A Sneak Peak at what it takes to Evaluate Church Interpreting

It's not what you think

This post will not explain everything it takes to evaluate church interpreting but I do want to suggest that we often get interpreting completely wrong. Ask people what makes good interpreting and they will most likely say “accuracy”. It stands to reason then, that what matters is that the interpreting is “accurate”. Measure that and we’re done, right? Not so much.

Interpreting doesn’t exist just because of accuracy

If we are to get any idea of how good any instance of church interpreting is, we have to realise that church interpreting doesn’t exist because of “accuracy”. It exists because people want to be able to meet with God and meet with each other in their language. It just so happens that interpreters making stuff up doesn’t help with that.

But then, neither does it help for interpreters to use exactly the right words but sound like they are about to fall asleep. I was once working alongside a very experienced interpreter. Her interpreting was right on the money in terms of accuracy but she was not scoring highly for enthusiasm.

The preacher was using his voice like a finely tuned instrument. He knew how to connect with people, how to get people excited, how to help people feel the emotion of what he was saying. For those listening to the French, it might as well have been a demonstration of auditing tax accounts.