1887
Volume 13, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The increasing use of videoconferencing technology in legal proceedings has led to different configurations of video-mediated interpreting (VMI). Few studies have explored interpreter perceptions of VMI, each focusing on one country, configuration (e.g., interpreter-assisted video links between courts and remote participants) and setting (e.g., immigration). The present study is the first that draws on multiple data sets, countries, settings and configurations to investigate interpreter perceptions of VMI. It compares perceptions in England with other countries, covering common configurations (e.g., court-prison video links, links to remote interpreters) and settings (e.g., police, court, immigration), and considers the sociopolitical context in which VMI has emerged. The aim is to gain systematic insights into factors shaping the interpreters’ perceptions as a step toward improving VMI.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tis.00022.bra
2018-11-09
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Balogh, Katalin, and Erik Hertog
    2012 “AVIDICUS comparative studies – Part II: Traditional, videoconference and remote interpreting in police interviews.” InVideoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. bySabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 119–136. Cambridge: Intersentia.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BID Bail for Immigration Detainees
    BID Bail for Immigration Detainees 2008Immigration Bail Hearings by Video Link: A Monitoring Exercise by Bail for Immigration Detainees and the Refugee Council. refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy/position/2008/bail_hearings. Last accessed21 May 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Braun, Sabine
    2007 “Interpreting in small-group bilingual videoconferences: challenges and adaptation processes.” Interpreting9(1): 21–46. 10.1075/intp.9.1.03bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.1.03bra [Google Scholar]
  4. 2012 “Recommendations for the use of video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings.” InVideoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. bySabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 301–328. Cambridge: Intersentia.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. 2014 “Comparing traditional and remote interpreting in police settings: quality and impact factors.” InTraduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni, ed. ByMaurizio Viezzi and Caterina Falbo, 161–176. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2015 “Remote Interpreting.” InRoutledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. byHolly Mikkelson and Renée Jourdenais, 352–367. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2017 “What a micro-analytical investigation of additions and expansions in remote interpreting can tell us about interpreter’s participation in a shared virtual space.” Journal of Pragmatics107: 165–177. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.011 [Google Scholar]
  9. Braun, Sabine, Elena Davitti, and Sara Dicerto
    2018 “Assessing the implementation of facilities for bilingual videoconferencing in the European justice sector.” InHere or There: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. byJemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 144–179. Washington, DC: Gallaudet.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Braun, Sabine, and Judith Taylor
    (eds) 2012aVideoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings. Cambridge: Intersentia.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2012b “Video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings: Two European surveys.” InVideoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. bySabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 69–98. Cambridge: Intersentia.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2012c “AVIDICUS comparative studies – part I: Traditional interpreting and remote interpreting in police interviews.” InVideoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. bySabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 99–118. Cambridge: Intersentia.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Braun, Sabine, Judith Taylor, Joanna Miler-Cassino, Zofia Rybinska, Katalin Balogh, Erik Hertog, and Dirk Rombouts
    2012 “Training in video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings: modules for interpreting students, legal interpreters and legal practitioners.” InVideoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. bySabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 233–288. Cambridge: Intersentia.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Devaux, Jerome
    2017 Technologies in Interpreter-mediated Criminal Court Hearings: An Actor-Network Theory Account of the Interpreter’s Perception of her Role-space. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Salford, Salford.
  15. Ellis, Ronald
    2004Videoconferencing in Refugee Hearings. Ellis Report to the Immigration and Refugee Board Audit and Evaluation Committee. irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/transp/ReviewEval/Pages/Video.aspx. Last accessed21 May 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fowler, Yvonne
    2013 Non-English-speaking Defendants in the Magistrates’ Court: A Comparative Study of Face-to-Face and Prison Video Link Interpreter-mediated Hearings in England. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aston University, Birmingham.
