by J. Mermod

In Session 16 of The Interpreting Journal Club (#IntJC) there was some confusion regarding the exact definition of Liaison Interpreting and in particular, it’s distinction from Community Interpreting (for some reason I always spell liaison wrong, so glad there’s autocorrect).

As you may know, the Journal Club takes place on Twitter, and is like an open chat forum with participants from all over the world, most of them interpreters themselves. The discussions are usually held in English. 

My mother tongue is German, and in German there is no specific term for Liaison Interpreting. I can only guess, but this is probably the same case in other languages too. First, I had to look up the meaning of “liaison”, which is obviously of French origin (and to me sounds terrible when pronounced English, but well…). Collins defines “liaison” as

1. communication and contact between groups or units
2. of or relating to liaison between groups or units ⇒ a liaison officer 
3. a secretive or adulterous sexual relationship
4. one who acts as an agent between parties; intermediary
5. the relationship between military units necessary to ensure unity of purpose
6. some weird phonological meaning
7. any thickening for soups, sauces, etc, such as egg yolks or cream

Meaning seven is my personal favorite. What a wonderful image for the intermediary work of an interpreter!

Okay, now I know what liaison means. When having a look at the thesaurus entry it gets clear that liaison is just a fancier word for “intermediary”, “contact” or “go-between”.

So what about the definition of liaison interpreting? 

No, I did not mean brain fingerprinting. Its so ridiculous that the dictionary would suggest misinterpret! So mean!

But it doesn’t matter. The other day I came across the doctoral thesis of Kristina Mullamaa. She conducted an ethnographic study of liaison interprets in Estonia (read it here). She introduces the reader to the following book:

Adolfo Gentile, Uldis Ozolins and Mary Vasilakakos’ (1996) “Liaison Interpreting – a Handbook” analyses the role and tasks of liaison interpreters. They try to describe the role of interpreters by and for practitioners and suggest some principles of good practice. They also outline what they call the future “norms” in this domain of interpreting. According to the authors the book functions as “a pioneer” in its attempt to “make the work of liaison interpreters more under- standable both to those they work with and to the interpreters themselves” (ibid.: 4). (Mullamaa 2006:36)

Gentile et al provide the following definition for liaison interpreting:

Liaison interpreting is the name given to the genre of interpreting where the interpreting is performed in two language directions by the same person. […] Liaison interpreting is widely used where two or more interlocutors do not share a language and where the interpreter must be present in order to bridge the communication gap. Typically these are situations where the acquiring or giving of information is based on exchanges between interlocutors which produce a resolution of some problem or lead to a decision, a diagnosis or generally improved understanding between interlocutors. These interlocutors are ipso facto the clients of the interpreter (ibid.: 17–18).

As factors “which distinguish liaison interpreting from conference interpreting”, the following are given:

* the physical proximity of interpreter and clients;

* an information gap between the clients;

* a likely status differential between the clients;

* the necessity to interpret into both language directions;

* working as an individual and not as part of the team (ibid.: 18).

[…] The authors point to the cultural and social differences between the primary parties which interpreters should bear in mind both at the macro- and micro level of analysis. They also remind the reader about the potential differences between the clients’ “cultural inheritance, life experience and relative status”.

(via Mullamaa 2006:37)

In their definition, Gentile et al include community-level settings like the visit to a doctor in the portfolio of a Liaison Interpreter. In my understanding, this is rather the working environment of a Community Interpreter. They also treat Conference Interpreting as if there was only Simultaneous Interpreting, thus the physical proximity. The information gap is nothing peculiar to LI settings, the same goes for working into both languages and working by oneself - in my opinion this is no clear distinction to any other form of interpreting.

In the discussion in the Interpreting Journal Club two more explanations were mentioned: one by Global Connects and one by a US-based conference interpreter. The latter emphasizes that in Liaison Interpreting the interpreter works into his B and that there is just one interpreter working with just two languages. As we know, working into one’s B is common practice in Europe for Conference Interpreters as well (at least in Germany). Working alone with two parties isn’t something exclusive to Liaison in general. This can also be occur in a conference setting and it certainly common in Community Interpreting. As for the explanation given by Global Connects, it is more clear-cut, since it focuses on Group Liaison Interpreting. In their wording, the Liaison Interpreting setting is “a type of consecutive face-to-face interpreting used where a small group of people requires an interpreter”. In their emphasis the distinction to a Conference Interpreting setting lies in the fact that the participants (clients) want to (or have to) walk around and therefore Simultaneous Interpreting (SI) is no option. They also mention that groups are generally rather small, so Liaison Interpreting is preferable - but in my opinion, this can also be the case in a conference setting where you do SI or whispering for one delegate or so. But in general I like the idea of Liaison Interpreting being highly flexible, also in terms of moving from one place to another.

