1.

Introduction to
translation and
interpretation
Section 1: Translation
Definition of translation:
Generally, translation is a process of rendering meaning, ideas, or messages of a text from one language
to other language. There are some considerations which follow this process, which mainly related to the
accuracy, clarity and naturalness of the meaning, ideas, or messages of the translation. It means that it is an
important thing to consider whether the readers of the target text accept equivalent information as the
readers of the source text do. These considerations are clarified in some definition of translation stated by
some experts.

One of the most prominent definitions of translation is stated by Newmark (1988: 5) who defines
translation as “rendering the meaning of a text into another language in the way that the author intended the
text”. This definition stresses on rendering meaning of the source language text into the target language text
as what is intended by the author.

Hatim and Munday (2004: 6) define translation as “the process of transferring a written text from source
language (SL) to target language (TL)”. In this definition they do not explicitly express that the object being
transferred is meaning or message. They emphasis on translation as a process.

Nida and Taber (1982: 12), on the other hand, state that “translating consists in reproducing in the
receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message”. This definition is more
comprehensive than the previous ones. Nida and Taber explicitly state that translation is closely related to the
problems of languages, meaning, and equivalence.

From the definitions mentioned above, it is found that translation is a process which is intended to find
meaning equivalence in the target text. Rochayah Machali (2001) and Mona Baker (1992) underline the term
meaning equivalence because it is the meaning which is transferred in the target language. In this case,
translators are faced with text as unit of meaning in the form of sets of words or sentences. This means that
language which is used is unit of meaning in discourse which can be understood by the participants of the
communication (Machali, 2007).

So, the main problem in the process of translation is about meaning which will occur when the process is in
progress, not translation as a product. Hatim and Munday (2004: 34) also suggest that “one of the key
problems for the analyst was in actually determining whether the source text meaning had been transferred
into the target text”. It is clear here that meaning is the key problem: whether meaning of the source
language text is accurately transferred into the target language text. 1

History of translation
It is significant to review the history of translation in different languages. There are divisions of period
made by scholars like George Steiner. According to Steiner, the history of translation is divided into four
periods. Starting from the Roman translators Cicero and Horace to Alexander Fraser Tytler is the first period;
the second period extends up to Valery and from Valery to 1960s becomes the third period and the fourth
period 1960s onwards. The history of translation is stressed out from 3000 B.C. Rosetta Stone is considered
the most ancient work of translation belonged to the second century B.C. Livius Andronicus translated
Homer’s Odyssey named Odusia into Latin in 240 B.C. All that survives is parts of 46 scattered lines from 17
books of the Greek 24-book epic. In some lines, he translates literally, though in others more freely. His
translation of the Odyssey had a great historical importance. Before then, the Mesopotamians and Egyptians
had translated judicial and religious texts, but no one had yet translated a literary work written in a foreign
language until the Roman Empire. Livius’ translation made this fundamental Greek text accessible to Romans,
and advanced literary culture in Latin. This project was one of the best examples of translation as artistic
process. The work was to be enjoyed on its own, and Livius strove to preserve the artistic quality of original.
Since there was no tradition of epic in Italy before him, Livius must have faced enormous problems. For
example, he used archaizing forms to make his language more solemn and intense. His innovations will be
important in history of Latin poetry. In the fragments we have it is clear that Livius had a desire to remain
faithful to the original and to be clear, while having to alter untranslatable phrases and ideas. For example,
the phrase “equal to the gods”, which would have been unacceptable to Romans was changed to “summus
adprimus”, “greatest and of first rank”. Also early Roman poetry made use of pathos, expressive force and
dramatic tension, so Livius interprets Homer with a mind to these ideas as well. In general, Livius did not
make arbitrary change to the text; rather he attempted to remain faithful to Homer and to the Latin language.

Then Quintilian, Cicero, Horace, Catallus and Younger Pliny tried their hand to theorize translation and
practiced it. Cicero and Horace were from the later generation of translation history who differentiated
between word for word and sense for sense translation. The most significant turn in the history of translation
came with the Bible translations. The efforts of translating the Bible from its original languages into over
2,000 others have spanned more than two millennia. Partial translation of the Bible into languages of English
people can be stressed back to the end of the seventh century, including translations into Old English and
Middle English. Over 450 versions have been created overtime. Although John Wycliffe is often credited with
the first translation of the Bible into English, there were, in fact, many translations of large parts of the Bible
centuries before Wycliffe’s work. The Bible continues to be the most translated book in the world. This fact is
revealed by same statistics which is approximate. As of 2005, at least one book of the Bible translated into
2,400 of the 6,900 languages listed by SIL— Summer Institute of Linguistics—including 680 languages in
Africa, followed by 590 in Asia, 420 in Oceania, 420 in Latin America and the Caribbean, 210 in Europe, and
75 in North America. The United Bible Societies are presently assisting in over 600 Bible translation projects.
The Bible is available in whole or in part to some 98 percent of world’s population in a language in which they
1
Nugroho, A. B. (n.d.). Meaning and Translation. Retrieved July 24, 2021, from
http://staffnew.uny.ac.id/upload/132310009/penelitian/Meaning+and+translation.pdf 
are fluent. The United Bible Society had been announced that as 31st December 2007 the Bible was available
in 438 languages, 123 of which included the deuterocanonical material as well as the Tanakh and New
Testament. Either the Tanakh or the New Testament alone was available in an additional 1168 languages, and
portions of the Bible were available in another 848 languages, for a total of 2,454 languages. In 1999, Wycliffe
Bible translators announced Vision 2025.

All these numbers reveal the importance and place of Bible in translation history. It needs to write
something about English Bible translation history. The fascinating story of how we got the Bible into English in
its present form actually starts thousands of years ago. But toward the end of the seventh century, the
Venerable Bede began a translation of scripture into Old English—Anglo-Saxon. Aldhelm (c. 639-709)
translated the complete Book of Psalms and large portions of other scriptures into Old English. In the tenth
century an Old English translations of the Gospels was made in the Lindisfarne Gospels; a word-for- word gloss
inserted between the lines of the Latin text by Aldred, provost of Chester-le- Street. This is the oldest extant
translation of the Gospels into the English language. The Wessex Gospels—the West-Saxon Gospels—are a full
translation of the four gospels into a West Saxon dialect of Old English produced approximately 990, they are
the first translation of all four gospels into English without the Latin text. In the 11 century, Abbot Aelfric
translated much of the Old Testament into Old

English. The English Bible was first translated from the Latin vulgate into Old English by a select monks and
scholars. Such translations were in the form of prose or as interlinear glosses— literal translations above the
words. Very few complete translations existed during that time. Rather, most of the books of the Bible existed
separately and were read as individual texts. Thus, the sense of Bible as history that often exists today did not
exist at that time. Instead a more allegorical rendering of the Bible was more common and translations of the
Bible often included the writer’s own commentary on passages in addition to the literal translation. The
ormulum is in

