1887
image of Space, body and presence

Abstract

Abstract

The trend towards remote interpreting has caused a radical change for interpreters worldwide, one that has shifted their workplace from well-known physical spaces to new digital spaces. Research to date has documented specific settings, language combinations and/or interpreting modes, and it has usually focused on certain forms of remote interpreting (e.g., video remote interpreting, video relay service). The combinations of different characteristics and factors in remote interpreting are almost infinite, however, and single terms fail to depict and cover all possible variations. This article proposes an analytical framework that uses conceptualisations of space, body and presence to analyse interpreting assignments in digital spaces, regardless of language combination, setting and mode. Two examples are used to illustrate the application of this framework: a hybrid conference and a meeting in virtual reality (VR), both of them involving sign language interpreting. The use of VR has undergone a substantial increase in the past few years, having developed rapidly. It is therefore possible that future interpreting assignments might take place in this new digital space. The application of these two scenarios shows that the analytical framework can be used both to reflect on past and to anticipate future assignments.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00105.jer
2024-07-08
2024-07-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/intp.00105.jer/intp.00105.jer.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00105.jer&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Argyle, M. & Dean, J.
    (1965) Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry (), –. 10.2307/2786027
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2786027 [Google Scholar]
  2. Auslander, P.
    (1992) Presence and resistance: Postmodernism and cultural politics in contemporary American performance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bahadir-Berzig, Ş.
    (2022) Von dolmetschenden Kabinen zu gebärdenden Avataren: Kritische Reflexionen zu den Herausforderungen der Digitalisierung in der Dolmetschlehre. InK. Ables, S. Hansen-Schirra, K. Oster, M. J. Schaeffer, S. Signer & M. Wiedmann (Eds.), Re-thinking translator education. In honour of Don Kiraly’s Social Constructivist Approach. Berlin: Frank & Timme, –. 10.57088/978‑3‑7329‑9133‑4_17
    https://doi.org/10.57088/978-3-7329-9133-4_17 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barfield, W., Zeltzer, D., Sheridan, T. & Slater, M.
    (1995) Presence and performance within virtual environments. InW. Barfield & T. A. Furness III (Eds.), Virtual environments and advanced interface design. New York: Oxford University Press, –. 10.1093/oso/9780195075557.003.0023
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195075557.003.0023 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bondareva, Y. & Bouwhuis, D.
    (2004) Determinants of social presence in videoconferencing. InL. Ardissono & G. Semeraro (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on environments for personalized information access. Working conference on advanced visual interfaces AVI 2004. www.di.uniba.it/avi2004/e4pia/EPIA2004_proceedings.pdf (accessed18 December 2023), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Braun, S.
    (2007) Interpreting in small-group bilingual videoconferences: Challenges and adaptation processes. Interpreting (), –. 10.1075/intp.9.1.03bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.1.03bra [Google Scholar]
  7. Braun, S., Slater, C., Gittins, R., Ritsos, P. D. & Roberts, J. C.
    (2013) Interpreting in virtual reality: Designing and developing a 3D virtual world to prepare interpreters and their clients for professional practice. InD. Kiraly, S. Hansen-Schirra & K. Maksymski (Eds.), New prospects and perspectives for educating language mediators. Tübingen: Narr Verlag, –.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Braun, S.
    (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, –. 10.1075/btl.149.03bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.03bra [Google Scholar]
  9. Braun, S. & Taylor, J. L.
    (Eds.) (2012) Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings. Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland: Intersentia.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E. & Ivkovic, M.
    (2010) Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia tools and applications, –. 10.1007/s11042‑010‑0660‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-010-0660-6 [Google Scholar]
  11. De Meulder, M., Pouliot, O. & Gebruers, K.
    (2021) Remote sign language interpreting in times of Covid-19. https://www.internationalhu.com/research/publications/remote-sign-language-interpreting-in-times-of-covid-19-2 (accessed6 July 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dean, R. K. & Pollard, R. Q.
    (2013) The Demand Control Schema: Interpreting as a practice profession. North Charleston: CreateSpace.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Descartes, R.
