Page 58 - Translation Journal July 2015
P. 58
Chapter One Introduction to the Assignment
At a time when China is moving forward with its internationalization projects, when intergovernmental exchanges are thriving and
diversifying, reaching as far as the sub-local level, and when these official dialogues are becoming increasingly specialized, practically-
based and technically complex, there is a pressing need to maintain quality and standards in the profession of governmental
conference interpreting, particularly at the local and sub-local levels. Intergovernmental communication no longer just displays
stereotyped posture, handshakes or decent diction in the glamorous spotlight; it reaches out, touches the real and solves problems.
Apart from general meetings, it takes on other various forms to achieve its goals: summits to address crisis, workshops to gain insight,
fora to share information, field trips to experience and joint programs to prepare future leaders. These meetings are by no means
playgrounds for modeling. They are more like testing grounds for new ideas and practices, which are usually informative and target-
specific. For these exchanges to be accessible as both inspirational and informative in the language domain, interpreters are expected
to assume a role that is no longer traditional and mechanical as they did when they could do their job well as long as they followed
the scripts already prepared. It is a new role that requires a functional shift from being a translator who only works on rendition of
different languages per se, to a facilitator who deals with interpretation of different texts, so to speak, so as to enable governmental
conversations formal, intelligible and coherent all at the same time.
This report is thus put together to identify factors that cause informality, unintelligibility and incoherency in interpreting for
intergovernmental communication, and to seek practical solutions based on a recent consecutive interpreting assignment for the Fifth
Guangdong-Stockholm Civil Servant Training Programme. Initiated on a ten-year contract signed by the Guangdong Government
and Stockholm Municipality, this annual training programme is a joint offering between Sun Yat-sen University (SYSU) and Stockholm
University to help Chinese officials gain a greater understanding of public administration, using Sweden as an example. From June
1 to June 30 in the year 2011, 32 civil servants from Guangdong Province received training at Stockholm University in the form
of workshops, field studies and site visits, with specific themes on the agenda for each day. The author of this report, together
with the other two faculty members from SYSU, served as the interpreters for the programme. This report describes one of the
author’s interpreting assignments for a workshop featuring Swedish Public Administration on June 8, hosted by Dr. Paul Levin,
currently Programme Manager for this training and Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the Department of Economic History
at Stockholm University. He presented his talks in English titled as “Global Governance and Swedish Public Administration” , with
PowerPoint slides given out to the author one day prior to the workshop, which lasted 3 hours from 9:00am to 12:00pm as a morning
session, including one coffee break (15 minutes) and the group discussion part (30 minutes). Messages were rendered consecutively
between segments from English to Chinese for Dr. Levin’s presentation, and then switched from Chinese to English for group reports
after the discussion.
A few points need to be made here to justify the selection of this one particular workshop out of many as the subject for the report.
First and foremost, the presentation was well-organized to both deliver a clear outline of Swedish public governance and highlight
the essential characteristics of its administration. It contains intensive knowledge, both theoretically and practically, about Swedish
politics and public administration, and instructive details on how we, as foreign observers, could approach and understand them. The
informativeness of the presentation, which is not only typical of any academic discourse in political science, but also unfamiliar to the
Chinese participants, underscores the significance of having a sense of register (formality) and developing cross-cultural awareness
(intelligibility) in interpreting, which are the first two main topics to be discussed in the report. Secondly, the workshop offered
opportunity for discussion and feedback on a few certain issues, allowing participants to voice their own opinions and ask questions.
The speech involved in this section therefore, tended to be more discursive, conversational and freewheeling. The unpredictability of
the discussion part sheds light upon another hidden role of an interpreter (coherency): a language coordinator who help re-organizes
source speech and delivers message-based target speech by cutting redundant words, putting in missing logical links and even
reversing the sequence of notes. Last but not least, this workshop was one of the few cases in the programme where the author
was allowed to make a recording for public re-use and where the lecturer, though born a Swedish, spoke standard American English
without the slightest traces of a Scandinavian accent, making it easier for transcription and analysis.
Here is one more important note before the introduction part is concluded. The fact that “the author” and “the interpreter” hereafter
distinctively called implies a difference. The former refers to the person who is recalling her first-hand experience of the interpreting
assignment and writing it as it was into this report, while the latter refers to an idealized professional who is reviewing the experience
and expecting it to be the way it should be. This distinctiveness is of course, neither a reflection of a split personality (technically not,
as both personalities overlap most of the time), nor a tricky game that plays on words; it is thus contrived with the hope of benefiting
readers by drawing a clear line between what was done and what should be done for improvement concerning interpreting.
Chapter Two Description of the Assignment
It should be noted that from May 31 to July 1 in the year 2010, the author performed similar interpreting service for the Fourth
Guangdong-Helsinki Civil Servant Training Programme in Finland, from which prudence and foresight were gained in preparation for
the 2011 mission. Programme itinerary was also provided to the author for translation one week prior to setting off to Sweden, so each
interpreter was preliminarily assigned with specific sessions of the month-long programme according to the course agenda. Being
aware of the intensity both in information sharing and time length of the workshop, the author set out early to prepare for the day.
