter Training at the U.S. Department of State:
Origins, Developments, and Current Practices
Dr. David B. Sawyer

It is a great honor to speak to you today at this event in celebration of the graduating
students of the interpretation program here at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. It
is a privilege to have this opportunity to share with you the work of the Office ofLanguage Services at the U.S. Department of State and the training that we conduct forour contractors. It is a fitting occasion to deal with the topic of training, given thegraduation ceremony this week, and in doing so I hope to give you a sense of our workin the field of diplomatic interpreting and the training that it requires. It is a pleasure to
be here, and I would like to express my gratitude to the gracious hosts of Tokyo
University for extending such a kind invitation to speak. I would especially like to thankProf. Chikako Tsuruta who made this presentation possible. As head of the interpreting
program, Prof. Tsuruta has spent countless hours preparing my visit and ensuring thatmy stay in Tokyo is a wonderful experience. Without her efforts, I would simply not be
here. I would also like to thank the interpreters in the booths for their hard work. As weknow, their task is not an easy one, and I shall do my best to heed the words of St.
Jerome (c.342-420), who translated the Bible into Vulgate Latin and thus became thePatron Saint of Interpreters and Translators in the West: “Venerationi mihi semper fuitnon verbosa rusticas sed sancta simplicitas”, or, in English I have always revered not
crude verbosity but holy simplicity. 1
I am the Senior Diplomatic Interpreter for German at the Department of State andcoordinate the training conducted in our office for contract interpreters, of which there
are over 700 on our roster. I came to these responsibilities over three years ago due tomy background as a conference interpreter and a former associate professor of

Sawyer, David B., “Interpreter Training at the U.S. Department of State: Origins, Developments,
and Current Practices,” Interpreting and Translation Studies, No.8. pages 267-277.
by the Japan Association for Interpreting and Translation Studies.
This presentation was given by Dr. Sawyer at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies on
February 17, 2007. He also made a presentation at the Rikkyo University the day before.
1 Letter no. 57.

『通訳翻訳研究』No.8 (2008)

interpretation and translation who specialized in the field of interpreter education, and inparticular in the areas of curriculum and assessment.
Today I would like to provide an overview of the training that we conduct in Washington
to ensure high-quality interpreting particularly in languages that are rising in demand
and are thus difficult to staff, good examples being Arabic, Korean, and Mandarin
Chinese, and the languages that are underrepresented in academic programs, such as
Greek, Haitian Creole, Indonesian, Mongolian, Pashto, and Vietnamese. The Office ofLanguage Services faces the unique challenge of staffing interpreting assignments inover 50 languages at all levels of diplomacy in a wide range of settings. Fluctuation indemand and the intermittent frequency of requests in some of these languages make it
difficult to maintain sufficient numbers of active contractors on the roster. For thisreason alone, our training efforts must be ongoing.
But before I discuss in detail our current training courses, I would like to provide somebackground information on the Office of Language Services and outline the history ofinterpreter training at the Department of State.
Overview of the Office of Language Services
The Office of Language Services is the entity that provides interpreting and translation
services for the U.S. President and Secretary of State, and other senior officials in the
White House and Department of State. In addition, Language Services supports the
Department’s exchange programs, such as the International Visitor Leadership Programadministered by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. 2 We also provide
language services to other Departments and federal agencies on a reimbursed basis, inpart because we are the only office of the U.S. Government that has staff conference
interpreters.
The Office of Language Services is not the only organization at the Department of State
that has language use at the core of its mission. There are two other State Department
entities that provide language services. Firstly, the Bureau of International Information
Programs maintains a public diplomacy website that is localized into six languages(Arabic, French, Mandarin Chinese, Persian, Russian, and Spanish). 3 It is an excellent
source of information about U.S. policy and government. Secondly, the Foreign Service
Institute, the educational training center of the Department, provides language
instruction for diplomats and civil service employees.

2

http://exchanges.state.gov/education/ivp/.

3

http://www.america.gov.

