Pavel Palazhchenko on Diplomatic Interpreting

When talking about ‘men of the era’ we tend to think of political figures and policy makers – leaders whose decisions turned the course of history. Yet however great a politician may be, he needs the support of his team – including interpreters, who all too often get undeservedly little attention. The RIAC editorial staff interviewed Pavel Palazhchenko, one of the leading Russian interpreters of the day. He spoke of his choice of profession and people he has worked with, and offered some tips for aspiring interpreters.

How and why did you decide to become an interpreter?

One usually decides what one wants to be and what profession to follow in eighth or ninth grade at school. This was my case. I went to an ordinary school and my first English teacher was my mother (she taught English at school). But I was not really in for languages until my sixth or maybe even seventh school year. It came to me later, but it was serious and when the time came to apply for college, I chose the Foreign Languages Institute (Inyaz). There I realized that I was interested not only in studying English. My second foreign language was French which our group began studying in our second year. It wasn’t long before I realized that I wanted to be an interpreter and translator.

Is the interpreter an invisible hand, an echo of the speaker or more like a participant in negotiations in his own right?

It depends. All sorts of people may act as interpreters: usually these are professional interpreters, but sometimes diplomats have to perform the interpreter’s function. I witnessed such episodes involving our outstanding diplomats – Yuly Vorontsov, Alexander Bessmertnykh and American diplomats who have command of Russian, for example, Ambassador Jack Matlock. During the negotiations diplomats may perform the function of adviser, but even they have to tread warily, to say nothing of the interpreter if his only official function is interpreting. Of course, you shouldn’t overdo the advisory part. It is another question when the interpreter feels that his advice or prompting may prevent the conversation from taking an unfavourable turn, degenerating into a crisis or scandal. But there is no one-size-fits-all approach because the situations vary. In the majority of cases my advice to the interpreter would be to stick to his professional role.

How should one speak to make the interpreter feel comfortable?

An intelligent “speaker” – the number one negotiator – is usually aware that he is being translated, especially if it is a translation into some rare language. He should be as clear and straightforward as possible. He has to know that there are languages with well developed terminologies, conceptual and lexical systems and there are languages that do not have such a system.

What to do if the speaker uses a lot of epithets that may be potentially offensive to the listener? How should the interpreter behave in such situations?

There are situations when the speaker deliberately wants to sound offensive or even insulting. If it is obvious that the speaker wants to sound brusque, sharp and snappy you don’t have to tone it down. However, sometimes it pays to be stylistically more neutral. One should not overdo it because then the interpreter ‘takes ownership’ of ehat is being said, and he has to remember that the key role belongs to the number one negotiator. The interpreter should seek to convey the whole emotional and expressive spectrum. You cannot go into negotiations with the intent of cutting sharp corners and simplifying stuff.

Could you tell me about a moment in the negotiating process that sticks out in your memory?

Gorby.ru
Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan

Of course, the most memorable episodes in my work fell on the perestroika years when I worked with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze. There were situations that have gone down in history when historical shifts took place during the actual negotiations, as for example, during Gorbachev’s visit to Washington in 1990. The Malta talks of course symbolised the end of the Cold War. The words that marked that turning point still ring in my ears. At the time I worked at the Foreign Ministry’s USA and Canada Department and I had a general idea of the intentions and the Politbureau directives that Gorbachev was bringing to that meeting. It was during that meeting that he said, “We, the Soviet Union, are ready not to consider the United States our enemy.” The word “ready” implied reciprocity. “Not to consider an enemy,” that was the word used, rather than military adversary or rival. Another historic moment is perhaps Ronald Reagan’s famous phrase during his walkabout in 1988 together with Gorbachev first on Red Square and then inside the Kremlin. He stopped in front of the Tsar Cannon and an American correspondent asked him what I think was a very appropriate question: Did Reagan still consider the Soviet Union to be an Evil Empire? Reagan, a very frank man who had no use for diplomatic niceties, said it no was longer the case because the country had changed and was continuing to change. I cherish these memories. I’ve seen a lot, but those times left the most vivid impressions.

