Chapter published in:
Linking up with Video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research
Edited by Heidi Salaets and Geert Brône
[Benjamins Translation Library 149] 2020
► pp. 47–78

Chapter 2
“You are just a disembodied voice really”

Perceptions of video remote interpreting by legal interpreters and police officers

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
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 13 January 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.03bra
References
Azarmina, Pejman, and Paul Wallace
2005 “Remote interpretation in medical encounters: a systematic review.” Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 11: 140–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bijker, Wiebe
1997 Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2010 “How is technology made? – That is the question!” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1): 63–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Braun, Sabine
2004 Kommunikation unter widrigen Umständen? Fallstudien zu einsprachigen und gedolmetschten Videokonferenzen. Tuebingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2007 “Interpreting in small-group bilingual videoconferences: Challenges and adaptation.” Interpreting, 9(1): 21–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice.” Interpreting, 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 Maurizio Viezzi, and Caterina Falbo, 161–176. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste.Google Scholar
2015 “Remote interpreting.” In Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson, and Renée Jourdenais, 352–367. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Braun, Sabine, and Judith Taylor
(eds.) 2012a Videoconference and remote interpreting in legal proceedings. Cambridge/Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Braun, Sabine, Davitti, Elena, and Dicerto, Sara
2018 Video-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.Google Scholar
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 http://​wp​.videoconference​-interpreting​.net​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2014​/01​/AVIDICUS2​-Research​-report​.pdf.Google Scholar
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 PhD thesis. Salford, UK: University of Salford.Google Scholar
Ellis, Ronald
2004 “Videoconferencing in refugee hearings”. Ellis Report to the Immigration and Refugee Board Audit and Evaluation Committee. Available at http://​www​.irb​-cisr​.gc​.ca​/Eng​/transp​/ReviewEval​/Pages​/Video​.aspx.Google Scholar
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 PhD thesis. Birmingham, UK: Aston University.Google Scholar
Heath, Christian, and Paul Luff
2000 Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Licoppe, Christian, Maud Verdier, and Clair-Antoine Veyrier
2018 Voice, 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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara
2003 “Remote interpreting: assessment of human factors and performance parameters.” Communicate! Summer 2003. Available at http://​aiic​.net​/ViewPage​.cfm​?page​_id​=1125.Google Scholar
2005 “Remote interpreting: issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual task.” Meta, 50(2): 727–738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Pinch, Trevor and Wiebe Bijker
1984 The 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Preece, Jenny, Yvonne Rogers, Helen Sharp, David Benyon, Simon Holland, and Tom Carey
1994 Human-computer interaction. Wokingham, UK: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger
2010 “Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting.” Interpreting, 12(2): 214–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Short, John, Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie
1976 The social psychology of telecommunications. Chichester: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Gilbert, Andrew Simon, Samantha Croy, Kerry Hwang, Dina LoGiudice & Betty Haralambous
2022. Video remote interpreting for home-based cognitive assessments. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:1 ► pp. 84 ff. Crossref logo
Russo, Mariachiara, Emilia Iglesias Fernández & Sabine Braun
2020. Introduction. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:3 ► pp. 235 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 2022. 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.