Joining Forces for Quality Assessment in Simultaneous Interpretingthe NTR Model

  1. Alonso Bacigalupe, Luis 1
  1. 1 Universidade de Vigo
    info

    Universidade de Vigo

    Vigo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05rdf8595

Revista:
Sendebar: Revista de la Facultad de Traducción e Interpretación

ISSN: 1130-5509

Ano de publicación: 2023

Número: 34

Páxinas: 198-216

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.30827/SENDEBAR.V34.26860 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Sendebar: Revista de la Facultad de Traducción e Interpretación

Resumo

Quality in simultaneous interpretation (SI) has always been an elusive concept, and the literature has usually argued that it is not easy to establish a valid instrument for the assessment of any interpretation assignment. The provision of accessibility services for the deaf and hard-of-hearing in live audiovisual subtitling, however, has routinely demanded quality assessment procedures of both the intralingual and interlingual live subtitles shown on the screen. In speech-to-text interpreting (STTI), which includes both intra- and interlingual respeaking (i.e. live subtitling without and with translation respectively), the NTR Model was proposed for the assessment of interlingual respeaking (Romero-Fresco & Pöchhacker, 2017). The purpose of this contribution is (i) to argue why the NTR Model might be conceptually valid for the assessment of SI, (ii) to present the results of a small-scale analysis of an SI task evaluated with four instruments aimed at scrutinizing the benefits of this Model and its applicability to SI, and (iii) to advocate for the use of objective assessment systems for student and professional performance in SI.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alonso-Bacigalupe, L. (2013). Interpretation quality: from cognitive constraints to market limitations. In R. Barranco-Droege, E.M. Pradas & O. García (Eds.), Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Vol II (pp. 9-33). Comares.
  • Barik, H. C. (1971). A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 16(4), 199-210.
  • Barik, H. C. (1972). Interpreters talk a lot, among other things. Babel, 18(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.18.1.01bar
  • Barik, H. C. (1973). Simultaneous interpretation: temporal and quantitative data. Language and Speech, 16, 237-270.
  • Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231-235. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1986.5.4.231
  • Chafe, W. (1985). Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In D. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, Language, and Learning: The Nature and Consequences of Reading and Writing (pp. 105-122). Cambridge University Press.
  • Collados, A. (1997). La entonación monótona como parámetro de calidad en interpretación simultánea: la evaluación de los receptores. Doctoral Dissertation. Universidad de Granada.
  • Collados, A. & Sabio, J.A. (Eds.) (2003). Avances en la investigación sobre interpretación. Comares.
  • Dumouchel, P., Boulianne, G., & Brousseau, J. (2011). Measures for quality of closed captioning. In A. Şerban, A. Matamala, & J.-M. Lavaur (Eds.), Audiovisual Translation in Close-up: Practical and Theoretical Approaches (pp. 161-172). Peter Lang.
  • Eugeni, C. (2020). Interaction in Diamesic Translation. Multilingual Live Subtitling. In D. Dejica, C. Eugeni & A. Dejica-Carţiş (Eds.), Translation Studies and Information Technology - New Pathways for Researchers, Teachers and Professionals (pp. 19-31). Editura Politehnica.
  • Fernández, A. (2022). La evaluación de calidad en interpretación simultánea: análisis comparativo de la calidad del discurso a través de tres modelos de evaluación. Trabajo de Fin de Grado. Facultade de Filoloxía e Tradución. Universidade de Vigo.
  • García, O., Pradas, E.M. & Barranco-Drodge, R. (Eds.) (2013). Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Vol 1. Comares.
  • Gile, D. (1995, 2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. John Benjamins.
  • Han, C. (2022). Interpreting testing and assessment: A state-of-the-art-review. Language Testing, 39(1), 30-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211036100
  • Herbert, J. (1952). The Interpreter’s Handbook: How to Become a Conference Interpreter. Librairie de L’Université Georg.
  • Dawson, H. & Romero-Fresco, P. (2021). Towards research-informed training in interlingual respeaking: an empirical approach. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 15(1), 66-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2021.1880261
  • Kahane, E. (2022). Thoughts on the quality of interpretation. AIIC.net. May 13, 2000. Accessed October, 27, 2022.
