ROUTLEDGE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF INTERPRETING STUDIES

Franz Pochhacker, Franz Pochhacker

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317391258
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Filología
• Subtopic: Idiomas

The Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies is the authoritative reference for anyone with an academic or professional interest in interpreting.

Drawing on the expertise of an international team of specialist contributors, this single-volume reference presents the state of the art in interpreting studies in a much more fine-grained matrix of entries than has ever been seen before.

For the first time all key issues and concepts in interpreting studies are brought together and covered systematically and in a structured and accessible format.

With all entries alphabetically arranged, extensively cross-referenced and including suggestions for further reading, this text combines clarity with scholarly accuracy and depth, defining and discussing key terms in context to ensure maximum understanding and ease of use.

Practical and unique, this Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies presents a genuinely comprehensive overview of the fast growing and increasingly diverse field of interpreting studies.

Accent

↑ INPUT VARIABLES, ↑ QUALITY CRITERIA

Accent is defined in (socio)linguistics as a manner of pronunciation specific to a given region, or to an ethnic or social group. Speakers using an acquired (foreign) language may carry over the phonetic patterns of their native language, giving rise to a non-native or ‘foreign’ accent, which is often understood to involve not only pronunciation (i.e. phonetic substitutions, deletions and distortions) but also non-native stress, rhythm and INTONATION. While both unfamiliar native accents and non-native accents may pose challenges in interpreter-mediated communication, most research attention is focused on non-native speech – mainly on the part of original speakers, but also on the part of interpreters themselves. In the former case, non-native accent is discussed as one of the INPUT VARIABLES in the interpreting process, while in the latter it relates to the QUALITY of the interpreter’s output or performance.

Accent as an input variable

Among the input variables likely to affect an interpreter’s performance, a speaker’s unfamiliar accent is generally rated as one of the potentially most problematic factors, in both CONFERENCE INTERPRETING (Mackintosh 2002) and COMMUNITY INTERPRETING settings (Valero-Garcés 2003). The assumption is that non-native accents may increase the processing resources required for COMPREHENSION. Particularly in SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETING (SI), where Gile’s (2009) EFFORT MODEL indicates that the interpreter is usually working at – or near – the limit of available processing capacity, the demand for additional effort in listening to heavily accented input is likely to affect output quality (Gile 2011). Even so, there is little conclusive evidence of the link between unfamiliar accents and substandard interpreting performance. In studies with student subjects, Sabatini (2000) and Kurz (2008) found that output quality in SI deteriorated when the source language was heavily accented, and Lin, Chang and Kuo (2013) observed that accented speech led to information loss in SI.

The potential risk posed by non-native accents to the COMMUNICATIVE EFFECT of (simultaneous) interpreting is particularly relevant in relation to the widespread use of ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA in international conferences. An interview-based study by Chang and Wu (2014) among conference interpreters in Taiwan confirms that non-native speakers of English have become a normal part of professional reality. The survey indicates that accents are considered the major challenge in interpreting non-native speakers, with some accents perceived to be more difficult than others, and that experienced professionals have developed a number of STRATEGIES for coping with the difficulties arising from non-native English.

The way interpreters cope with accents also depends on DIRECTIONALITY. Understanding a B language when that language is ‘clouded’ by an unfamiliar accent is clearly more difficult than understanding one’s A language in the same situation (McAllister 2000), and interpreters are known to perform better when the accented source language is their A language (Mazzetti 1999). It is thus possible that the difficulties of a speaker’s non-native accent may be more readily overcome when an interpreter works from A into B. However, interpreters themselves may have a non-native accent when working into their B languages, which raises the issue of a non-native accent as a feature of the interpreter’s performance quality.

Accent as a feature of output quality

An interpreter’s strong accent would be likely to make listeners’ comprehension more difficult. Since it is the interpreter’s professional task to facilitate understanding, it seems safe to assume that a professional interpreter’s non-native accent in the B language will not be so marked as to detract from intelligibility. Indeed, the results of SURVEY RESEARCH on USER EXPECTATIONS indicate that both conference interpreters and delegates rate a native accent as less important than such QUALITY CRITERIA as ACCURACY and faithfulness (FIDELITY) to the source message.

