kasia
12-05-2003, 01:16 PM
Orientation Workshops for Interpreters of All Languages:
How to strike a balance between the ideal world and reality
by Holly Mikkelson and Hanne Mintz
Background
Although interpreting services have been provided in one way or another in the courts of the United States since the nation was founded, recent stories in the press (e.g. Woo, 1993) have focused the public's attention on the caliber of language services now available in our courts and the critical role of the interpreter in ensuring that justice is done. As Repa (1991) states,
From time immemorial, an untrained bilingual person was brought into the court to help with the understanding of evidence given by a foreigner ... It appears that virtually centuries went by before the internationalization of our societies brought a new perspective into court interpreting. It was not until the sixties and seventies in North America that a complete lack of structure in court interpreting was gradually recognized as an issue. (p. 595)
In fact, only in the last 16 years have any formal steps been taken to control the quality of interpreting in legal proceedings: Landmark legislation at the federal level (the Court Interpreters Act of 1978, Pub. Law 95-539) and in the State of California (Assembly Bill 2400, 1978) established mechanisms to test and certify court interpreters and required the courts in their jurisdictions to use only interpreters who had passed these exams. During the 1980s, other states followed suit.
In the process of implementing these programs, officials discovered that the problems were more complex than they had originally thought. Merely testing language competency is not enough to ascertain whether a candidate has adequate interpreting skills; the knowledge, skills, and abilities of court interpreters first had to be identified, and then a valid test instrument had to be designed to determine whether candidates could demonstrate such interpreting ability. After the first administration of the Federal Court Interpreter Certification Exam in 1980, a lawsuit was filed by an unsuccessful candidate who challenged the exam, claiming that it was invalid (Seltzer v. Foley, 1980). The validity of the exam was upheld by the court, but the low pass rate (8.8% the first year it was given, 4.7% the second administration) continued to generate criticism and controversy (Gonzalez, Vasquez & Mikkelson, 1991).
California
The California certification program experienced just the opposite problem: The poorly designed exam resulted in a high pass rate, to the point that in the mid-1980s, questions began to arise about the laxity of standards and the low skill level of some of the interpreters who were deemed qualified to interpret in the courts. In response to such criticism, state officials gradually increased the difficulty of the exam, and the pass rate declined accordingly (Gonzalez, Vasquez & Mikkelson, 1991). As a result, the skill level of interpreters who were certified in different years was very inconsistent, and the mere fact that a prospective interpreter was certified did not tell the courts whether that person was really qualified.
The problem of the disparity in interpreter qualifications came to the public's attention in December 1989 when two reporters from the San Jose Mercury News (Ewell & Schrieberg, 1989) wrote an exposé on the interpreting services provided in California courts. This series of newspaper articles prompted Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas of the California Supreme Court to appoint a Court Interpreter Advisory Committee to study ways of increasing the quality and quantity of interpreters available to the California court system. The authors were among the 13 members appointed to the Advisory Committee, who included interpreters, judges, attorneys, and court administrators. As the committee gathered information on the state of the court interpreting profession, it became apparent that the lack of training was at the root of all other problems (low exam pass rate, ethics violations, erroneous interpretation of witness testimony, etc.). Consequently, one of the measures taken by the Advisory Committee was to put on a series of orientation workshops for working and aspiring interpreters throughout the state. The authors were contracted to design and conduct the workshops.
Between May 1991 and May 1993, a total of eight two-day workshops were presented at various locations in the state. The intended audience was interpreters who were working in the courts but had not passed the certification exams, either because no exam was offered in their language or because they had taken and failed the exam. The workshops were also attended, however, by aspiring interpreters who had no experience at all, and by certified interpreters who were so hungry for information that they would attend anything related to court interpreting, regardless of the level of instruction. The results of the workshops will be discussed below.
How to strike a balance between the ideal world and reality
by Holly Mikkelson and Hanne Mintz
Background
Although interpreting services have been provided in one way or another in the courts of the United States since the nation was founded, recent stories in the press (e.g. Woo, 1993) have focused the public's attention on the caliber of language services now available in our courts and the critical role of the interpreter in ensuring that justice is done. As Repa (1991) states,
From time immemorial, an untrained bilingual person was brought into the court to help with the understanding of evidence given by a foreigner ... It appears that virtually centuries went by before the internationalization of our societies brought a new perspective into court interpreting. It was not until the sixties and seventies in North America that a complete lack of structure in court interpreting was gradually recognized as an issue. (p. 595)
In fact, only in the last 16 years have any formal steps been taken to control the quality of interpreting in legal proceedings: Landmark legislation at the federal level (the Court Interpreters Act of 1978, Pub. Law 95-539) and in the State of California (Assembly Bill 2400, 1978) established mechanisms to test and certify court interpreters and required the courts in their jurisdictions to use only interpreters who had passed these exams. During the 1980s, other states followed suit.
In the process of implementing these programs, officials discovered that the problems were more complex than they had originally thought. Merely testing language competency is not enough to ascertain whether a candidate has adequate interpreting skills; the knowledge, skills, and abilities of court interpreters first had to be identified, and then a valid test instrument had to be designed to determine whether candidates could demonstrate such interpreting ability. After the first administration of the Federal Court Interpreter Certification Exam in 1980, a lawsuit was filed by an unsuccessful candidate who challenged the exam, claiming that it was invalid (Seltzer v. Foley, 1980). The validity of the exam was upheld by the court, but the low pass rate (8.8% the first year it was given, 4.7% the second administration) continued to generate criticism and controversy (Gonzalez, Vasquez & Mikkelson, 1991).
California
The California certification program experienced just the opposite problem: The poorly designed exam resulted in a high pass rate, to the point that in the mid-1980s, questions began to arise about the laxity of standards and the low skill level of some of the interpreters who were deemed qualified to interpret in the courts. In response to such criticism, state officials gradually increased the difficulty of the exam, and the pass rate declined accordingly (Gonzalez, Vasquez & Mikkelson, 1991). As a result, the skill level of interpreters who were certified in different years was very inconsistent, and the mere fact that a prospective interpreter was certified did not tell the courts whether that person was really qualified.
The problem of the disparity in interpreter qualifications came to the public's attention in December 1989 when two reporters from the San Jose Mercury News (Ewell & Schrieberg, 1989) wrote an exposé on the interpreting services provided in California courts. This series of newspaper articles prompted Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas of the California Supreme Court to appoint a Court Interpreter Advisory Committee to study ways of increasing the quality and quantity of interpreters available to the California court system. The authors were among the 13 members appointed to the Advisory Committee, who included interpreters, judges, attorneys, and court administrators. As the committee gathered information on the state of the court interpreting profession, it became apparent that the lack of training was at the root of all other problems (low exam pass rate, ethics violations, erroneous interpretation of witness testimony, etc.). Consequently, one of the measures taken by the Advisory Committee was to put on a series of orientation workshops for working and aspiring interpreters throughout the state. The authors were contracted to design and conduct the workshops.
Between May 1991 and May 1993, a total of eight two-day workshops were presented at various locations in the state. The intended audience was interpreters who were working in the courts but had not passed the certification exams, either because no exam was offered in their language or because they had taken and failed the exam. The workshops were also attended, however, by aspiring interpreters who had no experience at all, and by certified interpreters who were so hungry for information that they would attend anything related to court interpreting, regardless of the level of instruction. The results of the workshops will be discussed below.