Quality Assessment in Community Interpreting: A Case-study of Talk-shows Renditions from English into Arabic
Date
2020-04
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Type
Article
Publisher
CDELT
Series Info
CDELT;61 (June) 2016 179-208
Doi
Scientific Journal Rankings
Abstract
This research aims to investigate the quality of community interpreting in social settings
through studying the interpretation of talk-shows encounters from English into Arabic and to
present some quality assessment criteria to this end. It hypothesizes that if a model for quality
assessment is applied to this community interpreting, using a multi-disciplinary approach, we
can systematically account for 'ideal', 'close' and 'divergent' renditions and hence improve the
practice. The objectives are to show the gap in the knowledge of quality interpreting in the real
practices of interpreters at social settings and the limitations of research in this regard, to
analyse and discuss the collected data using a pragmatic and cultural approach, and to elicit
some criteria for quality assessment. It attempts to answer three questions. How and to what
extent can a multi-disciplinary approach together with a quality assessment model help decide
the quality of community interpreting in social contexts like talk-shows? What is an ideal or a
close rendition? What is a divergent one? It examines three encounters in a talk-show
interpreted simultaneously (SI) and consecutively (CI) from English into Arabic. The
participants are not native speakers of English. A qualitative research method of content
analysis is utilized to compare Arabic renditions to their original English utterances.
The study concludes that there is a gap in the knowledge of quality interpreting among
practitioners of the profession. The appropriateness of the interpreter's role and performance
is decided according to the suggested criteria for quality assessment. Also, the multi-
disciplinary approach used helps tackle different perspectives and uncover aspects in 'close'
and 'divergent' renditions that would not have been possible otherwise. It recommends that this
model is adopted by interpreters and in training courses.
Description
Keywords
interaction, , pragmatics, community interpreting, quality assessment
Citation
Ahmed, Safa'a A. (2015). Simultaneous Conference Interpreting and Mediation: An Application of a Cognitive- linguistics Approach to Professional Interpreting from English into Arabic (under publication). Philology, Faculty of Al-Alsun, Ain Shams University, 64 (June) 2015, 25-52. ---------- (2017). Towards an Accurate Simultaneous Court Interpreting: A Communicative, Pragmatic and Semiotic Approach to English/Arabic Renditions. Sahifatul Alsun, Faculty of Al-Alsun, Ain Shams University, 33(Jan.) 2017, 41- 79. Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The Bilingual Courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago COMMUNITY INTERPRETING CELT 61 (June) 2016 | P a g e 111 Bros-Brann, Eliane. (2002). Simultaneous Interpretation and the Media: Interpreting Live for Television. aiic. Retrieved from www.aiic.net/page/630/ simultaneous_interpretation/. Carr, S.; Roberts, E.A.; Dufour, A. and Steyn (eds.). (1997). The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community. Papers from the 1st International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health, and Social Service Settings, Geneva Park, Canada, June 1-4, 1995. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Catford, John. (2000). 'Translation Shifts'. In L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Reader. London: Routledge, pp.141-7. Colin, J. and Morris, R. (1996). Interpreters and the Legal Process. Winchester: Westernside Press. Edwards, Rosalind; Temple, Bogusia; Alexander, Claire. (2005). Users' Experiences of Interpreters. The Critical Role of Trust. In Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting,vol.7(1),77-96. Gile, D. (1991). A Communicative Oriented Analysis of Quality in Nonliterary Translation and Interpretation. In M.L. Larsson (ed.), Translation:Theory and Practice. Tension and Interdependence. Binghamton NY,SUNY, pp.188-200. Green, G.M. (1996). Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates. Déjean Le Féal, Karla. (1990). Some Thoughts on the Evaluation of Simultaneous Interpretation. In D. Bowen and M. Bowen (eds.), Interpreting— Today and Tomorrow, Binghamton NY, SUNY, pp.154-60. Harris, B.(1994).A Taxonomic Survey of Professional Interpreting, Part 1. Draft for the International Conference on Interpreting, Turku, 25-26 August 1994. Jacobsen, Bente Iness. (2002). Pragmatic Meaning in Court Interpreting: An Empirical Study of Additions in Consecutively Interpreted Question-answer Dialogues [PhD Thesis]. AarhusScool of Bus. Katan, David and Sergio-Straniero, Francessco. (2001). Look Who's Talking: The Ethics of Entertainment and Talk-show Interpreting. The Translator, 7(2), pp.213-38. Kasanji, L. (1995). Let's Talk- Guideline for Government Agencies Hiring Interpreters. Te Tari Taiwhenna: Ethnic Affairs, Aukland, New Zealand. Leech, G.N. (1985). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Routledge. Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marrone, S. (1993). Quality: A Shared Objective. The Interpreters' Newsletter, No.5, 35-41.., Moser-Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in Interpreting: Some Methodological Issues. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 7, 43-55. Munday, Jeremy. (2013). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Niska, H. (1991). A New Breed of Interpreter for Immigrants, Community Interpreting in Sweden. In C. Picken (ed.), Institute of Translation and Interpreting, ITI Conference 28/4/1990. Proceedings. London: Aslib (The Association for Information Management, 94-104. Pöchhhacker, Franz. (2001). Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting'. Meta: Translator Journal, Vol. 46(2), June 2001, 410-425. Pöllabauer, Sonja. (2004). "Translation Culture" in Interpreted Asylum Hearings. In Anthony Pym; Miriam Shlesinger; Zuzana Jettmarová (eds.). Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.151-62. Sacks, H., Scheggloff, E.A. and Jefferson, G.(1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation. Language, 50, pp.696-736. Schweda Nicholson, N. (1994). Community Interpreter Training in the United States and the United Kingdom: An Overview of Selected Initiative. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 12, Arhus, 127-39. Shackman, J. (1984). The Right to be Understood: A Handbook on Working with, Employing and Training Community Interpreters. Cambridge: Cambridge National Extension College. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Tebble, H. (1992). A Discourse Model for Dialogue Interpreting. In AUSIT Proceedings of the First Practitioners' Seminar. Canberra: Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators, Inc. National Office. Tellechea, Sánchez, Ma. Teresa. (2005). El intérprete como obstáculo: fortaleci- miento y emancipación del usuario para superarlo. In Carmen Valero-Garcés. Translation as Mediation or how to Bridge Linguistic and Cultural Gaps. Madrid: Srevicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alacalá, pp.114-21. Thomas, Jenny. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman. Townsley, Brook. (2007). Quality in Interpreting: the Services Providers Responsibility. Paper presented at the Critical Link5: Quality in interpreting: a shared responsibility, Sydney, 11th -15th April 2007.