268

Interpreter Training at the U.S. Department of StateLet me turn now to the structure of Language Services. The Office is divided into two
divisions: the Interpreting Division and the Translation Division. There are also two
supporting units: an Administrative Unit, which is the logistical and administrative
backbone of the Office, and the Assigning Unit, which staffs interpreting assignments
for the International Visitor Leadership Program. In total, we provide services in overfifty languages and have about sixty people who work in our office. More than forty staff
interpreters and translators work into over fifteen languages and translate or interpret outof many more, but Language Services relies upon contractors if the volume of work does
not merit a staff position. In some of the main world languages, such as Japanese, butalso Arabic, French, Mandarin Chinese, and Spanish, for example, the demand is so greatthat it cannot be met by staff interpreters alone, and an extensive roster of contract
interpreters must be maintained.
The Office of Language Services provides interpreting services on three levels. For theInternational Visitor Leadership Program, Language Services provides (1) consecutive
liaison and (2) simultaneous seminar interpreters for international visitors who spend
between several days and four weeks either at one location or traveling in the UnitedStates. These interpreters are referred to as consecutive and seminar interpreters. They
work in small group settings and, in the case of seminar interpreting, use portableequipment for the simultaneous mode, because the meeting venue changes several times
during the course of the day and each meeting lasts one to one-and-a-half hours. The
work of these interpreters differs significantly from the (3) high-level diplomaticconsecutive and simultaneous work that staff and contract conference interpretersprovide for the President, Secretary, and other senior government officials and groups.
This is true of both the subject matter and the settings. Diplomatic interpreting also
differs from work in the private conference sector and wider freelance market. Such
differences are due to the settings, the principals and their relationships, patterns of
discourse, and the role of the media. For these reasons, Language Services provides
customized training following teaching objectives that are tailored to the language
combination and staffing requirements at each of the three levels.
With origins dating back to 1781, Language Services was officially established byThomas Jefferson when he organized the Department of State in 1790 and, as the first
Secretary of State, hired a French translator by the name of Phillip Freneau. Most of thework focused on the written word during the nineteenth century, although there wereinterpreter positions at Embassies in China, Japan, and Turkey in the second half. The
rise in demand for interpreting led to the establishment of a corps of student-interpretersat the beginning of the previous century.
Requests for interpreting services increased dramatically after the Second World War,when the advent of simultaneous interpretation at the Nuremberg Trials and the frequent
travel of statesmen and diplomats resulted in a rapid rise in demand. It was at this point269

『通訳翻訳研究』No.8 (2008)

that the number of staff interpreters in Washington began to grow and languages such as
Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese were brought in-house.
Since the end of the Cold War and the rise of globalization in the nineties, Language
Services has continued to experience exponential growth, including in language
combinations for which too few interpreters are being trained in educational programs atcolleges and universities.
Origins of Interpreter Training
Interpreter training enjoys a long history at the Department of State, stretching back to
the early nineteenth century. Much of the information on training during this early
period was collected by former staffer Ruth Cline, with contributions from others, in an
unpublished paper entitled History of the Office of Language Services. She writes that[t]he position of interpreter, a language officer who prepared written translation,
handled oral communications, and sometimes handled the accounts, had existed for
decades in Turkey, China, and Japan, and in 1895 this position was extended to theLegations of Persia, Korea, and Siam. In 1902 the Department requested
Congressional authorization to create a corps of student interpreters, selected on a
nonpartisan basis, to be attached to the Legation at Peking. At the post they were to
study Chinese and, hopefully, provide language support for ten years. In 1906
student interpreters were sent to the Embassy at Tokyo. (23)Cline states that these steps were unprecedented and cites William Barnes and John
Heath Morgan’s The Foreign Service of the United States: Origins, Development andFunctions:
These programs were the first significant measures taken to provide the Diplomatic andConsular Services with language skills, and the application of the merit principle to thepositions represented a further commitment to the idea of a nonpartisan service. 4Comprehensive testing was quickly incorporated into the program, although these earlytests focused on general knowledge and translation skills, rather than interpreting. Citing
the Register of the Department of State, Cline states that[t]he two-day entrance examination for the Student-Interpreter Corps, as prescribedby the Executive Order of June 27, 1906, required six hours per day. The students
were required to make a close and idiomatic translation of a passage in a modern

4

Department of State, Historical Office, Bureau of Public Affairs, pp. 156-157.

