Tanslation and Interpretation
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Tanslation and Interpretation
As many people know that, tanslation and interpretation are two hard tasks as a result of that whether a translator or a interpretor requires to be familiar with not only his or her native language but the target language. Therefore, there would be plenty of difficultie when one wants to be one of them. Now, what I want to discuss is the obstacle and difference between translation and interpretation. First, if we want to do translation, we need to gather as many vocabulary words as possible, and then we must be very familiar with the target language and our native language. If we do not understand the habitual usage and the structure of anther language, that would always cause misunderstanding. For example, the phrase"I do not like her because she is rich" is different from"I do not like her, because she is rich." In fact, a native English speaker can quickly tell the differce; however, to a non-native English speaker, the meaning may seem the same. Hence, good translators has to master in some parts of the language system, like grammar, to know the slight difference between two languages. Second, in comparison to pure translation, interpretation, on some aspect, is more difficult than it. I consider listening comprehension is the main and hardest barrier to overcome. For example, when we suddenly hear a sentence different from our landguage, then, if we cannot react or realise it in time, it would be impossible for us to interpret it. As a result, despite translation and interpretation are alike in picking up enough words and understand the structure of the target language;however, when it comes to certain differences above, they are not the same.
Re: Tanslation and Interpretation
Uh...what's the difference? I'm a native speaker, and I can't tell.coerce wrote: For example, the phrase"I do not like her because she is rich" is different from"I do not like her, because she is rich." In fact, a native English speaker can quickly tell the differce; however, to a non-native English speaker, the meaning may seem the same.
-
Tessa Olive
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:05 am
- Location: Sydney
Likewise. English is my L1 and I can't see any difference in the two sentences re: liking her because she's rich except the latter has a comma.
I usually consider a translator to be someone who works on written texts and an interpretor as someone who interprets the spoken word.
Characteristics of written texts are that they are generally less dependent on context, are lexically dense and the writer and reader are distant. A good translator of written texts would have to know extremely well the language into which the text is being translated. One would have to be very skilled in capturing the essence of the L1 and skillfully writing it in the L2 in an acceptable and appropriate way, taking into consideration those written language characteristics. Translators don't have to think on their feet (unlike interpretors); they have time to work on the written text.
Interpretors on the other hand often have to do real time interpreting. An interpretor's skill lies in understanding the spoken text and producing language almost simultaneously. Characteristics of the spoken language is that it's dependent on context, it's more personal, it isn't as lexically dense, there is non-verbal language like hand gestures, facial expressions, and the speaker and listener are close.
So translating and interpreting are not the same and someone may be good at one and not at the other.
Tessa.
I usually consider a translator to be someone who works on written texts and an interpretor as someone who interprets the spoken word.
Characteristics of written texts are that they are generally less dependent on context, are lexically dense and the writer and reader are distant. A good translator of written texts would have to know extremely well the language into which the text is being translated. One would have to be very skilled in capturing the essence of the L1 and skillfully writing it in the L2 in an acceptable and appropriate way, taking into consideration those written language characteristics. Translators don't have to think on their feet (unlike interpretors); they have time to work on the written text.
Interpretors on the other hand often have to do real time interpreting. An interpretor's skill lies in understanding the spoken text and producing language almost simultaneously. Characteristics of the spoken language is that it's dependent on context, it's more personal, it isn't as lexically dense, there is non-verbal language like hand gestures, facial expressions, and the speaker and listener are close.
So translating and interpreting are not the same and someone may be good at one and not at the other.
Tessa.
The Answer to the Question
Let us start from the sentence"I don't like her, because she is rich." According to my translation textbook, it can be translated into another way, like"She is so rich that I don't like her." In my point of view, it may also present that I hate that rich woman because I do not have that much money, or if the woman is not so wealthy, maybe I will like her. Then, the sentence"I don't like her because she is rich" can be explained as that even she is poor , I still will like her.
The question is a little difficult to answer because it is involved in the logical problem. However, I still want to thank you two because you can point out my problem and let me to know my mistake. Thank you two.
By the way, I am not a native English speaker, so my answer may be slightly different from yours. If you remain puzzled, please let me know, thanks.
The question is a little difficult to answer because it is involved in the logical problem. However, I still want to thank you two because you can point out my problem and let me to know my mistake. Thank you two.
By the way, I am not a native English speaker, so my answer may be slightly different from yours. If you remain puzzled, please let me know, thanks.
Re: The Answer to the Question
Oh dear, I still don't get it. "I don't like her because she is rich." and "I don't like her, because she is rich." are the same to me (except I don't think the comma is necessarycoerce wrote:Let us start from the sentence"I don't like her, because she is rich." According to my translation textbook, it can be translated into another way, like"She is so rich that I don't like her." In my point of view, it may also present that I hate that rich woman because I do not have that much money, or if the woman is not so wealthy, maybe I will like her. Then, the sentence"I don't like her because she is rich" can be explained as that even she is poor , I still will like her.
). The meaning for both of the sentences is: The reason I don't like her is because she is rich. I'm not stating whether or not I would like her if she were poor, although it is possible I would. Mostly, I'm giving my reason for not liking her, and it's because she's wealthy.Hello!
I think the sentence is ambiguous, but not like coerce explained. Its two meanings (regardless of the comma) are:
a) I don't like her. The reason is she's rich.
b) I like her, but not because she's rich. My reason is another.
As for translating and interpreting, I agree they are different. And of course there are many difficulties a translator or interpreter will encounter. We can go on and on about that.
Ed
I think the sentence is ambiguous, but not like coerce explained. Its two meanings (regardless of the comma) are:
a) I don't like her. The reason is she's rich.
b) I like her, but not because she's rich. My reason is another.
As for translating and interpreting, I agree they are different. And of course there are many difficulties a translator or interpreter will encounter. We can go on and on about that.
Ed