Sunday, October 18, 2009

Can Interpretation be called Translation?






International Federation of Translators.

International Association of Conference Interpreters.

Zentrum für Translationswissenschaft.


1 comment:

  1. Wow, I didn't realise I was that thought-provoking! ;-)
    To be honest, in one of my upcoming articles, I will suggest that Translation (note the capital T) be used as a term to cover both translation and interpreting, especially given that there do share some commonalities. As both a T and an I, I guess that the annoyance really stems from the fact that traditionally, written translation has been seen as the "higher art." Compare the number of books on Bible translation with the number on sermon interpreting. Compare the materials available to help translators and those that can help interpreters.

    So, while translation has been the subject of debate, philosophy and discussion for years, interpreting is, as you have noticed, often seen as something that any bilingual can do. Just about the only way to get noticed is to get narky and insist that "I am an interpreter; not a translator." It may be childish but it just might work.

    On the other hand, all that narkiness might actually be counter-productive and make people feel that we are introducing a distinction where none might exist. Is there really a difference between working with spoken language and working with written language? My only suggestion for people who think this is to given them a translation task and an interpreting task and interview them afterwards!