Directionality in Simultaneous Interpreting Training

Enfoque

Traditionally there are two standpoints regarding directionality in simultaneous interpreting: those favouring interpreting into one’s own mother tongue (direct interpreting) and those advocating interpreting into a foreign language (retour interpreting). However, this dichotomy is challenged by results of recent empirical studies revealing fewer obvious differences between retour and direct interpretation. Notice that one can observe an increasing tendency among trainers to acknowledge the clear need to include retour into curricula in order to cater for the market demands.

This paper is based in an 8-month critical case study aimed to shed light on the long-discussed topic of directionality in interpreting and whether this case’s reality accords with the theoretical debate. The exploration put forward here consists in the analysis of a one-participant interpreting performance; that is, the author of the present paper. Since the final goal of this work is not just to explore the different theories but to boost self-awareness in simultaneous interpreting training, the active interpreter here can only be the author of the research herself. In a way, Taylor and Marchi (2018)’s cry for self-reflexivity is upheld in this study to the fullest: “we might go further to suggest that we can actually replace the goal of increased objectivity with more achievable ones of greater accountability (…) and self-reflexivity” (Taylor and Marchi 2018:12). In other words, being able to see our work critically has potential subjective disadvantages. Nevertheless, no research is entirely objective and directing attention to our own performance can only be considered bravely accountable and transparent. It may also be the source of analytical insights.

After reviewing literature regarding the quality of simultaneous interpreting, in this self-reflective, critical case study we analyse the quality of two interpretations (into the L1 and L2 languages) relying on recordings, transcriptions, retrospective protocols and a complimentary basic survey. The qualitative assessment of interpretations was an exercise of self-reflexivity (as advanced above), but was reinforced by external analytical assessment tools. Furthermore, it was complemented by a quick questionnaire responded to by a range of audience representatives of the different profiles.

As mentioned above, researchers had already revealed that the disparities between retour and direct interpreting are fewer than previously claimed. However, the results for both the self-reflective qualitative assessment and the surveys show a clear disparity with the arguments especially those advocated by those in favour of direct interpreting (the Paris School), clearly disputing both the notion that retour interpreting is more prone to errors and Seleskovitch’s (1968: 43) claim that “only in the A language will the speech production be spontaneous and idiomatic”.

Therefore, including retour interpreting in simultaneous interpreting training curricula would not only prove useful to meet the market demands, but also would offer a more complete and heterogeneous education and wider scope of opportunities to would-be interpreters.