17 Jun Language is Evocative

Language is Evocative

By: Ángeles Estrada, M.A., F.C.C.I 

Language is evocative. A good part of communication is achieved, not so much by the words themselves, but the image they elicit. 

We shouldn’t hold on so tightly to the words, and to the dictionary meaning of a word, because even while interpreting something perfectly well, we may be botching it — by creating the wrong picture in the listener’s mind’s eye, based on usage and cultural expectations.  

An example:

I was once asked to edit some Spanish signs for a mechanized manufacturing plant. One of the signs read:  “Pinching point,” and it had been translated as “lugar de pellizcamiento.”  

The translation made me giggle. It sounded as if, similarly to a designated “smoking area,” this was a place where one could engage in being physically flirtatious without fear of reprisals from HR. 

“Pellizcar” in Spanish sounds playful. Un pellizco de comida is a morsel of food. The translation omitted the issue in question: “Danger.”  

The sign, which was perfectly translated, did not convey the immediacy of the situation; but rather distracted its readers, leaving them to figure out what was meant at a time they needed to be more present.  

If I had my druthers, I would have said: “Zona de Peligro,” or “Ojo, brazo mecánico“

An advertising slogan for Pampers in the 80s read: 

“Pampers, toda la sequedad que una madre puede ofrecerle al bebé.” Probably from something like all the dryness a mother can offer. 

However, “una persona seca” displays no emotion, and that is not a desirable quality in a mother.  

How do we translate “arrangement, as in the question of: What was the arrangement?”  

We avoid saying ¿Qué arreglo había? because it gives the idea of something shady, sly, dishonest, un chanchullo o tejemaneje. Better say ¿cuál era el plan?

As language professionals, we know what works, and doesn’t work, in the other language. And it is our role to bridge that gap for

non-bilingual people.

Don’t be stumped by a word. We are not walking dictionaries; that is not expected of us. 

However, if we don’t know a term, we cannot just leave it in English. We cannot sprinkle our rendition with English words, because it will obfuscate meaning. 

If the immigrants are hidden in the train, in a “grain hopper,” we can simply say “vagón de grano.” It will, in fact, convey a lot better than “tolva,” the technical term. If you don’t have a perfect equivalent, be descriptive. 

Now, these grain hoppers have a funnel shaped bottom, with an opening for discharging the grain, which is what undocumented migrants use to enter and stow themselves away. We cannot, wanting to sound sophisticated, call this hole “un orificio,” instead of going with the more ordinary “agujero,” because orifice/orificio, in both languages, refers to small openings (such as one made by a bullet or a drilling hole), and is primarily used in anatomical terms.  

So, in this case the defendant understood the interpreter only because he knew what he had done. And the image that was planted —  if not in the defendant, certainly for those listening to the consecutive in the courtroom — as coming out of an orifice, must have been unpleasant.

There is a frequently used verbal announcement, in Spanish, in the Washington D.C. subway system. “Excuse me — is that your bag? …” 

I don’t know what the full message says in English, but I hate listening to Spanish, because it sounds like some hybrid language.

“Disculpe, ésta es su bolsa? Palabras tan pequeñas . . . . La seguridad es la preocupación de todos.”

This was clearly NOT done professionally. We would say palabras tan sencillas, and it would be la seguridad nos concierne a todos.

“Preocupación” is “worry,” surely. I don’t dispute that. But that is not what WMATA is saying. They are NOT asking riders to be anxious, but to be vigilant.  

Security is something to consider and behave accordingly; not something we obsess over and wring our hands about, in a defeatist manner, which is what “worry” implies.  To the contrary, security requires getting actively involved.

Forget about the words. Think about what is going on. Hay que ponerse en situación.

Take for instance:

A little girl is distressed, and an adult, referring to his interaction with the child, states: “La estaba sobando.” The meaning is clear: He is “soothing” her, “calming her down.”  

We could leave it at that. But, if there is a concern that we are straying away from the source, we can say “I was stroking her,” maybe even “caressing her,” (to calm her down). 

But we must be careful not to plant an inappropriate image in the listening audience, particularly if the caregiver is a male figure. We are NOT talking about giving the little girl a massage. We don’t want the audience’s thoughts to lean into the visual that he was “groping” her (manosear).

We see attorneys manipulating the jury all the time. Inappropriately planting a thought that helps their case, and then quickly adding, “strike that.” But, once the thought is planted, there is no removing it, even if the judge instructs the jury to disregard what was said.

As a bonus for the interpreter, thinking about the content requires less mental effort. There is no need to search through our mental rolodex for the right term. It will come to us.

By holding on to the concepts, rather than the words, we gain interpreting speed and create the buffer needed for the times when there is no exact equivalency and we must find a roundabout expression.

Moreover, by thinking in terms of concepts rather than words, we can avoid false cognates.  

Compromise means •agreement, middle ground, mutual concession, commitment; but it also means •to weaken and make vulnerable.

Compromise will sometimes mean avenencia, but others it will be menoscabar, poner en peligro. As in the sentence . . . 

“This decision does not bar or compromise any claim pending or that may be made against your client.”  

Translation software has made great strides in recent months, but for now, we have the advantage of better reading the context. Words don’t always translate the same way. We cannot have a knee jerk reaction when translating or interpreting.  

Also, when thinking in terms of content, instead of word equivalencies, we question the meaning of the source and see the red flags.

I once interpreted at a seminar for a think tank in Arlington, VA, and the entire presentation by one guest speaker was based on a mistranslation.

This was at the time of Plan Colombia, and there was a lot of talk about the FARC. 

One speaker’s contention was that young people joined the FARC because they were “bored.”  This conclusion was based on a survey in which a good number of recruits had stated: “estamos aburridos.”  

Now, those of us who have Colombian friends and colleagues know that “aburrido” in Colombia is the equivalent of “harto” in most other countries.  So, these young men were “fed up” with their lot in life and were looking for options.

If something doesn’t jibe, we must first make sense of it. 

Now, how do we go about promoting a conceptual approach in our work?  Well, clearly that is what we do, day in and day out, when interpreting. I am not reinventing the wheel here. Except, obviously, for the times when we hold on too tightly to the words.

I once asked an ASL interpreter, how did she do it?  I was referring to my understanding that, for sign language, you have first to establish the setting, and then work concentrically to the essential idea. And her answer was: “I just rewind and playback.”  “Yo le paso la película.”

And that is the best definition I have yet to hear for interpreting, because it works the same for spoken languages. We get context immersed and replay the message, while being careful not to get tripped up by the words.

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:

The images used in this post are sourced from Unsplash, Pixabay, AI generated, and/or credited to their rightful owner. They are used for illustrative purposes only.

The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position, policies, or views of the NAJIT Board of Directors or the organization as a whole. Content published in The NAJIT Observer is intended to encourage professional dialogue, reflection, and community engagement. Reader discretion is advised where topics may involve complex ethical, professional, or emotionally sensitive subject matter.

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.