1

LECTURE 5
RETOUR INTERPRETING
CONCEPT OF RETOUR INTERPRETING
PROS AND CONS OF USING RETOUR INTERPRETING
RETOUR REQUIREMENTS
RETOUR STRATEGIES
I. CONCEPT OF RETOUR INTERPRETING
The French term retour refers to interpretation in both directions using two
languages. For example, "I know your A language is French and your B is English, but do you do a
retour? ( = Do you interpret from French into English as well?)
Retour interpreting - interpreters should interpret only into their mother
tongues or also into a 'B' language;
Relay interpreting is another term for indirect interpretation, i.e. rather than
translate directly from the source language to the target language, an interpreter
may work from a colleague's translation. Relay interpretation can be justified at
conferences using many languages where some interpreters do not understand all
the working languages, or in cases where an exotic or rare language is spoken or
required.(AIICs definition)
Pivot interpreting- involves two steps: Interpreting from several languages
into a single pivot language (in 1 booth); and from the pivot language into other
languages (in a separate booth).

2

In relay interpreting, the pivot interpreter is the interpreter working directly
from the source language, and whose translation will therefore serve as the basis
from which other interpreters may work into other languages.
Relay Interpretation occurs when several languages are the targetlanguage.
A sourcelanguage interpreter renders the message to a language common to every
interpreter, who then renders the message to his or her specific targetlanguage. For
example, a Japanese source message is rendered to English, then it is rendered to
the other targetlanguages.

If an interpreter has a near-native command of his or her "B" language and
offers other less common languages, European institutions occasionally certify an
interpreter's "B" language as "B-retour" upon which his or her interpretation into
his or her B-retour language may be used as a relay for further interpretation into
other languages.
Retour interpreting, is an issue that has been hotly debated by both
professionals and trainers since interpreting has been recognized as a profession.
However, AIIC advises against this solution and only accepts it in exceptional
cases. This is because relay interpreting inevitably causes an additional time lag
and increases the risk of inaccuracy and errors.
There have been two polarised views in the past: the Western European
camp, which favoured interpreting exclusively into the mother tongue from several
different foreign languages (in simultaneous, at least) and the Eastern European
camp led by the Soviet Union, where interpreters would interpret in both directions
and where interpreting from the A language into the B language in both
consecutive and simultaneous was commonplace.
Daniel Giles argument is that "interpreting directionality preferences are
contradictory and based on traditions rather than research". The Soviet model was
based on the premise that no one is exempt from comprehension problems and as
one cannot interpret what one has not understood, the comprehension phase must
be given priority over production".
Emilia Iglesias Fernandez explains that Soviet thinking was based on the
view that as the most important phase in interpreting is understanding, its success
depends on a range of cognitive processes which are more easily completed in the
mother tongue. Moreover, it is argued that it is "cognitively more economical" for
the interpreter to have fewer options to choose from in the expression phase, thus
interpreting into a foreign language, paradoxically, facilitates the interpreting
process. Fernandez also claims that "at the very beginning, simultaneous
interpreting was invariably carried out into the interpreter's foreign language" and
3

that it is only since interpreters have been employed by international organizations
that this process has been reversed. Gile points out that many authors who are
opposed to interpreting into the B language in simultaneous nonetheless do so
routinely in consecutive while maintaining that consecutive has a higher status than
simultaneous. For Gile, they are thus guilty of flawed logic.

Despite these arguments, AIIC, the professional association of conference
interpreters, maintains that interpreters should interpret into their mother tongue.
The theory behind this, known as the thorie du sens, was developed by
Seleskovitch and Lederer of the Paris school ESIT. Seleskovitch maintained that
interpretation into the interpreter's A language is always of higher quality.

As Clare Donovan points out "a B language is by definition less versatile and
flexible than an A language" and interpreters working out of their mother tongue
find the process more tiring and stressful than into their mother tongue as they do
not have the same intuition and confidence of expression. Her research
demonstrates that recordings of interpretations into B show a "greater tendency to
break down or become unusable".

