KINDS OF TRANSLATING/INTERPRETING

As has been noted, the sense of a language unit (the content of a whole matter) can be conveyed in the target language either in writing or in viva voce (orally). Depending on the form of conveying the sense/content, the following kinds or types of translating/interpreting are to be distinguished:

1. The written from a written matter translating, which rep
resents a literary/literary artistic or any other faithful sense-to-sense
translating from or into a foreign language. It may also be a free
interpreting performed in writing. The matter under translation may
be a belles-lettres passage (prose or poetry work), a scientific or
technical/newspaper passage / article, etc.

2. The oral from an oral matter interpreting, which is a regu
lar oral sense-to-sense rendering of a speech/radio or TV interview, or
recording which can proceed either in succession (after the whole
matter or part of it is heard) or simultaneously with its sounding. This
consecutive interpreting is a piecemeal performance and the inter
preter can make use of the time, while the speech/recording is pro
ceeding, for grasping its content and selecting the necessary means
of expression for some language units of the original matter. There
is also a possibility to interrupt (stop) the speaker/recording in order
to clarify some obscure place. As a result, consecutive interpreting
can take more or a little less time than the source language speech/

recording lasts. When it takes quite the same amount of time as the source language matter flows and the interpreter faithfully conveys its content, it is referred to as simultaneous interpreting/translating. Otherwise it remains only a consecutive interpreting. That can be well observed when interpreting a film, each still of which in the process of the simultaneous interpretation takes the time, allotted to it in the source language. In Ukrainian this kind of interpreting is called синхронний переклад. Therefore, simultaneous interpreting is performed within the same time limit, i.e., takes the same amount of time or a little more/less, than the source matter lasts.

3. The oral from a written matter interpreting is nothing
else than interpreting at sight. It can also proceed either simultane
ously with the process of getting acquainted with the content of the
written matter, or in succession (after each part of it is first read through
and comprehended). The former way of interpreting, if carried out
faithfully and exactly on time with the consecutive conveying of the
matter, may be considered simultaneous too. Usually, however, it is
a regular prepared beforehand kind of interpreting.

4. The written translating from an orally presented matter is,
as L.S.Barkhudarov points out¹, a rare occurrence. This is because
a natural speech flow is too fast for putting it down in the target lan
guage (except for a shorthand presentation, which would be then a
regular translation, i.e. interpretation from a written matter). Translat
ing from an oral speech/recording is now and then resorted to for
training practices. When the matter to be rendered is produced at a
slower speed than the written translation, can naturally be performed
(and put down) in the target language.