Stuck with the old model
Technology is looming on our industry, and the community is divided. Some are dying to try it out, others stick with what they know and like. But are we maybe acting like our grandfathers, sticking with their NOKIA 3310?
An interpreter using her state-of-the-art equipment
If you, as a translator or interpreter, spend a fair amount of your time on Twitter and the likes, you certainly will have noticed that our industry has found its new craze. If translation these past months has been hyped for #terminology, interpreters are ever more interested in technology, and eager to try and test the latest newcomer devices. Many see in technology the opportunity to “modernize” a profession that uses rather humble means, pen and paper, to work its magic, and seek to take full advantage of technological innovations to make our life easier during interpreting, or even make our interpreting better. I would define myself as a rather “conservative” interpreter, I feel more than comfortable with my good old notepad, thank you very much. I’m not too fussy in the booth either, even if I do need a pair of decent headphones to feel at ease. To understand what the hype is all about I jumped on board the YTI CPD March event “Sustainability in interpreting”, led by Martin Esposito.
On a sunny Saturday morning, so rare in the city of Leeds, YTI members and a handful of enthusiastic interpreting students met in the interpreting facilities of the University of Leeds, where after teas and coffees Martin started off by giving an overview of the digital world, the interpreting profession and what lays ahead. Unfortunately, the future doesn’t seem too bright for interpreters, with technology on the rise and costumer demand ever low. We kept away from the rhetorical debate “Can Google Translator substitute a Human Translator”, focusing rather on the costumer perspective. The technology is there both for written translation and interpreting, and we are all more than aware of its shortcomings. However, from a business point of view these services, sometimes even free and ready on the spot, with all the imperfections that make a linguist want to gauge their eyes out, make more financial sense. Would you rather spend £500 to get an interpreter, or use your phone for free and have a laugh in the meantime, however still getting the gist of the message? We have to remember that as linguists we hold our standards high, but our clients can have completely different ones.
After this rather gloomy start, Martin started unpacking his “toolbox” to show us some of his gadgets and apps. From the start, it appeared clear to me that his approach is to use technology for his own benefit rather than trying to fight it creeping into the industry, making his life easier during work and helping him be more flexible, to a certain extent, to customers’ requests or assignments’ contextual peculiarities. Probably the star of every talk about interpreting and technology, the smart pen was the first rabbit out the hat. I’m sure we’ve all read or heard how this can be used to “enhance” our consecutive rendition, getting a second chance at hearing names, numbers (alas, they exist) and long, fast lists, and this is on top of having your notes. One thing that Martin rightly pointed out is to bear in mind where and when to use it, as recording meetings could be a touchy subject, and surely a no-no for Court Interpreting. In other bad news, the smart pen has been discontinued, as the interpreting "audience" didn’t show enough interest.
One of interpreters’ worst nightmares is not being able to listen to what the speaker is saying. This can happen for various reasons when we are outside of a booth: we are doing a (noisy) factory visit, the speaker is too far away and so on. This is precisely where technology can save the day as with the right type of equipment you will survive any type of environment. For example, noise-cancelling headphones will automatically produce sound to counter the negative noise coming into your ears, so that you will receive a good quality input. Even better, the latest bone conducting headphones will give the extra-kick to your audio input when the conditions are already optimal: taking full advantage of human anatomy, this headset uses the temporal bones to get the sounds to the brain, leaving your ears free to capture other sounds. I was lucky enough to try Martin’s pair first-hand, and it was quite the experience. After the initial confusion from being able to hear what was coming from the microphone so clearly, and still getting all the surrounding sounds, my brain accepted my enhanced hearing. Still, I struggled with self-monitoring whilst interpreting as I could hear my voice so clearly and that interfered with listening to the incoming original speech. Martin confirmed that it takes a bit of time and practice to get used to it, but it’s not a massive obstacle.
After some interpreting practice and booth time, we wrapped up over coffee and tea again, and we left with a lot to think about. What I’ve taken away is that our profession, like it or not, is facing a changing market where technology could be a competitor, especially if our clients follow their wallet and change their standards accordingly. It is up to us to decide how we want to face this, certainly technology itself can be used, as demonstrated by Martin, as an approach to problem-solve. It is certainly not going to make us better interpreters, but will give us better chances to work, making us more adaptable to changing conditions. However, there is one thing human interpreters will always beat any type of technology at: their battery life is the best one seen so far on the market.
