1887
image of Does interpreter location make a difference?
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Remote interpreting has traditionally been the less preferred option when compared to face-to-face interpreting. But the recent pandemic has shifted the landscape, making remote interpreting the default in many, if not most, settings. Improved videoconferencing technologies have facilitated this transition. The main question is whether remote interpreting has any impact on interpreter performance, including interpreting accuracy. This article presents the results of an experimental study that compared the performance of 103 qualified interpreters in three language combinations (English + Arabic, Mandarin and Spanish) in three conditions (face-to-face vs video remote vs audio remote interpreting) in the context of simulated police interviews. The interpreters’ preferences and perceptions were elicited and analysed, and their performance assessed by independent trained raters using detailed marking criteria. The results showed no significant differences between face-to-face and video interpreting, but significant decrements in audio remote interpreting performance. More than one-third of the interpreters perceived remote interpreting as being more difficult due to technological challenges. No differences emerged between the language groups on any measure.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00077.hal
2022-03-31
2022-05-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ATA [American Translators Association]
    ATA [American Translators Association] (2021) ATA Position Paper on Remote Interpreting. https://www.atanet.org/advocacy-outreach/ata-position-paper-on-remote-interpreting/ (accessed23 November).
  2. AUSIT [Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators]
    AUSIT [Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators] (2020a) Recommended remote video interpreting protocols for community interpreting assignments. https://ausit.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Recommended-Remote-Video-Interpreting-Protocols.pdf (accessed27 July 2021).
  3. AUSIT [Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators]
    AUSIT [Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators] (2020b) Recommended telephone interpreting protocols. https://ausit.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/AUSIT_Telephone_Interpreting_Protocols.pdf (accessed27 July 2021).
  4. Azarmina, P. & Wallace, P.
    (2005) Remote interpretation in medical encounters: A systematic review. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare11 (3), 140–145. 10.1258/1357633053688679
    https://doi.org/10.1258/1357633053688679 [Google Scholar]
  5. Berk-Seligson, S.
    (2009) Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213492
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213492 [Google Scholar]
  6. Braun, S.
    (2013) Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice. Interpreting15 (2), 200–228. 10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra [Google Scholar]
  7. (2016) The European AVIDICUS projects: Collaborating to assess the viability of video-mediated interpreting in legal proceedings. European Journal of Applied Linguistics4 (1), 173–180. 10.1515/eujal‑2016‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2016-0002 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2019) Technology and interpreting. InM. O’Hagan (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of translation and technology. New York: Routledge, 271–288. 10.4324/9781315311258‑16
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315311258-16 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2020) “You are just a disembodied voice really”: Perceptions of video remote interpreting by legal interpreters and police officers. InH. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 47–78. 10.1075/btl.149.03bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.03bra [Google Scholar]
  10. Braun, S. & Taylor, J. L.
    (2011) AVIDICUS Comparative studies – Part I: Traditional interpreting and remote interpreting in police interviews. InS. Braun & J. L. Taylor (Eds.), Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings. Guildford: University of Surrey, 85–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Braun, S., Davitti, E. & Dicerto, S.
    (2018) Video-mediated interpreting in legal settings: Assessing the implementation. InJ. Napier, R. Skinner & S. Braun (Eds.), Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 144–179.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Braun, S. & Taylor, J.
    (Eds.) (2012) Videoconference and remote interpreting in legal proceedings. Cambridge: Intersentia.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P. & Cramer, R. J.
    (2010) The witness credibility scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences & the Law28 (6), 892–907. 10.1002/bsl.917
    https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.917 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cohen, J.
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodman-Delahunty, J. & Martschuk, N.
    (2016) Risks and benefits of interpreter-mediated police interviews. Varstvoslovje: Journal of Criminal Justice and Security18 (4), 451–471.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., Hale, S. & Brandon, S. E.
    (2020) Interpreted police interviews: A review of contemporary research. InM. Miller & B. Bornstein (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law. Switzerland: Springer, 83–186. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑54678‑6_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54678-6_4 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gracia-García, R.
    (2002) Telephone Interpreting: A review of pros and cons. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Alexandria, VA: American Translators Association, 195–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hale, S.
    (2010) The need to raise the bar. Court interpreters as specialized experts. InM. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London/New York: Routledge, 440–454.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hale, S., Garcia, I., Hlavac, J., Kim, M., Lai, M., Turner, B. & Slatyer, H.
    (2012) Improvements to NAATI testing: Development of a conceptual overview for a new model for NAATI standards, testing and assessment. Sydney: University of New South Wales.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hale, S., Goodman-Delahunty, J. & Martschuk, N.
    (2019) Interpreter performance in police interviews. Differences between trained professional interpreters and untrained bilinguals. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer13 (2), 107–131. 10.1080/1750399X.2018.1541649
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2018.1541649 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2020a) Interactional management in a simulated police interview: Interpreters’ strategies. InM. Mason & F. Rock (Eds.), The discourse of police interviews. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 200–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hale, S., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N. & Doherty, S.
    (2021) The effects of mode on interpreting performance in a simulated police interview. Translation and Interpreting Studies (online-first). 10.1075/tis.19081.hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.19081.hal [Google Scholar]
  23. Hale, S., Martschuk, N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Taibi, M. & Xu, H.
    (2020b) Interpreting profanity in police interviews. Multilingua39 (4), 369–393. 10.1515/multi‑2019‑0065
    https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2019-0065 [Google Scholar]
  24. Heydon, G.
    (2005) The language of police interviewing. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230502932
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502932 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hlavac, J.
    (2013) Should interpreters be trained and tested in telephone and video-link interpreting? Responses from practitioners and examiners. International Journal of Interpreter Education5 (1), 34–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Howes, L. M.
