Service Product Dimension: Technical Quality

Gile had once described the interpreting community’s frustration in addressing to the methodological issues of measuring interpreting quality,

“..while there may be inter-subjective agreement on large differences in interpretation quality, at more subtle levels, the interpreting research community is still groping in the dark and has not found a valid, sensitive and reliable metric to measure interpreting performance” (Gile, in Niska 1999: 120 as in Pöchhacker, 2001).

Understanding the complexities regarding quality measurement of interpreting service as Gile and many other scholars (as discussed in 2.3) had put it, this study does not attempt to find the best model to address the issue. Yet, this study does intend to cover as many aspects as possible to indentify the quality attributes of conference interpreting that would matter to the “decision-making users”, the clients.

The previous efforts of theoretical and empirical studies have shed the light on the direction for the successors to follow, as Pöchhacker (2001, p. 413) had put it,

“Despite the fact that quality in interpreting may be assessed differently from various subjective perspectives and is thus essentially ‘in the eye of the beholder’, there is considerable agreement in the literature on a number of criteria which come into play when assessing the quality of interpreting.”

Therefore, both major conceptual and empirical studies on conference/simultaneous

interpreting quality are reviewed to identify most common quality criteria/attributes mentioned for the forming of the Service Product Dimension. The author first look at the most quoted empirical studies on conference interpreting quality in user perspective for the common quality attributes. Table 3.4 shows the quality attributes and their corresponding rankings in the empirical studies referenced.

Table 3.4

Quality Attributes Tested in Major Empirical Studies on User Perspectives of Conference Interpreting Quality

Papers Quality attributes tested

and the results in significance ranking Kurz

(1993)

Significance of different criteria:

1) Consistency > 2) Logical cohesion > 3) Terminology

> 4) Completeness > 5) Fluency > 6) Grammar = 7) Voice > 8)Accent

Kopczynski (1994)

 Top 3 priorities of different quality attributes:

1. Detailed content (>70%),

Most concerned quality attributes:

1. Content

 Clarity > Completeness/ essentials >

Terminological accuracy > Faithfulness to meaning 2. Voice,

3. Synchronicity 4. Rhetorical skills Vuorikoski

(1993, 1998)

Rankings of the quality attributes:

1) informed, 2) coherent, easy to follow, 3) fluent, 4) accurate, 5) correct terminology, 6) pleasant speech rhythm

Source: Compiled by this study.

As a result of the review, 10 quality attributes are identified for two main reasons: 1) they were considered the most important quality attributes by the users, or 2) they were mentioned most often when users were asked about their comments on conference interpreting qualities. The 10 attributes are listed in the following, and the studies where the attributes were mentioned are shown in the brackets:

1. Faithfulness (Kurz, 1993; Moser, 1995)

2. Logical cohesion (Kurz, 1993; Vuorikoski, 1993, 1998 )

3. Completeness (Kurz, 1993; Kopczynski, 1994; Moser, 1995)

4. Use of correct terminology (Kurz, 1993; Kopczynski, 1994; Moser, 1995; Vuorikoski, 1993, 1998)

5. Fluency (Kurz, 1993; Kopczynski, 1994; Vuorikoski, 1993, 1998)

6. Use of appropriate style (Kopczynski, 1994)

7. Pleasant voice (Kurz, 1993; Kopczynski, 1994; Moser, 1995)

8. Synchronicity (Moser, 1995)

9. Pronunciation/native accent (Kurz, 1993; Moser, 1995)

10. Correct grammatical usage (Kurz, 1993; Kopczynski, 1994)

On top of the 10 attributes selected from the referenced empirical studies, 2 other attributes, “Prosody” and “Reassuring delivery” are also added to the Service Product Dimension. The idea of the two attributes came from statements in theoretical studies that discuss quality of conference interpreting in the perspectives of users/listeners:

(1) Prosody:

Since this study focus on clients’ quality expectations, the author thinks that more formal (relating to the outward form or arrangement of elements rather than content) attributes should be included. “Prosody” is one that has been often mentioned, for example, in Vuorikoski’s (1993, 1998) empirical study on users and in Garzone’s

theoretical study (2002, p. 118): “…it can be expected that a poor performance in terms of prosody and fluency may be perceived as less correct and less coherent, although in actual fact is not.”

(2) Reassuring Delivery:

As another “formal” quality attribute that has been discussed, “Reassuring Delivery” refers to whether interpreters sound confident in their delivery, without giving away interpreters doubts, and therefore is convincing to the listeners. This quality gives the impression of assurance, though it might be a false one. Therefore, even AIIC (1990:2) have recommended its members to attend to this quality attribute, since “Less able, less accurate colleagues have been preferred because of a pleasant voice and reassuring delivery” (Schjoldager, 1996, p. 190).

To organize the 12 attributes better for later analysis and discussion, Subject Proficiency, and three quality dimensions borrowed from Kalina’s framework (Kalina, 2002)--“Semantic content”, “Linguistic performance”, “Presentation”— are used to categorize the attributes.

“Faithfulness”, “Logical cohesion”, and “Completeness” are all related to the meaning/content of the message and therefore are categorized under “Semantic content”.

“Use of correct terminology” and “Use of appropriate style” refer to using the appropriate terminology or style in the context of conference subject, and therefore are categorized under “Subject Proficiency”. “Pronunciation/native accent” and “Correct grammatical usage” are purely linguistic, and therefore are categorized under “Linguistic Performance”.

“Fluency”, “Pleasant voice”, “Synchronicity”, “Prosody”, and “Reassuring delivery” are categorized under “Presentation” as they are in Kalina’s study (2002) when addressing to the interpreter’s output quality. Table 3.5 shows the attributes under the assigned

sub-dimensions. A conceptual service quality model of conference interpreting is then formed (Figure 3.3).

Table 3.5 12 Attributes under the 4 Sub-dimensions of “Service Product”

Semantic

(4) Use of correct terminology (5) Use of appropriate style Linguistic

Figure 3.3 Service Quality Model of Conference Interpreting Source: Compiled by this study