Middle English of the 12th century. Like its old English precursor from Aelfric, an Abbot of Eynsham, it
includes very little Biblical text, and focuses more on personal commentary. This style was adopted by many
of the original English translators. For example the story of the Wedding at Cana is almost 800 lines long, but
fewer than 40 lines are the actual translation of the text. An unusual characteristic is that the translation
mimics Latin verse, and so is similar to the better known and appreciated 14th century English poem, Cursor
Mundi. Richard Rolle (1290- 1349) wrote an English Psalter. Many religious works are attributed to Rolle, but
it has been questioned how many are genuinely from his hand. Many of his works were concerned with
personal devotion, and some were used by the Lollards. The 14th century theologian John Wycliffe (1330-
1384) is credited with translating what is now known as Wycliffe’s Bible, though it is not clear how much of
the translation he himself did. This translation came out in two different versions. The earlier translation text
is characterized by a strong adherence to the word order of Latin, and might have been difficult for the
layperson to comprehend. The later text made more concessions to the native grammar of English. Early
modern translations of the Bible are those which were made between about 1500 and 1800, the period of
Early Modern English. This was the first major period of Bible translation into English language. It began with
the th dramatic introduction of the Tyndale Bible. The early 16 century Tyndale Bible differs from the others
since Tyndale used the Greek and Hebrew texts of the New and Old Testaments in addition to Jerome’s Latin
translation. Tyndale is also unique in that he was the first of the Middle English translators to use the printing
press to help distribute several thousand copies of this translation throughout England. It included the first
“authorized version” known as the Great Bible (1539); the Geneva Bible (1560), notable for being the first
Bible divided into verses, and the Bishop’s Bible (1568), which was an attempt by Elizabeth 1st to create a new
authorized version. It also included the landmark King James Version (1611) and Douay-Rheims Bibles. Douay-
Rheims’ Bible is the first complete English Catholic Bible. Called Douay-Rheims because the New Testament
portion was completed in Rheims France in 1582 followed by the Old Testament finished in 1609 in Douay. In
this version the 14 books of the Apocrypha are returned to the Bible in the order written rather than kept
separate in an appendix. Early English Bibles were generally based on Greek texts or Latin translations.
Modern English translations of the Bible are based on wider variety of manuscripts in the original languages—
Greek and Hebrew. The translators put much scholarly effort into cross-checking the various sources such as
the Septuagint, Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text. Relatively recent discoveries such as the Dead Sea scrolls
provide additional reference information. There is some controversy over which texts should be used as a
basis for translation, as some of the alternate sources do not include phrases—sometimes entire versed—
which are found only in the Textus Receptus. Some say the alternate sources were poorly representative of
the texts used in their time, whereas other claim the Textus Receptus includes passages that were added to
the alternate texts improperly. These controversial passages are not the basis for disputed issues of doctrine,
but tend to be additional stories or snippets of phrases. Many Modern English translations such as the New
International Version contain limited text notes indicating where differences occur in original sources. A
somewhat greater number of textual differences are noted in the New King James Bible, indicating hundreds
of New Testament differences between the Nestle-Aland, the Textus Receptus and the Hodges edition of the
majority text. The differences in the Old Testament are less well documented, but do contain some references
to differences between consonantal interpretations in the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea scrolls and the
Septuagint. Even with this hundreds of differences, however, a more complete listing is beyond the scope of
most single volume Bibles. Modern translations take different approaches to the rendering of the original
languages of approaches. The approaches can usually be considered to be somewhere on a scale between the
two extremes: Formal equivalence translation—sometime literal translation or Formal correspondence—in
which the greatest effort is made to preserve the meaning of individual words and phrases in the original,
without regard for its understandability by modern readers. Dynamic equivalence, sometimes called
paraphrase translation, in which the translator attempts to render the sense and intent of the original.
Examples of these versions include The Living Bible and The Message. While most translations are made by
committees of scholars in order to avoid bias or idiosyncrasy, translations are sometimes made by individuals.
The translation of J.B. Philips, J.N. Darby’s Darby , R.A. Knox, Gerrit Verkuy’s Berkeley Version and The
Message are largely the work of individual translators. Robert Alter has also translated individual books of the
Bible specifically to capture what he sees as their specific flavour. Most translations make the translators’ best
attempt at a single rendering of the original, relying on footnotes where there might be alternative
translations or textual variants. An alternative is taken by the Amplified . In case where a word of phrase
admits of more than one meaning the Amplified presents all the possible interpretations, allowing the reader
to choose one. For example, the first two verses of the Amplified read: “In the beginning God (prepared,
formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and an empty waste,
and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep. The spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding)
over the face of the waters.” (Web biblegateway.com). 16th century marked a good turn in translation other
than the Bible translation only.

George Chapman (1559?-1634) translated Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey in metrical form (iambic pentameter
and iambic heptameter) which became his most famous works, from 1598 he published his translation of Iliad
in installments and in 1616 the complete Iliad and Odyssey appeared in The Whole Works of Homer, the first
English translation, which until Pope’s was the most popular in the English language and was the way most
English speakers encountered these poems. His translation of Homer was much admired by John Keats.
Chapman also translated the Homeric Hymns, the Georgics of Vergil, the works of Hesiod (1618, dedicated to
Francis Bacon), the Hero and Leander of Musaeus (1618) and the fifth Satire of Juvenal (1624). Chapman’s
translation of Homer’s epic the Odyssey, originally published in folio, 1614—16, has become as rare as to be
inaccessible to the general reader and comparatively unknown to the more curious student of old English
Literature (translation). Martin Luther (1483-1546) had published his German translation of the New
Testament in 1522 and, he and his collaborators completed the translation of the Old Testament in 1534,
when the whole was published. He continued to refining the translation until the end of his life. Others had
translated the Bible into German, but Luther tailored his translation to his own doctrine. Luther’s translation
used the variant of German spoken at the Saxon Chancellery intelligible to both northern and southern
Germans. Luther Bible made a significant contribution to the evolution of German language and literature,
and of course to translation.

Seventh century is the notable age of translation history, because according to Suka Joshua:

“The seventeenth century is the great age of French classicism. Translation of the French classics increased
greatly in France between 1625 and 1660, and the French writers were in turn enthusiastically translated into
English. Sir John Denham in his theory stated that the translator and the original writer are equals
differentiated only by the social and temporal contexts. Abraham Cowley in his ‘Preface’ to Pindarique Odes
argued for freedom in translation and established imitation as a branch of translation. John Dryden devoted
most of his last twenty years to translate the ancient classics and update the modern. His preface to Ovid’s
Epistles served as the starting point for nearly every discussion of translation in the eighteenth century.” (3).

