There has been much speculation about what Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin said at their two-hour long private meeting in Helsinki. Trump likes these one-on-one meetings and had one with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un too, prior to the later meeting with aides. But of course, these meetings are not exactly one-on-one and hence not entirely private. Along with them were two translators.
These translators have a tough time, especially since so much hinges on these discussions. Given Trump’s penchant for rambling incoherence, these translators have a tough time. I am also not sure who translates what in these discussions. When Trump speaks in English, is it Putin’s translator who puts it in Russian and vice versa? Putin’s translator would be far less familiar with Trump’s speech patterns than the American translator and thus find the task more difficult. So that would suggest that it may be advisable for Trump’s translator to take his words and speak them in Russian. Since the American translator would also be more familiar with English idioms and allusions and metaphors, that would also avoid the possibility of words being taken too literally.
These translators play a crucial role and yet are anonymous. As far as I can tell, they are not named but presumably they are people with high-level security clearances and trusted for their discretion. Now a Democratic senator is asking that the US translator be required to testify as to what was said at the meeting. It seems unlikely that this effort will succeed. The president will claim that the translator’s role is covered by Executive Privilege and thus immune from congressional subpoenas.
But the broader issue is an interesting one. Should the president be able to have confidential discussions with foreign leaders that no one else is privy to? Or is it the case that by virtue of his office, every interaction with a foreign leader, however trivial, is a matter of public record since he is presumably acting in an official capacity? If the latter is the case, then what about the occasions when translators are not needed, such as when the two leaders speak the same language. Should it be required that the leaders have recording devices and their conversations transcribed? Note that in the Trump-Putin meeting with translators, no notes were taken, though one would think that notes would be helpful for follow-up discussions.
I don’t think the measure to require translators to testify will succeed. What the effort may do is eliminate the anonymity of these people.
“What the effort may do is eliminate the anonymity of these people.”
Is this desirable?
We should keep the issues of whether these discussions should be private, and whether we should be able to know the identity of, and/or demand testimony from, these translators separate.
I can see reasons for having some discussions, whether this is between world leaders, between business executives, between criminals and their attorneys, whatever… private. If we decide a discussion is private, and if in this private discussion there is a language barrier, a translator will be required. All parties need to be able to trust that the translator does his job to the best of his ability and in complete confidence. A good translator should give the impression that he’s not there, not part of the discussion, both parties should have the impression they are talking in private, not through some third party intermediary.
Removing their anonymity erodes that.
My hope (ridiculous, I imagine) is that Mueller already has enough on Trump that he went to a FISA court and got a secret warrant to have the translator record the conversation.
It’s hard for the translator to translate Trump’s wargarbl into American and then into Russian. The return translation is only a single-stage operation.
“Can you translate that into asshole?”
Trump must be an interpreter’s nightmare, he doesn’t speak his native language properly.
Surely discussions between heads of state should be confidential.
rjw1,
The issue is not just one of confidentiality. There is also the issue of whether there should be a written record of the meeting (which can be kept confidential) for the sake of the historical record and posterity. If the two people agreed to do something, surely it would be helpful to have a written record so there is no misunderstanding later.
… it may be advisable for Trump’s translator to take his words and speak them in Russian.
Technically, we should call these people “interpreters” -- “translators” work with written texts.
Professionals I have known in this field told me (decades ago -- maybe this has changed like everything else) that fewest errors occur when interpreters deliver their output in their native languages, so as not to add or remove connotations from unexpected idioms. The UN (then) required this.
Surely interpreting Trumptalk in realtime, accurately, must challenge interpreters Olympically. Putin may well think Trump speaks more coherently than he does (unless he -- Putin -- eavesdrops on his interpreters as they get drunk after the summit meetings wrap up).
@ 6 Pierce R. Butler
fewest errors occur when interpreters deliver their output in their native languages
This seems to be a normal, accepted principle in translation and presumably interpretation. One translates ‘into’ one’s native language.
