Theories of Interpreting

1. Theories of Interpreting I. concepts

2. I. 1 Conceptual roots 1 • Interpreting: translational activity as a special form of ‘Translation’ • Interpreting: predating the invention of writing and written translation • Conceptual origin in many Indo-European languages: -autonomous from that of written translation -traced back to Akkadian, the ancient Semitic language around 1900 BC

3. I. 1 Conceptual roots 2 -dragoman: ‘autonomous’ English term for interpreter • Origin of ‘interpreter’: 1) Latin interpres(expounder, person explaining what is obscure) -explaining the meaning, making sense of something) -a highly appropriate semantic foundation for ‘interpreter’ and ‘interpreting’ in our current understanding

4. I. 1 Conceptual roots 3 2) Sanskrit partesor pretium(price): fitting the meaning of ‘middleman’, ‘intermediary’ or ‘commercial go-between’ • The etymological roots of the verb ‘to interpret‘: having a semantically tense relationship with the terms ‘to translate’ and ‘translation’: the distinction between the more general hermeneutic sense and a narrowly construed translational sense of the word (ex. the case of legal sphere)

5. I. 2 Interpreting defined 1 • Interpreting: -different from other types of translational activity -immediacy (‘here and now’) • 2. 1 Kade’s criteria • Denying the dichotomy of oral vs written by excluding interpreting in signed language rather than spoken language • “Interpreting is a form of Translation in which a first and final rendition in another language is produced on the basis of a one-time presentation of an utterance in a source language.”

6. I. 2 Interpreting defined 2 • 2. 2 Interpreting as Translation -Four definitions of translation • Rabin’s definition –foregrounding the defining relationship between the source and target utterances • Brislin’s definition –describing Translation as a process of ‘transfer’ acting on ‘ideas’ in the medium of ‘language’.

7. I. 2 Interpreting defined 3 c) Salevsky’s definition –introducing a number of descriptive features d) Toury’s definition –relinquishing any prescriptive authority and accepting as Translation whatever is treated as such in a given community -All four definitions above accommodate interpreting, but each foregrounds different conceptual dimensions.

8. I. 2 Interpreting defined 4 -We are free to formulate an altogether different definitions of our own, but it would seem foolish to reinvent the wheel of Translation in order to move on with the study of interpreting. -We would mine the various definitions of Translation for basic conceptual ingredients, such as

9. I. 2 Interpreting defined 5 a. an activity consisting in b. the production of utterances(texts) which are c. presumed to have a similar meaning and/or effect d. as previously existing utterances e. in another language and culture

10. I. 2 Interpreting defined 6 -Several terms given above can be adapted and refined in different ways. a. activity  service(professional) for the purpose of enabling communication b. production(communication)  production in a given situation and culture

11. I. 2 Interpreting defined 7 -Some key areas of theoretical controversy a. the scope of the interpreter’s task(mainly production) b. the perspective on the translational process(target-oriented production rather than source-dependent transfer) c. the normative specification of the translational product(the assumption of similarity in meaning or effect)

12. I. 2 Interpreting defined 8 -Any definition of one’s object of study is necessarily relative to a set of underlying theoretical assumptions. -In the relativistic perspective, there can be no such thing as an objective definition fixing, the true meaning or essence of what we perceive or believe something to be like.

13. I. 2 Interpreting defined 9 -This non-essentialist, postmodern approach to meaning has been reaffirmed by leading scholars as part of the ‘shared ground’ in Translation studes.