The seventeenth century knew the birth of many influential theorists such as Sir John Denham (1615-
69), Abraham Cowley (1618-67), John Dryden (1631-1700)—who was famous for his distinction between
three types of translation; metaphrase, paraphrase and imitation—and Alexander Pope (1688-1744). Dryden
translated works by Horace, Juvenal, Ovid, Lucretius and Theocritus, a task which he found far more satisfying
than writing for the stage. In 1694, he began work on what would be his most ambitious and defining work as
translator, The Work of Vergil (1697), which was published by subscription. His final translations appeared in
the volumes Fables Ancient and Modern (1700), a series of episodes from Homer, Ovid and Boccaccio, as well
as modernized adaptations from Geoffrey Chaucer interspersed with Dryden’s own poems. The Preface to
Fables is considered to be both a major work of criticism and one of the finest essays in English. As a critic and
translator he was essential in making accessible to the reading English public literary works in classical
languages. Pope had been fascinated by Homer since childhood. In 1713, he announced his plans to publish a
translation of the Iliad. His translation appeared between 1715 and 1720. It was acclaimed by Samuel Johnson
as a performance which no age or nation could hope to equal. With the help of William Broome and Elijah
Fenton, he also translated Odyssey in 1726.

In the eighteenth century, the translator was compared to an artist with a moral duty both to the work of the
original author and to the receiver. Moreover, with the enhancement of new theories and volumes on
translation process, the study of translation started to be systematic; Alexander Fraser Tytler’s volume of
Principles of Translation (1791) is a case in point. The other exponents of this period were Samuel Johnson
and George Campbell. Tytler’s treatise is important in the history of translation theory. He said that
translation should fully represent the ideas, style of the original and possess the ease of original composition.
During the century translators strove for ease of reading. Omitting whatever they did not understand in the
text or whatever they thought would be boring to the reader. At the end of this century, much interest shown
by the British East India colonial administrators in the languages, literature and culture of their subjects, and
the discovery and the translation of ancient Indian works was highly encouraged. According to 18th century
scholars, translators should have the contemporary reader in mind while translation and convey the author’s
spirit and manner in a more natural way.

The nineteenth century was characterized by two conflicting tendencies; the first considered translation as a
category of thought and saw the translator as a creative genius, who enriches the literature and language into
which he is translating, while the second saw him through the mechanical function of making a text or an
author known. This period knew also the enhancement of Romanticism, the fact that laid to the birth of many
theories and translations in the domain of literature, especially poetic translation. An example of this
translation is the one used by Edward Fitzgerald (1809-63) for Rubaiyat Omar Al-Khayyam (1858). Percy
Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822), one of our greatest poets, was a brilliant translator as well. He translated three of
the Plato dialogues: The Banquet (Symposium) in 1818 and Ion in 1821. But his translation of Phaedo is lost.
The elevation and sophistication of Shelley’s prose make his translation much better vehicle for Plato’s writing
than the rather chatty and colloquial translations current today. Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834) a major
writer, critic and poet has translated an important work—Goethe’s Faust—in 1821. For many years Dante
Gabrial Rossetti (1828-82) worked on English translations of Italian poetry including Dante Alighieri’s
La Vita Nuova, published as the Early Italian Poets in 1861. Thus the 19th century saw an abundance of
translations from a variety of languages into English, like the translation of Goethe’s work from German into
English, and the translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam—a collection of poems—from Persian into
English. The Bible was also translated into hundreds of languages all over the world, and many English books
and texts were translated into various Indian languages. It is worth noting that word lists and grammatical
descriptions of the languages of inhabitants of European colonies were prepared, which eventually facilitated
the translation of Bible. In regard of 19th century translation activity, Joshua’s view is notable: “The field of
translation flourished with strange theories during the nineteenth century. Shelley was cynical towards
translation and Coleridge tried to distinguish between fancy and imagination. Fredrich Schleiermacher
suggested a separate sublanguage to be used for translation should show faithfulness to the forms and
language of the original.

The Victorian translation gave importance to literalness, archaism and formalism. Unlike Dryden and
Pope, Victorians wanted to convey the remoteness of the original in time and place. Mathew Arnold for
example, gave a literal translation of Homer into English and was criticized for neglecting the spirit of the
original work. The Revised and American Standard Versions of the Bible best illustrate the harmful effects of a
literalistic Victorian translation.” (3-4).

In the twentieth century translation was viewed as a social action by religious and political forces with many
societies and organizations created and fostering Bible translations into many different languages, including
those of primitive and tribal societies. By the second half of the 20th century, accuracy and style was the main
criterion in the translation. The political arena of this century saw translations as a political mission, and highly
political content was translated from Chinese, Russian, and other Asian and European languages to English, as
well as from Canadian, French into English and vice versa. It is worth noting that the translation sexual and
religious content in China began in the 80s, and was well received, despite its discouragement during the
Cultural Revolution. In the same period, studies on translation became an important course in language
teaching and learning at schools. It also saw the development of translation research products, such as
Machine Translation and Computer- Assisted Translation (CAT) tools. 2

Dynamics of translation

A text is pulled in ten different directions, as follows:

2
Lacorte, M. (2015). The Routledge Handbook of Hispanic applied linguistics. New York: Routledge. 
1. The individual style or idiolect of the SL author. When should it be (a) preserved, (b) normalised?

2. The conventional grammatical and lexical usage for this type of text, depending on the topic and the
situation.

3. Content items referring specifically to the SL, or third language (i.e. not SL or TL) cultures.

4. The typical format of a text in a book, periodical, newspaper, etc., as influenced by tradition at the time.

5. The expectations of the putative readership, bearing in mind their estimated knowledge of the topic and
the style of language they use, expressed in terms of the largest common factor, since one should not
translate down (or up) to the readership.

6,7,8 As for 2,3 and 4 respectively, but related to the TL.

9. What is being described or reported, ascertained or verified (the referential truth), where possible
independently of the SL text and the expectations of the readership.

10. The views and prejudices of the translator, which may be personal and subjective, or may be social and
cultural, involving the translator's "group loyalty factor", which may reflect the national, political, ethnic,
religious, social class, sex, etc. assumptions of the translator.

Translation studies

1. Notion on Translation as Translation Studies

 The 1980 was a decade of consolidation for the fledging discipline known as Translation Studies. It
was the momentum of defining translation as a theory. Translation has been defined variously by
different writers who concern in linguistics. It depends on how they view language and translation.
 This paragraph tries to explain three views of language and translation, which influence the
development of translation studies. Since the dissemination of bibles, translation has played a very
important role for information exchange; however, the study of translation as academic purposes was
begun in the past fifty years.

