Cover not available
Part of
Introducing New Hypertexts on Interpreting (Studies): A tribute to Franz Pöchhacker
Edited by Cornelia Zwischenberger, Karin Reithofer and Sylvi Rennert
[Benjamins Translation Library 160] 2023
► pp. 68–89

A review of the evolution of survey-based research on interpreting quality using two models by Franz Pöchhacker

| University of Granada , Spain
This chapter focuses on interpreting quality research, one of the many topics studied by Franz Pöchhacker. First, two of his models will serve as tools for analysing the conditioning factors which have been addressed in this field. It is shown how individual research and broader project and research team contributions have yielded new insights by introducing innovative research methods in expectation and evaluation studies.
More recently, quality research has incorporated interdisciplinary perspectives to explore the factors that condition evaluators’ perceptions. After discussing some key studies in this regard, the chapter describes a research project which applies implicit theories to reveal the impact of the receiver’s perspective on his or her evaluation of a given interpretation.
Keywords: quality, simultaneous interpreting, Skopos, survey-based studies, Granada paradigm, expectations, evaluation, implicit theories
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Pöchhacker’s functionalist multi-level model
  • 3.Survey-based interpreting quality research
  • 4.The schematic model: The role of the receiver in interpreting quality research
    • 4.1The role of sociocultural norms
    • 4.2The role(s) of receivers’ perception
  • 5.The “Granada paradigm” in ECIS and QuaSI: Studying factors which condition receivers’ perception
  • 6.The impact of psychosocial aspects on quality evaluation
    • 6.1Implicit theories and stereotypes: Definition and implementation in the interpreting field
    • 6.2Interdisciplinary interpreting quality survey: Objectives and method
      • 6.2.1Expectations
      • 6.2.2Evaluation
    • 6.3Results
      • 6.3.1Expectation results
      • 6.3.2Evaluation results
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Bibliography
Published online: 14 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.160.04pra
References (37)
Bibliography
Barik, Henri. 1971. “A Description of Various Types of Omissions, Additions and Errors of Translation Encountered in Simultaneous Interpretation.” Meta 16 (4): 199–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behr, Martina. 2015. “Quality and Feelings-How our Feelings Come into Play When We Evaluate Interpreting Performances.” In Interpreting Quality: A Look Around and Ahead, ed. by Cornelia Zwischenberger, and Martina Behr, 147–166. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B. 1988. “A Dual Process Model of Impression Formation.” In Advances in Social Cognition, Volume 1. A Dual Process Model of Impression Formation, ed. by Thomas K. Srull, and Robert S. Wyer Jr., 1–36. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bühler, Hildegund. 1986. “Linguistic (Semantic) and Extra-Linguistic (Pragmatic) Criteria for the Evaluation of Conference Interpretation and Interpreters.” Multilingua 5 (4): 231–236.Google Scholar
Collados Aís, Ángela. 1998. La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: la importancia de la comunicación no verbal. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Collados Aís, Ángela, Mª Manuela Fernández Sánchez, Mercedes García de Quesada, Emilia Iglesias Fernández, E. Macarena Pradas Macías, María Jesús Blasco Mayor, Amparo Jiménez Ivars, and Jessica Pérez Luzardo. 2004. “Presentación de proyecto de investigación sobre evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: parámetros de incidencia (BFF2002–00579).” In Actas del IX Seminario Hispano-Ruso de Traducción e Interpretación, 3–15. Moscow: Moscow State Linguistic University.Google Scholar
Collados Aís, Ángela, E. Macarena Pradas Macías, Elisabeth Stévaux, and Olalla García Becerra (eds.). 2007. La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: Parámetros de incidencia. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Collados Aís, Ángela, and Olalla García Becerra. 2015. “Quality.” In Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson, and Renee Jourdenais. London: Routledge. (11) (PDF) Quality. Available from: [URL] [accessed Jul 13 2021].
