Article published in:
Übersetzen und Dolmetschen im juristischen Bereich / Traduction et interprétation juridiques / Legal Translation and Interpreting: Technologie – Outsourcing – Veränderungen / Technologie – externalisation – transformations / Technology – Outsourcing – Shifts
Edited by Frans De Laet, Reiner Heard and Miodrag Vukčević
[Babel 66:2] 2020
► pp. 326–345

Video-mediated remote interpreting in healthcare

Analysis of an Austrian pilot project

| University of Vienna
Interpreters face distinct challenges when deployed remotely via video link, due to their virtual presence but physical absence in the conversation. Depending on the interpreting service, interpreters can also be exposed to greater spontaneity and hence increased pressure if video-mediated interpreting is offered as an instant service. The examples discussed in this paper draw on an interpreting studies-based analysis of the Austrian pilot project “Video-mediated interpreting in healthcare.” In this study data were generated by means of an observational protocol, five recordings of authentic video-mediated interpreted communicative events, five retrospective interviews with the interpreters from the recorded video-mediated interpreted communicative events, and eight expert interviews with all interpreters from the pilot project. The scope of this article is to present some of the main findings and draw attention to a crucial strategy used in remote interpreting, namely a reliance on relevant sensory awareness.
Keywords: video-mediated remote interpreting, distance interpreting, interpreter-mediated communication, health-care interpreting
Keywords: interprétation à distance par vidéo, interprétation à distance, communication assistée par un interprète, interprétation dans les soins de santé
Published online: 06 April 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00156.hav
References

References

Ahrens, Barbara
2015 “Body Languag”. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker; Nadja Grbić; Peter Mead; and Robin Setton, 36–38. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baraldi, Claudio; and Laura Gavioli
(eds) 2012 Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Benjamins Translation Library Vol. 102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal, Caroline
2015 Das Nonverbale beim Dolmetschen im psychotherapeutischen Setting. München: Akademische Verlagsgemeinschaft München.Google Scholar
Braun, Sabine
2004 Kommunikation unter widrigen Umständen? Fallstudien zu einsprachigen und gedolmetschten Videokonferenzen. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 475. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2013 “Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice1”. INTP 15 (2): 200–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Comparing traditional and remote interpreting in police settings: quality and impact factors”. In Traduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni, ed. by Viezzi, M.; and Falbo, C., 161–176. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste (EUT).Google Scholar
Braun, Sabine; and Judith Taylor
2012 “Video-Mediated Interpreting: an Overview of Current Practice and Research”. In Videoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun; and Judith L. Taylor, 27–57. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Frank, Mark G.; Darrin J. Griffin; Elena Svetieva; and Andreas Maroulis
2015 “Nonverbal Elements of the Voice”. In Kostić 2015: 92–113.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra; and Jemina Napier
2013 Research Methods in Interpreting: A Practical Resource. Research Methods in Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Havelka, Ivana
2018 Videodolmetschen im Gesundheitswesen: Dolmetschwissenschaftliche Untersuchung eines österreichischen Pilotprojektes. TRANSÜD. Arbeiten zur Theorie und Praxis des Übersetzens und Dolmetschens 96. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Hlavac, Jim
2013 “Interpreting in One’s Own and in Closely Related Languages: Negotiation of Linguistic Varieties Amongst Interpreters of the Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Languages”. Interpreting 15 (1): 95–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kadrić, Mira
2011 Dialog als Prinzip: Für eine emanzipatorische Praxis und Didaktik des Dolmetschens. Translations-Wissenschaft 6. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2014 “Mission Impossible? : Training for the Institutions and Educating for Society”. In Traduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni, ed. by Viezzi, M.; and Falbo, C., 131–141. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste (EUT).Google Scholar
Kalina, Sylvia
1998 Strategische Prozesse beim Dolmetschen: Theoretische Grundlagen, empirische Fallstudien, didaktische Konsequenzen. Language in performance 18. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid
1996 Simultandolmetschen als Gegenstand der interdisziplinären Forschung. Wien: WUV-Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Kutz, Wladimir
2010 Dolmetschkompetenz: Was muss der Dolmetscher wissen und können? Translatio 1. München: European University Press.Google Scholar
2012 Dolmetschkompetenz: Was muss der Dolmetscher wissen und können? München: European University Press.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara
2005 “Remote interpreting: The crucial role of presence”. Bulletin VALS-ASLA 8: 73–97.Google Scholar
Nešić, Milkica; and Vladimir Nešić
2015 “Neuroscience of Nonverbal Communication”. In The social psychology of nonverbal communication, ed. by Aleksandra Kostić, 31–65. Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Posner, Roland
2003 „Ebenen der Bildkompetenz“. In Was ist Bildkompetenz? Studien zur Bildwissenschaft, hg. von Sachs-Hombach, Klaus, 17–24. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Price, Erika L.; Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable; Dana Nickleach; Monica López; and Leah S. Karliner
2012 “Interpreter Perspectives of in-Person, Telephonic, and Videoconferencing Medical Interpretation in Clinical Encounters”. Patient education and counseling 87 (2): 226–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roat, Cyntia; and Ineke Crezee
2015 “Healthcare Interpreting”. In The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson; and Renée Jourdenais, 236–253. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Röhner, Jessica; and Astrid Schütz
2016 Psychologie der Kommunikation. 2., Auflage. Basiswissen Psychologie. Wiesbaden: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roy, Cynthia B.
2000 Interpreting as a Discourse Process. Oxford studies in sociolinguistics. New York (NY): OUP.Google Scholar
Roziner, Ilan; and Miriam Shlesinger
2010 “Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting”. INTP 12 (2): 214–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seeman, Melvin
1975 “Alienation Studies”. Annual Review of Sociology 1 (1): 91–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Short, John; Ederyn Williams; and Bruce Christie
1976 The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Tebble, Helen
2012 “Interpreting or Interfering?” In Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting, ed. by Claudio Baraldi; and Laura Gavioli, 23–44. Benjamins Translation Library Vol. 102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tipton, Rebecca; and Olgierda Furmanek
2016 Dialogue Interpreting: A Guide to Interpreting in Public Services and the Community. Routledge Interpreting Guides. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1998 Interpreting as Interaction. Language in social life series. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Tuteja, Amita, Elisha Riggs, Lena Sanci, Lester Mascarenhas, Di VanVliet, Katrina Sangster, Kimberley McGuinness & Meredith Temple-Smith
2021. Interpreting in Sexual and Reproductive Health Consults With Burma Born Refugees Post Settlement: Insights From an Australian Qualitative Study. Frontiers in Communication 6 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.