1887
image of From remote control to tweets
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study examined the role Twitter reactions play in (re)shaping the quality criteria in TV interpreting (TVI) during the Oscars ceremony in Turkey, extending over a ten-year period. The secondary goal of this study was to shed light on the extent to which tweets affected the interpreting practice, recruitment of interpreters, and the discourse about TVI in general. The thematic analysis of the tweets showed that the viewers generally criticized interpreters based on their delivery, use of voice, and word choices. Complementary interviews conducted with TV interpreters and one executive revealed that tweets were instrumentalized by executives and recruiters both in real time and during the recruitment process; in this way they became a quality instrument with which to evaluate TV interpreters’ performance. The findings are discussed in the light of the literature on TVI and are used to advance both practical and theoretical implications for the practice of TVI.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00083.arz
2022-07-28
2022-08-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amato, A. & Mack, G.
    (2011) Interpreting the Oscar night on Italian TV: An interpreter’s nightmare?The Interpreters’ Newsletter16, 37–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Andres, D. & Fünfer, S.
    (2011) TV interpreting in Germany: The television broadcasting company ARTE in comparison to public broadcasting companies. The Interpreters’ Newsletter16, 99–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arzık Erzurumlu, O.
    (2016) Gatekeepers as a shaping force in TV interpreting. PhD dissertation, Istanbul Dogus University.
  4. Auverset, L. A. & Billings, A. C.
    (2016) Relationships between social TV and enjoyment: A content analysis of the Walking Dead’s story sync experience. Social Media + Society2 (3), 1–12. 10.1177/2056305116662170
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116662170 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bühler, H.
    (1986) Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua5 (4), 231–235.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cesar, P. & Chorianopoulos, K.
    (2008) Interactivity and user participation in the television lifecycle: Creating, sharing, and controlling content. InProceedings of the International Conference on Designing Interactive User Experiences for TV and Video, 125–128. 10.1145/1453805.1453830
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1453805.1453830 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cheung, A. K. F.
    (2013) Non-native accents and simultaneous interpreting quality perceptions. Interpreting15 (1), 25–47. 10.1075/intp.15.1.02che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.1.02che [Google Scholar]
  8. (2015) Accent. InF. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. New York: Routledge, 1–3.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2020) Interpreters’ perceived characteristics and perception of quality in interpreting. Interpreting22 (1), 35–55. 10.1075/intp.00033.che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00033.che [Google Scholar]
  10. Chiaro, D. & Nocella, G.
    (2004) Interpreters’ perception of linguistic and non-linguistic factors affecting quality: A survey through the World Wide Web. Meta29 (2), 278–293. 10.7202/009351ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/009351ar [Google Scholar]
  11. Clement, J.
    (2020) Social media – statistics & facts. https://www.statista.com/topics/1164/social-networks/ (accessed20 October 2020).
  12. Collados Aís, A.
    (1998/2002) Quality assessment in simultaneous interpreting: The importance of nonverbal communication. InF. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 326–337.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dal Fovo, E.
    (2020) Media interpreting. InM. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London/New York: Routledge, 315–320.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gile, D.
    (2005) Directionality in conference interpreting: A cognitive view. Communication and Cognition38 (1/2), 9–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Halliday, M. & Matthiessen, C.
    (2004) Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Highfield, T., Harrington, S. & Bruns, A.
    (2013) Twitter as a technology for audiencing and fandom. Information, Communication & Society16 (3), 315–339. 10.1080/1369118X.2012.756053
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.756053 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hou, Y. & Lampe, C.
    (2015) Social media effectiveness for public engagement. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Korea. 10.1145/2702123.2702557
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702557 [Google Scholar]
  18. Iglesias Fernández, E.
    (2007) La incidencia del parámetro “agradabilidad de la voz”. InA. Collados Aís, E. M. Pradas Macías, E. Stévaux & O. García Becerra (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: Parámetros de incidencia. Granada: Comares, 37–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2015) Voice quality. InF. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, 440–441.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T. & Tseng, B.
    (2009) Why we twitter: An analysis of a microblogging community, InZhang, H. , Advances in Web Mining and Web Usage Analysis, LNCS 2009, 5439/2009, 118–138. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑00528‑2_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00528-2_7 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ji, Q.
    (2019) Exploring the motivations for live posting during entertainment television viewing. Atlantic Journal of Communication27 (3), 169–182. 10.1080/15456870.2019.1610762
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2019.1610762 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ji, Q. & Raney, A. A.
    (2015) Morally judging entertainment: A case study of live tweeting during Downton Abbey, Media Psychology18 (2), 221–242. 10.1080/15213269.2014.956939
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.956939 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ji, Q. & Zhao, D.
    (2015) Tweeting live shows: A content analysis of live tweets from three entertainment programs. InProceedings of Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Conference on Social Media & Society. Toronto, CA. 10.1145/2789187.2789195
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2789187.2789195 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kalina, S.
