Rubric

Factors that we consider in the 0-5 rating:

1. Terminology
2. Sentence structure
3. Completeness
4. Register
5. Point of view / summary

As a general guideline, points are subtracted when there are transgressions in the following areas
that lead you, as our expert evaluator, to be concerned that the performed interpretation could affect
the outcome of the interaction. The focus is always on the accuracy of the meanings conveyed, with
“meaning” understood to consist of not only the dictionary definition of words but also the tone,
formality and pragmatic connotations of the words and phrases that are chosen by the interpreter.

Each utterance is worth a total of 5 points, with each sub-aspect below typically representing one
point towards the grade of each utterance. If you are confident with a high degree of certainty that
the interpreted performance would lead to an inability of the receiving party to comprehend the
essential meaning of the other party, deduct a full point. If the interpretation possesses smaller
deviations in meaning that might risk comprehension by others, deduct ½ a point for the error.

Importantly, if there are multiple phrases within the utterance, and each has independent issues
related to terminology or structures involved in the interpretation, then it is possible to deduct up
to 2 points for one aspect within a single utterance. In other words, it is possible to lose up to 2
points for problems related to terminological or structural accuracy within a single utterance.

1. Terminology (T) - the words selected by the interpreter- their lexical decisions- convey the
same meaning as intended by the source utterance. An example of an error would be saying
“broken bone” instead of “torn ligament” or “medicine” instead of “pill”, as nearly all languages
differentiate these physical things in terms of the vocabulary that they afford. If the issue is
only one of register (eg. saying “poop” instead of “bowel movement”), you should only detract
for the “register accuracy” category below, not for this category of “medical accuracy”. Any
errors made to medical terminology should result in a full point deduction. To reiterate, if
there are distinct terms that are problematic that exist within different portions of a single
utterance, up to two total points (out of the 5) can be taken off for that single utterance.

2. Structure (S) - phrases/sentences convey the same basic meanings as intended by the
source utterance and are constructed in a way that adheres to a commonly recognized
grammar of that language. Do not take off for grammatical conventions that are simply
those of another cultural or socio-economic group that speaks the language, so long as
they do in fact belong to a living grammar for that language, and so long as the general
 meaning conveyed by the interpreted grammatical structures match the source utterance.
To reiterate, if there are multiple structures that are problematic in different portions of a
single utterance, up to two total points (out of the 5) can be taken off for that utterance.

3. Completeness (C) - were there meanings- implied or explicit- of the original message that
the linguist failed to provide anything for? Conversely, were meanings added where nothing
existed in the source utterance? In other words, did the candidate omit or add meanings?
Even if the omissions were a result of the candidate potentially not having enough time,
points should still be deducted for any source utterances meanings that were omitted. If a
meaning is provided that is different or warped (rather than a clear instance of addition or
subtraction), the issue falls into one of the other “accuracy” sub-aspects, not completeness.

4. Register (R) - we expect the word and phrase selection of the interpreter to reflect the level
of formality inherent within the source utterance. Words/phrases that clearly index formal
registers should be interpreted into the target language maintaining that formal register,
while clearly informal words/phrases should be matched with an interpreted utterance that
is similarly informal. Again, the example of “poop” versus “bowel movement” would fall under
this category, as would instances where the lexical decisions or grammatical conventions
clearly indicate a level of formality or informality absent from the source utterance.

5. Point of view / Summary - the point of view (first person, second person, third person)
conveyed through use of pronouns by the original utterance must be maintained in the
interpretation. For example, if the original utterance uses first person pronouns (“I”, “me”,
“my”), the interpreted utterance should also use these same first person pronouns. When
the interpreter alters the point of view, they are shifting from transmitting meaning (what
they should be doing) to summarizing (something they should NOT be doing). With this in
mind, deductions should be made for this category in ANY cases in which an interpreted
phrase / sentence summarizes the main idea of something from the original utterance.

*Note: grammatical structure can affect the meaning of phrases and/or the register (ie, formality) of
the utterances. Structures that you analyze as being “poor grammar” can fall into one of these two
categories. Also, however, it is possible for “poor grammar” to not lead to deductions from either
category, so long as you feel the word usage (1) is consistent with a grammar used by some
community that uses this language and (2) does not warp the meaning nor change the formality of the
utterance in a significant way.

The following two factors are things that should not be directly taken off for, but which should be
commented on explicitly if there are persistent issues with them. The factors below, if there are
major issues with them, should manifest in lower scores in some of the first key areas above.

Time - the interpreted utterance should always start within 3 full seconds of the recording that you
view. The utterance should be completed in the time allotted without any pauses over 5 seconds.
Also, while it is completely permissible for there to be use of “filler words” (in English, “um”, “you
know”, “like”, etc.), excessive use of filler words that you find distracting should be commented on.
Major violations in this area should affect completeness, since they only have 15 seconds to provide
their recording and delays will lead them to be unable to accurately include all necessary meanings in
their interpretation.

Pronunciation - if an accent is so thick as to make comprehension difficult, it should always be

commented on, even if you are able to discern what the interpreter said. Difficult to comprehend
means that it took extended processing time- to discern their meaning. If the pronunciation makes
it impossible to understand what they said, even after only a single listen, then points can be
deducted for the terminology factor above, as lexical decisions are only correct if they are produced in
a way that a typical native speaker can be expected to understand.