I don’t know about you, but I sometimes struggle, when using my laptop in the booth, to squeeze the agenda, list of participants, glossary, dictionary, web browser and meeting documents/presentations onto one screen. Not to mention email, messenger or shared notepad when working in separate booths in times of COVID-19 … Or even the soft console of your RSI provider?
Well, I have more than once found myself wondering if anybody would mind me bringing my 24 inch desktop monitor to the booth to add some additional screenspace to this tiny 12 inch laptop screen – until, finally, I came across a very useful little freeware application called spacedesk. It lets you use your Android, iOS or Windows tablet as an external monitor to complement your Windows computer quite easily (to all tablet aficionados: unfortunately it does not work the other way around). You simply install it on both your main Windows device, the „server“ or „Primary Machine“, and the tablet as a „client“ or „secondary device“, and you can connect both devices via USB, ethernet or WiFi and then use your tablet to either extend or duplicate your computer screen just like you do it with any external monitor on your desk.
There is just a tiny delay when moving the mouse (if that’s not due to my low-end tablet’s poor performance), so it might be better to move the more static elements, like the agenda, to it rather than your terminology database, which you might want to handle very swiftly.
So if ever you feel like going back to printing your documents for lack of screen space, bringing your tablet as a screen extension might be a good alternative.
About the author
Anja Rütten is a freelance conference interpreter for German (A), Spanish (B), English (C) and French (C) based in Düsseldorf, Germany. She has specialised in knowledge management since the mid-1990s.
Wann ist es sinnvoll, mit Dolmetschern vor Ort zu tagen, und wann ist Dolmetschen über das Internet sinnvoll? Nach unserem Web-Meeting der AIIC Deutschland am vergangenen Freitag (22. Mai 2020) mit dem herzerfrischenden Titel „TACHELES – RSI auf dem deutschen Markt“ teile ich hier gerne mit Euch meine in eine rechnende Tabelle gegossenen Überlegungen zum Thema:
Ergänzund zu den finanziellen Überlegungen findet Ihr hier die technischen Empfehlungen der AIIC zum Ferndolmetschen.
Über Fragen und Anregungen freue ich mich natürlich!
Über die Autorin:
Anja Rütten ist freiberufliche Konferenzdolmetscherin für Deutsch (A), Spanisch (B), Englisch (C) und Französisch (C) in Düsseldorf. Sie widmet sich seit Mitte der 1990er dem Wissensmanagement.
My tutorials on how to use the Time&money calculator, an Excel spreadsheet developed by AIIC Germany’s former profitability working group, finally have English and Spanish subtitles! Comments and questions welcome 🙂
Video on calculating working hours and fees for conference interpreters | Video sobre como calcular horas de trabajo y honorarios para intérpretes de conferencias (11 min):
Video on how to calculate interpreting projects | Video sobre el cálculo de proyectos de interpretación (6 min):
About the author
Anja Rütten is a freelance conference interpreter for German (A), Spanish (B), English (C) and French (C) based in Düsseldorf, Germany. She has specialised in knowledge management since the mid-1990s.
Yesterday was one of the rare occasions where conference interpreters were still brought to the client’s premises for a multilingual meeting. Participants from abroad were connected via a web meeting platform, while the few people who were on-site anyway were sitting at tables 2 meters apart from each other. But what about the interpreters, who usually share a booth of hardly 2 x 2 m, and who are not exactly known for their habit of social distancing in the first place? Well, PCS, the client’s conference technology provider of choice, came up with a simple, yet effective solution: They just split up the teams and gave us one booth each. So there we were, my colleague Inés de Chavarría and I, spreading our stuff in our private booths, separated by no more than a window.
Separate booths
Now, apart from having to bring our own food (no catering available), by the time we met in the morning of this meeting, we had already figured out which would probably be the main challenges of being boothmates while separated by a glass wall:
1 How do we agree on when to take turns?
2 How do we help each other by writing down numbers, names and difficult words?
3 How do we tell each other that we want coffee/are completely knackered/need to go to the loo, complain about the sound/accent/temperature/chairman’s haircut or ask how the kids are?
Luckily, after an exciting day, we felt that we had found great solutions to all our communicative needs:
1 Taking over: Although the colleague who was not working couldn’t listen to the original and the interpretation at the same time, she could tell quite reliably from gestures and eye-contact when to take over. So, no countdown or egg timer needed as long as you can see each other.
2 Helping out – These were the options we tried:
Write down things with pen and paper, show it through the window: Rather slow and hard to read due to reflections from the booth windows. The same goes for typing on the computer and looking at the screen through the window.
Scribbling in a shared file in Microsoft Whiteboard (great), One Note (ok), Google Drawings (a bit slow and unprecise): Fine as long as all parties involved have a touchscreen and decent pen. Sometimes hard to read, depending on the quality of the pen/screen and handwriting.
Typing in a shared file like Google Sheets or Docs: This was our method of choice. The things we typed appeared on the other’s screen in real-time, plus it was perfectly legible, in contrast to some people’s handwriting. A perfect solution as long as there is decent Wifi or mobile data connection. And although I am usually of the opinion that there is no such thing as a decent spreadsheet, in this case, a plain word processing document has one clear advantage: When you type in Google Docs, each character you type will appear on your colleague’s screen practically in real-time, whereas when typing in the cell of a Google Sheet, your colleague won’t be able to see it until you „leave“ this cell and jump to the next one.
3 The usual chitchat:
WhatsApp, or rather the WhatsApp Web App, was the first thing we all spontaneously resorted to for staying in contact with a glass wall between us. But it quickly turned out to be rather distracting, with all sorts of private messages popping up.
Luckily, all Google documents come with a chat function included, so we had both our meeting-related information exchange and our personal logistics neatly displayed next to each other in the same browser window.
If we had worked with many different documents that needed to be managed while interpreting, I would have liked to try Microsoft Teams. With its chat function and shared documents, among other features, it seems very promising as a shared booth platform. But their registration service was down due to overload anyway, so that’s for next time.
