The liaison layer

Where does the liaison thing plugs onto interpretation? Where do I draw the difference? I was asked this question yesterday by M., a long time not seen interpreter. We bumped into each other some 30 years ago, working in the same corporation, but at different production sites, both as interpreters. I was an almost total beginner. He was a little bit above and is now way above me in terms of pure interpretation. He does consec and simul as well. I do consec and liaison. He asked me about what that liaison stuff pointed at. I told him back that it was for instance related to assistance, instant in situ consultation on matters of helping the client better fit, better understand the interaction, better make the best of the communicative situation. It was about sustaining from the backstage the dialogue going on.

He asked for examples. I came with one. I described a very standard setting where the client would do the standard presentation of his wares. The subject is confidential and doesn't matter. It could be anything and any service. What matters is what came by the end of the presentation, following the polite exchange of thanks and you are welcome. For the client, the issue was : "So, what is the next step?". And the client asked something like that, and the interpreter translated. This was followed by a few seconds of uneasy silence from the other side. The liaison interpreter flashed a suggestion to his client to offer a suggestion to the other side.

Why did the interpreter moved that way?

- Because the conversation was stalled and would lead to nothing besides standard polite "we will think about it and contact you back later", or even some fuzzier answers.
- Because the interpreter took the risk of betting that the two people (they were two) on the opposite side of the table were low in the hierarchy and had no say and power of decision, therefore no experience of deciding and be proactive.
- Because the client was in no way able to conjecture about all this.
- Because the client wanted some hints and cues about "what's next". This was no empty social formula.

So in order to allow for something to happen that would be for the benefit of the client, the interpreter stepped in, not inside the conversation, but as a coach on the sideway. Offer a proposal in lines with your objectives, what you want to take home. The other side will cling on that as something to munch on and fill their blank stares. It worked, it unclogged the situation and allowed to move on to some possible next steps.

That's were the liaison layer is in full swing I belive, and that's where I dare disagree with the chapter about the role of the interpreter in the seminal "Liaison Interpreting - A Handbook", by A. Gentile and all. The sacro-saint neutrality would have meant that the void generated by the simple utterance : "What is the next step" would be left largely empty. Of course. The interpreter may be wrong. Maybe that waiting another two seconds may have been enough for the other side to come at long last with an answer. Maybe not.

This settled back interventionism is a key factor in defining deeper on what we talk about when we talk liaison interpreting. Simply stressing that liaison interpreting is about interpreting in usually small settings back and forth is but very partial view of what the job is, and what attitudes of the interpreters make the client tick and appreciate the help provided to make the communication more effective.