|
I have just been reading the transcript of oral arguments (PDF) before the US Supreme Court. in KOUICHI TANIGUCHI v. KAN PACIFIC SAIPAN, LTD, case no. 10-1472, the "famous" ongoing case where translation and interpretation will hopefully and authoritatively be said to be two different things - it's anyway always a delight to read court transcripts where distinguished judges interact with learned counsel other than by adjudicating on petitions, objections etc :-) - and was struck by the exchanges on what was referred to as both sight T and sight I.
Wouldn't you thus say that "sight T" is a misnomer and it must be "sight I"?? |
|
Whether you call it translation or interpretation, the process is the same:
It's fact of life that there are different names for the same thing -- or place -- like Death Cab for Cutie sing so well. The casual reader may wish to refer to the Unprofessional Translation blog for some useful background on this question Thank you very much, Vincent. I do agree this question of mine and/or answers thereto will in all likelihood not change the universe as we know it ;-), I however do not think that six and half-a-dozen convey the exact same thing, as any owner of a dozen will tell you... and we are, in other professional contexts, paying the price for not having been able/willing to take ownership of some of our terminology, ie consecutive. When you find the time to read the transcript, I hope you'll see that I WAS singing for our supper, much like in your welcome link :-):
(22 Apr '12, 18:46)
msr
Well @msr, I may be wearied at quixotic fights, especially when bona fide ignorance is at play. Quoting from Unprofessional Translation: US Supreme Court Justice Scalia drew laughter when he offered a suggestion to explain why lower courts have sometimes allowed the billing of translation costs as interpretation:
(22 Apr '12, 19:12)
Vincent Buck ♦♦
Thank you very much again, Vincent :-). One man's "quixotic" fight is of course another man's Supreme Court case... and I have always tried to distinguish between ignorance, bona fide or otherwise, and stupidity... but hey, it's a big, wide world :-) and I still hope to elicit some substantive replies.
(23 Apr '12, 08:09)
msr
+1 I agree. See also the related question on "translation" and "interpretation" definitions: http://interpreting.info/questions/1100
(26 Apr '12, 06:30)
Nacho ♦
|
|
Being a real fan of sight translation for interpreter training purposes, I have done some research into the subject. What I have learned is that there are two differente techniques, one is "sight translation" and the other one is "first sight translation". To explain this in a few words it suffices to say that in the former case you give your students a text that they can read and analyze for a few minutes before starting to actually translate it orally. In the latter case you give your student a text and without any previous analysis they have to start translating "on the fly". Perhaps we may call this last case "sight interpretation". Although I believe that it is only a terminological difference. What matters is the purpose that these techniques serve, but that will take pages and pages to explain. For what it is worth, I wrote an article on "traducción a primera vista" that you can find at La traducción a primera vista: el primer paso en el camino de la interpretación simultánea if you want to know more about the use of this technique in interpreter training programs. Thank you very much, Veronica, I'm afraid your link did not make it. I've got a PhD thesis on the subject (for the life of me cannot remember how it made it into my hard drive!) by Amparo Jimenez Ivars, at Universitat Jaume I, dated 1999, "La Traducción a la vista. Un análisis descriptivo", yours for the asking :-) - pdf,439 pgs.
(29 Apr '12, 13:44)
msr
Thank you, Manuel!!!! Now, the link is visible. Has your phD thesis been published at the CIRIN Bulletin? If it has not, you should let Daniel Gile of its existence. I would love to read it!!!
(29 Apr '12, 19:50)
Vero
...you're very welcome! Have just emailed it to you... and really don't remember whether Daniel ever published it, have just quickly checked a dozen bulletins after '99 and found no reference, will ask him :-)... in the meantime, have found a link to the thesis, here goes http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/10564
(29 Apr '12, 20:35)
msr
|
|
For what it's worth: At Leipzig University, we use(d) to call this "Dolmetschen vom Blatt" (interpreting off of a sheet [of paper]). Thank you very much, Alexander... is that the common designation in German or only at Leipzig?
(23 Apr '12, 15:58)
msr
In fact, in the German University I studied, we called it "Vom-Blatt-Übersetzen" so here again the limits of "translation" and "interpretation" are very blurred. See http://interpreting.info/questions/1100
(26 Apr '12, 06:33)
Nacho ♦
Thank you very much, Nacho, the more the merrier :-).
(26 Apr '12, 10:26)
msr
|
|
Dear Nacho, please if you have the thesis you mentioned in English language post it to me here; becz i do really need any article or thesis related to "Sight Translation" and i will be very gratifying to you Yours, Ahmed |
...the opinion of the Supreme Court - affirming that "interpreter" taxable costs do not cover translation ones - has been published, along with a dissenting opinion, both covering the sight T vs. I issue I mentioned :-)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1472.pdf