prof. dr. sylvia kalina sose 2014 quality and quality assurance for simultaneous interpreting prof....

Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014

Quality and Quality Assurance for Simultaneous InterpretingProf. Dr. Sylvia Kalina


Can interpreting quality be measured? Performance is highly individual Assessors are subjective Clear norms and criteria do not exist Different aspects must be weighted These may affect performance or

assessment


Quality of interpreting Parameters and criteria are vague, soft,

subjective Who is responsible for interpreting quality?

- event organiser- speaker (text producer) - user (recipient- interpreter

Which methods of analysis can lead to which insights?


The theoretical approach

Seleskovitch (1968 etc.) - deverbalisation- sense, not words, to be rendered- translation and interpreting as separate disciplines


The experimental approach

Barik (1971)compared transcripts of source texts (ST) and target texts (TT) for- correct words- omissions- additions- substitutions


Corpus based approaches

From Lederer (1981): Transcripts of authentic source and target texts

To Vuorikoski (2004): Interpreting at the European Parliament: analysis of audio recordings … and studies by Diriker, Pöchhacker, Cenkova, Kalina etc.


Discourse linguistic approaches

Hildegund Bühler (1986) Characteristics of textuality:

native accent, pleasant voice, fluency of delivery, logical cohesion of utterance, sense consistency with original message, completeness of interpretation, correct grammatical usage, use of correct terminology, use of appropriate style, thorough preparation of conference documents, endurance, poise, pleasant appearance, reliability, ability to work in a team, positive feedback from delegates, other criteria (Bühler 1986: 234)


Interpreting products and their characteristics

Textuality characteristics (Bühler 1986) Correctness, Coherence, Comprehensibility Aedequacy in terms of terminology,

style,communication(from de Beaugrande & Dressler 1981)

Complemented for the oral mode by: Presentation, voice quality


Interpreting quality

Moser-Mercer (1996): -completeness - accuracy - no distortions of original- consideration of extralinguistic factors


Contextual and situative variables

Kopczynsky (1994) - Technical conditions - Work load - Framework of discourse - Communicative framework


The ideal target text

Pöchhacker (1994) - A text which fully fulfills its function, i.e. - A text which is optimally understood by its recipients.

Viezzi (1999): „Usability“


Daniel Gile (1995)

Effort model: If there is imbalance of capacities for

efforts of listening, storing and producing, quality is bound to deteriorate.


What the user thinks

„With experience, you learn to tell the

difference between quite good, very

good and excellent interpreters.“

(Quote from Lord Simon of Highbury, then UK Indusrty

Minister, opening an AIIC Conference in 1998)


What can user surveys tell us?

Shlesinger

Do our customers know which quality they require?


Surveys among interpreters

Anderson (1979) „Do interpreters work better when they have been given preparation material?“

Interpreters‘ reply: „No“. But: Lamberger-Felber (1998) found:

they do!

→ Relative character of findings


Observing conference interpreters

Self-involvement and colleague observation

Observation as a participant Comparison of

- events - interpreters - conditions


ear-voice span

Good evening ladies and gentlemenWe are pleasedGuten Abend meine D.&H.

to see that you have all come to this event.Wir freuen uns dass Sie alle gekommen

We hope you will enjoy the party.sind. Wir hoffen, Sie werden Spaß

haben.


Product analysis with transcript

Source text-----------------target text

Not analysable: [ST producer] [function]

[addressees] Linguistic comparison

... Transcript ...

-- ST/TT relations-- linguistic characteristics

-- semantic deviations

... Transcript ...


Product analysis with recordings

speaker -------------------interpreter [not observable: conditions, processes]

Audio /Video and transcripts

Types of deviationDelivery characteristics, prosody

Presentation rate: Words/Syll. p.Min.


Dimensions of the interpreting process (Kalina)

Pre-process(anything that comes before the act of interpreting)

Peri-process (external factors during the act of interpreting)

In-process(the act of interpreting and its product)

Post-process( anything that comes after the act of interpreting)


Pre-process: Contract

Inquiry received Date vs. date of event Inquiry channel Telefone, e-mail, others Source/origin of inquiry Recommendation, professional

association Specificity of inquiry Number of languages, directions,

sessions, interpreting mode, subject matter etc.

