Dan at CLB just posted on this subject with his experience dealing with Chinese, Russian and German interpreters. I can only speak to Chinese, but it is an issue I’ve dealt with personally, and through clients, for over ten years now.

If an interpreter is really good, he/she fades into the background. During a negotiation or business meeting, it’s like the interpreter wasn’t there at all. This is extremely difficult, but the really good ones can manage it.

I don’t think I’ve ever come across a lawyer, their language skills notwithstanding, that is also an exceptional interpreter. Well, perhaps one or two exceptions. Generally, lawyers are too headstrong and knowledgeable to allow themselves to merely be a conduit, even junior associates translating for a partner.

Lawyers will almost always get involved in the conversation, interject their own opinion, or otherwise interrupt the flow. It’s incredibly annoying. Although I tell every single lawyer I’ve ever sent out to a client meeting, Board meeting, negotiation, etc. for the purposes of translating that they should not be an active participant in the discussion unless absolutely necessary, they almost always do so.

Nothing gets a client more pissed off than when their translator gets into a five minute discussion with the opposing party in a negotiation and fails to let the client know what’s going on. Moreover, when both the opposing party and the translator are Chinese nationals and the client is a foreigner, they almost always think that something untoward is going on and that they are somehow conspiring against the poor foreigner. Silly, perhaps, but is happens very often.

This isn’t to say that I wouldn’t love, and prefer, working with an interpreter who not only knows the language very well, but can walk the line between giving valuable advice to the client on the one hand and being as unobtrusive as possible on the other — I just don’t see those kinds of skills that often.

In fact, the more intelligent an interpreter is and the more experience they have with business or law, the more likely they are to be an active participant in the discussion. It’s tough to hit the sweet spot.

Dan also reposts a Ten Do’s and Don’ts list for Chinese/English interpreters that is kind of interesting. Of the ten items, I find the first one weird:

1. DON’T say have fun. The phrase “having fun” or any other derivative of it, “have fun” “had fun”, does not translate into Chinese. Culturally, it’s simply not a concept that resonates with Chinese people. It’s not that Chinese people don’t enjoy a good time, it’s that they don’t value fun as much as an English speaker might.

I think something got lost in the translation here, ’cause I don’t understand that at all. First, I’m trying to figure out when I would use “have fun” in a business context anyway. Can’t think of an example.

Second, Chinese people talk about “fun/play” very often, so the “does not translate” is puzzling. In fact, in English when we might say “I’m going to the mountains this weekend to go hiking,” a Chinese person might say “I’m going to the mountains this weekend to have fun.” Maybe I’m missing something here?

Third, and most bizarre, is the notion that “Chinese people don’t value fun as much as an English speaker might.” Huh? I think this makes no sense at all, but if anything, I think Chinese people value fun more than some Westerners. I know some industries in America where people having a lot of fun (e.g. vacation time, time out of the office) is frowned upon and seen as a weakness. One example would be American lawyers, unfortunately.

Anyway, good topic. Everyone over here has a good interpreter story to tell. By the way, the folks who are licensed to do simultaneous translation are amazing. I have always kind of been in awe of that ability — it appears to be insanely difficult.

Further to my somewhat hyperbolic post yesterday on the tainted milk that has recently been “creeping back” into the market and the government’s belated enforcement efforts:

Three people have been arrested in China in a fresh crackdown on melamine-tainted milk products, police said Wednesday.

Zhang Wenxue, general manager of the Lekang Dairy Co. Ltd. in Weinan City, in Shaanxi Province, Zhu Shuming, a vice general manger of the company and a workshop director, and Ma Shuanglin, a milk powder dealer in Weinan’s Linwei District, were charged with manufacturing and selling food that does not meet hygiene standards, said Xu Qiang, deputy director of the Shaanxi Provincial Public Security Department. (China Daily)

That’s more like it. More of that, please, lots more.

This time it’s a weird tie-in with Google’s dispute with the China Writers’ Association over Google’s online book project:

Chinese intellectual property rights (IPR) authorities said on Wednesday that information transmission on the Internet should be prevented if it is found to be violating China’s IPR regulations, especially copyright, referring to the Google issues in China.

Yin Xintian, spokesman of the State Intellectual Property Office, said that it had been China’s consistent stance.

He was responding to a question about Google’s threat to retreat from China over Internet management disputes, at a press conference on the amendment to the implementation rules of the Patent Law.

“Information flow on the Internet should follow the basic principle of respecting and protecting the intellectual property rights of others,” he said. (Xinhua)

1. Why did someone ask a question about Google to a SIPO spokesman who was talking about the Patent Law Implementing Regs? (FYI, SIPO is China’s Patent Office with no authority over copyright matters.)

2. Regarding the answer, what does this copyright dispute have to do with Google’s complaints over censorship and Gmail hacking?

3. Why is the SIPO person alleging, in a way, that Google is somehow not respecting IP rights? Is this some sort of equivalence argument? (i.e. “Google’s hands are not clean, they should shut up)

The “It’s OK to pile on Google” message appears to have gotten out there.