“Handle them
carefully, for words have more power than atom bombs.”
--Pearl Strachan
Washington policy wonks and K Street lawyers pride
themselves on getting the words right. They understand that clear definitions
are critical because they are the basis for everything else, but even
specialists can get it wrong or unwittingly perpetuate misconceptions. This
week, in a 6 to 3 decision the United States Supreme Court helped dispel one of
those misconceptions—one so pervasive that it is perpetuated in everyday
conversation, the media, and even in our country’s legislation. The simple
question at the heart of this misconception: What’s the difference between a translator and
an interpreter?
The simple answer, now upheld by the Supreme Court, is that translators
write, and interpreters speak.
When Japanese professional baseball player Kouichi Taniguchi
fell through a wooden deck at the Marianas Resort and Spa while on vacation in
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, he unwittingly set in motion
a chain of legal maneuvers that culminated this week when the Supreme Court
handed down its ruling. The question presented before the highest court in the
land, however, had nothing to do with construction codes, accident liability or
even compensation for pain and suffering. The question presented is whether
costs incurred in translating written documents are “compensation of
interpreters” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6). [1]
“So what?” may well be your next question. But for
translators and interpreters, a cadre of multilingual knowledge workers whose
importance continues to grow daily in the globally connected 21st
century, and for those who rely on their services, calling things by their
names matters. Clear definitions are important; they help ensure that all
parties involved understand each other.
Consider Capitol Hill, home to this nation’s lawmakers.
Representatives work in the House, while senators work in the Senate. The work
they do is similar, but no senator would take kindly to being called a
congressman, and no congressman would try to participate in a vote on the
Senate floor, even though they both work in Congress.
A similar division of labor exists between translators and
interpreters. Translators work with the written word. They translate international
treaties. They translate seized documents from Al Qaeda and other terrorist
groups. They have translated Harry Potter into at least 67 other languages. In contrast, interpreters made the Nuremburg
Trials possible by simultaneously interpreting witness testimony into and out
of English, French, German and Russian for those present in the courtroom. Interpreters
make it possible for our president to pick up the phone and speak with other
world leaders. They work in countless emergency rooms across this country
interpreting what doctors and patients say in life and death situations. A
literary translator is of no more use to an emergency room doctor than a
medical interpreter is to a company that wants to publish the English version
of Stieg Larsson’s latest mystery novel. The skills, disciplines, and job descriptions
are quite distinct.
In its opinion, the Court stated that “both the ordinary and
technical meanings of ‘interpreter,’ as well as the statutory context in which
the word is found, lead to the conclusion that § 1920(6) does not apply to
translators of written materials.”[2]
The drafters of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6) either intentionally
omitted translation or simply overlooked it, focusing on the immediate need to
ensure that non-English-speaking parties to a suit could understand and
participate in live courtroom proceedings. Given the general confusion
surrounding what translators and interpreters do and how often people get the
two professions mixed up, the omission comes as no surprise. The best way to fix
this oversight would be by amending the code to include translation as well,
not by tortured legal arguments that attempt to say translation and interpretation
are the same thing, when they indisputably are not.
Words matter. And the Supreme Court got the words right in
this case. When he announced that the ruling was being published by the Court
in English, Justice Samuel Alito
made it very clear that he understands the difference between translation and
interpreting when he said: “Anybody who wants to read it in another language
will have to pay to have it translated, not interpreted.”[3]
--Barry Slaughter Olsen
[1] Brief
of Amici Curiae: Interpreting and
Translation Professors in Support of Petitioner, p. i http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1472_petitioner_amcu_professors.authcheckdam.pdf
[2] Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., DBA
Marianas Resort and Spa, p. 11. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1472.pdf
[3] Supreme
Court says interpretation and translation are different things when it comes to
fee, Washington Post, 05/21/2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-interpretation-and-translation-are-different-things-when-it-comes-to-fee/2012/05/21/gIQAXzbOfU_story.html