So what about Community Interpreting? Margareta Bowen quoted a definition in an article she wrote for the AIIC Bulletin:

“The community interpreter has a very different role and responsibilities from a commercial or conference interpreter. She is responsible for enabling professional and client, with very different backgrounds and perceptions and in an unequal relationship of power and knowledge, to communicate to their mutual satisfaction.” (via Bowen 2000)

If I get this right, the definition itself is from 1984, but allegedly still applies today. Maybe it is just me, but this definition is far from satisfactory. It’s really vague. And it is defining something by saying what it isn’t - lexicographers would go mad looking at it. Then there’s this one by “The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community” (1995):

Community Interpreting enables people who are not fluent speakers of the official language(s) of the country to communicate with the providers of public services so as to facilitate full and equal access to legal, health, education, government, and social services (via Pöchhacker 2000: 37)

So Community Interpreters exclusively work in hospitals? This is getting weirder and weirder… Let’s take a look at a third definition (a real one this time):

1) Community interpreters primarily serve to ensure access to public services, and are therefore likely to work in institutional settings;

2) they are more apt to be interpreting dialogue-like interactions than speeches;

3) they routinely interpret into and out of both or all of their working languages;

4) the presence of the community interpreter is much more noticeable in the communication process than is that of the conference interpreter;

5) a great many languages, many of them minority languages that are not the language of government in any country, are interpreted at the community level, unlike the limited number of languages of international diplomacy and commerce handled by conference and escort interpreters; and

6) community interpreters are often viewed as advocates or “cultural brokers” who go beyond the traditional neutral role of the interpreter.

(taken from Roberts, Roda. “Community Interpreting Today and Tomorrow,” in Peter Krawutschke, ed. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, 1994, pp. 127-138) (via Mikkelson 2004)

Now this is a satisfying definition. I have nothing more to add. Except maybe:

Other terms have been used to describe this activity. In the United Kingdom, for example, “public service interpreting” is the preferred term; while in Canada, “cultural interpreting” is often used. Other designations include “dialogue interpreting” and “ad hoc interpreting.” “Community interpreting” seems to be the term most widely accepted in the literature, however (ibid).

In his 2008 publication in the book “Crossing borders in Community Interpreting” Pöchhacker writes about interpreting as mediation, where he elaborates on the German word “Sprachmittler” (“language mediator”) and its deviation “Sprach- und Kulturmittler” (“language and culture mediator”). Even though the German word sound rather uncool and old-fashioned, it is actually much more appropriate for describing what an interpreter does - it’s not just translating words from A to B, no, it is transmitting an information from one language into another and simultaneously mediating culturally between two parties. 

By accepting this definition as a basis for all types of interpreting (conference, community, liaison, court, sign language etc.), the distinction between them can be achieved by emphasizing each type’s important, distinctive features: intrasocial vs. international; degree of status differential; degree of prestige; being practically invisible vs. being a third party; working environment; specialization; and so on. But the cultural mediation and linguistic transmittance (also both ways) itself is nothing exclusive to Liaison or Community Interpreting, but is just as much a central part of every Conference Interpreter’s daily work. 

***

Lionel Dersot writes on his experience as a Liaison Interpreter: read here.

Further reading: Mikkelson, Holly (2010). “Interpreting is Interpreting – Or Is IT?”. AIIC Bulletin, Winter 2010.

President Sarkozy’s official interpreter Amanda Galsworthy on the secrets of her trade.

When I reminisce on my time as a student of conference interpreting, think of all those weeks and months of intense studying, of brushing up my language skills and trying to shorten my décalage, get more accurate and faster, there is one question, or should I say ‘doubt’, that permanently stuck in my mind. 

Doubt: Am I good enough yet?

I guess it is only natural to question one’s abilities over and over, constantly trying to get better and better, in the language of nerdy gamers: to level up and kill the next stage boss. To get better equipment (like a better sword with +10 speed and a cloak with +10 better language skills). I get these new equipment either by killing stage bosses (semester exams), by farming (in my practice group) or by solving quests (classes). One day I will be able to kill the game boss (final exam). Then I will get the super reward (my diploma). 

