This contribution is devoted to the voices of users of video remote interpreting (VRI) in a particular setting, namely legal interpreters and police officers. Focusing on an aspect that has received little attention to date, viz. the interpreters’ and legal stakeholders’ perceptions of VRI as a novel configuration in the legal setting, we use the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) as a theoretical framework to analyse a set of interviews that were conducted with interpreters and police officers after they had completed a simulated VRI session. As a first step, the participants were prompted to compare this simulated experience to their real-life experience to check the degree of reality of the simulated encounters. Next, they were asked to talk about attitudes towards VRI and to reflect on their experience with VRI during the simulation. Among the key outcomes of this investigation is that the two social groups – police officers and interpreters – have different views, but also that there is a considerable degree of variation among the interpreters, indicating a low degree of stabilisation of VRI as a concept and practice among the interpreters.
Article outline
1.Introduction
2.The social construction of VRI in the legal context
3.Methodological approach
4.Findings
4.1Overall perceptions of VRI
4.1.1Adopting VRI: Dependence
4.1.2Usage situations for VRI: Appropriateness
4.2Perceptions of the technological basis
4.2.1Audio feed: Quality
4.2.2Video feed: Presentation
4.2.3Operating the equipment: Control
4.3Perceptions of communication management in VRI
4.3.1Delivery of the interpretation: Effort
4.3.2Turn-taking and interaction: Intervention
4.3.3Embodied and paralinguistic resources: Fragmentation
4.3.4Rapport with the other participants: Involvement
4.4Perceptions of impact on the interpreting performance
2005 “Remote interpretation in medical encounters: a systematic
review.” Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 11: 140–145.
Balogh, Katalin, and Erik Hertog
2012 “AVIDICUS comparative studies. Part II: Traditional,
videoconference and remote interpreting in police
interviews.” In Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal
proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun, and Judith Taylor, 119–136. Antwerp/Cambridge: Intersentia.
Bijker, Wiebe
1997Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of
sociotechnical change. Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press.
Bijker, Wiebe
2010 “How is technology made? – That is the
question!” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1): 63–76.
Braun, Sabine
2004Kommunikation unter widrigen Umständen? Fallstudien zu
einsprachigen und gedolmetschten Videokonferenzen. Tuebingen: Narr.
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 Maurizio Viezzi, and Caterina Falbo, 161–176. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste.
Braun, Sabine
2015 “Remote interpreting.” In Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson, and Renée Jourdenais, 352–367. New York: Routledge.
Braun, Sabine
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 Pragmatics, 107: 165–177.
Braun, Sabine, and Judith Taylor
(eds.)2012aVideoconference and remote interpreting in legal
proceedings. Cambridge/Antwerp: Intersentia.
Braun, Sabine, and Judith Taylor
2012b “Video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings: two
European surveys.” In Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal
proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 69–98. Antwerp/Cambridge: Intersentia.
Braun, Sabine, and Judith Taylor
2012c “AVIDICUS comparative studies – part I: Traditional
interpreting and remote interpreting in police
interviews.” In Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal
proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 99–118. Antwerp/Cambridge: Intersentia.
Braun, Sabine, and Judith Taylor
2012d “AVIDICUS comparative studies-part I: Traditional
interpreting and remote interpreting in police
interviews.” In Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal
proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 119–136. Antwerp/Cambridge: Intersentia.
Braun, Sabine, Davitti, Elena, and Dicerto, Sara
2018Video-mediated interpreting in legal settings: Assessing the implementation. In Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link, ed.. by Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 144–179. Washington: Gallaudet.
Braun, Sabine, Judith Taylor, Joanna Miler-Cassino, Zofia Rybinska, Katalin Balogh, Erik Hertog, Yolanda Vanden Bosch, Dirk Rombouts, Christian Licoppe, and Maud Verdier
2013 “Assessment of Video-Mediated Interpreting in the Criminal
Justice System.” AVIDICUS 2 Research Report. Available at [URL].
