Abstract
ABSTRACT In recent years, researchers have noticed similarities between audio description (AD) and interpreting in training and quality assessment. Drawing on an AD training programme for interpreting students at a university in Hong Kong, this study explored the similarities and differences between AD and interpreting in terms of quality assessment and learner perception. Macrocriteria and microcriteria in AD and interpreting training were compared. It was found that AD and interpreting shared three macrocriteria: accuracy, language, and delivery. Meanwhile, a number of microcriteria and a macrocriterion were identified as exclusive either to interpreting or AD. The differences may be partly explained by the interlingual nature of interpreting, the intersemiotic nature of AD, and the relevant training arrangements. A survey was also conducted among 42 students to investigate learners’ perceptions of assessment criteria in AD and interpreting. The results show that the students identified some criteria as more difficult to achieve separately in AD and in interpreting, and they ranked some criteria as more important in AD and others as more important in interpreting. The findings of this study may help trainers better understand the needs of learners and develop more diverse and refined approaches to AD and interpreting training.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