So, all in all, a very special experience, and rather encouraging thanks to the many positive contributions from all people involved. And the bottom line, after having to accommodate on my laptop screen the booth chat and notes next to the usual glossary, online resources, agenda and meeting documents: My next panic purchase will be a portable touchscreen in order to double my screen space in the booth.
About the author
Anja Rütten is a freelance conference interpreter for German (A), Spanish (B), English (C) and French (C) based in Düsseldorf, Germany. She has specialised in knowledge management since the mid-1990s.
After conducting research and providing training on Computer-Assisted Interpreting (CAI) for the past 6 years, I feel quite confident in affirming that there are three indisputable truths about CAI tools: they can potentially provide a lot of advantages, do more harm than good if not used strategically, and most interpreters know very little about them.
The surveys conducted so far on interpreters’ terminological strategies[1] have shown that only a small percentage has integrated CAI tools in their workflow. Most interpreters still prefer “traditional” solutions such as Word or Excel tables to organize their terminology. There can be many reasons for this. Some may have already developed reliable systems and processes, and don’t see a point in reinventing the wheel. Others believe the cons outweigh the pros when it comes to these tools and are yet to find a truly convincing alternative to their current solutions. Others may simply never have heard about Flashterm, InterpretBank or Interpreter’s Help before.
Even though a lot still remains to be investigated and demonstrated empirically, the studies conducted so far have highlighted both advantages and disadvantages in the use of CAI tools. On the positive side, CAI tools can provide effective preparation through automatic term extraction and in-built concordancers[2] (Xu 2015). They seem to contribute to higher terminological accuracy than paper glossaries[3] or even Excel tables[4] when used to look up terms in the booth. They help interpreters organize, reuse and share their resources, rationalize and speed up their preparation process, make the most of preparation documents, work efficiently on the go and go paperless if desired. On the negative side, they are often perceived as potentially distracting and less flexible than traditional solutions. When working with CAI tools, we might run the risk of relying too much on the tool, both during the preparation phase and interpretation proper[5].
I would argue that, if used strategically, the pros easily outweigh the cons billigastemobilabonnemang.nu telefonabonnemang. Just as with any tool and new technology, it all comes down to how you use them. Whether you are still sceptical, already CAI-curious, or a technology enthusiast, here are three tips on how to make CAI tools work for you.
Take time to test your tools
Most tools offer a free demo to test out their functionalities. I know we are all busy, but you can use downtimes to work on improving your processes, just as you would (should!) do to work on your CPD and marketing strategy. I suggest you do the following:
Choose one of your recent assignments, something you had to do research on because the topic was unfamiliar to you.
Set aside 1-2 hours a day, or even just 30 minutes, to simulate preparing for the assignment again.
Set yourself a clear goal for each phase of your workflow (glossary creation, terminology extraction, memorization, debriefing).
Build your baseline: dedicate 1 session to assessing your current approach. Then, dedicate each of the following sessions to testing out a different tool.
For a systematic comparison, keep track of the time needed for each activity, the pros and cons for each tool, your preferences and things that you found irritating.
You can conduct this analysis and selection process over a week or even a month if you are very busy. Once you have identified what might work for you, keep using those tools! Maybe test them out on a real assignment for a client you already know, where the risk of mishaps is lower.
There is no perfect tool
Unless you can write code and develop your own tool, chances are there will always be something you don’t like about a tool, or that some functions you deem essential might be missing. But given the advantages that come from working with these solutions, it is definitely worth it to try and see whether you can find a tool that satisfies even just 50% of your interpreting needs. It may not seem much, but it’s already 50% of your workflow that you can optimize.
Once you get a feeling for what each tool can do for you, you might find out that there are some options you love that aren’t available in your tool of choice. My suggestion: mix and match. Most CAI tools are built modularly and allow users to only work with a specific function. For instance, I love Intragloss’ terminology extraction module, so I use that tool to work with documents, but I use InterpretBank for everything else. In a word: experiment and be creative!
Tools can’t do the work for you
If you’re passionate about technology, you will agree that CAI tools are quite cool. However, we should never forget that they are a tool and, as such, they fulfil their function as long as we use them purposefully. Think before you use them, always make sure you follow a strategic course of action.
If you have the feeling you had never been as ill-prepared as when you worked with a CAI tool, here are some questions you can ask yourself:
Am I sure this is the right tool for me? Have I taken enough time to test it out?
Did I have a clear goal when I started preparing for my assignment? Or was I simply trying to cram together as many terms as possible?
Am I aware of my learning preferences? If I’m an auditory learner, does it make sense to use a flashcard method to study the terminology?
Did I include in my glossary just any term that came up in my documents? Or did I start from the relevant terminology I found to further explore the topic?
As for many things in life, reflection and a structured, strategic approach can really go a long way. For busy interpreters needing some guidance, Interpremy is preparing a course series that will help you effectively use CAI tools to optimize all phases of your workflow and avoid potential pitfalls. Get in touch at info@interpremy.com!
[1] See for instance: Zielinski, Daniel and Yamile Ramírez-Safar (2006). Onlineumfrage zu Terminologieextraktions- und Terminologieverwaltungstools. Wunsch und Wirklichkeit noch weit auseinander.” MDÜ. and Corpas Pastor, Gloria and Lily May Fern (2016). A Survey of Interpreters’ Needs and Practices Related to Language Technology.
[2] See Xu, Ran (2015). Terminology Preparation for Simultaneous Interpreters. University of Leeds.
[3] Biagini, Giulio (2015). Glossario cartaceo e glossario elettronico durante l’interpretazione simultanea: uno studio comparativo. Università degli studi di Trieste.
[4] Prandi, Bianca (2018). An exploratory study on CAI tools in simultaneous interpreting: Theoretical framework and stimulus validation. In Claudio Fantinuoli (ed.), Interpreting and technology, 29–59. Berlin: Language Science Press.
[5] Prandi, Bianca (2015). The Use of CAI Tools in Interpreters’ Training: A Pilot Study. 37th Conference Translating and the Computer, 48–57.
