Principles of Consecutive Interpreting

¶ … Consecutive Interpreting Conference interpreting when one person provides an "exact and faithful reproduction" of an original speech by another person -- or conveys an accurate reproduction of what one person is saying to another (Jones). When there are culture gaps, it is all the more important that the interpretation of what one person is communicating to another -- from different cultures using different languages -- is accurate and clearly understood by the person receiving the information. This paper discusses the strategies used in consecutive interpreting.

The basic principles of consecutive interpreting according to Roderick Jones are Understanding, Analysis, and Re-Expression, albeit Jones takes a great deal of time to point to the importance of note-taking in conference interpreting. Another scholar, J.F. Rozan, takes the position that there are seven principles in consecutive note-taking. So clearly there are several principles out there in the scholarship but in this paper Jones will be the primary source. Understanding "Understanding" implies not just specific words but ideas, according to Jones.

Clearly the interpreter must use key words in the translation, but when the interpreter is fully cognizant of the grammar, the syntax, and the nuances of the speaker's specific language that goes a long way in terms of providing an understanding for the receiver in this instance. When the interpreter for some reason is not fully aware of a given word that the speaker has chosen, the interpreter nonetheless has the responsibility to give context and meaning to the point that is being made.

Basically the interpretation can be conducted when certain words are not understood, Jones explains. The strategy for getting through a situation when the word -- for example, "toll" came up in an example used by Jones, referencing highways in Norway that require tolls -- and this is where "Understanding" comes into play in consecutive interpreting.

Jones relates that because by "working in consecutive" the interpreter -- who has heard the whole speech and knows the context in which "toll" is being used -- has the right "clues" to what "toll" means, and hence, he or she can "deduce" the meaning of "toll" (Jones). (In Rozan's "Seven Principles" he uses "Noting the idea and not the word," which is the same as Jones' "Understanding" heading.

Rozan is alluding to an interpreter who comes across the word "chance" and, not knowing the exact word in French to use "chance" he instead uses "probable" -- which is simply a matter of style but it shows how a skilled interpreter, while embracing consecutive interpreting, can find a meaningful substitute for a word.) Meanwhile Jones emphasizes that within the framework of "Understanding," another strategy is to be able to invoke "attentive listening" -- which is quite different from a person listening to a radio, which is "active listening." The interpreter in a consecutive interpreting situation "…cannot afford" the "luxury" of simply being a good listener; he or she must in fact "consciously register and process" each and every word.

Analysis Jones explains that the interpreter must be totally aware of the kind of speech that is being offered by the presenter. It may be just a narrative speech using a "purely chronological sequence"; it could be descriptive in substance -- which means it can simply describe a scene, an event, an economic situation -- and it could be "polemical," which gives the speaker latitude to rattle on using any illogical reference he or she wishes to in order to hammer home a point.

The speech could also be "rhetorical" (elegant style but vague substance), and in fact Jones notes that a speech can be a form of "stonewalling" (speaker is hiding the true information). In each of these cases, the strategy of the interpreter doing consecutive interpreting is first to understand what style is being used, in order to adjust the interpretation, and to be flexible in the interpretation of what points are being made.

It will be easier for the interpreter to convey exactly the words from a "logical, reasoned speech" which has a point A and a point B. than to interpret a speech in which the speaker changes direction in the middle of the speech. The strategy for the interpreter in this case is to pay very close attention to the transitions, so those listening can follow the switch.

Re-Expression The explanation for Jones' third principle is that should there be a situation in which the interpreter does not fully understand a concept that the speaker has expressed, the interpreter has the perfect right to "question the speaker" about that concept. Working in consecutive style, no one is superhuman to the point that every word in a given language, or every phrase expressed, will automatically be understood enough to be correctly conveyed in the second language.

So the first strategy in Re-Expression is to consider asking the speaker what he or she actually meant. The second strategy in Re-Expression is to "…ask yourself, whether the advantage of putting a question out-weighs the disadvantage"; that is, a visiting head of state might not want to be interrupted just so the interpreter can clarify a point. Never should an interpreter give consideration to holding up important diplomatic proceedings, out of "pure intellectual curiosity" (Jones).

A third strategy vis-a-vis Re-Expression is to in fact put the question to the speaker; it should be done politely of course, in the speaker's language, and a thoughtful "thank you" must be offered once the question has been answered by the speaker. Jones offers a fourth strategy, and that is to very carefully construct the question to the interpreter.

As a consecutive interpreter one would never say, for example, "Sorry, I didn't get that last comment"; or "I didn't understand…" A better way would be to say something like, "Could you repeat the annual growth rate for steel exports?" (Jones). Methods for.