    (2019) Community interpreters’ experiences of police investigative interviews: How might interpreters’ insights contribute to enhanced procedural justice?Policing and Society29 (8), 887–905. 10.1080/10439463.2018.1447572
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2018.1447572 [Google Scholar]
  27. ImPLI Project
    ImPLI Project (2012) Improving police and legal interpreting: Final report. Paris: Institut de Management et de Communication Interculturels.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jakubowicz, A. & Buckley, B.
    (1975) Australian Government Commission of Inquiry into Poverty – Law and Poverty Series Migrants and the Legal System. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kelly, N.
    (2008) Telephone interpreting: A comprehensive guide to the profession. Bloomington: Trafford Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ko, L.
    (2006) The need for long-term empirical studies in remote interpreting research: A case study of telephone interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series5, 325–338.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Koller, M. & Pöchhacker, F.
    (2018) “The Work and Skills ...”: A profile of first-generation video remote interpreters. InJ. Napier, R. Skinner & S. Braun (Eds.), Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 89–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee, J.
    (2007) Telephone interpreting – seen from the interpreters’ perspective. Interpreting9 (2), 231–252. 10.1075/intp.9.2.05lee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.2.05lee [Google Scholar]
  33. Licoppe, C. & Verdier, M.
    (2013) Interpreting, video communication and the sequential reshaping of institutional talk in the bilingual and distributed courtroom. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law20 (2), 247–275. 10.1558/ijsll.v20i2.247
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v20i2.247 [Google Scholar]
  34. Licoppe, C. & Veyrier, C.-A.
    (2017) How to show the interpreter on screen? The normative organization of visual ecologies in multilingual courtrooms with video links. Journal of Pragmatics107, 147–164. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.012 [Google Scholar]
  35. Määttä, S. K.
    (2018) Accuracy in telephone interpreting. The Interpreters’ Newsletter23, 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mehrabian, A.
    (1972) Nonverbal communication. New Brunswick/London: AldineTransaction.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (1981) Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mehrabian, A. & Wiener, M.
    (1967) Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology6 (1), 109–114. 10.1037/h0024532
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024532 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mellinger, C. D. & Hanson, T. A.
    (2018) Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility. Translation and Interpreting Studies13 (3), 366–392. 10.1075/tis.00021.mel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00021.mel [Google Scholar]
  40. Minkley, N., Xu, K. M. & Krell, M.
    (2021) Analyzing relationships between causal and assessment factors of cognitive load: Associations between objective and subjective measures of cognitive load, stress, interest, and self-concept. Frontiers in Education6, 1–15. 10.3389/feduc.2021.632907
    https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.632907 [Google Scholar]
  41. Moser-Mercer, B.
    (2003) Remote interpreting: Assessment of human factors and performance parameters. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521826425.pdf (accessed19 January 2021).
  42. Oviatt, S. L. & Cohen, P. R.
    (1992) Spoken language in interpreted telephone dialogues. Computer Speech & Language6 (3), 277–302. 10.1016/0885‑2308(92)90021‑U
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2308(92)90021-U [Google Scholar]
  43. Ozolins, U.
    (1998) Interpreting and translating in Australia: Current issues and international comparisons. Melbourne: Language Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2011) Telephone interpreting: Understanding practice and identifying research needs. Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research3 (2), 33–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Rosenberg, B. A.
    (2007) A data driven analysis of telephone interpreting. InC. Wadensjö, B. Englund Dimitrova & A. L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 65–76. 10.1075/btl.70.09ros
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.70.09ros [Google Scholar]
  46. Roziner, I. & Shlesinger, M.
    (2010) Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting. Interpreting12 (2), 214–247. 10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz [Google Scholar]
  47. Seeber, K. G., Keller, L., Amos, R. & Hengl, S.
    (2019) Expectations vs experience: Attitudes towards video remote conference interpreting. Interpreting21 (2), 270–304. 10.1075/intp.00030.see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00030.see [Google Scholar]
  48. Shaffer, S. A. & Evans, J. R.
    (2018) Interpreters in law enforcement contexts: Practices and experiences according to investigators. Applied Cognitive Psychology32 (2), 150–162. 10.1002/acp.3388
    https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3388 [Google Scholar]
  49. Skinner, R., Napier, J. & Braun, S.
    (2018) Mapping of the field. InJ. Napier, R. Skinner & S. Braun (Eds.), Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 11–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wadensjö, C.
    (1999) Telephone interpreting and the synchronization of talk in social interaction. The Translator5 (2), 247–264. 10.1080/13556509.1999.10799043
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1999.10799043 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wakefield, S. J., Kebbell, M. R., Moston, S. & Westera, N.
    (2015) Perceptions and profiles of interviews with interpreters: A police survey. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology48 (1), 53–72. 10.1177/0004865814524583
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865814524583 [Google Scholar]
  52. Wang, J.
    (2018) “Telephone interpreting should be used only as a last resort.” Interpreters’ perceptions of the suitability, remuneration and quality of telephone interpreting. Perspectives26 (1), 100–116. 10.1080/0907676X.2017.1321025
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1321025 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2021) “I only interpret the content and ask practical questions when necessary.” Interpreters’ perceptions of their explicit coordination and personal pronoun choice in telephone interpreting. Perspectives29 (4), 625–642. 10.1080/0907676X.2018.1549087
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1549087 [Google Scholar]
  54. Xu, H., Hale, S. & Stern, L.
    (2020) Telephone interpreting in lawyer–client interviews: An observational study. Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research12 (1), 18–36. 10.12807/ti.112201.2020.a02
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.112201.2020.a02 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00077.hal
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00077.hal
Loading

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