5 key differences between interpreting and translation

Time to call a spade a spade: many people think translation and interpreting are all the same and interchangeable, but they could not be more opposite. Quite often, the term translator is used loosely to encompass both careers, but that is not correct and some interpreters may find it annoying. So here are a few key differences:

Written x Spoken

The main difference is that translation involves written content, whereas interpreting handles language at the time it is spoken. Therefore, translation has to do with written texts. Interpreting is all about the spoken word. One is done in real-time. The other is delayed.

Reading

Reading is always a component of translation. A central thing translators do is reading not only for scanning, skimming or detailed understanding. A good translator will also imagine what the source text would sound like in the target language. That’s why not everyone who can speak two languages can translate well. We connect ideas and rebuild them. We reflect on how much of the context the target audience may grasp and what will be lost because it can’t be translated (we call these SCI aka, culture-specific items). But mostly, we remind ourselves about how people usually write. This means reading as a translator also involves thinking in both languages and trying as much as possible to get the message clear and not apparently translated. It’s like plastic surgery; it is only well done if you can’t tell. It also takes time and may require revisiting later. Lots of research is involved.

Interpreting does not always involve reading. When it does, it may involve learning how to sound like an expert without necessarily being one, i.e., getting the hang of key words for when they pop up in someone’s speech and understanding how ideas will likely flow. It may also require sounding out a text in a different language from the one they have been written on. We may be looking at a document, an academic paper or slides in English whilst speaking in Portuguese, for instance. We call that sight-translation and it is a misnomer as it is still a mode of interpreting. Reading for sight-translation means we look necessary changes in word order, restructuring and other strategies. It also means there is usually little to no time to look up words or think much. And yes, depending on how technical a text is, it may not be sight-translatable. I have had complex medical documents being served in court which I kindly advised required written translation.

The input

The input for translation is always written. Work is delivered in hard copy, or in typical formats such as pdfs, word and others. There is also input from software such as Memsource and Trados, which enable translators to work faster and more accurate. Still, translators need to do a lot of research.

The input for interpreting is the speakers themselves and/or materials they want to present orally. Often, this means there is more room to work with intonation, facial expressions, and feelings happening at the moment delivering. Interpreters step into the unknown and have little to no control of what the original speakers might do.

Accuracy

Because translation is a delayed process, it provides room for as high a level of accuracy as possible. That also implies an extra level of demand. Translators are thorough cross-language researchers. You need to go from what is being said, to what you think it should be, to how someone may have said or would have said it before in that language.

Interpreters, on the other hand, excel at cultural improvisation. Sometimes, it is almost like acting: you need to behave so exactly like that person that you can’t really feel or think about anything but what they are saying/expressing. And you need to find the right words quickly. Depending on the setting, interpreters are allowed to summarise, leave out information or add something that will enable better understanding (like a “spoken footnote”).

Personal skills required

Interpreting is massively for the extroverted. It requires thinking on your feet, assertiveness, talkativeness and being okay with noisy environments. You need to be able to keep talking under pressure and enjoy public speaking. An interpreter may, for instance, consecutively repeat what someone has just said in another language in front of hundreds of people. We may also work with a peer, often in confined spaces called booths. There is a lot of teamwork, getting and receiving feedback and being put on the spot involved.

Translation is more on the introvert side. You enjoy solitude, peace and quiet and working on your own. Most of the interaction with clients and peers is done remotely, either by phone of email. For translation, it is important to enjoy abiding by tight deadlines which may mean you get really snowed under one week and have nothing to do at all the next. It may also mean someone else will check your work for accuracy.

As you can see, there are several key differences between intepreting and translation. I myself enjoy both and like the balance of working with both. What about you? Which one do you prefer?