First-time posters: please review the site's moderation policy

Which one is a better judge to evaluate the performance of an interpreter: a seasoned interpreter, an interpreting educationalist, a language testing expert? Or, Who else?

asked 20 Mar '13, 01:05

Mohamad%20Imanian-%20ISIC's gravatar image

Mohamad Iman...

edited 20 Mar '13, 02:42

Delete's gravatar image

Delete ♦

As it happens, Elisabeth Tiselius has a new blog post on the subject at

permanent link

answered 20 Mar '13, 05:33

Vincent%20Buck's gravatar image

Vincent Buck

Thank you Vincent for mentioning the post.

(21 Mar '13, 02:35) tulkur

I agree with Manuel. But I would like to add that I'm surprised that there are very little formalized discussions about assessment both at institutions using interpreting and (I dare say it) interpreting schools. Trainers, peer-reviewers and jury members seem to be supposed to know what it is all about as they have gone through interpreting training and worked. At best, at some places, jury training is organized. But it is, as I see it, a neglected area.

permanent link

answered 21 Mar '13, 02:41

tulkur's gravatar image


As far as I know, it is not a neglected area. Institutions like the European Patent Office have developed a very clever assessment system which to some extent is based on peer-reviews by different colleagues and also on several assessment sessions (so as not to rely on one single session only to assess the interpreters' performance). Apparently other institutions are interested in this type of assessment system as well - so there must be communication between the differnt institutions on the topic.

(21 Mar '13, 08:50) AlmuteL

...everybody is "entitled" to assess for individual purposes - of the assessor, that is... and everybody's assessment can serve a useful purpose for the assessee, problems however usually arise when it becomes about assessing not a specific interpretation, ie the interpreter's performance but the interpreter him- or herself :-).

For the latter, traditionally a mix of senior interpreters and trainers of interpreters (these should of course also mostly be interpreters) does the trick best, for the former every angle, as I wrote above, may add its own dimension to the assessment of a specific performance, ranging from the performer him- or herself, all the way to trainers and interpreters, senior or not, including also non-interpreter target/source language experts, pure users, etc.

Whereas, like in any other profession, fellow professionals are best qualified to assess one of their peers, worthy contributions can/should be taken on board from non-professionals with an "interest", as described above.

permanent link

answered 20 Mar '13, 07:33

msr's gravatar image


edited 21 Mar '13, 09:13

It depends on the field of practice especially in Jurisprudence.

permanent link

answered 10 Mar '18, 23:15

yukabrother's gravatar image


Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here



Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text]( "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:


question asked: 20 Mar '13, 01:05

question was seen: 7,840 times

last updated: 10 Mar '18, 23:15 is a community-driven website open to anyone with questions and/or answers about interpreting, i.e. spoken language translation

about | faq | terms of use | privacy policy | content policy | disclaimer | contact us

This collaborative website is sponsored and hosted by AIIC, the International Association of Conference Interpreters.