Franz Pöchhacker - Simultaneous Interpreting: A Functionalist Perspective

31

Franz Pöchhacker*
Simultaneous Interpreting: A Functionalist
Perspective
Abstract
The paper discusses a number of theoretical and methodological issues which arise
when professional simultaneous conference interpreting (SI) is studied in light of the
basic tenets of the functionalist theory of translation and interpreting (T&I) proposed by
Hans J. Vermeer (skopos theory). Based on amulti-level model of SI as a professional
course of action the paper applies such functionalist notions as skopos, target culture,
target-textual autonomy, and “coherence” to a case study of a three-day technical
conference with professional SI between English and German.
In essence, it is argued that, on a general conceptual level, modelling SI in the
framework of the general functionalisttheory of Vermeer serves to bring into focus the
crucial translational issues of situation, text, and culture. On the other hand, applying
skopos-theoretical concepts to the study of a corpus of authentic professional SI reveals
some limitations of the extent to which the general functionalist notions fit the specific
practice of SI.

Introduction
T and/or I
The professional activitiesof translation and interpreting can, in many
respects, be regarded as fraternal twins. Conceptually, they can even be
considered as two sides of the same coin (T + I = T&I). As early as the
1960s translation scholars at Leipzig like Otto Kade and Albrecht
Neubert tried to get a theoretical grip on the generic concept of
translational activity as such, be it oral or in writing. Their choice oflinguistics as the guiding discipline for research in T&I, however
plausible at the time, tended to favor translation research over the study
of interpreting. After all, the paradigms of modern linguistics beyond
the phonological level (structural semantics, transformational grammar,
* Franz Pöchhacker
Department of Translation and Interpreting,
University of Vienna
Gymnasiumstrasse 501190 Vienna (A)
Hermes, Journal of Linguistics no. 14 - 1995

32
contrastive linguistics, etc.) were largely geared to the analysis of
written words and sentences rather than oral performance, the study of
oral communication being rather messy with regard to research methodology. Thus, with few exceptions, the theory of (written) translation
and the theory of (conference) interpretingparted company.
The “linguistic theory of translation” had little, if any, counterpart in
the field of interpreting, where psychologists/psycholinguists and practitioners themselves took an approach of their own. Most notably
among the latter, Danica Seleskovitch proposed her théorie du sens in
explicit contradistinction to theories of linguistic meaning, which then
tended to show littleconcern for the actual use of language in communication. Seleskovitch’s theory, elaborated on for simultaneous interpreting by Lederer (1981), was easily and successfully applied to the
teaching of interpreting and gained predominance as the largely
undisputed school of thought in (conference) interpreting theory. With
hindsight, Seleskovitch ushered in what Gile (1988:369) perceives as
both “apromising initial phase” in interpreting research and theory and,
due to a lack of systematic analysis of empirical data, “a subsequent
period of stagnation”. The latter prompted a new wave of interpreting
research, which largely stresses the role of cognitive psychology as a
guiding discipline for empirical (“scientific”) research.
Obviously, the development of translation theory andinterpreting
theory over the past decades is much too complex to be summarized in
a couple of introductory paragraphs. Translation research and theory
has undergone tremendous diversification by drawing on a wide range
of methods and models such as think-aloud protocols and text and discourse analysis. While, in principle, the same diversity could be attested to recent work in interpreting research,...