Volume 66, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Interpreters face distinct challenges when deployed remotely via video link, due to their virtual presence but physical absence in the conversation. Depending on the interpreting service, interpreters can also be exposed to greater spontaneity and hence increased pressure if video-mediated interpreting is offered as an instant service. The examples discussed in this paper draw on an interpreting studies-based analysis of the Austrian pilot project “Video-mediated interpreting in healthcare.” In this study data were generated by means of an observational protocol, five recordings of authentic video-mediated interpreted communicative events, five retrospective interviews with the interpreters from the recorded video-mediated interpreted communicative events, and eight expert interviews with all interpreters from the pilot project. The scope of this article is to present some of the main findings and draw attention to a crucial strategy used in remote interpreting, namely a reliance on relevant sensory awareness.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ahrens, Barbara
    2015 “Body Languag”. InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. byFranz Pöchhacker; Nadja Grbić; Peter Mead; and Robin Setton, 36–38. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AUSIT
    AUSIT 2012 Code of Ethics and Conduct. https://ausit.org/AUSIT/Documents/Code_Of_Ethics_Full.pdf
  3. Baraldi, Claudio; and Laura Gavioli
    (eds) 2012Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Benjamins Translation LibraryVol.102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.102
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102 [Google Scholar]
  4. Blumenthal, Caroline
    2015Das Nonverbale beim Dolmetschen im psychotherapeutischen Setting. München: Akademische Verlagsgemeinschaft München.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Braun, Sabine
    2004Kommunikation unter widrigen Umständen? Fallstudien zu einsprachigen und gedolmetschten Videokonferenzen. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 475. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2013 “Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice1”. INTP15 (2): 200–228. 10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra [Google Scholar]
  7. 2014 “Comparing traditional and remote interpreting in police settings: quality and impact factors”. InTraduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni, ed. byViezzi, M.; and Falbo, C., 161–176. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste (EUT).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Braun, Sabine; and Judith Taylor
    2012 “Video-Mediated Interpreting: an Overview of Current Practice and Research”. InVideoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. bySabine Braun; and Judith L. Taylor, 27–57. Cambridge: Intersentia.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Frank, Mark G.; Darrin J. Griffin; Elena Svetieva; and Andreas Maroulis
    2015 “Nonverbal Elements of the Voice”. InKostić 2015: 92–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hale, Sandra; and Jemina Napier
    2013Research Methods in Interpreting: A Practical Resource. Research Methods in Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Havelka, Ivana
    2018Videodolmetschen im Gesundheitswesen: Dolmetschwissenschaftliche Untersuchung eines österreichischen Pilotprojektes. TRANSÜD. Arbeiten zur Theorie und Praxis des Übersetzens und Dolmetschens 96. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hlavac, Jim
    2013 “Interpreting in One’s Own and in Closely Related Languages: Negotiation of Linguistic Varieties Amongst Interpreters of the Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Languages”. Interpreting15 (1): 95–125. 10.1075/intp.15.1.05hla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.1.05hla [Google Scholar]
  13. Kadrić, Mira
    2011Dialog als Prinzip: Für eine emanzipatorische Praxis und Didaktik des Dolmetschens. Translations-Wissenschaft 6. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2014 “Mission Impossible? : Training for the Institutions and Educating for Society”. InTraduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni, ed. byViezzi, M.; and Falbo, C., 131–141. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste (EUT).
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kalina, Sylvia
    1998Strategische Prozesse beim Dolmetschen: Theoretische Grundlagen, empirische Fallstudien, didaktische Konsequenzen. Language in performance 18. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kurz, Ingrid
    1996Simultandolmetschen als Gegenstand der interdisziplinären Forschung. Wien: WUV-Universitätsverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kutz, Wladimir
    2010Dolmetschkompetenz: Was muss der Dolmetscher wissen und können?Translatio 1. München: European University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2012Dolmetschkompetenz: Was muss der Dolmetscher wissen und können?München: European University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Moser-Mercer, Barbara
    2005 “Remote interpreting: The crucial role of presence”. Bulletin VALS-ASLA8: 73–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Nešić, Milkica; and Vladimir Nešić
    2015 “Neuroscience of Nonverbal Communication”. InThe social psychology of nonverbal communication, ed. byAleksandra Kostić, 31–65. Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Posner, Roland
    2003 „Ebenen der Bildkompetenz“. In Was ist Bildkompetenz? Studien zur Bildwissenschaft, hg. vonSachs-Hombach, Klaus, 17–24. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑11814‑5_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11814-5_2 [Google Scholar]
  22. Price, Erika L.; Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable; Dana Nickleach; Monica López; and Leah S. Karliner
    2012 “Interpreter Perspectives of in-Person, Telephonic, and Videoconferencing Medical Interpretation in Clinical Encounters”. Patient education and counseling87 (2): 226–232. 10.1016/j.pec.2011.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  23. Roat, Cyntia; and Ineke Crezee
    2015 “Healthcare Interpreting”. InThe Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. byHolly Mikkelson; and Renée Jourdenais, 236–253. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Röhner, Jessica; and Astrid Schütz
    2016Psychologie der Kommunikation. 2., Auflage. Basiswissen Psychologie. Wiesbaden: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑10024‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10024-7 [Google Scholar]
  25. Roy, Cynthia B.
    2000Interpreting as a Discourse Process. Oxford studies in sociolinguistics. New York (NY): OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Roziner, Ilan; and Miriam Shlesinger
    2010 “Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting”. INTP12 (2): 214–247. 10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz [Google Scholar]
  27. Seeman, Melvin
    1975 “Alienation Studies”. Annual Review of Sociology1 (1): 91–123. 10.1146/annurev.so.01.080175.000515
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.01.080175.000515 [Google Scholar]
  28. Short, John; Ederyn Williams; and Bruce Christie
    1976The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Tebble, Helen
    2012 “Interpreting or Interfering?” InCoordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting, ed. byClaudio Baraldi; and Laura Gavioli, 23–44. Benjamins Translation LibraryVol.102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.102.02teb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.02teb [Google Scholar]
  30. Tipton, Rebecca; and Olgierda Furmanek
    2016Dialogue Interpreting: A Guide to Interpreting in Public Services and the Community. Routledge Interpreting Guides. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315644578
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315644578 [Google Scholar]
  31. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    1998Interpreting as Interaction. Language in social life series. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error