    (1996) Meditations on first philosophy (edited byJ. Cottingham). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805028
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805028 [Google Scholar]
  14. Devaux, J.
    (2017) Technologies in interpreter-mediated criminal court hearings: An Actor-Network Theory account of the interpreter’s perception of her role-space. PhD dissertation, The University of Salford.
  15. Downie, J.
    (2021) Interpreting is interpreting: Why we need to leave behind interpreting settings to discover Comparative Interpreting Studies. Translation and Interpreting Studies (), –. 10.1075/tis.20006.dow
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20006.dow [Google Scholar]
  16. Fheodoroff, M.
    (2022) The agent-centred translation zone: Researching the people within translational spaces. Translation in Society (), –. 10.1075/tris.22015.fhe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tris.22015.fhe [Google Scholar]
  17. Fuchs, T.
    (2017) Intercorporeality and interaffectivity. InC. Meyer, J. Streeck & J. S. Jordan (Eds.), Intercorporeality. Emerging socialities in interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210465.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210465.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Galvão, E. Z.
    (2020) Gesture functions and gestural style in simultaneous interpreting. InH. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. 10.1075/btl.149.07gal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.07gal [Google Scholar]
  19. Goffman, E.
    (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Grbić, N.
    (2015) Settings. InF. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, –.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gulliver, M. S.
    (2009) DEAF space, a history: The production of DEAF spaces. Emergent, autonomous, located and disabled in 18th and 19th century France. PhD dissertation, The University of Bristol.
  22. Gunawardena, C. N.
    (1995) Social Presence Theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gunawardena, C. N. & Zittle, F. J.
    (1997) Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education (), –. 10.1080/08923649709526970
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970 [Google Scholar]
  24. Havelka, I.
    (2018) Videodolmetschen im Gesundheitswesen: Dolmetschwissenschaftliche Untersuchung eines österreichischen Pilotprojekts. Berlin: Frank & Timme (TRANSÜD Arbeiten zur Theorie und Praxis des Übersetzens und Dolmetschens 96).
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Heyerick, I.
    (2020) The importance of video recordings in signed language interpreting research. InH. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. 10.1075/btl.149.06hey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.06hey [Google Scholar]
  26. Hills, A., Hauber, J. & Regenbrecht, H.
    (2005) Videos in space: A study on presence in video mediating communication systems. InICAT ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on augmented tele-existence. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, –. 10.1145/1152399.1152447
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1152399.1152447 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hyatt, M. & Honenberger, P.
    (2019) “Translator’s preface”. InH. Plessner: The levels of the organic and the human: An introduction to philosophical anthropology. New York: Fordham University Press, –.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim, J.
    (2011) Developing an instrument to measure social presence in distance higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology (), –. 10.1111/j.1467‑8535.2010.01107.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01107.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Krystallidou, D.
    (2020) Going video: Understanding interpreter-mediated clinical communication through the video lens. InH. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. 10.1075/btl.149.08kry
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.08kry [Google Scholar]
  30. Kusters, A.
    (2009) Deaf on the lifeline of Mumbai. Sign Language Studies (), –. 10.1353/sls.0.0035
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.0.0035 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lefebvre, H.
    (1984/1991) The production of space. Oxford, UK, Cambridge, USA: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lindemann, G.
    (2015) Die Verschränkung von Leib und Nexistenz. InF. Süssenguth (Ed.), Die Gesellschaft der Daten. Über die digitale Transformation der sozialen Ordnung. Bielefeld: transcript, –. 10.14361/9783839427644‑003
    https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839427644-003 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lindemann, G. & Schünemann, D.
    (2020) Presence in digital spaces: A phenomenological concept of presence in mediatized communication. Human Studies, –. 10.1007/s10746‑020‑09567‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-020-09567-y [Google Scholar]
  34. Lombard, M. & Ditton, T.
    (1997) At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (). 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.1997.tb00072.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Löw, M. & Sturm, G.
