Interpreting - Volume 15, Issue 1, 2013

A controlled experiment measured native Hong Kong Cantonese speakers’ perceptions of the quality of three different simultaneous interpretations (SIs) into Cantonese. The SIs differed only in the interpreters’ accents, native in one case and non-native in the other two. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups, listening to the following versions of the SI: (1) native-accented Cantonese (control group); (2) Mandarin-accented Cantonese; (3) English-accented Cantonese. To motivate participants to listen attentively, they were told beforehand that they would take a comprehension test before assessing the quality of the SI delivery. Ten questionnaire items measuring SI quality perception were analyzed quantitatively, while any additional comments were examined qualitatively. Overall, respondents in the two groups who listened to SI delivered with a non-native accent assigned lower quality ratings on all survey items than did respondents listening to native-accented Cantonese SI. Qualitative data suggest three possible explanations for the low ratings of the two SIs with a non-native accent: (1) extra listening effort was required to understand these SIs; (2) negative stereotypes were triggered by the interpreters’ non-native accents; (3) feelings of insecurity or threat were prompted by the non-native interpreters’ ability to perform SI into Cantonese.

This paper addresses the topic of quality assessment in interpreting, from a perspective that defines quality as equivalent effect of source text and target text. The experimental study described uses an innovative methodology based on comprehension testing, to evaluate the widely accepted norm that an interpretation should produce the same effect — in the sense of effect on the listener’s knowledge of a specific subject — as the original. More specifically, the study compares communicative effect between a marketing-related speech of about 15 minutes in non-native English and its simultaneous interpretation into German. The comparison is thus between two directly competing modes of communication, the use of English as a lingua franca being seen by many interpreters as a threat to their profession. Three experimental runs were completed, involving an Italian speaker comfortable with English as a medium for lecturing and a total of 139 listeners attending professionally oriented Austrian university courses. Results showed that in this setting the interpretation led to a better cognitive end-result in the audience than the original speech in non-native English.

The glossary is considered an important, if not indispensable, component in the professional practice of interpreting. However, insufficient attention has been given to it in interpreting studies. This research project aims to study the general practice of professional interpreters in relation to the glossary. Two surveys were conducted, in 2010: a pilot study, using a printed questionnaire distributed to interpreters at a UN conference, followed by a large-scale survey which was conducted through an online survey service and completed by nearly 500 interpreters (mostly AIIC members). Results of both surveys are discussed, and a comparison is made between staff and freelance interpreters. These findings should contribute to a better understanding of how professional interpreters prepare, manage and use glossaries. The study could also have useful implications for training, both for interpreting students and for qualified interpreters.

Interpreters may see affinities between their own or working language(s) and others in the same family as an opening to a broader range of professional opportunities. This paper presents data from an online survey, completed by 23 mainly Australian-based interpreters for the Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian languages. Main points include: number of accreditations (one, two or three languages); willingness to work in languages other than one’s ‘own’; and views on adapting language to the variety spoken by interlocutors (in both everyday usage and interpreted speech). Other questions examine negotiation of mismatches between ethnicity and the language variety expected by the client, as well as personal views regarding the distinctness of the three languages. Informants form three main groups: some work in one language only, with no accommodation to others; some consider the languages as separate but might accommodate to other varieties, extemporaneously or by prior arrangement; others consider that their native-speaker status in two or three languages makes accommodation superfluous. Two smaller groups (totalling four interpreters) consider substantial accommodation unnecessary: in one case they see the languages as separate but mutually understandable, in the other they see them as one single language. Quantitative data are complemented by informants’ comments.