Last week Chinese President Hu Jintao Took part in a joint press conference with US President Barack Obama. There was a tense moment when a question about Human Rights seemed to have been ignored by the Chinese President. It ends up that a glitch in the interpretation workflow may have caused the oversight. According to the article written by CNN’s Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jill Dougherty “Press conference lost in translation“, the apparent oversight of the question occurred as President Obama answered the question and then the Chinese interpreter provided the interpretation of President Obama’s answer and then press conference moved along to the next question until an American reporter asked the question again while hinting that the oversight was not an accident. President Hu was not very happy about this insinuation and replied “First, I would like to clarify, because of the technical translation and interpretation problem, I did not hear the question about the human rights,” he said. “What I know was that he was asking a question directed at President Obama. As you raise this question, and I heard the question properly, certainly I’m in a position to answer that question.”
It is interesting to me that a glitch of this magnitude can happen at this level if an event. I would imagine there is a strict protocol for interpretation of a press conference of this importance. The author later explains that the White House told CNN that it was the Chinese who requested consecutive interpretation vs. simultaneous interpretation.
In situations where timing is key to the event simultaneous interpretation is typically used. This is the type of interpretation known as UN Style interpretation and it typically involves the use of sound proof booths located away from the event. The participants where earpieces or headsets to receive the interpretation in real time causing no delays in the flow of conversation.
I can’t understand why consecutive interpretation was the preferred method in this case. Perhaps to give the speakers more time to contemplate their answers? Hard to say.
Another point I found interesting in the article is that the author consistently refers to interpretation as translation. A very common mistake made in the popular media. In fact here is another example of the incorrect usage of the term translation vs. interpretation from the BBC.
