the pause patterns in all three videos were mea-sured for control purposes

with the help of digital sound editing software (

Cool Edit Pro

Collados

Other examples of subparameters from the eld of linguistics are: lled

pauses, repetitions and corrections (Wiese 1984) or audible hesitations,
repetitions and false starts (Na-tion 1989). In the eld of interpreting, Barik
(1973) speaks of false starts, abbreviations or elisions in pronunciation and
lled pauses. For more examples of subparameter taxonomies, see Pradas
Macas (2004)

Barik, H. C. (1973). Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative

data.
Language and Speech
16, 237270.Boomer, D. S. (1965). Hesitation and grammatical encoding.
Language and Speech
8, 148158.Bhler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extralinguistic
(pragmatic) criteria for the eval-uation of conference interpretation and
interpreters.
Multilingua
5 (4), 231235.Bhler, H. (1990). Orality and literacy theoretical and
didactic considerations in the con-text of translation studies. In R. Arntz &
G. ome (Eds.),
bersetzungswissenscha: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven
. Tbingen: Gunter Narr, 537544.Butcher, A. (1980). Pause and syntactic
structure. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.),
Temporal variables in speech. Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler
. e Hague/Paris/New York: Mouton Publishers, 8590
NTERPRETING QUALITY: GLOBAL
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS?
Franz Pchhacker, University of Vienna.
Published in: Ren W. (ed.), Interpreting in the Age of Globalization: Proceedings
of the 8th National Conference and International Forum on Interpreting (pp. 305-
318) Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2012.
Abstract: The complex and multidimensional notion of quality is addressed here
from the perspective of the professional service providers. With Bhlers
pioneering survey among conference interpreters serving as the point of
departure, the importance of various quality criteria is investigated on the basis
of a worldwide web-based survey conducted in the context of a larger research
project at the University of Vienna. The findings, which point to a stable pattern
of preferences, are discussed with regard to their generalizability on a global
scale, with special reference to China and Chinese.
1. INTRODUCTION
Ever since the profession of conference interpreting emerged on an international scale in the
mid-twentieth century, the concept of quality has been a major concern in professional
practice and training. Nevertheless, it was not until the 1980s that the topic of quality came
to be addressed explicitly and on the basis of systematic investigation. A key role in this
endeavor fell to AIIC, the International Association of Conference Interpreters founded in
1953, whose strict requirements for the admission of new members, in conjunction with a
language classification scheme and detailed specifications for appropriate working
conditions, served as an early paragon for quality assurance in the profession.
In a brochure addressed to would-be conference interpreters, AIIC (1982) referred to quality
as that elusive something which everyone recognises but no one can successfully define.
The ability to recognize quality was indeed demanded of AIIC members when asked to assess
the performance of candidates for membership, and it was in this context that the challenge
of defining quality was taken up by Hildegund Bhler in a pioneering empirical study.

The present paper reviews that seminal piece of research and reports on an effort to replicate
it on a worldwide scale using state-of-the-art survey techniques. Special emphasis will be
given to methodological issues as well as to the question raised in the title of this paper, that
is: to what extent can the findings from the international survey be taken to reflect global
standards for the relative importance of the performance quality criteria under study? In
other words, can a global survey approach do justice to socio-culturally specific aspects of the
phenomenon under study or is there a need to take account of what we might call
interpreting quality with Chinese characteristics?
2. CRITERIA FOR QUALITY IN INTERPRETING
The assumption that quality in interpreting is not a monolithic concept but involves more
than one component can be traced back to Jean Herbert (1952), who mentioned accuracy
and style as the two main concerns, suggesting that interpreters were sometimes faced with a
choice between these two. Furthermore, he pointed to the role of such factors as grammar,
fluency, voice quality and intonation in an interpreters performance. For decades, though,
the relative importance of these and other criteria remained unclear.

