1. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Quality and Quality Assurance for Simultaneous Interpreting Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina

2. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Can interpreting quality be measured? Performance is highly individual Assessors are subjective Clear norms and criteria do not exist Different aspects must be weighted These may affect performance or assessment

3. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Quality of interpreting Parameters and criteria are vague, soft, subjective Who is responsible for interpreting quality? - event organiser - speaker (text producer) - user (recipient - interpreter Which methods of analysis can lead to which insights?

4. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 The theoretical approach Seleskovitch (1968 etc.) - deverbalisation - sense, not words, to be rendered - translation and interpreting as separate disciplines

5. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 The experimental approach Barik (1971) compared transcripts of source texts (ST) and target texts (TT) for - correct words - omissions - additions - substitutions

6. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Corpus based approaches From Lederer (1981): Transcripts of authentic source and target texts To Vuorikoski (2004): Interpreting at the European Parliament: analysis of audio recordings … and studies by Diriker, Pöchhacker, Cenkova, Kalina etc.

7. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Discourse linguistic approaches Hildegund Bühler (1986) Characteristics of textuality: native accent, pleasant voice, fluency of delivery, logical cohesion of utterance, sense consistency with original message, completeness of interpretation, correct grammatical usage, use of correct terminology, use of appropriate style, thorough preparation of conference documents, endurance, poise, pleasant appearance, reliability, ability to work in a team, positive feedback from delegates, other criteria (Bühler 1986: 234)

8. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Interpreting products and their characteristics Textuality characteristics (Bühler 1986) Correctness, Coherence, Comprehensibility Aedequacy in terms of terminology, style,communication (from de Beaugrande & Dressler 1981) Complemented for the oral mode by: Presentation, voice quality

9. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Interpreting quality Moser-Mercer (1996): -completeness - accuracy - no distortions of original - consideration of extralinguistic factors

10. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Contextual and situative variables Kopczynsky (1994) - Technical conditions - Work load - Framework of discourse - Communicative framework

11. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 The ideal target text Pöchhacker (1994) - A text which fully fulfills its function, i.e. - A text which is optimally understood by its recipients. Viezzi (1999): „Usability“

12. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Daniel Gile (1995) Effort model: If there is imbalance of capacities for efforts of listening, storing and producing, quality is bound to deteriorate.

13. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 What the user thinks „With experience, you learn to tell the difference between quite good, very good and excellent interpreters.“ (Quote from Lord Simon of Highbury, then UK Indusrty Minister, opening an AIIC Conference in 1998)

14. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 What can user surveys tell us? Shlesinger Do our customers know which quality they require?

15. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Surveys among interpreters Anderson (1979) „Do interpreters work better when they have been given preparation material?“ Interpreters‘ reply: „No“. But: Lamberger-Felber (1998) found: they do! → Relative character of findings

16. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Observing conference interpreters Self-involvement and colleague observation Observation as a participant Comparison of - events - interpreters - conditions

17. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 ear-voice span Good evening ladies and gentlemenWe are pleased Guten Abend meine D.&H. to see that you have all come to this event. Wir freuen unsdass Sie alle gekommen We hope you will enjoy the party. sind.Wir hoffen, Sie werden Spaß haben.

18. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Product analysis with transcript Source text-----------------target text Not analysable: [ST producer] [function] [addressees] Linguistic comparison... Transcript... -- ST/TT relations -- linguistic characteristics -- semantic deviations... Transcript...

19. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Product analysis with recordings speaker -------------------interpreter [not observable: conditions, processes] Audio /Video and transcripts Types of deviation Delivery characteristics, prosody Presentation rate: Words/Syll. p.Min.

20. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Dimensions of the interpreting process (Kalina) Pre-process (anything that comes before the act of interpreting) Peri-process (external factors during the act of interpreting) In-process (the act of interpreting and its product) Post-process ( anything that comes after the act of interpreting)

21. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Pre-process: Contract Inquiry received Date vs. date of event Inquiry channel Telefone, e-mail, others Source/origin of inquiry Recommendation, professional association Specificity of inquiry Number of languages, directions, sessions, interpreting mode, subject matter etc. Language directions requested Number Advisory effort invested Hours, materials, questions asked Technical assistance Contract signed Contract date vs. date of event Contractually agreed languages Number Language combinations Language directions Number, specification Contracts sent to team members Number of team members, date Receipt of signed contracts Date, correctness Booths: Number, standards Interpreters: Number professional ethics Principles, membership of prof. assoc.

22. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Pre-process: Preparation Subject matter informationAvailable when and how? Information specificityURLs, reference mat., manuscripts, charts Material receivedList of dates of received documents Consultation with clientTime invested, content Contact with team membersAccessibility, time taken to respond Document distributionSelective distribution vs. ‘everything to everyone’ Team and working scheduleSchedule of work for each interpreter Heads of booth and teamNames Coordination between boothsHead of team Special arrangementsDetails Time invested in preparationHours per interpreter Preparation sourcesClient, internet, others Media used for preparationDictionaries, glossaries, data bases, Speaker-specific preparationType, detail, with manuscript or charts BriefingLength, intensity, source Preparation coordinationDivision of work, fair-share princip

23. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Peri-process: Data on assignment Travel arrangements (Contractual details, hours) Punctuality (If applicable, date of arrival) In-conference coordination (Problems, solutions) Equipment test run (Yes/no, problems to be specified) Functioning of techn. Installations (Acoustics, video/audio transmission, microphones, technical service) Number of booths, interpreters (Number, names) Transmission channels (Direct, recording, TV etc.) Cession of copyright (Extent, purpose) Available languages (Language combinations) Language directions used (Lengths of languages spoken/ listened to) Interpreting turns (Number, length of turns per interpreter) Number of speakers / listeners (Attendance list, number of headsets used) Degree of interactivity of event (Number of floor contributions, hours of discussion) Assignment duration (Total length of event, actual need for interpretation)

24. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 In-process: Conditions, factors In-processConditions, factors Profile of eventType of conference Structure of interactionHierarchical, flat, expert panel, expert to laypeople, etc. Booth positionVision from booth, perceptibility Media usedPPTs, charts, video, handouts etc. Media availabilityWhich media, available when? Delivery profiles STProfile for each speaker Delivery typesExtempore, manuscript, mix, media used Speaker language (Non-)native, good, average, poor Length of presentation, dynamicsFlow, speed (per speaker) Working time and breaksTime schedule of event Additional working timeCoordination, dialogue interpreting during breaks, meals Interpreting requirement Types of interpreting required Team profileQualifications, professional experience, references (per interpreter) Interpreter delivery profilesOutput-related parameters per interpreter (content, form, delivery (macro/ micro level) Addressee profilesExperts, laypeople, general public Listeners per languagePercentage, status Composition of audienceLanguages, cultures, degree of heterogeneity Feedback to interpretersTypes, extent, source Relay interpretingPercentage, directions, languages involved

25. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Post-process: contract-specific and general Post-process General Technological upgrading (PC, laptop, E-Mail, mobile phone, data bases, e- dictionaries, other software, print media) Maintenance of own glossaries (Updating of entries and structure) Further training (Frequency, subjects) Further linguistic training (Ways and methods, intensity) Specialisation (Type of measures taken) Post-process Contract- specific Confidentiality (Public / confidential / classified) Management of documents (Return / further processing) Organisation of post- processing (Time between event and post-processing, degree of diligence) Self- evaluation (Frequency of self-recordings made and reviewed, checks on notes) Contact with client (Feedback, user satisfaction, complaints)

26. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Pre-process Observation Theoretical description of methods of preparation : Phases, methods, procedures Empirical observation: interpreter tools, work flow... continuing with in-process analyses

27. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Some preliminary results Interpreters keep no self-documentation Early preparation is more subject-driven, in-process preparation is mainly search for terminology Room for improvement of organisation of knowledge resources Need for safety is confirmed: numerous multiple entries in manuscripts

28. Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kalina SoSe 2014 Next step: measuring interpreting quality? See my article (so far in German only ) in trans-kom 2011. See the two pdf tables enclosed. An updated version in English is in press. I am grateful for any criticism of this suggestion, please write to: sylvia.kalina@fh-koeln.de