Welcome to my view of the world…

Unfortunately, in real life it is never that easy to tell whether your skills advanced or not. It is only by looking back that you realize the progress you made. You see the path you’ve come. You can see your starting point, way back there. But you can’t tell whether you’re just halfway to the goal or whether you’re really close to it. Why? Because it’s not clear where to path is leading to, where your goal actually is. You can see your fellow students walking along the same path, some in front of you, some behind you, but all of them somewhat at the same level. You’ve heard that your teachers are a little further on. You can spot the mighty castle of AIIC on the horizon; the towers of the SCIC fortress. Are they as far away as it seems? 

Could someone please tell me which level I’m on? Am I on level 100 yet?

Could someone please assess me?

Would you please assess my interpreting performance? Yes, you would! Great! Thanks!

Okay, here is my interpretation: “ご来場の皆様。ご清聴ありがとうございました。”

What do you think? Could’ve been better? Intonation wasn’t that good? Good fluency of delivery? 3 out of 4? What about the consistency with the original and the completeness of my performance? What’s exactly the difference you ask? Well… I guess this is just your personal opinion.

It is not easy to rate an interpretation performance.  Was it good or bad? Did you like it or not? I can give you my personal opinion to that question - but that’s just it. A very subjective impression. And there is nothing bad about that. Conference interpreters get often compared to professional musicians; there are many similarities between the two professions in terms of training, skill acquisition and performance, maybe even personality traits. Many interpreters play an instrument. And they have another peculiarity in common: their ‘product’ is evanescent (unless you record it). It is meant for the moment. There are few (if any) other services with that special touch to it. If you think about it, there are quite a few analogies: everyone can play an instrument. Getting on stage. Perform in front of people. Perform at community-level (marriage) and global level (philharmonic orchestra). Hard to assess its quality.

Here’s a task for you: go to a philharmonic concert. Listen to the first violin. Rate him.

It should be obvious that, since you are no expert in violinists, your opinion probably won’t be very qualified (no offense). And still, it’s you who is paying for it, so it better be damn good. It will be a difficult task for the violinist to please every single listener in the audience - but there’s an intersection of the users’ expectations. This is what we call ‘user expectancy norms’. 

Every coin has two sides: in this case this is the ‘professional norm’. This norm encompasses the expectations and standards professionals set to themselves as a group. In Interpreting Studies, there is research on these two topics.

For us conference interpreters, this ‘professional norm’ is of uttermost importance. This is our quality standard. This is our gut feeling. It is the intersection (and/or sum) of all practitioners and researchers expectations of a good interpretation:

“Quality can, for example, be seen as the fulfilment of quality standards (Déjean Le Féal 1990: 155); the result of an (adequate) strategic process (Kalina 1998; Riccardi 2003: 257); a norm-abiding action (Shlesinger 1997: 124; Garzone 2002: 116); an ethical duty (Kurz 1998: 392); the satisfaction of customers’ expectations (Schmitt 1998; Zauberga 2001: 279); the balance of actual service minus expected service (Kurz 2003: 17); or an interactively constructed concept (Bot 2003: 40)” (Grbic 2008)

After all, it is relevant who assesses whom where how. There are many variables, diverging expectations.

”[…] it poses a serious dilemma that, despite considerable research efforts, there is still no model for assessing the quality of interpreting, either in class, at the end of the training period (examinations) or in the authentic conference situation […]. As long as there is no agreement on what quality is and how it can be measured, it is difficult to imagine how tests can ascertain whether an individual will at some future point be able to provide such quality.” (Kalina 2000:13)

I am back on my path with the castles and fortresses on the horizon. I still don’t know how far the way ahead is. But I know, that my teachers and colleagues have confidence in me, that I am going to make it to the castle. Or at least, that I am walking in the right direction. 

***

Our friend Michelle was so kind to share the quality criteria from the EMCI at the University of La Laguna here.

If you want to read more on ‘norms’, read Elisabet Tiselius’ case study here. Find her blog here.

by J. Mermod

by J. Mermod

Don’t panic. You can do this. Breathe. 

‘Are you ready?’

Sorry?

‘Okay, please start now.’

Okay. I press start. On the desktop screen in front of me a teacher appears. “The Foreign Office Minister Henry Bellingham speaks on climate change and the Commonwealth. And the speech goes as follows…”.

Focus. You have been preparing for this exam for the past 8 weeks or so, you’re not going to mess it up. Resilience… how am I gonna note… don’t think, write! Argh, I have to remember that I meant ‘W’ (as in German ‘Widerstand’) to stand for resilience when I am presenting my consecutive.

This speech is quite easy. Had we known in andvance that we would be given a speech by Bellingham, we wouldn’t have prepared for speeches on Afghanistan. Oh well, prepare for the worst, hope for the best, right?

Tanzania, I know how to note this! Yey! Bamboo ladder, geez, have to write this one out. How long was it? 30 or 13 meters? I’ll just say ‘a very long ladder…’

‘Many Pacific islands are becoming uninhabitable as changing rainfall patterns and rising sea levels combine to reduce supplies of drinking water and food’. isl ⊖ 生 bc rain# 化n ♒ ↑n ⇒  − 水 食. If my mother could see me doing this she would either be proud of me - or think that I’m completely bonkers.

Nine minutes have passed, one more to go. My hand is so sweaty, it’s getting harder and harder to hold on to my pen. I feel like my fingers are about to cramp. And it’s so pleasent outside. Look, a cat! Oops, focus! Last sentence. ‘Thank you for your time.’ t/x. Phew, I did it! Tidy up the last sentence. Have a look at the first sentence, the first few seconds are crucial for leaving a good impression on the jury.

I step outside. Jurors and friends are already sitting in the spacious conference room, ready to listen to the same speech for the third time. This conference room is ridiculously large, the ceiling about 10 meters high, and I feel the pressure rising and my heart pounding like mad. My two fellow examinees are here too. I look at them and immediately calm down. I smile and start my presentation.

***

Me and my two friends thought it might be interesting to compare our notes from our final exam. We interpreted English -> German, 10 minutes. As you can see, our note-taking techniques couldn’t be any more different! It’s funny to see how the very same speech, under the same conditions and prerequisites can be taken down in completely different ways. Or as Albl-Mikasa puts it:

In a nutshell, there is “unanimité” (Seleskovitch 1975: 70) in the literature on note-taking (as well as among interpreters) that the interpreter must grasp and note down the content-related information in the source text, rather than its words. When it comes to implementing this practical requirement, however, the positions differ greatly with respect to (1) the degree to which interpreters should seek abstraction from the linguistic structures of the source text (see, for instance, Seleskovitch 1975: 165; Ilg 1980: 118; Matyssek 1989: 36), (2) the number of iconic symbols they should use,1 and (3) the language in which they should take their notes. […]

The one common denominator that all the descriptions of note-taking share is that what is used in consecutive interpreting is essentially a highly individualised (note-taking) technique (see Herbert 1952: 33; Rozan 1956: 9; Kade 1963: 15, 17; Ilg 1980: 125; Matyssek 1989; Gile 1997: 203; Kalina 1998: 246; Ahrens 2001; Gillies 2005: 10). Given the wide range of conceptual views and practical instructions (see above), however, one is left with the impression that note-taking is some kind of a technical aid or (memory) supporting entity that operates in an unspecific way somewhere between source text comprehension and target text rendition, and serves to capture the source text’s sense or its ideas, without there being any agreement or clarity as to what exactly that means.*

For a high-res image, click here (12.4 MB). My notes are those on the very right.

*Albl-Mikasa (2008). (Non)Sense in Note-Taking for Consecutive Interpreting.  In: Interpreting 10:2 pp. 199-201 (c) John Benjamins

by M. Haldimann

Two prolific bloggers have weighed in on our discussion of interpreter training didactics sharing their own experience as interpreting students and teachers. In Elisabet we have found another champion of a more modular approach in order to practice specific sub-skills or certain interpreting situations such as exams. In her post she points out, however, that most interpreting courses lack the funding to provide a more diverse curriculum with enough teaching time, a lower student-staff ratio and good connections to outside experts. Jana, on the other hand, cautions against giving students too much time in the comfort zone as the freelance interpreting market will not cut them any slack either. On that note, I would like to get closer to the core of this fuzzy term ‘comfort zone’ by introducing the distinction between educational discomfort and personal discomfort.

By educational discomfort I simply mean the frustration when struggling to master a new skill. It cannot be helped and is part of any learning process. I am sure many will agree that this particularly applies to learning simultaneous interpreting. As much as you might practice shadowing and sight translation beforehand, you will never quite be ready to tackle your first few weeks of actually practicing in the booth without feeling some measure of frustration.

