05 Mar Warts and All

Warts and All 

By Ángeles Estrada, M.A., F.C.C.I 

The letters written to the judge by Spanish-speaking defendants in U.S. penitentiaries are hard to  read and time consuming to translate.  

Because of the literacy level of most defendants, their letters are laden with spelling mistakes  and frequently as cryptic as license plates; a gibberish that only makes sense  when sounded out. Apart from a general disregard for the orthographic use of g/j, s/c/z,  b/v, r/rr, i/y, c/qu/k, y/ll, gue/hue/ue, n/m, and a lack of accents, people who only use language verbally are altogether unsure of where a word begins and ends, and, in writing, they often transfer a first, or last, syllable to the immediately preceding or following word.  

Punctuation marks, capitalization, and paragraph breaks are often non-existent. A second reading  may shed new light on the intended content, revealing a nuance, or even a change in meaning  depending on the reader’s intonation.  

The writing is full of clichés –a jarring admixture of the grandiloquent and the colloquial– as  well as religious references.

Sorting through all the above takes time, and once that is done, the quandary becomes whether to  present the judge with a sanitized version of the letter, or to reproduce the disruptive elements of  the source.  

As translators, we are required to preserve meaning while ensuring that the reader does not lose sight  of the defendant’s educational level. But how should this be handled? We don’t want the English reader burdened by the same undecipherable writing we struggled with in doing the  translation. 

The clutter-in-clutter-out approach is not an option. We cannot preserve the awkwardness of  the source, because no judge would read something so cumbersome. Additionally, we must  consider whether, in keeping to the source —warts and all— we are doing the defendant any service. I suggest that the principle of faithfulness must be re-examined, since the first objective is communication. 

As a comparison and reference, consider how we interpret testimony at the witness stand. We  refrain from reproducing the witness’ body language to avoid introducing errors (pointing to the wrong body part, misstating the speaker’s emphasis or disparagement, or adding  our own gestures). Mimicking is also avoided so as not to appear to be mocking or disrespectful. But, most importantly, we want to focus the audience’s attention on the message. 

Similarly, when translating letters by defendants, and character letters sent to the judge by their relatives and acquaintances, we must consider the orthographic elements as extraneous to the message. 

Admittedly, a letter lacks the visual cues of oral testimony, but, as with testimony, we must not  undermine the integrity of the message by deliberately rendering the translation in a confusing manner, to reflect the defendant’s lack of schooling.  

I believe that anything that detracts from the message is an encumbrance to be avoided, and, as language professionals, we have a duty to write well and clearly.  

It takes work to produce something that is eminently readable while adhering to the source;  retaining the casual and the flowery, the gaucheness, without inviting derision. The fact that these letters are often written by unschooled persons does not justify a slapdash effort by the translator.

In terms of signaling to the judge the defendant’s educational level, suggestions from other translators are welcome regarding the comments below.

We might begin with an obvious disclaimer, such  as:  

Another suggestion with which I am not totally pleased is to interject brackets within words, to indicate the abundance of spelling errors, without misspelling the words ourselves. 

This, of course, is a dubious practice, since we are not using the same words. However, the presence of the brackets does break up the text sufficiently to convey the disruptions in the source. Our Translator’s note should then include:Brackets indicate spelling errors.

I would like to hear from other colleagues on how they are handling such translations, so that we can benefit from their experience and perhaps establish some criteria among ourselves.

Keep the Conversation Going

If this topic resonated with you, be sure to check out our previous blog posts for more insights on the realities of our profession, and the evolving world of judiciary translation and interpreting:

Ángeles Estrada, M.A., F.C.C.I.

Angeles Estrada passed both her Federal Court Interpreter Exam and her Virginia certification in 1997. Before that she worked for 11 years as the official translator and interpreter for the Embassy of Mexico. She is a cum laude graduate from Loyola University, has an M.A. in Creative Writing from GMU, as well as translation certificates from Georgetown University (in both directions). She lectured in translation at Georgetown (3 semesters), as well as in translation, sight translation, and writing at UMD (two semesters); has been qualified by the State Department as a seminar interpreter and translator (also in both directions), and is ATA accredited. Ms. Estrada has previously published in The Jerome Quarterly, and The Chronicle.