Cover not available
Article published In:
What can research on indirect translation do for Translation Studies?
Edited by Hanna Pięta, Laura Ivaska and Yves Gambier
[Target 34:3] 2022
► pp. 512–536

Indirect interpreting: Stumbling block or stepping stone?

Spanish booth perceptions of relay

ORCID logo | Universidad Pontificia Comillas
Indirect interpreting, known by practitioners as ‘relay’, takes place in contexts where interpreting between two languages is carried out by means of a third, pivot language, thus creating a communicative chain between two interpreters: the one rendering an original speech into a pivot language, and the other rendering the first’s version into a different target language. Relay is used in many multilingual settings to ensure that all interlocutors can use their mother tongue, and the European Union institutions are a prominent example of such settings. Indirect interpreting is thus a reality that many professionals deal with on a daily basis. Despite this, it has not been the subject of much research as yet. This article explores the connections between indirect interpreting and the construct of quality in the ears of the interpreters who regularly give and take relay. The research first involved a focus group comprising six European Union-accredited conference interpreters with Spanish as their mother tongue. A focus group discussion aimed to identify salient issues in the giving and taking of relay across different contexts and meeting formats. The itemised concepts emerging from the discussion were then used to devise a questionnaire to gain further insight into interpreters’ concerns and ideas regarding quality indicators in indirect interpreting. Thirty professionals responded to the questionnaire. The results are analysed with a focus on the lessons that may be insightful for Translation and Interpreting Studies.
Keywords: simultaneous interpreting, indirect interpreting, relay interpreting, pivot, relay-taker, interpreting at the European Union, Spanish booth
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Basic concepts in relay
    • 1.2Main concerns involved in indirect interpreting
  • 2.History and context
    • 2.1The historical need for indirect interpreting
    • 2.2Indirect interpreting at the European Union institutions: Directionality and other challenges
    • 2.3Background studies on indirect interpreting
  • 3.Research scope and methodology
    • 3.1Research goals and questions
    • 3.2First phase: Focus group
    • 3.3Second phase: Survey
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Focus group results
    • 4.2Survey results
      • 4.2.1Testing the study scales
      • 4.2.2Gaining further insight
  • 5.Final remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.00008.bra
References (34)
References
AIIC. 2022. Professional Standards. Accessed May 10, 2022. [URL]
Andrades Moreno, Arsenio. 2011. “La interpretación en la Unión Europea: Prácticas y salidas profesionales [Interpreting in the European Union: Internships and professional opportunities].” Entreculturas 31: 205–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Assis Rosa, Alexandra, Hanna Pięta, and Rita Bueno Maia. 2017. “Theoretical, Methodological and Terminological Issues Regarding Indirect Translation: An Overview.” In Indirect Translation: Theoretical, Methodological and Terminological Issues, edited by Alexandra Assis Rosa, Hanna Pięta, and Rita Bueno Maia, special issue of Translation Studies 10 (2): 113–132.Google Scholar
Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena. 2004. “Simultaneous Interpreting A–B vs. B–A from the Interpreters’ Standpoint.” In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001, edited by Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjær, and Daniel Gile, 239–249. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Čeňková, Ivana. 2008. “Retour et relais – un défi et une réalité quotidienne pour les interprètes de conférence au sein des institutions européennes [Retour and relay: A challenge and a reality for conference interpreters at the European institutions].” FORUM 6 (2): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Relay Interpreting.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, edited by Franz Pöchhacker, 339–341. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chernov, Gelij V. 1992. “Conference Interpreting in the USSR: History, Theory, New Frontiers.” Meta 37 (1): 149–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 2017. Reflections on Translation Theory: Selected Papers 1993–2014. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DG Interpretation. 2018. Annual Activity Report 2018. Accessed May 27, 2021. [URL]
. 2019. Annual Activity Report 2019. Accessed May 27, 2021. [URL]
European Commission. 2021. European Commission 2021: HR Key Figures Staff Members. Accessed May 27, 2021. [URL]
European Parliament. 2021. The Interpreter. Accessed May 27, 2021. [URL]
Gambier, Yves. 2003. “Working with Relay: An Old Story and a New Challenge.” In Speaking in Tongues: Language across Contexts and Users, edited by Luis Pérez González, 47–66. Valencia: Universitat de València.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Translation Research versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership.” In Translation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies, edited by Christina Schäffner, 10–34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Thomas L. 2000. Moderating Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Group Facilitation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heynold, Christian. 1994. “Interpreting at the European Commission.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aims, Visions. Papers from the Second Language International Conference Elsinore, 1993, edited by Cay Dollerup and Annette Lindegaard, 11–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klonowicz, Tatiana. 1994. “Putting One’s Heart into Simultaneous Interpretation.” In Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, edited by Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 213–224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lim, Hyang-Ok. 2005. “Working into the B Language: The Condoned Taboo?” Meta 50 (4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maricou, Jozefien. 2018. L’Interpretation en relais: Étude comparative de la qualité d’interprétations directes et indirectes sur la base d’un corpus [Relay interpreting: Corpus-based quality study comparing direct and indirect interpretations]. MA thesis. Ghent University. [URL]
Mikkelson, Holly. 1999. “Relay Interpreting: A Solution for Languages of Limited Diffusion?” The Translator 5 (2): 361–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 2001. Contexts in Translating. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pięta, Hanna. 2019. “Indirect Translation: Main Trends in Practice and Research.” Slovo.ru: Baltic accent 10 (1): 21–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2008. “On Omission in Simultaneous Interpreting: Risk Analysis of a Hidden Effort.” In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile, edited by Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 83–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Melchor, Maia Dolores, and Lucía Sánchez del Villar Boceta. 2000. “Interpretación de conferencias en las instituciones europeas: El intérprete como elemento integrador frente a la diversidad lingüística y cultural [Conference interpreting at the European Institutions: The interpreter as integrating element before linguistic diversity].” ICADE 491: 235–248.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Miriam. 1994. “Intonation in the Production and Perception of Simultaneous Interpretation.” In Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, edited by Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 225–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica. 1999. “The Teaching of Conference Interpretation in the Course of the Last 50 Years.” Interpreting 4 (1): 55–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica, and Marianne Lederer. 1989. Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation [A systematic approach to teaching interpretation]. Brussels: Didier Érudition.Google Scholar
Setton, Robin. 1994. “Experiments in the Application of Discourse Studies to Interpreter Training.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aims, Visions. Papers from the Second Language International Conference Elsinore, 1993, edited by Cay Dollerup and Annette Lindegaard, 183–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin, and Andrew Dawrant. 2016a. Conference Interpreting: A Complete Course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. Conference Interpreting: A Trainer’s Guide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hoof-Haferkamp, Renée. 1989. Préface. In Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation [A systematic approach to teaching interpretation], edited by Danica Seleskovitch and Marianne Lederer, 3–4. Brussels: Didier Érudition.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Cabezas-García, Melania & Pilar León-Araúz
2023. Indirect translation and its influence on term variation. Translation Spaces 12:2 ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo
Ivaska, Laura, Hanna Pięta & Yves Gambier
2023. Past, present and future trends in (research on) indirect literary translation. Perspectives 31:5 ► pp. 775 ff. DOI logo
Pięta, Hanna, Laura Ivaska & Yves Gambier
2023. Structured literature review of published research on indirect translation (2017–2022). Perspectives 31:5 ► pp. 839 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.