Fidelity Assessment in Consecutive Interpretation: An Experiment

Gile, Daniel

doi:10.1075/target.7.1.12gil

Article published In: Interpreting Research
Edited by Daniel Gile
[Target 7:1] 1995
► pp. 151–164

Get fulltext from our e-platform

Download PDF

Fidelity Assessment in Consecutive Interpretation

An Experiment

Daniel Gile | INALCO & CEEI (ISIT), Paris

Published online: 1 January 1995

https://doi.org/10.1075/target.7.1.12gil

Abstract

In a classroom French-to-English consecutive interpretation experiment, both the speaker and the (student) delegates were found to be unreliable fidelity assessors: they did not detect all interpretation errors on the one hand, and imagined errors that had not been made by the interpreter, on the other. As to their fidelity ratings, they remained surprisingly close to each other in spite of a wide spread in the number of reported errors. The paper also discusses this experiment in the wider context of interpretation research policy.

Résumé

Lors d'une expérience de consécutive français-anglais en classe, tant l'orateur que les délégués (étudiants) se sont avérés être peu fiables dans l'évaluation de la fidélité: ils n'ont pas détecté l'ensemble des erreurs de l'interprète d'un côté, et y ont ajouté de fausses erreurs de l'autre. Leurs évaluations globales de la fidélité sont restées étonnamment groupées compte tenu de la grande variabilité dans le nombre d'erreurs signalées. L'expérience est également commentée dans le contexte plus général de la politique de la recherche en interprétation.

Article outline

1.Introduction
2.Fidelity Assessment in Consecutive Interpretation: An Experiment
- 2.1.Method
- 2.2.Transcripts
  - a.Source-language speech 222 words. Duration: 1'54"
  - b.Target-language speech 225 words. Duration: 1'32"
- 2.3.'True Errors'
- 2.4.'False Errors'
- 2.5.Fidelity Ratings
- 2.6.'Unheard' Statements
3.Discussion and Conclusion
4.Research-Policy- and Methodology-Related Comments
References

References (18)

References

Bühler, Hildegund. 1984. “Pragmatic Criteria for the Evaluation of Professional Translation and Evaluation”. Jan den Haese and Jos Nivette, eds. AILA Brussels 84: Proceedings 41. Brussels, 1984. 1560.

. 1986. “Linguistic (Semantic) and Extra-Linguistic (Pragmatic) Criteria for the Evaluation of Conference Interpretation and Interpreters”. Multilingua 5:4. 231–235.

Carroll, John B. 1978. “Linguistic Abilities in Translators and Interpreters”. Gerver and Sinaiko 1978: 119–130.

Cartellieri, Claus. 1983. “The Inescapable Dilemma: Quality and/or Quantity”. Babel 291. 209–213.

Gerver, David and H. Wallace Sinaiko, eds. 1978. Language Interpretation and Communication. New York and London: Plenum Press, NATO Conference Series.

Gile, Daniel. 1989. La communication linguistique en réunion multilingue: Les difficultés de la transmission informationnelle en interprétation simultanée. University of Paris III. [Doctoral Dissertation.]

. 1990. “L’évaluation de la qualité de l'interprétation par les délégués: une étude de cas”. The Interpreters' Newsletter 31. 66–71.

. 1995a. Basic Concepts and Models in Interpreter and Translator Training. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

. 1995b. Regards sur la recherche en interprétation de conférence. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.

Keiser, Walter. 1978. “Selection and Training of Conference Interpreters”. Gerver and Sinaiko 1978: 11–24.

Kopczyński, Andrzej. 1994. “Quality in Conference Interpreting: Some Pragmatic Problems”. Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl, eds. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1994. 189–198.

Kurz, Ingrid. 1989. “Conference Interpreting: User Expectations”. ATA—Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference. Medford, New Jersey: Learned Information Inc., 1989. 143–148.

. 1993. “Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 51. 13–21.

