Talk:Language interpretation/Archive 1

ASL Interpreting?

ur a kuthi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.75.221 (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Would anyone be interested in seeing an article, or at least a stub, on ASL interpreting specifically? I am a professional interpreter, and neither the article on ASL nor the article on Interpreting apply terribly well to my experiences. The Bearded One 02:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

There is now a section called Sign Language Interpreting ([1]) -- Davelapo555 18:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Sign Language Interpreting would justify a separate article. It's become even more visible in recent years and I am inclined to think users would expect a separate article. I'll add this to the Wikiproject:Translation Studies to do list. Bristol Irish (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

History

What about history? It is said that simultaneous interpreting made its first official appearance for the Nürnberg_trials, after World War II. Any ideas about this? --Adriano 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I like that idea. Any one have any idea where there is a good/reliable source than we can cite?

-- Davelapo555 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Like here RPSM (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Content taken from interpretation

This was taken from interpretation; it belongs here if it belongs anywhere. --Saforrest 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Consecutive interpretation (interpreting) - a type of conference interpretation when the translator waits for the speaker to finish and then translates the latter's utterance consecutively - it could be of any length - within a reasonable limit so that not to distract the listener (s).

C. i. can be of a dialogue type - when the statement is short enough (without taking notes) or with using interpreters' notes - when the utterances are long enough for the memory to absorb the information and provide adequate result. Common situations in which interpretation is performed consecutively include medical, legal, and other interview settings.

The main difficulty in C. i. Is that the information is dematerialised (that is not available on a carrier - paper, display, screen etc.) but exists only in the form of sound wave. Books: "Applied Theory of Interpretation and Note-Taking" Andrei Chuzhakin, Mir Perevoda 1-7 (same author). Also: [2].

The main benefit of C. i. is that the information is completely understood by the interpreter prior to it being rendered into the target language. Thus, meaning is transferred, rather than the form of the original language. Interpretations produced in consecutive mode are often far more accurate than those produced in simultaneous mode.

Recipients of information also construct meaning, in effect "interpreting" information. For example, in written texts, there are three considerations: the writer, the text and the reader; and these are all interlinked and interdependent. Through the act of interpretation the reader is the one creating meaning; the meaning of the text intended by the writer is potentially overlooked or ignored. The reader produces meaning by participating in a complex of socially defined and enforced practices. Interpretation is an active process of producing values and meanings, a process that always occurs within specific cultural and political contexts, directly linked to the world in which the reader lives.

A heavy mistake

The article is regretfully itself a total misinterpretation. It ignores not only Commonsense but also the results of the Science from Philosophy to Cybernetics. You might say that it darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge in talking and talking about a peripheral little point instead of the middle point. Interpretation means making sense of signs and signals. As any good dog training book will tell you, every live being is in a way an interpretation machine, which picks from an infinity of signs and signals the ones it wants to interpret. What this process is, how it functions, how it functions not, and by what kriteria the machine decides what to interpret and what not: this, and the scientifical findings as represented in the literature, is what an article on interpretation would have to be about. Translation issues could be mentioned in a very small subsector if at all. --Hanno Kuntze 09:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. What would you like this article to be about? It sounds as if you are talking about perception perhaps? Alfredo22 05:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! It is nice, that you care about what I would like, but my likes are not the kriterium, by which I myself would judge an article, so much less would I expect others to do so. My observation was therefore not about what I would like, and also not at all about perception, but about what a person will expect, when he looks up the term "interpretation" in an encyclopedia. It is certain, that in most cases he will not expect to be directed to a text about instant translating, which is after all only a very tiny part of the concept. The article in the French Wikipedia, which by coincidence goes back to the same unindicated urtext, has the title "interprétation (traduction)", which avoids at least part of the mistake. It also has the correct definition (the one I gave above) on the disambiguation page. So this is the way to go: 1. Give the the present article its rightful title: "Interpreting (translation)". 2. Write an additional article named "Interpretation" giving the correct definition and dealing with all the issues, that I have outlined above, especially the vast research concerning the question, what can make a live being stop doing what comes naturally, i.e. stop interpreting (trying to make sense of signs and signals), and what active and passive mechanisms the live being will then use as a substitute for interpretation. I would of course like and even love to do the work myself, but also in this my likes cannot be the kriterium: my commandment of the English language is not sufficient to write a good article, and certainly not one about a concept as important as Interpretation. --Hanno Kuntze 08:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The English word interpretation has more than one meaning, and your description of interpretation is a valid use. However, I wonder if the philosophical concepts you describe are primarily referred to as interpretation in mainstream academic English papers. What you are describing is certainly important, I just wonder if it is in the right place here (for example, I came to this page for an article on the interpretation of languages-- of course you did not, so that's 50/50). Alfredo22 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I know some of what Hanno is talking about. In formal logic, an "interpretation" is exactly when you fill in all the variables of a general formula with particular statements.