About the author:
Bianca Prandi
bianca@interpremy.com
Conference Interpreter IT-EN-DE, MA Interpreting (University of Bologna/Forlì), based in Mannheim (Germany), www.biancaprandi.com;
PhD candidate – University of Mainz/Germersheim. Research topic: impact of computer-assisted interpreting tools on terminological quality and cognitive processes in simultaneous interpreting;
CAI trainer and co-founder of InterpreMY – my interpreting academy: online academy for interpreters with goal-centered, research-based courses, www.interpremy.com (coming soon: July 2020).
Publications:
Prandi, B. (2015). L’uso di InterpretBank nella didattica dell’interpretazione: uno studio esplorativo. Università di Bologna/Forlì.
Prandi, B. (2015). The Use of CAI Tools in Interpreters’ Training: A Pilot Study. 37th Conference Translating and the Computer, 48–57. London.
Prandi, B. (2017). Designing a Multimethod Study on the Use of CAI Tools during Simultaneous Interpreting. 39th Conference Translating and the Computer, 76–88. London: AsLing.
Prandi, B. (2018). An exploratory study on CAI tools in Simultaneous Interpreting: theoretical framework and stimulus validation. In C. Fantinuoli (Ed.), Interpreting and technology, 28–59.
Fantinuoli, C., & Prandi, B. (2018). Teaching information and communication technologies: a proposal for the interpreting classroom. Trans-Kom, 11(2), 162–182.
Prandi, B. (forthcoming). CAI tools in interpreter training: where are we now and where do we go from here? InTRAlinea.
A new client requested you to interpret at his business’s annual press conference. It’s quite a big assignment and the event takes place in only five days, but you are not worried: the best practices that you have developed through your training and professional experience allow you to prepare efficiently and effectively. So, you get started with your preparation. You find out more about the company’s departments and positions and prepare a multilingual list of speakers and participants. You learn more about the company’s products and create a glossary using your favourite computer-assisted interpreting tools. Of course, you also prepare strategically on numerical facts and organise key data for easy access in the booth.
The following statement will, therefore, appear obscure to you:
“ Preparation, as a means to overcome number problems, is not very efficient. Most numbers that arise in speeches do not form part of interpreters’ general knowledge.“
I was surprised when I read this comment to one of my articles by a peer reviewer in one of the most influential scientific magazines in interpreting research. After all, the conviction that preparation is key to interpret numbers successfully seems not to be shared by all experts in our field. Time and again, this observation found confirmation in my research studies on the topic as well as in my experience teaching my course on the simultaneous interpretation of numbers, talking at conferences and exchanging views with colleagues on this topic. A large number of students, trainers and professionals are unclear about why, when and how preparation is helpful to interpret numbers. In this blog post, I will try to clarify these points and share with you some general principles to guide your numerical preparation for assignments.
Of course, preparation on numerical facts, just like general preparation, may only be efficient and effective if it is goal-directed and systematic. In other words, if we do not want to waste our time and make sure that our numerical preparation actually allows us to improve our interpretation quality, we need a technique for numerical preparation―a set of procedures and methods that allow us to achieve the desired effect. To develop and refine our technique for numerical preparation, it is, therefore, first and foremost important to define its purpose.
1. The function of preparation in interpreting
The function of numerical preparation can be compared to the function of preparation in general. When we prepare for our assignments, we conduct two distinct types of preparation: terminological and knowledge-based. Both types have their own function, and both are, therefore, necessary.
Terminological preparation is aimed at finding target-language equivalents for source-language terms. To be useful, this type of preparation should guarantee that we have identified all the most relevant terms to our assignment.
Knowledge-based preparation is aimed at acquiring encyclopaedic knowledge about the topic of our assignment. Such background knowledge is fundamental because it allows us to understand the meaning of the information in the source speech, summarise, reformulate, clarify concepts and check our delivery for plausibility.
2. The function of numerical preparation: why and when is it important?
The same principles apply to numerical preparation. Preparation on numerical facts can, too, be divided into two types, each with its own function.
The first type of numerical preparation aims at identifying the key components of the numerical information unit. Numbers (the bare arithmetical value) are always accompanied by other elements that constitute the information unit, such as referent (the thing that the number quantifies or defines) and unit of measurement (the accepted standard of measurement of quantity), like in the example below:
a 19[arithmetical value]-inch[unit of measurement] tablet [referent]
A number without a referent is like a sentence without a subject. All elements of the numerical information unit must be interpreted accurately to convey the information. For instance, if I didn’t know the equivalent term of the unit of measurement ‘inch’ in the target language, I wouldn’t be able to provide my audience with an accurate rendition of the source-language numerical information.
The second type of numerical preparation is aimed at acquiring encyclopaedic numerical knowledge about the topic of our assignment. Like general encyclopaedic knowledge in understanding, the knowledge of some reference numerical facts allows us to understand the numbers in the source-speech. This enables us to apply interpreting strategies when needed or desirable. For instance, if I didn’t know the correct translation of the word ‘inch’ but I could convert this unit of measurement into centimetre, I would still be able to provide my audience with equivalent information. This type of preparation also allows us to perform a plausibility check of our delivery, which can save us from painful plausibility errors. For instance, knowing the rough length of an inch in the real world, I would not confuse ’19 inches’ with ’90 inches’ when talking about the width of a laptop screen. Even if similar-sounding numerals are a frequent problem trigger, thanks to my background numerical knowledge, I would immediately judge the second option as implausible, see this here. 3. Numerical preparation: how to do it efficiently and effectively?
To summarise, we may distinguish two distinct types of numerical preparation:
1) Preparation on the components of the numerical information unit, like terminological preparation, allows us to increase the accuracy of our delivery, by ensuring that we can rapidly and precisely deliver the information in the target language;
2) Preparation on encyclopaedic numerical knowledge makes it possible for us to understand the meaning of the numerical information, select adequate strategies to solve interpreting-related problems (summarising, reformulating, clarifying etc.), and check our delivery for plausibility.
A common problem with numerical preparation is choosing the right elements to focus on. When you prepare for numerical facts remember a general rule of thumb: less is more but may not be enough. You want to make sure that you do not waste your time trying to memorise endless lists of data but you still need to find the fundamental information that will help you achieve the objective of a more accurate and effortless delivery. To make sure that you are preparing on numerical facts both efficiently and effectively, try asking yourself the following questions:
• What are the top 5 most important numerical facts about this event/topic?―Sure you can do more if you have time, but starting with the 5 most relevant numbers will help you focus your preparation and decrease the likelihood of overseeing fundamental facts that you really should know.
