Britain’s Got Talent Interpreted
Before I had even walked through the door, it had became apparent from a quick look at the weekend TV Guide in the paper I had read on the train that the coming TV week would be overwhelmed by Britain’s Got Talent. I’m not sure which dominated at that moment; pleasure at the feeling that I could have some easy evenings watching undemanding shows or saddened by the fact that my normal TV routine would be disrupted.
I had spent some evenings recently with friends watching avidly (as a whole nation was doing around us) a reality show which revolves around the theme of dance but with a wider brief than our own dance shows which don’t appeal to me at all. Dansez pentru Tine is great fun and though I had enjoyed the spectacle, I had hoped to return to something a little more stimulating. Judge for yourself.
However like a large number of the UK population I was drawn by the publicity to the first live semi-final of BGT. The fact I had missed much of the audition build up to the live shows meant that I wasn’t sure of the quality of the acts this year and I found myself being pleasantly entertained by an interesting selection of performers.
I have to acknowledge that the real talent on the show last night seemed to lie with the youth rather than the more mature entertainers. The dogs seemed to dance better than their owner and the Entertainator certainly did not entertain me as well as the young lads (pianist and singer) whose careers may well lie in music. I was impressed too by the opening dance, the martial arts girls and the ‘trick cyclist’ as I would have called him in my own youth.
But as an oldie now I found myself singing along with Ted (the 92 year old) to “Pack up your troubles” as I was unpacking my case. Little did I expect to be jolted at that moment into thinking about the question of translation and interpretation.
The early part of the judges discussion at the end of Ted and Grace’s act brought me back to earth with a bump. Remember Ted is profoundly deaf and his grand-daughter Grace was interpreting for him.
David Hasselhoff “Ted, Ted, Ted. Grace, tell Ted he was very good.“
Grace “Hoff said that you were very good.”
David Hasselhoff “Yeah, you did a very good job tonight, Ted. Yes, I thought very heart warming, very entertaining. I think I would like to see a little more Ted and a little less Grace. I’m sorry. I’m sorry but I think that if you’re going to get to the next round I think Ted is the star. Michael…”
Michael McIntyre “Yeah, notice that Grace hasn’t told him that. He’s still actually waiting to hear the news that he should go solo.”
Ted “I can’t understand him.”
Grace “It doesn’t matter.”
David Hasselhoff “Don’t tell him.”
Michael McIntyre “No she won’t. Absolutely refusing. Er, OK. Erm I have to say, Ted and Grace, it was nice to see you. And Grace just to counteract what Hoff said, I did think that your voice was much stronger. I didn’t feel that way coming in but I thought it was much stronger tonight than it was in audition. Erm, and you know, Ted, as ever I love to watch you perform, erm and I think, did you do your own choreography tonight coming on with the six hot chicks?”
Grace “Did you do your own choreography?”
Ted “Yes I think it will be better when I grow up because I’m only 92 you know.”
For someone like me who has a strong interest in the subject of translation and interpretation this was a fine example of the problems involved both for the professional and the amateur doing the job.
All kinds of problems are evident. The most obvious is that it would be almost impossible for Grace to tell Ted exactly what was being said by the fast talking speakers due to the fact that she wasn’t trained to listen to a conversation and repeat/interpret it (even in the same language) simultaneously. Try it sometime. Even when she did relate the choreography question to Ted it was severely abbreviated.
She was of course having to interpret under pressure in front of an expectant audience with time constraints. Her own adrenalin would have been pumping having just been involved in a potentially life-changing experience. Even the noise from the audience would have been very confusing for an amateur in those circumstances. Simply responding coherently to the judges on their own behalf is difficult for some performers never mind trying to interpret for a profoundly deaf man at your side.
But beyond that there was the problem of her own decision as to what to tell Ted. Should she repeat David’s suggestion? She chose not to. Was she right or wrong? Who can tell? It was a decision she made on the spur of the moment. Her own anger at David being, as she might perceive it, rude to her after she felt she had performed well? A desire not to upset or embarrass her grandfather?
Whatever the reason it was clear that at that moment, the interpretation did not fulfil its role of informing him of the comment that David had made. And the humour of Michael’s remark about the hot chicks also passed Ted by because Grace abbreviated the question. In fact much of the information and the tone of the message were both lost on poor old Ted.
How is this relevant to the translations which have been done in relation to the Madeleine McCann case? Well the McCann case is certainly more technical (especially in relation to legal, medical and forensic detail but there are nonetheless striking similarities.