 As explained by Munday (2004: 3), translation conquers two senses, either translation as a product in
which a translator must focus on the concrete product of translation, or as a process on which
translation studies centre on the role of a translator in taking the source text (ST) and turning it into the
target text in another different language (TT). This is in line with the description of Holmes in his
seminal paper, which is mapped by Toury, cited by Munday (2004: 10).

 Figure 1. Holmes's 'map' of Translation Studies

 Based on the figure above, it is known that indeed translation covers many significant roles.
Holmes in his seminal paper, as compiled in The Translation Studies Reader (2004: 184),
describes that the two branches of pure translation studies concerning themselves with these
objectives can be designated descriptive translation studies (DTS). There are three major kinds of
research in DTS, which are distinguished by their focus as product-oriented, function-oriented,
and process-oriented.

 The area of product-oriented DTS describes two phases, in which the first is individual
translations, or text-focused translation description. The second phase is that of comparative
translation description, in which comparative analyses are made of various translations of the
same text, either in a single language or in various languages. Some translation theories used in
this DTS are systemist theories. The next is function-oriented DTS, which is interested not only in
the description of translation themselves, but also in the description of their function in the
recipient socio-cultural situation. This study concerns more in context rather than texts. Most of
translation studies used this type of DTS use functionalist theories. The last is process-oriented
DTS, which concerns more with the process or act of translation. Munday (2001: 11) describe that
this DTS focus to the psychology of translation, for example a research to find out what happened
in the mind of a translator.
 1. Product-Oriented DTS

 This categorization accommodates some definitions of translation. Newmark in Aveling (2010: 5)

says that translation is a craft consisting in the effort to replace a non-verbal message or a
statement in one language by similar message statement in another language. This definition
exactly supports the idea that translation is a product. Another supporting statement is by Margret
Amman, cited by Aveling (2010: 5) that 'translation' is when a source text, both verbal and non-
verbal has, for certain purpose been used as the model for the production of a text in the target
culture.

 These two definitions scroll similar agreement that translation must end up as a product on which
the content delivers the same messages, not merely the form. The other translation scholars who
lean on product-oriented translation studies are Savory and Jacobsen. As explained by Basnett
(1980: 14) that Savory defines translation as an 'art', while Jacobsen argues that translation is a
'craft'. Both of scholars agree that translation is near with a unique production for it is said as a
'craft' and an 'art'. An overall conclusion of this view is that translation must have a real product,
which are possibly phonemic (interpreting), morphemic, words, group/phrase, clause, and text.
This view influences the systemist theory as represented by Halliday, Matthiesen, and Martin. The
theory concerns more on the comparative studies on the degree of similarity of each linguistic
unit, which is categorized as synchronic study, or the history of translation products during certain
period, a diachronic one.

2. Process-Oriented DTS

Translation as process-oriented view can be said as the most favorable definitions of translation. Many
translation scholars define translation is an act of communication. The most prominent translation expert
who is popular for his Bible translation is Nida. Nida and Taber (1982: 12) claims that translation as the
process of reproducing in the receptor language to the closest natural equivalent of the source language
message.

The first is in the terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style. The term reproducing is highlighted by
Nida since it is the ultimate aim in translation. It consists of making a good many grammatical and lexical
adjustments. This statement is identical with the statement of Machali (1998: 1) who says that translating
is an act of recreating meaning, not that of creating meaning. A good translation surely difficult to gain an
absolute similarity for each language has its own uniqueness, either grammatical or cultural meaning. The
one who translate any documents must consider on the limitation of deriving faithful translation in which
an SL text must be the same as the TL text.

Catford (1969: 20) agrees to both of arguments above that translation is the replacement of textual
material in the Source Language text by equivalent textual material in the Target Language text. However,
this definition seems limited on the use of textual material terms because translation is not only limited to
the use of something textual but also untextual material, as described by Roman Jacobson as an
intersemiotic translation. Therefore, this definition focuses more on the textual analysis rather than the
meaning of a translated text proven by the famous approach of translation' shifts'.
Overall, the most comprehensive definition supporting process-oriented translation is derived by McGuire
(1980) via Machali (1998: 1),

Translation is the rendering of a source language (SL) text into the target language (TL) so as to ensure that (1) the
surface meaning of the two will be preserved as closely as possible but not so closely that the TL structures will be
seriously distorted (McGuire, 1980: 2)

This definition has covered almost all similar ideas presented before, that translation is indeed a process
that begun with the prefix re-. It means that translation does not take only once in its process but also
twice or more processes. The idea of similarity is also argued as something impossible that the demand of
translation as a process is near with making the natural and closest equivalence. Barely is the process of
translation demanded to be the same.

3. Function-Oriented DTS

This view somehow leads three prominent translation scholars: Reiss, Vermeer, and Nord blush
the functional theories of translation. 'Functionalist' in Nord (1997: 1) is defined as focusing on the
function or that texts and translations have certain functions. Among the three functionalist theories,
skopos theory by Vermeer, Translational Text-Analysis by Nord, and Text Type and Language Function
by Reiss, the one who has played a major role in the development of functionalist trend is skopostheorie.
Vermeer as explained by Munday (2001: 80) says that the term 'skopos' is the Greek word for 'purpose' or
'objectives'. It was introduced into translation theory in the 1970s by Vermeer as a technical term for the
action of translating and as a purpose of a translation. This definition emphasizes that translation must
have a reason behind it. Vermeer even gives several basic underlying rules of the theory. Similar with
Vermeer, Reiss in Munday (2001: 73) focuses on the ultimate aim, which is initially at systematizing the
assessment of translations. Reiss chooses to take text as the concept of equivalence rather than words or
sentences. This approach is mostly used to assess literary translation, for readers are the important factor.
In line with this, Nord (1997: 22) explains that translation is an act of communication. It means during
communication process, both speakers and hearers transfer meaning. The meaning associated with the
sign does not need to be the same for both the producer and the receiver. An overall conclusion upon this
part is that translation both as a product and as a process must be purposive. Not only does this approach
facilitates a helpful analysis of literary texts but also launches the idea of translation training since, again,
readers are the key point. 3

Section 2: Interpretation:
Definition of interpretation
Suttleworth and Cowie propose that interpreting is “a term used to refer to the oral translation of a
spoken message or text.” They add the history of interpreting is not well documented, although it is generally
agreed that, as an activity, it is older than written translation. In line with this definition, Gentile, Ozolins and
Vasilakakos (1996) state that interpreting is the oral transfer of messages between speakers of different

