Interpreting - Volume 17, Issue 2, 2015

Among spoken language interpreters, a long-standing question regarding directionality is whether interpretations are better when working into one’s native language (L1) or into one’s ‘active’ non-native language (L2). In contrast to studies that support working into L1, signed language interpreters report a preference for working into L2. Accordingly, we investigated whether signed language interpreters actually perform better when interpreting into their L2 (American Sign Language, ASL) or into their L1 (English). Interpretations by 30 interpreters (15 novice, 15 expert), delivered under experimental conditions, were assessed on accuracy (semantic content) and articulation quality (flow, speed, and prosody). For both measures, novices scored significantly better when interpreting into English (L1); experts were equally accurate, and showed similar articulation quality, in both directions. The results for the novice interpreters support the hypothesis that the difficulty of L2 production drives interpreting performance in relation to directionality. Findings also indicate a disconnect between direction preference and interpreting performance. Novices’ perception of their ASL production ability may be distorted because they can default to fingerspelling and transcoding. Weakness in self-monitoring of signing may also lead novices to overrate their ASL skills. Interpreter educators should stress misperceptions of signing proficiency that arise from available, but inappropriate, strategies.

The present paper examines the metadiscourse of court interpreting, with a focus on the evaluative language used in relation to interpreting of expert witness testimony. The study explores interactional resources such as hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers, employed by participants in the interpreter-mediated South Korean courtroom examinations of three English-speaking expert witnesses. Extracts analysed for this paper, involving a total of four interpreters, are taken from two court cases (four extracts each from a civil case, featuring experienced conference interpreters, and a criminal case, with unskilled interpreters). In courtroom settings, where the interpretation of expert testimony is frequently contested, this study demonstrates metadiscursive representation of stance management during professional communication, which is closely linked with facework and rapport management. The analysis indicates that hedging is far more frequently used than boosters, and that various attitude markers and engagement markers are used in evaluating interpretations and ensuring their accuracy. Legal professionals and interpreters alike display their evaluative, affective and epistemic orientation in the interdisciplinary professional discourse, and personal interaction, of the courtroom examinations analysed here.

This questionnaire-based study evaluates interpretations of TV news broadcasts into South African Sign Language from the perspective of 360 adult Deaf respondents, who identify factors hindering comprehension. Methodologically, findings are based on both open-ended and closed questions. The sources of difficulty identified, together with viewer assessments of current interpreting services and viewer expectancy norms, are explored in relation to the profile of the Deaf target audience represented by the study sample. Despite potentially low literacy levels, the study found a stronger stated preference for subtitles than for signed interpretation. The limited size of the signed language screen inset and the type of signed language used by the interpreters were found to be the main factors limiting comprehension; to a lesser extent, problems can also be related to various features of the interpreters’ performance (facial expression, mouthing, sign articulation and general language proficiency), viewers’ insufficient background knowledge and signing skills, the difficulty of dividing attention between different forms of visual input, as well as the positioning of the screen inset showing the interpreter. The cultural and linguistic heterogeneity of the South African Deaf community poses a further challenge to interpreters. Recommendations for both interpreting practice and further research emerge from the discussion.

This article reports on the process of developing an analytic rating scale for assessing undergraduate students’ consecutive interpreting performances. The development process was divided into three phases. First, a total of 42 criteria for interpreter performance assessment were identified from the related literature and grouped into three categories: ‘content’, ‘form’ and ‘delivery’. Second, these criteria were rated by importance in a questionnaire survey of 31 interpreter trainers. In this phase a total of 20 criteria were removed due to statistical concerns, while 22 criteria — seven criteria for content, seven for form, and eight for delivery — were retained to construct a draft rating scale. Third, to determine the appropriate weighting for each category, two interpreter trainers used the 22-item draft scale to rate 33 consecutive interpretations by Korean undergraduate students. A statistical analysis of these assessments showed that the content category should be assigned an effective weight of 2, while the other categories need not be weighted (i.e., weighting value: 1).

Rater-mediated performance assessment (RMPA) is a critical component of interpreter certification testing systems worldwide. Given the acknowledged rater variability in RMPA and the high-stakes nature of certification testing, it is crucial to ensure rater reliability in interpreter certification performance testing (ICPT). However, a review of current ICPT practice indicates that rigorous research on rater reliability is lacking. Against this background, the present study reports on use of multifaceted Rasch measurement (MFRM) to identify the degree of severity/leniency in different raters’ assessments of simultaneous interpretations (SIs) by 32 interpreters in an experimental setting. Nine raters specifically trained for the purpose were asked to evaluate four English-to-Chinese SIs by each of the interpreters, using three 8-point rating scales (information content, fluency, expression). The source texts differed in speed and in the speaker’s accent (native vs non-native). Rater-generated scores were then subjected to MFRM analysis, using the FACETS program. The following general trends emerged: 1) homogeneity statistics showed that not all raters were equally severe overall; and 2) bias analyses showed that a relatively large proportion of the raters had significantly biased interactions with the interpreters and the assessment criteria. Implications for practical rating arrangements in ICPT, and for rater training, are discussed.