• What are the elements that accompany those 5 key numerical information units?―For each numerical fact, make sure to learn the fundamental elements of the numerical information unit in both the source and the target language. This will help you make sure that you can interpret the information completely and accurately.
• What are the benchmark values for these 5 key numerical facts?―The previous knowledge of some reference values (for instance the highest and lowest values) will allow you to gauge the plausibility of the information in the source speech and in your delivery.
If this all sounds too abstract, don’t worry! A course on the topic will soon be available on www.interpremy.com. We will also be holding a seminar on the topic at AIIC Germany’s PRIMS conference in July 2020. Get in touch to be kept posted!
About the author:
Francesca Maria Frittella
Conference Interpreter IT-EN-DE-CN, MA Germersheim, based in Beijing (China), fmfinterpreting.com, contact: francesca@interpremy.com
Researcher in interpreting pedagogy and course design
Co-founder of InterpreMY – my interpreting academy: online academy for interpreters with goal-centred, research-based courses, interpremy.com (coming soon: July 2020)
Publications:
Frittella F. M. (2017) Numeri in interpretazione simultanea. Difficoltà oggettive e soggettive: un contributo sperimentale (in English, Numbers in Simultaneous Interpreting. Objective and Subjective Difficulties: An experimental study), Rome, Europa Edizioni.
Frittella F. M. (2019) „70.6 billion world citizens: Investigating the difficulty of interpreting numbers“, Translation & Interpreting 11/1.
Das Potpourri aus über 100 Vorträgen, Diskussionen, Seminaren und Workshops, das der BDÜ vergangenes Wochenende beim BDÜ-Kongress in Bonn hingezaubert hat, kann ein einzelner Mensch gewiss nicht würdigen. Deshalb ist mein kleiner Bericht auch nur ein ganz persönlicher Erfahrungsausschnitt. Sämtliche Abstracts und Artikel lassen sich viel besser im Tagungsband nachlesen.
Mein erster Gedanke auf dem Heimweg nach dem ersten Kongress Tag war: Wie DeepL, einer Art Naturphänomen gleich, mit einer Mischung aus Faszination und Entsetzen studiert wird, das erinnert mich stark daran, wie vor etwa 15 Jahren alle staundend auf Google blickten und versuchten, sein „Verhalten“ zu ergründen. Ein wenig tat mir das arme DeepL schon leid, leistet es doch für eine Maschine wirklich Beträchtliches, und doch erntet es unter Sprachmittlern allenthalben Häme für die – zugegebenermaßen of lustigen – Fehler, die es produziert. Glücklicherweise blieb es aber nicht dabei: Zumindest für mich gab es in einigem hochinteressanten Vorträgen durchaus Neues und Interessantes in Sachen maschineller Übersetzung zu hören.
Patrick Mustu über DeepL im Übersetzen von Rechtstexten für das Sprachenpaar Englisch-Deutsch
Patrick Mustu lieferte eine fundierte wie unterhaltsame Darstellung dessen, was DeepL mit Rechtstexten so anstellt. Was mir dabei besonders im Gedächtnis geblieben ist:
DeepL liefert zu verschiedenen Zeitpunkten für denselben Text unterschiedliche Übersetzungen. The parties hereto waren an einem Tag Die Parteien hieran, am nächsten die Beteiligten.
DeepL schaut nicht in die amtlichen Übersetzungen von EU-Rechtstexten. Für Rechtskundige und Normalsterbliche ganz geläufige Abkürzungen wie DSGVO wurden nie übersetzt.
Die so genannten Doublets (any and all, null and void, terms and conditions) und Triplets (right, title and interest) werden nicht als Sinneinheiten erkannt, sondern einzeln wortwörtlich übersetzt. Sie veranschaulichen gut, was Patrick Mustu mit Blick auf den übersetzerischen Balanceakt zwischen Freiheit und Genauigkeit sehr schön auf den Punkt gebracht hat hat mit dem denkwürdigen Satz „Auch Übersetzer sind Interpreter.“
In diesem für mich ultraspannenden Seminar wurde gezeigt, wie man die Algorithmen von online verfügbaren MÜ-Systemen mit kundenspezifischer Terminologie füttern, also trainieren kann. Dank dieser engine customization kann man dem System dabei helfen, sich bei einer Auswahl möglicher Termini für den jeweils „richtigen“ zu entscheiden. In manchen Texten trägt die Terminologie den Großteil der Inhalte, sie ist außerdem SEO-relevant. Deshalb ist eine verbesserte Terminologie von entscheidender Bedeutung für die Qualität der Übersetzung.
Die Referenten hatten eine Reihe kommerziell verfügbarer Systeme getestet, unter anderem Amazon, Globalese, Google, Microsoft und SDL. Es gab jeweils eine Demonstration der Benutzeroberflächen, der Preismodelle und eine Auswertung der Ergebnisse. Hierbei wurde die mittels Einspeisen eigener Terminologie erzielte Reduzierung der Terminologiefehler gewichtet nach Kritikalität dargestellt – sie lag teilweise bei über 90 %.
Interessant: Das Importieren von „nackter“ Terminologie brachte im Vergleich nicht so gute Ergebnisse wie das Eispielen ganzer Sätze – in einigen Fällen verschlechterten sich die Übersetzungen sogar. Die Bedeutung von Kontext, Kontext, Kontextscheint also auch in der MÜ eine große Rolle zu spielen.
Als ich später den „Terminologiepapst“ Klaus-Dirk Schmitz nach den Megatrends in der Terminologie fragte, nannte er im Übrigen spontan – unter anderem – auch die Frage, wie man Terminologie sinnvoll in die MÜ integriert. Offensichtlich lag das Seminar von Daniel Zielinski und Jennifer Vardaro also voll im Megatrend!
