Since I have applied to do a PhD in interpreting, I am very interested in what translators and interpreters think theorists could examine that mighr be useful to them and to the profession in general. I have given a few examples below but if none fit, or if you can think of better ones, please suggest them in your post. I believe that it is time that theorists, especially those who still translate professionally, listened to those work work in the profession full-time. So, here is your chance. You may pick as many as you wish but I would appreciate it if you could pick what you think the highest priority should be and post it as a reply, along with your reasoning.

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 12, 2009 5:40 AM How to Save Dying Languages

I think issues like this should be of concern to theorists. On my scale the history of translation is on top. Knowing something is best accomplished by investigating its origins. I don't think that the study of the history of translation will affect the "business" per se, but I think it would enhance the approach to it.

Hope that helps.. good luck    

Interesting. My own research will be in interpreting in purely bilingual environments and the effect of different interpreting modes on comprehension. This will, hopefully, allow interpreters and their clients to pick the right mode of the right occasion, although a lot more investigation will be needed until we can be sure.

However, I do find it really interesting to find out what other professionals think should be examined. I want to include ideas on this in my thesis and also in other research I am doing. Yours comments are really helpful. They also give me ideas for future work.

Very interesting points!

In my opinion, theories of translation must:

1- Acknowledge the pioneers in the fields in old times.

2- Review classical literature and heritage that did indeed give concrete examples of theories of translation though not explicitly saying these examples were related to translation.  (My point is specifically related here to the Holy Quran as a body of texts that best exmplify many points in translation theories including speech acts theory, cohesion and coherence, intertextuality, etc.)

3- Pay attention to translators' training schemes and get away from futile debates in translation.  I particularly hate discussions on the translation of proverbs, for example.  Such futile debates shut the eyes of trainees on what the theory of translation is about.

What about interpreting in different languages v. the modes: I believe in some languages it is harder to do simultaneous interpreting since you need almost the complete utterance in the source language to apply proper grammatical structure in the target language.

Also the problem of speed in interpreting is very interesting: in some languages you need many more words to express the same content, which some people who do not know much about interpreting ignore, including some of the people who prepare the tests.

Mohammed: Funnily enough, one of the classics of translation literature "Translator as communicator" by Hatim and Mason actually shows how theory can be applied to the translation of sacred texts like the Qur'an and the Bible. I have two papers on applying skopos theory to Bible translation due to be published in the summer.

On the translation of proverbs and futile debates: I would agree with you. I really can't see why pro translators would be at all interested in purely theoretical concerns and in the discussion of different models. It is only when these are applied to practice that they count.

Harry: Too true! I have found that the relationships tends be closer in interpreting studies than translation studies but a lot of interpreting theorists are still stuck in psychological stuff, which, while very interesting, doesn't really help practising interpreters.

Liliana: I am actually working on how much interpreters need before they begin at the moment. I have about 2 and a half hours of audio to transcribe but it looks like, if the interpreters are working on a small amount at a time (like in dialogue interpreting), they need a subject, verb and an object. However that is a very preliminary finding from English to French audio.

Speed is indeed an amazing topic. The conventional wisdom (from the work of Gerver and others) is that the "ideal" speed for most languages is 110-125 wpm. Funnily enough, slowing down from that seemed to do more immediate damage than speeding up. I might want to test those findings later as I have a big area of problems that I want to solve.

Speed is a very interesting subject in relation to interpreting. 125 words/min in which language, source or target? Most tests fail to specify it.

I think they meant 110 to125 wpm in the source but you are right, they don't often specify.

This may sound like another of those futile debates since so much has already been said about it also on TC, but since I noticed that literary translation is right next to legal translation on your poll, it is paramount to bear in mind the difference between authoritative and non-authoritative texts and the ensuing difference in their treatment.