Introduction

The study of translation has been dominated, and to a degree still is, by the debate about its
status as an art or a science, so in order to determine the inclination towards the one or the other,
several definitions are being proposed emphasizing its linguistic, communicative and semantic
features.
a)Translation is a textual operation, an activity that is performed on a text and the result of
which always produces a text.
b) Translation is an important means which ensures the communicative function
achievement by means of language where people express their ideas in different languages, it is
an interlingual communicative act.
c) Translation refers to transferring the meaning of what has been said in what language by
means of the other.
Translating is the process of producing a new text in a language that is different from the
language of a source text which acts as the main stimulus and reference for writing the new text.
Translation Studies develop the common principles of the translation process based on a
functional dependence.
Translation is classified according to certain criteria:
a) Formal types: written and oral translation (consecutive and simultaneous)
b) According to the level of analysis: word level, phrase level, clause and sentence level,
paragraph level, text level, pragmatics, socio-cultural level;
c) According to the aim of translation: full written, referential, adnotational translation.
Referential translation-expressing the main ideas of the original text in the TT. It is usually
accompanied with standards concerning the length, font, number of pages)
Adnotational translation- not longer than a paragraph, can be limited to 2-3 sentences. It is a
contact conveyance of the meaning by means of another language.
The aims of translation:
-to thoroughly and exactly render the content of the original presenting it stylistic and
expressive peculiarities.
-the translator has 2 tasks: to understand the content, to convey exactly and completely the
content.
-the translator must:
a) have a certain amount of vocabulary (specific terminology in a certain field)
b) to know the grammar;
c) possess the translation techniques, be able to work with the dictionaries.
d) to be acquainted with the field of translated text.
Translation and Interpreting
If asked what the difference is between translation and interpreting, laypeople may come up with
the rather general characterization that translation is concerned with written texts and
interpreting with oral speech.
For example, Kade (1968) introduced a time factor as the basic differentiating criterion: the
availability of the source text. For a translator, the source text is available in some fixed form (for
example, printed on paper or recorded on a tape) until the target text has been produced. This
allows the translator to refer back to the source text as often as necessary and to correct and
revise the target text, using a variety of tools. Therefore, the final target text may be the result of
several attempts, having been produced in several stages from a first draft to the final product.
An interpreter, in contrast, gets only one attempt at producing the target text as output as the

source text is presented to the interpreter orally and only once and the target text has to be
produced immediately.
There is no possibility for consulting tools and only a very limited possibility for correcting the
output. The possibility for checking comprehension of the source text and correcting the target
text depends on the type of interpreting: for example, checking comprehension is possible in the
case of liaison interpreting but not for simultaneous interpreting with the interpreter working in a
booth. Even if the source text is available in some fixed form to a conference interpreter (i.e. as a
copy of a speech), the actual input is the orally delivered speech (which may differ from the
prepared written text).
The differences in the working conditions and practices of translators and interpreters are
undeniable and these differences demand different skills. For example, memorising and notetaking skills are important for interpreters but not to an equal degree for translators. In addition
to differences, translation and interpreting also have features in common. They have indeed been
described as two modes of mediated communication or two modes of language mediation (for
example, Kade, 1968, Shlesinger, this volume, p. x). But what do we really know about these
two modes? What exactly are the common features and what are the differences? With which
methods can we conduct research into translation and into interpreting? Who is conducting this
research? Which discipline describes and explains translation and interpreting?Are the two
modes objects of one and the same discipline or rather of different (sub-)disciplines?
Translation and interpreting activities are almost as old as mankind. Interpreting as an activity is
actually older than translation but translation has been the object of research more often than
interpreting.
Apart from the age difference, TR and IR have also addressed different topics. In the literature
on translation, a variety of topics, such as philosophical arguments on translatability, linguistic
aspects (such as equivalent structures between source language and target language), textual and
discursive features (in respect to text types, genres, genre conventions, text functions),
situational, cultural, historical, ideological and sociological issues (for example, the impact
of translation on cultural developments, the relevance of norms for translation behaviour, the
facilitating or impeding role of power relations), have been dealt with. In this context, the very
notion of translation itself has been defined differently and/or set apart from such notions as
adaptation, rewriting and language mediation. In TR, the study of literary texts has been a major
concern but due to the development of the translation industry and market needs, more
recently non-literary texts have received more attention (new keywords are, for example,
software localisation and media translation). Research on interpreting, in contrast, originally
focused on the interpreting process, i.e. on such features as working memory, human processing
capacity, time lag, attention span and cognitive skills. Conference interpreting, performed in the
simultaneous mode, was at the centre of initial research but other forms of interpreting,
especially community interpreting and similar forms of face-to-face interaction have recently
seen more attention. Related to this, the communicative and social dimensions of interpreting as
well as ethical and sociological issues are being addressed (see the contribution by Jan
Cambridge to this volume, and Thomas [2003] on the role of interpreters in conflict situations
such as wars). Gile provides an overview of the topics that have been addressed in TR and IR
and he also comments on the different research paradigms and the variety of research methods
that have been applied.