It is widely known that the first scholar who sought to collect empirical data on the various
factors that play a role in the evaluation of conference interpreting was Hildegund Bhler, an
interpreter by training who spent most of her career as a scholar in the field of terminology
and taught translation and translation theory at the University of Vienna. Married to an
active conference interpreter, she took a special interest in the profession and conducted
several studies on aspects of a conference interpreters work. In a pioneering effort, Bhler
(1986) surveyed members of AIIC about the criteria they presumably applied when assessing
the quality of an interpreter and his or her performance. For this purpose she drew up a list
of 16 criteria, distinguishing between linguistic-semantic and extra-linguistic factors. The
former included native accent, fluency of delivery, logical cohesion of utterance, sense
consistency with original message, completeness of interpretation, correct grammatical
usage, use of correct terminology and use of appropriate style, and the latter pleasant
voice, thorough preparation of conference documents, endurance, poise, pleasant
appearance, reliability, ability to work in a team and positive feedback of delegates.

As evident from some of the criteria in the second group, such as poise and appearance,
Bhler envisaged an assessment of interpreters and interpreting in the consecutive as well as
the simultaneous mode, and sought to cover such behavioral aspects as preparation,
reliability and teamwork. On her one-page questionnaire, the list of 16 items was to be rated
by respondents on a four-point ordinal scale ranging from highly important and
important to less important and irrelevant. Responses were collected (at an AIIC
Council meeting and international symposium in Brussels in 1984) from 41 AIIC members.
In addition, six members of the associations Committee on Admissions and Language
Classification (CACL) filled in the questionnaire.

The most highly rated criterion by far is sense consistency with original message, which
relates to the arguably crucial idea of source-target correspondence, but without making
explicit reference to such controversial concepts as equivalence or faithfulness. Rather,
Bhlers use of the terms sense and message points to levels of meaning beyond the
linguistic surface, as foregrounded by Danica Seleskovitch in her thorie du sens (e.g.
1977). The criterion of sense consistency with the original could therefore be expected to be
embraced without any reservations by the conference interpreting community. Also related
to these ideas is the second-ranking criterion, logical cohesion, which captures the
requirement for the interpreters output to make sense to the audience.

Somewhat surprisingly perhaps, all other output-related aspects of performance quality were
deemed less relevant by Bhlers respondents than behavioral qualities such as reliability and
thorough preparation, which were considered highly important by four fifths and nearly
three quarters of respondents, respectively. Only half the respondents, in contrast, gave the
highest rating to factors like correct terminology and grammar, fluency and, interestingly,
completeness, with paraverbal characteristics such as voice, native accent and style
appearing further down in the list.

Bhlers seminal study proved highly influential in stimulating further surveys among
interpreters and, in particular, end-users (e.g. Kurz 1993). Nevertheless, the limitations of
Bhlers small-scale study seem all too clear. Most critically, it is not known how her sample
of 47 AIIC members was constituted, so it is not possible to generalize the findings to the
total population. And since Bhlers questionnaire contained no items eliciting demographic
background information, nothing is known about the age, gender, working experience or
language combination of this group of conference interpreters.

Some of these shortcomings were redressed in the first follow-up study on interpreters
quality criteria, which was not conducted until some one-and-a-half decades later. Using a
web-based rather than a paper-and-pencil questionnaire, Chiaro and Nocella (2004)
surveyed interpreters throughout the world for whom they collected a range of demographic
data, including age, gender, education, interpreting experience, geographic region and
employment status. Their sample of 286 respondents was 71% female, with a mean age of 45
years and an average of 16 years experience in interpreting. Forty-four percent of the
respondents were born in Western European countries, and as many had a degree in
interpreting. Rather surprisingly, most of the interpreters in the sample (46%) came from the
Americas, which may suggest that Chiaro and Nocella (2004) targeted professionals beyond
the field of conference interpreting, the main centers of which have traditionally been in
Europe. Indeed, their statement that they sent out about 1000 invitations to interpreters
belonging to several professional associations indicates that their target population was both
smaller than the full membership of AIIC and broader in terms of affiliation. Unfortunately,
the authors do not specify which professional associations their respondents were affiliated
with, nor do they state explicitly whether AIIC was among them. It is therefore largely
unclear to what extent the AIIC members in Bhlers study can be compared to the
interpreter sample accessed by Chiaro and Nocella.