3
Pradita, I. (2016). An introduction to translation studies: An overview. Journal of English and Education, 6(2),
52-66. doi:10.20885/jee.vol6.iss2.art5
languages (p. 5). Thus, interpreting is transferring the messages from source language into target language
orally.Further, Vermeer (as cited in Nord, 2001, p. 104) states that “Interpreting is the translation of a source-
language text, presented only once, usually in oral form, into target-language text which is very difficult to
check and can hardly be corrected because of lack of time.” Pochhacker (2004, p. 11) adds that “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.” From those definitions, it is clear that
interpretation is presented in oral form and can hardly be checked or revised due to the time pressure.Unlike
translation, interpreting is more challenging as Suttleworth and Cowie state thatFirstly, the communication
skills which it requires are clearly different, as interpreters need to be expert oral communicators. Secondly,
while translators often have relatively unlimited opportunity to make alternations and improvements before
submitting a final version, interpreters are required to create a finished product in “real time” without the
possibility of going back and making revisions; in other words, interpreting, unlike written translation, is both
non-CORRECTABLE and non- VERIFIABLE... (1997, p. 84)Besides, Brislin points out that interpreting process
involves three participants. He says that interpreting is one type of translation and it refers to oral
communication situation in which one person speaks in the source language, an interpreter processes the
input and produces output in a second language, and third person listens to the source language version
(Brislin, 1976, p.1). Furthermore, Weber (1984, p.3) states that “interpretation is the oral transposition of an
orally delivered message... performed in the presence of the participants.” In other words, unlike translation,
interpreting is conducted in front of the clients or audiences directly. 4

Historical perspectives

The Second Oldest Profession in the World

Often referred to as the ‘second oldest profession in the world’ (e.g., Stähle 2009), interpreting is likely as old as the
first contacts between human tribes (Longley 1968). Yet reconstructing the history of interpreters is not an easy
endeavor. Many historical documents neglect to men- tion interpreters or to discuss their roles in society, and most
scholarly production has focused on the Western hemisphere (Andres 2013).

Possibly the earliest evidence of interpreters dates back to ancient Egypt, in depictions such as the relief of nomarch
Haremhab’s tomb, where an interpreter—a double figure—helps foreign vassals (likely Syrians or Libyans) to
request food from Pharaoh Tutankhamun (Andres 2013). Subsequently, in Classical Antiquity interpreters became
more widely documented (Wiotte-Franz 2001). In ancient Greece interpreters worked for the government and phi-
losophers exploring foreign teachings, while in the Roman Empire they served in the Senate and facilitated
communication with Carthaginians and Hispanics. Interpreters were also very present in Hebrew society,
disseminating religious scriptures in Aramaic, Arabic, or Greek when translation was still forbidden (Kaufmann
2005). With the Barbarian Invasions, docu- mentation on interpreters decayed, resurfacing again in the high and late
Middle Ages. Inter- preters in the Crusades helped missionaries propagate Christianity, while in Spain so-called
alfaqueques or trujamanes facilitated communication among the ‘three cultures’—Christians, Jews, Muslims—
achieving professional recognition in the 13th century in King Alfonso X’s statutory code Las Siete Partidas (Alonso
and Payàs 2008).

4
ASTUTI, L. M. (2015). A STUDY OF COMMUNITY INTERPRETING IN A SPONSOR VISIT EVENT IN COMPASSION
PROJECT IO-945 SOLO (Unpublished master's thesis). Sebelas Maret University. Retrieved August 8, 2021,
from https://digilib.uns.ac.id/dokumen/download/43619/MTUxMjUx/A-Study-of-Community-Interpreting-in-
a-Sponsor-Visit-Event-in-Compassion-Project-Io-945-Solo-3.pdf 
With the conquest of America, documentation on interpreters exploded thanks to the chronicles of conquistadors,
friars, and indigenous people. Columbus’s 1492 expedition included two interpreters, Rodrigo de Jerez and Luis de
Torres, whose working languages— Arabic, Hebrew, Chaldean, Latin, and Greek—were of no use with the Taíno
and Carib- bean Indians (Rosenblat 1977). From that moment on, the conquistadors resorted to various strategies.
They started by using hand signing (Chrobak 2004). They then captured indig- enous people and taught them
Spanish, like the Guanahani Indian who was rechristened Diego Colón—allegedly the first interpreter of the ‘New
World’—and Melchorejo, Julianillo, Felipillo, Martinillo, Agustinillo, or Lautaro (e.g., Payàs and Garbarini 2012).
Since 1512, as recommended in the Leyes de Burgos, Spanish was taught to children for evangelization pur- poses at
institutions such as the Franciscan school in Santo Domingo (Chrobak 2004). These generations of bilingual ladino
Indians—like Gaspar Antonio Chi, Fernando de Alva Cortés Ixtlilxóchitl, and Fernando de Alvarado Tezozómoc—
served as interpreters and often doubled up as guides, chroniclers, or servants, facilitating the conquest. However,
given the rich lin- guistic diversity of the conquered land, ladinos were often less useful than expected. Some- times
chains of relay interpreters were created to interpret into and out of Spanish via various languages, to the discomfort
of conquistadors like Nikolaus Federmann, who complained that ‘only one in ten’ of his words were conveyed as he
meant them (Chrobak 2004). Finally, some Spaniards learned the indigenous languages, mostly friars like Alonso de
Molina and the shipwrecked Gerónimo de Aguilar, who, having learned Mayan while being enslaved for years,
proved very valuable to Hernán Cortés.

While interpreting remained important in subsequent centuries, it was not until the 20th century that it turned into the
profession that it is today, with the emergence of most of the current interpreting modes and types. Conference
interpreting arose during World War I to facilitate communication with British and American negotiators who did
not speak French, the international language at the time. After the war, it was used at international meetings, like the
1919 International Labor Conference, the Paris Peace Conference and the League of Nations (Baigorri 2004).
Interpreters worked in the consecutive mode, first without taking notes and later developing their own shorthand
symbols to minimize interruptions (Longley 1968). Consecutive interpreting, however, prolonged meetings
considerably, and thus alter- native modes of interpreting arose. For example, delegates had speeches whispered to
them by their own interpreters, a technique known as whispered interpreting or chuchotage. With the advent of
interpreting booths, interpreters started working in the simultaneous mode as early as 1927 at Geneva’s International
Labor Conference (Kurz 1996), and more popularly in the Nuremberg trials in 1945. Conversely, the Tokyo trials
were interpreted either consecutively or off written speeches, that is, via sight translation (Nishiyama 1988). This
period also witnessed the emergence of media interpreting in broadcasts like André Kaminker’s renditions of Hitler’s
speeches for the French radio in 1934 (Baigorri 2004). Meanwhile, Civil War and Francoist Spain remained
oblivious to technological advancements, and interpreting stayed consecutive. There are records of interpreters
working for the Republican front, like Armand André Thily, Dina Kavchenko, and Constant Brusiloff, who
facilitated communication with the Russian

delegations, as well as records of Franco’s interpreter in the Hendaye negotiations with Hitler—Luis Álvarez de
Estrada y Luque (Preston 1992). Finally, since the second half of the 20th century, the advent and popularization of
new technologies has spawned new interpreting types, such as telephone interpreting—employed since the 1970s;
televi- sion interpreting—popularized internationally with Apollo 11’s moon landing in 1969, and in Spain, via the
popular show La Clave in the 1970s (Jiménez Serrano 2011); and more recently, video-relay interpreting,
interpreting via the Internet, and machine interpreting via mobile devices such as Voxtec’s Phraselator and IBM’s
Mastor (Andres 2013).

