Interpreting Quality Assessment Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process

doi:10.15936/j.cnki.1008-3758.2024.05.015

Abstract

Abstract: Rating scales have been widely employed in interpreting quality assessment in recent years. Based on Competence Features Scales of Interpreting(CFSI)， the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was applied to compare and calculate the ranking and weight of the main parameters in the existing literature on interpreting quality， thereby optimizing the scaling mechanism from the interdisciplinary perspective. As regards the findings， “content” serves as the most important item of interpreting quality assessment， accounting for 62%， followed by “delivery” for 24%， while “communicative effect” only contributes 14% to the total. The demerits of interpreting quality assessment based on experience and speculative summarization are remedied and CFSI is thus made more scientific in classroom-based training assessment， autonomous learning evaluation and high-stakes testing equality.

Key words: Competence Features Scales of Interpreting(CFSI); interpreting quality assessment; analytic hierarchy process(AHP)

CLC Number:

LI Yang， LIAO Xini. Interpreting Quality Assessment Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process[J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2024, 26(5): 133-140.

References

[1]李越然. 建议开展口译工作的研究［J］. 中国翻译， 1983(1):36-38.
[2]鲍刚. 口译理论概述［M］. 北京: 中国对外翻译出版公司， 2005.
[3]王斌华. “口译能力”评估和“译员能力”评估——口译的客观评估模式初探［J］. 外语界， 2007(3):44-50.
[4]Bühler H. Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters［J］. Multilingua， 1986，5(4):231-235.
[5]Gile D. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training［M］. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company， 1995.
[6]Moser P. Expectations of users of conference interpretation［J］. Interpreting， 1996(2):145-178.
[7]Kurz I. Conference interpretation: expectations of different user groups［J］. The Interpreters' Newsletter， 1993(5):13-21.
[8]Moser-Mercer B. Quality in interpreting: some methodological issues［J］. The Interpreters' Newsletter， 1996(7):43-55
[9]Jones R. Conference interpreting explained［M］. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing， 1998.
[10]Bachman L F. Fundamental considerations in language testing［M］. Oxford: Oxford University Press， 1990.
[11]陈菁. 从Bachman交际法语言测试理论模式看口译测试中的重要因素［J］. 中国翻译， 2002(1):50-52.
[12]Angelelli C. Interpretation as a communicative event: a look through Hymes' lenses［J］. Meta， 2000，45(4):580-592.
[13]Marquant H. Les “connaissances” du traducteur technique［C］∥Actas del II Congreso Internacional de Traducción Especializada: la traducción científica. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra， 2002:271-277.
[14]Han C. Ageneralizability theory study of optimal measurement design for a summative assessment of English/Chinese consecutive interpreting［J］. Language Testing， 2019(36):419-438.
[15]尚小奇，李德超. 数据驱动下的口译分项评估权重研究:母语为汉语的评分员视角［J］. 外国语， 2022，45(3):82-92.
[16]夏甘霖. 国内口译评估研究的现状与趋势——基于NVivo的质性研究(2002—2021)［J］. 上海翻译， 2023(1):72-77.
[17]张威，柯飞. 从口译用户看口译质量评估［J］. 外语学刊， 2008(3):114-118.
[18]何慧玲. 从功能性的观点探讨国际会议中英口译之评估［M］∥蔡小红. 口译研究新探——新方法、新观点、新倾向. 香港: 开益出版社， 2002:349-362.
[19]邹绍艳. 语料库在语言测试中的应用: 回顾与反思［J］. 中国海洋大学学报(社会科学版)， 2016(6):109-114.
[20]蔡小红，曾洁仪. 口译质量评估研究的历史回顾［J］. 中国翻译， 2004(3):51-56.
[21]Han C，Lu X. Can automated machine translation evaluation metrics be used to assessstudents' interpretation in the language learning classroom?［J］. Computer Assisted Language Learning， 2023(5/6):1064-1087.
[22]Yeh S，Liu M. A more objective approach to interpretation evaluation: exploring the use of scoring rubrics［J］. Journal of the National Institute for Compilation and Translation， 2006，34(4):57-78.
[23]Han C. Using analytic rating scales to assess English-Chinese bi-directional interpreting: a longitudinal Rasch analysis of scale utility and rater behavior［J］. Linguistica Antverpiensia， 2017(16):196-215.
[24]Wang W，Xu Y，Wang B，et al. Developing interpreting competence scales in China［J］. Frontiers in Psychology， 2020(11):1-16.
[25]Hu G. A “Credit” model assessing interpretation effects［J］. Babel， 1991，37(3):152-167.
[26]Skaaden H. Assessing interpreter aptitude in a variety of languages［C］∥Tsagai D，van Deemter R. Assessment Issues in Language Translation and Interpreting. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang， 2013:35-50.
[27]王斌华. 口译能力的评估模式及测试设计再探——以全国英语口译大赛为例［J］. 外语界， 2011(1):66-71.
[28]王巍巍. 中国英语口译能力等级量表构建与应用——以口译教学中的形成性评估为例［J］. 外语界， 2017(6):2-10.
[29]郑明明，吴莎. 《中国英语能力等级量表》应用研究的现状及启示［J］. 中国考试， 2023(2):56-63.
[30]杨扬，张蓉. 基于CSE口译量表的口译能力特征量表构建［J］. 外语界， 2022(6):26-33.［31］Saaty T L. The analytic hierarchy process［M］. New York: McGraw-Hill International， 1980.［32］韦云，唐国强，徐俊杰. 指标体系的构建模型［J］. 统计与决策， 2013(4):8-11.［33］何三宁，张永宏. 层次分析法在翻译质量评估中的应用［J］. 当代外语研究， 2012(11):57-60.［34］高亮，林郁如. 英汉汉英口译教程［M］. 福州: 福建人民出版社， 1996.［35］Gile D. A communication-oriented analysis of quality in nonliterary translation and interpretation［J］. Translation: Theory and Practice， 1991(5):188-200.［36］蔡小红. 论口译质量评估的信息单位［J］. 外国语， 2003(5):75-80.［37］王巍巍，王轲，张昱琪. 基于CSE口译量表的口译自动评分路径探索［J］. 外语界， 2022(2):80-87.［38］Macías M P. Probing quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: The role of silent pauses in fluency［J］. Interpreting， 2006(1):25-43. ［39］齐涛云. 口译流利性研究综述［J］. 外语研究， 2021(4):69-75.［40］齐涛云，孙曙光. 基于师生合作评价的同传教学模式构建——以翻译硕士(MTI)同传课程为例［J］. 中国翻译， 2023(1):92-98.［41］苏伟. 本科阶段基于量表的口译评估研究［M］. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社， 2021.［42］李清华. 语言测试的公平性检验框架［J］. 现代外语， 2016，39(4):549-560.［43］黄敏，王斌华. 口译资格考试的评分员培训机制研究——CATTI考试二十年回顾［J］. 外语电化教学， 2024(3):56-61.