Vol. VII, No. 3 - Summer 1998

Moshe Dayan Used to Live in Zahala

t the outset of depositions interpreters take a solemn oath to fairly and accurately interpret the proceedings. This obligation is repeatedly reinforced in interpreter education courses and in articles that appear in professional journals. Despite all of these directives, some interpreters continue to interject themselves unnecessarily into colloquy with the parties and fail to remain neutral. The excerpts below, from a transcript of a deposition, offer examples of some pitfalls interpreters should do their best to avoid. In all but one case, the deponent responded in Hebrew. His answers appear in English as rendered by the interpreter. My comments appear in brackets. All names have been changed to protect the parties’ privacy.

ATTORNEY [to the interpreter]: Ms. Bloom, did you meet with Mr. Mizrachi [the deponent] prior to coming here today?

INTERPRETER: I drove down with him from [a city’s name appears in the original transcript and is omitted here], yes. [Interpreters should try to avoid the company of the deponent prior to the deposition.]

ATTORNEY: Mr. Mizrachi, my name is Joseph Smith. I’m the attorney who–

INTERPRETER: The more frequently we stop, the more accurately I can translate.

[Interpreters should know the difference between interpreting and translating. Also, the interpreter should not interrupt the questioner at such short intervals, even in the name of accuracy. An interpreter who does not have sufficient recall should take notes and refer to them.]

ATTORNEY: Mr. Mizrachi, did you give Mr. Stein any information regarding David Rosen’s family estate so that Mr. Stein–

DEPONENT: It’s not an estate. His parents, his parents –I’m sorry [said by interpreter]– his parents are alive.

INTERPRETER: I’m sorry. It’s very tough, some of this.

[If an interpreter says anything, she should indicate that it is she and not the deponent who is speaking. The above comment is not only gratuitous and inappropriate; it also confuses the record.]

ATTORNEY: Could you just read the last answer back?

INTERPRETER: I’m just telling him to ask you the questions for clarification and not me because I am not, ask me. Tell me your question. I’ll ask you. I just want to explain something to you, something to him about translating. I’m explaining about first and third person, that’s all.

[The interpreter should neither provide explanations nor tell either party what to do or say. She may only, when necessary, ask that the deponent be instructed to answer the questioner directly. If the interpreter wants to address the witness, she must request permission from the parties. Otherwise, as happened here, the interpreter’s attempt at clarification will only compound the confusion.]

ATTORNEY: You are looking at Mr. Zangwill and I wish you wouldn’t... Look at me.

DEPONENT : [in English] I look only for you. Okay.

INTERPRETER: He’s saying he only has eyes for you.

[The interpreter should never say “He’s saying” unless the deponent has said “He’s saying” in the source language. Here she inserted an explanation, using the third person pronoun, of the deponent’s English language answer. The interpreter’s statement is improper, and, unless the deponent is enamored of the attorney, also inaccurate.]

ATTORNEY: And where is that located?

DEPONENT: In Zahala.

INTERPRETER: Moshe Dayan used to live there.

[While the deponent simply identifies the location, the interpreter, in an apparent attempt to display her knowledge, provides additional information. While the deponent may have an interest in playing down the value of the property, the interpreter is, in effect, advising the deposing attorney that the property is in an affluent area. The interpreter’s neutrality has been compromised. Also, a grammatical point, since Moshe Dayan is dead, the correct usage is “he lived there.” To say “he used to live there” implies that he is still alive and has merely relocated.]

ATTORNEY: Who owns it with her?

DEPONENT: About another twenty people.

ATTORNEY: Why?

INTERPRETER: Okay. This is a very tough concept. It’s kind of land called musha land, and there really is no translation for it. You can ask him to explain it and I will translate it for you.

[The attorney asked a simple, one-word question: “Why?” The interpreter should have interpreted that word into its one-word Hebrew equivalent and left it at that. Instead, she anticipated the answer and then, inappropriately, provided her own (inaccurate) statement that the word musha has no English equivalent.]

ATTORNEY: Let the record reflect that I was handed documents mostly in Hebrew from—

INTERPRETER: Do you need some help with it?

ATTORNEY: ...From the witness. I’m going to mark these.

[The interpreter should not interrupt an attorney in mid-sentence in order to offer unsolicited services.]

In conclusion, this interpreter became actively involved in the proceeding, and was unable to limit herself to interpreting, which should have been her sole function.

Meir Turner is a simultaneous Hebrew-English interpreter who lives in New York City.