Fascitis necrotizante cervical

The discussion of interpreting types in this category is a descriptive one; for the controversy over the quality of retour interpreting, see 2.2.2.2.2 SI into B.

2.1.2.3.1 Bilateral interpreting

Interpreters usually work in one direction at a time, but there are situations where interpreters work in two directions with each of the languages involved becoming interchangeably the SL and TL. The interpreter then works in both directions and clients alternately become speaker and audience during the same interpreted dialogue which is different from monologues typical of CISs (Pöchhacker 2004: 20) . The former situations are typical of ‘interpreter-mediated communication’ in ‘face-to-face interaction’ such as business negotiations, police and immigration interviews, lawyer-client, doctor-patient encounters, etc. (Mason 1999: 147). These are also referred to as ‘bilateral interpreting’, ‘liaison interpreting’4_{, ‘dialogue interpreting’ (Pöchhacker 2004: 20), ‘community}

interpreting’, ‘ad hoc interpreting’ (Mason ibid), ‘three-way interaction’ or ‘triadic exchange’ (Mason 2001: ii).

2.1.2.3.2 Retour interpreting

In CISs, however, directionality is described in terms of ‘retour’ and ‘relay’ interpreting (Pöchhacker 2004: 21). Retour interpreting refers to interpreting out of the interpreter’s A language (Jones 1998: 134), usually into the B language.

According to Lim (2003) and Pöchhacker (2004: 21), retour or ‘A-to-B interpreting’ in SI is still not as widely accepted in Western Europe as in other parts of the world (e.g. Asia), but with ever changing language markets and more enlargements of the EU, retour interpreting is more likely to gain ground and be more widely accepted in Europe and elsewhere especially when the situation involves ‘exotic’ languages as this usually makes it difficult to find a sufficient number of interpreters who can do the normal B-to-A direction.

4 _{This should not mean that liaison interpreting refers exclusively to interpreting in community/business}

settings. The very definition of liaison interpreting as a form of interpreting in ‘spontaneous conversational settings’ (Hatim and Mason 1997: 219), Pöchhacker’s (2004: 16f) positioning of liaison interpreting in the middle ground between community and conference interpreting, and Gentile et al.’s (1996: ix) reference to ‘liaison interpreting in non-conference settings’ indicate that liaison interpreting can be used to refer to a variety of interpreting settings including high-level ones as long as the interpreting instance is conversational, not monologic (see also Keith 1984: 312).

Jones (1998) argues that a number of things have to be borne in mind in retour interpreting5. First, there are nuances of meaning and stylistic effects that are difficult to express in the foreign language, which means interpreters should remember that their role is to achieve communication and thus must concentrate on relaying the speaker’s ideas without falling into the ‘trap’ of attempting to provide a perfect translation which is impossible to achieve in any case (ibid: 134). Second, interpreters should be careful in their choice of the style or register which should not be pompous or too familiar, but suitable to the occasion. Third, since in retour interpreting linguistic difficulties of expression are somewhat greater than when working into the mother tongue, interpreters should avoid complex grammatical structures and use short and simple sentences to avoid making grammatical mistakes or forgetting the beginnings of sentences (ibid: 135f).

2.1.2.3.3 Relay interpreting

Relay interpreting is defined as ‘a mediation from source to target language in which the translational product has been realised in another language than that of the original’ (Dollerup 2000: 19). This type is used when one member or a number of other members in the team of interpreters in a certain conference cannot cover all the working languages of the conference and is usually carried out into or out of a ‘rare language’ (Bowen and Bowen 1986: 409). Such a situation could obtain at UN meetings where if an Arabic or Spanish interpreter or both do not understand the language spoken on the floor (say Chinese), they will have to rely on the output of their English, French or Russian colleagues to interpret the speech into Arabic/Spanish. The English/French/Russian interpreter is usually referred to as the ‘pivot’ (AIIC 2004). The consequence of this is that the Arabic/Spanish interpreter’s SL is practically not Chinese any more, but either one of the aforementioned (pivot) languages. This might have implications on the quality of interpreting (2.2.2.4.2.3 Relay interpreting and quality).

Thus, according to Seleskovitch and Lederer (1995: 173f; see also AIIC 2004), some considerations should be borne in mind when relay interpreting is used. First, interpreters depending on relay cannot hear the original speaker and thus they will not be able to utilise the original’s prosodic features (rhythm, stress, intonation, etc.) which are complementary

elements that help in understanding the message. Second, because of their lack of knowledge of the original language, interpreters taking from relay may not understand some culture-specific references, nuances of meaning and the like. Third, they might not be aware of the local, political or geographical circumstances of the country the original speaker represents. Fourth, they might find it difficult to pronounce names of people or places since they do not know the original language. Finally, and more importantly, there might be the extra difficulty of being too distant in time from the original speaker due to the inevitable extra time lag which is normally more excessive in relay than normal situations (cf. also Jones 1998: 137; Dollerup 2000: 20).

These considerations impose on pivots certain demands that should be met to help their colleagues whose output depends on relay to achieve their task successfully. Clarity is the most important of these demands. For other problems of relay and guidelines to follow when using relay interpreting, see Seleskovitch and Lederer (1995: chapter 4), Jones (1998: 136-139) and AIIC (2004).