Chapter Five Results and Analysis
This chapter presents the survey results. Two sections are in this chapter: the responses from the school directors and the conference interpreters. Both group’s responses are analyzed respectively.
A total of 36 copies of questionnaires across the three groups of respondents were sent out. 24 copies were sent to the group of school directors, six copies to the group of organization director and another six for the group of interpreters. The names and email contacts of the school directors were easier to obtain for this study so more intended respondents were derived for this group. Eleven questionnaires were returned and ten of them valid. The ten respondents are from nine different countries across four continents: North America, Europe (Western Europe, Central Europe and Northern Europe), Asia (Eastern Asia and The Middle East) as well as Oceania (Australia). To state the questionnaire response rate for each group, seven out of 24 copies of questionnaires sent to the group of school directors were returned and all were valid. The response rate for this group is 29.2%. Regarding the group of organizations, originally six copies of questionnaires were sent out and two replied that the nature of their organizations were not suitable to answer the questionnaires because the organizations were interpreters of cultural and heritage instead of languages as this study had mistaken. Therefore the two were subsequently removed and two new ones were added to the list of intended respondents. The response rate of this group is 0%. One questionnaire did come back from this group but it was indeed invalid. For the group of conference interpreters, six copies of questionnaires were generated and three were returned. They were all valid questionnaires. The response
rate for the group of conference interpreters is 50%. All the responses were examined on the basis of this study’s research questions as derived from the literature review.
To ensure anonymity, every respondent is assigned a code name based on the sequence of their reply. See Appendix Ⅲ for all of the original responses compiled by this study. Note that those who do not support/practice uni-directionality are not required to answer Question 3. To ensure anonymity, the responses may be subject to slight modification on the part that the original response may reveal the respondent’s identity.
5.1 Responses from the Group of School Directors and Analysis
A total of seven respondents who are school directors participate in this survey.
The respondents from this group are coded as S1, S2, S3 and so on as the coding is based on the sequence of their reply.
Their replies to Question 1 indicate that the claim of B-A as a standard is widely known as noted by professionals in charge of interpreting schools and institutes across different continents. Although one respondent (S1) chose the option
‘Other’ for Question 1, the reasons S1 put forward not only shows that S1 was aware of the claim but also seemed to acknowledge the validity of it. It should be noted that S1 acknowledged the quality of interpreting into A under the assumption that A production is more resourceful while all other things being equal so far as the way A and B languages are defined.
In Question 2, none of the schools supports uni-directional practice although respondent S4 does specify that the school supports both directions only when the
quality of A-B justifies as a precondition. It is interesting that S3 checked both
“Interpreting into A” and “Interpreting into B” instead of “We support interpreting in both directions.” S3 reasoned that their school’s interpreting course aimed at interpreting into A and from C, yet they had separate courses for interpreting into B and for AB retour. It seems that this school evaluates directionality as context requires.
For example, at their exam interpreting into B is not compulsory but for a different course interpreting into B is provided. In community interpreting, AB retour is required for dialogue interpreting. For the purpose of convenience, this study is inclined to interpret S3’s response to Question 2 as supporting both directions.
Regarding Question 2, market reality turns out to be the major concern for these schools to support AB retour. Market reality is a factor that sets the interpreting practice in the way that AB retour is necessary and required. None supports strict uni- directional practice (Into A or Into B only) in this group. Many schools in this survey state the fact that AB retour is necessary whe n less-well known languages are involved. Neither interpreting into A nor interpreting into B alone can satisfy market demand. S2 also states that they do not expect the same proficiency in B and A. All the schools and institutes in this survey generally give their support to AB retour even though all have heard of the standard claim.
5.2 Responses from the Group of Conference Interpreters and Analysis
This group’s response rate is 50%. The way respondents are coded is also based on the sequence of their replies (I1, I2 and I3). The three respondents indeed station in different countries across three continents. The survey results in Question 1 showed that respondent I2 indeed had never heard of the into-A-as-a-standard claim.
I2 neither took a side on directionality nor did he practice uni-directional interpreting.
This was also the indication in one of pretest respondents. As this is a qualitative survey research instead of quantitative, this study cannot draw a conclusion as to how many members in the field are/are not aware of the standard claim; what we can say based on the results is that there are those who have never heard of the claim before.
I3 was aware of the standard claim but he neither lended his support to it nor did he practice uni-directional interpreting not only because he was taught in AB retour but it had always been the practice for Chinese/English combination as the respondent indicated. Both I2 and I3 agreed by mere coincidence that the reasons they did not insist a direction when interpreting was that uni-directional practice was impossible due to exiting market mechanism and demand. I1 supported and insisted on interpreting into A quite clearly. It should be noted that as much as I1 agreed with the quality of interpreting into A, this respondent also recognized the fact that AB retour was a necessity when there was a shortage of interpreters who could work into A from a certain language.
5.3 Results and Analysis
Most of the respondents who know about the standard claim do not strictly support nor practice unidirectional interpreting and the most-cited reason for the response in this survey is market reality as provided by the respondents from both groups. None from the group of school directors supports the idea of only working into A under all conditions; in fact, many of them recognize the practice of AB retour.
The only respondent (From the group of interpreter) who is not aware of the claim does not choose a side on the issue of directionality but also acknowledges that it is
impossible to function as an interpreter to work only in one direction. Evidence suggests that many are aware of market demand for the practice of AB retour.
Based on the practices and reasons provided by the respondents, this study is inclined to identify Asian market as another place currently rely heavily on the practice AB retour. S7 pointed out the fact that the School had “different practices for different languages”; for example, all students at the School must be able to work both ways in CI (Consecutive interpretation) regardless of their language combinations but AB retour is usually practiced for both SI and CI with Asian languages. In addition, I3 points out that AB retour is always the case in Chinese/English combination and S1 agrees by indicating the overwhelming demand for AB retour in the combinations of Chinese/English and Japanese/English. Other than Europe as the literature review has suggested and some of the respondents also indicated in this survey, Asia may be another market that also demands AB retour. Many “smaller” languages have a serious shortage of interpreters whose A is a more common language (i.e.English) as we have been informed over and over again through out the literature and survey conducted by this study.
