REFLECTIONS ON CONFERENCE INTERPRETING

Anne Randle, B.A. (HONS) Cantab., (AIIC, ADICA)

Publicado en "Molinos de Viento", revista de la Asociación de Traductores Públicos e Intérpretes de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (ATIBA), en octubre de 1998

Simultaneous interpreting is, of course, a very new profession, born after the second World War with the development of the electronic equipment that made it physically possible for the first time.  Before that all interpreters worked in consecutive and some of the "greats" achieved such a level of capability as has been rarely rivalled since.   One of the leading interpreters of the post-war period is remembered by his colleagues, sitting at his desk listening to the speakers of the day, his head plunged between his hands, for over two hours.  He would then raise his head and repeat all that had been said....   Subsequent checks on recordings of what had been said proved him to be entirely accurate!
Of course the memory capacity  does develop enormously if one works with consecutive regularly, (a condition being that to interpret at length  one must understand what is being discussed.  It is impossible to do lengthy bouts of simultaneous on abstruse questions of engineering unless one is familiar with that particular subject).  But even so, such achievements are really extraordinary.
However, consecutive is not used so often to-day and I really wanted to discuss a matter which I think is of interest particularly to interpreters who are working in Argentina into languages other than Spanish.  And for this purpose I thought I would record some of my early experiences.
When I first began to interpret at the beginning of the '60's there was very little to be had by way of training in this country.  I was tested by colleagues who were already working and found that I did not know how to begin with simultaneous although I was quite good at consecutive.  They told me to go home and practise with newspapers and the radio.   I got a young girl to come and read Spanish newspapers aloud to me, and then I practised going into English.  I went back after a few months, was tested and took off !!   All of which goes a long way to confirm the findings of a study by UNESCO on the training of interpreters.  They came up with the following conclusions:  that if a person had a good general degree in Languages, Humanities, or perhaps Law (I had taken a degree at Cambridge in Modern Languages: French and Spanish), a certain "furniture of the mind", plus (and this is the key to the question) a natural ability to develop the reflexes required - then the training should only take about 6 months.  The languages should normally come from a family or diplomatic background  or at least have been acquired by considerable exposure to life in the given language  environment.
This last condition obviously imposes limitations for many aspirants to the profession in Argentina, since their second language, usually English, is often acquired locally and owing to Argentina's geographical location, it is difficult for students to spend long periods in foreign countries. However, the trend towards reduction in the cost of international air-fares may help to solve this problem in the future .and Argentine students will be able to enjoy foreign exchange holidays in the way that is so common in Europe to-day.
And this brings me to the matter which often bothered me in my early interpreting days.  For it seemed obvious to me that the interpreter should not be too literal in his/her version of what was being said.   Interpretation in fact involves a complicated mental process of capturing the message in the original language, mentally translating it, and then re-transmitting  the message in the other language.   This final step, re-transmitting the original message, was often not well taken by many interpreters with whom I worked, especially when the active language was other than Spanish.  In Spanish the failure was far less marked, since people were born and bred in Argentina and naturally expressed themselves in their native fashion.  But English and French versions, which I was in a position to judge, were often very deficient in this respect.
However, with no formal training and only experience acquired on the spot, I could not be too categorical on these matters ;  until I went with my family to live in Paris for over two years in the late sixties and began to work at UNESCO.  I can still remember my amazement at hearing Christophe Thiery in the booth with me.  He was a regular interpreter at the Quai D'Orsay and worked for the French President and was also  a lecturer at the ESIT,  the interpreting school where interpreters received a rigorous training ( then and now)  in Paris.  When he began to speak it was like listening to some-one chatting cosily at home !!  There was none of the stilted and often difficult language that I had often found so hard to listen to.  So all my doubts disappeared and I was confirmed in what had always been my instinctive approach.  Something that years of working in Geneva with the International Organisations was later to drive home again and again.
This is not to say, of course, that an interpreter may stray from the original meaning, but the message should always be delivered in terms that are easy and familiar to the listener.  For a poor delegate to have to listen to hours of stilted and laboured language - plus the discomfort of the ear-phones - is a penance indeed.  And so often the interpreter could do a much better job, but owing to a mistaken desire for "fidelity" does not complete the last part of the interpreting process, being unaware that it is required.
I should add that when doing written translation I always translate into the other language first time round, then go to bed.  The next day I read what I have written and put it into the language it has to be turned into.  I expect that most professional translators do the same.  And it is that final polishing process that is also required in interpretation !