Background of the Study

2

online interpreting users are saying about the performance of two simultaneous

interpreters in a live interpreting event.

1.1 Background of the Study

Rich literature on interpreting quality has revealed many different dimensions to

define interpreting quality. As summarized by a model developed by Pöchhacker (2001),

interpreting quality ranges from accurate rendition of source, adequate target language

expression, equivalent intended effect, to successful communicative interaction. Good

interpretation has multiple-level of definitions, from the “lexico-semantic core” at

textual output level to the “socio-pragmatic sphere of interaction” (p. 143).

Similarly, researchers have also developed various quality criteria to operationalize

and measure the different aspects of quality. Some are linguistic, output-oriented, and

content-related quality criteria, such as logical cohesion of utterance, sense consistency

with original message, completeness, correct grammar, and correct terminology. On the

other end of the spectrum, there are extra-linguistic, pragmatic, service-orientated, or

form-related quality standards. Take the following criteria for example, pleasant voice,

lively intonation, poise, and pleasant appearance.

Many empirical studies have been conducted to test how interpreters and users

3

perceive the importance of these different quality criteria. In some survey-based studies

(e.g. Büler, 1986; Marrone, 1993; Kopczyński, 1994; Moser, 1996) there seemed to be a

general consensus that content-related criteria are more important than form-related

ones. Meanwhile, form-related, delivery or extra-linguistic criteria have been

considered desirable, but not essential. Yet this is not a final conclusion. With the

accumulation of more literatures, many researchers have gradually realized that

interpreting quality is very multi-dimensional, and differs with at least two key

factors—the users and the interpreting context.

Regarding the role of users, Gile (1991) stated that quality assessment is “affected

by the different actors’ respective positions in the communication configuration and by

the limitations of these positions” (p. 196). Kahane (2000) exemplified how actors hold

different perceptions about what constitutes good interpretation. When empirical

research on interpreting quality started to prosper from the late 1980s, quality studies

started from understanding the perspectives of professional interpreters, but

subsequently more studies focused on surveying general end-users and even

distinguished between user groups of different backgrounds.

Context is another crucial factor affecting interpreting quality. Kopczyński (1994)

4

defined quality as a function of situation and context. Straniero-Sergio (2003) held that

without the situational context in which the interpreted event takes place, there would

be “a gap between the ideal (academic) quality and situated (real-world) quality”

(p.135). Because interpreters’ performance is largely dependent upon the context in

which the event took place, one has to frame the situation first, and then consequently

decide the realistic, achievable quality of the interpretation. With this theoretical

foundation in mind and also as professional interpretation expands to serve different

social contexts and communities, there have been emerging quality studies in specific

contexts, such as in community, court or media interpreting, just to name a few.

Researchers have attempted to define media interpreting, mainly by describing the

different scenarios where interpretation services are required. According to Pöchhacker

(2010), media interpreting is “a form of language transfer in the media used primarily

for live mass media broadcasts” (p. 224). So far, media interpreting studies focused on

simultaneous interpreting events on the television.

There are mainly two types of television interpreting (Mack, 2002). One typical

example is foreign events with special significance broadcasted on the television, such

as a presidential inaugural ceremony, or a state memorial service. Another typical

5

television interpreting scenario is the in-studio talk shows or interviews where

interpreters provide consecutive interpretation for the program host, interviewees, and

sometimes a live audience. In some countries, such as Japan, there are broadcast

interpreters who play the dual-role of television reporters and interpreters, and are

expected to meet the quality standards of both professions (Snelling, 1997).

Mack (2002) also pointed out two prominent features of media interpreting that set

it apart from simultaneous interpreting in a conference setting. First is the unique

participant relationship with users in media interpreting. The users in media interpreting

are often a group of off-line audience. How will the interpreters be able to gauge the

need of these remote users? Another feature is exposure--the nature of the media

enables the performance of a single interpreter to reach thousands, if not millions of

viewers and listeners. In addition, the exposure factor might increase the stress level on

interpreters (Kurz, 2002) as well as the difficulty level of the interpreters’ works

(Pöchhacker, 2011). These unique features of media interpreting could result in

insightful quality-related findings, contributing to making the literatures on interpreting

quality more comprehensive and holistic.

However, in the context of media interpreting, there have only been a small number

6

of studies on interpreting quality. A general consensus seemed to suggest that the unique

context of media interpreting does affect users’ quality perception. Because of the

unique context, delivery- or performance-related quality criteria were deemed to be

more important than content-related ones (Pignataro & Velardi, 2011; Straniero-Sergio,

2003; Pöchhacker, 1997; Kurz & Pöchhacker, 1995). This means that when evaluating

the quality of media interpreters, interpreter’s ability to speak convincingly can

sometimes be even more important than to speak correctly.

However, one has to note the methodological limitations in these small number of

quality studies. Kurz and Pöchhacker (1995) used Büler’s eight quality criteria and

asked survey participants to assess the relative importance of different quality, and

compared with results with Kurz’s study done in 1993. However, the sample size of TV

professionals was only 19 people, and it was unclear from the study whether the

differences between the scores given by the two comparison groups were of statistical

significance or not. Pöchhacker’s (1997) and Straniero-Sergio (2003) respectively

focused on one media interpreting event to analyze and compare the source and target

texts to assess interpreters’ performance. They differed in the sense that Pöchhacker’s

(1997) still applied Büler’s quality criteria, while Straniero-Sergio (2003) identified and

7

described the norms of media interpreters. Pignataro and Velardi (2011), although only a

preliminary study with limited data, observed how interpreters used rhetorical tools to

gain affiliative responses from the audience, which was a measurement of successful

interpretation. With these limited number of studies, the investigation of quality in

media interpreting context is not final, especially as new forms of media and web-based

broadcasting technologies continue to evolve.