Interpreting quality may be assessed from different points of view. In the literature, we read that usually, it should begin with “customer needs and end with customer perception” (Kotler and Armstrong 1994: 568). Reflecting on interpreting quality may enable professionals to carry out a satisfactory service and at the same time enable researchers to develop increasingly efficient training methods. According to Dejean le Féal (1990: 155; as cited in Kurz 2001: 395) “what our listeners receive through their earphones should produce the same effect on them as the original speech does on the speaker’s audience. It should have the same cognitive content and be presented with equal clarity and precision with [the] same type of language.”
In interpreting studies relevant literature, there have been a plethora of empirical studies (Andres 2000; Buehler 1986; Collados Ais 1998; Gile 1990; Kurz 1989, 1993, 1994, 1996; Kopczynsky 1994; Meak 1990; Marrone 1993; Mack and Cattaruzza 1995;
Ng 1992; Vuorikoski 1993, 1998; Moser 1995, 1996; to name just a few) differing in terms of method, scope and language combinations; however, few of them (Ng 1992) have focused on interpreting performance quality needed in training future interpreters and none on signed languages interpreting performance assessment. In other words, most of these studies have focused on either user-oriented or colleague-oriented definition of quality assessments, overlooking a cross-cultural delicate issue, i.e. the importance of setting different quality assessment parameters for different language combinations and for mixed classes with students having different language and cultural backgrounds, and for languages which are expressed in different modalities, like signed languages.
Seleskovitch (1986) points out that interpretation should always be judged from the perspective of the listener and never as an end in itself, “the chain of communication
159
does not end in the booth” (Kurz 2001:395). Hence, when we are talking about interpretation quality inside the classroom, we are talking about the perspective of the teacher/trainer-listener who is well aware of the problems to be found in a cross-culturally mixed classes in which some of the participants find themselves interpreting from a foreign language into a foreign language or do not even share the others’ working languages. The teacher-evaluator should take these aspects into consideration when assessing, for instance, the performance of non-native speaker students or non-native signers.
Within the Skopostheorie theoretical framework (Moratto 2011), the trainer should simply make sure that the message is understandable, adequate to the skopos. Voice quality should be an element of focus without being the main assessment parameter especially in oral to signed languages interpreting where voice is a null parameter. Some empirical studies have proven that pleasant voices are perceived as being an important or very important factor (Chiaro and Nocella 2004); however trainees should not be discouraged if they happen to have a not particularly pleasant voice because interpretation efficiency is based also on other factors. Fluency is an important element which trainers should work on along with sense consistency, logical cohesion, completeness and text accuracy. Terminology is important especially in the more advanced stages of training. Grammar is also important, but it is something trainees should work on in a language course or separately. Interpretation trainers ought not to waste valuable exercise time on explaining grammar rules which should be taken for granted at the language level required for starting an interpreter career.
According to Nord36 in translator and interpreter training “deviations from target language norms […] are very often […] not errors but caused by insufficient
36 Personal communication with Christine NORD in Taipei on November 8th, 2010.
proficiency in the TL (even in the mother tongue). These mistakes should be marked separately because they require special language training.” In other words, trainees must follow other linguistic and language-related enhancing courses, which are implemented in the curriculum to fill a linguistic gap that some students might still have.
The cross-cultural grading policy along with the evaluation of interpreting quality have inexorably changed with the increase of deaf students (as is the case in Europe) enrolling in interpretation curricula whose special needs have increased the intra- and inter-cultural reflections and research interests of trainers and trainees alike in the field of signed languages. Traditionally (Buehler 1986; Kurz 1989; 1993; 1994; 1996), interpreters’ quality-criteria assessment parameters may be summed up in the following:
accent, voice, fluency, logical cohesion, sense consistency, completeness, grammar and terminology. Different users’ expectations would emphasize different parameters.
Empirical studies provide us with user expectation profiles, “information which will prove beneficial to both the exercise and the teaching of the profession” (Kurz 2001:
407).
Unlike other researchers’ who define quality as “user satisfaction” (Kurz 2001: 407), here it is defined as “text accuracy”, in an attempt to find a commonly acceptable and viable evaluation grid to be used by trainers in cross-cultural learning environments. In a cross-cultural perspective, the most important parameter remains text accuracy and sense consistency which are also the main evaluation parameters (along with function and skopos of the interpretation as instructed in the “brief”) used in the entrance and final exams for the assessment of students’ performances, especially those whose native language or culture of origin gives them a feeling of cultural-linguistic alienation compared to their fellow students or colleagues. The same applies to Deaf students who feel alienated, if not inferior at times, compared to hearing students. In the next
161
paragraph, we will try to elaborate a model which takes all these different factors into consideration.