However, after a while our neurons will ideally have aligned to the demands of their new task(s) and we will gradually become more comfortable while interpreting. I think it is this easing of educational discomfort that Brian Fox warned us about in his speech at the DG Interpretation – Universities Conference back in March. He described his experience of teaching students as a very comfortable routine. He would always read the speeches the same way, the students would always sit in the same booths, they would always discuss their performances following the same pattern and so on. It is this comfort zone, this protective bubble he asked us to leave constantly stimulating our neurons with new challenges in order to prepare ourselves better for EU accreditation exams and, as Jana has pointed out, indeed for the demands of our professional practice in general. As a case in point, Andreas’ recent post about his first assignment perfectly illustrates the fact that interpreting in the real world is fundamentally different from interpreting in your final exams.

I completely agree that we should embrace educational discomfort as a sign of our gradually improving interpreting skills. We should leave the comfort of our cosy classroom routine more often. However, this should not come at the cost of the underlying positive and reinforcing atmosphere in class. Educational discomfort should not be confused with personal discomfort. Nor should the need for the former serve as an excuse for creating the latter.

I was rather taken aback by one particular comment during the Q&A after the second day of the DG Interpretation – Universities Conference. One head of department mentioned Brian Fox’ call to chase students out of their comfort zone as vindication of the austere classroom regime their department was traditionally notorious for. Judging by the amusement this comment caused in the other participants I am sure it must have been an ironic jibe. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to make sure we all agree that interpreting class need not be living hell.

As Elisabet has pointed out, interpreter training is traditionally tough. The question is to what extent this image has emerged because of the inevitable educational discomfort and to what extent because of an excess of personal discomfort: The fear of failure, feelings of inferiority, humiliation.

I think we can all agree and might even have experience ourselves that if not properly managed educational discomfort can lead to personal discomfort. Equally undisputed, I think, is the fact that personal discomfort is a huge obstacle to progress in any interpreter’s training. In my view, the resources to manage educational discomfort and to avoid excessive personal discomfort can be found in the people involved in interpreting class themselves, students and teachers alike, and in their relationships to each other. Students can be brought to explicitly reflect on their educational discomfort learning to appreciate it as a sign of a healthy learning process. Together, teachers and students can create a reinforcing classroom culture that values mutual support over competitiveness. In the psychology of the interpreting classroom trust is not an abstract concept but can be systematically built and put to use in order to boost progress in learning.

I am not only hypothesising here. During my own training I have seen these resources tapped into, though more often instinctively than strategically, and yet it made all the difference. However, I have so far not found any research to back my ideas. My guess is that the concepts I have touched upon are well established in educational psychology and didactics but have never been specifically discussed in how they apply to interpreter training. For the time being, I would submit that properly harnessing the dynamics of interpreting classroom psychology considerably reduces personal discomfort in interpreting students thus helping them develop their skills faster and more thoroughly.

by J. Mermod

The time has finally come. The time of my graduation exams. 

After two and a half years of study and 8 weeks of intense preparation I am ready to get past the last hurdle and leave uni behind me. I guess most of our readers passed their exams quite some time ago and may not recall the horror and nervous break-downs one goes through. Lucky you!

There is just one thing I want to ask you, dear readers: there is vast literature on how to test one’s aptitude for conference interpreting, from entry exams to interviews to psychological exams (remember the #IntJC on MBTI?) - how come there is hardly any literature and/or research on how to test a students’ abilities in their graduation exams? Do we just assume, that all universities and exam jurors apply the same standards (I daresay the don’t)?

There is research on the evaluation criteria of an interpreting performance, yes. But there is still no consensus yet. In the aiic Workload Study the performance of several interpreters gets evaluated as follows: Each interpretation was evaluated by two jurors, professional interpreters having the same languages as the interpreter. The parameters evaluated were: error rate, omission rate, addition rate, grammatical mistakes, word choice, phrasing and delivery. (source). I can actually see the two jurors before my inner eye trying to listen to the original and the interpreted output, while following the printed manuscript with a red marker, wildly crossing out omissions, circling errors and noting odd word choices. I find listening to two speeches in different languages, reading, writing simultaneously and keeping track of the actual meaning a piece of cake. Especially judging the quality of the delivery in terms of intonation, breathing and prosody is extremely easy.

So, in order to harmonize the evaluation criteria in graduation exams in the academic landscape in Europe the AIIC promoted in cooperation with the EU the installation of the EMCI, European Masters in Conference Interpreting. Since, compared to other professions, “conference interpreter” as occupational title does not enjoy legal protection (at least not in Germany) I really appreciate all efforts aiming at a harmonization. But even the EMCI website states as evaluation criteria ”[…] the mastery of their target language(s), comprehension of their source language(s) and on their interpreting skills […]. They must demonstrate sufficient competence to be able to join a team of professional conference interpreters.”  It could hardly get any more vague.