270

Interpreter Training at the U.S. Department of State

language (choice of French, German, or Spanish) and then translate an English
passage into that same modern language. 5
The applicants were then asked to answer five or more questions on the following
subjects: natural, industrial, and commercial resources and commerce of the UnitedStates; the political economy; international, maritime, and commercial law; American
history, government, and institutions; political and commercial geography; arithmetic;
and the modern history (since 1850) of Europe, South America, and the Far East. 6
The program was thus established, and further steps to formalize it were undertaken
during the years that followed, notably by conducting ongoing assessment to monitor
participants’ progress and formal testing for admission to the position of interpreter.
Cline reports that Secretary Philander C. Knox issued a set of Regulations Governing
Interpreters and Student Interpreters in China, Japan, and Turkey in 1909. According tothese regulations, successful candidates were appointed by the Secretary of State andrequired to report for duty to the head of the mission where they were to serve abroad.
At post, they studied the foreign language, and quarterly reports on their character,efficiency, and progress were sent to the Secretary. After two years of experience, thestudent interpreters were required to pass a moderately difficult oral and written
language examination on topics such as history, geography, commerce, and theinstitutions and laws of the country in question, so that they were prepared for theirduties as either interpreters or consular officers. 7
Passing this examination qualified the student to be promoted to the position ofInterpreter. The number of interpreters was limited to three in Japan, five in China, andthree in Turkey. Examinations after two additional years entitled the student-interpreters
to salary increases and promotions, and final examinations were administered after yet
another two years, bringing the total number of training years to six. 8
According to Cline, “these interpreters became an important and stable source of
language support.” 9 Between 1902 and 1926, fifty-three student interpreters served in
China, twenty-seven in Japan, and a smaller number in Turkey. In 1926, twenty-seven
officers who had received instruction in Chinese and fourteen who had received
instruction in Japanese were still in service. Eventually the diplomatic and consular5

December 28, 1909, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1909, p. 49.

6Cline, History of the Office of Language Services, pp. 24-25.

7

p. 25.

8

p. 26.

9

p. 27.

271

『通訳翻訳研究』No.8 (2008)services were merged under the Rogers Act of 1924, and the student interpretersintegrated into the unclassified group of Foreign Service officers. 10
Further Developments
Few records exist on training efforts from the 1930s through the end of the previous
century, although it is certain that staff and contractors were provided training as needed
and that much institutional memory from this period of rapid expansion in interpreting
services has not been documented and risks being lost. In “Interpreting for the WhiteHouse: Historical Origins and Contemporary Practice”, 11 Harry Obst, the former
Director of the Office of Language Services, mentions the high number of masterconsecutive interpreters who served after the Second World War and the mentoring rolethat they played. There were also intermittent courses to train interpreters, in particular
for the International Visitor Leadership Program, and other agencies turned to the Officeof Language Services to provide training for their language staff. Few records of these
efforts are available.
After the end of the Cold War and during the rise of the period of globalization, thedemand for interpreting in languages of critical political and strategic importance rosesteadily, resulting in strong demand for contract interpreters that has not been met by themarket. Given the lack of training opportunities for practitioners of these language
combinations in academic settings, Language Services has found it expedient to conduct
courses for contractors at a range of levels under a renewed, centralized effort inWashington. Some facts and figures from a two-year period will illustrate thesedevelopments.
Current Practices
From 2004 to 2006, Language Services provided seventeen weeklong courses for a totalof 138 participants in seventeen languages. 12 Each course had a maximum number offourteen participants. Many were full-time interpreters and translators, and almost all
had some form of employment that would have prevented them from dedicating morethan one week at a time to training. The courses targeted a range of skill levels,
including introductory consecutive, introductory simultaneous, consecutive andsimultaneous enhancement, and high-level diplomatic consecutive and simultaneous.

10

p. 27.

11

Ed. Horst W. Drescher, Transfer. Übersetzen—Dolmetschen—Interkulturalität. 50 Jahre Fachbereich

Angewandte Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz in Germersheim,
Lang: Frankfurt am Main, 1997, pp. 63-74.
12

Arabic, Bangla, Bulgarian, Haitian Creole, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Latvian, Macedonian,

Mandarin Chinese, Slovenian, Pashto, Persian/Dari, Persian/Farsi, Turkish, Uzbek, and Vietnamese.

