Scapegoating the interpreter for listeners’ dissatisfaction with their level of understanding

Abstract

Anecdotes abound on interpreters being used as scapegoats, but without hard evidence. The purpose of this study was to observe whether Cantonese-speaking listeners blamed the interpreter for unsatisfactory scores awarded to them in a comprehension test, after listening to a simultaneous interpretation (SI) into Cantonese delivered with a non-native accent. After answering twenty comprehension questions, all 173 participants were shown their scores on a screen. In the neutral feedback group, participants viewed their real, unmanipulated scores. In the positive feedback group, two points had been added to the score; in the negative feedback group, two points had been deducted. Participants were unaware of this manipulation. After viewing their scores, they completed an electronic questionnaire on the quality of the SI. Between-groups comparisons showed that, in terms of SI quality perception, the neutral feedback group differed significantly from the negative feedback group but not from the positive feedback group. These findings suggest that participants in the negative feedback group attributed their unfavorable test results to the interpreter, who was treated as a scapegoat.

Lexical density, lexical diversity, and lexical sophistication in simultaneously interpreted texts: a cognitive perspective

“… Darò et al (1996) discovered that interpreters made more important errors that resulted in information loss when interpreting challenging texts from their A language into their B language. The lexical and syntactic challenges related to B language processing, the disfluency features and lack of completeness arising from interpreting into one’s B language, interpreters’ self-reported feelings of decreased confidence and even reluctance to work into their non-native language ( Donovan, 2004 ), their consciously searching for and monitoring corresponding expressions in their B language, as well as audience’s perception of unsatisfactory interpreting quality due to the presence of a non-native accent ( Cheung, 2015 ), indicate that interpreting into one’s B language requires a higher level of cognitive resources than interpreting into one’s A language.…”

From “Within” to “Beyond” in interpreting studies

“…Within this broader conceptualization, important topics have been explored relatively systematically in studies galore, drawing on different methodological approaches and theoretical perspectives. Interpreting scholars have explored topics that involve the various aspects and issues of the interpreting process such as note-taking (Chang 2015;Chen 2020), cognitive load (Plevoets and Defrancq 2018), working memory (Köpke and Nespoulous 2006;Wang 2016), terminology preparation (Xu 2018), multi-tasking (Strobach et al 2015), accent (Cheung 2013), utterance fluency (Han et al 2020), pauses (Wang and Li 2015), disfluency (Plevoets and Defrancq 2016), non-fluencies (Dayter 2021), such (universalist) interpreting features as interpretese (Shlesinger 2008) and explicitation (Gumul 2021;Tang and Li 2017), interpreting norms (Wallmach 2000), skill acquisition (Moser-Mercer 2008), interpreter competency and aptitude (Bontempo and Napier 2011), interpreting strategies (Li 2015a), ethnics in interpreting (Gil-Bardají 2020), interpreter training and teaching (Li 2015b;Liu 2005), interpreting quality assessment (Huang 2009), interpreting quality perception (Cheung 2015), professionalism (Bahadır 2010), the development of such interpreting associations and organizations as AIIC (Keiser 1999), and accreditation (Chen 2009;Ordóñez-López 2021).…”

Media Interpreting Into Malaysian Sign Language

“…Interpreters may occasionally become a scapegoat for being different (Cheung, 2015). Some people who are not proficient in sign languages may perceive sign language interpreters as different and will therefore have no qualms about making fun of them.…”