Chapter 6: Characteristic peculiarities of professional interpretation

The finest language is mostly made up of simple unimposing words.

George Eliot

6.1. Intellectual requirements

People often imagine that knowledge of languages is sufficient to make an interpreter. Of course it is a prerequisite, as are two hands for a professional boxer. But just as the fact of having two hands does not make a boxer, so the knowledge of different languages, be they many or few, does not make an interpreter. It is only an instrument which you must learn how to use in a particular way – for which you may or may not be gifted.

The basic qualities required of the interpreter are not exceptionally rare, but their combination is very uncommon. They are:

a) a capacity for being passively receptive, i.e. for drinking in readily and without any personal reaction all that may be said by the speaker;

b) the type of quick-wittedness which makes for prompt and effective repartee, interpretation being a sort of mental game of tennis;

c) a good memory, because all the tricks of the trade are intended only to make up for its deficiencies. Two things are expected of the interpreter’s memory: first, that it should store up an exceptionally large vocabulary in various languages and supply instantly the required word or phrase; second, that it should retain for a very brief period (seldom more than one hour) a picture as full, detailed, and accurate as possible of what has just been said – after which the interpreter will be well advised to wash his mind clear of most of what he has memorized! In this latter function, the interpreter’s memory is therefore the reverse of the comedian’s. Whereas the actor has ample time to learn his part, gradually and methodically, and is then expected to remember it over a long period and repeat it on a succession of occasions, the interpreter must wholly commit to his memory fleeting thoughts and words as they fly past, and then bring them back to mind only once, a very short while later.

The work of the translator and that of the interpreter are fundamentally different and can hardly be combined. Very rare indeed are the people who can do both. The reason for this is clear: the translator can or should search at leisure for the accurate term, as well as endeavor to express himself in the best possible grammar and style: he may re-write the same paragraph ten times or more, improving it each time; he may consult all dictionaries and reference books, and ask for help and advice. The interpreter, on the other hand, is given hardly any time to think, can consult neither books nor friends, and must “put across”, immediately and as accurately as possible, whatever the speaker wishes to convey. But he may express nuances by varying the tone of his voice, he may paraphrase when he does not find the exact word, he may repeat, correct or add to what he has just said, if he sees that he was not properly understood. These are in reality two contrary techniques which are mutually destructive. More often than not, the interpreter is very highly-strung and must in his profession stand a long and continuous strain which is hard to bear.