This article explores how the communicative situation influences interpreter choices in simultaneous interpreting. It argues that context-based decision is a core element of professional interpreting practice. Each of the components of communicative situation shapes how the interpreter processes and delivers the message. The analysis shows that simultaneous interpreting is not limited to linguistic form but involves constant adaptation to the situation at hand.

Keywords: communicative situation, simultaneous interpreting, communication.

The modern understanding of translation goes far beyond the search for lexical equivalence. This is especially true in simultaneous interpreting, which requires attention not only to language but also to pragmatic, cognitive, and situational factors. Translation is always a response to a specific communicative task. In this context, the communicative situation becomes a decisive factor in how interpretation choices are made. The translator is seen not as a passive language processor, but as someone who makes decisions based on the demands of the situation. The interpreter has to respond immediately to changes, while keeping track of the speaker’s communicative intent and the surrounding setting.

The idea of the communicative situation holds a firm place in translation theory. N. K. Garbovsky underlines proposes a view of translation as a system that brings together both linguistic and intercultural elements. In this system, translation is a speech product, a process of transformation, and an action within a communicative event [1, 9]. L. K. Latyshev emphasizes that translation should recreate the effect of natural communication. Its aim is to bring bilingual interaction as close as possible to monolingual conversation by eliminating the sense of artificiality [2, 23]. Seen this way, translation becomes a form of professional behavior defined by the parameters of the communicative situation.

Simultaneous interpreting, as one of the most complex forms of translation, is a professional activity that cannot be separated from the conditions in which it takes place. V. V. Sdobnikov stresses that interpretation cannot occur outside the extralinguistic conditions that define the interpreter’s professional environment. He describes the communicative situation as «a fragment of real-life reality, representing a systemic set of extralinguistic conditions in which the communicative participants carry out goal-oriented activities» [3, 64]. In this view, we can state that the interpreter is a full participant in the communicative process, whose decisions are shaped by the parameters of the situation. To describe these parameters, G. V. Chernov proposed a model consisting of eight components: who is speaking (S), to whom the message is addressed (A), what is being said (T), at what time (t), in what place (F), for what reason (E), with what purpose (P), and why is the speaker saying it (M) [4,142]. This structure includes of both stable and variable elements. The topic, time, audience, and location can often be prepared in advance, but the speaker’s identity, communicative goal, and motivation, often need to be assessed in the course of the event. A more detailed typology of factors is offered by V. I. Ershov, who groups situational parameters into six categories: psycholinguistic, sociological, textological, pragmatic, operational, and spatiotemporal [5, 121]. So, communicative situation in interpreting is composed of several interrelated components. Based on existing research, we can identify the following key elements that shape the interpreting context:

– Participants : Each participant occupies specific role and represent distinct communicative communities.

– Purpose/motivation : Every communicative act is driven by a goal whether it is to inform, persuade, entertain, or call to action. Understanding this goal helps the interpreter prioritize what matters most in the message and choose the most appropriate means of delivery.

– Topic : The subject matter defines the content and semantic structure of the message. Interpreters need to be familiar with the topic and its terminology to ensure accuracy.

– Context and conditions : These include the time, place, and setting of the event, as well as extralinguistic factors.

– Channel and mode : The physical and technological means of communication, limited access to visual cues, poor sound quality, or lack of audience visibility can all restrict the interpreter’s ability to rely on non-verbal signals.

– Code : This refers to the languages involved and the stylistic form of the message. Each genre calls for a different interpretive approach. These components form a single communicative whole, which the interpreter must assess and react to as a system.

Thus, the very nature of simultaneous interpreting requires the interpreter to take an active role in the communication process. A. Islam notes that successful interpretation depends on the interpreter’s cognitive, linguistic, and pragmatic readiness [6, 46]. The decision to use specific techniques such as compression, decompression, is not based on fixed rules. It is a professional response shaped by the situation. The interpreter first analyzes the situation, defines the communicative goal, develops an interpreting strategy, and only then applies particular techniques [7, 119]. As a result, the standard for evaluating quality also changes: adequacy is judged not from purely linguistic is, but by how well it fits the situation and fulfills the communicative task.

The same thematic focus, for instance, violence against women, can be expressed differently across different communicative settings. Let’s compare two real-life speeches to demonstrate how interpreting technique adapts to the conditions of each context. In the first formal institutional setting, EU Commissioner Lahbib states: «Ending gender-based violence is not just a political commitment — it is a moral imperative and a legal obligation» [8]. The Kazakh interpretation that preserves the original structure and emphasizes formality would sound as following: «Гендерлік зорлық-зомбылықты тоқтату — бұл тек саяси міндеттеме ғана емес, сонымен қатар моральдық императив әрі заңды міндеттеме» It aligns with diplomatic manifestation of political discourse. Hence, here the interpreter’s priority becomes to maintain terminological clarity and institutional tone. By contrast, in a public protest speech, activist Sherele Moody says: «We’re here because men keep killing us» [9]. The Kazakh version that retains the confrontational tone would sound as: «Біз мұнда еркектер бізді өлтіріп жатқаны үшін жиналдық». Here, the interpreter’s focus shifts to interpreting speaker intent under live, emotionally charged conditions. Unlike the previous example, this setting calls for resonance. The interpreter does not prioritize lexical precision but rather emotional truth and audience connection. The contrast can be summarized in the following table:

Table 1

In conclusion, the communicative situation acts as a framework within which the interpreter makes decisions. Analyzing the situation before, during, and after the interpretation is an integral part of simultaneous interpreting. Putting special emphasis on developing the ability to assess communicative parameters and quickly adapt to changes in the interaction,, will prompt interpeters to take key situational factors into account aiming to ensure both equivalence and communicative effectiveness.

References:

1. Гарбовский Н. К. Теория перевода: учебник. — М.: Изд-во Моск. ун-та, 2007. — 544 с.

2. Латышев Л. К. Технология перевода: учеб. пособие для студ. лингв. вузов и фак. — 2-е изд., перераб. и доп. — М.: Академия, 2005. — 320 с.

3. Сдобников В. В. Перевод и коммуникативная ситуация: монография. — М.: Флинта; Наука, 2015. — 464 с.

4. Чернов Г. В. Теория и практика синхронного перевода. — М.: Международные отношения, 1978. — 208 с.

5. Ершов В. И. Переводческий аспект коммуникативных ситуаций: дис. … канд. филол. наук. — М., 2006.

6. Ислам А. Ілеспе аударма негіздері: монография. — Алматы: Бастау баспасы, 2012. — 170 б.

7. Сдобников В. В. Коммуникативная ситуация как фактор определения стратегии перевода // Вестник НГЛУ. — 2011. — № 14. — С. 114–123.

8. Speech by Commissioner Lahbib at the 69th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women: Group of Friends on the elimination of violence against women and girls. — URL: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_25_775 (date of access: 28.05.2025).

9. 'Stop killing us': Nationwide protests call for action on gendered and sexual violence. — URL: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/rallies-against-gendered-and-sexual-violence-held-across-australia/rxhvn3han (date of access: 28.05.2025).