Lambert, Wallace E. 1978. “Psychological Approaches to Bilingualism, Translation and Interpretation”. Gerver and Sinaiko 1978: 131–144.

Shlesinger, Miriam. 1989. Simultaneous Interpretation as a Factor in Effecting Shifts in the Position of Texts on the Oral-Literate Continuum. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. [MA Thesis.]

Stenzl, Catherine. 1983. Simultaneous Interpretation: Groundwork Towards a Comprehensive Model. University of London. [MA Thesis.]

Varantola, Christa. 1980. On Simultaneous Interpretation. Turku: Publications of the Turku Language Institute.

Williams, Sarahforthcoming. “Observations on Anomalous Stress in Interpreting”. Presented as a poster at the International Conference on Interpreting in Turku, August 1994.

Cited by (38)

Cited by 38 other publications

Order by:

Fan, Jiashun, Pingping Hu & Zhuxuan Zhao

2025. Comparing the cognitive structures of peer and teacher feedback in an interpreting course: An epistemic network analysis approach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International ► pp. 1 ff.

Hu, Ting, Citing Li, Haiming Xu & Min Tang

2025. From Global to Local: Investigating the Role of Enjoyment and Anxiety in Interpreting Achievement. International Journal of Applied Linguistics

Sun, Jin

2025. Pre-task cultural knowledge preparation and its effects on consecutive interpreting quality: an empirical study among Chinese postgraduates. Frontiers in Education 10

Xu, Han, Jinghang Gu, Kanglong Liu & Qinyi Li

2025. Can professional interpreters truly convey the speaker’s sentiment? Exploring the potential of a computational approach. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 40:2 ► pp. 639 ff.

Yang, Chunwen

2025. Exploring essential personality traits for professional interpreters: a Delphi method study. Frontiers in Education 10

Zhao, Nan & Yumeng Lin

2025. The roles of language proficiency, working memory, and anxiety in speech error repairs in consecutive interpreting. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 37:2 ► pp. 184 ff.

Gao, Bin & Jiashun Fan

2024. Understanding student engagement with teacher feedback in Chinese-to-English consecutive interpreting courses. Language Teaching Research

Hu, Dawei, Bingfei Chen, Mengmeng Tang, Xiufeng Zhao & Lun Zhao

2024. Emotional regulation in interpreters revealed by frontal asymmetry of alpha activity. Current Psychology 43:35 ► pp. 28570 ff.

Han, Chao & Xiaolei Lu

2023. Can automated machine translation evaluation metrics be used to assess students’ interpretation in the language learning classroom?. Computer Assisted Language Learning 36:5-6 ► pp. 1064 ff.

Han, Chao & Xiaolei Lu

2025. Beyond BLEU: Repurposing neural-based metrics to assess interlingual interpreting in tertiary-level language learning settings. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 4:1 ► pp. 100184 ff.

Li, Mo, Shulin Yu, Pauline Mak & Chunhong Liu

2023. Exploring the efficacy of peer assessment in university translation classrooms. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 17:4 ► pp. 585 ff.

Pędzisz, Joanna

2023. Kompetenzportfolio in der Entwicklung der transla-torischen Kompetenz: Formen, Funktionen, Effizienz. Convivium. Germanistisches Jahrbuch Polen ► pp. 133 ff.

Wang, Xiaoman & Lu Yuan

2023. Machine-learning based automatic assessment of communication in interpreting. Frontiers in Communication 8

Zhao, Nan, Zhenguang G. Cai, Yanping Dong & Daniel Mirman

2023. Speech errors in consecutive interpreting: Effects of language proficiency, working memory, and anxiety. PLOS ONE 18:10 ► pp. e0292718 ff.

