The widely held view of language interpretation is that of translating verbally, and so perhaps we could define interpreting as ‘spoken translation.’ However, describing it this way may leave a large number of interpreters feeling a little left out, such as those who interpret non-verbal languages such as sign language. Another issue which arises when language interpretation is described as ‘spoken translation’ is that it is inferred that the two disciplines rely on the same skills and knowledge, when in reality the skills set of the interpreter is actually very different from that of the translator, due to the physical differences between the two activities. The widely-held view of language interpretation being merely ‘spoken translation’ is not the only problem with the definition of ‘language interpretation’. The term has various meanings, and therefore lends itself well to misinterpretation (please pardon the pun, I couldn’t help myself).

Of course there are also many areas in which the two disciplines differ, and most linguists will have an opinion on the subject. So, taking this into account, should we define language interpretation with the word translation at all? Surely, this is one of the reasons that so many people cannot differentiate between the two practices. Pöchhacker and Shlesinger offer a definition in their 2002 The Interpreting Studies Reader (p.3), using the phrase ‘interlingual, intercultural oral or signed mediation’ in place of translation. Perhaps this is the best way to define language interpretation, and to set it apart from translation once and for all… but it isn’t the catchiest, is it?

Do you think there is too much confusion between language interpretation and translation, and do you have any ideas for a better definition?

Contact us for more information of our ‘language interpretation’ services.