272

Interpreter Training at the U.S. Department of StateThe curriculum model, teaching methodology, and materials were developed specificallyfor these courses. The approach to curriculum design is holistic and modular, and thecourse content includes, to the greatest extent possible, all areas of knowledge, skills,
and abilities that are required of the interpreter to perform well in diplomatic settings.
Narrow sets of skills are targeted in course segments or modules, which include thefollowing:
Introduction to consecutive
Review of fundamental skills
Introduction to simultaneous
Liaison interpreting
Formal consecutive
Simultaneous
Simultaneous with text
Relay interpreting
Simulations of bilateral meetings
Simulations of press conferences
Simultaneous of toasts and other formal occasions
Ethics and professional conduct
Administrative briefings
Guidelines for self-study and practice
Terminology enhancement
Voice management
Not all courses include all modules; the course goals and skill levels of the participants
determine which combination is most appropriate. The selected modules are carefully
sequenced according to the role of the module and its objectives in the course, whichfacilitates a focus on specific teaching objectives at certain times.
The instructional methodology reflects the process of first acquiring component skills
and then proceeding to composite skills, following the well-established sequence ofsimple to complex tasks. The flexible use of instructional modules helps ensure that thecourse can be modified or adapted according to the participants’ progress. A repertoireof lesson plans enables instructors to select the most appropriate activity, perhaps interms of task difficulty, available time, or student collaboration, as a given course
unfolds. A range of instructional formats are used, which also provides variety inclassroom activities and social situations, with examples including lectures, small group
work, work in pairs, and individual reflection. These steps ensure that learning
experiences are diverse.
Team-teaching is an integral part of the teaching methodology. A weeklong course
generally involves the participation of at least three instructors, and up to seven273

『通訳翻訳研究』No.8 (2008)individuals, mostly staff interpreters, may teach. Team-teaching allows each instructor tofocus on an area of specialization. A senior practitioner in the language combination inquestion co-teaches with the course leader throughout the week. Staff interpreters teachindividual modules as their schedules permit. For example, a senior diplomaticinterpreter, who also taught at the European Union institutions, teaches the introduction
to consecutive interpreting module. In addition, he also has over twenty years ofexperience interpreting at international press conferences and is therefore an ideal
instructor for that segment. A senior staff interpreter for Ukrainian teaches a module oninterpreting toasts and at other formal occasions. A professional voice coach teaches
sessions on voice management, and administrative staff and program officers brief
participants on the logistical aspects of various types of assignments.
Both primary and secondary materials are used in the courses. These categories follow
the traditional definitions in education and research and provide a useful instructionalframework. Primary materials deliver the content of instruction and include videotapes,
audiotapes, transcripts, translations of transcripts, discussion materials, talking points,
glossaries, and subject matter background materials like parallel reading. Secondary
materials include syllabi, lecture handouts, theoretical reading, bibliographies, feedback
and assessment forms for courses, students, instructors, and test administration materials,
such as test specifications, test passages, guidelines for test use, guidelines for scoring,and scoring forms, among others.
The primary materials—the speeches to be interpreted—are authentic in that they are
representative of the tasks that are required of the interpreter and cover the range anddepth of tasks that the interpreter may encounter. Most importantly, the empirical designand development of these materials—they are taken from interpreted events—ensure that
there is a match between the goals and objectives of the course and the work to be
performed; the classroom activities, tests, and work on assignments correspond in theirdifficulty. The classroom exercises closely simulate the actual work of the interpreterand the settings and working conditions in which that work is performed. There is
therefore a direct relationship between course materials, course goals, teaching
objectives, and tasks in the workplace, which helps participants learn real-worldinterpreting tasks specific to the assignments of Language Services and perform well on
the job.
Some statistics from a small study 13 conducted to determine how the course participantsacquired their working languages are a good source of information on their background.
13

The results of this study were first reported in a presentation entitled Interpreter Training at the U.S.

Department of State: Heritage Speakers as Course Participants delivered at the joint conference of theAmerican

AssociationofApplied

Linguists

and

the

Association

CanadiennedeLinguistique

Appliquée/Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics held from June 4-6, 2006, in Montreal.

