Translation versus interpretation

Both translators and interpreters should have a good knowledge of the native and the target
language, be familiar with the subject matter, have an analytical ability and high concentration.
In other words, they both should produce a TT and therefore in the process of conveying the ST
to the TT, they deal a lot of problems due to the linguistic and cultural peculiarities of each
language. To solve these problems they sometimes have to add something to the ST information,
delete something from it or keep it the same way. Kade (1961) introduces both translation and
interpretation as two modes of language mediation.
However, each one requires some indispensable skills. The simplest and clearest difference
between translation and interpreting is the fact that the first one deals with written mode and the
second is concerned with oral speech. Consequently, the translator should be a sharp writer and
skilled editor, whereas an interpreter should have a good listening skill.
All authorities of the field of translation and interpretation agreeably state that good translators
can not necessarily be good interpreters. These two modes of conveying message from one
language to another have their own specific peculiarities. Translators have a calm life. They are
involved with dictionaries, computer or may do research at libraries. While interpreters should
move around. Their working life is full of excitement. They need to be active, easygoing and
assertive. They are unwillingly engaged in drama, although it belongs to someone else.
The major difference between translation and interpretation is the factor of time. Translators
have enough time to deal with these problems. Whereas, the interpreters should decide how to
solve problems in the shortest amount of time.
Furthermore, translators can use different sources of information such as: books, dictionaries,
experts of that specific field to offer the best translation for a text. But interpreters are deprived
of all these facilities, rather in interpreting a single glance at a dictionary may cost the risk of
missing part of the given information. (Gile, 1995 b).
Another distinguishing factor is stress. For translators stress is not that much defined. As
Schaffner (2004) states “ in translation, the main source of stress is the required speed of
processing and associated fatigue” (p.12). Whereas, stress is inherent to the interpretation. In the
case of interpreting at high level international meetings, or interpreting for the media the
interpreter is always full of stress. As he fears to convey something improperly which will either
give him the label of amateur interpreter and the worst of all is causing conflict among two
nations because of his misinterpretation of meaning.
Interpreters should also be good at public speaking. Since interpreting is often done before a
large audiences of important people, feeling shy and being frightened of an audience have a
direct effect on the act of interpreting, no matter how skillful an interpreter is in his work.
Therefore, every interpreter should practice public speaking. Furthermore, interpreters should
recognize the differences between everyday speech and the kind of language used in official or
international conferences. The main role of language in daily life is to communicate and express
feelings, but in public speaking of officials, diplomats, etc the aim is advocacy (Nolan, 2005). In
other words, they do their best to persuade their listeners to appreciate and accept their speech.
This is one of the peculiarities of public speaking and is a step that interpreters should take to
become an effective public speaker.
There is also difference in the case of the final product of translation and interpretation. The
product of interpretation is an oral text, the perception of it by the audience depends not only on
its “content and linguistic choices in terms of the word” but also on many other factors such as
the “quality of the interpreter’s voice and on various delivery parameters including accent,
intonation, pauses, articulation speed etc” (Nolan, 2005, p.13). In contrary, the product of
translation is a written text. The perception of which does not depend on the personal delivery
parameters mentioned in the case of interpretation. Rather, the only important factor is the
linguistic choices of words. The reader can read it as many times as he wishes with his own
regulated speed to get the meaning.
Padilla & Martian (1992) truly state that the process of comprehension is different in translation
and interpretation. The mode of communication in translation is a written mode, which can be
called static, since it is produced in the past. Consequently, the translator can read it with his own
pace, in his own time and to do his best he can consult different sources of information.
However, this process is much more complicated for interpreters. Since they can not resort to
such resources, the only way by which he can affect this process of information is by taking
“pre-emptive action before the message is actually communicated” (p. 196). This is achievable
through exhaustive preparation of the subject matter concerned.
Another factor which makes comprehension much more difficult for the interpreter is
pronunciation of the message. Harris explains that:
 The interpreter, besides speaking his language, must learn to hear and understand them
as pronounced by others: by people talking various dialects of them, and by some who
speaks them abnormally because of poor education or because they are nervous or
because languages are not native to them (1981, p. 159).

now, this explanation clearly reveals the need for the interpreter to be familiar with different
accents of the second language he is working with. In the case of English, this is particularly true
since this language is spoken by a great number of non native speakers worldwide.
The relationship between the author and the translator compared to that of the speaker and the
interpreter is another basic source of difference between these two modes of communicating the
SL message. In translation, the text is self-sufficient and offers all the necessary information,
whereas in interpretation a variety of factors are involved in conveying the message. In other
words, body language, facial gestures and tone of voice are remarkable keys for getting more
information. Thus, the interpreter should really resort to them to get the entire and truthful
message. Regarding the factors of time and space, the translator works in isolation from the
author and the TL reader. Whereas, the context of the situation is the same for the interpreter,
the speaker and the TL audiences. Another point is receiving feedback from the listener which
really helps the interpreter. Kurz(1992, p. 80) explains it this way “ the interpreter is often
involved in immediate interaction with one or other speaker, functioning as himself, asking for
clarification, explanation, repetition etc.”. All these assist the interpreter to resolve any ambiguity
or misunderstanding, to become sure that the audiences get the message. But in translation, in the
case of any problem for the reader the translator is not able to take any step to help the reader.
But “translation can be drafted, revised, criticized and edited before publication. However, the
interpreter must get his version right first time: there is no editor to act as a filter between him
and his listener” (Harris, 1981, p. 159).
The length of the TL version is another case of difference. Jean Herbert (1952) remarks that the
rendering of a speech is usually shorter than the original text, whereas Nida (1964) mentions that
in translation the TL text tends to be a little longer than the SL text . Why is it so? This is related
to the fact that the amount of redundancy in the interpreted utterances is less than that of the
original text., i.e. a speaker may express the same idea several times using several ways, but the
interpreter translates it only once. Another possible reason is the special condition under which
the interpreter is working, which results in the loss of detail in the interpreted version but not the
crucial information.
Interpreters have been reminded not to use literal translation if there is another choice, even if
these literal equivalents are acceptable. Padilla & Martian (1992, p. 202) believe that if using
literal equivalents become a habit for the interpreter, then they will be used automatically,
especially in cases where “they make the transition from easy speeches to faster, more difficult
ones and literal translation seems the only way out. … if they have not learned to consciously
resist the tug of literal equivalences, the quality of the TL version will degenerate rapidly”. Ine
Mary Van Dam offers a way for the interpreter which is called an emergency tactic. This tactic is
used “ if the interpreter can not render all the details, in which case he must interpret the key
ideas and general thread of the speech” (1989, p. 172).
Another important feature of interpreters and specially consecutive interpreters is the ability and
skill of note-taking, which is explained in detail in the following parts of this book.