What is the exact difference between TRANSLATOR AND INTERPRETER?

Question

I always thought translator would translate LITERALLY, and interpreter would make the translation more adapt for the laguage he is translating in, but maybe it has something to do with doing it orally or in written form?

Answer 1

In the broader sense, a translator is anyone who conveys information from one language to another. In the more narrow sense, however, a translator is someone who works with the written word, while an interpreter works with the spoken word.

An interpreter works with the spoken word between two languages, meaning he/she must know both languages just about equally well. An interpreter must have good public speaking skills and like working with people.


A translator works with the written word between two languages, usually into his/her dominant language only, rather than into the second and less well-known language. A translator must have good writing, grammar and syntax skills into his/her dominant language.

Translators must know how to use a computer, know software programs like MS Office, Word, Excel and PowerPoint and terminology management software, like Trados, Déja Vu, SDL, etc. Also, how to find new terminology on the Internet. The above skills are also useful for interpreters, but not as mandatory.

Answer 2

Well, in addition to the dictionary definition of written/spoken, they do mean different things in general. A translation of a work is usually more direct and tries to preserve the original words as much as possible, like literally translating the words used, but still grammatical in the target language. Whereas an interpretation usually translates the *meaning* rather than the words as they were given. Sentences can be completely changed, including words that were never in the original, and removing words that were, if it better translates the *meaning* rather than what's actually written. Things like idioms and phrases can be completely entirely replaced with the nearest equivalent phrases that exist in the target language. That usually doesn't happen in straight up translations. That's a very subject and style-oriented thing though, but that's just what it can mean in addition to a spoken/written difference. If you're specifically talking about a set piece of work, then it's more likely to describe the translating style.

Answer 3

You are correct that in technical terms, a translator translates "word-for-word" and an interpreter translates "idea-for-idea". However, many lingual translators are in fact interpreters by this definition, because translating word-for-word often makes the translation hard to understand (due to differences in sentence structure between languages, etc.).

Formal equivalence is another term for "word-for-word" and dynamic equivalence is another term for "idea-for-idea".

In legal document translation (such as a translation of a will), formal equivalence is most often used to preserve every word spoken, to avoid ambiguities. In realtime translation (such as interpreters working in a speech presentation), dynamic equivalence is used for a better understanding in a shorter period of time (because the idea is more important to be presented immediately). Some important literary works, such as works by Shakespeare and the Holy Bible, use formal equivalence to preserve the sentence structure, words, and ideas to stay true to the author's authoritative message and artistic vision.

Answer 4

onoscity is right. At least that's the acception given to those two terms in European Union countrties and it's official.

Answer 5

No, I think you are right, I see that difference the same way.
I think, for translator is required to know language, and for interpreter is required to have broader knowledge of both language and certain areas and aspects that are subject.

Answer 6

onoscity's answer is the correct one.