Introducing Interpreting Studies

Consecutive interpreting (after the source-language
utterance)

Simultaneous interpreting (frequently abbreviated to SI) is often used as shorthand for ‘spokenlanguage interpreting with the use of simultaneous interpreting equipment in a
sound-proof booth’.

Simultaneous consecutive the simultaneous
transmission of two or more consecutive renditions in different output languages.

Consecutive simultaneous, has become feasible with the use of highly portable digital recording and playback equipment.

Note-taking as developed by the pioneers of conference interpreting in the early twentieth century. Is sometimes referred to as ‘classic’ consecutive, in contrast to short
consecutive without notes, which usually implies a bidirectional mode in a liaison
constellation.

Whereas the absence of acoustic source–target overlap makes simultaneous interpreting (without audio transmission equipment) the working mode of choice for sign language interpreters. Only where the interpreter works right next to one or no more than a couple of listeners can he or she provide a rendition by whispered interpreting.

‘Sight translation’, this variant of the simultaneous mode, when practiced in real time for immediate use by an audience, would thus be labeled more correctly as ‘sight interpreting’.

In text-to-sign interpreting, the interpreter may need to alternate between reception (reading) and production (signing), thus bringing sight translation closer to the (short) consecutive mode.

Bilateral interpreting is thus typically linked with the notions
of ‘liaison interpreting’ and ‘dialogue interpreting’, but it may equally occur in conference-type interaction, where interpreters may work in a ‘bilingual booth’, or are said to provide ‘small retour’ (i.e. interpret questions and comments back into the language chiefly used on the floor).

Retour interpreting, though widely practiced on the ‘local’, or private market, has not been equally accepted for simultaneous interpreting in international organizations.

Where the language
combination of the interpreters available does not allow for ‘direct interpreting’, recourse is made to relay interpreting, that is, indirect interpreting via a third language, which links up the performance of two (or more) interpreters, with one
interpreter’s output serving as the source for another.

Remote interpreting, the interpreter is not in the same room as the speaker or listener, or both.

The oldest form of remote interpreting, proposed as
early as the 1950s, is telephone interpreting (over-the-phone interpreting), which became more widely used only in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in intra-social settings (healthcare, police, etc.).

The development of video(tele)phony is of particular significance for videophone interpreting for the deaf and hard-of-hearing.

Telephone interpreting is usually performed with standard
telecommunications equipment in the bilateral consecutive mode, but there have also been efforts, particularly in the US, to introduce a specially designed audio switching system for (bilateral) remote simultaneous interpreting for use in healthcare settings.

For international and multilateral conferences, the use of videoconferencing technology, in various transmission channels, has made audiovisual remote (conference) interpreting and tele-interpreting the focus of attention,
and this area can be expected to remain among the most dynamically evolving domains of interpreting in the future.

No less future-oriented than technology-driven forms of remote interpreting (which, despite complaints about the ‘dehumanization’ of interpreting, continue to rely on specially skilled human beings) are attempts at developing automatic
interpreting systems on the basis of machine translation software and technologies for speech recognition and synthesis.

Machine interpreting should be within the interpreting scholar’s purview, the prospects for ‘fully automatic high-quality interpreting’ remain doubtful at best.

Historically, it is of course difficult to clearly separate
professional interpreting from what we might call lay interpreting or natural interpreting, that is, interpreting done by bilinguals without special training for the task.

The issue of “natural translation” has been championed since the 1970s by Canadian translatologist Brian Harris, who postulated that “translating is coextensive with bilingualism”, that is, that all bilinguals have at least some translational ability (Harris and Sherwood 1978: 155).

Similarly, Toury (1995)
put forward the somewhat less radical notion of a “native translator,” stressing the role of bilingualism as a basis for learning how to interpret (and translate).

“The translating done in everyday circumstances by people who have had no special training for it” (Harris and Sherwood 1978:155) has presumably been common practice throughout history.

“The translating done in everyday circumstances by people who have had no special training for it” (Harris and Sherwood 1978:155) has presumably been common practice throughout history.

Medium human-machine

Setting international, intra-social,multilat. conf., int. organ. media, courts, police, health/social

Mode consecutive, simultaneous, booth, whispering - sight

Languages spoken, conf. lang., migrant lang.

Discourse speeches, debates, face to face talk

Participants equal representatives

Interpreter prof. trained, semi prof., natural

Problem simultaneity, memory, quality, stress, effect, role