Admission exams in international organisationsThe United Nations’ Language Competitive Examination (LCE)

  1. RUIZ ROSENDO, Lucia 1
  2. DIUR, Marie 2
  1. 1 Faculté de traduction et d'interprétation, University of Geneva
  2. 2 United Nations, Viena Chief, French Interpretation Section
Revista:
CLINA: an interdisciplinary journal of translation, interpreting and intercultural communication

ISSN: 2444-1961

Año de publicación: 2017

Título del ejemplar: Interpreting in International Organisations. Research, Training and Practice

Volumen: 3

Número: 2

Páginas: 33-52

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.14201/CLINA2017323352 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: CLINA: an interdisciplinary journal of translation, interpreting and intercultural communication

Resumen

In most cases, prior to being admitted into an international organisation as a conference interpreter, candidates need to be tested. The Language Competitive Examination (LCE) is the test that the United Nations organises to assess the level of proficiency of candidates and decide who possesses the necessary skills to work at the UN. Since 2001, an increasing number of examinations have been held to establish a roster from which to cover present and future vacancies. Despite the large number of applicants, very few of them actually pass. One reason might be that LCE speeches present specific challenges that candidates have to master beforehand in order to pass the examination. An analysis of LCE procedure was carried out to shed light on the main features of the LCE. The results show that UN topics, speed and accents are the main challenges that candidates must be aware of if they are to prepare appropriately. These findings are corroborated by a survey targeted at UN staff interpreters, who suggest that the challenge lies in the very modality tested at the LCE, which is simultaneous interpreting.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • AIIC. 2001. «Interpreter Workload Study: Full Report». Accessed October 12 2016. http://aiic.net/page/657/interpreter-workload-study-full-report/lang/1
  • Albl-Mikasa, Michaela. 2010. «Global English and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF): Implications for the Interpreting Profession». Trans-kom 3(2): 126-148.
  • Altman, Janet. 1990. «What Helps Effective Communication? Some Interpreter's Views». The Interpreter's Newsletter 3: 23-32.
  • Baigorri Jalón, Jesús. 2004. Interpreters at the United Nations: A History. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
  • Barghout, Alma, Ruiz Rosendo, Lucía and Mónica Varela García. 2015. «The Influence of Speed on Omissions in Simultaneous Interpreting». Babel 61 (3): 305-334. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.61.3.01bar
  • Barghout, Alma, Ruiz Rosendo, Lucía and Mónica Varela García. 2016. «The Omission as a Quality Indicator in Simultaneous Interpreting: An Experimental Study». 8th Congress of the EST (European Society for Translation Studies). University of Aarhus (Denmark). 15-17 September 2016.
  • Barik, Henri C. 1994. «A Description of Various Types of Omissions, Additions and Errors of Translation Encountered in Simultaneous Interpretation». In Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. by Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.12bar
  • Barik, Henri C. 1973. «Simultaneous Interpretation: Temporal and Quantitative Data». Language and Speech 16: 237-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097301600307
  • Changshuan, Li. 2010. «Coping strategies for fast delivery in simultaneous interpretation». JoSTrans 13: 19-25.
  • Cheung, Andrew K. F. 2013. «Non-native accents and simultaneous interpreting quality perceptions». Interpreting 15 (1): 25-47. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.1.02che
  • Déjean Le Féal, Karla. 1978. Lectures et improvisations: Incidences de la forme de l'énonciation sur la traduction simultanée. Doctoral dissertation. Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle.
  • Derwing, Tracey M. and Murray J. Munro. 2009. «Putting Accent in its Place: Rethinking Obstacles to Communication». Language Teaching 42 (4): 476-490. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480800551X
  • Diur, Marie. 2014. Preparing Candidates for the United Nations Language Competitive Examination (LCE). Masters dissertation. Université de Genève.