TR has been conducted on the basis of a number of approaches or models for a review of
different models and Chesterman [1997] on memes which are reflected in metaphorical
definitions of translation such as rebuilding, copying, imitating, creating, transcoding, sending,

or manipulating). In interpretation research, as Gile points out, the foci and methods are also
spread over a rather wide spectrum. In analogy to Chestermans memes of translation, Franz
Pochhacker (this volume) suggests two overriding ideas as supermemes in the history of ideas
about interpreting: interpreting as process(ing) and as communicative activity. In his contribution
he outlines methodological approaches (paradigms) which have been influential in IR, e.g.
Seleskovitchs (1975) interpretive theory, approaches focusing on cognitive processing in
(mostly simultaneous) interpreting, neuroscientific experimental approaches and interpretermediated encounters as discourse in interaction.
Interpreting as interaction and the (communicative, social, ethical) role of the interpreter has
become a very prominent paradigm in IR today. A view of interpreting as a form of social action,
as a norm-based, socially constituted activity is also stressed by Moira Inghilleri in her
contribution. She argues that interpreters are influenced by social and political contexts and that
in their work they are caught up in larger social configurations of power and control.
Studying how sociological and ideological determinants function within interpreting contexts
will thus provide valuable insights (in Inghilleris own case, studying interpreting norms that
operate in asylum interviews). The organizational setting and its impact on the interpreters
performance and on the reception of his/her output by the audience has recently been studied by
Diriker
(2001). She analysed the roles, expectations and interactions between all parties involved in an
interpreting event, i.e. interpreters, conference organisers, speakers, audience, technicians, and
illustrated the active role of simultaneous interpreters in shaping the event. In other words, her
study is an example of describing interpreting events in terms of a full participation framework,
as suggested by Ian Mason in his contribution to this volume. Mason proposes the use of a
participation framework as a research model that can be applied equally to translation and
interpreting. He argues that similarities are apparent as soon as both translating and interpreting
are seen as interactional events and he illustrates how interactional pragmatic variables such as
footing, politeness and relevance are central to the concerns of translators and interpreters alike.
It is the similarities between translation and interpreting, the shared features, which motivate
contributors to this volume to look for models, frameworks, and research methods that can
equally be applied to study the two modes. The methodological framework presented by Mariana
Orozco (thisvolume) is one such attempt to allow scholars from both fields to join forces
and proceed in the same way. It is open for discussion, however, whether a research
methodology can be developed which will be able to account for all components of translation
and interpreting, or indeed whether we need such a methodology at all.
In the development of both TR and IR, it has always been the case that traditional paradigms
have expanded and new ones have been established. These developments have also been
influenced by the impact of related disciplines, notably linguistics, literary studies, philosophy,
sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, cultural studies for TR, and cognitive psychology,
psycholinguistics,
neurophysiology, neurolinguistics for IR. Some of these neighbouring disciplines seem to be
relevant either for TR or for IR. For example, neurolinguistics has been primarily applied for
research into the cognitive aspects of the interpreting process, although it is potentially equally
applicable to researching the cognitive aspects of translation (in addition to Think-Aloud
Protocol studies). Linguistics has traditionally been of importance both to TR and IR, whereas
sociology is becoming more influential in the context of the currently growing interest in ethical
and sociological issues of both translation and interpreting. In other words, interdisciplinarity is a
keyword for both TR and IR. This aspect is linked to the question of the very nature of
translation studies and interpreting studies as (sub) disciplines.
As Gile argues, since translation and interpreting share so much, the differences between them
can help shed light on each. The idea that each step in the investigation of one can contribute
valuable input towards investigation of the other is supported by all contributors to this volume.

Gambier also points out that the objects of our research, i.e. translation and interpreting, are
themselves undergoing transformation, due to the development of information and
communication technologies and the growing globalisation of exchanges (new
forms have emerged, such as media translation, translation for and on the
Internet, tele-interpreting, not to forget signed-language interpreting). These changes will have
an impact on how we define and research translation and
interpreting. In Gambiers words, researchers should review their objects and methods
Progress in TR and IR can also come about by new forms of research, such as joint projects
across the translation/interpreting divide, multinational teams dealing with medium- and longterm projects and joint research projects with specialists in other fields. The diversity of the
professional environment of translators and interpreters, in which boundaries often become
blurred as new technologies develop, offers wide scope for research.
It could be interesting, for example, to study the translation strategies of interpreters in
comparison to those of translators, and this could be done by involving the practitioners
themselves, i.e. practising translators and interpreters
The growing academisation of the field is coupled with a search for effective ways of teaching
translation and interpreting. In order to achieve progress in the long term, it is necessary to train
highly qualified professional translators and interpreters (see, for example, Pochhacker and
Kadric [1999] on the problems associated with the still widely observed practice of using
untrained bilingual speakers as interpreters) and also the next generation of qualified researchers.
Advances in research and in training will ultimately also bring benefits to the professional
practice, for example in respect of qualification norms, statutory recognition, the social status of
translators and interpreters, and more
public awareness of translation and interpreting in general.