Translation and interpreting are closely related language professions, yet they require different cognitive processes, professional skills, and working conditions. Therefore, the statement, “Je traduis bien, donc je peux interpréter” (“I translate well, therefore I can interpret”), deserves critical examination. While a competent translator possesses excellent linguistic knowledge, this competence alone does not automatically qualify them as an interpreter. Applied translation studies (Traductologie appliquée) and several theoretical frameworks clearly distinguish between translation and interpreting despite their common objective of transferring meaning from one language to another. Translation is generally a written activity that allows the translator sufficient time to analyze the source text, consult dictionaries, verify terminology, revise drafts, and ensure stylistic accuracy. Interpreting, in contrast, is primarily oral and occurs in real time. The interpreter must comprehend, process, and reproduce meaning almost instantly without the opportunity for revision. Consequently, interpreting requires rapid decision-making, excellent listening ability, memory retention, concentration, and oral fluency in addition to bilingual competence. The Interpretive Theory of Translation, developed by Danica Seleskovitch and Marianne Lederer at the Paris School, strongly challenges the assumption that successful translation automatically leads to successful interpreting. According to this theory, interpreting is based on deverbalization—the