04 Feb Not An Infallible Technique, After All
Not An Infallible Technique, After All
By Hilda Shymanik
Just recently, I was telling some colleagues how, since I started freelancing regularly in some of the best and interpreter-friendly courthouses in the area, I’ve found fewer topics to blog about. The reason? I rarely encounter situations that seem ripe for improvement or that make for compelling stories until today, when I found myself questioning whether I handled a situation as well as I could have.
Over the years, I’ve relied on a specific technique that has proven effective for me. When an attorney asks a question and immediately launches into another while I’m still interpreting the first, I gently raise my voice to catch their attention. Usually, once they realize I’m still speaking, they pause and let me finish. This allows me to resolve the issue without interrupting the flow of the proceedings. If it happens again, everyone, the attorneys and the judge included, is already aware of the dynamic.
When It Works, It Works Beautifully
The technique works particularly well in this court because the coordinator has ensured that judges and attorneys are trained to work with interpreters and understand the challenges of speed and accuracy.
In fact, just the day before the incident I want to share, I used this technique successfully during a trial. On that occasion I only needed to do it twice subtly, and a colleague observing me commented on how clever and unobtrusive it was. Later, she, an excellent interpreter preparing for her certification exam, and our interpreter supervisor both expressed their approval.
When It Didn’t, The Embarrassment Was Great
The following day, however, brought an unexpected turn. During a detention hearing, the state’s attorney was speaking at breakneck speed. I raised my voice as usual, but instead of slowing down, she sped up! I raised my voice again, and this time she stopped, but so did everyone else. The state’s attorney, defense attorney, and judge all turned to look at me. Not a good sign.
With all eyes on me and the judge wearing a displeased look, I had to explain why I was trying to get their attention: the pace was too fast to interpret accurately. The judge, clearly disappointed, instructed me to interrupt directly in the future. The message was unmistakable.
After the hearing, I apologized to the court and all parties involved for handling the issue poorly. My apology was graciously accepted.
Second Chances Are Not Always Great
Since then, I’ve discussed the incident with close colleagues. Most agree that just because a tactic fails once doesn’t mean it should be abandoned, especially if it has worked well in the past. Still, for me, disappointing the “boss” isn’t worth the risk. Perhaps I can continue using this technique, but now I know that if it doesn’t work the first time, it’s best to abort the mission—interrupt, state that the pace is too fast, and wait for further instruction from the judge.
It’s also a matter of reading the room. This particular judge is stern, inflexible, and maintains tight control over the proceedings, something I should not have overlooked. I pride myself on being a good judge of character, but in this instance, I relied too heavily on past success. That was clearly my mistake.
Doubt can be loud, but it doesn’t mean it’s true. Trust in your skills, your work, and the journey that brought you here
Your Take
How do you handle situations like this? Do you interrupt when the pace is too fast? If you work with a partner, do you switch more often? Have you found yourself opting for pronouns over repeating names to streamline your interpretations? I’d love to hear your experiences and best practices in the comments below.
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:
-
- Stepping Into the Open House — A blog about NAJIT’s Open House and how they introduce members to educational offerings, community resources, and organizational initiatives.
- Beyond AI, Beyond the Conference — An invitation to help shape ongoing discussions about AI, ethics, and the human role in interpreting and translation.
- Not An Infallible Technique, After All — If “verbatim” really means word for word, why does taking it literally in court sometimes get the truth wrong?
You can find these and more in our blog archives!
The images used in this post are sourced from Unsplash and/or Pixabay . They are used for illustrative purposes only.
Hilda Shymanik
Blog Writer and proofreader
Hilda Zavala-Shymanik is a state-certified and approved Spanish court interpreter with extensive credentials, including certifications in NY, NJ, IL, WI, TX, and CCHI performance-tier certification.
A prominent leader in the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT), she has served as Vice Chair, Board Member, Director, Treasurer, Chair of the Nominations Committee, Chair of the Elections Committee, Chair of the Conference Committee, Chair of the Advocacy Committee, member of the Education and Training Committee, member of the Advocacy Committee, member of the Conference Committee, Co-Chair of the Conference Committee, interim TNO Editor and current TNO writer and editor. She also served as President of the New York Circle of Translators. Hilda works with the courts in Illinois and Wisconsin. Born in Chicago and raised in Mexico, she brings deep bicultural insight to her profession.