The Linguist is a languages magazine for professional linguists, translators, interpreters, language professionals, language teachers, trainers, students and academics with articles on translation, interpreting, business, government, technology
Issue link: https://thelinguist.uberflip.com/i/288462
Vol/53 No/2 2014 FEATURES The first four points are matters of training, experience and mastery of interpreting skills, particularly in a simultaneous context. Interestingly, the most significant quality indicator – clear and logical rendition of the speaker's main message – is to be found in the Russian 'pro-retour' school of thought. Its ranking in first place suggests that retour interpreting is by no means substandard. Confidence, voice quality and appropriate speed are associated with the Paris school, which focuses on perfecting output rather than interpreter comprehension. These skills, which are achievable through sufficient training and experience, are vital for interpreters irrespective of directionality, and must be fully developed in order to achieve high quality in any case. The ability to render nuances falls into both camps. On the one hand, full understanding of the original is required, and this is arguably easier in retour due to perfect comprehension of the mother tongue. On the other hand, excellent mastery of the target language is necessary to fully express all the details of the original without omissions. Here we find ourselves in a dilemma between the two schools, yet with a certain amount of compromise – an interpreter's typical quandary – I am certain that we can find an acceptable balance to satisfy both ourselves and users. Finally we reach the issue of non-native accents. Surely this marks out retour interpreters to native-speaker users immediately? Perhaps, but the rendition is not seen to lack as much in terms of quality as is frequently assumed, as long as we fulfil the first five quality requirements. An additional point uncovered during my interviews is the impact of long-term memory on our interpreting abilities. The more often we work on a certain subject matter, the more ingrained it becomes in our memory, improving our rendition. This is significant for retour interpreting, as the interpreter continuously hears speakers refer to specialist terminology in both languages and may therefore be able to cement this terminology more quickly. Does direction matter? My interviewees stressed that we ought to perfect our output no matter which direction we are using, as this is the only product our users can judge us on. This means that we must focus on continuous development of our languages to make sure that we provide the best possible rendition. Nevertheless, as per the Russian school, without complete understanding of the source we can hardly produce a truthful interpretation. Deciding whether we feel confident enough to interpret into our B language must therefore be given sufficient consideration. My study supports previous research that concludes that we can interpret into our B language(s) without losing quality, as long as we fulfil a number of requirements to ensure user satisfaction. It is now easier than ever to spend time in countries where our B languages are spoken – an important development that appears to be improving B language skills. If we also work on acquiring and maintaining specialist terminology in both languages, we should be able to achieve excellent quality, whatever direction we work in. Notes 1 Arevalillo, J M, 2010, 'Focus on Standards' in The Globalization Insider (www.lisa.org/global izationinsider/2005/04/the_en15038_eur.html) 2 Kalina, S, 2005, 'Quality Assurance for Interpreting Processes' in Meta: Translators' Journal, 50,2: 768-784 3 Gile, D, 2003, 'Quality Assessment in Conference Interpreting: Methodological issues' in Hermes: Journal of Linguistics, 109-123 4 Bühler, H, 1986, 'Linguistic (Semantic) and Extra-linguistic (Pragmatic) Criteria for the Evaluation of Conference Interpretation and Interpreters' in Multilingua, 231-235 5 Donovan, C, 2002, Survey of Users' Expectations and Needs, 'Teaching Simultaneous Interpreting into a "B" Language', EMCI, 2-11 Surely a non-native accent marks out retour interpreters to native-speaker users? As a legal and conference interpreter, I have encountered different practices with regards to retour interpreting. In public service interpreting, we work into and out of our native language all the time. It is what the market demands. In conference interpreting, however, the mode is not as widely accepted (especially in international organisations) although it is becoming more so. I find the main challenges when interpreting into my B language are sounding confident, as I am always acutely aware of the mistakes I make in English, and not over-correcting myself. When interpreting into my A language, however, I sometimes have difficulty with some regional accents and particularly with those of non-native English speakers. (Although this can happen to English native speakers, too, if they are not used to the accent, as was the case with a colleague at a conference where delegates spoke in a variety of Welsh accents.) We can improve our B language(s) by practising sight-translation and giving presentations or speeches in the language(s), listening to ourselves afterwards and identifying any annoying habits that might irritate a native speaker. The key in retour is preparation, preparation, preparation. The more we know about a subject, the less likely we will be caught out not knowing a key term. In my case, the experience of translating all sorts of texts for nearly 20 years gives me a very valuable resource to draw from. Retour can even improve our interpreting skills by keeping us on our toes and forcing us to improve our knowledge of our B language(s). It is challenging but very interesting work. Trinidad Clares MCIL VIEW FROM THE FIELD APRIL/MAY The Linguist 21