Another problem with comparability arises from the difference in the tasks the researchers
expected their respondents to perform. Whereas Bhler used a rating task for each of her
sixteen criteria, Chiaro and Nocella, while using a largely similar list of items, had their
respondents establish a ranking, from most important to least important. What motivated
this change in research design was the view that Bhlers respondents had proved incapable
of discriminating and were giving equal importance to all the criteria (Chiaro & Nocella
2004: 283). While this contention seems somewhat overstated, given the sequence reflected
in Figure 1, it does apply to the four or five middle-ground criteria (terminology, fluency,
grammar, etc.), all of which were rated as highly important and as important by nearly
half the respondents.

Chiaro and Nocella therefore had their respondents perform two ranking tasks, one for the
set of nine linguistic criteria and one for a set of eight extra-linguistic criteria that differed
considerably from Bhlers original list. The results for the former are shown in Table 1,
juxtaposed with an ordered list based on the percentages for highly important and
important in Bhlers study.

Table 1: Comparative Ranking of Quality Criteria

Chiaro & Nocella (2004) Bhler (1986)

1. consistency with the original sense consistency with original message

2. completeness of information logical cohesion of utterance

3. logical cohesion use of correct terminology

4. fluency of delivery fluency of delivery

5. correct grammatical usage correct grammatical usage

6. correct terminology completeness of interpretation

7. appropriate style pleasant voice

8. pleasant voice native accent

 9. native accent appropriate style

Notwithstanding the comparability issues arising from the different tasks (and also, perhaps,
from the reformulation of some of the criteria), the most striking difference between the two
lists of priorities clearly concerns the criterion of completeness, which ranks second in the
study by Chiaro and Nocella and only in sixth place according to the ratings collected by
Bhler. Another significant discrepancy is seen for the importance of correct terminology,
which received the third-highest ratings from Bhlers AIIC interpreters and was ranked only
sixth by those filling in Chiaro and Nocellas web-based questionnaire.

In the face of such diverging results, and the dearth of empirical findings regarding
professional interpreters quality-related preferences in general, there is an obvious need for
further research. In an effort to respond to this need, we conducted a comprehensive survey
as part of a larger research project on Quality in Simultaneous Interpreting carried out at
the University of Vienna.

3. AIIC SURVEY
The Survey on Quality and Role, which was carried out among AIIC members in late 2008
(Zwischenberger & Pchhacker 2010), combines the need for replication with the desire for
innovation. With regard to the former, it was decided to follow Bhlers choice and target
AIIC as the most comprehensive professional association of conference interpreters in the
world. In the interest of comparability, we also adopted Bhlers original criteria and kept
her rating task, though using more consistent wording for the four response options. The
focus of our overall project (on simultaneous interpreting) and the tradition of user-
expectation surveys using only output-related criteria, led us to concentrate on Bhlers
linguistic criteria, plus voice quality, as included in the list since Kurz (1993). Taking note
of research on quality expectations published over the years, we extended the original list of
criteria to include lively intonation, as studied in particular by ngela Collados As (1998)
at the University of Granada, and synchronicity, which had emerged as a feature expected
of simultaneous interpreting by respondents in the AIIC-sponsored user expectation survey
carried out by Moser (1996).

Aside from these additional criteria, and a set of follow-up questions concerning the potential
variability of quality-related preferences depending on the type of assignment or meeting, the
crucial innovation in this survey project was the use of a state-of-the-art approach to
questionnaire administration and data collection. Like Chiaro and Nocella, we used a web-
based questionnaire; unlike these pioneers, however, we were able to benefit from user-
friendly software available from the open-source community.
3.1 Survey Methodology

Online surveys using web-based questionnaires emerged in the early 1990s, and a number of
tools are now available which allow non-experts to design and administer surveys of one kind
or another. One of the best-known providers is SurveyMonkey, a US company founded in
1999 that offers a basic version of their survey tool for free. A word of caution must be
sounded, though, as some of these readily available tools do not allow the survey
administrator full control over the data and the survey population. Most critically, access to
the survey instruments is often provided by a link (URL) that can freely be disseminated and
allows anyone to participate. This can obviously undermine the integrity of the data and thus
the validity of the findings.

For our survey we therefore opted for an application that ensures controlled access as well as
full autonomy in the handling of data. The software is called LimeSurvey and has been
developed in the open-source community since 2003 (when it was created under the name of
PHPSurveyor by Australian software developer Jason Cleeland). As its original name
suggests, it uses PHP as the programming language, in combination with MySQL, a
relational database management system. This software can be downloaded and installed on a
server, if available. In our case, the survey application was hosted in-house on our own server
at the Center for Translation Studies.

