CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETING

Created to completed the assignment of Consecutive Interpreting

Lecturer : Dr. Andang Saehu, M. Pd

Created by
Laras Saras Wati
185030093
4-C

ENGLISH LITERATURE
FACULTY OF ADAB AND HUMANITIES
ISLAMIC STATES UNIVERSITY OF SUNAN GUNUNG DJATI
BANDUNG
2019/2020
1. History of Interpreting
Comparatively little research has been done on Interpreting throughout history. In
part, this is because often there is no written record of the spoken word. There may be
very little evidence of the interpreter’s work. It may be clear from the context that an
interpreter was present but all too often the interpreter is not specifically named or
mentioned in historical documents. The interpreter may have been a linguist or a
diplomat who was asked or offered to interpret.
Interpreting has existed for a long time. Whenever people met who had no
common language they had to make do with sign language or find someone who could
speak both languages. Some people grew up in a bilingual environment, because they
lived in a border area or because their parents spoke different languages. Others moved
from one country to another and acquired a second language.
At times in history groups of educated people have shared a common language
across borders. A prime example is Latin, which was the language of the Catholic Church
and was also used by scientists, writers and diplomats.
When Europeans began to move outside their own countries they had no
knowledge of the languages of the peoples of America, Africa or Asia. In the process of
colonisation of new continents language was important. The indigenous peoples
outnumbered the colonisers and communication was the key to power and control. In
their chapter titled Interpreters and the Making of History which appeared inTranslators
Through History (1995), Margareta Bowen, David Bowen, Francine Kaufmann and
Ingrid Kurz provide a fascinating and detailed account of interpreters down through the
ages. Their examples include the following: Christopher Columbus took six native
Indians back to Spain with him so that they could learn to speak Spanish and then be used
as interpreters once they returned to Central America. Other colonisers such as the French
in Canada repeated this pattern. Subsequently the colonisers imposed their own language
on the native people, thus reducing the need for interpreters. Some Europeans became
proficient in the native Indian languages after being shipwrecked or captured. Missionary
priests intent on spreading the Catholic faith drew up glossaries and dictionaries of the
native languages.
 French was the international language of diplomacy until the peacetalks that took
place in 1919 after the First World War. These were a turning point because for the first
time English was used as a working language. According to historian David Thomson,
most of the great powers were represented by their Prime Ministers and Foreign
Ministers rather than by kings and queens. President Woodrow Wilson of the United
States and Prime Minister Lloyd George of the United Kingdom did not speak French.
This was the beginning of conference interpreting. Consecutive interpreting was the order
of the day with some interpreters exhibiting an amazing ability to recall speeches lasting
up to fifty minutes.
Margareta Bowen et al. relate how in the 1920s another milestone was reached
with the invention of equipment for simultaneous interpreting by Edward Filene, a
businessman, Gordon Finlay, an electrical engineer and Thomas Watson, the president of
IBM. Simultaneous interpreting was first used at the International Labour Organization
Conference in Geneva in 1927. However, technical difficulties meant that almost twenty
years would elapse before simultaneous interpreting was provided in English, French,
German and Russian at the Nuremberg Trials, which lasted from November 1945 to
October 1946. Some of the interpreters at the Trials went on to work as conference
interpreters at the United Nations. In his article, How Conference Interpretation Grew,
Jean Herbert related how, gradually, simultaneous interpreting began to be used in the
United Nations in particular, first in French and English and later in the other official UN
languages, Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Spanish. The development of simultaneous
interpreting was to facilitate the growth of international organizations after the Second
World War. The interpreter’s role also changed as the interpreter moved from a very
visible, high profile position as consecutive interpreter to being a voice from a booth at
the back of a venue.
Some of the first conference interpreters, such as Jean Herbert, wrote about their
experiences. Many of those who worked as consecutive interpreters were really in the
thick of things. However, although fascinating, these were personal memoirs and more
historical documents than research into what exactly is going on when an interpreter is at
work.
 The first conference interpreters became interpreters by accident. They had one or
more foreign languages and found themselves in the right place at the right time. As
interpreting developed, universities began offering courses in the subject. This helped
interpreters attain professional status. The University of Geneva School of Interpreting
was founded in 1940 and the Vienna School of Interpreting in 1943. Georgetown
University Division of Interpreting and Translation was founded in the United States in
1949. In 1952, Jean Herbert, a practising interpreter, wrote a book called Manuel de
l’Interprète which was followed in 1956 by JeanFrançois Rozan’s book La prise de notes
en Consécutive. Both books were published by University of Geneva Press. AIIC, the
International Association of Conference Interpreters, was set up in 1953 and became a
proponent of better conditions for its members. Over the decades interpreting became a
growth area. In 1957 two schools of Interpreting were established in Paris, the Institut
Supérieur d’Interprétation et de Traducteurs (ISIT) and the École Supérieure d’Interprètes
et de Traducteurs (ESIT). In 1965 Westminster was established, in 1967 Zurich and in
1968 Monterey Graduate School of Translation and Interpreting. More and more
interpreting schools and courses were established around the developed world until
interpreter training became the norm.
Once university courses were established, academics began to do research into
interpreting. Some early research was not very scientific, being based more on personal
judgement than on verifiable results. In the 60s research was done on Ear–Voice Span,
i.e. the time lapse between what the speaker says and when the interpreter speaks. In the
70s Danica Seleskovitch of ESIT in Paris wrote about her ‘théorie du sens’. Studies were
carried out on interpreting errors and their causes. In the 80s and 90s research began on
what happens in the brain while a subject is interpreting. Daniel Gile has provided a
comprehensive account of conference interpreting research in his book Regards sur la
