Conference interpreting

Summary

Andy Gillies, a conference interpreter, explores the complexities of defining conference interpreting, tracing its roots to the 1919 Peace Conference. He challenges common definitions based on quality, simultaneous interpreting, and formal settings, noting their limitations. For example, associating conference interpreting solely with simultaneous interpreting overlooks other valid forms like sign language interpreting. He suggests two practical solutions: defining conference interpreting by its mode or abandoning the term altogether in favor of more straightforward terms like simultaneous or consecutive interpreting. Ultimately, the talk emphasizes the need for a more practical and inclusive approach to understanding conference interpreting.

Takeaways

• 😀 The term 'conference interpreting' originated from the Peace Conference of 1919, marking the beginning of multilingual, multilateral meetings requiring interpreters.
• 😀 Early conference interpreting involved consecutive interpreting, which is quite different from the simultaneous interpreting that most interpreters practice today.
• 😀 A definition of conference interpreting helps distinguish it from other types of interpreting, such as medical or court interpreting, and is useful for protecting professional interests.
• 😀 Quality is often considered a defining factor of conference interpreting, but there is no objective measure of quality, and no evidence supports that conference interpreters are universally superior.
• 😀 Simultaneous interpreting is often equated with conference interpreting, but this definition overlooks the complexities, such as whether sign language interpreters practicing simultaneous interpreting are also doing conference interpreting.
• 😀 The setting of the interpreting, such as a formal or institutional environment, is another proposed approach to defining conference interpreting, but the term 'formal' remains vague and challenging to pinpoint.
• 😀 The relationship between participants can also factor into defining conference interpreting, but this too has limitations, as seen in various examples like asylum interviews or political speeches.
• 😀 Combining multiple elements—quality, mode, and setting—into a hybrid definition of conference interpreting might seem comprehensive, but it introduces arbitrary and debatable criteria.
• 😀 A practical approach might define conference interpreting as involving simultaneous interpreting and longer consecutive interpreting, distinguishing it from sentence-by-sentence consecutive interpreting.
• 😀 One simpler solution could be to eliminate the term 'conference interpreting' entirely and refer to it as 'simultaneous interpreting,' which may be clearer to the general public.
• 😀 The debate over the definition of conference interpreting is ongoing, with no definitive conclusion, but it highlights the complexities of the profession and its history.

Q & A

What is the origin of the term 'conference interpreting'?

The term 'conference interpreting' originated from the Peace Conference of 1919, which followed the First World War. This conference involved multiple multilingual meetings, and interpreters were needed to facilitate communication.

What kind of interpreting was initially practiced at the Peace Conference of 1919?

Initially, consecutive interpreting was practiced at the Peace Conference of 1919, rather than the simultaneous interpreting that is more common in modern conference settings.

Why is defining conference interpreting important?

Defining conference interpreting is important to differentiate it from other types of interpreting, such as medical, court, or community interpreting. It also helps to establish clear professional standards, protect working conditions, and design appropriate training courses.

What is one of the challenges in defining conference interpreting based on quality?

One challenge is that there is no objective measure of quality in conference interpreting. While it is sometimes seen as the highest quality, there is no scientific evidence to support that conference interpreters are objectively better than interpreters in other fields.

Is simultaneous interpreting always synonymous with conference interpreting?

Although many believe that simultaneous interpreting is synonymous with conference interpreting, there are exceptions. For instance, sign language interpreters often use simultaneous interpreting but may not always consider themselves conference interpreters.

What is the definition of conference interpreting according to the ISO standard?

According to the ISO standard 20539, conference interpreting is multilingual communication in formal settings. However, the standard does not further define what constitutes a 'formal' setting, making this a point of ambiguity.

What is one difficulty with defining the setting of conference interpreting?

Defining the setting is challenging because 'formal' can be interpreted in different ways, and different formal settings—such as an asylum interview or an international meeting—may not easily be distinguished from one another.

How do the number of participants in a meeting impact the definition of conference interpreting?

The number of participants does not seem to be a defining factor in conference interpreting. Interpreters may work with a wide range of audience sizes, from small groups to over a thousand people, without this affecting the nature of the interpreting.

What is a potential solution to defining conference interpreting?

One possible solution is to combine different elements, such as quality, mode (simultaneous or consecutive), and setting. This could create a more comprehensive but still practical definition. Another simpler solution is to abandon the term 'conference interpreting' and use terms like 'simultaneous interpreting' or 'consecutive interpreting'.

Why is the term 'conference interpreting' sometimes considered anachronistic?

The term 'conference interpreting' can be considered anachronistic because many people outside of the profession do not understand the term. It may be more useful to refer directly to the mode of interpreting (e.g., simultaneous or consecutive) rather than using a specific label tied to conferences.