Like Grace who was interpreting for Ted because she really wanted him to understand and be able to take in more fully what was going on, I believe that the vast majority (if not all) the translators who have helped us, in the McCann case, to understand more fully the events, the interviews, the articles and the overall complexities of the case have been motivated by a real desire to get the information out there as comprehensively, as quickly and as accurately as they possibly could.
Like Grace, though, they have not always succeeded perfectly. That is not necessarily their fault. There are many reasons why translation/interpretation can fail do deliver the perfect result. These include the following evident in the Grace and Ted interlude above but also relevant to any form of translation/interpretation whether verbal or written:
- Pressure of time.
- The need to obliterate personal opinions/emotions when translating/interpreting.
- Lack of understanding of the problems inherent in translation.
- An unwillingness to embarrass others or even yourself.
- Not having the technical ability/training which allows you to perform the task effectively
- External sources of noise and confusion.
When we talk of translation from a foreign language as in the McCann case there are further potential hazards including:
- The translator (amateur in particular) is unlikely to have as wide a vocabulary in the second language as his first.
- The translator/interpreter’s lack of understanding of technical language/terms.
- The inherent difficulty of translating cultural metaphors/idioms unless you have been immersed in that culture.
- The legibility of the original document being translated.
- The quality of the audio being translated or transcribed.
Incidentally the question of accuracy in translation is not just a McCann case issue or an issue related to the fact that amateurs are at work. Here is just one example from the wider world of professionals at each other’s throats over the subject. Nor is it a new problem.
“The clash of civilizations rages in some surprising places, and one of them is the large room in the FBI’s Washington, D.C., Field Office that houses a unit known as CI-19. In one set of cubicles sit the foreign-born Muslims; across a partition is everyone else. They have the same vital job: to translate supersecret wiretaps of suspected terrorists and spies. But the 150 or so members of CI-19 (for Counterintelligence) segregate themselves by ethnicity and religion. Some of the U.S.-born translators have accused their Middle Eastern-born counterparts of making disparaging or unpatriotic remarks, or of making “mistranslations”–failing to translate comments that might reflect poorly on their fellow Muslims, such as references to sexual deviancy. The tensions erupt in arguments and angry finger-pointing from time to time. “It’s a good thing the translators are not allowed to carry guns,” says Sibel Edmonds, a Farsi translator who formerly worked in the unit.”
Lost in Translation – Daniel Klaidman and Michael Isikoff (NEWSWEEK)
http://www.newsweek.com/2003/10/26/lost-in-translation.html
For those interested in a more scholarly discussion of the problems of translation in a technical I would strongly recommend pages 2 and 3 of the following short article where Lars Johan Materstvedt discusses the issues and challenges of translating scientific papers. His points are applicable also to the challenges in the McCann case translations.
http://www.eapcnet.org/download/forEuthanasia/EJPC13.5Materstvedt%28E%29.pdf
This is just the first in a series of articles which will discuss further the problems of translation with particular reference to the McCann case.
Good thought provoking piece.
I’ll second that, Sally.
Kate’s description of the interview process reflects exactly what I’d suspected. Quite aside from language barriers, she also mentions inaccuracies in transcriptions recorded in English (on the Sunday following the disappearance, cf her book). And she is not the only one: During her rog, JT couldn’t work out why her detail of the “turn-up” didn’t appear on her PT statement; Russ spent quite some time going through the LP draft of the rog interview in which the video hadn’t recorded.
In an interpreting situation: what is said or meant is not always what is heard. What is heard may or may not be fully understood by the interpreter. The interpreter then relays what they thought they understood to the person typing up the statement. The statement (in Portuguese) is then read/summarised back. In theory that would be an opportunity to correct details. However, especially when tired and distraught, it would be easier to pick up on inaccuracies or forgotten details while reading through a written statement in one’s mother tongue. This wasn’t possible within the time constraints and, presumably, signing the Portuguese statement was the one that mattered for the police.
When examining the early statements, there is at least one other issue: they are not verbatim. They are summaries. What, exactly, were the questions asked? What discussion actually took place before a summary sentence was typed up?
Off on a slight tangent, but an interesting detail, I thought.
From Grime’s report:
“This vehicle was then subjected to a full physical examination by the PJ and no human remains were found. The CSI dog was then tasked to screen the vehicle. An alert indication was forthcoming from the rear driver’s side of the boot area. Forensic samples were taken by the PJ and forwarded to a forensic laboratory in the U.K.”
According to the video, Keela alerted to the right-hand side of the boot (i.e. behind the passenger side of the Scenic – not the driver’s side). I can only presume he’d forgotten that the driver’s seat is on the left-hand side in Portugal.
