6.2 Accuracy & Completeness

6.2 Accuracy & Completeness

Quick Answer: The interpreter must render everything said, in the first person, preserving register, tone, and even offensive language. Never omit, summarize, add, or editorialize. Offensive words are rendered as spoken. False starts and repetitions are preserved. 'Improving' a speaker's grammar is a breach, not a courtesy.

The Canon in One Sentence

The canon of accuracy and completeness requires that the interpreter render everything said in the proceeding — by judge, attorneys, witnesses, and parties — without adding, omitting, summarizing, or altering. The goal is that the listener who does not speak the source language receives exactly what the source-language speaker said, no more and no less. The interpreter is a window, not a filter.

This canon is the foundation of the interpreter's role because every other canon is in service of it. Impartiality exists so the rendering is not slanted. Confidentiality exists so the rendering is not used outside court. Scope of practice exists so the interpreter does not add explanations. Accuracy is the output; the other canons protect the conditions under which the output is trustworthy.

The First-Person Rule

When a witness says, "I went to the store," the interpreter renders, "I went to the store" — not "She says she went to the store." This is the first-person rule, and it is one of the most commonly tested accuracy concepts.

The first-person rule exists for three reasons:

1. It preserves the speaker's own words on the record. The transcript should read as if the speaker spoke English directly.
2. It avoids the interpreter attributing speech in the third person, which can subtly shift meaning or distance the speaker from the statement.
3. It allows the trier of fact to assess demeanor, certainty, and ownership of the statement directly.

The rule applies in both directions. When the judge says, "Counsel, approach," the interpreter renders it as "Counsel, approach" — not "The judge is asking counsel to approach." When the defendant says, "I didn't do it," the interpreter renders "I didn't do it" — not "He says he didn't do it."

Preserving Register and Tone

Register is the level of formality of speech — formal legal English on the bench, casual slang in the witness chair, technical jargon from an expert. The interpreter preserves the speaker's register and does not 'level up' or 'level down.' A witness who speaks in street slang is rendered in the corresponding register of the target language, not elevated to formal speech. A judge's formal ruling is not rendered in casual language to make it 'easier to understand.'

Tone — anger, sarcasm, hesitation, certainty — is also part of meaning. A flat, neutral rendering of a heated exchange strips the record of information the trier of fact is entitled to.

Offensive Language, Profanity, and Slang

This is one of the most-tested accuracy scenarios. When a witness uses profanity, slurs, or offensive slang, the interpreter renders it as spoken. The interpreter does not:

• Soften it ("He used a bad word" instead of the actual word)
• Omit it (skip the profanity entirely)
• Substitute a milder equivalent
• Warn the court in advance that offensive language is coming

The rationale is simple: the speaker chose those words, and the trier of fact is entitled to the speaker's actual choice. Softening profanity is itself a form of testimony about the speaker — it tells the jury 'the witness was rude' rather than letting the witness's own words do that work.

If the interpreter genuinely does not know the equivalent, the correct response is to ask for a brief recess or, on the record, state that the interpreter does not have an equivalent and request direction from the court — not to substitute a guess.

False Starts, Repetitions, and Hesitations

Not every 'um' is meaningful. Interpreters distinguish meaningful disfluency from the ordinary filler that even fluent speakers produce:

The trap on the exam is the option that says 'preserve every hesitation and filler' (overkill) or 'smooth out all false starts' (loss of substance). The correct answer preserves what is meaningful.

Editorializing and 'Improving'

Editorializing is any addition, alteration, or framing that is the interpreter's, not the speaker's. Common forms:

• Correcting a speaker's grammar ("He don't" → "He doesn't")
• Adding context the speaker did not provide ("The bank on Main Street" when the speaker said only "the bank")
• Softening or strengthening a statement ("I'm not sure" → "I don't know")
• Explaining a term the speaker used without the court asking for clarification

Even when done to be 'helpful,' editorializing breaches accuracy because it replaces the speaker's words with the interpreter's.

Scenario Traps the Exam Favors

Accuracy scenarios typically pair a tempting option with the canon-compliant one:

• Tempting: The interpreter softens profanity because children are in the courtroom. Correct: Render the profanity as spoken; if the court wishes to address the presence of children, that is the court's call.
• Tempting: The interpreter summarizes a long, rambling answer because the attorney is pressed for time. Correct: Render the full answer; the interpreter does not edit for length.
• Tempting: The interpreter 'cleans up' a witness's broken grammar so the jury takes the witness seriously. Correct: Preserve the grammar; the jury is entitled to the witness's actual speech.
• Tempting: The interpreter adds "the gun" when the witness says "it" and the interpreter knows from context what 'it' refers to. Correct: Render 'it'; if clarification is needed, the attorney will ask.

Summary

Accuracy and completeness mean the interpreter's output is a faithful mirror of the source. First person, same register, same tone, same words — including the offensive ones. The interpreter does not improve, soften, summarize, or explain. The trier of fact, not the interpreter, decides what was meant.