Nina Cisneros – Schriftdolmetschen
Den Übergang vom Schreiben zum Sprechen schaffte ich dann mit dem Vortrag von Nina Cisneros zum Thema Schriftdolmetschen, auch Livetranskription oder Live Captioning genannt. Dieses „Mitschreiben“ in Echtzeit erfolgt normalerweise einsprachig und dient der Hörunterstützung, meist für Menschen mit Hörbehinderung. Wie im Simultandolmetschen arbeitet man zu zweit, um einander aufgrund der hohen kognitiven Belastung regelmäßig abzuwechseln und auch zu korrigieren und zu unterstützen.
Sowohl die konventionelle Methode des Schriftdolmetschens, also mit Händen und Tastatur, als auch die softwarebasierte mittels Nachsprechen des Gesagten und Transkription per Spracherkennungssoftware, hier Dragon (unter Zuhilfenahme eines Silencer genannten Schalldämpfers), wurden demonstriert.
Inspirierend war die anschließende Diskussion über Zusatzdienstleistungen, die im mehrsprachigen Konferenzdolmetschen im Zusammenhang mit Schriftdolmetschen angeboten werden könnten. Bei einer Art sprachmittelndem Schriftdolmetschen oder schriftlichem Simultandolmetschen könnte das Gedolmetschte statt per Mikrofon und Kopfhörer in Schriftform auf einen großen Bildschirm, einer Live-Untertitelung gleich, oder per App auf mobile Endgeräte der Zuhörer übertragen werden. Abgesehen von der Sprachmittlung kann auch hier eine willkommene Hörunterstützung „mitgeliefert“ werden: Manche Zuhörer tun sich leichter damit, eine Fremdsprache zu lesen, als sie zu verstehen.
Als Alternative zur Ausgabe unzähliger Kopfhörer wäre eine solche Lösung auch diskret und unkompliziert. Schon heute ist es ja teilweise so, dass man auf das Verteilen von Empfängern verzichtet und stattdessen die Verdolmetschung per Saallautsprecher für alle Zuhörer überträgt (egal ob sie die Ausgangssprache verstehen oder nicht).
Unbeantwortet blieb die Frage, ob man beim Simultandolmetschen statt für die menschlichen Zuhörer auch Dragon-gerecht sprechen kann, also nicht nur deutlich und mit gleichmäßigem Tempo, sondern auch unter Angabe von Satzzeichen und möglichst „druckreif“, also zum Beispiel ohne Selbstkorrekturen. Ich denke Komma es wäre einen Versuch wert Ausrufezeichen
Auch wenn für mich der Charme einer BDÜ-Konferenz unter anderem darin liegt, zu sehen, welche technologischen Neuerungen es bei den Übersetzern gibt (sprich: Was in ein paar Jahren zu den Dolmetschern herüberschwappen könnte), so gab es natürlich auch zum Konferenzdolmetschen viele spannende Vorträge, und zwar nicht nur zum Trendthema RSI. Was ich schon im Sommer beim DfD 2019 bemerkt hatte, bestätigte sich auch hier: Es lohnt sich, Hochschulabsolventen über ihre Masterarbeiten reden zu lassen. So hat Nora Brüsewitz von ihrer Arbeit zur automatischen Spracherkennung als Unterstützung von Simultandolmetschern berichtet. Sie hat hierzu die Systeme von Google, Watson (IBM), Aonix und Speechmatix getestet und anhand der Kriterien Zahlen, Eigennamen, Terminologie, Homophone und unlogische Aussagen evaluiert. In der Gesamtwertung lag Google vorne, bei dem korrekten Transkribieren von Zahlen hatte Watson mit 97 % deutlich die Nase vorne, bei den Eigennamen Google mit 92 % (alle anderen lagen hier deutlich unter 40 %!), im Korrigieren unlogischer Aussagen waren alle Systeme mit zwischen 70 und über 90 % erstaunlich gut (Einzelheiten im Tagungsband, Lesen lohnt sich!) Insgesamt ein Ansatz, bei dem es sich lohnt, die Entwicklungen im Auge zu behalten!
Sarah Fisher stellte die Ergebnisse ihrer Masterarbeit Voices from the booth – collective experiences of working with technology in conference interpreting vor. Die Einzelheiten lassen sich auch hier besser der Arbeit oder dem Tagungsband entnehmen, aber eine sehr aussagekräftige Folie möchte ich gerne für sich sprechen lassen:
We need tech to work
Zu guter Letzt hat Claudio Fantinuoli in seinem Vortrag The Technological Turn in Interpreting: The Challenges That Lie Ahead einen willkommenen Perspektivenwechsel vorgenommen und darauf hingewiesen, dass es ohne „neue Technologien“ gar kein Simultandolmetschen gäbe. Die großen technischen Entwicklungen, so Claudio, geschehen schnell und unabhängig von uns. Ein besseres Schlusswort hätte ich mir nicht überlegen können, read review.
Und einmal mehr hat sich bestätigt: Das A und O jedes Kongresses sind die Kaffeepausen. Zwar konnte ich mich in den zwei (von insgesamt drei) Tagen nur mit schätzungsweise 0,1 % der über 1000 Teilnehmer unterhalten (und höchstens 10 % der Beiträge hören). Aber ich hätte kaum in zwei Tagen so viele Bücher, Zeitschriften, Blogs, Posts und Webseiten wälzen können, um durch reines Lesen so viele relevante Informationen und Eindrücke zu erhalten, wie ich sie hier von Mensch zu Mensch bekommen habe.
———————— Über die Autorin:
Anja Rütten ist freiberufliche Konferenzdolmetscherin für Deutsch (A), Spanisch (B), Englisch (C) und Französisch (C) in Düsseldorf. Sie widmet sich seit Mitte der 1990er dem Wissensmanagement.
