지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
For defendants and witnesses who do not speak the official language of the court, the provision of interpreting and the quality of court interpreting are equally important. This paper aims to develop a rating scale for the assessment of the competence of court interpreters and court interpreting quality. Based on the literature review, we have developed a rating scale with the three criteria of accuracy, target language quality, and delivery. The ten-point rating scale has four bands, ‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘mediocre’, and ‘poor’, for each criterion of quality, and points assigned to each band: 10 points for ‘excellent’, 8 to 9 points for ‘good’, 6 to 7 points for ‘mediocre’, and 5 points and below for ‘poor’.
The audio-recorded interpreting data and Korean court record of the examinations, which were made available for this study, consisted of dialogue interpreting during fourteen courtroom examinations of witnesses and defendants from non-Korean speaking backgrounds. The data of 10 hour and 34 minute long interpreting involved eleven interpreters in seven languages, including English, Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Mongol, Thai, and Uzbek. Each language interpreting was assessed by two raters based on the rubric provided by the researchers. While English, Chinese, Russian and Japanese raters had at least MA level training in translation and interpreting and included at least one rater who was familiar with court interpreting, Mongol, Thai, and Uzbek raters were language instructors or fluent bilinguals, lacking professional translator or interpreter training. The results indicate that the raters generally understood the criteria and the band descriptors and came up with similar results. The inter-rater reliability measured by a percent agreement between raters proved to be high. In terms of overall band scores, the rater agreement was 100% in six languages except for English, which was still strong (75%). The findings support the practicality and effectiveness of using rating scales in the assessment of court interpreting in different contexts, including certification examination. Despite the limitations of the current research, the rating scale proved to be a useful tool that can be employed by non-professional interpreter raters. The assessment of eleven interpreters performances revealed that the overall interpreting competence of the eleven interpreters was mediocre.
The audio-recorded interpreting data and Korean court record of the examinations, which were made available for this study, consisted of dialogue interpreting during fourteen courtroom examinations of witnesses and defendants from non-Korean speaking backgrounds. The data of 10 hour and 34 minute long interpreting involved eleven interpreters in seven languages, including English, Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Mongol, Thai, and Uzbek. Each language interpreting was assessed by two raters based on the rubric provided by the researchers. While English, Chinese, Russian and Japanese raters had at least MA level training in translation and interpreting and included at least one rater who was familiar with court interpreting, Mongol, Thai, and Uzbek raters were language instructors or fluent bilinguals, lacking professional translator or interpreter training. The results indicate that the raters generally understood the criteria and the band descriptors and came up with similar results. The inter-rater reliability measured by a percent agreement between raters proved to be high. In terms of overall band scores, the rater agreement was 100% in six languages except for English, which was still strong (75%). The findings support the practicality and effectiveness of using rating scales in the assessment of court interpreting in different contexts, including certification examination. Despite the limitations of the current research, the rating scale proved to be a useful tool that can be employed by non-professional interpreter raters. The assessment of eleven interpreters performances revealed that the overall interpreting competence of the eleven interpreters was mediocre.
목차
1. 서론
2. 통역 평가와 평가 척도
3. 사례연구
4. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (26)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
사법통역인의 순차통역 평가 사례 연구
언어학연구
2015 .01
-
법정 교호신문 통역 사례 연구- 중국어 사법통역 담화분석을 중심으로
통번역학연구
2021 .01
-
사법통역 제도화에서 전문화로 - 사법통역인과 사법통역인 선정 담당자에 대한 설문조사를 중심으로
통번역학연구
2019 .01
-
Interpreter Training and Students of Interpreting in China
번역학연구
2015 .10
-
경찰 민간인 통역요원 직무 수행 중 애로사항 연구 -경찰 통역요원 대상 심층 인터뷰를 중심으로-
번역학연구
2022 .06
-
중국어 통역사의 법정통역 규범 인식 연구- 정확성 관련 규범을 중심으로
통역과 번역
2016 .01
-
원격통역 시대에 필요한 통역능력에 대한 소고
통역과 번역
2021 .01
-
한국형 의료통역 연구 : 의료관광통역과 다문화 의료통역 중심으로
번역학연구
2018 .06
-
통역 사용자를 대상으로 한 통역 모드 선호도 조사: 인간 통역, AI 통역, 자막 비교
번역학연구
2023 .09
-
A Qualitative Synthesis of Patients’ Experiences of Healthcare Interpreting
번역학연구
2021 .10
-
법원통역인 면접조사를 통해 본 사법통역 동기와 경험
통역과 번역
2018 .01
-
커뮤니티통역을 통한 학부 통역 수업의 다양화
번역학연구
2015 .09
-
전문통역사와 일반통역사의 협력: 설교통역분야를 중심으로
통역과 번역
2017 .08
-
피의자신문 통역 담화분석을 통해 본 비전문 통역인의 자기발화수정 양상: 러시아어 사례를 중심으로
번역학연구
2020 .12
-
通訳教育を受けていない学部生が歴史関連講演で行った通訳についての一考察 : 大学生キャンプでの日韓逐次通訳を事例として
일본문화학보
2017 .05
-
통역능력에 대한 학생들의 인식 연구 ?한영과를 중심으로?
통역과 번역
2021 .01
-
한국 법정통역인의 사회적 역할에 관한 연구
통역과 번역
2016 .01
-
전문 통번역사의 통역품질 평가 연구 : 인식도 조사와 평가수행 결과를 중심으로
통역과 번역
2019 .01
-
언택트 시대, 원격통역이 주는 도전과 기회 - 한국통번역사협회(KATI) 설문조사를 중심으로
통번역학연구
2020 .01
-
Training Proposals for Nurturing Professional Interpreters
통번역교육연구
2015 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2019-800-000894985