What Is the Difference Between Interpreting and Translation?

TL;DR

Interpreting and translating are fundamentally the same activity, differing only in degree rather than kind. The speaker emphasizes that both oral and written forms of communication share essential principles, and proposes that training for translators should focus on real-time spoken interactions to improve skills and understanding.

Transcript

The basic division that organizes our  graduate school is between interpreting and   translating, traditionally. Localization has come  along to complicate things. To challenge that   basic division, my reason is that the  interpreter... Nobody loves theory... Every practitioner knows they have got  a great way of doing it and you don't need a   st... Read More

Key Insights

• 🔇 The speaker believes that interpreting and translating are essentially the same activity, differing only in degree.
• ❓ The Paris School's theory of sense is cited as a basis for understanding interpreting and translating.
• 🫥 Sight translation is highlighted as a practice that blurs the lines between written text and oral interpretation.
• 🪸 Training for translators and interpreters should involve real oral communication scenarios to enhance communication skills.
• 🔇 The speaker challenges the notion that interpreting and translating require separate theories.
• 🙈 Conference interpreters are seen as particularly resistant to the speaker's perspective on interpreting and translation.
• 💁 The spoken situation between real people teaches valuable lessons applicable to all forms of communication.

Questions & Answers

Q: How does the speaker challenge the traditional division between interpreting and translating?

The speaker argues that interpreting and translating are essentially the same activity, differing only in degree rather than in kind. This challenges the traditional separation of these two practices.

Q: What role does localization play in complicating the division between interpreting and translating?

Localization further complicates the division by introducing another aspect to consider, highlighting the need to reevaluate the traditional distinctions between interpreting and translating.

Q: Why does the speaker mention conference interpreters in particular?

Conference interpreters are specifically mentioned as they are seen as the most oppositional or resistant to the speaker's ideas, making them a focal point for the discussion on interpreting and translation.

Q: How does the speaker propose that training for translators and interpreters should begin?

The speaker suggests training should start with oral work instead of written translation, placing individuals in real-life speaking situations to improve communication skills and break free from literalism.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Traditional distinctions between interpretation and translation are challenged by the speaker.

• The speaker argues that interpreting and translating are fundamentally the same activity but differ in degree.

• Different theories and practices of translation and interpreting are discussed to support the speaker's viewpoint.