REVUE INTERNATIONALE D'ÉTUDES EN LANGUES MODERNES APPLIQUÉES INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF STUDIES IN APPLIED MODERN LANGUAGES Supplément au numéro 7 / 2014 RIELMA, supplément numéro 7 / 2014 Publicaţie LMA sub egida CIL Comité scientifique : Willy CLIJSTERS Hasselt Universiteit, België Martine VERJANS Hasselt Universiteit, België Germana HENRIQUES PEREIRA DE SOUSA Universidade de Brasília, Brasil Bernd STEFANINK Universität Bielefeld, Deutschland Miorita ULRICH Otto-Friedrich-Universität, Deutschland Isabelle CABROL Université de Paris IV, France Joël MASSOL Université de Nantes, France Valérie PEYRONEL Université de Paris III, France Małgorzata TRYUK Uniwersytet Warszawski, Polska Mihaela TOADER Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai, România Izabella BADIU Parlement européen Rodica BACONSKY Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai, România Carmela LISTA Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai, România Olivia PETRESCU Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai, România Directeur de la revue : Mihaela TOADER Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai, România Comité de rédaction (Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai, România) : Bogdan ALDEA Anamaria MILONEAN Adriana NEAGU Manuela MIHĂESCU Sanda MISIRIANŢU Diana MOŢOC Alina PELEA ISSN 1844-5586 ISSN-L 1844-5586 Tiparul executat la: S.C. ROPRINT S.R.L. 400188 Cluj-Napoca • Str. Cernavodă nr. 5-9 Tel./Fax: 0264-590651 • [email protected] 430315 Baia Mare • Piaţa Revoluţiei nr. 5/1 Tel./Fax: 0262-212290 Table des matières Actes du Colloque international « Comment peut-on être traducteur/interprète ? » Cluj-Napoca, le 11 octobre 2013 Éditorial / 5 Roderick Jones, Interpreting: a Communication Profession in a World of Non- Communication / 7 Ildiko Horváth, Machine interpretation / 19 Rebeca-Monica Ciupe Laszlo, Interpreter in the Playground. Learning to Speak the Language of Children / 27 Simona Damian, Sign Language Interpretation on Television News from Romania / 36 Mihaela Toader, La formation à la traduction professionnelle en filière de Langues Modernes Appliquées : enjeux et défis, idées reçues et atouts / 46 ÉDITORIAL Le colloque « Comment peut-on être traducteur/interprète ? » s’inscrit dans la lignée des événements scientifiques organisés par le Département de Langues Modernes Appliquées de l’Université Babeş-Bolyai. Comme toujours, notre Département essaye de faire écho aux dernières évolutions en matière de théorie et de pratique de la traduction et l’interprétation, d’où l’idée d’inviter à une réflexion visant la formation et le statut professionnel de ceux qui travaillent dans ces secteurs. Reflet partiel des échanges riches et polémiques qui ont eu lieu le 11 octobre 2013 dans notre Université, le présent volume réunit des interventions qui mettent en évidence, d’un côté, des défis très actuels du métier d’inteprète (de conférence, pour les services publics ou en langue des signes) et, d’autre côté, les spécificités de la formation en filière LEA, le programme universitaire le plus à même d’offrir les bases indispensables aux professionnels des deux domaines. Nous vous souhaitons bonne lecture. La rédaction 5 Actes du Colloque international « Comment peut-on être traducteur/interprète ? » Cluj-Napoca, le 11 octobre 2013 Interpreting: a Communication Profession in a World of Non-Communication Roderick Jones SCIC, European Commission Abstract. This paper examines interpreting, typically perceived as a communication profession, in the context of modern society and current practice in international meetings, where one may identify increasing obstacles to communication. Three particular obstacles are discussed: new technologies, including ICT and remote interpreting, poor communication skills on the part of meeting participants and the increasing use of international English ("globish"). The main thesis is that the use of interpretation in a significant number of situations where there are objective obstacles to communication, and perhaps even a lack of real interest in communication between meeting participants, implies the need to revisit certain aspects of interpretation theory, to review our pedagogy of interpreting and ultimately for professional interpreters to examine whether they should adapt their interpreting practice. Keywords: communication and non-communication, interpreting theory, pedagogy and practice, modern technologies, ICT, remote interpreting, poor communication skills, globish. It is generally assumed that an interpreter works in a context where two or more interlocutors wish to communicate with one another and are prevented from doing so effectively because of a language barrier, if we set aside the case of sign language interpreters who assist those with a hearing disability. Further, it is assumed that there may also be difficulties of understanding between the participants in a discussion because of cultural differences and that the interpreter may fulfil the function not just of a language mediator but also of a cultural mediator. This assumption underlies the theory of interpreting, including such ideas as the role of the interpreter as a conveyor of meaning, not just words, interpreting seen as a process of analysis of meaning and reformulation in an appropriate form in the target language, and the not always uncontroversial concept of the interpreter’s task being to render the speaker’s intent as much as what the speaker actually says. The same basic assumption imbues interpreting practice. Speaking with more than thirty years’ experience as a conference interpreter I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of my colleagues, and I, perceive our job as one of facilitators of communication and inter-linguistic and inter-cultural understanding. 9 And lastly, and quite logically, insofar as the assumption corresponds to orthodox theory and practice, it is naturally one we pass on in interpreter training to our students. Interpreter trainers put much time and effort into inculcating into our students what we see as the basic communication function of interpreting, and, arising from that function, the basic mechanism of interpreting, namely: listening, understanding, analysing and reformulating. Theory, practice and pedagogy are therefore all based on the basic assumption that interpreting is a communication exercise. My contention is that this remains to some extent true, but that there are a number of factors which call this into question in day-to-day practice. I should describe interpreting as a communication profession exercised in a context which is less and less conducive to real communication. If this is true, this has implications for our theory of interpreting, and even more urgent ones for our pedagogy and professional practice. I should like to try to identify three factors which hinder the basic communication function of interpreting, plus one further, specific complicating factor which means that the interpreters cannot concentrate during their work on the fundamental task of ensuring that a speaker X is understood by an audience Y, which does not understand the language spoken by X. The first factor is alienation due to the use of new technology. It has become a commonplace to say that we live in a society which has greater technical communication possibilities than any before – Internet, e-mail, social networks – but that paradoxically people seem less able than ever to communicate meaningfully with one another. That view of modern society is at best simplistic and may actually be wrong; it is not for me to judge. But for interpreters new technology can have in my view a significant alienating effect. Clearly, new technology is a relative term. What is new depends on when you are speaking. Simultaneous interpretation is no stranger to the introduction of new technology and the accompanying controversies, and is even in a way a child of new technology. After all, the very fact of introducing headsets, microphones and soundproofed interpreting booths was perceived at the beginning as “new technology”. The introduction of this new-fangled synchronous, or as some said “telephoned”, interpretation was considered by some as an unacceptable debasement of the noble art of high consecutive. Nonetheless, speaking purely empirically, I maintain that interpreters can be very susceptible to alienation related to new technologies. When we say new technologies nowadays in the context of interpreting we think essentially of two things, IT and remote interpreting. Let me begin with IT. Many colleagues now work with a laptop in the booth. This can of course be a boon. It can help one to call up documents referred to in the meeting. It enables 10