Zhao, Nan

2022. Speech Disfluencies in Consecutive Interpreting by Student Interpreters: The Role of Language Proficiency, Working Memory, and Anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology 13

Zhao, Nan

2023. A validation study of a consecutive interpreting test using many-facet Rasch analysis. Frontiers in Communication 7

DOĞAN, Caner

2021. Televizyon Haber Bültenlerindeki İşaret Dili Çeviri Hizmetine Yönelik Sağır Topluluğun Tutum Ve Beklentileri. Çeviribilim ve Uygulamaları Dergisi 2021:30 ► pp. 18 ff.

Han, Chao, Rui Xiao & Wei Su

2021. Assessing the fidelity of consecutive interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 23:2 ► pp. 245 ff.

Han, Chao & Xiao Zhao

2021. Accuracy of peer ratings on the quality of spoken-language interpreting. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 46:8 ► pp. 1299 ff.

Ma, Xingcheng & Andrew K. F. Cheung

2020. Language interference in English-Chinese simultaneous interpreting with and without text. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 66:3 ► pp. 434 ff.

Van De Walle, Céline, Defrancq Bart, Deveugele Myriam & Van Praet Ellen

2020. Communicative hurdles in multilingual interpreter-mediated consultations: what trainee data teach us. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:3 ► pp. 322 ff.

Su, Wei

2019. Interpreting quality as evaluated by peer students. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13:2 ► pp. 177 ff.

Su, Wei

2022. Understanding rubric use in peer assessment of translation. Perspectives 30:1 ► pp. 71 ff.

Han, Chao

2018. Latent trait modelling of rater accuracy in formative peer assessment of English-Chinese consecutive interpreting. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43:6 ► pp. 979 ff.

Han, Chao

2018. A longitudinal quantitative investigation into the concurrent validity of self and peer assessment applied to English-Chinese bi-directional interpretation in an undergraduate interpreting course. Studies in Educational Evaluation 58 ► pp. 187 ff.

Han, Chao

2021. Analytic rubric scoring versus comparative judgment: a comparison of two approaches to assessing spoken-language interpreting. Meta 66:2 ► pp. 337 ff.

Han, Chao

2021. Detecting and Measuring Rater Effects in Interpreting Assessment: A Methodological Comparison of Classical Test Theory, Generalizability Theory, and Many-Facet Rasch Measurement. In Testing and Assessment of Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 85 ff.

Pérez-Luzardo Díaz, Jessica & Víctor González-Ruiz

2018. The Sound of Drivel. Lebende Sprachen 63:1 ► pp. 1 ff.

Lee, Sang-Bin

2017. University students’ experience of ‘scale-referenced’ peer assessment for a consecutive interpreting examination. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42:7 ► pp. 1015 ff.

Lee, Sang-Bin

2019. Scale-referenced, summative peer assessment in undergraduate interpreter training: self-reflection from an action researcher. Educational Action Research 27:2 ► pp. 152 ff.

Chevalier, Lucille & Daniel Gile

2015. Interpreting Quality. FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 13:1 ► pp. 1 ff.

원종화

2014. A study on idea units for evaluating the accuracy of graduate students’ interpretation. The Journal of Translation Studies 15:2 ► pp. 123 ff.

Brune, M., F.J. Eiroá-Orosa, J. Fischer-Ortman, B. Delijaj & C. Haasen

2011. Intermediated communication by interpreters in psychotherapy with traumatized refugees. International Journal of Culture and Mental Health 4:2 ► pp. 144 ff.

Aís, Ángela Collados

2009. Experimentación y comportamiento no verbal como instrumento pedagógico en didáctica de la interpretación. Lebende Sprachen 54:1

Postigo Pinazo, Encarnación

2009. Self-Assessment in Teaching Interpreting. TTR 21:1 ► pp. 173 ff.

Lee, Jieun

2008. Rating Scales for Interpreting Performance Assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 2:2 ► pp. 165 ff.

Hébert-Malloch, Louise

2005. What Do We Know About a Translator’s Day?. Meta 49:4 ► pp. 973 ff.

Gile, Daniel

1998. Observational Studies and Experimental Studies in the Investigation of Conference Interpreting. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 10:1 ► pp. 69 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.