Tashkent state uzbek language and literature university named after alisher navoiy

Simultaneous interpreting
Simultaneous interpretation suffers the disadvantage that if a person is performing the service the interpreter must do the best, he or she can within the time permitted by the pace of source speech. However, they also have the advantages of saving time and not disturbing the natural flow of the speaker. SI can also be accomplished by software where the program can simultaneously listen to incoming speech and speak the associated interpretation. The most common form is extempore SI, where the interpreter does not know the message until he or she hears it.
Simultaneous interpretation using electronic equipment where the interpreter can hear the speaker's voice as well as the interpreter's own voice was introduced at the Nuremberg trials in 1945. The equipment facilitated large numbers of listeners, and interpretation was offered in French, Russian, German and English. The technology arose in the 1920s and 1930s when American businessman Edward Filene and British engineer Alan Gordon Finlay developed simultaneous interpretation equipment with IBM. Yvonne Kapp attended a conference with simultaneous translation in 1935 in the Soviet Union. As it proved successful, IBM was able to sell the equipment to the United Nations, where it is now widely used in the United Nations Interpretation Service. In the ideal setting for oral language, the interpreter sits in a sound-proof booth and speaks into a microphone, while clearly seeing and hearing the source-language speaker via earphones. The simultaneous interpretation is rendered to the target-language listeners via their earphones.
The progressive shift from consecutive to simultaneous
Simultaneous interpreter's station (Televic Conference) at the European Court of Justice Pavel Palazchenko's My Years with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze: The Memoir of a Soviet Interpreter gives a short history of modern interpretation and of the transition from its consecutive to simultaneous forms. He explains that during the nineteenth century interpreters were rarely needed during European diplomatic discussions; these were routinely conducted in French, and all government diplomats were required to be fluent in this language. Most European government leaders and heads of state could also speak French Historian Harold Nicolson attributes the growing need for interpretation after World War I to the fact that U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and British Prime Minister David Lloyd George "were no linguists". At the time, the concept and special equipment needed for simultaneous interpretation, later patented by Alan Gordon Finlay, had not been developed, so consecutive interpretation was used.
Consecutive interpreters, in order be accurate, used a specialized system of note-taking which included symbols abbreviations and acronyms. Because they waited until the speaker was finished to provide translation, the interpreters then had the difficult task of creating from these notes as much as half an hour of free-flowing sentences closely matching the speaker's meaning. Palazchenko cites Anton Velleman [de], Jean Herbert and the Kaminker brothers as skilled interpreters, and notes one unusual case in which André Kaminker interpreted a speech by a French diplomat who spoke for two and a half hours without stopping.
After World War II, simultaneous interpretation came into use at the Nuremberg trial, and began to be more accepted. Experienced consecutive interpreters asserted that the difficulties of listening and speaking at the same time, adjusting for differences in sentence structure between languages, and interpreting the beginning of a sentence before hearing its end, would produce an inferior result. As well, these interpreters, who to that point had been prominent speakers, would now be speaking invisibly from booths.¹
In 1951, when the United Nations expanded its number of working languages to five (English, French, Russian, Chinese and Spanish), consecutive interpretation became impractical in most cases, and simultaneous interpretation became the most common process for the organization's large meetings. Consecutive interpretation, which provides a more fluent result without the need for specialized equipment, continued to be used for smaller discussions.