Trump must be a nightmare for interpreters. Putin may be getting the impression that Trump is more coherent than he is. I think I have read that Putin has some English but not to a fluency level. He may very well not realize how Trump is babbling. On the other hand he does have competent staff who would have briefed him on this and the problems his interpreter was going to have. Do interpreters get hazardous duty pay?
Looking at Putin’s body language, I get the impression that he is just as happy to see Trump as the Queen was. I remember seeing one photo where Putin is staring at Trump much as Angela Merkel did on her first encounter with Trump. It was a “Is this character real” type of look though Merkel looked even more disbelieving.
jrkrideau:
Tsk.
Do you really imagine it is not possible for someone to grow up at least bi-lingual, with equal facility at each?
(Without that predicate, your point is moot)
PS
I doubt that.
Yeah, he rambles and is allusive and idiosyncratically idiomatic, but good translators are good at translating. I don’t see why he’d be particularly worse than any other rambler.
PPS What happened to ‘bigly’ (‘big league’)? Haven’t heard it much recently, used to be a defining tic.
For a discussion of the body language at the Putin/Trump summit, see http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/07/body-language
The name of Trump’s interpreter was leaked to the press, or rather not kept secret to begin with.
Putin may speak English well, but he’d still benefit from using an interpreter. It’s always more comfortable in your native language, plus his English accent sounds like an American actor overdoing the “Russian accent”.
@ 8John Morales
Do you really imagine it is not possible for someone to grow up at least bi-lingual, with equal facility at each?
Oh course it is. I live in Canada where you can literally have a person say, “ I ski in French but I sail in English”. In a city like Ottawa one can hear people on the bus switch languages in mid--sentence.
It was too much work at the time to add in the slightly off-beat “bilingual” case. And I am not sure if translators/interpreters train to translate/interpret in both directions. The few translators I know always seemed to have one main target language but I am talking about Gov’t of Canada translators who probably could afford to specialize.
@ 10 John MoralesYeah, he rambles and is Yeah, he rambles and is allusive and idiosyncratically idiomatic, but good translators are good at translating. I don’t see why he’d be particularly worse than any other rambler., but good translators are good at translating. I don’t see why he’d be particularly worse than any other rambler.
Well, he is in the top 10% of ramblers but the “allusive and idiosyncratically idiomatic” are nasty little things for an interpretor to hit.
Something as simple as “THEE cat” rather than “the cat”, that is stressing the importance of the following noun cannot be translated literally into Russian. I am sure there is a way to get the sense across but Russian has no articles.
Some idiomatic expressions in one language may have no direct equivalent in another. Something as simple as “Revenons a nos moutons” in French probably would be translated into English as something like “Let’s get back to the topic at hand”. Not a sign of the sheep (les moutons).
John Morales @ # 9: I don’t see why he’d be particularly worse than any other rambler.
Uh, is English your first language? Trump comes across as a rambler with brain damage or drug problems.
I can’t find them now, but I saw some articles from oh so long ago (circa the inauguration) about translators for non-English news services getting accused of incompetence or attempting to sabotage Trump’s reputation because they rendered his words approximately accurately.
@ 12 lumipuna
Putin …his English accent sounds like an American actor overdoing the “Russian accent”.
I managed to google a couple of examples of Putin speaking English. I was surprised at how good it was—I have known a number of Russian and Ukrainian immigrants. I thought the accent was very minor comparatively. Certainly he is not going to be mistaken for a native English speaker.
I know what you mean by the ” American actor overdoing the “Russian accent” but I don’t hear it. I am hearing someone with a fairly good command of the English spoken language. Of course, how good his comprehension of spoken English is another matter.
Mano @5
I’m rather cynical. I’d say that many diplomats and heads of government would prefer that some of their deliberations were “Off the record”.
Churchill and FDR before the Pearl Harbor attack is one example.
Ahh, so: presidential-level interpreters often use notes:
Whether this happened in Helsinki goes onto the
pileTrump™ Tower® of unanswered questions.