통역의 평가방식에 따라 평가결과는 어떻게 달라지는가?: ST 미대조 시와 대조 시의 차이를 중심으로

Abstract

This dissertation focused on the fact that discrepancies exist between evaluation of interpretation in an educational setting where interpretation is mostly evaluated by comparing the interpreted results with the source text and evaluation of interpretation in the field and analyzed what kind of differences were observed upon evaluating identical interpretation results by five evaluators-first by comparing the results with the source text and then evaluating the results without the source test. Based on quantitative evaluation, there was a slight change in the ranking of the students when the interpretation results were compared with the source text as opposed to evaluation without comparison and the average score decreased due to additional score deductions in accuracy; one can surmise that a more stringent and strict evaluation was conducted in the case where the source text was consulted. Descriptive evaluation analysis indicated that vocal factors such as vocalization, accent and corrective speech amount to 65.5% of the total evaluation keywords in evaluation without source text evaluation where such factors carried more importance than textual factors (27.3%) such as accuracy and logic. The ratio of textual factors increased in source text-based evaluations compared to evaluation without checking the results against the source text, but the ratio of vocal factors was nonetheless more pronounced. More importance needs to be shifted to vocal factors which primarily takes into consideration the receiver of the interpretation and appropriate guidance on such multifaceted evaluation rubrics should be given to learners in addition to textual factors such as accuracy and logic.