1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interpreting
  4. Volume 25, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 25, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article approaches user reception of interpreting events by investigating video users’ parasocial interactions about a specific interpreter on the interface. The video of Chinese athlete Sun Yang’s public hearing (facilitated by an ad hoc interpreter) hosted on the Chinese video-sharing site, Bilibili, was chosen as a case study. Proceeding from an adapted parasocial interaction framework that features nine underlying parasocial processes, this study categorizes and analyses users’ comments directed at the interpreter, mainly qualitatively but also quantitatively. It also examines them as manifestations or verbalizations of their parasocial interactions with the interpreter on screen in cognitive and affective dimensions. The findings show users’ noticeable preference for engaging in evaluation- and comprehension-oriented interactions and expressing their sympathy and empathy towards the interpreter. The findings also show that the parasocial interaction framework usefully accommodates a plethora of user reactions to the interpreter and their performance and offers a way of investigating relevant utterances systematically in a seemingly chaotic space.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00086.yan
2022-09-22
2023-09-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/intp.00086.yan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Antonini, R., Cirillo, L., Rossato, L. & Torresi, I.
    (Eds.) (2017) Non-professional interpreting and translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.129
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.129 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bühler, H.
    (1986) Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua5 (4), 231–235.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen, Y., Gao, Q., Yuan, Q. & Tang, Y.
    (2019) Facilitating students’ interaction in MOOCs through timeline-anchored discussion. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction35 (19), 1781–1799. 10.1080/10447318.2019.1574056
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1574056 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chiaro, D.
    (2002) Linguistic mediation on Italian television. When the interpreter is not an interpreter: A case study. InG. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 215–225. 10.1075/btl.43.21chi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.43.21chi [Google Scholar]
  5. Cohen, J.
    (2006) Audience identification with media characters. InJ. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 266–286.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Collados Aís, A.
    (1998) La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea. La importancia de la comunicación no verbal. Granada: Editorial Comares.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Di Giovanni, E.
    (2014) Visual and narrative priorities of the blind and non-blind: Eye tracking and audio description. Perspectives22 (1), 136–153. 10.1080/0907676X.2013.769610
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2013.769610 [Google Scholar]
  8. Edwards, R., Temple, B. & Alexander, C.
    (2005) Users’ experiences of interpreters: The critical role of trust. Interpreting7 (1), 77–95. 10.1075/intp.7.1.05edw
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.1.05edw [Google Scholar]
  9. García Becerra, O.
    (2015) Survey research on quality expectations in interpreting: The effect of method of administration on subjects’ response rate. Meta60 (3), 542–556. 10.7202/1036142ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1036142ar [Google Scholar]
  10. Gerver, D.
    (1972) Simultaneous interpretation and human information processing. Social Science Report, HR 566/1, London.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gile, D.
    (1998) Observational studies and experimental studies in the investigation of conference interpreting. Target10 (1), 69–93. 10.1075/target.10.1.04gil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.10.1.04gil [Google Scholar]
  12. Hartmann, T.
    (2008) Parasocial interaction and paracommunication with new media characters. InE. A. Konijn, S. Utz, M. Tanis & S. B. Barnes (Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication. New York/London: Routledge, 177–199.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Horton, D. & Wohl, R.
    (1956) Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observation on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry191, 215–229. 10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kaczmarek, L.
    (2016) Towards a broader approach to the community interpreter’s role: On correspondence between role perceptions and interactional goals. Interpreting18 (1), 57–88. 10.1075/intp.18.1.03kac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.18.1.03kac [Google Scholar]
  15. Klimmt, C., Hartmann, T. & Schramm, H.
    (2006) Parasocial interactions and relationships. InJ. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 291–313.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Kurz, I.
    (1993) Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups. The Interpreters’ Newsletter51, 13–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Kurz, I. & Pöchhacker, F.
    (1995) Quality in TV interpreting. Translatio: Nouvelles de la FIT–FIT NewsletterN.s.14 (3/4), 350–358.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Leng, J., Zhu, J., Wang, X. & Gu, X.
    (2016) Identifying the potential of Danmaku Video from eye gaze data. Paper presented at2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced Learning technologies. 10.1109/ICALT.2016.155
     https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2016.155 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ma, Z. & Ge, J.