The software application has two main components: a questionnaire generator tool and a
survey administration tool which, in turn, runs two separate databases one with the e-mail
addresses of potential participants, and the other with their responses. Since the two
databases are not linked, the system guarantees full anonymity of the responses, whereas it
allows the administrator to monitor whether a response has been received from a given e-
mail address in the database. If not, the system can be used to send a reminder to those
addresses from which no response has been received. For each entry in the database of
addresses, the system generates a unique access token (password), which can be used only
once to complete the survey. This makes it impossible to complete the survey more than once
(not a major concern in our case) or to share the link with persons beyond the defined survey
population.

Clearly, then, it is essential to have a defined survey population and an e-mail address for
each of its members. Ten or twenty years ago, this requirement made it highly questionable
whether a web-based approach could ever yield a representative sample. And even now, a
web-based survey instrument will obviously reach only those who have and use e-mail.
This was also a slight limitation in our case, as some members of AIIC prefer, for whatever
reason, not to have their e-mail addresses listed. Since our survey was not an AIIC-sponsored
initiative, we compiled our list of e-mail addresses from the Associations membership
directory for the year 2008, ending up with over 2,500 entries. This made for an excellent
sampling frame, but sampling as such would again have involved some tricky issues, such as
aiming for a balanced representation with regard to regions, working languages and
employment status. We therefore avoided sampling altogether and opted for a survey of the
full population; that is, e-mail invitations to participate in the web-based survey went out to
all 2,523 addresses in our database. All but a few members of our target group have English
as a working language, so the bias of using an English-language questionnaire for
respondents throughout the world should be very small to negligible.

The survey instrument as such, developed in a painstaking process within our project team,
was comprised of three parts. One of them (Part C) focused on the issue of conference
interpreters self-perception of their role. While certainly relevant and related to the issue of
quality, this part of the study is discussed elsewhere. Another part (Part A) elicited
demographic and socio- professional information, including employment status, AIIC region,
age, gender and working experience. Part B of the questionnaire was devoted to the relative
importance of quality criteria and essentially consisted of an array-type item listing the
eleven criteria and offering four response options (very important, important, less
important, unimportant) as well as a no answer option for each criterion.

3.2 Survey Findings

A total of 704 AIIC members worldwide participated in the survey, which was active for 7
weeks from late September to early November 2008. This highly satisfactory response rate
(28.5%) gave us a sample that, in many ways, closely matches the profile of AIIC members in
general. Thus, the average respondent in our survey is 52 years old and has been in the
profession for 24 years. By the same token, the malefemale ratio of 1 : 3 (76% women) is as
typical of the overall membership structure as the predominance of freelancers, who make up
89% of our sample.

The ratings (very important, important) for the eleven criteria are summarized in Figure
1.
Figure 1: Ratings of Quality Criteria (n=704)

The findings shown in Figure 1 reflect a distinct pattern of priorities. In part, the sequence of
criteria matches that found in previous studies, especially the user expectation surveys
initiated by Kurz (1993). This concerns the two top-rated criteria, sense consistency with
original message and logical cohesion of utterance, and the criteria that generally attract
the lowest ratings of relative importance, such as pleasant voice and native accent. Much
more so than Bhlers study, our survey also yields a clear order of priorities for the four
output-related criteria that are sandwiched between the ones at the top and at the bottom of
the list: fluency ranks as an undisputed number 3, followed by the correct use of terminology
and grammar, with completeness ranking even lower. This is in line with Bhlers findings,
but again in stark contrast with those of Chiaro and Nocella, whose ranking had
completeness as the second most important criterion of quality. The reasons for this
discrepancy may have to do with the composition of the survey population in Chiaro and
Nocellas study: Given the sizeable share of interpreters in the Americas, completeness may
have been valued more highly because these respondents would likely be working also in
court and other legal settings. However, in the absence of more detailed information on the
respondent profile, such speculation is impossible to substantiate.