As it happens, that detail is of no consequence and can be easily verified due to the fact that the dogs’ reactions were recorded on video. But – and yes I’m extrapolating – what if that detail had been of a different, highly significant, nature and there had been no video recording?
I forgot to add that I find that to be an inaccuracy due to a memory recall influenced by what is habitual in one’s own culture. In case it’s not obvious what I meant…
Cartas Rogatorias Vol III
Page 11
Leicestershire Police Force
Witness Statement
Janet Kennedy
Occupation: Remedial Teacher
Statement consists of 1 page and is true and in accordance with my understanding.
Date 16th May 2008
This statement was elaborated at my request, following a series of interrogations carried out at Leicestershire police HQ on 14th April 2008. The interrogations were part of the investigation into the disappearance of my grand-niece Madeleine McCann. I would like to clarify a statement made during the two interrogations, which due to being translated from English to Portuguese, I think could have been mis-interpreted. Instead of using the term “is the one who dominates” with regard to the relationship between Kate and Gerry, I would like to state that they respect each other’s decisions and all decisions are taken together. It was Kate’s own proposal to stay at home and look after the children instead of returning to work as a doctor.
From JT’s rog re the pyjama “turn-ups”
4078 “And then think about the child again, as much as you can see of that child in that split second, and tell me what you saw?”
Reply “Well, again, I mean, and this is, I think initially I couldn’t really bring, I could only really remember the feet. But the day after, when we had, they, at the interview, the person that was interviewing was really pushing me to try and, remember any more details, and the one thing that I could really think was, a turn-up of some description. And I don’t know whether this made it into my statement, but there was, and this is the thing that convinces me it was her, there was, sort of the pyjamas were, there was some sort of, I thought it was a turn-up, but some sort of design on the bottom of the pyjamas. And I did say it in my first statement and in my second statement I can remember saying it again and, the translator in there, because I said ‘I don’t know whether this made it into my first statement or not’, but the translator sort of went ‘Oh yes, I can remember you going like this’, because I was moving my hands up, but I was sort of talking about something at the bottom of the pyjamas. Because, from my own point of view, and I think, ‘Oh was I trying to’, I can think that I would think ‘Oh maybe a little girl would be wearing pink pyjamas’, so if you were subconsciously putting things in your head, I can think pink pyjamas, yes, but I wouldn’t think of some detail around the bottom of the pyjamas as a specific thing to, to mention”.
00.36.39 4078 “And when you noticed the detail was it in any colour?”
Reply “I don’t, I didn’t know, I thought there was sort of a pink flowery bit on, bit on it, but, no, I mean, the actual frill itself or turn-up, as I thought it was, I couldn’t think of the colour, but I thought there was pink sort of flowery and sort of like liney bits on the bottom, so”.
4078 “And, overall, what colour would you say the pyjama bottoms were?”
Reply “I can’t remember, I mean, I, I can’t remember, well I can’t remember now, but I think they were sort of whitey but with this, with this pattern on, but then some pink. That’s, that’s what I thought at the time. It’s harder because now I know what the pyjamas were so I can’t”.
4078 “It is very difficult”.
Reply “I think that is hard for me to actually”.
4078 “Yeah”.
Reply “To think now because I can, I can see them now”.
4078 “Because you know what actually they would have been if it had have been Madeleine?”
Reply “Yeah, exactly, yeah, so I can’t really go back to thinking what they were”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Well, that detail didn’t seem to make it into the 1st interview:
Personal description: ( * ) Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a “duffy” sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very “warmly dressed”. (**)
About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain. As regards these details, she does not know what Madeleine was wearing at the moment of her disappearance, because she did not talk to anyone about this. As she concerns the man she saw, she only spoke to Gerald about this, not entering into details, and to the police.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
I had a look at the 2nd statement:
There’s a brief description in the Portuguese original (which doesn’t include the “turn-up” issue, either). The English 3A translation of the 2nd statement appears incomplete. It was done by Albym, who I always found to be scrupulous. I suspect he was just working as fast as he could to translate what appeared to be extra information. There may be a full translation of the 2nd interview posted elsewhere, I haven’t checked.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
There also seems to be a lost-in-culture-conversion issue of JT estimating the height of the man in feet and inches, and an apparent mistake in conversion to the metric system.
There is also a bizarre draft of the 2nd statement (seems to be notes) that says that JT found it odd that the child was covered in a blanket (while her statement says the opposite). Originally, I’d wondered if the bizarre draft was an English translator trying to type up notes for witenesses to read and sign a statement in English. This does not seem to be the case.
My conclusion is that that was someone from the police making quick notes in English of the PT original and got things mixed up on that point. As it also seems to connect to the time of the Cooperman issue, and as some of the English seems a bit odd, it may well be a google translation back into English that was partially corrected in a hurry.