Throughout history, the perception of interpreters has varied considerably. Despite their many contributions,
interpreters have often been mistrusted, disliked, and even killed, because as Payàs and Garbarini (2012) illustrate,
they may pose various risks for the client. Interpreters may choose to favor ‘the enemy’, like the Indian Lautaro and
the aindianado Spaniard Gonzalo Guerrero, who deserted the Spanish conquistadors, or Malinche, whose infamous
betrayal of Mexico has lived on in the word malinchista, the ultimate anti-patriot. Interpreters may also be
incompetent for a job, like Jensen, who caused the death of several German officials by misin- terpreting the place of
a meeting with the Portuguese delegation in Angola in 1914 (Kurz and Kurz 1995). Finally, interpreters may put
their own interests before their clients’, manipulating the discourse to obtain goods or to retain their jobs.

Since the 1950s, however, the establishment of various professional associations has contrib- uted to enhance the
status and recognition of interpreters worldwide (e.g., Association Inter- nationale des Interprètes de Conference
[AIIC, 1953]; Federation International des Traducteurs [FIT, 1953]; World Association for Sign Language
Interpreters [WASLI, 2003]) and, more locally, in Spain (e.g., Asociación Profesional Española de Traductores e
Intérpretes [APETI, 1953]) and Latin America—FIT currently recognizes 16 professional associations in Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. To
different degrees, these organizations have created codes of ethics that instruct interpreters to adhere to principles of
faithfulness, professional secrecy, and, crucially, neutral- ity. Recently, though, this latter principle is being re-
evaluated, as it constrains interpreters too much, particularly in community interpreting settings. Research in signed
(Roy 1992) and spoken language interpreting (Angelelli 2004) has shown that interpreters often feel compelled to
make linguistic and cultural adjustments in order to broker communication between parties. Thus, in the new
millennium the role of interpreters is still evolving, shifting from a conduit model to a bilingual-bicultural approach
(Pollitt 1997).

A Latecomer to Education

Despite the long history of the profession, formal education in interpreting is a recent phe- nomenon that dates back
to the 20th century (Wilson 2013). The first modern interpreting schools were created in the 1930s–1950s in
politically strategic cities like Moscow, Mannheim, Geneva, Vienna, and Washington, DC, to meet the need for
qualified conference interpreters at international meetings. In the Hispanic context it is hard to pinpoint the first
courses for interpreters; however, it might be assumed that interpreting was at least tangentially addressed in the
translation programs that emerged in Latin America in the 1940s–1960s in Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico, and Cuba
(Bastin 2003). In Spain, likely as a result of Franco’s closed regime, the first interpreting programs did not start until
the 1970s at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and the Universidad de Granada.

Since those early days, interpreting education has grown more rapidly in Europe than anywhere else. A search in
AIIC’s (http://aiic.net) directory of interpreting schools by world region yields 64 European schools offering
postgraduate courses in interpreting, followed very distantly by Asia (6 schools), North America (5), Africa (3),
South America and Australia (2 each), and the Middle East (1). In the Hispanic context, interpreting education has
developed significantly more in Spain than in Latin America, likely as a result of Spain’s membership in the
European Union. AIIC’s directory includes three master’s degrees in interpreting in Spain (Universitat Autònoma de
Barcelona, Universidad Pontificia de Comillas, Universidad de la Laguna) and this list will likely keep growing—
Universidad de Granada just inaugurated a master’s in conference interpreting. In contrast, there are no listed
postgraduate programs specifically for Spanish interpreting in Latin America, although some master’s degrees in
trans- lation include one or two interpreting courses (e.g., Universidad de Buenos Aires in Argen- tina and
Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara in Mexico). Internationally, however, students pursuing postgraduate studies
in Spanish interpreting have a wide range of options. AIIC lists 40 schools from 20 countries offering bidirectional
training for 12 languages (Arabic, Czech, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Portuguese,
Romanian, and Russian) and from Spanish into 4 other languages (Irish, Maltese, Polish, and Swedish).

At the undergraduate level, there are many schools offering bachelor’s degrees in translation and interpreting, but the
focus is often more on the former than the latter. In Latin America, the country with the highest number of schools
approved by the American Translators Asso- ciation (ATA, www.atanet.org) is Argentina (18 schools), followed by
Colombia (12), Chile (9), Mexico (7), Uruguay (4), Guatemala and Peru (2), and Costa Rica, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and
Venezuela (1). In turn, Spain boasts 29 approved schools, which are currently reforming their curricula in accordance
with the Bologna Process (Prieto Velasco 2011).

Thematically, Spanish interpreting programs are predominantly focused on conference interpreting. Other types,
such as community interpreting, are largely neglected, likely because most countries do not require official training
in it (Hale 2007). There are, however, a few significant postgraduate programs on public service interpreting (e.g., at
the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, or combined with translation at the Universidad de Alcalá and Uni- versidad
de Salamanca), legal interpreting (University of Charleston, South Carolina; Monterey Institute of International
Studies), and health interpreting (University of North Texas). In turn, interpreter training for the different varieties of
Spanish signed languages remains mostly at vocational schools (see Machado and Famularo 2001 for a review) at the
level of técnico superior or tecnicatura, but recently a few certificate and master’s programs have been launched
(e.g., Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Universidad de Valladolid). Finally, while not Spanish specific, there are
some postgraduate programs for training trainers, both for spoken languages (University of Geneva; Macquarie
University, Australia; Wake Forest University) and signed languages (Northeastern University). 5

Modes and types of interpretation

Often referred to as the ‘second oldest profession in the world’ (e.g., Stähle 2009), interpret- ing involves conveying
the meaning of a source text (ST) by means of a target text (TT) in the oral modality, both for spoken and signed
languages. Like translators, interpreters operate with three types of working languages, known as A (the mother
tongue), B (an active language that the interpreter can work from and into), and C (a passive language that the
interpreter can only work from).

While interpreting clearly requires high linguistic and sociocultural competence (both general and field-specific), this
alone does not make a good interpreter. Interpreters need outstanding cognitive processing skills (to focus and split
their attention to the input and to store, analyze, and retrieve information), subject knowledge (to understand the ST),
interpersonal skills (to closely work with people), presentation skills (to deliver high quality information with
appropriate voice), and professional skills (to behave ethically) (Angelelli 2006).