Within the framework of the Skopostheorie, a source text (ST) may allow any translation purpose, depending on the translation brief. Hence, it is essential for trainee interpreters to be very clear on what the brief is prior to carrying out their interpretation.
However, the acceptability of translation purposes is limited by the translator’s and interpreter’s responsibility with regard to his or her partners in the co-operational activity of translation (of both written and oral text). This is in line with the principle of loyalty as illustrated by Nord (1989), where loyalty is perceived as an interpersonal category. “Loyalty” is a key concept in Nord’s theory. It basically means that “the target-text purpose should be compatible with the original author’s intentions […], however it can be difficult to elicit the sender’s intentions in cases where we don’t have enough information about the original situation” (Nord 1997:125-126). In other words,
“loyalty refers to the interpersonal relationship between the translator, the source-text sender, the target-text addressees and the initiator. Loyalty [also] limits the range of justifiable target-text functions for one particular source text and raises the need for a negotiation of the translation [or interpretation] assignment between translators [or interpreters] and their clients” (Nord 1997: 126).
“The loyalty principle takes account of the legitimate interests of the three parties involved:
initiators (who want a particular type of translation), target readers (who expect a particular relationship between original and target texts) and original authors (who have a right to demand
respect for their individual intentions and expect a particular kind of relationship between their text and its translation). If there is any conflict between the interests of the three partners of the translator,
it is the translator [interpreter] who has to mediate and, where necessary, seek the understanding of
all sides”. (Nord 1997: 128)37
Moreover, as previously mentioned, the translation purpose is defined by the translation brief which, implicitly or explicitly, describes the situation for which the target text (TT) is needed. Needless to say, this situation may be real or fictitious as in a classroom setting. However, notwithstanding its fictitious nature, trainers should all the same make it very clear what the skopos of the interpretation of trainees is so as to give them a clear-cut idea on what the function or hierarchy of functions expected or intended to be achieved by the TT should be.
These are the basic principles of functional translational activity, where every task should have a briefing, which should, in turn, become the only benchmark for trainee interpreters’ task performance assessment in the classroom setting. An important aspect which deserves to be mentioned before the analysis of a model specific to signed languages interpreting assessment is that, as mentioned before, in the approach adopted herein the brief should be considered as a standard for TI’s performance assessment.
However, this does not mean that “text accuracy” and “sense consistency” are no longer valid parameters to be applied in the assessment procedure. The only difference with traditional approaches is that the aforementioned two parameters should have the brief as their benchmark and not the text, per se, as an independent unit. In other words, the (oral) text produced by the students should be accurate and consistent with the übersetzungsauftrag given by the instructor before a given task. Therefore, we can state
37 Borrowing Nord’s words, “loyalty” may also be defined as “the responsibility translators [interpreters] have toward their partners in translational interaction. Loyalty commits the translator bilaterally to the source and target sides, taking account of the difference between culture-specific concepts of translation prevailing in the two cultures involved” (Nord 1997:140).
163
that “text accuracy” and “sense consistency” are still the most important parameters in the light of the übersetzungsauftrag, in a functional approach.
According to professional sign language interpreter Ginger Hsu (personal communication, 2012), most sign language interpreting organizations, every time they provide sign language interpreting services, they distribute a questionnaire amongst Deaf people38, in order to inquire on their degree of satisfaction.
FIG 939
38 It depends on whether the individual deaf person is served or the deaf people are served. If only one deaf person is served, only one person needs to do the questionnaire.
39 The English translation is in the appendix.
165
In other words, in terms of traditional literature they are trying to analyze the issue of interpreting quality from the users’ end, i.e. the Deaf community. At present, thanks to the help of professional and socially active interpreter Ginger Hsu, who collaborates with quite a few similar organizations, I am trying to collect these questionnaires so as to see the way they approach the issue. The results will be discussed in a separate paper.
The afore-mentioned observations are derived from traditional literature on assessment, which has never focused on the development of commonly shared parameters for the assessment and evaluation of signed languages. This will be tentatively done in the next section.