Talk:Interpreting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 ASL Interpreting? 2 History 3 Content taken from interpretation 4 A heavy mistake 5 Interpreting to and from large number of languages

[edit] ASL Interpreting?

ur a kuthi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.75.221 (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Would anyone be interested in seeing an article, or at least a stub, on ASL interpreting specifically? I am a professional interpreter, and neither the article on ASL nor the article on Interpreting apply terribly well to my experiences. The Bearded One 02:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

There is now a section called Sign Language Interpreting ([1]) -- Davelapo555 18:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

What about history? It is said that simultaneous interpreting made its first official appearance for the Nürnberg_trials, after World War II. Any ideas about this? --Adriano 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I like that idea. Any one have any idea where there is a good/reliable source than we can cite? -- Davelapo555 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content taken from interpretation

This was taken from interpretation; it belongs here if it belongs anywhere. --Saforrest 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Consecutive interpretation (interpreting) - a type of conference interpretation when the translator waits for the speaker to finish and then translates the latter's utterance consecutively - it could be of any length - within a reasonable limit so that not to distract the listener (s).

C. i. can be of a dialogue type - when the statement is short enough (without taking notes) or with using interpreters' notes - when the utterances are long enough for the memory to absorb the information and provide adequate result. Common situations in which interpretation is performed consecutively include medical, legal, and other interview settings.

The main difficulty in C. i. Is that the information is dematerialised (that is not available on a carrier - paper, display, screen etc.) but exists only in the form of sound wave. Books: "Applied Theory of Interpretation and Note-Taking" Andrei Chuzhakin, Mir Perevoda 1-7 (same author). Also: [2].

The main benefit of C. i. is that the information is completely understood by the interpreter prior to it being rendered into the target language. Thus, meaning is transferred, rather than the form of the original language. Interpretations produced in consecutive mode are often far more accurate than those produced in simultaneous mode.

Recipients of information also construct meaning, in effect "interpreting" information. For example, in written texts, there are three considerations: the writer, the text and the reader; and these are all interlinked and interdependent. Through the act of interpretation the reader is the one creating meaning; the meaning of the text intended by the writer is potentially overlooked or ignored. The reader produces meaning by participating in a complex of socially defined and enforced practices. Interpretation is an active process of producing values and meanings, a process that always occurs within specific cultural and political contexts, directly linked to the world in which the reader lives.

[edit] A heavy mistake

The article is regretfully itself a total misinterpretation. It ignores not only Commonsense but also the results of the Science from Philosophy to Cybernetics. You might say that it darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge in talking and talking about a peripheral little point instead of the middle point. Interpretation means making sense of signs and signals. As any good dog training book will tell you, every live being is in a way an interpretation machine, which picks from an infinity of signs and signals the ones it wants to interpret. What this process is, how it functions, how it functions not, and by what kriteria the machine decides what to interpret and what not: this, and the scientifical findings as represented in the literature, is what an article on interpretation would have to be about. Translation issues could be mentioned in a very small subsector if at all. --Hanno Kuntze 09:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. What would you like this article to be about? It sounds as if you are talking about perception perhaps? Alfredo22 05:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! It is nice, that you care about what I would like, but my likes are not the kriterium, by which I myself would judge an article, so much less would I expect others to do so. My observation was therefore not about what I would like, and also not at all about perception, but about what a person will expect, when he looks up the term "interpretation" in an encyclopedia. It is certain, that in most cases he will not expect to be directed to a text about instant translating, which is after all only a very tiny part of the concept. The article in the French Wikipedia, which by coincidence goes back to the same unindicated urtext, has the title "interprétation (traduction)", which avoids at least part of the mistake. It also has the correct definition (the one I gave above) on the disambiguation page. So this is the way to go: 1. Give the the present article its rightful title: "Interpreting (translation)". 2. Write an additional article named "Interpretation" giving the correct definition and dealing with all the issues, that I have outlined above, especially the vast research concerning the question, what can make a live being stop doing what comes naturally, i.e. stop interpreting (trying to make sense of signs and signals), and what active and passive mechanisms the live being will then use as a substitute for interpretation. I would of course like and even love to do the work myself, but also in this my likes cannot be the kriterium: my commandment of the English language is not sufficient to write a good article, and certainly not one about a concept as important as Interpretation. --Hanno Kuntze 08:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The English word interpretation has more than one meaning, and your description of interpretation is a valid use. However, I wonder if the philosophical concepts you describe are primarily referred to as interpretation in mainstream academic English papers. What you are describing is certainly important, I just wonder if it is in the right place here (for example, I came to this page for an article on the interpretation of languages-- of course you did not, so that's 50/50). Alfredo22 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I know some of what Hanno is talking about. In formal logic, an "interpretation" is exactly when you fill in all the variables of a general formula with particular statements.

So if we have this relation F that exists between two objects: (written Fxy). We can assign a meaning to that relation F, and assign names of some actual objects that satisfy that relationship:

Domain of discourse: People(P):{Fred, Mike, Ed}

Binary Relations that exist in the domain: Father(F):{Father,Child}

So one interpretation of Fxy is:

F:{x is the father of y}

...and...

a:F(Fred,Mike) (or "Fred is the father of Mike")

b:F(Mike,Ed) (or "Mike is the father of Ed")

Another interpretation of Fxy might be:

F:{x knows y's birthday}

a:F(Fred,Mike) (or "Fred knows Mike's birthday")

b:F(Mike,Ed) (or "Mike knows Ed's birthday")

In this case, the two interpretations are talking about the same domain. If all of these particular fathers know their son's birthday, then the formula Fxy is satisfied by both interpretations.

This is what it means for there to be an interpretation in formal logic. Furthermore, what is true in formal logic is intended to be true for all rational beings. So this is really what is happening when one person has a "different interpretation of things" than another. At some point there should be an article on this aspect.

Greg Bard 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created Interpretation (logic) as a response to this discussion. Pontiff Greg Bard 15:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interpreting to and from large number of languages

Can someone describe how does UN general assembly interpretors work? Do they directly interpret from the speaker's language to their target language? What if there's no interpretors with fluent knowledge of both languages? Also what if the speaker uses a native language that is not UN official language (i.e. head of state that uses his native language). --Voidvector 21:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)