After Microsoft Translate and Google Translate, last week I decided to take a closer look at DeepL’s beta desktop application. I had to prepare over 50 Power Point slides filled with text about quite a number of rulings of the European Court of Justice. I was pretty sure these would be read out at high speed in the meeting and I had no time to prepare in their entirety. As DeepL’s neural networks were trained on the basis of Linguee’s databases, I had half hoped that if I had the original text of an ECJ ruling, or part of an EU regulation, DeepL would just magically replace the English text with the official German version and save me the hassle of looking it up in Eurlex or Curia myself. Admittedly, I was also tempted by DeepL’s extremely user-friendly handling: You simply highlight the word or text you need to be translated, Press CTRL+C twice, see if you like the translation and press Enter to replace the original text with the translation. Also, if there is a particular word you don’t like in the translation proposed, you click on it and DeepL offers you alternatives to choose from in a drop-down menu (improving its own system on the basis of the user’s choice). I was then a bit disappointed to see that DeepL didn’t just replace the official English version of an EU text with the official German version, with both of them being readily available on the internet. No human translator would take the trouble of translating something that has already been translated and/or verified by expert translators. But then DeepL obviously is not pretending to be human …
All in all, I find the quality of the translation quite impressive. A sample translation from English into German and vice versa is included at the bottom of this article. Of course, it goes without saying that machine-translated texts are not there to be read out pretending you are interpreting simultaneously or you pre-translated it yourself. And also that when using your client’s confidential data, you buy DeepL Pro to make sure no such information is saved on DeepL’s servers. Apart from these banalities, these are some points that require special attention:
Consistency: The same term may be translated differently in the same paragraph. I had nominal value translated into Nennwert and Nominalwert.
Context: When a person invests in a certificate issued by a bank, it is clearly a Zertifikat in German and not an Urkunde.
Plausibility: When an investor brings a tort action against a bank, this does not mean Ein Anleger leitet eine unerlaubte Handlung gegen eine Bank ein (i.e. the investor acts unlawfully) – as this means rather the opposite. The official German version talks of erhobene Klage wegen Haftung dieser Bank aus unerlaubter Handlung.
Robustness: Make sure your original text has no typos! There are typos that are not detected (yet) by machines, because the „wrong“ word is actually a real word, too. Such tiny mistakes often go unnoticed by human readers, because we tend to auto-correct them on the basis of the words we expect to read in a certain context. However, such minor mistakes in the original text can sometimes lead to quite disturbing mistranslations. For example, a non-martial (instead of non-marital) partnership was translated by DeepL into Nicht-Kriegsgesellschaft (i.e. non-war partnership).
Appropriate terminology: Some translations just don’t sound right or are not exactly to the point, like e.g. a person’s status which would be referred to as the Personenstand (civil or marital status) in German instead of simply saying status, which could be anything. A bailiff practice would be Gerichtsvollzieherbüro rather than Gerichtsvollzieherpraxis.
In the end, it always boils down to the same rules, which by the way apply to each and every minute of simultaneous interpreting (or looking up a word in any dictionary, even the most reliable one): Always look for the meaning of a text and constantly run plausibility checks.
About the author:
Anja Rütten is a freelance conference interpreter for German (A), Spanish (B), English (C) and French (C) based in Düsseldorf, Germany. She has specialised in knowledge management since the mid-1990s.
DeepL Sample Translations:
Original DE
DeepL EN>DE
Original EN
DeepL DE>EN
20.12.2012 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 351/1
20.12.2012 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 351/1
20.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 351/1
20.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 351/1
VERORDNUNG (EU) Nr. 1215/2012 DES EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS UND DES RATES über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen
VERORDNUNG (EU) Nr. 1215/2012 DES EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS UND DES RATES über die Zuständigkeit und die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen
REGULATION (EU) No 1215/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
REGULATION (EU) No 1215/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
vom 12. Dezember 2012
vom 12. Dezember 2012
of 12 December 2012
of 12 December 2012
(Neufassung)
(Neufassung)
(recast)
(recast)
Artikel 1
Artikel 1
Article 1
Article 1
(1) Diese Verordnung ist in Zivil- und Handelssachen anzuwenden, ohne dass es auf die Art der Gerichtsbarkeit ankommt. Sie gilt insbesondere nicht für Steuer- und Zollsachen sowie verwaltungsrechtliche Angelegenheiten oder die Haftung des Staates für Handlungen oder Unterlassungen im Rahmen der Ausübung hoheitlicher Rechte (acta iure imperii).
1. Diese Verordnung gilt in Zivil- und Handelssachen unabhängig von der Art des Gerichts. Sie erstreckt sich insbesondere nicht auf Steuer-, Zoll- oder Verwaltungsangelegenheiten oder die Haftung des Staates für Handlungen und Unterlassungen in Ausübung staatlicher Gewalt (acta iure imperii).
1. This Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters or to the liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority (acta iure imperii).
1. This Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters, whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. In particular, it shall not apply to tax, customs or administrative matters or to the liability of the State for acts or omissions in the exercise of State authority (acta iure imperii).
(2) Sie ist nicht anzuwenden auf:
2. Diese Verordnung gilt nicht für:
2. This Regulation shall not apply to:
(2) It shall not apply to:
a) | den Personenstand, die Rechts- und Handlungsfähigkeit sowie die gesetzliche Vertretung von natürlichen Personen, die ehelichen Güterstände oder Güterstände aufgrund von Verhältnissen, die nach dem auf diese Verhältnisse anzuwendenden Recht mit der Ehe vergleichbare Wirkungen entfalten,
a) den Status oder die Rechtsfähigkeit natürlicher Personen, Vermögensrechte aus einer ehelichen Beziehung oder aus einer Beziehung, die nach dem auf diese Beziehung anwendbaren Recht vergleichbare Wirkungen wie die Ehe haben;
(a) | the status or legal capacity of natural persons, rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship or out of a relationship deemed by the law applicable to such relationship to have comparable effects to marriage;
a) | the marital status, legal capacity, capacity to act and legal representation of natural persons, matrimonial property regimes or matrimonial property regimes on the basis of relationships which, under the law applicable to such relationships, have comparable effects to marriage,
b) | Konkurse, Vergleiche und ähnliche Verfahren,
b) Konkurs, Verfahren im Zusammenhang mit der Liquidation insolventer Unternehmen oder anderer juristischer Personen, gerichtliche Vereinbarungen, Vergleiche und ähnliche Verfahren;
(b) | bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings;
(b) bankruptcies, settlements and similar proceedings,
c) | die soziale Sicherheit,
(c) | Sozialversicherung;
(c) | social security;
c) Social security,
d) | die Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit,
(d) | Schiedsverfahren;
(d) | arbitration;
(d) arbitration,
e) | Unterhaltspflichten, die auf einem Familien-, Verwandtschafts- oder eherechtlichen Verhältnis oder auf Schwägerschaft beruhen,
(e) Unterhaltspflichten, die sich aus einer familiären Beziehung, Abstammung, Ehe oder Verwandtschaft ergeben;
(e) | maintenance obligations arising from a family relationship, parentage, marriage or affinity;
e) | Maintenance obligations based on a family, relationship or marriage law relationship or on affinity,
f) | das Gebiet des Testaments- und Erbrechts, einschließlich Unterhaltspflichten, die mit dem Tod entstehen.