With regard to the top three quality criteria in the opinion of AIIC members, our survey
yields a clear result: While sense consistency and logical cohesion remain undisputed at
the top, use of correct terminology is substituted in third place by fluency of delivery.
Differences between our results and those of Bhler (1986) arise mainly at the lower end of
the list, where appropriate style receives higher ratings than pleasant voice and native
accent. The ratings for the newly introduced criterion of lively intonation closely match
those for pleasant voice, which may be a sign of conceptual overlap, even though care had
been taken to avoid that by placing intonation well ahead of voice quality in the list.

In all, the views of AIIC members concerning the relative importance of output-related
aspects of quality have been shown by our survey to be relatively stable. While our replication
of Bhlers study has shown the pattern of priorities to be largely consistent over time, the
comprehensiveness of our full-population survey, which reached experienced conference
interpreters in AIIC regions throughout the world, could also lead us to claim broad
geographical coverage and thus a high degree of consistency on a global scale. It is here,
though, that our critical reflection, as suggested by the question mark in the title of this
paper, must begin. For there are several issues that make it doubtful whether these ostensibly
robust survey findings can be considered global.

4. GLOBAL STANDARDS AND CRITERIA?

In raising a few problematic issues, I should begin by acknowledging that the term
standards is rather broad and potentially misleading; what I mean here specifically is the
pattern of more or less relevant output-related quality criteria for simultaneous interpreting
as seen from the perspective of the providers of that service the perspective of the
profession, for short.

And how global is that profession? Clearly, conference interpreting can be considered an
early example of a truly international twentieth-century profession. This is reflected in the
membership of AIIC, which is not initially based on a territorial principle but open to
practitioners in any country, whatever their choice of professional domicile. It is an
international association of individuals from all over the world that has grown from a few
dozen members in 1953 to nearly 3,000 in nearly 100 countries today.

This coverage is impressive, and yet we need to be cautious when extrapolating from an AIIC
survey to the interpreting profession worldwide. One reason is that even with close to 3,000
members, AIIC by no means includes every professional conference interpreter in the world.
According to the AIIC website, there are 29 members in China. By comparison, there are 73
in Austria, my tiny home country with roughly 8.4 million inhabitants.

What is worse, it is not even entirely clear how a conference interpreter is to be defined.
Some would place the emphasis on university-level training (which would be problematic for
countries with a different interpreter-training tradition, such as Japan); others might focus
on proficiency in both of the main working modes (consecutive as well as simultaneous
interpreting), and others again could focus their definition on the setting in which these
interpreters work, that is, conferences or (as a 1984 working definition proposed by AIIC
would have it) conference-like situations. In defining an interpreter, we would probably
want to use all of the above features, but none of them may be necessary and sufficient to
set hard-and-fast boundaries for the concept of a conference interpreter.
With regard to settings and fields of work, we must also acknowledge that the profession of
conference interpreting is stratified, or that there are different markets, with a high-end
including the multilingual international organizations (known as the AIIC Agreement sector)
and a more local market in which assignments typically involve bidirectional interpreting.
Where this is done in consecutive, it becomes difficult to distinguish conference from liaison
interpreting if one does not go by the number of participants in the interaction or by the
fee.

Mindful that we may only have captured a certain though undisputably relevant segment
of the overall population of conference interpreters in our survey, we are complementing our
work by satellite surveys in various national contexts, including the Czech Republic,
Germany, Italy and Poland. By surveying the members of national interpreter associations in
their (A) language, we are hoping to see whether the AIIC findings will be corroborated for
the more national conference interpreting markets. In one of these country-based surveys,
107 members of the German Association of Conference Interpreters (VKD), out of the 323
who had received an invitation to participate, indicated their quality-related preferences
along largely similar lines as the AIIC population (see Zwischenberger 2011). The four top-
rated criteria remained the same, but completeness exchanged places with correct
grammar. The latter may have to do with the types of meetings in which the respondents
usually work: completeness may seem more important in highly technical specialist
conferences and negotiations, whereas standards of grammatical correctness may be
somewhat lower among interpreters who typically work also into their B language.

The conclusion to be drawn from these findings for the Chinese context is clear: In order to
find out about the views on quality held by Chinese conference interpreters, a survey of this
kind would be needed. We cannot claim that our AIIC Survey, which included only eleven
respondents who indicated Mandarin as their A language, covers conference interpreting in
China.