Dweck, Carol S. 1996. “Implicit Theories as Organizers of Goals and Behavior.” In The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior, ed. by Peter M. Gollwitzer, and John A. Bargh, 69–90. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Dweck, Carol S., Ying yi Hong, and Chi yue Chiu. 1993. “Implicit Theories Individual Differences in the Likelihood and Meaning of Dispositional Inference.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19 (5): 644–656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ECIS Research Group. 2003. Corpus ECIS 2003. [Unpublished database]. Granada: Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
García Becerra, Olalla. 2011. “Eindrucksbildung.” In Qualitätsparameter beim Simultandolmetschen. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven, ed. by Ángela Collados Aís, Emilia Iglesias Fernández, E. Macarena Pradas Macías, and Elisabeth Stévaux, 15–32. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
. 2012. “La incidencia de las primeras impresiones en la evaluación de la calidad de la interpretación simultánea: un estudio empírico.” PhD diss., Universidad de Granada.
Garzone, Giuliana. 2002. “Quality and Norms in Interpretation.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and Opportunities, ed. by Giuliana Garzone, and Maurizio Viezzi, 107–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1990. “L’évaluation de la qualité de l’interprétation par les délégués : une étude de cas.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 3: 66–71.Google Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid. 1989. “Conference Interpreting – User Expectations.” In Coming of age. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, ed. by Deanna Lindbergh, Carol Nixon, and Lauree Padgett, 143–148. Medford: Learned Information.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 5: 13–21.Google Scholar
. 1996. Simultandolmetschen als Gegenstand der interdisziplinären Forschung. Wien: WUV-Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid, and Pöchhacker, Franz. 1995. “Quality in TV Interpreting.”. Translatio-Nouvelles de la FIT- FIT Newsletter 14 3–4: 350–358.Google Scholar
Marrone, Stefano. 1993. “Quality. A Shared Objective.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 5: 35–41.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane. 1988/1991. Textanalyse und Übersetzen. Theorie, Methode und didaktische Anwendung einer übersetzungsrelevanten Textanalyse. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 1994. Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Simultaneous Interpreting: A Functionalist Perspective.” Hermes. Journal of Language and Communication in Business 14: 31–54.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Researching Quality: A Two-Pronged Approach.” In Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Volume 1, ed. by Olalla García Becerra, E. Macarena Pradas Macías, and Rafael Barranco-Droege, 33–56. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Pradas Macías, E. Macarena. 2003. “Repercusión del parámetro pausas silenciosas en la fluidez.” PhD diss., University of Granada.
. 2006. “Probing Quality Criteria in Simultaneous Interpreting: The Role of Silent Pauses in Fluency.” Interpreting 8, (1): 25–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pradas Macías, E. Macarena, and Cornelia Zwischenberger. 2021. “Quality and Norms.” In Handbook of Conference Interpreting, ed. by Michaela Albl-Mikasa, and Elisabeth Tiselius, 241–257. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reiß, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reithofer, Karin. 2013. “Qualität als Wirkungsäquivalenz: Simultandolmetschen vs. Englisch als Lingua Franca.” In Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Volume 1, ed. by Olalla García Becerra, E. Macarena Pradas Macías, and Rafael Barranco-Droege, 101–128. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Rennert, Sylvi. 2013. “The Production of Experimental Material for Fluency Research.” In Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Volume 1, ed. by Olalla García Becerra, E. Macarena Pradas Macías, and Rafael Barranco-Droege, 175–200. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
. 2019. Redeflüssigkeit und Dolmetschqualität. Wirkung und Bewertung. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
Roach, Eleanor. 1978. “Principle in Categorization.” In Cognition and Categorization, ed. by Eleanor Roach, and Barbara B. Lloyd, 28–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sánchez Santa-Bárbara, Emilio, and E. Macarena Pradas Macías. 2019. “Las teorías implícitas en la evaluación de una interpretación simultánea: El sexo del intérprete como factor predictivo.” Entreculturas 10: 341–351.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2013. Qualität und Rollenbilder beim simultanen Konferenzdolmetschen. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
. 2015a. “Bridging Quality and Role in Conference Interpreting. Norms as Mediating Constructs.” In Interpreting Quality: A Look Around and Ahead, ed. by Cornelia Zwischenberger, and Martina Behr, 231–267. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
. 2015b. “Simultaneous Conference Interpreting and a Supernorm that Governs it All.” Meta 60 (1): 90–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar