It is difficult to tell right from wrong when actions may lead to unwanted, and unnoticed legal consequences. References
Frequently, interpreters have to interpret scripts.
From a medical script: have you had any problems with your bladder?
Human beings have two bladders: the place where the urine goes (bladder), and the organ that supports the actions of other organs (Gall Bladder).
Medical doctors sometimes say bladder, but mean gall bladder: an experienced interpreter would use both Gall Bladder, and bladder in the target language when relaying the message.
Doctors also ask about HIV, and abnormal test results.
In the 1900s, Brazil did not understand what HIV was or what it connected to: medical clients were tested for AIDS, not HIV.
Australian doctors explain: a person may have HIV, and not have AIDS, since AIDS is a manifestation of the HIV, but there are silent versions of the virus.
Some medical doctors have both HIV, and AIDS in their script, and that does sound like a solution.
When Australian Immigration finds out that they have a number of Brazilians infected by the HIV entering the Country with files that clearly say no HIV, it is unlikely that The Interpreters will be blamed.
Those who start accounts for energy, and gas also go through standard scripts, and, lots of times, representatives forget words or sentences or even intentionally skip chunks of text.
Since interpreters must stick to the text that was actually said, clients turn their revolvers on them: the NES will unavoidably speak to another NES, and the other NES will then mention that, when they opened their account, the question was slightly different.
Saying the script interpreters know by heart may then mean preserving their job.
Some fellows appeal to becoming friends - personal friends - with everyone, but that is unethical: interpreters may at most be friends with the employees of the company that contracts their services.
Even when answering questions from standard scripts, clients may make use of the highest levels of the language: perhaps the words are complex, and the text they say looks, and sounds beautiful, but the meaning of all is quite trivial, and can be conveyed through one tenth of the words.
Cultural Translation then becomes the best way to go.
Two main issues arise: insufficient knowledge, what happens if it is impossible to find equivalents, and waste of resources for trying to mimic the speaker's style, and having the other client engaging in the same struggle the interpreter engaged - when trying to convey the message with maximum accuracy - to attempt to understand the message in the relay.
Discernment is required: if the other party is a common person, so say a lower governmental officer or admin, simplification is the choice. If they are also eloquent people, so say a member of the academy of writers, then best efforts to produce the same effect in the target culture is the choice instead.
In Australia, no interpreter who does exclusively interpreting can be wealthy or belong to the high levels of society.
As a consequence, eloquence is not a requirement for pertinence to the class or success in the trade.