So if we have this relation F that exists between two objects: (written Fxy). We can assign a meaning to that relation F, and assign names of some actual objects that satisfy that relationship:

Domain of discourse: People(P):{Fred, Mike, Ed}

Binary Relations that exist in the domain: Father(F):{Father,Child}

So one interpretation of Fxy is:

F:{x is the father of y}

...and...

a:F(Fred,Mike) (or "Fred is the father of Mike")

b:F(Mike,Ed) (or "Mike is the father of Ed")

Another interpretation of Fxy might be:

F:{x knows y's birthday}

a:F(Fred,Mike) (or "Fred knows Mike's birthday")

b:F(Mike,Ed) (or "Mike knows Ed's birthday")

In this case, the two interpretations are talking about the same domain. If all of these particular fathers know their son's birthday, then the formula Fxy is satisfied by both interpretations.

This is what it means for there to be an interpretation in formal logic. Furthermore, what is true in formal logic is intended to be true for all rational beings. So this is really what is happening when one person has a "different interpretation of things" than another. At some point there should be an article on this aspect.

Greg Bard 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created Interpretation (logic) as a response to this discussion. Pontiff Greg Bard 15:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Interpreting to and from large number of languages

Can someone describe how does UN general assembly interpretors work? Do they directly interpret from the speaker's language to their target language? What if there's no interpretors with fluent knowledge of both languages? Also what if the speaker uses a native language that is not UN official language (i.e. head of state that uses his native language). --Voidvector 21:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a reply:

The interpreters use a technique called 'Simultaneous Interpreting'. This method of interpreting involves the interpreter communicating what is being said by the speaker as the speaker says it. The interpretation is spoken into a microphone which is linked to target language speakers' headsets. For example; someone is delivering a speech in Chinese and it needs to be understood by the rest of the members of the assembly. A specialist interpreter will be assigned to each of the remaining five languages; those being Arabic, English, French, Russian and Spanish. There would be Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish interpreters who understand Chinese and who are able to interpret the message from Chinese to each of the other five language groups. The interpreters speak the translated message as it is spoken in Chinese and relay it, via microphone, in either Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish into listeners headsets.

There is a good article on SI here: SI Article

MaxwellPN (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxwellPN (talk • contribs) 15:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move(1)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was {{{1}}}
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Interpreting → Interpretation (language) — Placing this article at the title "Interpreting" appears totally arbitrary; a person practicing any of the many different kinds of interpretation would be "interpreting," and a person doing so would be called an "interpreter" (which redirects here). Putting the disambiguation page at Interpretation and the language-interpretation page at Interpreting makes little sense to me, unless there's a commonly understood distinction between the two words that I'm not aware of.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Propaniac (talk • contribs) 04:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose — I tend to agree with the reasoning that you've provided here, but I can't agree to the Interpretation (language) proposed name. Unfortunately, I can't seem to think of anything better.
  — V = I * R (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: I see no problem with the current title, as it is a widely used term. --DAJF (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it's not disambiguated from Interpretation. The two words are essentially synonyms; it appears to make no sense to say that "interpretation" should be a disambiguation page while "interpreting" is clearly referring to language. Propaniac (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Going to Interpretation and seeing "Interpretation may refer to... Interpreting" seems pretty ridiculous. They're the same word. Interpretation (language) seems like a fine title, especially since the first line says it's about "interpreting language", ie. interpretation of language, which seems accurately expressed by "Interpretation (language)". Equazcion (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, but as the DAB page itself makes clear, disambiguation is required... I could support moving this page to Interpretation, and moving that to Interpretation (disambiguation) based on a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rational, which is essentially why I offered "weak opposition" to the proposal above. If the proposal were changed to reflect a primary topic move, then I would support it (I should have explained this better above, probably).
  — V = I * R (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support proposed disambiguation, although I would prefer language interpretation to avoid using a bracketed disambiguator. It's clear that the current name is unnecessarily ambiguous and doesn't really distinguish this page from others listed on the interpretation dab page. Jafeluv (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move to Language interpretation. This has been up for a move request once already and was closed due to no consensus. I believe I see a consensus formed here to move to Language interpretation. That page has a bit of a history, however I think it's suitable to be deleted in order to move this article to it's name. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 02:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

