Sunday, September 30, 2012

#IntJC Notes and thoughts on Session 22

Here are a few quick notes on Session 22 I will not elaborate about but just want to keep record of. The link to the transcript is here: http://chirpstory.com/li/25290

- Something was strikingly different in session 22 compared with previous sessions: the staggering number of questions that were left unanswered. In real time TV interviews for instance, politicians use a standard tactics of digression by opposing a rephrasing of the question to deflate it, counterattacking the questioner by negating competence, the timing of it, the inadequacy due to circumstances and other tactics at "drowning the fish" as you say in French.

- One interesting side of chat communication I was not aware of, as a rare user of it, is that you can skip a question ... by simply skipping it.

- The Darwinian in your face argument that one must face technological change by adapting or dying is - even in its clarity and sense of urgency thrown as a diktat - the equivalent of digressing by shifting key issues that are matters of business and (therefore) exploitation models to mere technological features and techie blabla. The point is not facing technological changes by pointing at the fate of dinosaurs, especially when all in the assembly are using advanced technologies as a matter of fact to engage into exchanges and in daily affairs. No, the point is understanding who is in charge, and who is not, and who is taking charge of your fate.

- Related with the above, you may notice going through the script that one side is making intense usage of utterances of verbs like "must" and "have to" as in "we must". The side casually inviting to provide feedback doesn't make a single use of such verbal imperative.

- 50% premium of peanuts is more peanuts.

- Masters of words are not masters of rhetorics  because the rules or rhetorics have changed and are less word based maybe, and more informed by poses and postures.

- In the salty snack and fast food industry, it is said that you just throw into the new recipe more bacon and sugar to further dumb the tastebuds. In a different situation but with same tactical intention, you just throw in more interface screenshots.

- My take on the second article and the parallel drawn between the coming crowdsourcing of interpreting and Wikipedia is that it is simply intellectual fraud and yet another tactic at drowning the fish. The agenda is the same though.

- I was in Sendai on March 14th 2011 as a volunteer interpreter among others, actually too many others because the needs where marginal. That gathering of interpreters including an absolute majority of "enthusiasts" was in a sense crowdsourcing of interpreting in terms of recruitment devoid of special tech side for there was no need for that. Face to face was enough. We were copiously doused with radioactivity just faintly knowing it.

To end with this, a future session of #IntJC could cover something like "What they don't teach you but should in interpreting school". I am looking for pointers at possible support articles and documents. React here or over Twitter with hashtag #IntJC.

2 comments:

  1. Exactly, Lionel. I dislike chat for exactly the reasons you mention here.

    In video chats, just like in live meetings, you can see and watch body language. Most of the time you will be able to judge whether a particular topic is best left without further discussion, or no discussion at all.

    Thus, a good argument for hangouts, regardless the platform. But, without recording, *how* will you remember the details? It almost calls for some sort of audio recording of sorts, so long as the participants are aware.

    It will be interesting how this turns out. Maybe participants were simply not aware of the work in crowdsourcing of interpreting services? Do people understand fully that in crowdsourcing the product belongs to the person calling the meeting? It is possible that an entire pre-meeting is required to explain the concept, and the rules.

    Of course, I have been wrong before, and I know I will be wrong again at some point. This might be one of those times...

    ReplyDelete
  2. By the way, I meant to say "...text-based chat...

    ReplyDelete