평가 척도를 이용한 사법통역 평가 사례연구
Court Interpreting Assessment Using Rating Scales
0
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
For defendants and witnesses who do not speak the official language of the court, the provision of interpreting and the quality of court interpreting are equally important. This paper aims to develop a rating scale for the assessment of the competence of court interpreters and court interpreting quality. Based on the literature review, we have developed a rating scale with the three criteria of accuracy, target language quality, and delivery. The ten-point rating scale has four bands, ‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘mediocre’, and ‘poor’, for each criterion of quality, and points assigned to each band: 10 points for ‘excellent’, 8 to 9 points for ‘good’, 6 to 7 points for ‘mediocre’, and 5 points and below for ‘poor’. The audio-recorded interpreting data and Korean court record of the examinations, which were made available for this study, consisted of dialogue interpreting during fourteen courtroom examinations of witnesses and defendants from non-Korean speaking backgrounds. The data of 10 hour and 34 minute long interpreting involved eleven interpreters in seven languages, including English, Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Mongol, Thai, and Uzbek. Each language interpreting was assessed by two raters based on the rubric provided by the researchers. While English, Chinese, Russian and Japanese raters had at least MA level training in translation and interpreting and included at least one rater who was familiar with court interpreting, Mongol, Thai, and Uzbek raters were language instructors or fluent bilinguals, lacking professional translator or interpreter training. The results indicate that the raters generally understood the criteria and the band descriptors and came up with similar results. The inter-rater reliability measured by a percent agreement between raters proved to be high. In terms of overall band scores, the rater agreement was 100% in six languages except for English, which was still strong (75%). The findings support the practicality and effectiveness of using rating scales in the assessment of court interpreting in different contexts, including certification examination. Despite the limitations of the current research, the rating scale proved to be a useful tool that can be employed by non-professional interpreter raters. The assessment of eleven interpreters performances revealed that the overall interpreting competence of the eleven interpreters was mediocre.
Abstract
For defendants and witnesses who do not speak the official language of the court, the provision of interpreting and the quality of court interpreting are equally important. This paper aims to develop a rating scale for the assessment of the competence of court interpreters and court interpreting quality. Based on the literature review, we have developed a rating scale with the three criteria of accuracy, target language quality, and delivery. The ten-point rating scale has four bands, ‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘mediocre’, and ‘poor’, for each criterion of quality, and points assigned to each band: 10 points for ‘excellent’, 8 to 9 points for ‘good’, 6 to 7 points for ‘mediocre’, and 5 points and below for ‘poor’. The audio-recorded interpreting data and Korean court record of the examinations, which were made available for this study, consisted of dialogue interpreting during fourteen courtroom examinations of witnesses and defendants from non-Korean speaking backgrounds. The data of 10 hour and 34 minute long interpreting involved eleven interpreters in seven languages, including English, Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Mongol, Thai, and Uzbek. Each language interpreting was assessed by two raters based on the rubric provided by the researchers. While English, Chinese, Russian and Japanese raters had at least MA level training in translation and interpreting and included at least one rater who was familiar with court interpreting, Mongol, Thai, and Uzbek raters were language instructors or fluent bilinguals, lacking professional translator or interpreter training. The results indicate that the raters generally understood the criteria and the band descriptors and came up with similar results. The inter-rater reliability measured by a percent agreement between raters proved to be high. In terms of overall band scores, the rater agreement was 100% in six languages except for English, which was still strong (75%). The findings support the practicality and effectiveness of using rating scales in the assessment of court interpreting in different contexts, including certification examination. Despite the limitations of the current research, the rating scale proved to be a useful tool that can be employed by non-professional interpreter raters. The assessment of eleven interpreters performances revealed that the overall interpreting competence of the eleven interpreters was mediocre.
참고문헌 (26)
- 김혜림, "교육에서의 통역평가 기준에 대한 고찰: 조사연구를 중심으로", 통역과 번역, 13(2), pp.71~91 (2011), 한국통역번역학회
- 이지은, "다문화사회의 사법통역" (2012), 집문당
- 이지은, "사법통역 교육에 관한 실행연구: 사법통역 전문가 기초과정 운영 사례", 번역학연구, 14(5), pp.195~223 (2013), 한국번역학회[DOI]
- 이지은, "사법통역인의 순차통역 평가 사례 연구", 언어학연구, 20(1), pp.99~118 (2015), 한국언어연구학회
- 이지은, "사법통역 제도개선을 위한 소고", 이화여대 법학논집, 20(1), pp.251~277 (2016)
- 이혜승, "동시통역 품질 평가에 대한 경험적 연구 고찰", 통번역학연구, 12(1), pp.91~107 (2008), 통번역연구소
- 정철자, "통역 평가 비교가능성: 교육상황에서의 사례연구", 통번역학연구, 16(2), pp.219~239 (2012), 통번역연구소
- 편혜원, "교사 프로파일에 따른 AB 통역 평가에 관한 연구", 통역과 번역, 6(2), pp.207~224 (2004), 한국통역번역학회
- Angelelli, Claudia V, "Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies: A Call for Dialogue between Research and Practice", pp.13~99 (2009), John Benjamins
- Bachman, Lyle F, "Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests" (1996), Oxford University Press
- Clifford, Andrew, "Putting the Exam to the Test: Psychometric Validation and Interpreter Certification", Interpreting, 7(1), pp.97~131 (2005)
- Giambruno, Cynthia, "Assessing Legal Interpreter Quality through Testing and Certification: The Qualitas Project", pp.2014, University of Alcant
- "Measuring and Promoting Inter-Rater Agreement of Teacher and Principal Performance Ratings" (2012)[URL]
- Hale, Sandra, "Discourse in Translation", pp.47~66 (2019), Routledge
- Han, Cao, "Using Rating Scales to Assess Interpretation: Practices, Problems and Prospects", Interpreting, 20(1), pp.59~95 (2018)
- Hatim, Basil, "The Translator as Communicator" (1997), Routledge
- Kalina, Sylvia, "Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities", pp.121~130 (2002), John Benjamins
- Kurz, Ingrid, "Conference Interpreting: Quality in the Ears of the User’", Meta, 46(2), pp.394~409 (2001)
- Lee, Jieun, "Rating Scale for Interpreting Performance", The Interpreter and Translator Training, 2(8), pp.172~173 (2008)
- Moore, Alan D, "Clarifying the Blurred Image: Estimating the Interrater Reliability of Performance Assessment", paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, (414319), pp.1~19 (1997)
- "Certified Interpreter Test Assessment Rubrics/www.naati.com.au"[URL]
- Pöchhacker, Franz, "Quality Assessment in Conferences and Community", Meta, 46(2), pp.410~425 (2001)
- Riccardi, Alessandra, "Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4: Building Bridges", pp.115~126 (2002), John Benjamins
- Schjoldager, Anne, "Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3: New Horizons", pp.187~195 (1996), John Benjamins
- Stansfield, Charles, W, "Examining the Predictive Validity of a Screening Test for Court Interpreters", Language Testing, 22(4), pp.438~462 (2005)
- Tiselius, Elisabet, "Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies: A Call for Dialogue between Research and Practice", pp.95~121 (2009), John Benjamins