    (2019) Raumsoziologie: Eine disziplinäre Positionierung zum Sozialraum. InF. Kessl & C. Reutlinger (Eds.), Handbuch Sozialraum. Grundlagen für den Bildungs- und Sozialbereich. Wiesbaden: Springer, –. 10.1007/978‑3‑531‑19983‑2_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19983-2_1 [Google Scholar]
  36. Luhmann, N.
    (1995) Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Merleau-Ponty, M.
    (1945/1966) Phänomenologie der Wahrnehmung. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Meta
    Meta (2023a) Meta Horizon Workrooms. https://www.meta.com/at/en/work/workrooms/ (accessed23 February 2023).
  39. Meta
    Meta (2023b) This is Meta Quest Pro. https://www.meta.com/at/en/quest/quest-pro/ (accessed23 February 2023).
  40. Moser-Mercer, B.
    (2005) Remote interpreting: Issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual task. Meta (), –. 10.7202/011014ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011014ar [Google Scholar]
  41. Mouzourakis, P.
    (2006) Remote interpreting: A technical perspective on recent experiments. Interpreting (), –. 10.1075/intp.8.1.04mou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.1.04mou [Google Scholar]
  42. Napier, J., Skinner, R. & Braun, S.
    (Eds.) (2018) Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rh2bs3
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh2bs3 [Google Scholar]
  43. O’Brien, D.
    (2020) Negotiating academic environments: Using Lefebvre to conceptualise deaf spaces and disabling/enabling environments. Journal of Cultural Geography (), –. 10.1080/08873631.2019.1677293
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2019.1677293 [Google Scholar]
  44. Plessner, H.
    (1975) Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch: Einleitung in die philosophische Anthropologie (3rd unrevised ed.). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110845341
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110845341 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2019) The levels of the organic and the human: An introduction to philosophical anthropology. New York: Fordham University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Pöchhacker, F.
    (2020) “Going video”: Mediality and multimodality in interpreting. InH. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with video. Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. 10.1075/btl.149.02poc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.02poc [Google Scholar]
  47. Rolshoven, J.
    (2012) Zwischen den Dingen: der Raum. Schweizerisches Archiv für Volkskunde, –.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Salaets, H. & Brône, G.
    (Eds.) (2020) Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.149
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schmitz, H.
    (1967) System der Philosophie: Der leibliche Raum. Bonn: Bouvier.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (1977) System der Philosophie, Band 3, Teil IV: Der Raum. Bonn: Bouvier.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sheridan, S. & O’Donnell, J.
    (2023) Irish sign language interpreter workplace wellness during COVID-19: Looking back and moving forward. Journal of Interpretation (). https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol31/iss1/1
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B.
    (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. London/New York: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Simon, S.
    (2013) Translation zone. InY. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies. Volume 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. 10.1075/hts.4.tra16
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.4.tra16 [Google Scholar]
  54. Slater, M.
    (2018) Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality. British Journal of Psychology, –. 10.1111/bjop.12305
    https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12305 [Google Scholar]
  55. Vranjes, J. & Brône, G.
    (2020) Eye-tracking in interpreter-mediated talk. InH. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, –. 10.1075/btl.149.09vra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.09vra [Google Scholar]
  56. Warnicke, C. & Plejert, C.
    (2016) The positioning and bimodal mediation of the interpreter in a video relay interpreting (VRI) service setting. Interpreting (), –. 10.1075/intp.18.2.03war
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.18.2.03war [Google Scholar]
  57. Wiener, M. & Mehrabian, A.
    (1968) Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York, NY: Appleton Century Crofts.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Wohlgenannt, I., Simons, A. & Stieglitz, S.
    (2020) Virtual reality. Business & Information Systems Engineering, –. 10.1007/s12599‑020‑00658‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-020-00658-9 [Google Scholar]
  59. Ziegler, K. & Gigliobianco, S.
    (2018) Present? Remote? Remotely present! New technological approaches to remote simultaneous conference interpreting. InC. Fantinuoli (Ed.), Interpreting and technology. Berlin: Language Science Press, –.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00105.jer
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00105.jer
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: sign language interpreting ; body ; remote interpreting ; space ; presence
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