Technology is developing everywhere. Does that trend make a difference to the interpreter’s work? Has the traditional translation technique changed during your time?

No. The main breakthrough in the post-war era was the introduction of simultaneous interpretation which had previously never been used in negotiations between states. In the Soviet-American relations simultaneous interpretation was first used during the first meeting between Shultz and Shevardnadze in Helsinki in the summer of 1985 whereupon it began to be used both at the top level and at ministerial level. That was the main breakthrough. I don’t see anything happening in the field of interpretation any time soon. In written translation, of course, machine-assisted translation is being used more and more, the Internet and electronic dictionaries are very helpful. That certainly brings a lot of changes to our work. In general the openness of our society and the opportunities offered by the Internet provide new conditions for language study and the training of translators.

The only breakthrough that might happen is speech recognition. But the much-touted technological achievements in this field have yet to be put into practice. It’s hard to make forecasts, but I think that in the next 50 years high-skilled interpreters and translators will still be needed.

With whom would you like to work?

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
Mikhail Gorbachev and Barack Obama

You know, I’ve worked with every leader except Brezhnev and Andropov. I’ve worked with Gromyko, Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, already when I turned free-lance I interpreted Yeltsin, Putin and practically all the American and British leaders of the time. I feel that it would not be proper for me to choose between them. I have had a good my career, I am happy to have been involved in putting an end to the Cold War and I think that the people who did it merit a very high assessment in history.

What about present-day leaders?

I wouldn’t be comfortable singling out anyone because everyone has his individual traits and it’s been interesting to work with all of them. I interpreted Bill Clinton and George W. Bush as well Presidents Putin and Yeltsin simultaneously more than once. In general, the interpreter should not assume the role of a judge or even express his preferences. Part of the reason is that when you are by the side of these people you realise how hard it is in today’s world to govern a huge country which has great obligations and bears great responsibility to the world. The leader himself, among other things, should be a fine judge of people, and this is difficult in daily life and especially in politics.

We cannot help touching upon the Ukrainian crisis. Everybody is writing about it and great hopes are being pinned on the diplomats and negotiators. Can interpreters be of any help?

Interpreters can help by doing their job well, but it is true that now that there are some signs of progress the main responsibility rests with the diplomats. Diplomats together with interpreters give shape to political decisions and political intentions of the moment. They can neither run ahead of things nor should they slow things down. I think there is a positive now emerging shift in political interaction.

What information sources do you prefer? Where do you read the news?

I look through the news sites every day. Among Russian-language sites I can mention lenta.ru, even after, sadly, the main body of journalists quit. They maintain a very strong information tradition. In English it is Yahoo.com, The New York Times and The Washington Post, the two main American political newspapers. Of course I read RIAC materials, I’m on their mailing list. Sometimes I get stuff about the countries that are less important for me as an interpreter but are still interesting, like Turkey or Egypt. Of the American periodicals I naturally read Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs, and our native version, Russia in Global Affairs, which is only standing up on its feet, and its website. They have yet to develop a tradition that the corresponding Americana journals have, but they have certainly emerged as serious information and analytical vehicles.

What information can be trusted? Are the media helpful in training interpreters and translators?

One has to take it as a given that there is no “pure”, totally objective information, so one has to compare different sources. I tell translators that they should read at least one Russian and one English-language news resource every morning. It helps you both as translators and linguists. You see not only the terms but also the word combinations and clichés and sentences used to describe certain situations. By comparing, say, The New York Times with lenta.ru or Kommersant you see the difference in the way information is presented by one and the other side. I think it is not too difficult to sort it out. The danger for a translator or for any person arises, I think, when one trusts one particular media outlet, one source of information, one side. That should never be done.

Prepared for publication by RIAC Program Assistant Maria Smekalova and RIAC Portal Coordinator Daria Khaspekova