Quality criteria in interpreting evaluation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/RP.2008.007Keywords
oral translation, translation evaluation, quality of translationAbstract
Translation quality evaluation has been in the focus of interest of researchers for quite a long time, although empirical investigations were started only two decades ago. The general assumption is that the source language message should be ideally manifested in the target language, thus effective communication between the listeners (users) and the speaker is the priority of translation/interpretation. Effective communication is enabled by means of good quality interpretation. In the attempt aimed at quality description, apart from subjective impressions resulting from our perception of the features that good translation/interpretation and effective communication should have, we cannot ignore three basic factors, i.e., the interpreter (as the text author/ producer), the interpretation process and product which is the result of this process and involvement as well as competence on the part of the interpreter/translator.
Quality criteria are largely fuzzy; their conceptual limits are not distinctive and, in the opinion of research subjects, are interrelated. Therefore, the specification of quality criteria that do not raise any doubts both on the part of users (e.g. listeners) and on the part of interpreters becomes problematic. The paradox of quality may emerge if the interpreter’s role is, on the one hand, to retain absolute fidelity to the original text and his/ her neutrality (or invisibility), and on the other to be a cultural mediator who controls communication, facilitates it and corrects the text to make it accurate, clear and coherent.
References
Buhler, H., 1986, „Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters”, Multilingua 5, 4, s. 231–235.
Bowen, D. i M. (red.), 1990, Interpreting: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, American Translators Association, Vol. 4, Binghamton.
Chernov, G., 1994, „Message redundancy and message anticipation in simultaneous interpreting”, [w:] Bridging the Gap. Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation, Lambert, S., Moser-Mercer, B. (red.), Amsterdam 1994, s. 139–153.
Dejean le Feal, K., 1990, „Some thoughts on the evaluation of simultaneous interpretation”, [w:] Interpreting: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Bowen, D. i M. (red.), American Translators Association, Vol. 4, Binghamton 1990, s. 154–160.
Dollerup, C, Lindegaard, A., 1994, Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2 – Insights, Aims, Visions, Amsterdam–Philadelphia.
Gile, D., 1995, Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training, Amsterdam–Philadelphia.
Hung, E. (red.), 2002, Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4 – Building Bridges, Amsterdam–Philadelphia.
Kadric, M., Kaindl, K., Pochhacker, F. (red.), 2000, Translationswissenschaft , Tubingen.
Kopczyński, A., 1994, „Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems”, [w:] Bridging the Gap. Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation, Lambert, S., Moser-Mercer, B. (red.), Amsterdam 1994, s. 87–100.
Kopczyński, A., 1997, „Praktyka i teoria tłumaczenia ustnego”, Neofilolog, 14, s. 17–26.
Kurz, I., 1989, „Conference Interpreting: User Expectations”, [w:] Coming of Age: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, Hammond, D. L. (red.), Medford–New Jersey, s. 143–148.
Kurz, I., 1993, „Conference Interpretation: Expectations of different user groups”, The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 5, s. 13–21.
Kussmaul, P., 1995, Training the Translator, Amsterdam–Philadelphia.
Lambert, S., Moser-Mercer., B. (red.), 1994, Bridging the Gap. Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation, Amsterdam.
Marrone, S., 1993, „Quality: A Shared Objective”, The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 5, s. 35–41.
Mesa, A.-M., 2000, „The Cultural Interpreter: An Appreciated Professional. Results of a Study on Interpreting Services: Client, Health Care Worker and Interpreter Points of View”, [w:] The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, Roberts, R. P., Carr, S. E. (red.), Amsterdam–Philadelphia, s. 67–79.
Moser, P., 1995, „Simultanes Konferenzdolmetschen. Anforderungen und Erwartungen der Benutzer. Endbericht, im Auft rag von AIIC”, Wien.
Pochhacker, F., 1994, „Quality assurance in simultaneous interpreting”, [w:] Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2 – Insights, Aims, Visions, Dollerup, C., Lindegaard, A. (red.), Amsterdam–Philadelphia 1994, s. 33–242.
Pochhacker, F., 2000, „The Community Interpreter’s Task: Self-Perception and Provider Views”, [w:] The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, Roberts, R. P., Carr, S. E. (red.), Amsterdam–Philadephia, s. 49–65.
Pochhacker, F., Schlesinger, M. (red.), 2002, The Interpreting Studies Reader, London–New York.
Riccardi, A., 2002, „Evaluation in interpretation”, [w:] Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4 – Building Bridges, Hung, E. (red.), Amsterdam–Philadelphia, s. 115–126.
Roberts, R. P., Carr, S. E. (red.), 1997, The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, Amsterdam–Philadephia.
Snell-Hornby, M., Pochhacker, F., Kaindl, K. (red.), 1994, Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline, Amsterdam.
Tryuk, M. 2006, Przekład ustny środowiskowy, Warszawa.
Viezzi, M., 1996, Aspetti della Qualita in Interpretazione, Trieste.
Wadensjo, C., 1998, Interpreting as Interaction, London–New York.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 729
Number of citations: 0