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.
- On Verbatim — 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.
There have been a few occasions when I’ve used the same approach you mentioned about raising my voice slightly and although it has always produced a good result, I still feel that it draws too much attention to me. For that reason, I usually rely on the traditional technique of raising my hand and requesting that the proceedings to slow down, as the interpreter is beginning to lag behind. Even if, two minutes later, they return to the same breakneck speed, I will repeat the request as many times as necessary.
Hello Maritza. I think I need to be more cognizant of that point. Perhaps, I can go the traditional route more as a standard practice, and leave a slight volume increase as a last resort, and more on occasions of despair, as Dr. Georganne mentions has been her experience. I also think that once everyone is aware of the issue, if it has been brought up repeatedly, the voice change can maybe be a subtle reminder.
Thank you, Maritza and Dr. Georganne, for your comments. It is always humbling to make a mistake, but better yet to learn from it than to make it again.
Dear Hilda, thanks for this excellent suggestion. I have resorted to it as well, but not so much as a technique, but out of despair. Just like you say, as you move up in the ranks (and I am not tooting my own horn because I don’t work a lot in court), you tend to work with more experienced interpreters and normally there are fewer problems, but a word to the wise is sufficient and there can be backlash as in the example you give, but your advice is well taken, thanks!
Hello Hilda
Thank you so much for your interesting input! Could you please clarify one item for me I’m confused about: the second day when things didn’t go so well because the state attorney was speaking excessively fast was that during simultaneous interpreting?
Hello Evelyn,
Your name sounds familiar from Jersey! Right?
Yes, this was while Interpreting simultaneously while ADA, PD and judge are having a back and forth conversation on the record. Let me know your thoughts on this type of situation, please.
Hello Hilda,
I worked for the CT Judicial Branch for many years and I feel being a permanent employee grants us the privilege of setting the rules with court personnel on how to work with us. However, now being per diem in different courts in Florida, I tread very lightly and I do not get too comfortable. Now that I do not really know anyone in court personnel, I find myself in a position of constantly creating awareness of the details of our job. Speaking too quickly is not acceptable as the accuracy of interpretation absolutely suffers, but as I learned very early in my career, the judge is the boss, so in situations where my performance is compromised, I simply raise my hand and, with a smile, I inform the judge that “the interpreter is unable to interpret at such high speeds.” Every time the judge graciously instructs everyone to slow down, but in many occasions people forget and get on that crazy fast track again. Not to continue interrupting the proceeding, I adjust by using simple tricks such as not stating the statute, mainstreaming redundant phrases like “yelling and screaming” and, as you mentioned, replacing names with pronouns. I have also learned to predict what people are going to say, which is not difficult when you cover courts for motor vehicle, family and misdemeanors. Thank you for your article. It is very interesting.
Dear Juanita,
I think you may be onto something. I’ve noticed that I never have issues of this type, even using the same techniques, when working with judges, and attorneys that respect me and my work, but more importantly, know me well; and therefore must know that what I am doing is to make sure I am not missing anything.
That matter of trust is paramount when deciding where a move is safe to make.
Thank you for the feedback!
You can always use pronouns instead of nouns when the reference is clear, especially when the pace is going too fast. What is important is not to lose actual information. That’s my opinion.