Perception

It is easy to forget that interpreting takes place not between two, but between three points. The speaker A, the interpreter B, and the listener(s) C. Let us think about the BC link. For it to function properly, not only the interpreter must speak well, but also the listener must perceive well. It would seem that the latter is not up to the interpreter. We speak, and whether they listen and hear, or neither, is their problem. Not so. It is the responsibility of the interpreter to create adequate perception by the speaker. If they do not understand you, you will end up being blamed anyway, so you might as well take care of both ends of the stick. Although the interpreter cannot force them to listen, he can dramatically affect their willingness and ability to do so.

I find that verbal comprehension depends on trust. If the listener trusts you, he will understand you better. Therefore, it is part of the interpreter's job to build trust in the listener. There are many ways to achieve trust. I use a simple method. I use the perfect diction and the tone of voice usually associated with radio announcers. People are accustomed to believing radio and TV announcers and painlessly fall into the familiar rut of believing your voice if it sounds reminiscent of the way they do.

Verbal comprehension is greatly aided by liking the speaker. If you like the person, you understand him before he finishes a sentence. If you don't, you might have to ask them to repeat the sentence several times. It might seem to you that they are speaking unclearly or quietly, or there is noise in the room. Anyone who has had a falling out with a loved one knows this phenomenon. The number of misunderstandings increases tenfold when people temporarily stop liking each other. Therefore, I try to talk in a friendly, understanding voice, sounding like an old friend.

Authority is another convenient tool. Using expressions and the tone of voice that command authority will greatly improve your audience's ability to understand you. This is especially helpful in low signal to noise ratio situations. The more they respect you the better they will hear you.

In order for the link between the interpreter and the listener to be completed, the latter must remain interested. Although you cannot make the content of the speech more interesting to the audience, you can make it sound more exciting by varying ever so slightly the volume and speed of your presentation. These basic acting tools, dynamics and tempo, are part of any time art, including interpreting. This confirms Mikhail Chekhov's opinion that "all arts try to be music".

Another way to maintain in the listener the interest required for comprehension is to use, whenever appropriate, interesting, bright words carrying a sense of verbal adventure. In other words, in addition to being an actor, the interpreter is also a writer, as anyone who selects words is.

All this seems fairly self-evident, but if proof is necessary, let me tell here an anecdote from my own personal experience of what lack of trust can do to the audience's ability to hear and understand.

May 28, 1990 issue of Crains contains an article Translators provide dramatic interpretation by Anne Spiselman. She writes:

"There are two theories about the best way to do simultaneous translation, and anyone who saw "The Peace of Brest-Litovsk" recently at the Civic Theatre heard both of them.

Regina Kozakova, who interpreted the 2 women's parts (Lenin's wife Nadezhda Krupskaia and his lover Inesse Armand), tried to remain as unobtrusive as possible, while Michael Wasserman, who provided the stage-worthy translation of the text and took on the 12 male roles (Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, etc.), used a lively acting style to distinguish among them.

Mr. Wasserman says his task was especially challenging because the characters spend much of the time in heated arguments, making it hard to indicate transitions between speakers. In addition, the company's policy of not resorting to exact impersonations of historical figures prevented him from relying on recognizable speech characteristics - such as Stalin's heavy Georgian accent."

Ms. Spiselman describes the process accurately. Regina and I sat in a light projectionist's booth on the 11th floor. 10 stories below action unfolded lightning-swift, with only one break of 1.5 minutes. After 8 nights I knew the production well enough to turn off the microphone a nd rest for these 90 seconds. Then I would turn it back on and plunge into seething action until the end of the play. Only on that particular night I did not turn it back on. I forgot it was off and proceeded to interpret on, until, in about 2 minutes, I noticed a stirring below. Something seemed wrong. I quickly realized what the problem was and turned the mike back on, but not quickly enough! A woman in the 3rd row, the Vakhtangov Theatre's head of the Communist Party Organization, bellowed:

"There is no sound. Stop the show!"

And the People's Actor of the Soviet Union Mikhail Ulianov playing the role of Lenin stopped in mid-sentence, looking absurdly helpless, like a puppet with a broken string. The string of the show was broken, and nothing supported the moment. Time went on forever, it seemed, and then the show somehow resumed.

Although I interpreted the rest of the well-rehearsed show on that night exactly as I did on all previous and following nights, the audience kept fidgeting, looking back in displeasure, asking each other:

"What did he say?" and displaying other signs of poor verbal comprehension. I lost their trust in a big way and nothing could bring it back until a new audience came for the next show as usual.

<<

>>