That didn’t stop the tabloids/bloggers maligning JT. It was only when I examined the statements that I thought: poor girl.
A few other issues that seem to be more in the order of totally lost-in-confusion (or worse).
Where’s this so-called Murat v Tanner pending case?
I can perfectly understand that RM thought JT was falsely accusing him. But where is the evidence for that? I can’t find any, whatsoever, apart from tabloid rubbish.
That RM’s lawyer filed a complaint, thinking that she had, I can understand. He’d been through hell as well.
I can’t find anything – apart from GA’s say-so, that she’d ever said anything of the sort.
- Both JT and Kate state that the secret van surveillance episode was a fiasco.
- There seems to be no written record of that episode.
- I have seen nothing in the files that would corroborate GA’s assertions. Was he there? I’ve seen nothing to indicate that this was the case.
* Written record – for clarification, JT describes the situation in the rog. But I can’t find any PT PJ report on this.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post195214.html#p195214
Observations: The fingerprint traces collected are identified as being the left hand (3x) and forefinger of the left hand (2x), of the missing girl’s mother,
The fingerprint inspection was only carried out on the inside of the window because it was night time, the location was sealed and preserved so that light conditions would permit the inspection of the residence to be finalised.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
At apartment 5A, Ocean Club: Inside glass of the window in the children’s bedroom. Five prints were recovered; three of the MIDDLE finger of the left hand and two of the index finger of the left hand of the mother of the missing child. Only the inside of the glass was examined at this time due the fact that it was night and the location was sealed until there was sufficient light to allow the examination of the residence to be completed.
Observações: Os vestigios lofoscópicos recolhidos se identificam com os dedos médio da mão esquerda (3x) e
dedo indicador da mão esquerda (2x), da mãe da criança desparecida.
A inspecção lofoscópica foi efectuada apenas no lado interior da janela visto que era de noite,
ficando o local selado e preservado para que assim que as condiçoes de luminosidade o permitissem fosse
fmalizada a inspecção á residência.
PP 332-333 Madeleine (publication & retranslation of diary extracts).
With respect Brenda et al, you and your crazy forum did more to support the preposterous theories proposed by Mr Bennett than any other single entity on the internet ‘back in the day’ (Re: ZE Mole claim). Your change of heart has been poorly illustrated at best – at worst – just breezed over. And all those blogs you support (see web ring on right hand side)? Well they seem as good an indication as any of where your support lies wouldn’t you say?
In the words of one Richey Edwards (also missing), you don’t always seem ’4Real’?
So when do you think the nation’s Maddie will come waltzing back? I see a lot of loquacious preamble at the moment amongst the ranks (as one who knows rather a lot about ‘loquacious preamble’).
Kate’s and the Met’s moves look a little like the setting up of a plausible context for something rather magic to happen – but maybe this is just the wishful thinking of a doting Dad. The profile of the Met took a battering over the Tomlinson and News of the World affair, so a triumph here would be a dream publicity win.
Or are Kate’s recent actions just all part and parcel of the a sales drive on the book?
Has enough time elapsed for Kate to seize the mantel of Children’s Guardian? This was how it was all taking shape prior to the those uncomfortable few days in September 2007. Has enough leachate flowed under the bridge?
Mr Watch
Blackwatch, Think what you will.
And 3A’s if I remember rightly used to hold your crazed conspiracy theories as well. Thanks for the reminder about those links they are removed.
As far as I am concerned you don’t have to believe me when I say I regret those days and to be honest I don’t care if you do or if you don’t.
Maybe my claim is poorly illustrated what more can I do, I have apologised, I have told people I regret those days.
I don’t know if Madeleine is alive or dead and neither do you and neither does Bennett, Goncalo Amaral or the man in the moon. All I know is that child needs to be found and should not be written off as dead.
As for you, nothing I say will change your mind, so I am just wasting my time explaining and I have gone past being nice now so go and swivel. People are allowed to change their opinions you know, it isn’t a crime.
You’re all unusually quiet at such a momentous time. Busy elsewhere? I see Bell Pottinger (who represented the McCanns) are representing NoTW’s Rebekah Brooks.
http://www.prweek.com/uk/News/MostRead/1080522/Rebekah-Brooks-hires-Bell-Pottinger-chairman-David-Wilson-handle-media/
I notice Michael (the German DVD ate my hamster) Shrimpton QC popped up to take charge of conspiracy stories on Shale – just like he did Madeleine McCann.
With friends like the Murdochs, who needs enemies? Someone’s really got it in for Cameron at the moment. It may be regretting he ever reignited the fire.