Volume 13, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Research on technology and interpreting regularly investigates technology-mediated interpreting settings and contrasts various interpreting configurations to better understand how technology changes the interpreting task. This scholarship generally does not account for various personality or character attributes exhibited by interpreters, nor does it examine the actual adoption and usage of these tools. This article presents findings from a survey-based study that examines several interpreter-specific constructs, namely their self-perception of the interpreter’s role and communication apprehension, in conjunction with attitudes toward technology use and adoption. Findings suggest that community interpreters differ from their conference interpreting counterparts and that domain-specific differences emerge between medical and court interpreters with respect to their perceived role and their propensity to adopt new technologies.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Angelelli, Claudia V.
    2004Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference, Court, and Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.55
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.55 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2004bMedical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486616
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486616 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2008 “The role of the interpreter in the healthcare setting: A plea for dialogue between research and practice.” InCrossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas, ed. byCarmen Valero-Garcés and Anne Martin, 147–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.76.08ang
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.76.08ang [Google Scholar]
  4. 2015 “Invisibility.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. byFranz Pöchhacker, 214–215. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baigorri-Jalón, Jesús
    2014From Paris to Nuremberg: The Birth of Conference Interpreting. Trans. ByHolly Mikkelson and Barry Slaughter Olsen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.111
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.111 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baraldi, Claudio and Laura Gavioli
    (eds) 2012Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.102
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102 [Google Scholar]
  7. Braun, Sabine
    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]
  8. 2015 “Remote Interpreting.” InRoutledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. byHolly Mikkelson and Reneé Jourdenais. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cadwell, Patrick
    2015 Translation and Trust: A Case Study of How Translation was Experienced by Foreign Nationals Resident in Japan for the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Dublin City University.
  10. Davis, Fred D., Jr.
    1986 A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-user Information Systems: Theory and Results. Ph.D. dissertation. Sloan School of Management, MIT.
  11. Degueldre, Christian and Claudia V. Angelelli
    2013 “Implementing new technologies in the teaching of interpreting.” Cuadernos de ALDEUU25: 253–269.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Downie, Jonathan
    2017 “Finding and critiquing the invisible interpreter – a response to Uldis Ozolins.” Interpreting19(2): 260–270. 10.1075/intp.19.2.05dow
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.2.05dow [Google Scholar]
  13. Dysart-Gale, Deborah
    2005 “Communication models, professionalization, and the work of medical interpreters.” Health Communication17(1): 91–103. 10.1207/s15327027hc1701_6
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1701_6 [Google Scholar]
  14. Erdoğmuş, Nihat and Murat Esen
    2011 “An investigation of the effects of technology readiness on technology acceptance in e-HRM.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences24: 487–495. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.131
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.131 [Google Scholar]
  15. Federici, Federico
    (ed) 2016Mediating Emergencies and Conflicts: Frontline Translating and Interpreting. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑55351‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55351-5 [Google Scholar]
  16. Frampton, Bethany D. and Jeffrey T. Child
    2013 “Friend or not to friend: Coworker Facebook friend requests as an application of communication privacy management theory.” Computers in Human Behavior29(6): 2257–2264. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gaiba, Francesca
    1998The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldsmith, Joshua
    2018 “Tablet interpreting: Consecutive interpreting 2.0.” Translation and Interpreting Studies13(3). 10.1075/tis.00020.gol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00020.gol [Google Scholar]
  19. Griol, David, Jesús García-Herrero, and José Manuel Molina
    2016 “Military usages and language technologies: A review.” InMeeting Security Challenges through Data Analytics and Decision Support, ed. byElisa Shahbazian and Galina Rogova, 44–68. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hale, Sandra Beatriz
    2007Community Interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230593442
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230593442 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hopf, Tim and Noelle Colby
    1992 “The relationship between interpersonal communication apprehension and self-efficacy.” Communication Research Reports9(2): 131–135. 10.1080/08824099209359905
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099209359905 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hsieh, Elaine
    2016Bilingual Health Communication. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315658308
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315658308 [Google Scholar]
  23. Inghilleri, Moira
    2012Interpreting Justice: Ethics, Politics and Language. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. ISO 13611
    ISO 13611 2014Interpreting – Guidelines for community interpreting. Geneva: ISO.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kalina, Sylvia and Klaus Ziegler
    2015 “Technology.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. byFranz Pöchhacker, 410–412. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lin, Carolyn A. and David J. Atkin
    (eds) 2007Communication Technology and Social Change: Theory and Implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Martin, Anne and Isabel Abril Martí
    2008 “Community interpreter self-perception: A Spanish case study.” InCrossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas, ed. byAnne Martin and Carmen Valero-Garcés, 203–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.76.11mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.76.11mar [Google Scholar]
  28. Martínez-Gómez, Aída
    2015 “Invisible, visible, or everywhere in between? Perceptions and actual behaviours of non-professional interpreters and interpreting users.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter20: 175–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. McCroskey, James C.