However, there may be variations in non-native accent tolerance among linguistic groups. For instance, it has been suggested that English and Russian listeners may be more tolerant of an interpreter’s non-native accent than French listeners (Bartłomiejczyk 2004; Kalina 2005a; Martin 2005). Moreover, the location in which SI takes place may also determine the degree of importance placed upon an interpreter’s native accent. For instance, a native German accent is a clear prerequisite when interpreters work for German TV stations (Kurz & Pöchhacker 1995) and for conferences that take place in Germany (Kalina 2005a). In addition, preferences for regional accents also vary. Although Taiwan and China both have Mandarin Chinese as their official language, the Taiwanese participants in Chang’s (2009) study gave the highest rating of professionalism to a Mandarin interpreter perceived to be from Taiwan, whereas the participants from China gave the highest such rating to the interpreter perceived to be from that country.

How users evaluate the quality of SI with a non-native accent is therefore elusive. Cheung (2003) and Stévaux (2007), for instance, show that non-native accents can have a negative influence on SI listeners’ quality perceptions, whereas research done in the context of various MA theses has yielded contradictory findings. However, all of these studies were conducted in an experimental setting, and the participants may have behaved differently from genuine conference attendees listening to SI.

In an effort to enhance validity, Cheung (2013) incorporated the “need for SI” into his experimental study of how native Cantonese speakers in Hong Kong rate SI into Cantonese by one native and two non-native interpreters: the requirement that participants take a comprehension test before filling in an evaluation questionnaire ensured that they would follow the interpretation attentively. The native Cantonese-speaking participants rated the two non-native interpreters (a native Mandarin speaker and a native English speaker) significantly lower than the native interpreter. The slightly higher rating given to the interpreter with a Mandarin non-native accent than to her counterpart with an English non-native accent may be attributed to participants’ familiarity with Mandarin-accented Cantonese, as China is Hong Kong’s major source of migrants.

Although most studies on non-native accents focus on simultaneous conference interpreting, interpreters with non-native accents also operate in other MODES and SETTINGS. Hale, Bond and Sutton (2011), in a study of CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETING in a mock courtroom setting, found that interpreters’ non-native accents did not affect how source speakers were perceived.

ANDREW K. F. CHEUNG

Accreditation

see under CERTIFICATION

Accuracy

↑ ASSESSMENT → FIDELITY,
→ QUALITY CRITERIA, → USER EXPECTATIONS
↓ ERROR ANALYSIS

The requirement of accuracy is specified in many codes of conduct for interpreters around the world. There are, however, few explicit definitions of the concept of accuracy, or consolidated descriptions of what accuracy in interpreting actually consists of. According to SELESKOVITCH (1968, 1978a), ‘total accuracy’ (or fidélité absolue, as it was labeled in French) is achieved when an interpretation ensures a COMMUNICATIVE EFFECT equivalent to the understanding achieved by the original listeners. In the literature on ASSESSMENT in interpreting, there seems to be a consensus both among interpreters and among interpreting scholars as to what accurate interpreting consists of. In this respect, Pöchhacker (2004a) refers to accuracy as a widely accepted yardstick that many researchers have sought to apply. Similarly, Setton and Motta (2007) describe assessors in one of their experiments as being “interpreters familiar with quality norms for accuracy, style etc. as applied in training institutions and by professional consensus”. Jacobson (2009) stresses that accuracy is a vital part of a comprehensive instrument for assessing the construct of interpreter COMPETENCE.

Measuring accuracy

The interpreting product can be assessed in two ways: componentially, when the sum of different parts, such as accuracy, OMISSIONS, additions and FLUENCY, is used to measure the product; and holistically, when the product is measured as an intrinsic whole. There are many examples of different types of measurement in the literature on interpreting. Barik (1975) measured both accuracy, as gauged by omissions, additions, substitutions (‘errors of translation’), and translation disruptions; Mackintosh (1983) measured the ‘semantic equivalence’ of ‘meaning units’; Gile (1999a, 2011) investigated his ‘tightrope hypothesis’ through errors, omissions and infelicities; and when Kurz (1993a) followed up on Bühler’s (1986) study on QUALITY CRITERIA, her surveys of different user groups included the expectation of “sense consistency with the original”. These dissimilar conceptual approaches seem to indicate that accuracy has been used as an evaluation criterion without a uniform definition of what it consists of or how it is actually measured.