    (2014) Analysis of Japanese animation’s overlaid comment (danmu): A perspective of parasocial interaction. Chinese Journal of Journalism and Communication81, 116–130.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Mack, G. & Cattaruzza, L.
    (1995) User surveys in simultaneous interpretation: A means of learning about quality and/or raising some reasonable doubts. InJ. Tommola (Ed.), Topics in interpreting, Turku: University of Turku, 51–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. Pöchhacker, F.
    (2018) Media interpreting: From user expectations to audience comprehension. InE. Di Giovanni & Y. Gambier (Eds.), Reception studies and audiovisual translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 253–276. 10.1075/btl.141.13poc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.141.13poc [Google Scholar]
  23. Reuters
    Reuters (2019) Swimming: Sun Yang hearing faces translation problems. https://www.reuters.com/article/sport-doping-swimming-sun-idINKBN1XP183 (accessed22 February 2021).
  24. Russo, M.
    (2005) Simultaneous film interpreting and users’ feedback. Interpreting7 (1), 1–26. 10.1075/intp.7.1.02rus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.1.02rus [Google Scholar]
  25. Saito, Y. & Yuko, M.
    (2011) Proposal and evaluation of an algorithm for video advertisement insertion based on audience comments. Journal of Information Processing Society of Japan52 (2), 520–528.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Schramm, H. & Hartmann, T.
    (2008) The PSI-Process Scales: A new measure to assess the intensity and breadth of parasocial processes. Communications331, 385–401. 10.1515/COMM.2008.025
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COMM.2008.025 [Google Scholar]
  27. Shen, Y., Chan, C. H. & Hung, I. W.
    (2014) Let the comments fly: The effects of flying commentary presentation on consumer judgment. Paper presented atThirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland2014.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Steiner, B.
    (1998) Signs from the void: The comprehension and production of sign language on television. Interpreting3 (2), 99–146. 10.1075/intp.3.2.01ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.3.2.01ste [Google Scholar]
  29. Vuorikoski, A. R.
    (1993) Simultaneous interpretation – user experience and expectation. InC. Picken (Ed.), Translation – the vital link. Proceedings of the XIIIth World Congress of FIT (Vol. 1), London: Institute of Translation and Interpreting, 317–327.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Wadensjö, C.
    (1998) Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Wehrmeyer, E.
    (2015) Comprehension of television news signed language interpreters: A South African perspective. Interpreting17 (2), 195–225. 10.1075/intp.17.2.03weh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.2.03weh [Google Scholar]
  32. Xiao, X., Chen, X. & Palmer, J. L.
    (2015) Chinese deaf viewers’ comprehension of sign language interpreting on television: An experimental study. Interpreting17 (1), 91–117. 10.1075/intp.17.1.05xia
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.1.05xia [Google Scholar]
  33. Xinhua
    Xinhua (2019) Chinese fans complain about poor translation in Sun Yang hearing. www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-11/15/c_138558628.htm (accessed22 February 2021).
  34. Yang, Y.
    (2020) The danmaku interface on Bilibili and the recontextualised translation practice: A semiotic technology perspective. Social Semiotics30 (2), 254–273. 10.1080/10350330.2019.1630962
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2019.1630962 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2021a) Danmaku subtitling: An exploratory study of a new grassroots translation practice on Chinese video-sharing websites. Translation Studies14 (1), 1–17. 10.1080/14781700.2019.1664318
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2019.1664318 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2021b) Making sense of the “raw meat”: A social semiotic interpretation of user translation on the danmu interface. Discourse, Context & Media441, 100550. 10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100550
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100550 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2022) Participatory viewers’ engagement with the dual translation problem on the danmu interface: A social semiotic case study. Text & Talkonline first30 May 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Zillman, D.
    (2006) Empathy: Affective reactivity to others’ emotional experiences. InJ. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 223–265.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00086.yan
Loading
“Feel sorry for Miss translator!!!”
Interpreting 25, 61 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00086.yan
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00086.yan
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00086.yan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Bilibili; danmu; non-professional interpreting; parasocial interaction; reception studies

Most Cited

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