(f) Testamente und Erbfolge, einschließlich Unterhaltspflichten, die sich aus dem Tod ergeben.
(f) | wills and succession, including maintenance obligations arising by reason of death.
(f) the field of wills and succession, including maintenance obligations arising from death.
Artikel 2
Artikel 2
Article 2
Article 2
Für die Zwecke dieser Verordnung bezeichnet der Ausdruck
Für die Zwecke dieser Verordnung:
For the purposes of this Regulation:
For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply
a) | „Entscheidung“ jede von einem Gericht eines Mitgliedstaats erlassene Entscheidung ohne Rücksicht auf ihre Bezeichnung wie Urteil, Beschluss, Zahlungsbefehl oder Vollstreckungsbescheid, einschließlich des Kostenfestsetzungsbeschlusses eines Gerichtsbediensteten. | Für die Zwecke von Kapitel III umfasst der Ausdruck „Entscheidung“ auch einstweilige Maßnahmen einschließlich Sicherungsmaßnahmen, die von einem nach dieser Verordnung in der Hauptsache zuständigen Gericht angeordnet wurden. Hierzu gehören keine einstweiligen Maßnahmen einschließlich Sicherungsmaßnahmen, die von einem solchen Gericht angeordnet wurden, ohne dass der Beklagte vorgeladen wurde, es sei denn, die Entscheidung, welche die Maßnahme enthält, wird ihm vor der Vollstreckung zugestellt;
a) „Urteil“ ist jede von einem Gericht eines Mitgliedstaats ergangene Entscheidung, unabhängig von der Bezeichnung der Entscheidung, einschließlich eines Dekrets, einer Anordnung, einer Entscheidung oder eines Vollstreckungsbescheides, sowie eine Entscheidung über die Bestimmung der Kosten oder Ausgaben durch einen Beamten des Gerichts. | Für die Zwecke von Kapitel III umfasst das „Urteil“ vorläufige, einschließlich Schutzmaßnahmen, die von einem Gericht angeordnet werden, das nach dieser Verordnung in Bezug auf den Inhalt der Angelegenheit zuständig ist. Sie umfasst keine vorläufige, einschließlich schützende Maßnahme, die von einem solchen Gericht angeordnet wird, ohne dass der Beklagte vorgeladen wird, es sei denn, das die Maßnahme enthaltende Urteil wird dem Beklagten vor der Vollstreckung zugestellt;
(a) | ‘judgment’ means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Member State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as a decision on the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court. | For the purposes of Chapter III, ‘judgment’ includes provisional, including protective, measures ordered by a court or tribunal which by virtue of this Regulation has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. It does not include a provisional, including protective, measure which is ordered by such a court or tribunal without the defendant being summoned to appear, unless the judgment containing the measure is served on the defendant prior to enforcement;
(a) ‚decision‘ means any decision given by a court or tribunal of a Member State, whatever the judgment may be called, such as a judgment, order, order for payment or enforcement order, including the determination of costs and expenses by an officer of the court. | For the purposes of Chapter III, the term „decision“ shall also include provisional, including protective, measures ordered by a court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter under this Regulation. Such measures shall not include provisional, including protective, measures ordered by such a court without the defendant having been summoned, unless the decision containing the measure is served on him before enforcement;
b) | „gerichtlicher Vergleich“ einen Vergleich, der von einem Gericht eines Mitgliedstaats gebilligt oder vor einem Gericht eines Mitgliedstaats im Laufe eines Verfahrens geschlossen worden ist;
b) „Gerichtsvergleich“ ist ein Vergleich, der von einem Gericht eines Mitgliedstaats genehmigt oder im Laufe des Verfahrens vor einem Gericht eines Mitgliedstaats geschlossen wurde;
(b) | ‘court settlement’ means a settlement which has been approved by a court of a Member State or concluded before a court of a Member State in the course of proceedings;
(b) „court settlement“ means a settlement approved by a court of a Member State or concluded before a court of a Member State in the course of proceedings;
c) | „öffentliche Urkunde“ ein Schriftstück, das als öffentliche Urkunde im Ursprungsmitgliedstaat förmlich errichtet oder eingetragen worden ist und dessen Beweiskraft | i) | sich auf die Unterschrift und den Inhalt der öffentlichen Urkunde bezieht und | ii) | durch eine Behörde oder eine andere hierzu ermächtigte Stelle festgestellt worden ist;
c) „öffentliche Urkunde“ ist ein Dokument, das im Ursprungsmitgliedstaat formell erstellt oder als öffentliche Urkunde eingetragen wurde und dessen Echtheit: (i) | bezieht sich auf die Unterschrift und den Inhalt des Instruments; und | (ii) | (ii) | wurde von einer Behörde oder einer anderen zu diesem Zweck befugten Behörde eingerichtet;
(c) | ‘authentic instrument’ means a document which has been formally drawn up or registered as an authentic instrument in the Member State of origin and the authenticity of which: | (i) | relates to the signature and the content of the instrument; and | (ii) | has been established by a public authority or other authority empowered for that purpose;
(c) „authentic instrument“ means a document which has been formally drawn up or registered as an authentic instrument in the Member State of origin and the probative value of which relates to the signature and the content of the authentic instrument and which has been established by an authority or other authority empowered to that effect;
d) | „Ursprungsmitgliedstaat“ den Mitgliedstaat, in dem die Entscheidung ergangen, der gerichtliche Vergleich gebilligt oder geschlossen oder die öffentliche Urkunde förmlich errichtet oder eingetragen worden ist;
d) „Herkunftsmitgliedstaat“ ist der Mitgliedstaat, in dem gegebenenfalls die Entscheidung ergangen ist, der gerichtliche Vergleich genehmigt oder geschlossen wurde oder die öffentliche Urkunde formell ausgestellt oder eingetragen wurde;
(d) | ‘Member State of origin’ means the Member State in which, as the case may be, the judgment has been given, the court settlement has been approved or concluded, or the authentic instrument has been formally drawn up or registered;
(d) „Member State of origin“ means the Member State in which the judgment has been given, the court settlement approved or concluded, or the authentic instrument formally drawn up or registered;
e) | „ersuchter Mitgliedstaat“ den Mitgliedstaat, in dem die Anerkennung der Entscheidung geltend gemacht oder die Vollstreckung der Entscheidung, des gerichtlichen Vergleichs oder der öffentlichen Urkunde beantragt wird;
e) „ersuchter Mitgliedstaat“ ist der Mitgliedstaat, in dem die Anerkennung der Entscheidung geltend gemacht wird oder in dem die Vollstreckung der Entscheidung, des Gerichtsverfahrens oder der öffentlichen Urkunde angestrebt wird;
(e) | ‘Member State addressed’ means the Member State in which the recognition of the judgment is invoked or in which the enforcement of the judgment, the court settlement or the authentic instrument is sought;
(e) „requested Member State“ means the Member State in which recognition of the judgment is sought or enforcement of the judgment, the court settlement or the authentic instrument is sought;
f) | „Ursprungsgericht“ das Gericht, das die Entscheidung erlassen hat, deren Anerkennung geltend gemacht oder deren Vollstreckung beantragt wird.