(Addition: there is of course a catalogue of more precise criteria)

The AIIC has some further proposals on what is important in graduation exams assembled in its “Best Practices” overview. We learn: it is also important who is assessing the student. It should (of course) be someone experienced in the profession itself. And: “Candidates should understand the assessment criteria.”.  

If the assessment criteria is “sufficient competence”, then yes, I understand the criteria. And I understand that they lack transparency. 

A couple of months ago the German TRANSFORUM society held a meeting in Heidelberg, where Sylvia Kalina explained her new research results on the evaluation of interpreting performances. Her main argument is that the quality of a performance can’t just be assessed on the basis of the amount of errors and omissions the interpreter made (the so-called Bühler parameters from 1986). One should also take other factors into consideration. Kalina describes them in her highly recommended article in trans-kom (unfortunately in German). Have a look at the last few pages for a checklist! Kalina’s criteria (or what she calls parameters) are subsumed under the “process model”, which distinguishes pre-, peri-, in- and post-process criteria. They all need to be considered when evaluating someone’s performance.

All I can say is that I am a big fan of this model. Particularly, because it is the only model that goes beyond the actual performance on site, but takes into account the preparation time, how accustomed one is to the topic, the public speaking skills of the speaker and so on.

If graduation exam assessors were to use the process model for their judgement, it would 1) be far more transparent and 2) could lead to a true harmonization of interpreting courses worldwide. 

Update: don’t miss the comments to this post!

“Can you offer some advice on how to develop a new area of specialization?  I’d like to dig deeper [into the area of photovoltaics] and find work in this area. But I have no previous experience to refer to.”

Want to know more? Head over to Patricia Lane’s blog and find out. 

by J. Mermod

Have you ever heard of Poetry Slam? Matt and I are huge fans of so-called Slam Poetry, a form of art where several poets enter the stage and recite a self-written piece of literature, a poem or a short story. This may sound boring at first, but the clue is that this is a competition (a slam). The poets have to stick to certain rules (e.g. no singing) and are given a time limit. Their performance is then judged by the audience (by the means of applause) and the best poets get to the final, where they again battle each other. Their performances, as diverse and different in mood and format they may be, all have something in common: they are built on the mastery of language, on the witty and smart usage of words, homophones and metaphers, on - the pure joy of words and language.

The poetry slam craze kicked in in 2007 in the German-speaking area of Europe, according to Google Trends, even though it has been practiced since the 90ies. A German Championship is carried out since 2003, and you can see the latest finalists on ARTE tv.

And here comes the connection to interpreting: there are not just monolingual, but also bi- and even trilingual slamming events! Have a look a this German-French bilingual Poetry Slam event organized by ARTE tv. The two artists seemingly have to communicate in English! Now this is Europe… languages intermezzo.

If you were asked to interpret at such an event - would you do it? Which leads to the question: is poetry interpretable?

Chernov says no. Quote:

(…) simultaneous interpretation of poetry is impossible because of the very low level of objective redundancy in poetic language. Even SI of prose is barely possible if the stlye is literary. (Chernov 1994:95)

I think we all agree that this also applies to consecutive interpreting, especially given the speed of the presentation and the inevitable loss of the mood.

So all we can do is to sit back and enjoy. ;-)

Interview vom Lokalradio der Universität Leipzig (mephisto 97.6) an der Leipziger Buchmesse 2012 zu Herrn Ghantus’ Buch “Ein Diener vieler Herren - Als Dolmetscher bei den Mächtigen der Welt”

Ganz schön zu Beginn der Interessenskonflikt zwischen den beiden Karrierepfaden Journalismus und Dolmetschen. Später in seiner Laufbahn lehnte Ghantus offenbar auch ein Angebot ab, in die Politik einzusteigen. Eindrücklich auch, wie er sich selbst als “großen Illusionisten” bezeichnet, der bis zuletzt an die DDR glaubte.

Ich würde fast annehmen, dass die Interviewerin in Leipzig Dolmetschen studiert. Sie stellt anfangs geschickt ganz grundsätzliche Fragen, die ihrem Gesprächspartner viel Raum geben, den Zuhörern unseren Beruf näher zu erklären. Ein gelungenes Interview.