274

Interpreter Training at the U.S. Department of State

Between January 2004 and June 2006, sixty-five men and fifty-six women attended
courses. They were between twenty and sixty-eight years old with levels of education
ranging from undergraduate coursework to Ph.D.’s. They had spent between one andfifty-five years in the United States. Most were already practicing interpreters and/ortranslators. Less than ten had no previous translation and interpreting experience. Some
had Master of Arts degrees and more than twenty-five years of professional experiencein the field. The majority were already working for Language Services before being
invited to a course. There were seventy-two existing contractors in comparison to fortynine new applicants.
How did the participants learn their languages? The vast majority—ninety-eight out of
121—did not grow up speaking English at home. They were first-generation immigrants
who acquired English through school, work, and day-to-day life in the United States.
Similarly, the vast majority of participants—107 out of 121—grew up speaking theirother language in a home environment in a country other than the United States. The
number of participants who grew up speaking a language other than English in a homeenvironment in the United States was roughly equivalent to the number who learned thelanguage through traditional study and extended stays in the countries where thoselanguages are spoken. In other words, there were eight heritage speakers in comparison
to six traditional language learners.
Finally, assessment is integrated. Self-assessment, ongoing assessment, and final tests
are an integral part of the course curriculum. The primary materials are closely
coordinated with the test materials; the latter are treated as part of the course package.
Self-assessment begins with the needs analysis and continues with exercises during thecourse, including a review of recordings made during class. These ipsative assessment
exercises require the participants to identify and describe their strengths and weaknesses
and set their own goals for the course and beyond. Ongoing formative assessment isconducted through peer and instructor feedback in a group format during exercises, andprivate conversations towards the end of the week with each participant. On the last dayof the course, there is also a summative final test, which is an important, albeit not thesole, criterion for passing the course and becoming eligible for assignments. During thetest, attention is given to determining whether performance is consistent withperformance over the course of the week and, if there are notable differences, what thereasons for those might be. Participants must pass the test to become contractors, but if aparticipant passes with borderline performance, there may be questions concerning his or
her suitability for certain assignments. If assessment is integrated into the course, suchquestions can be addressed with a high degree of certainty and confidence.
In summary, a holistic and modular curriculum, flexible and adaptive teaching methods,
authentic materials, simulation of the interpreting settings, team-teaching, and integrated275

『通訳翻訳研究』No.8 (2008)

assessment are features of the course design that help make these learning experiences
successful.
OutlookWhat does the Office of Language Services look for in interpreters? Obviously, we are inneed of interpreters who have consolidated skills in both consecutive and simultaneousat the highest levels. In addition, a thorough understanding of policy issues is required toperform this work effectively. In many languages for which there is little or no training
available, individuals with the required skill set are very difficult to find. For this reason,
we must train them ourselves. In some languages for which there is substantial training
available, interpreters are in such demand that we simply need more, and they must be
familiar with the requirements of our assignments.
Obviously, skilled interpreters possess not only interpreting skills, language and cultural
skills, and knowledge of the subject matter, which are prerequisites, they are also able toadapt to a wide variety of settings, many of which are stressful. Diplomatic interpretingis about communication in complex, evolving situations. The interpreter must realize
what is required of him or her in a given set of circumstances and take action quickly
and with confidence. Professionalism and collegiality are two key traits.
In closing, I would like to convey to you the warm greetings of Ms. Patricia Arizu, theChief Interpreter in the Office of Language Services. She wanted me to let you know that
we are recruiting in all language combinations, including Japanese and the otherlanguages spoken in the Orient. If you are able to work legally in the United States, thatis, if you are a U.S. citizen, a green card holder, or have a visa that allows you to workin the United States, we would like very much to hear from you.
These are exciting times for Japanese and other languages spoken in Asia and Southeast
Asia, because the demand for conference interpreting services is growing rapidly. The
eurocentricity of the profession is being overcome. Young colleagues need to reach out
and network, building bridges across countries and regions of the world. Don’t isolate
yourselves. Support one another, not only colleagues who share your language
combination, but also colleagues on whom you must depend for relay and good working
conditions and who depend on you.
Finally, I’d like to stress the importance of continuing your education in interpreting.
Interpreting requires life-long learning. No matter where we work, we will always be
confronted with new topics and new situations, because we work at the cutting-edge ofpolitics, business, and society, which are constantly evolving. The courses I’ve describedtoday are one possibility, and we have had seasoned practitioners who have benefited
from familiarizing themselves with the requirements of diplomatic settings and the276Interpreter Training at the U.S. Department of State

logistics of our assignments. Perhaps this is not exactly what you, who are graduating
this week, want to hear today, given that you are now at the end of a long and demanding
program. I’m certain, though, that after you’ve enjoyed some well earned rest, you’ll beeager to continue your professional development with renewed energy. And it is vitally
important to your career that you do continue to broaden your horizons. Good
interpreters are able to acquaint themselves with new topics and situations quickly, andto be able to do so, they must understand what it is that they do not yet know—to see
their blind spots, as it were. In this sense, French novelist Anatole France once remarked
that an “[e]ducation isn’t how much you have committed to memory, or even how much
you know. It’s being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you
don’t.” With these thoughts in mind, I urge you to go out and discover the world ofinterpreting. I wish you the best of success and much happiness in exercising thisfascinating profession.

Dr. David B. Sawyer is Branch Chief for European Languages in the Interpreting Divisionof the Office of Language Services at the U.S. Department of State. The views and opinions
expressed in this lecture, originally presented at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies on
February 17, 2007, are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
the U.S. Government or the U.S. Department of State.

277

『通訳翻訳研究』No.8 (2008)278