f) „Ursprungsgericht“ ist das Gericht, das dem Urteil, dessen Anerkennung geltend gemacht oder dessen Vollstreckung angestrebt wird, zugestimmt hat.
(f) | ‘court of origin’ means the court which has given the judgment the recognition of which is invoked or the enforcement of which is sought.
(f) „court of origin“ means the court which delivered the judgment, the recognition of which is sought or the enforcement of which is sought.
The one thing that strikes me most about deliberate practice is the notion of immediate feedback. How could that possibly work in simultaneous interpreting? You can’t just interrupt each other when interpreting, can you? Well, most certainly not while on the job, but could you give immediate feedback when practising in a silent booth or at home? It reminds me of a dear colleague who once kindly recommended that I shouldn’t end every Spanish sentence with a „no?“, and then she started a tally of all my „nos“ while I was interpreting. Apart from the fun we had, I got rid of this habit once and for all in no time.
But apart from bothering your colleagues to get rid of your bad habits (or not to fall into them in the first place), there must be more to deliberate practice, I thought. So I grabbed what sounded like the most promising book about the subject: Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise by K. Anders Ericsson and Robert Pool to see if I could find some inspiration for experienced interpreters or students. And just to whet your appetite, I am happy to share my favourite ideas:
Once reached an acceptable level of – automated – performance, you do not necessarily improve by just going on doing the same thing for years. Your performance may even deteriorate. Leave your comfort zone, challenge your homeostasis if you want to improve.
So that’s that for the discussion about whether conference interpreters need any further training in interpreting once they have graduated („our daily work is training in itself“) …
Don’t just „try harder“, but differently. If you want to practice purposefully, define a realistic sub-goal and focus on the particular sub-skill, then make sure you receive immediate and positive feedback and repeat.
This makes me think of what Andrew Gillies (who also refers to Ericsson) says about practice: Dissect the process of interpreting and practice different sub-skills separately. Andrew suggests a plethora of useful exercises in his book Conference Interpreting – A Student’s Practice Book. And even if you are too lazy to do specific exercises: We all have these meetings once in a while where we know the content inside out, and I have seen colleagues writing emails or playing sudoku while interpreting. Why not focus on a particular aspect of your performance instead? You can play with your ear-voice-span, try to find new ways of expressing the standard phrases, monitor your voice and intonation, watch out for false starts or eeehms, try to make meaningful pauses or structure your output more clearly etc.
You need a mental representation of good performances. Only when you know what it „feels“ like to do something properly, you will be able to notice that what you are doing does not match this way of doing it well. By way of adaptive thinking, you can then correct mistakes.
The part of mental representations that are elicited by interviewing the best of the best performers in their respective fields (e.g. surgeons) could be quite interesting also for interpreting studies. In her dissertation Experience and Expertise in Conference Interpreting: An investigation of Swedish conference interpreters, Elisabet Tiselius conducted a study comparing the performance of interpreters with longer, shorter and no experience. Among many interesting findings, it becomes clear that the notions of deliberate practice and expert interpreter are not clearly defined in the world of interpreting. Differences between short- and long-experience interpreters were not as significant as one might have expected. „It may very well be that monitoring and informativeness are the components that make the expert performance superior. The challenge ahead is to dig deeper into these differences in order to understand and define expertise in interpreting.“ So a lot is still to be done is this field of research, you could check here.
All these insights remind me of another experience of having received immediate feedback. At university, one teacher we had would always listen in and watch us intently when we were interpreting, and he would frown as soon as we talked nonsense, or even interrupt and correct us. As a student, I found this teaching method rather effective, albeit cruel. But now, from a deliberate practice perspective, I understand that it might have been even more effective if – just like the tally experience mentioned at the beginning – (a) we had focussed on a sub-skill and (b) the feedback had been given not only immediately, but in a somewhat more enjoyable way. Lesson learned!
Further reading/watching:
Aline Casanova, who is both a conference interpreter and ballet dancer, has a special perspective on the subject.
Elisabet Tiselius, expert in deliberate practice and expertise in interpreting, refers to an analogy made by Ericsson, comparing conference interpreters to violinists:
Anja Rütten is a freelance conference interpreter for German (A), Spanish (B), English (C) and French (C) based in Düsseldorf, Germany. She has specialised in knowledge management since the mid-1990s.
This website uses cookies. If you continue to use this site, we assume that you agree to their use.OK