Djean Le Fal refers to the "intrinsic (original) weaknesses" of retour and cites
her own research which shows that it is "more subject to destabilization than
interpretation into the mother tongue". Interpreters have to adapt to changes in
global markets and take a pragmatic approach to such factors as supply and
demand. Although retour interpretation remains the norm in the international
organizations interpreting out of the mother tongue is common on the private
market, although it should be pointed out that it seems much more common and
accepted in some countries than in others (the Spanish find interpreting into B
wholly acceptable but the French do not and it would be a brave interpreter indeed
who dared encroach on the territory of the French booth). But offering an
interpreting service is a costly exercise and private sector organizers can reduce
their costs by insisting interpreters work in two directions. Furthermore, the
accession of new member states to the EU with minority languages has meant that
interpreters with minority languages as mother tongue are now required to perform
retour even within an international organization.

4





Issue Pro-Retour Against retour
cultural
competence
an interpreter is more culturally
competent in his mother culture
and therefore more competent
to interpret out of his mother tongue
Loss of cultural elements since the interpreter
has difficulties in
finding right cultural equivalents
comprehension
no one is exempt from
comprehension
problems and as one cannot interpret
what one has not understood, the
comprehension phase must be given
priority over production
As a result of lack of comprehension there
can be: omissions, additions, message
distortion, substitutions, paraphrasing, synthesis
mispronunciation, problems with
imtonation, rhythms
Quality
Higher Lower, increases the risk of inaccuracy,
takes more time
Language use
If you have a very good
comprehension, that will influence
production; a clearer and more
accurate message
Use of internationalisms, calques, change of
register, style
Efforts
Interpreters do not make tiring
efforts in understanding the
message, they feel confident and not
stressful as regards message
formulation
B language is by definition less versatile and
flexible
than an A language" and interpreters working out
of their mother tongue find the process more tiring
and stressful than into their mother tongue as they
do not have the same intuition and confidence of
expression

Retour requirements
DELIVERY
PRONUNCIATION - Clear articulation/pronunciation (an accent is not necessarily
a problem provided it is not off-putting for the listeners); using the natural stress
and intonation of the target language.
COMPREHENSION- Clear, unambiguous meaning- language usage and grammar
are not in themselves major issues if the message is clear.
LOGICAL LINKS- Separation of ideas: bring out the individual points of a speech
simply but forcefully by marking the end and beginning of sentences , preserve the
logical sequence
5

CONTENT- avoid reformulation with loss of elements, substitution of elements
and redundant elements, avoid additions if not necessary for the type of message
and event.
FLUENCY- reasonably fluent delivery i.e. not halting because searching for
words, filled pauses (ehms, ohs, coughs, glottal clicks)false starts, repetitions,
REGISTER- fairly extensive vocabulary and ability to distinguish between
registers.
LANGUAGE- ability to pick up and use correct terminology ; avoid language A
lexical and morphologic interference
Recommended strategies:
Listen to the A source language message almost as much as you would to a
C source language but think more consciously about how to express yourself
in the B target language (e.g. avoiding literalisms) than you might need to
into an A language.
Avoid ambitious linguistic pyrotechnics: they might not work and you could
fall flat on your face or make the speaker sound ridiculous; steer a modest,
cautious and neutral line language-wise. Keep it straightforward and simple
with short sentences.
Work actively on language enhancement building up a stock of set
equivalents between your A and B languages and stock phrases in the B
language.
Prepare your meetings, especially terminology, even more thoroughly than
when working into A; you will find it more difficult to get round the
problem of not knowing the correct technical term in your B language than
in your A language. Knowing the terms in B is a welcome comfort factor
when you are having to grapple with the handicap of expressing your self in
a language other than your mother tongue.
Think of your customers- delegates and interpreters taking you on relay.




6