Written Translation VS. Oral Interpreting
I. WRITTEN TRANSLATION: (Munday, 2013)
The term translation itself has several meanings. It can refer to:
• the general subject field
• the product (the text that has been translated) or
• the process (the act of producing the translation, otherwise known as
translating).
The process of translation between two different written languages involves the
translator changing an original written text (the source text or ST) in the original
verbal language (the source language or SL) into a written text (the target text or
TT) in a different verbal language (the target language or TL). This type
corresponds to ‘interlingual translation’ and is one of the three categories of
translation described by Roman Jakobson (1959/2004: 139) in his seminal paper ‘On
linguistic aspects of translation’. Jakobson’s categories are as follows:
(1) intralingual translation, or ‘rewording’: ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by
means of other signs of the same language’;
(2) interlingual translation, or ‘translation proper’: ‘an interpretation of verbal
signs by means of some other language’;
(3) intersemiotic translation, or ‘transmutation’: ‘an interpretation of verbal signs
by means of signs of non-verbal sign systems’.
II. ORAL INTERPRETING: (Pöchhacker,2009; Gambier & Van Doorslaer,
2010; Costa et al., 2014)
The position of interpreting studies within the broader discipline of translation
studies is curiously ambiguous. Often referred to as a ‘(sub)discipline’, it is both an
increasingly independent and diversified field of academic pursuit, on a par with
translation studies, and a domain within the latter. So, interpreting is often part of a
joint ‘T & I’ curriculum and practiced by professionals engaged (also) in written
translation.
Though subject to fundamental principles and insights concerning translation in
general, interpreting studies is clearly distinguished by its unique object of study, that
is, ‘real-time’ human translation in an essentially shared communicative context.
(Interpreting is commonly referred to as ‘oral’ as opposed to ‘written’ translation,
i.e. as the activity of rendering spoken messages in another language). As early as the
1960s, Otto Kade (1968) defined interpreting as a form of translation (in the wider
sense) in which (a) the source-language text is presented only once and thus cannot be
reviewed or replayed, and (b) the target-language text is produced under time
pressure, with little chance for correction and revision.
Charged with the comprehension and production of verbal messages, the interpreter
has been conceived of as an information processing system relying on memory
structures (working memory, long-term memory) and a number of cognitive subskills,
such as anticipation, inferencing and macro-processing.
1
I. WRITTEN TRANSLATION: (Munday, 2013)
The term translation itself has several meanings. It can refer to:
• the general subject field
• the product (the text that has been translated) or
• the process (the act of producing the translation, otherwise known as
translating).
The process of translation between two different written languages involves the
translator changing an original written text (the source text or ST) in the original
verbal language (the source language or SL) into a written text (the target text or
TT) in a different verbal language (the target language or TL). This type
corresponds to ‘interlingual translation’ and is one of the three categories of
translation described by Roman Jakobson (1959/2004: 139) in his seminal paper ‘On
linguistic aspects of translation’. Jakobson’s categories are as follows:
(1) intralingual translation, or ‘rewording’: ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by
means of other signs of the same language’;
(2) interlingual translation, or ‘translation proper’: ‘an interpretation of verbal
signs by means of some other language’;
(3) intersemiotic translation, or ‘transmutation’: ‘an interpretation of verbal signs
by means of signs of non-verbal sign systems’.
II. ORAL INTERPRETING: (Pöchhacker,2009; Gambier & Van Doorslaer,
2010; Costa et al., 2014)
The position of interpreting studies within the broader discipline of translation
studies is curiously ambiguous. Often referred to as a ‘(sub)discipline’, it is both an
increasingly independent and diversified field of academic pursuit, on a par with
translation studies, and a domain within the latter. So, interpreting is often part of a
joint ‘T & I’ curriculum and practiced by professionals engaged (also) in written
translation.
Though subject to fundamental principles and insights concerning translation in
general, interpreting studies is clearly distinguished by its unique object of study, that
is, ‘real-time’ human translation in an essentially shared communicative context.
(Interpreting is commonly referred to as ‘oral’ as opposed to ‘written’ translation,
i.e. as the activity of rendering spoken messages in another language). As early as the
1960s, Otto Kade (1968) defined interpreting as a form of translation (in the wider
sense) in which (a) the source-language text is presented only once and thus cannot be
reviewed or replayed, and (b) the target-language text is produced under time
pressure, with little chance for correction and revision.
Charged with the comprehension and production of verbal messages, the interpreter
has been conceived of as an information processing system relying on memory
structures (working memory, long-term memory) and a number of cognitive subskills,
such as anticipation, inferencing and macro-processing.
1