  • Donovan, Clare. 2003. «Entrance Exam Testing for Conference Interpretation Courses: How Important is it?» Forum 1 (2): 17-46. https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.1.2.02don
  • Gaiba, Francesca. 1999. «Interpretation at the Nuremberg Trial». Interpreting 4 (1): 9-22.
  • Gerver, David. 1969/2002. «The Effects of Source Language Presentation Rate on the Performance of Simultaneous Conference Interpreters». In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Schlesinger. London: Routledge, 53-66.
  • Gerver, David. 1976. «Empirical Studies of Simultaneous Interpretation: A Review and a Model» In Translation: Applications and Research, ed. by Richard W. Brislin. New York: Gardner Press, 165-207.
  • Gile, Daniel. 2009. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8
  • Hale, Sandra, Bond, Nigel and Jeanna Sutton. 2011. «Interpreting Accent in the Courtroom». Target 23 (1): 48-61. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.23.1.03hal
  • Lin, I-hsin I., Feng-lan, A. Chang and Feng-lan Kuo. 2013. «The Impact of Non-native Accented English on Rendition Accuracy in Simultaneous Interpreting». Translation & Interpreting 5(2): 30-44. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.105202.2013.a03
  • Liu, Minhua, Schallert, Diane and Patrick J. Carroll. 2004. «Working Memory and Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting». Interpreting 6 (1): 19-42. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu
  • Mazzetti, Andrea. 1999. «The Influence of Segmental and Prosodic Deviations on Source Text Comprehension in Simultaneous Interpretation». The Interpreters' Newsletter 9: 125-147.
  • McAllister, Robert. 2000. «Perceptual foreign accent and its relevance for simultaneous interpreting». In Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Birgitta Englund Dimitrova and Kenneth Hyltenstam. Amsterdam: John Benjamnis, 45-63. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.40.05mca
  • Meuleman, Chris and Fred Van Besien. 2009. «Coping with Extreme Speech Conditions in Simultaneous Interpreting». Interpreting 11 (1): 20-34. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.1.03meu
  • Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1994. «When multiculturalism and international competence are a must». In Educational Exchange and Global Competence, ed. by Richard D. Lambert. New York: The Council, 95-107.
  • Pio, Sonia. 2003. «The Relation between ST Delivery Rate and Quality in Simultaneous Interpretation». The Interpreters' Newsletter 12: 69-100.
  • Pym, Anthony. 2009. «On Omission in Simultaneous Interpreting: Risk Analysis of a Hidden Effort». In Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile, ed. by Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 83-105. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.80.08pym
  • Reithofer, Karin. 2010. «English as a Lingua Franca vs. Interpreting: Battleground or Peaceful Coexistence?» The Interpreters' Newsletter 15: 143-157.
  • Ruiz Rosendo, Lucía and Marie Diur. 2017. «Employability in the United Nations: An Empirical Analysis of Interpreter Training and the LCE». The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 11(2-3): 223-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2017.1344921
  • Sabatini, Elisabetta. 2000. «Listening comprehension, shadowing and simultaneous interpreting of two «non-standard» English speeches». Interpreting 5 (1): 25-48. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.5.1.03sab
  • Seleskovitch, Danica. 1965. «Colloque sur l'enseignement de l'interprétation». Geneva: AIIC (Association Internationale des Interprètes de Conference).
  • Seleskovitch, Danica and Marianne Lederer. 1984. Interpréter pour traduire. Paris: Didier Érudition.
  • Shlesinger, Miriam. 2003. «Effects of presentation rate on working memory in simultaneous interpreting». The Interpretes' Newsletter 12: 37-49.
  • Sunnari, Marianna. 1995. «Processing strategies in simultaneous interpreting (SI): «Saying it all» vs. synthesis». In Topics in interpreting research, ed. by Jorma Tommola. Turku: University of Turku, 109-121.
  • United Nations. 1980. «Other Administrative and Budgetary Questions». In The Yearbook of the United Nations, ed. by United Nations, Volume 34, 1220-1247. New York: United Nations. Accessed February 15 2015. http://cdn.un.org/unyearbook/yun/chapter_pdf/1980YUN/1980_P1 _SEC5_CH3.pdf
  • United Nations. 2015. «United Nations Careers». Accessed August 25 2015. https://careers.un.org/
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet