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
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
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
References
AIIC
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. 
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.
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.
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.
2015 “Relay Interpreting.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, edited by Franz Pöchhacker, 339–341. Abingdon: Routledge.
Chernov, Gelij V.
1992 “Conference Interpreting in the USSR: History, Theory, New Frontiers.” Meta 37 (1): 149–162.
Chesterman, Andrew
DG Interpretation
European Commission
European Parliament
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.
Gile, Daniel
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.
Greenbaum, Thomas L.
2000 Moderating Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Group Facilitation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
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.
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.
Lim, Hyang-Ok
2005 “Working into the B Language: The Condoned Taboo?” Meta 50 (4).
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.
Nida, Eugene A.
2001 Contexts in Translating. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pięta, Hanna
2019 “Indirect Translation: Main Trends in Practice and Research.” Slovo.ru: Baltic accent 10 (1): 21–36.
Pöchhacker, Franz
2004 Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
Seleskovitch, Danica
1999 “The Teaching of Conference Interpretation in the Course of the Last 50 Years.” Interpreting 4 (1): 55–66.
Seleskovitch, Danica, and Marianne Lederer
1989 Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation [A systematic approach to teaching interpretation]. Brussels: Didier Érudition.
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.
Setton, Robin, and Andrew Dawrant
2016b Conference Interpreting: A Trainer’s Guide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Toury, Gideon
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.