1887
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2799-6190
  • E-ISSN: 2799-8592

Abstract

The emergence of conference interpreting as a profession, with the related formal attributes of a professional association, a code of ethics, and professionally-run training institutions, coincided with and was facilitated by the spread of simultaneous interpretation (SI) in the post-World War II period. SI enabled the increase in interpreted events and in the number of languages interpreted, thus accompanying the development of a multilingual institutional architecture. Whilst it also marked the beginning of a trend towards the greater distancing of interpreters from meetings, it led to greater proximity with peers, with the formation of interpreter teams. This helped to shape and consolidate informal professional attributes, such as a set of self-beliefs and norms. The greater physical distance of interpreters from the actual event has culminated in remote interpreting configurations of different types, the most extreme being full remote where interpreters interpret from their computers in separate locations.

On-site interpreter interaction encompasses many features, including practical forms of mutual assistance, but it also involves face-saving techniques, the sharing of knowledge and expertise, the alleviation of performance-related tensions and reinforcement of professional cohesion. Professional cohesion is understood here as compliance with a shared set of norms and adherence to shared beliefs, creating a feeling of belonging to and identification with the profession.

The use of remote interpreting involving interpreter home-working (henceforth called full remote) marks a sharp break with on-site teamwork, rendering some forms of cooperation difficult. In the following, we wish to consider how this might impact interpreter interaction and professional cohesion. To do so, a preliminary investigation of seven meetings has been conducted — two with interpreting on-site and five with interpreters in fully remote mode, with a view to identifying trends and patterns in interpreter exchanges in each. Preliminary observations indicate a notable reduction is some forms of interaction and cooperation. The intention of the article is to open up a new area of investigation and a new angle on the impact of remote interpreting on interpreters and the profession.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.54754/incontext.v3i1.59
2023-04-30
2026-04-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AIIC
    AIIC (2023) Understanding booth manners. RetrievedMarch 23, 2023fromhttps://aiic.org/site/world/join/process/vega/booth-manners
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AIIC
    AIIC (2020) AIIC Covid-19 Distance Interpreting Recommendations. RetrievedMarch 21, 2023fromhttps://aiic.org/site/world/about/inside/basic/covid
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AIIC
    AIIC (1999) Practical guide for professional conference interpreters. RetrievedMarch 15, 2023fromhttps://aiic.org/document/547/AIICWebzine_Apr2004_2_Practical_guide_for_professional_conference_interpreters_EN.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  4. AIIC Taskforce on Distance Interpreting
    AIIC Taskforce on Distance Interpreting (2018) Distance interpreting: Survey results. https://aiic2.in1touch.org/uploaded/web/TFDI_DI_survey_full_FINAL_09.18.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baigorri-Jalón, Jesús, María Manuela Fernández-Sánchez and Gertrudis Payàs
    (2022) Historical developments in conference interpreting: An overview. InMichaela Albl-Mikasa & Elisabet Tiselius (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Conference Interpreting (pp.9–18). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena and Katarzyna Stachowiak-Szymczak
    (2022) Modes of conference interpreting: Simultaneous and consecutive. InMichaela Albl-Mikasa & Elisabet Tiselius (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Conference Interpreting (pp.19–33). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bühler, Hildegund
    (1985) Conference interpreting: A multichannel communication phenomenon. Meta, 30(1), 49–54. 10.7202/002176ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/002176ar [Google Scholar]
  8. Bujan, Marta and Camille Collard
    (2021) First overview of survey results, April 2021, ESIT research project on remote simultaneous interpreting. ESIT website. RetrievedApril 11, 2023fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/350957508_First_overview_of_results
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chmiel, Agnieszka
    (2008) Boothmates forever? — On teamwork in a simultaneous interpreting booth. Across Languages and Cultures, 9(2), 261–276.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dam, Helle V. and Karen Korning Zethsen
    (2013) Conference interpreters — the stars of the translation profession?: A study of the occupational status of Danish EU interpreters as compared to Danish EU translators. Interpreting, 15(2), 229–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dam, Helle V. and Paola Gentile
    (2022) Status and profession(alization) of conference interpreters. InMichaela Albl-Mikasa & Elisabet Tiselius (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Conference Interpreting (pp.275–289). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Diriker, Ebru
    (2009) Meta-discourse as a source for exploring the professional image(s) of conference interpreters. HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 421, 71–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2004) De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower?John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Donovan, Clare
    (2017) The place of the interpreter and interpreting in an institutional setting. InMariachiara Russo & Icíar Alonso Araguás (Eds.), Interpreting in International Organisations. Research, Training and Practice (pp.91–113). Ediciones Universidades de Salamanca. revistas.usal.es/index.php/clina/issue/view/clina201732
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2010) Training and professional advocacy. InMartin Forstner & Hannelore Lee-Jahnke (Eds.), CIUTI Forum 2010: Global Governance and Intercultural Dialogue: Translation and Interpreting in a New Geopolitical Setting (pp.99–108). Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Duflou, Veerle
    (2016) Be(com)ing a Conference Interpreter: An Ethnography of EU Interpreters as a Professional Community. John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fantinuoli, Claudio
    (2018) Interpreting and technology: The upcoming technological turn. InClaudio Fantinuoli (Ed.), Interpreting and Technology (pp.1–12). Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Garzone, Giuliana
    (2015) Norms. InFranz Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies (pp.281–283). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gile, Daniel
    (2004) Translation research versus interpreting research: Kinship, differences and prospects for partnership. InChristina Schäffner (Ed.), Translation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies (pp.10–34). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853597350‑003
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853597350-003 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1995) Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Grbić, Nadja
    (2015) Profession. InFranz Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies (pp.321–326). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Herbert, Jean
    (1952) Manuel de l’interprète: Comment on devient interprète de conférences [Interpreter’s handbook: How to become a conference interpreter]. Librairie de l’Université Georg.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Jacob, Hans
    (1962) Kind meiner Zeit: Lebenserinnerungen [Child of my time: Memoirs]. Kiepenheuer & Witsch.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jones, Roderick
    (2002) Conference Interpreting Explained (2nd ed.). St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kritsis, Konstantinos
    (2021) The Interpreter as actor: Towards a theatre-informed interpreting pedagogy. Sendebar, 321, 146–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Monacelli, Claudia
    (2009) Self-preservation in Simultaneous Interpreting. John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Moser-Mercer, Barbara
    (2005) Remote interpreting: Issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual task. Meta, 50(2), 727–738. 10.7202/011014ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011014ar [Google Scholar]
  28. Mouzourakis, Panayotis
    (2006) Remote interpreting: A technical perspective on recent experiments. Interpreting, 8(1), 45–66. 10.1075/intp.8.1.04mou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.1.04mou [Google Scholar]
  29. Rangponsumrit, Nunghatai
    (2016) Teamwork in simultaneous interpretation. Journal of Interpretation and Translation Thailand, 1(2), 61–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Seeber, Kilian and Brian Fox
    (2022) Distance conference interpreting. InMichaela Albl-Mikasa & Elisabet Tiselius (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Conference Interpreting (pp.491–507). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Taylor-Bouladon, Valerie
    (2007) Conference interpreting: Principles and practice. (No Title).
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Thiéry, Christopher
    (2015) AIIC. InFranz Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies (pp.13–15). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Toury, Gideon
    (2012) Descriptive Translation Studies: And Beyond (Revised ed.). John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Viaggio, Sergio
    (2018) The tribulations of a chief interpreter. RetrievedApril 5, 2023fromhttps://www.academia.edu/22528316/THE_TRIBULATIONS_OF_A_CHIEF_INTERPRETER
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.54754/incontext.v3i1.59
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