Interpreting can take many forms that may be classified by constructs such as mode and type. Mode refers to the way
in which interpreting is carried out, whereas type refers to the con- text in which interpreting takes place
(Shuttleworth and Cowie 1997). Other useful classifying constructs are tenor (the addresser-addressee relationship—
Mason 1999), number of clients (one- on-one, small group, or large group—Humphrey and Alcorn 2007), medium
(human, machine, or computer-aided interpreting—Salevsky 1993), text (oral- or written-like—Alexieva 1997), and
discourse (speech, debate, or face-to-face talk—Pöchhacker 2004).

The two main modes of interpreting are simultaneous and consecutive, depending on whether the TT is delivered
roughly at the same time as the ST or after it. Both modes can be per- formed directly off the ST or indirectly via
another interpreter’s output—when there is no interpreter available for a particular language combination—which is
known as relay interpret- ing. Additionally, several hybrid modes of interpreting can be distinguished, involving a
mix of the oral and written modality (‘intermodal interpreting’—Braun 2006) or a mix of consecutive and
simultaneous interpreting (Ahrens 2013). In sight translation the interpreter formulates the TT off a written text. In
simultaneous interpreting with a text, the interpreter has access to the speaker’s written speech but must check it
against oral delivery to react to any potential devia- tions. In signed language translation the interpreter video-records
his or her signing of a written script to render a video accessible to the Deaf community (Stone 2007). And in

5
Lacorte, M. (2015). The Routledge Handbook of Hispanic applied linguistics. New York: Routledge. 
simultaneous consecutive interpreting the interpreter delivers the TT off an audio recording of the ST immedi- ately
after it has been produced (Ferrari 2007).

Beyond these modes, interpreting can be classified into types depending on the socio- institutional context in which
it is performed. Existing literature presents different classifica- tions, contributing to confusion (Viezzi 2013).
Among the most frequently discussed types are conference, community, and media interpreting (this list is not
exclusive; see Grbic and Pöllabauer 2006). Conference interpreting occurs in the context of international
conferences. Community interpreting occurs at public service institutions and it is usually split into subtypes, such as
legal interpreting (at courtrooms and police stations), healthcare interpreting (at emergency rooms, doctors’ offices,
hospitals, and mental institutions), or public service interpreting (e.g., at learning institutions) (Hale 2007). Last but
not least, media interpreting occurs in the context of audiovisual broadcasts, mainly television but also electronic
media, including webcasting and other forms of remote interpreting (O’Hagan and Ashworth 2002).

As an object of study,interpreting is on‘curiously ambiguous’ground (Pöchhacker 2009b). To this day, many scholars
still envisage interpreting as a form of ‘oral translation’, framing Interpreting Studies as a sub-discipline of
Translation Studies. However, a cursory review of the literature illustrates that Translation Studies is merely one of
the disciplines that inform inter- preting research, alongside psycho-cognitive and sociocultural frameworks or
‘supermemes’ (Pöchhacker 2009b). Interpreting Studies is thus emerging as an increasingly autonomous discipline,
and leading scholars are more preoccupied with its internal cohesion than its rela- tionship with Translation Studies
(e.g., Pöchhacker 2011a).

Since the first wave of publications in the 1950s,scholarly research on interpreting has changed both thematically and
methodologically (Bartłomiejczyk 2013). Thematically, publications have broadened their scope from conference
interpreting exclusively to all types of interpreting, including community and media interpreting. Methodologically,
studies have gravitated from pedagogical handbooks and theoretical models based on introspection or anecdotal
evidence to different types of empirical studies—quantitative, qualitative, experimental, and descriptive.

The present chapter discusses research on interpreting with a focus on the Hispanic context. The following section
covers the history of interpreting as a profession and a field of education. The section on core issues and topics
discusses three vibrant strands of research on interpreting— conference interpreting, community interpreting, and
media interpreting—covering issues such as cognitive processing, quality, ethics, technology, training, and history.
The next section suggests new research avenues. Finally, the conclusion provides a summary of this chapter. 6

 Modes of Interpreting:

The modes of interpreting have evolved through time. Three modes are now recognized by the
interpreting profession and have been adopted in federal and state statutes and court rules: simultaneous
interpreting, conse cutive interpreting, and sight translation. Each mode fits particular needs and
circumstances in the judicial process and in legal and quasilegal settings. This paper explains the use of
each mode of interpreting, gives reasons for the use of each one, and provides practical suggestions for
effective use of interpreters when working with individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP).

Simultaneous interpreting is the rendering of one spoken language into another when running renditions
are needed at the same time as the English language communication. The interpreter speaks virtually at the

6
Lacorte, M. (2015). The Routledge Handbook of Hispanic applied linguistics. New York: Routledge. 
same time as the LEP person. When done properly, it is a true and accurate interpretation of one language
to another, done without omissions or embellishments, so that the parties can understand one another
quickly.

The simultaneous mode is used whenever participants, most often defendants, are playing a passive role in
court proceedings such as arraignments, hearings, or trials.

The LEP speaker needs to hear what is being said but is not required, at that particular stage of the
proceedings, to speak herself. In order to preserve the defendant’s due process rights 2, everything spoken
in open court must be interpreted to her simultaneously 3. This enables the defendant to be truly present
and take an active part in her defense.

In the simultaneous interpreting mode, the interpreter must do several things at once:

• listen intently to whatever party is speaking

• accurately interpret from the source language to the target language

• be prepared to switch languages rapidly whenever the LEP party is directly engaged in the procedure and
consecutive interpreting is required.

In consecutive interpreting, the interpreter waits until the speaker has finished before rendering speech into
another language. Consecutive interpreting is a true and accurate interpretation of one language to another,
spoken in brief sound bites successively, without omissions or embellishments, so that the parties can
understand each other slowly and deliberately.

The consecutive mode is used whenever LEP participants are playing an active role—when they must speak or
respond—during examinations, cross-examinations, and other proceedings. Consecutive interpreting is often
used when parties are addressing a witness or defendant on the witness stand. In legal settings, such as
attorney/client or prosecutor/witness/victim interviews, the consecutive mode is the preferred mode of
interpreting, as it is in a question and answer session . Consecutive interpreting should be used during police
interviews of suspects and/or witnesses or victims, especially during recorded interviews. The gaps in speech
between the parties allow for a clear and accurate transcript to be prepared if necessary for further court
proceedings.

In the consecutive interpreting mode, the interpreter must:

• listen intently to whatever party is speaking

• be prepared to take notes to aid in recollection

• accurately interpret after the party has completed her statement.

