Oral Translation

As you can see, interpreting is nothing but translation that is oral and not written. However, Daniel Gile notes how there are people who argue that there is absolutely no common ground between translation and interpreting (41). We can identify certain dissimilarities which are mainly in the way in which the activity is carried out in both systems:

a) The translator has to be strong in writing skills whereas the interpreter needs speaking skills. In fact, the interpreter should develop what Gile describes as a good ‘microphone personality’ (41). They have to learn how to use their voice effectively.

b) Interpreters have to be constantly on their toes as they do not have time to refer to other sources of knowledge. Any information that they need has to be acquired beforehand. The translator of a written text is more relaxed in this respect.

c) Decision making in interpreting has to be done in a split second, whereas translators have more time for this.

The translator of a written text has time on her side, as she can choose what to translate, how to translate and when to deliver the final translation. All of these are luxuries for the interpreter. The interpreter works against time, and what is most important is that she never gets the time to polish her translation. One word that is mistranslated can spell disaster not just for the interpreter,but for the act of dialogue that she is translating. She also has to have highly developed listening skills, as she is always listening along with the person whom she is translating for.