Language interpreting is the intellectual activity of facilitating oral
and sign-language communication, either simultaneously or consecutively,
between two or more users of different languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreting).
The formula one uses to convey language A into language B varies, as different
professionals use different methods. If we take for example a mathematical
problem, one can reach the correct result by using different formulas,
calculations, etc. Unless specifically imposed, one can use various
calculations in order to reach the result. The ways of reaching that result are
less important as long as the result is correct and valid and one cannot affirm
that one mathematician is better than the other just because he used a specific
formula.
Dr Peter Kornakov, in his article, Five Principles and Five Skills for Training
Interpreters, published in June 2000 talks about ways of teaching young
debutants the complicated ways of simultaneous interpreting (SI). He bases this
article on Steven Pearl’s (1995) article "Lacuna, myth and shibboleth in
teaching simultaneous interpreting" arguing that just criticism
without positive programme or guidelines for training is not good enough. He
furthermore comments of Pearl’s affirmations according to which there is a lack
of experienced interpreters working as experienced instructors simply because
not all good interpreters can work successfully as good instructors not only
for financial reasons but also because they lack the talent, the analytical
ingredient and perhaps the interest. Thereafter, he continues to speak about
his successful training techniques and his career.
None of his arguments mentioned in his article stand to contradict Pearl’s
statement. He talks about his successful career both as an interpreter and
instructor. This does not mean that other should do the same nor the fact that
what he did is correct or as a matter of fact, incorrect. His arguments are not
necessarily relevant or ideal because he talks about only his experience and
unfortunately these are not “the way”. Although his techniques may be relevant
and may indeed help many interpreters, this does not prove that Pearl’s
statement is false. Many interpreters are simply not teaching, not necessarily
because it is not rewarding, or because they are not analytical enough, but
because they are not interested in such a career. Furthermore, what seems to be
the success formula for one interpreter can be a disaster for another. A
successful interpreter that indeed decides to teach and uses his/hers
experience to guide the young professional must use more than his experience.
He must take into consideration other interpreter’s experience and teach the
summary of it, rather than taking his success formula and imposing it.
Let’s take, for example, the first principle in which he combines visual memory
with non-visual. This may be very much practical for somebody who enjoys having
a good sight, but can this be applied to somebody who cannot see? In my
professional career I have met a few dedicated professional interpreters that
have lost their sight and they have proven to be much more precise than the
professionals with full vision. They relay more correct information and are
much more astute than the interpreters that are not sightless. But how they
achieved this high level? Since they were not able to follow the first
principle that Dr Kornakov mentions. They cannot perform sight translation and
they cannot use non-verbal language.
The article takes each principle and provides adequate examples of training by
offering different levels of difficulty. All the principles detailed including
self-confidence, concentration and real-life are indeed helpful but not
necessarily decisive in the training of a good interpreter.
He furthermore talks about intuition as a bridge between brain hemispheres.
Pearl (1995) has successfully demonstrated in his article why intuition has
worked against the interpreter. He logically explained that intuition can
create problems with the end result especially when the interpreter has little
knowledge on the subject he/she is interpreting. He also explained how
important some details (that the interpreter may not foresee or thinks are
irrelevant) are to the end user, especially when the end user is very familiar
that particular terminology.
The article also talks about concentration and correctly identifies through the
thoughts of Granovskaya (1997:52) the fact that nobody can divide attention
between 2 independent actions that at their turn require a maximum level of
concentration. This affirmation is in tandem with Pearl’s thoughts according to
which all human processes are exposed to errors and biases. Shadowing and other
concentration and memory exercises can possibly improve the target language
message but cannot offer 100% efficiency. Both Pearl and Granovskaya portray
the flaws of SI.
Most of the flaws (errors) also mentioned by Peal are due to the interpreter’s
misunderstanding of the original sender and are caused by the original
speakers: delegates mumble, hit the microphone, turn their heads, speak
dialect, use slang, quote figures in incomprehensible ways, and, without
warning, use prepared manuscripts, thus shifting delivery into a written mode
without informing anybody, least of all the interpreters. (Dollerup, 2000).
Towards the end of the article he discusses his answer: to teach future
interpreters techniques of interpreting. Although his answer is indeed valid,
he continues to talk about skills rather than techniques. All techniques
enumerated are indeed intriguing and a true memory and concentration exercise,
however they fail to explain how they can be transformed in actual techniques
and are specifically designed for young professionals with no disabilities.
Many of these principles are not relevant to the real-life situations of
interpreting. Let’s take for example a SI job on pollution where a surprise
guest comes and talks about the impacts of certain chemical substances and
gives out a few formulas. This not only takes the interpreter by surprise but
also the potential “dictionary” needed is well hidden in the subconscious. In
this situation the interpreter will most definitely face the “lacuna” problem.
No exercise can prepare the interpreter for this. It is only the actual
practice that can indeed help but not save. The competence of a professional
interpreter can thus be defined as the competence to process texts within the
scope of a bi- or multilingual communication situation with the aim of
interlingual mediation. It is also the capability of acting and performing in a
situation characterised by externally determined constraints, such as the
pressure of time, lack of semantic autonomy and the potential interference
between closely connected processes of production and comprehension (Kalina,
2000).
Kornakov speaks about his own experience mainly as a trainer. Pearl speaks from
his own and his colleagues experience. Pearl’s “discoveries” come wrapped in a
very angry package whereas Kornakov’s discoveries are biased as they are based
on academic literature and personal experience. Pearl manages to open up the
actual problems that interpreters face in real situations whereas Karnakov only
speaks about the training process but fails to talk about ways to overcome the
real interpreting problems that are far more complex than the limitations of
memory and concentration.
Conclusion
The combination of various personalised exercises makes practice more efficient.
Being a professional bilingual or being truly interested in becoming a good
interpreter does not necessarily mean that one can be a good SI interpreter.
All the above mentioned principles and exercises can potentially (but not
necessarily) complement a professional who actually has a natural-born talent.
Like any other profession, hard work and dedication can sometimes be not
sufficient.
Self-teaching has a great impact on performance as it forces self-analysis,
self-knowledge and last but not least, gives the great power of knowing one’s
limits. It goes without saying that this is not enough and that supervised
teaching is needed to avoid bias.
Perhaps the lack of a explicit conclusion in Kornakov’s article indicates the
fact that there is no formula as such in delivery a professional target message
and that many interpreters can use various self-tailored techniques.
Bibliography
Dollerup, Cay. 2000. ““Relay” and “support” translations”. In
Translation in Context, Chesterman, Andrew, Natividad Gallardo San
Salvador and Yves Gambier (eds.). 17-26. [174]
Kalina, Sylvia (2000). “Interpreting Competences as a Basis and a Goal for
Teaching”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter,10, 3-32
Pearl, Stephen (1999) The Other Three Eights and the Four F's. Finiteness,
Fallibility, Freedom of Speech and Fair Competition in the simultaneous
interpretation environment. The Interpreter's Newsletter n°9. 3-28.
Pearl, Stephen. ”Lacuna, myth and shibboleth in the teaching of simultaneous
interpreting”. 1995. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology.
NOTES ON CULTURAL MEDIATION, Francesco Straniero Sergio, SSLMIT, University of
Trieste (1998)
Written by Andreea Bostan, MSc, S.A.C Cert, M.C.I.L, RPSI
Leading translator
www.bostico.co.uk
Recommend this article:  |  |  |  |  |