Sight translation is the rendering of material written in one language into spoken speech in another language.
It is a true and accurate verbal translation of written material into the spoken form so that the parties can
understand what documents written in foreign languages say.

Sight translation is often used when LEP defendants are given forms in court that are written in English, such
as rights forms, plea forms, and probation orders. It is also used when foreign-language documents such as
birth certificates, personal letters, and identity documents are presented in court.
Recommended practice is to afford the interpreter sufficient time to review the document’s contents before
rendering it. When performing sight translation, the interpreter must:

• possess a wide vocabulary and knowledge of the specific type of document presented

• have the ability to quickly scan and understand the main points of the document

• accurately interpret the document into its equivalent meaning in the target language.

In the consecutive interpreting mode, the interpreter must:

• listen intently to whatever party is speaking

• be prepared to take notes to aid in recollection
• accurately interpret after the party has completed her statement.

Sight translation is the rendering of material written in one language into spoken speech in another
language. It is a true and accurate verbal translation of written material into the spoken form so that the
parties can understand what documents written in foreign languages say.

Sight translation is often used when LEP defendants are given forms in court that are written in English,
such as rights forms, plea forms, and probation orders. It is also used when foreignlanguage documents
such as birth certificates, personal letters, and identity documents are presented in court.

Recommended practice is to afford the interpreter suffi cient time to review the document’s contents
before rendering it.

When performing sight translation, the interpreter must:

• possess a wide vocabulary and knowledge of the specific type of document presented

 have the ability to quickly scan and understand the

main points of the document

 accurately interpret the document into its equivalent

meaning in the target language. 7

Role, requirements, and types of interpreters

E1. The role of interpreter

7
Modes of Interpreting: Simultaneous, Consecutive, & Sight Translation. (2006, May 15). Retrieved July 24,
2021, from https://najit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Modes_of_Interpreting200609.pdf 
The interpreter‟s aim is to facilitate successful communication over linguistic and cultural boundaries. The
interpreter is an essential link between the communicating parties, since the interpreter helps both parties to
express themselves to the full extent of their mother tongue Clearly, the barrier is first about different
languages. Since interpreting focuses on communication, interpreter may face the barriers to communication
that are more than linguistic problem. The interpreter also clarifies cultural backgrounds that are essential for
understanding. Jones (1998, p. 3) suggests several things to consider; people from different countries may not
only speak different languages but also have different knowledge, different education, different cultures and
therefore different intellectual approaches.In addition, interpreters are entrusted to convey messages,
meanings and thoughts (Code of Ethics for Community Interpreter.pdf). Previously, Shackman (as cited in
Mikkelson, 2009) points out about the role of community interpreter as follow:"The community interpreter
has a very different role and responsibilities from a commercial or conference interpreter. She is responsible
for enabling professional and client, with very different backgrounds and perceptions and in an unequal
relationship of power and knowledge, to communicate to their mutual satisfaction."In other words,
interpreter is the person in charge to link speaker and listener. In fact, interpreters are often asked to
facilitate participants with things outside professional job description. Hrehovčík finds out that “compared to
other types of17 interpreting, the (unprofessional) community interpreter also serves as a guide, advisor or
social mediator”

E.2. The Competences

Due to the important role of the job, the interpreter needs to achieve some competences. Competency is
“underlying system of knowledge and skills that enable someone to do particular thing” (PACTE 2000, p.100).
In relation to the job, interpreter must understand what interpreting is and how to conduct interpreting. It is
in line with Schaffner and Adab (as cited in Khrisna, 2008, p. 23) that “an interpreter is requisite to master
declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge of interpreting.” Declarative knowledge means mastering
the theory of interpreting, while procedural knowledge deals with the ability to do interpreting.Basically,
interpreting needs the same competences as translation does because some experience as a translator
provides a good foundation for becoming an interpreter (Nolan, 2005, p. 3). However, there are some
competences to consider more. Suttleworth and Cowie (1997, p. 28) state that consecutive interpreter should
entail a number of different abilities and skills including a high level of language comprehension, advance
note-taking skill, excellent general knowledge an accurate memory and confident manner of delivery.It is
clear that community interpreting needs interpreting skills, linguistic skills, research and technical skills, and
interpersonal skills. Hrehovčík18 summarized competency of a professional interpreter as follows: The
interpreting skills include active listening, good memory retention, note-taking, and mental ability to
transpose and verbalize messages into the target language. The linguistic skills are represented by the depth
of knowledge in and the understanding of the interpreter‟s working languages and the required range of
language registers; and the knowledge of subject areas and related terminology. The research and technical
skills include the ability to efficiently acquire the additional linguistic and specialized knowledge necessary to
interpret in specialized cases, the experience in the use of research tools, and the ability to develop suitable
strategies for the efficient use of the information sources available. The interpersonal skills include strong
communication skills, polite, respectful and tactful conduct, positive relationship to people, and good
judgment.In addition, Mikkelson (aiic.net/page/3356/interpreting-is-interpreting-or-i- it/lang/1) suggests
ethical behavior and cultural knowledge as interpreter‟s competencies. Since ethics are a major consideration
for all interpreters. Furthermore, it is almost universally acknowledged that interpreters working in social
service settings need to be aware of cultural differences.19

E.3. Types of Interpreter

There are two types of translator or interpreter seen from whom he/she works for; freelancer and permanent
employee. Weber (1984, p. 53-54) says that “Most professional translators and interpreters start out by
freelancing before they find permanent employment. Translators, however, tend to find permanent positions
more often than interpreters do. Most interpreters tend to remain freelancers.”Furthermore, based on the
level of professionalism, Nababan (2003, p. 20) proposes three types of translator; amateur, semi-
professional and professional. In this case, this type can also be applied in interpreting studies. An amateur
interpreter does his/her job as hobby and self pleasure. For an amateur interpreter, the orientation is not on
earning money. On the other hand, professional interpreter does interpreting as his/her source of living. For
the reason, he/she upholds the code of ethics professionally. Here, semi-professional interpreter does
interpreting for both reasons. National Standard Guide for Community Interpreting Services (2007, p. 13)
previously describes the term of professional interpreter as “a fluently bilingual individual with appropriate
training and experience who is able to interpret with consistency and accuracy and who adheres to the
standards of practice and ethical principles.”8

8
ASTUTI, L. M. (2015). A STUDY OF COMMUNITY INTERPRETING IN A SPONSOR VISIT EVENT IN COMPASSION
PROJECT IO-945 SOLO (Unpublished master's thesis). Sebelas Maret University. Retrieved August 8, 2021,
from https://digilib.uns.ac.id/dokumen/download/43619/MTUxMjUx/A-Study-of-Community-Interpreting-in-
a-Sponsor-Visit-Event-in-Compassion-Project-Io-945-Solo-3.pdf