The Translator as Communicator

INTERPRETING AND THE STANDARDS OF
TEXTUALITY
Having studied aspects of the texture, structure and context of 
Sample 3.2
, let us
now look at it from the perspective of the interpreter. George Bush’s declaration
is ideal material from which the manifold demands made on the interpreter may
be illustrated. It is the kind of statement that is often required to be
simultaneously interpreted if made at an international forum, for example, or
consecutively relayed if delivered, say, at a press conference. One could easily
imagine similar rhetorical purposes being involved in a question-and-answer
briefing session, relayed by a liaison interpreter.
The three principal modes of interpreting (the simultaneous, the consecutive
and the liaison) inevitably place different demands on the interpreter. It is true
that all well-formed texts, oral and written, possess all of the following
characteristics:
1 They are cohesive in texture.
2 They are coherent and exhibit a particular structure.
3 They serve a clear rhetorical purpose as texts.
4 They relay specific attitudinal meanings as discourse.
5 They are in keeping with the requirements of certain conventional formats as
genres.
6 They serve a set of mutually relevant communicative intentions
pragmatically.
7 They stand out as members of distinct registers.
34 THE TRANSLATOR AS COMMUNICATOR

---

It is also true that, whatever the mode of interpreting, input or output will have to
display all of the above characteristics. However, the three modes of interpreting
mentioned above seem to focus on different areas of text production and
reception. The various domains of textuality—context, structure and texture—are
not equally prominent. To reflect this varying degree of prominence we now put
forward a set of hypotheses.