    1982An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication, 4th Ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. McCroskey, James C., Michael J. Beatty, Patricia Kearney, and Timothy G. Plax
    1985 “The content validity of the PRCA-24 as a measure of communication apprehension across communication contexts.” Communication Quarterly33(3): 165–173. 10.1080/01463378509369595
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378509369595 [Google Scholar]
  31. McCroskey, James C., Steven Booth-Butterfield, and Steven K. Payne
    1989 “The impact of communication apprehension on college student retention and success.” Communication Quarterly37(2): 100–107. 10.1080/01463378909385531
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378909385531 [Google Scholar]
  32. McCroskey, James C., John A. Daly, Virginia P. Richmond, and Raymond L. Falcione
    1977 “Studies of the relationship between communication apprehension and self-esteem.” Human Communication Research3(3): 269–277. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.1977.tb00525.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00525.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Mellinger, Christopher D.
    2015 “On the applicability of Internet-mediated research methods to investigate translators’ cognitive behaviour.” Translation & Interpreting7(1): 59–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mellinger, Christopher D. and Thomas A. Hanson
    2017Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Metzger, Melanie
    1999Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mick, David Glenn and Susan Fournier
    1998 “Paradoxes of technology: Consumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies.” Journal of Consumer Research25(2): 123–147. 10.1086/209531
    https://doi.org/10.1086/209531 [Google Scholar]
  37. Olson, Gary M. and Judith S. Olson
    2012 “Collaboration technologies.” InThe Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications, ed. byJulie A. Jacko, 549–564. New York: CRC Press. 10.1201/b11963‑28
    https://doi.org/10.1201/b11963-28 [Google Scholar]
  38. Orlando, Marc
    2015 “Digital pen technology and interpreting training, practice and research: status and trends.” InInterpreter Education in the Digital Age, ed. bySusanne Ehrlich and Jemina Napier, 125–152. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ozolins, Uldis
    2016 “The myth of the myth of invisibility?” Interpreting18(2): 273–284. 10.1075/intp.18.2.06ozo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.18.2.06ozo [Google Scholar]
  40. Parasuraman, Ananthanarayanan
    2000 “Technology readiness index (TRI): A multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies.” Journal of Service Research2(4): 307–320. 10.1177/109467050024001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2009 “Conference Interpreting: Surveying the Profession.” Translation and Interpreting Studies4(2): 172–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2015 “Evolution of interpreting research.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. byHolly Mikkelson and Renée Jourdenais, 62–76. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Pribyl, Charles B., James A. Keaten, Masahiro Sakamoto, and Fusako Koshikawa
    1998 “Assessing the cross-cultural content validity of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension scale (PRCA-24).” Japanese Psychological Research40(1): 47–53. 10.1111/1468‑5884.00074
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5884.00074 [Google Scholar]
  44. Ratchford, Mark and Michelle Barnhart
    2012 “Development and validation of the technology adoption propensity (TAP) index.” Journal of Business Research65(8): 1209–1215. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Rogers, Everett M.
    1962/2003Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edition. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Rosen, Larry D., Kelly Whaling, L. Mark Carrier, Nancy A. Cheever, and Jeffrey Rokkum
    2013 “The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation.” Computers and Human Behavior29(6): 2501–2511. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  47. Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger
    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]
  48. Rütten, Anja
    2004 “Why and in which sense do conference interpreters need special software?” Linguistica Antverpiensia3: 167–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 2015 “Terminology.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. byFranz Pöchhacker, 416–417. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Scott, Craig R. and Steven C. Rockwell
    1997 “The effect of communication, writing, and technology apprehension on likelihood to use new communication technologies.” Communication Education46(1): 44–62. 10.1080/03634529709379072
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529709379072 [Google Scholar]
  51. Scott, Craig R. and Erik Timmerman
    2005 “Relating computer, communication, and computer-mediated communication apprehensions to new communication technology use in the workplace.” Communication Research32(6): 683–725. 10.1177/0093650205281054
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205281054 [Google Scholar]
  52. Seleskovitch, Danica and Marianne Lederer
    1989Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation (Traductologie 4). Brussels: Didier Erudition Opoce
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Sleptsova, Marina et al.
    2015 “Wie verstehen ihre Rolle in medizinischen Konsultationen und wie verhalten sie sich konkret in der Praxis?” [What do interpreters understand as their role in medical consultations and how to they carry it out in reality.] PPmP-Psychotherapie· Psychosomatik· Medizinische Psychologie65(09/10): 363–369.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Sun, Sanjun
    2016 “Suvey-based studies.” InResearching Translation and Interpreting, ed. byClaudia V. Angelelli and Brian James Baer, 269–279. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Tipton, Rebecca and Olgierda Furmanek
    2016Dialogue Interpreting. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315644578
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315644578 [Google Scholar]
  56. Valero-Garcés, Carmen
    2007 “Challenges in multilingual societies. The myth of the invisible interpreter and translator.” Across Languages and Cultures8(1): 81–101. 10.1556/Acr.8.2007.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.8.2007.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  57. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    1998Interpreting as Interaction. New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 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]
  59. Wahlster, Wolfgang
    (ed) 2000Verbmobil: Foundations of Speech-to-Speech Translation. Singapore: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑04230‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04230-4 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wang, Jihong
    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]
  61. Weijters, Bert, Elke Cabooter, and Niels Schlilewaert
    2010 “The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels.” International Journal of Research in Marketing27(3): 236–247. 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.004 [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