58 | Translation Journal - July 2015
At a time when China is moving forward with its internationalization projects, when intergovernmental exchanges are thriving and
diversifying, reaching as far as the sub-local level, and when these official dialogues are becoming increasingly specialized, practically-
based and technically complex, there is a pressing need to maintain quality and standards in the profession of governmental
conference interpreting, particularly at the local and sub-local levels. Intergovernmental communication no longer just displays
stereotyped posture, handshakes or decent diction in the glamorous spotlight; it reaches out, touches the real and solves problems.
Apart from general meetings, it takes on other various forms to achieve its goals: summits to address crisis, workshops to gain insight,
fora to share information, field trips to experience and joint programs to prepare future leaders. These meetings are by no means
playgrounds for modeling. They are more like testing grounds for new ideas and practices, which are usually informative and target-
specific. For these exchanges to be accessible as both inspirational and informative in the language domain, interpreters are expected
to assume a role that is no longer traditional and mechanical as they did when they could do their job well as long as they followed
the scripts already prepared. It is a new role that requires a functional shift from being a translator who only works on rendition of
different languages per se, to a facilitator who deals with interpretation of different texts, so to speak, so as to enable governmental
conversations formal, intelligible and coherent all at the same time.
This report is thus put together to identify factors that cause informality, unintelligibility and incoherency in interpreting for
intergovernmental communication, and to seek practical solutions based on a recent consecutive interpreting assignment for the Fifth
Guangdong-Stockholm Civil Servant Training Programme. Initiated on a ten-year contract signed by the Guangdong Government
and Stockholm Municipality, this annual training programme is a joint offering between Sun Yat-sen University (SYSU) and Stockholm
University to help Chinese officials gain a greater understanding of public administration, using Sweden as an example. From June
1 to June 30 in the year 2011, 32 civil servants from Guangdong Province received training at Stockholm University in the form
of workshops, field studies and site visits, with specific themes on the agenda for each day. The author of this report, together
with the other two faculty members from SYSU, served as the interpreters for the programme. This report describes one of the
author’s interpreting assignments for a workshop featuring Swedish Public Administration on June 8, hosted by Dr. Paul Levin,
currently Programme Manager for this training and Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the Department of Economic History
at Stockholm University. He presented his talks in English titled as “Global Governance and Swedish Public Administration” , with
PowerPoint slides given out to the author one day prior to the workshop, which lasted 3 hours from 9:00am to 12:00pm as a morning
session, including one coffee break (15 minutes) and the group discussion part (30 minutes). Messages were rendered consecutively
between segments from English to Chinese for Dr. Levin’s presentation, and then switched from Chinese to English for group reports
after the discussion.
A few points need to be made here to justify the selection of this one particular workshop out of many as the subject for the report.
First and foremost, the presentation was well-organized to both deliver a clear outline of Swedish public governance and highlight
the essential characteristics of its administration. It contains intensive knowledge, both theoretically and practically, about Swedish
politics and public administration, and instructive details on how we, as foreign observers, could approach and understand them. The
informativeness of the presentation, which is not only typical of any academic discourse in political science, but also unfamiliar to the
Chinese participants, underscores the significance of having a sense of register (formality) and developing cross-cultural awareness
(intelligibility) in interpreting, which are the first two main topics to be discussed in the report. Secondly, the workshop offered
opportunity for discussion and feedback on a few certain issues, allowing participants to voice their own opinions and ask questions.
The speech involved in this section therefore, tended to be more discursive, conversational and freewheeling. The unpredictability of
the discussion part sheds light upon another hidden role of an interpreter (coherency): a language coordinator who help re-organizes
source speech and delivers message-based target speech by cutting redundant words, putting in missing logical links and even
reversing the sequence of notes. Last but not least, this workshop was one of the few cases in the programme where the author
was allowed to make a recording for public re-use and where the lecturer, though born a Swedish, spoke standard American English
without the slightest traces of a Scandinavian accent, making it easier for transcription and analysis.
Here is one more important note before the introduction part is concluded. The fact that “the author” and “the interpreter” hereafter
distinctively called implies a difference. The former refers to the person who is recalling her first-hand experience of the interpreting
assignment and writing it as it was into this report, while the latter refers to an idealized professional who is reviewing the experience
and expecting it to be the way it should be. This distinctiveness is of course, neither a reflection of a split personality (technically not,
as both personalities overlap most of the time), nor a tricky game that plays on words; it is thus contrived with the hope of benefiting
readers by drawing a clear line between what was done and what should be done for improvement concerning interpreting.
Chapter Two Description of the Assignment
It should be noted that from May 31 to July 1 in the year 2010, the author performed similar interpreting service for the Fourth
Guangdong-Helsinki Civil Servant Training Programme in Finland, from which prudence and foresight were gained in preparation for
the 2011 mission. Programme itinerary was also provided to the author for translation one week prior to setting off to Sweden, so each
interpreter was preliminarily assigned with specific sessions of the month-long programme according to the course agenda. Being
aware of the intensity both in information sharing and time length of the workshop, the author set out early to prepare for the day.
58 | Translation Journal - July 2015