  17. Hedges, Larry
    1981 “Distribution theory for Glass’ estimator of effect size and related estimators.” Journal of Educational Statistics6(2): 107–128. 10.3102/10769986006002107
    https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107 [Google Scholar]
  18. Justice Committee
    Justice Committee 2013Interpreting and Translation Services and the Applied Language Solutions Contract. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/645/64502.htm. Last accessed21 May 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Koller, Myriam, and Franz Pöchhacker
    2018 “The work and skills…: A profile of first-generation video remote interpreters.” InHere or there: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. byJemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 89–110. Washington, DC: Gallaudet.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Licoppe, Cristian, and Maud Verdier
    2014 “Interpreting, video communication and the sequential reshaping of institutional talk in the bilingual and distributed courtroom.” International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law20: 247–276.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Licoppe, Cristian, Maud Verdier, and Clair-Antoine Veyrier
    2018 “Voice, power and turn-taking in multilingual, consecutively interpreted courtroom proceedings with video links.” InHere or there: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. byJemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 299–322. Washington, DC: Gallaudet.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Locatis, Craig, Deborah Williamson, Carrie Gould-Kabler, Laurie Zone-Smith, Isabel Detzler, Jason Roberson, Richard Maisiak, and Michael Ackerman
    2010 “Comparing in-person, video, and telephonic medical interpretation.” Journal of General Internal Medicine25(4): 345–50. 10.1007/s11606‑009‑1236‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1236-x [Google Scholar]
  23. Moser-Mercer, Barbara
    2003 “Remote interpreting: assessment of human factors and performance parameters.” Communicate!Summer 2003 aiic.net/page/1125/remote-interpreting-assessment-of-human-factors-and-pe/lang/1. Last accessed21 May 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Mouzourakis, Panagiotis
    2006 “Remote interpreting: a technical perspective on recent experiments.” Interpreting8(1): 45–66. 10.1075/intp.8.1.04mou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.1.04mou [Google Scholar]
  25. Napier, Jemina
    2012 “Here or there? An assessment of video remote signed language interpreter-mediated interaction in court.” InVideoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. bySabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 167–214. Cambridge: Intersentia.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Miler-Cassino, Joanna, and Zofia Rybinska
    2012 “AVIDICUS comparative studies – part III: Traditional interpreting and videoconference interpreting in prosecution interviews.” InVideoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. bySabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 117–136. Cambridge: Intersentia.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Plotnikoff, Joyce, and Richard Woolfson
    1999Preliminary Hearings: Video Links Evaluation of Pilot Projects. Final Report. lexiconlimited.co.uk/servicespublications/evaluating-legislation/. Last accessed21 May 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2000Evaluation of Video Link Pilot. Project at Manchester Crown Court. Final Report. lexiconlimited.co.uk/servicespublications/​evaluating-legislation/. Last accessed21 May 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Price, Erika, Eliseo Pérez-Stable, Dana Nickleach, Monica López, and Leah Karliner
    2012 “Interpreter perspectives of in-person, telephonic, and videoconferencing medical interpretation in clinical encounters.” Patient Education and Counseling87(2): 226–232. 10.1016/j.pec.2011.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  30. Public Accounts Committee
    Public Accounts Committee 2012 “The Ministry of Justice’s language service contract.” publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/​cmpubacc/620/62002.htm. Last accessed21 May 2018.
  31. Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger
    2010 “Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting.” Interpreting12(2): 214–47. 10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz [Google Scholar]
  32. Ruxton, Graeme
    2006 “The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student’s t-test and the Mann – Whitney U test.” Behavioral Ecology17(4): 688–690. 10.1093/beheco/ark016
    https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ark016 [Google Scholar]
  33. Skinner, Robert, Jemina Napier, and Sabine Braun
    2018 “Interpreting via video link: Mapping of the field.” InHere or there: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. byJemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 11–35. Washington, DC: Gallaudet.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Terry, Matthew, Steve Johnson, and Peter Thompson
    2010Virtual Court Pilot Outcome Evaluation. justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/virtual-courts.pdf. Last accessed21 May 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tis.00022.bra
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/tis.00022.bra
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): interpreting , legal interpreting , video-mediated interpreting and videoconferencing
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