With a view to such a survey, two fundamental design issues need to be considered: One is
how to define the population and to access all or a random sample of its members by e-
mail; and the other concerns the criteria to be evaluated. The first problem was tackled in a
survey study by Setton and Guo (2009), who were keenly aware of the difficulty, if not
impossibility, of drawing a representative sample of the countrys population of professional
interpreters (and translators, for that matter). For example, the 62 respondents in their
study, which centered on Shanghai and Taipei and included only 27 who mainly worked in
interpreting rather than translation, had an average age of 35 years (compared to 52 in the
AIIC sample). What is more, over 80% of the respondents were not affiliated with any
professional association. Most of the respondents were reached via lists of alumni of
interpreter training programs and lists used by recruiters.

No less challenging than defining and accessing the population is the issue of the criteria to
be used in the survey instrument. They should presumably be offered to respondents in
Mandarin, so they would need to be translated. As acknowledged by Bhler (1986) and
investigated in depth by the Granada team in so-called contextualization studies, in which
they asked respondents about their understanding of a given criterion (and found widely
diverging interpretations), the criteria themselves are poorly defined. What is more, some of
them, such as intonation, may play a different role in a tonal language like Mandarin
Chinese. Indeed, linguists formerly held that Chinese had no intonation to speak of. While
this is no longer the case (e.g. Kratochvil 1998), the specifics of intonational patterns and
functions have yet to be fully understood and applied to research in interpreting studies.

All this brings me to a mixed conclusion. Despite advances in technology which have enabled
us to carry out a global survey on quality criteria, our findings, though seemingly robust,
are still patchy, and I have tried to point out why filling in the picture for China is a difficult
challenge. On the other hand, the conference interpreting community in China has been
developing fast (cf. Setton 2011), and the same holds true for the community of interpreting
scholars, as evident from the highly successful National Conference series. There clearly is
ample reason to assume that state-of-the-art survey research of the type presented in this
paper will soon be conducted in China on the issue of quality and other topics, extending and
deepening our understanding of conference interpreting as a global profession.

REFERENCES

AIIC (1982) Practical guide for professional interpreters. Geneva: International Association
of Conference Interpreters.

Bhler, Hildegund (1986) Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for
the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5 (4): 231-235.

Chiaro, Delia & Nocella, Giuseppe (2004) Interpreters perception of linguistic and non-
linguistic factors affecting quality: A survey through the World Wide Web. Meta, 49 (2):
278-293
Collados As, ngela (1998/2002) Quality assessment in simultaneous interpreting: The im-
portance of nonverbal communication. In F. Pchhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.) The
Interpreting Studies Reader. London/New York, Routledge, 327-336.

Herbert, Jean (1952) The Interpreters Handbook: How to Become a Conference

Interpreter. Geneva: Georg.

Kratochvil, Paul (1998) Intonation in Beijing Chinese. In D. Hirst & A. Di Cristo

(eds.) Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages. Cambridge: CUP, 417-431.

Kurz, Ingrid (1993/2002) Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups.

In F. Pchhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds.) The Interpreting Studies Reader. London/New
York, Routledge, 313-324.

Moser, Peter (1996) Expectations of users of conference interpretation. Interpreting, 1 (2):

145-178.

Seleskovitch, Danica (1977) Take care of the sense and the sounds will take care of
themselves or why interpreting is not tantamount to translating languages. The
Incorporated Linguist, 15: 7-33.

Setton, Robin (ed.) (2009) China and Chinese. Special Issue of Interpreting, 11 (2).

Setton, Robin & Guo, Alice Liangliang (2009) Attitudes to role, status and professional
identity in interpreters and translators with Chinese in Shanghai and Taipei. Translation
and Interpreting Studies, 4 (2): 210-238.

Zwischenberger, Cornelia (in press) Quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: An

international vs. a national view. The Interpreters Newsletter, 15 (2011).

Zwischenberger, Cornelia & Pchhacker, Franz (2010) Survey on quality and role:
Conference interpreters expectations and self-perceptions. Communicate! Spring
2010.http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/article2510.htm (accessed 25 January 2011).