One of the questions I am most frequently asked as a language professional is the following: should we say translator or interpreter?

Quite often, the two are confused with each other, and I have to explain the difference. Since my work involves both written and spoken language services, the confusion is even more justified.

In reality, however, the distinction itself is rather straightforward.

A translator works with written texts.

For example:

• diploma translations

• contract translations

• court rulings

• official documents

An interpreter, by contrast, provides oral translation.

For example:

• notarial appointments

• court hearings

• hospital consultations

• business meetings

That said, in everyday usage these two terms are often used interchangeably, which is why many people naturally confuse them.

What makes this particularly interesting is that both professions ultimately revolve around translation. Yet the manner in which they are practised differs significantly.

A translator generally has the opportunity to conduct research, consult dictionaries and carefully polish a text before delivering a final version.

An interpreter, on the other hand, is often required to make immediate decisions in real time. Speed, concentration, memory, vocal delivery and interpersonal skills are therefore indispensable.

Personally, I often prefer to introduce myself in a simpler way:

I provide written and spoken language services.

That description is usually immediately clear and helps avoid unnecessary confusion.

What is your opinion? Do you believe this distinction remains important, or have the two terms become sufficiently close in everyday practice?

Evren Madran

The Talebird