---

{{movereq|Language interpretation}} A case was made above to move the page to Language interpretation. Note to closing admin that the history of the target is not insignificant, and should likely be retained.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Although the discussion above was ruled "no consensus" on the particular suggested title in the section above, it seems clear to me that something needs to be done here, and one need only look at the ridiculous disambiguation page to see that. There seems to at least be a majority that favor the prospect of changing the article title, if not on the specific title to use. I've re-opened this discussion in the hopes that we can build consensus on a new title, as that seemed to be where this was headed before it was closed.

The titles that have been brought up so far:

• Interpretation (language) (original suggestion)
• Language interpretation
• Interpretation, and move the current Interpretation article, which is currently a disambiguation page, to Interpretation (disambiguation)

Please post some thoughts on which of these seems most logical to you, or suggest a new title if need be. Let's try to come to an agreement and get this done. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• As above, I think Language interpretation is the way to go here. The disambiguation guideline suggests that "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used." Language interpretation is just as clear or clearer as Interpretation (language), and way clearer than the current title. Also, it doesn't conflict with any existing page name. Currently, the article's lead already starts with "Language interpreting or interpretation is..." Jafeluv (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That works for me. Since there doesn't seem to be all that much interest in this, I'm going to go with "silence = consensus" and make that move soon, or anyone else can feel free to do it. I'm thinking sometime in the next 24 hours. Just a heads-up. Equazcion (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I think we should still wait for a few days. In particular, DAJF opposed moving the article, saying that the current name is fine. I think I'll drop a note on their talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
      • As far as whether the article needs renaming at all, the consensus seems to be in favor of some rename. Honestly, asking the minority objector to come back and object some more doesn't seem all that helpful at this point. Nevertheless I'll certainly welcome any added input on the new title, if he or anyone else has any. Equazcion (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for continuing the discussion (I've been mostly offline this past week). My preference is still for Interpretation (language), but I certainly concur that almost any other title would be less stupid than the current situation, for the reasons I described above. So I would not protest a move to Language interpretation. Propaniac (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That seems like the most agreeable option. I think this has gone on long enough. I've just tagged Language interpretation (currently a redirect with some history) with {{db-move}}, to make way for the move. Equazcion (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support moving to Language interpretation. That's a good title. I do feel somewhat compelled to speak out against the whole "I think this has gone on long enough.", is all. There's no time limit on this stuff, after all. Aside from that, the movereq is part of a queue, so you've effectively just doubled the workload for some overworked admins by adding another notification template to the mix. Bad ju-ju.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - no need to solve a perceived ambiguity that is never an issue normal speech or writing - in other words, this is a clear primary topic. Knepflerle (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  If it's primary topic, why is it not at Interpretation, which is a lot more common term for the activity? The point is that this title was chosen for disambiguation to distinguish it from other meanings. Only it doesn't really distinguish this from any other activity described at Interpretation, since pretty much any of those could be referred to as "interpreting". Jafeluv (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Doesn't seem very objective

It seems like a lot of this article is very biased, such as "This affords a truer, more accurate, and more accessible interpretation than does simultaneous interpretation." and "It is more stressful than other types of interpreting as the interpreter has to deal with a wide range of technical problems coupled with the control room's hassle and wrangling during live coverage." Says who? It's not very Wikipedia-like to say such opinionated things. Elektrisk (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed

Interpreting in computer science has a more technical meaning regarding machines recognizing input. This other meaning is not documented here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Old history

Some old history that used to be at the title "language interpretation" can now be found at Talk:Language interpretation/Old history. Graham87 11:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ce n'est pas par amour lit de roses était autrefois percé d'un lit, mais aussi tout ce qui porte des points Akhaltha de faire une combinaison de choses incompréhensibles il ya un sourire .. Mais il ya aussi des larmes il ya un optimisme .. Et aussi s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.1.5 (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)