The Future of Interpreting in Church pt.1

I have recently discovered the "Unprofessional Translation" blog. In this blog, the writer examines a lot of different places where those who are not professionally trained carry out translation or interpreting. For me, the most interest part of this blog has been his sensitive discussion of interpreting in church.

He concludes, like many others, that church interpreting is widespread and is often done by talented amateurs rather than professionals. On this point, there can be little argument. While a quick google search is likely to turn up some interpreters who are paid for church work, the vast majority of these seem to be sign language interpreters. Spoken language interpreters, it would seem, are much less likely to be paid. Similarly, while course for sign language interpreting in church seem to be available from one or two US Universities, nothing similar is available for spoken language interpreters.

I might talk about pay later, but let's deal with training for now.

Personally, I feel that we really do need specific training for church interpreters. Along with the blog above, research by Alev Balci and my own work in the ITI Bulletin has pointed out that church interpreters work under entirely different constraints than those working in other settings. So, while training on performance and stage presence might be completely unnecessary for interpreters working at a political conference, it is a must for church interpreters. Similarly, theology is useless for work in court interpreting but is desperately needed in interpreting.

It is essential that spoken language church interpreting follow the lead set by its sign language cousin. We really do need more research, we really do need more courses. What form these might take is open for debate but, with church interpreting reported on all continents (except Antarctica), perhaps web-based delivery holds the most promise.

To Be Continued