TB-Point+of+View

In your groups, discuss the questions below, and post the answers on Wiki. a) What is your point of view? b) Who do you agree or disagree with? c) How can you complement what has already been written? d) Do you have any new ideas?

a) What is your point of view? There is a general agreement that Simultaneous Translation has many challenges and it´s considered a tough job. The Interpreter cannot determine the quality of his work alone; he needs the cooperation of the speaker. It became crystal clear that one of the greatest problems of the speaker´s speech is FAST SPEECH. There are many strategies different authors and interpreters develop, such as summarization and termination of service. However, the most important thing we learned during the session “talking to the experts” was that it is believed that the interpreter works on his cognitive level of saturation most of the time. This idea gave our group and idea of what it is like for interpreters, since none of us are interpreters.

b) Who do you agree or disagree with? All sources were well presented, the ideas were clearly stated and all key concepts were well explained. That resulted in a full agreement with the sources we studied. Exploring each source separately we have the following judgment: The text written by Changshuan is very specific and deals directly with the problem of fast speech. It gives real easy steps, very real to an interpreter. So it accomplishes what it was set out to do. The text written by Gile worked very well with the idea of the Effort Models, very useful for interpreting the mind of an interpreter since it is concerned with what actually happens in the process of SI and possible problem triggers for it. In addition the typhtrope hypothesis gives us a valuable starting point to form our own opnion. Finally, it was agreed that the advices given by Maslennikov are great, useful tips. The sources complement each other and give us a solid foundation to start the essay. We did not disagree with any author, although we do have things we would like to add to their work. Nevertheless we thought that the content of the texts we have read is an excellent starting point and explores on a sufficient level the problem we are proposing to solve: the fast delivery of speech.

c) How can you complement what has already been written? Changsuan’s text may be somewhat simplistic. There may be other strategies he could have introduced in his text, such as the use of a virtual device which the author can recognize (the waves of sound) what it has been said and try to work from there.

Another solution to the problem of fast speech proposed by him – that was already used in the past, but it proved being ineffective – is a luminous signal near the translation booth. He could have gone further on this solution, suggesting that this beam should be placed near the speaker. Probably, placing the light near him would be more effective, but only testing this suggestion we could really know its effectiveness.

Gile's text is very technical, but it is very clear, too. It is not necessary to add or complement anything.

As for Maslennikov, he shows a technique that can help an interpreter, but he does not give directions of how to make a glossary, or how can you start making your own glossaries. As the title says, there are some advices, but the author could go deeper, explore more the subject, and maybe teach how to make glossaries. This text could have explored better how to produce and use the glossary, for the glossaries’ ponderation was really good.

d) Do you have any new ideas? Concerning the problem of fast speech, a huge emphasis must be put on the interpreter’s duty to be prepared to such events, that is, interpreters should read not only abstracts of the congress, but also read around the subject area. When someone has a very straight relationship with determinate area, this person will have less difficulty in overcoming a problem such as fast speech.

Abut the tightrope hypothesis, there may be other theories and surveys that can be done concerning it, for it to acquire validity.

Talking with an interpreter that works in some conferences at UFMG, he said that a simultaneous interpreter must read newspapers and magazines, in order to not know just the subject of the conferences he/she interprets, but to know general subjects and know what is happening in the whole world and countries that matter. It is also important to focus the reading. If you are interpreting a conference in which the subject is about Libya, it would be a waste of time reading something about the death of fishes in Australian coast.

Another new idea is that an interpreter must know much more about his own native language than the foreign one. Since his target audience speaks this native language - for instance Portuguese - the interpreter may commit few if any mistakes in this one. If the interpreter does not know a word or expression in the foreign one, he can paraphrase the speaker to explain that using context and background information. But if he/she does not know words or expressions in his own native language, it means that the interpreter has a poor vocabulary, and the interpretation would be compromised.

Another idea is that, according to cognitive sciences, it is much more difficult to produce than to comprehend, in a general way. That means that speaking is more difficult than listening, and a simultaneous interpreter is speaking throughout the whole conference. So, according to this idea and the concept of Effort Models, a simultaneous interpreter spend much more cognitive resources than in a normal speech, as he is listening and speaking at the same time - and in different languages.

At last, it is necessary to say that if someone wants to be a simultaneous interpreter, he/she should not be shy. If this person does not like to talk if front of a great audience, he/she must try to overcome it: take acting lessons, take medicine, go to a psychologist, etc. The question is that an interpreter must be confident.