Language directions requested Number Advisory effort invested Hours, materials, questions asked Technical assistance

Contract signed Contract date vs. date of event Contractually agreed languages Number Language combinations Language directions Number, specification Contracts sent to team members Number of team members, date Receipt of signed contracts Date, correctness Booths: Number, standards Interpreters: Number professional ethics Principles, membership of prof. assoc.


Pre-process: Preparation

Subject matter information Available when and how?Information specificity URLs, reference mat., manuscripts,

chartsMaterial received List of dates of received documentsConsultation with client Time invested, content Contact with team members Accessibility, time taken to respond

Document distribution Selective distribution vs. ‘everything to everyone’Team and working schedule Schedule of work for each interpreter

Heads of booth and team NamesCoordination between booths Head of teamSpecial arrangements DetailsTime invested in preparation Hours per interpreterPreparation sources Client, internet, othersMedia used for preparation Dictionaries, glossaries, data bases, Speaker-specific preparation Type, detail, with manuscript or chartsBriefing Length, intensity, sourcePreparation coordination Division of work, fair-share princip


Peri-process: Data on assignment

Travel arrangements (Contractual details, hours) Punctuality (If applicable, date of arrival) In-conference coordination (Problems, solutions) Equipment test run (Yes/no, problems to be specified) Functioning of techn. Installations (Acoustics, video/audio transmission,

microphones, technical service) Number of booths, interpreters (Number, names) Transmission channels (Direct, recording, TV etc.) Cession of copyright (Extent, purpose) Available languages (Language combinations) Language directions used (Lengths of languages spoken/ listened to) Interpreting turns (Number, length of turns per interpreter) Number of speakers / listeners (Attendance list, number of headsets

used) Degree of interactivity of event (Number of floor contributions, hours of

discussion) Assignment duration (Total length of event, actual need for interpretation)


In-process: Conditions, factors In-process Conditions, factors Profile of event Type of conference Structure of interaction Hierarchical, flat, expert panel, expert to laypeople, etc. Booth position Vision from booth, perceptibility Media used PPTs, charts, video, handouts etc. Media availability Which media, available when? Delivery profiles ST Profile for each speaker Delivery types Extempore, manuscript, mix, media used Speaker language (Non-)native, good, average, poor Length of presentation, dynamicsFlow, speed (per speaker) Working time and breaksTime schedule of event Additional working time Coordination, dialogue interpreting during breaks, meals Interpreting requirement Types of interpreting required Team profile Qualifications, professional experience, references (per interpreter) Interpreter delivery profiles Output-related parameters per interpreter (content, form, delivery (macro/

micro level) Addressee profiles Experts, laypeople, general public Listeners per language Percentage, status Composition of audienceLanguages, cultures, degree of heterogeneity Feedback to interpreters Types, extent, source Relay interpreting Percentage, directions, languages involved


Post-process: contract-specific and general

Post-process General Technological upgrading

(PC, laptop, E-Mail, mobile phone, data bases, e-dictionaries, other software, print media)

Maintenance of own glossaries (Updating of entries and structure) Further training (Frequency, subjects)

Further linguistic training (Ways and methods, intensity)

Specialisation (Type of measures taken)

Post-process Contract-specific

Confidentiality (Public / confidential / classified)

Management of documents (Return / further processing)

Organisation of post-processing (Time between event and post-processing, degree of diligence)

Self- evaluation (Frequency of self-recordings made and reviewed, checks on notes)

Contact with client (Feedback, user satisfaction, complaints)


Pre-process Observation

Theoretical description of methods of preparation :Phases, methods, procedures

Empirical observation:interpreter tools, work flow

... continuing with in-process analyses


Some preliminary results Interpreters keep no self-documentation Early preparation is more subject-driven,

in-process preparation is mainly search for terminology

Room for improvement of organisation of knowledge resources

Need for safety is confirmed: numerous multiple entries in manuscripts


Next step: measuring interpreting quality? See my article (so far in German only ) in

trans-kom 2011. See the two pdf tables enclosed.

An updated version in English is in press. I am grateful for any criticism of this

suggestion, please write to: [email protected]

prof. dr. sylvia kalina sose 2014 quality and quality assurance for simultaneous interpreting prof....

Documents

sylvia kalina sose

sylvia kalina slide

voice quality slide

usability slide

assessment slide

quality assurance

interpreting products

simultaneous interpreting