  • Kopczynski, A. (1994). Quality in Conference Interpreting: some pragmatic problems. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation Studies --An Interdiscipline (pp. 189-198). John Benjamins.
  • Kurz, I. & Pöchhacker, F. (1995). Quality in TV interpreting. In Y. Gambier (Ed.), Audiovisual Communication and Language Transfer. Proceedings of the International Forum Strasbourg. Translation. FIT Newsletter série XIV/3-4, pp. 350-358.
  • Lee, S. (2015). Developing an analytic scale for assessing undergraduate students’ consecutive interpreting performances. Interpreting, 17(2), 226-254.
  • Lee, S. (2019). Holistic assessment of consecutive interpretation. How interpreter trainers rate student performances. Interpreting, 21(2), 245-269. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00029.lee
  • Martin, A. & Abril, M.I. (2002). Didáctica de la interpretación: algunas consideraciones sobre la evaluación. Puentes, 1, 81-94.
  • Mizuno, A. (1997). Broadcast interpreting in Japan. Some theoretical and practical aspects. In Snelling (roundtable discussion). In Y. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research (pp. 192-194). John Benjamins.
  • Moser, P. (1995). Survey on Expectations of Users of Conference Interpretation: Final Report, January 1995. International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC).
  • Mouzourakis, P. (2008). Remote Interpreter Training – Training for Remote Interpreting? ISCAP, Porto. https://multimedialinguas.wordpress.com/edicoes/ano-i-2010/0001-janeiro/panayotis-mouzourakis-%C2%ABremote-interpreter-training-training-for-remote-interpreting%C2%BB
  • Padilla, P. & Martin, A. (1992). Similarities and differences between interpreting and translation: implications for teaching. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience (pp. 195-203). John Benjamins.
  • Pagano, A. (2022). Testing Quality in Interlingual Respeaking and other Methods of Interlingual Live Subtitling. Doctoral Thesis. Ph.D. in Digital Humanities Languages, Cultures and Digital Technologies. Department of Modern Languages and Cultures. Universitá Di Genova.
  • Pöchhacker, F. (1994). Quality assurance in simultaneous interpreting. In C. Dollerup & A. Lindegaard (Eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2. John Benjamins.
  • Pöchhacker, F. (2013). Researching quality: A two-pronged approach. In García, O., E. M. Pradas & R. Barranco-Drodge (Eds.), Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Vol 1 (pp. 33-56). Comares.
  • Pöchhacker, F. (2019). Moving boundaries in interpreting. In H. Van Dam, M. N. Brøgger & K. Korning Zethsen (Eds.), Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies (pp. 45-63). Routledge.
  • Romero-Fresco, P. (2011). Subtitling through Speech Recognition: Respeaking. Routledge.
  • Romero-Fresco, P. (2019). Accessible Filmmaking. Routledge.
  • Romero-Fresco, P. & Martínez, J. (2015). Accuracy rate in live subtitling: The NER model. In Díaz Cintas, J. & R. Baños (Eds.) Audiovisual Translation in a Global Context: Mapping an Ever-changing Landscape (pp. 28-50). Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Romero-Fresco, P. & Pöchhacker, F. (2017). Quality assessment in interlingual live subtitling: The NTR model. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 16, 149-167.
  • Romero-Fresco, P. & Alonso-Bacigalupe, L. (2022). An empirical analysis on the efficiency of five interlingual live subtitling workflows. XLinguae, Volume 15(2) April 2022, 3-16.
  • Russo, M. (1995). Media interpreting: variables and strategies. Translatio. Nouvelles de la FIT- FIT Newsletter, XIV (3/4), 343-349.
  • Seleskovitch, D. (1978). Interpreting for International Conferences: Problems of language and communication. Pen and Booth.
  • Shlesinger. M. et al. (1997). Quality in simultaneous interpreting. In Y. Gambier, D. Gile, D. & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research (pp. 123-131). John Benjamins.
  • Shlesinger, M. (1995). Shifts in cohesion in simultaneous interpreting. The Translator, 1(2), 193-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1995.10798957
  • Shlesinger, M. (1999). Norms, strategies and constraints. How do we tell them apart. In A. Álvarez & A. Fernández (Eds.). Anovar/anosar: Estudos de Tradución e Interpretación, 1, 65-77.
  • Stinson, M. S. (2015). Speech-to-text interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies (pp. 399-40). Routledge.
  • Viezzi, M. (2003). Interpretation quality: A model. In A. Collados & J.A. Sabio (Eds.), Avances en la investigación sobre interpretación (pp. 147-157). Comares.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet