The surname in the interview
CEFR B26 turns
Listen to the conversation
Listen as many times as you like. No limit and no score.
Questions
You answer them by listening. If you slip, we tell you where it is.
Why might removing the surname be insufficient?
Her job and the incident’s date could still identify her. — Pablo names the occupation and date as identifying details. Allowing a recording does not settle the later publication request; neither does the script say that the recording will accompany the magazine.
The first speaker suggests replacing the protagonist’s profession with an invented one.
False — She expressly rules out inventing a profession and proposes omitting unnecessary identifying detail instead.
What concern does Pablo raise about explaining the edits to readers?
Readers may think the note excuses changing her account. — He worries that the note may sound like an excuse for altering what she said. His concern is apparent alteration of her account. Treating details as unnecessary was the first speaker’s proposal, and requests for the full recording are not his concern.
A further edit may be needed even if it delays completion.
True — The first speaker accepts returning to editing if the woman no longer recognises her experience, even at the cost of a later close.
What does preserving “su voz” mean in this discussion?
Keeping the account recognisable as her own perspective. — The speakers want the protagonist to recognise her experience in an edited version, even if shorter. Her voice means her perspective, while unnecessary identifying details may be omitted.
Which priority emerges from the final exchange?
Preserving her account while respecting her revised wishes. — They favour a recognisable account with acceptable details, even if shorter or delayed. Neither re-recording nor a hidden signature resolves their discussion.
Words you may not know
- apellidosurname
- omitirto leave out
- pasajepassage
- cierreeditorial deadline; closing
- circulandobeing circulated
Show the transcript
Open it once you've had a go: reading it first turns this into a reading exercise.
A Pablo, antes de cerrar la entrevista necesitamos resolver cómo identificamos a la protagonista. Nos permitió grabar la conversación, pero ahora pide que no publiquemos su apellido. Dice que no había entendido que la revista también se distribuye fuera del barrio.
B En la grabación habla con mucha claridad y cuenta experiencias que otros vecinos reconocerán. Aunque quitemos el apellido, su oficio y la fecha del incidente pueden revelar quién es. Cambiar solo la firma quizá le dé una protección que no tiene.
A Entonces revisemos con ella los detalles que quiere conservar. No propongo inventar otra profesión, sino omitir lo que no sea necesario para entender su experiencia. Y si quitamos un pasaje, comprobaremos que la respuesta siguiente siga teniendo sentido.
B También deberíamos explicar al lector que hemos reducido datos personales. Me preocupa que eso parezca una excusa para haber alterado lo que dijo. La entrevista pierde interés si dejamos un relato tan general que nadie pueda seguirlo.
A Podemos mantener el problema y la secuencia de los hechos sin precisar el lugar de trabajo. Le enviaremos la versión final y una nota sobre el cambio. Si no reconoce su experiencia en ella, habrá que volver a editar, aunque retrasemos el cierre.
B Me parece una salida razonable. La autorización para grabar no resolvía esta petición posterior. Prefiero una entrevista más breve que conserve su voz a una extensa que ella no quiera ver circulando con esos detalles.