Chuyên đề 10
You will hear a conversation between a university tutor and a student of languages on the subject of interpreting. Look at the task, then listen and answer questions 1-5.
Man: So Maria, you've been doing some background reading about the work of interpreters, particularly people working at international conferences.
Woman:That's right! Where you can listen to someone doing what's called simultaneous interpreting on a headset, so you hear the presentation in your own language say English at the same time as the speaker is giving a talk in his or her own language say Spanish or Chinese or whatever.
Man: Right, so what did you find out about the theoretical background?
Woman: Well, I discovered that there are 2 main schools of thought: the Russian school and the Paris school, and they disagree about what is really important in this kind of situation. For the Russian school, for example, the most important thing is that the interpreter understands every word of the presentation, so that all the details and all the nuances of meaning can be communicated to the listener in the target language. For the Paris school, that's less important, they place emphasis instead on how well the interpreter can express the ideas in the language of the listener.
Man: So this would affect which language the interpreter needs to be better?
Woman: Exactly, the Russian school think you should be more proficient in the original language whereas the Paris school think the proficiency in the listener language is more important.
Man: And what about other research? Did you look at Kalina?
Woman: Yes, Kalina has looked into the whole question of what represents quality interpreting and how this can be measured and she says there's always tension between accuracy and comprehensive ability in other words correct language use and elegant style on the one hand and getting the message across on the other. She concluded that a good interpreter was one who made sure that the listener understood exactly what the original speaker intended, whether or not the target language was completely accurate. She thought that should be the interpreter's principal goal.
Man: Okay, and did you look at Buhler research?
Woman: Yes, Buhler study found that the concerns of interpreters and their clients did not always match. She found that interpreters were far more concerned with grammatical accuracy and a good delivery in the target language whereas users of their services complained if there wasn't a logical flow of ideas or if terminology was used incorrectly.
Man: And Donovan, did you look at his study?
Woman: Yes, I did. He found that users of interpreting services often associated quality with a fluent, fast and convincing speaker and so awkward intonation and hesitation as a sign of a poor interpreter at work. Even if this wasn't borne out by the accuracy of the information they got across.
Man: Okay, so what conclusions have you drawn from your reading...