    (2005) Quality assurance for interpreting processes. Meta50 (2), 768–784. 10.7202/011017ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011017ar [Google Scholar]
  25. Katan, D. & Straniero-Sergio, F.
    (2003) Submerged ideologies in media interpreting. InM. P. Calzada (Ed.), Apropos of Ideology. Manchester: St. Jerome, 131–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kemp, S.
    (2020, July). Digital use around the world in July 2020. https://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2020/07/digital-use-around-the-world-in-july-2020/
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Khoshrouzadeh, J. & Salleh, H. M.
    (2016) Social media and TV: A preliminary review of interaction. New Media and Mass Communication48, 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kopczyński, A.
    (1994) Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. InS. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 87–99. 10.1075/btl.3.09kop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.09kop [Google Scholar]
  29. Kurz, I.
    (1989) Conference interpreting: User expectations. InD. L. Hammond (Ed.), Coming of age: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Medford: Learned Information, 143–148.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (1990) Overcoming language barriers in European television. InD. Bowen & M. Bowen (Eds.), Interpreting: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Binghamton, NY: State University of New York at Binghamton, 168–175. 10.1075/ata.iv.29kur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.iv.29kur [Google Scholar]
  31. (2001) Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user. Meta46 (2), 394–409. 10.7202/003364ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003364ar [Google Scholar]
  32. (2002) Physiological stress responses during media and conference interpreting. InG. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century. Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 195–202. 10.1075/btl.43.19kur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.43.19kur [Google Scholar]
  33. Kurz, I. & Pöchhacker, F.
    (1995) Quality in TV interpreting. Translatio: Nouvelles de la FIT FIT Newsletter14 (3–4), 350–358.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lee, J.
    (2008) Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer2 (2), 165–184. 10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798772
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798772 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mack, G.
    (2002) New perspectives and challenges for interpretation – the example of television. InG. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century. Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 203–213. 10.1075/btl.43.20mac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.43.20mac [Google Scholar]
  36. Mack, G. & Cattaruzza, L.
    (1995) User surveys in SI: A means of learning about quality and/or raising some reasonable doubts. InJ. Tommola (Ed.), Topics in interpreting research. Turku: Centre for Translation and Interpreting, University of Turku, 37–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mizuno, A.
    (1997) Broadcast interpreting in Japan: Some theoretical and practical aspects. InY. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Interpreting – What Do We Know and How (Turku, 25–27 August 1994). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 192–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Moser, P.
    (1996) Expectations of users of conference interpretation. Interpreting1 (2), 145–178. 10.1075/intp.1.2.01mos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.1.2.01mos [Google Scholar]
  39. Ng, B. C.
    (1992) End users’ subjective reaction to the performance of student interpreters. The Interpreters’ NewsletterSpecial Issue1, 35–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Owen, W. F.
    (1984) Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech70, 274–287. 10.1080/00335638409383697
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383697 [Google Scholar]
  41. Pöchhacker, F.
    (2011) Researching TV interpreting: Selected studies of US presidential material. The Interpreters’ Newsletter16, 21–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (2018) Media interpreting: From user expectations to audience comprehension. InE. Di Giovanni & Y. Gambier (Eds.), Reception studies and audiovisual translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 253–277. 10.1075/btl.141.13poc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.141.13poc [Google Scholar]
  43. Pöchhacker, F. & Zwischenberger, C.
    (2010) Survey on quality and role: Conference interpreters’ expectations and self-perceptions. Communicate! AIIC Webzine. (15March 2010) https://aiic.org/document/9646/ (accessed14 June 2020).
  44. Shlesinger, M.
    (1997) Quality in simultaneous interpreting. InY. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Interpreting – What Do We Know and How (Turku, 25–27August 1994) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–131. 10.1075/btl.23.08shl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.23.08shl [Google Scholar]
  45. Snelling, D., Martinsen, B., Mizuno, A., Russo, M., Strolz, B., Uckmar, M. & Wadensjö, C.
    (1997) On media and court interpreting. InY. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Interpreting – What Do We Know and How (Turku, 25–27August 1994) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 187–206. 10.1075/btl.23.12sne
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.23.12sne [Google Scholar]
  46. Straniero-Sergio, F.
    (2003) Norms and quality in media interpreting: The case of Formula One press conferences. The Interpreters’ Newsletter12, 135–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Suler, J.
    (2004) The online disinhibition effect. Cyber Psychology & Behavior7 (3), 321–326. 10.1089/1094931041291295
    https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295 [Google Scholar]
  48. Zappavigna, M.
    (2011) Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media and Society13 (5), 788–806. 10.1177/1461444810385097
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385097 [Google Scholar]
  49. Zubiaga, A., Spina, D., Martínez, R. & Fresno, V.
    (2015) Real-time classification of Twitter trends. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology66 (3), 462–473. 10.1002/asi.23186
    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23186 [Google Scholar]
  50. Zwischenberger, C.
    (2010) Quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: An international versus a national view. The Interpreters’ Newsletter15, 127–142.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00083.arz
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00083.arz
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