Kiss neutrality goodbye 1

I don't why "neutrality". In fact, I know but I had not until recently. Discussions about interpreting have been pervaded, monopolized, therefore pervaded by the assumption that interpretation = simultaneous interpretation of perfectly written speeches. Andrew Gillies provides a wonderful book on not taking for consec, taking for granted that you deal or will deal with talkers that deliver scripted, minted, well rounded up speeches. In business interpreting, around the discussion table, as far as my experience tells, and even when the speaker uses a well experienced ppt document, it never gets smooth. The "naturallity" that is unprepared spontaneous speech always gets back into the picture at some point. The speech is never perfect. Pre-interpretation, that is cleaning behind to yield the gist out of the mush is a constant activity. That's the first level of "interventionism" produced and managed up to a point by the interpreter. Neutrality - the holy word - is dead, still born even before the interpreter starts rendering. So the whole question of neutrality is flawed outside the booth as soon as the speaker is not doing the perfect well rehearsed flawless pitch. The only situation where neutrality exists is where the interpreter is not here. Shoot the interpreter, and neutrality raises back from the tomb ....

à suivre ....