Recherche en Interprétation de Conférence. Some researchers unearthed references to
interpreters throughout history. Others studied interpretation from the point of view of
discourse analysis. Gradually, interest grew in other types of interpreting. A considerable
body of work was carried out on court interpreting in the United States. At the end of the
90s some researchers became concerned about community interpreting and used their
research to reveal problems associated with this type of interpreting.
 All universities which offer courses in interpreting have stringent entrance tests
whereby candidates are tested on their knowledge of languages and current affairs and in
some cases their ability to cope when being bombarded with information. Despite this
rigorous selection procedure many schools find that a considerable number of students
drop out or fail interpreting exams. Nowadays a university qualification in interpreting is
a prerequisite to a career as an interpreter. Depending on the course, would be interpreters
may either study interpreting as part of an undergraduate degree or add an interpreting
qualification on to an existing degree. Most courses cover two foreign languages and
students usually work into their mother tongue. The primary degree does not have to be
in languages. Indeed, in the past the EU preferred to take on people with a background in
law or economics or other specialised areas plus knowledge of languages and train them
in the skills of interpreting.
Even those who successfully complete an interpreting course may not find
employment as interpreters. Finding work can demand a great deal of persistence. It takes
time to become an established interpreter. Typically, after qualification as an interpreter,
people apply for work to organizations near where they live or move abroad to work.
They also apply to agencies for work. Interpreters have to build up experience and often
there is a temptation for new interpreters to cut prices in order to be able to work. This is
not really a good idea in the long term. Freelance interpreters should always make sure
that a contract is drawn up specifying details of their assignment and pay.
2. The Differences beetwen Interpreting and Translation
Interpreting and translation are two closely related linguistic disciplines. Yet they
are rarely performed by the same people. The difference in skills, training, aptitude and
even language knowledge are so substantial that few people can do both successfully on a
professional level.
On the surface, the difference between interpreting and translation is only the
difference in the medium: the interpreter translates orally, while a translator interprets
written text. Both interpreting and translation presuppose a certain love of language and
deep knowledge of more than one language.
a. Interpretation
 Contrary to popular belief, interpretation isn’t word-for-word translation of a
spoken message. If this were true, the result would make little sense to the target
audience—sentences in one language are often constructed in an entirely different
way to in another.
Instead, it’s all about paraphrasing. Interpreters need to transpose the source
language (language to be translated) within context, preserving its original meaning
but rephrasing idioms, colloquialisms, and other culturally-specific references in
ways the target audience can understand. Interpreters may even be required to act as
diplomatic mediators in certain environments, and often need to be good public
speakers. Not only that, but they have to deliver their message instantly—either in
unison with (simultaneous) or immediately after (consecutive) the original speech—
with no help from scripts, dictionaries, or other reference materials. An interpreter’s
only resources are experience, a good memory, and quick reflexes.
Interpreters work on projects involving live translation: Conferences and
meetings, medical appointments, legal proceedings, live TV coverage, sign language
b. Translation
Perhaps the biggest difference between interpreters and translators, then, is that
most translators use computer-aided tools in their work. This involves converting the
source content into a file type that’s easy to work with (typically RTF), applying a
translation memory (TM) to the text to automatically translate anything the tool has
translated before, and filling in the gaps from scratch. As the translator goes through
each section of text, they may refer to glossaries and style guides to ensure quality.
Finally, they’ll pass the translation to another linguist to proofread, then convert the
final document back into its original format ensuring the closest possible match.
Where interpreters have a fundamental proficiency in spoken communication,
translators need excellent written skills. They’re often specialists in particular fields
and perfectionists by nature, having to adhere to source content’s style and tone as
well as grammar rules and overall accuracy.
Translators work on any information in written form: Websites, print, video
subtitles, software, multimedia
c. Which service do I need?
 So the differences between translator and interpreter are vast. To sum up, here are
the four main distinctions to consider when determining which service is best suited
to a project:
Delivery: As mentioned above, a key difference between translation and
interpretation is in the timing. Interpretation takes place on the spot. The process can
occur in person, over the phone, or via video. Translation, on the other hand, can
happen long after the source text is created. This gives translators ample time to
utilize technologies and reference materials to generate accurate, high-quality
translations.
Accuracy: Interpretation requires a somewhat lower level of accuracy to
translation. Interpreters aim for perfection, but it’s challenging to achieve in a live
setting—some of the original speech may be left out of the target language, for
example. Again, time is on translators’ side when reviewing and editing for accuracy.
Direction: Interpreters must be fluent in both the source and target language, as
they’re required to translate in both directions instantaneously without the aid of
reference materials. Professional translators typically work in one direction: their
own. Given that they only need to translate source content into their mother tongue,
they’re not required to be fluent in the source language.
Intangibles: Making metaphors, analogies, and idioms resonate with the target
audience is a challenge that both interpreters and translators face. On top of this,
interpreters must capture tone, inflections, voice quality, and other unique elements of
the spoken word and then convey these verbal cues to the audience.

Source :

https://www.lionbridge.com/blog/translation-localization/5-major-differences-interpretation-
translation/

http://www.languagescientific.com/the-difference-between-translation-and-interpreting/

Phelan, Mery. 2001. The Interpreter’s Resources.