Devaux, Jerome
2017Technologies in interpreter-mediated criminal court hearings: An
Actor-Network Theory account of the interpreter’s perception of her
role-space, unpublished PhD thesis. Salford, UK: University of Salford.
Ellis, Ronald
2004“Videoconferencing in refugee hearings”. Ellis Report to the
Immigration and Refugee Board Audit and Evaluation
Committee. Available at [URL].
Fowler, Yvonne
2013Non-English-speaking defendants in the magistrates court: A
comparative study of face to face and prison video link interpreter
mediated hearings in England, Unpublished PhD thesis. Birmingham, UK: Aston University.
Heath, Christian, and Paul Luff
2000Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koller, Myriam, and Franz Pöchhacker
2018 “The work and skills: A profile of first-generation video
remote interpreters.” In Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link, ed. by Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 89–110. Washington: Gallaudet.
Licoppe, Christian, 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 Law, 20: 247–276.
Licoppe, Christian, Maud Verdier, and Clair-Antoine Veyrier
2018Voice, power and turn-taking in multilingual,
consecutively interpreted courtroom proceedings with video
links. In Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link, ed. by Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 299–322. Washington: Gallaudet.
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 Medicine, 25(4): 345–350.
Luff, Paul, Christian Heath, Hideaki Kuzuoka, Jon Hindmarsh, Keiichi Yamazaki, and Shinya Oyama
2003 “Fractured ecologies: Creating environments for
collaboration.” Human Computer Interaction, 18(1-2): 51–84.
Miler-Cassino, Joana, and Zofia Rybińska
2012 “AVIDICUS comparative studies – part III: Traditional
interpreting and videoconferencing interpreting in prosecution
interviews.” In Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal
proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 99–117. Antwerp/Cambridge: Intersentia.
Moser-Mercer, Barbara
2003 “Remote interpreting: assessment of human factors and
performance parameters.” Communicate! Summer 2003. Available at [URL].
Moser-Mercer, Barbara
2005 “Remote interpreting: issues of multi-sensory integration
in a multilingual task.” Meta, 50(2): 727–738.
Nardi, Bonnie, and Steve Whittaker
2002 “The place of face-to-face communication in distributed
work.” In Distributed work: New research on working across distance using
technology, ed. by Pamela Hinds, and Sarah Kiesler, 83–110. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pinch, Trevor and Wiebe Bijker
1984The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how
the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might
benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14: 399–441.
Pinch, Trevor, and Wiebe Bijker
1987 “The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how
the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might
benefit each other.” In The social construction of technological systems: New directions
in the sociology and history of technology, ed. by Wiebe Bijker, Thomas Huges, and Trevor Pinch, 17–50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Preece, Jenny, Yvonne Rogers, Helen Sharp, David Benyon, Simon Holland, and Tom Carey
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 Counseling, 87(2): 226–232.
1976The social psychology of telecommunications. Chichester: Wiley and Sons.
Whittaker, Steve
2003 “Theories and methods in mediated
communication.” In Handbook of discourse processes, ed. by Arthur Graesser, Morton Ann Gernsbacher, and Susan Goldmann, 243–286. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cited by
Cited by 10 other publications
Bahadır-Berzig, Şebnem
2022. Von dolmetschenden Kabinen zu gebärdenden Avataren. In Re-Thinking Translator Education [Sprachen lehren – Sprachen lernen, ], ► pp. 255 ff.
Gilbert, Andrew Simon, Samantha Croy, Kerry Hwang, Dina LoGiudice & Betty Haralambous
2023. Human Interpreters in Virtual Courts: A Review of Technology-Enabled Remote Settings in Australia. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law 1:3 ► pp. 712 ff.
Ruffo, Paola
2023. Literary translators and technology: SCOT as a proactive and flexible approach. Perspectives► pp. 1 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 march 2024. 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.