Déjean le Féal (1990) contends that there is a shared standard of what interpreters consider to be a professional interpretation. However, such a standard seems so far to have eluded a common definition. Gile (1999b), for example, noting that measurements of QUALITY rely heavily on the frequency of errors and omissions (Gile 2003), has demonstrated that users show highly variable results when evaluating interpreting, while Collados Aís et al. (2011) have shown that componential evaluations are affected by raters’ variable and dissimilar understanding of the components to be assessed.

For measurements of the interpreting product in professional situations, such as CERTIFICATION tests, Turner, Lai and Huang (2010) claim that most such tests for interpreters use the following methods: (1) error analysis/deduction systems; (2) criterion-referencing (the use of scales of descriptors to describe test performance), with no system of error analysis/deduction; or (3) a combination of the two.

Accuracy seems to be fuzzily defined in certification tests, and perhaps deliberately so. The oral component of the US Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination (FCICE) uses so-called scoring units (i.e. selected words and phrases deemed to represent features of language that must be rendered ‘accurately and completely without altering any of the meaning or style of speech’); in order to pass, 80% of these scoring units have to be transferred correctly (FCICE 2014). In Britain, the candidate handbook for the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (DIPSI) gives the following description for the highest performance level regarding ‘accuracy’ (as opposed to ‘delivery’ and ‘language use’) in the interpreting units: “The candidate [.] conveys sense of original message with complete accuracy; transfers all information without omissions, additions, distortions; demonstrates complete competence in conveying verbal content and familiarity with subject matter” (IoLET 2010: 10). And in Sweden, the regulations for state certification include the following instructions for assessment: “Semantic/terminological rendering: The interpreter must provide the central information from both parties. During the test this is calculated from the number of transferred meaning-bearing elements. The interpreting is unacceptable if key information is omitted” (Kammarkollegiet 2014, my translation). The US FCICE is rare among accreditation tests in publically quantifying a passing score (80%).

Defining accuracy

Although it may seem obvious to strive for complete accuracy, defining it may prove challenging. Gile (2009), Hale (1997a) and others have pointed out that omissions may be necessary in interpreting in order to ensure accuracy, and that an acceptable target speech may in fact require deviations from linguistic equivalence. Donovan-Cagigos (1990) also underscores that accuracy is relative to a communicative situation. To date there are few definitions of total accuracy and few, if any, research constructs of accuracy to be tested.

Seleskovitch’s (1978a: 102) definition of accuracy as dependent on the communicative effect of the interpretation is compelling, as it seems to encompass all types of interpreters and all types of interpreting. It is also hard to pin down, however, since there are as yet no measurements of how much information needs to be transferred in order for that understanding to take place. Information is by no means an ethically, culturally or linguistically unbiased unit. It can be argued that Seleskovitch’s definition is monolingual and biased towards the concept of a standard, indivisible national language. Even listeners who share a language may understand information differently, depending on their social, cultural and economic background. Furthermore, accuracy in interpreting also differs according to whether the perspective is monologic or dialogic (Wadensjö 1998). If meaning is co-constructed in a dialogic interpreting context, then at least part of the accuracy is too.

There is arguably a least common denominator of what accurate interpreting consists of. Although many researchers have studied which elements both interpreters and their clients consider to be essential for good interpreting, few have investigated accuracy as a construct in its own right or ventured evidence-based definitions. It remains largely unclear what type of information, and how much of it, needs to be conveyed in order for communication to occur. Gile’s (2009: 35) proposal to view accuracy, or FIDELITY, in interpreting as a variably weighted combination of ‘content’ (information transfer) and ‘packaging’ provides some conceptual foundation. It remains to be tested, however, how much information is ‘enough’ and what makes it ‘understandable’ in a given situation of interaction.

ELISABET TISELIUS

Action Research

↑ METHODOLOGY

Action research is a form of inquiry that aims to translate research outcomes into social gains by way of participatory and collaborative projects. Rather than a METHODOLOGY, action research is best described as an orientation to the research process (Reason & Bradbury 2008), since action research projects may reflect differences in EPISTEMOLOGY and employ a variety of research methods.

The origins of action research lie in philosophical explorations into the relationship between knowledge acquisition and experience, and into the interrelation between knowledge and action (see Kemmis & McTaggart 1988; Kemmis et al. 2014). These philosophical ...