|
Edited on Sat Feb-03-07 08:04 PM by NV1962
Just a few comments. From what you describe, her attitude does certainly appear tinted by bigotry.
However: I'd like to point out that -- leaving her behavior and attitude completely aside -- there's absolutely NO reason to have an inherent assumption or even expectation that people who happen to be bilingual should act as an interpreter. And if I may, I'd like to make that case even stronger in a medical environment.
Maybe that's a separate issue; if there's interest, I'm more than willing to open up a separate topic on that.
First, I see you refer to "translate" - translations deal with written texts, whereas interpretation deals with speech.
Second, being able to speak and understand two languages is by no means whatsoever indicative of the required level of proficiency of an interpreter. And that is all the more true in specialized environments. Very often, after residing for a long period of time abroad, one develops or acquires "professional" terminology which have never developed in the native language. In the medical field as one such clear example, it's a far cry from the familiar and trivial range of terminology used at home with the terminology used in a hospital. To somehow assume that someone working at a specialized (e.g. hospital) environment whose native language is not English is able to properly "translate" specialized English terminology into the other language and vice versa is not only wrong, it's flat-out dangerous. The risk of (and therefore, the responsibility for) an incorrect diagnosis should NEVER be placed on people who aren't qualified (trained), period. I have personally intervened several times in cases where a well-meaning "volunteer" was making critical mistakes while attempting to "translate" medical terminology into "plain language". If a person doesn't understand the "native" equivalents of specialized terminology, he/she should say so - and it's up to the medical professional to explain it otherwise.
Third, interpretation skills come with practice, practice, practice, and very very rarely are a result of "innate" talents; you have to work hard at keeping that ability up to speed to cope with real-life situations. And even though cultural competence can be a major plus in a medical environment, it takes experience (and in most cases additional training) to competently and adequately navigate around or away from such sources of miscommunication.
Fourth, no matter to which field of interpretation you refer (administrative, legal, medical, conferencing, etc.) interpretation when it's done correctly is literal - without adding, subtracting or modifying either the meaning or the register of speech. Awfully often, makeshift interpreters use summary mode, and add their perspective (especially noticeable when you hear "He/she said that ..."). In a medical environment, such typical deficiencies are all the more to be avoided.
Fifth, and this is probably most to the point here, I run a lot into situations where I find out that the burden of "makeshift translation" (i.e., interpretation) is placed without much thinking by management on anyone who is bilingual; never mind the possible (and probable) imbalance in vocabulary between the languages for that person, the questionably presumed skills (why should one be expected to be able to magically interpret just because one speaks another language?), etcetera. I find that incredibly arrogant, irresponsible, and insensitive of management when it condones, if not routinely resorts to its employees to evade its own responsibilities derived from hiring employees with deficient "local" language skills in the first place.
Now, I realize full well that it's nonsense to think in terms of getting a qualified interpreter to act in trivial conversation type interaction. But in the case of a hospital, this knee-jerk shifting responsibility for communicating appropriately (i.e., similar as to native speakers) to employees presents a serious threat to the well-being of patients and their loved ones. It's one thing to explain where the cafetaria is, or to ask for a phone number or address information; another is to foist the responsibilities of an interpreter on someone to interact with professional (medical) implications at stake.
Yes, I'm a professional interpreter and translator. And yes, I understand that availability of qualified interpreters can be hard to get by. But there are not only legal, but especially moral reasons to make a very clear-cut distinction between cases where a "makeshift" interpreter is perfectly acceptable, and interaction with patients in a medically significant manner, such as for example obtaining nothing less than patient information, which typically involves questions about medical history.
Again, I'm not referring to "simple" interactions. But I'd smack hospital management, instead of a co-worker (no matter that person's attitude) for not acting upon its own liabilities.
|