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. 107–126

Chapter 4
Role-space in VRS and VRI

This chapter explores issues related to Video Relay Services (VRS), a telephone access service for Deaf people and Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). First there is a discussion of Deaf people and specifically users of sign language and how they negotiate remote communicative interactions (initially without direct access to audio-only technologies such as the telephone). Similarities and differences between VRS services for Deaf people and remote interpreted interactions (which can involve signed and spoken or solely spoken language interlocutors) are then explored.The concept of role-space (Llewellyn-Jones and Lee 2014) is then introduced as a lens through which these interactions can be analysed. A discussion of VRI situations through the role-space dimensions of interaction management, participant alignment and presentation of self is presented. Finally, recommendations for factors to be considered to make VRI situations more effective are presented.
Article outline
  • Remote interactions: Specific issues involving signed languages and deaf people
    • Signed languages and remote interactions
    • Deaf peoples’ experiences with remote interactions
    • Telephone relay services (TRS)
    • Video relay services (VRS)
  • Role-space as a framework for analysing interpreted interactions
    • Descriptions of the axes
      • Interaction management
      • Participant alignment
      • Presentation of self
  • Application of role-space to VRI
    • General issues relating to technology
    • Interaction management
    • Participant alignment
    • Presentation of self
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 January 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.05lee
References
Artl, Grace Beverley
2015 “Act Like a Lady: The Impact of Gender Identity on American Sign Language – English Interpreters,” MA Thesis, University of Western Oregon.Google Scholar
Balogh, Katalin, and Erik Hertog
2012 “AVIDICUS comparative studies – part II: Traditional, video- conference and remote interpreting in police interviews.” In Video- conference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 101–116. Guildford: University of Surrey.Google Scholar
Bélanger, Danielle-Claude
2004 “Interactional Patterns in Dialogue interpreting,” Journal of Interpretation: 1–18.Google Scholar
Braun, Sabine
2013 “Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice.” Interpreting 15 (2): 200–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Braun, Sabine, and Katalin Balogh
2016 “Bilingual videoconferencing in legal proceedings: Findings from the AVIDICUS projects.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Electronic protocol – an opportunity for a transparent and fast process, Warsaw May 2015. Warsaw: Ministry of Justice of Poland.Google Scholar
Braun, Sabine
2016 “The European AVIDICUS projects: Collaborating to assess the viability of video-mediated interpreting in legal proceedings.” European Journal of Applied Linguistics 4 (1): 173–180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brunson, Jeremy
2008 “The practice and organization of sign language interpreting in video relay service: An institutional ethnography of access,” PhD dissertation, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
2011 Video relay service interpreters. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Devaux, Jerome
2017 “Technologies in Interpreter-Medicated Criminal Court Hearings: An Actor-Network Account on the Interpreter’s Perception of her Role-Space,” PhD dissertation, University of Salford.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1995 Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 “Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph E. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael K. McBeath, 196–214. London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1981 Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
1990 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: PenguinGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1975 “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jeremy L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Humphries, Tom, Poorna Kushalnagar, Gaurav Mathur, Donna Jo Napoli, Carol Padden, and Christian Rathmann
2014 “Ensuring language acquisition for deaf children: What linguists can do.” Language, 90 (2): 31–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kent, Stephanie Jo
2012 “Deaf Voice and the Invention of Community Interpreting,” Journal of Interpretation: 22 (1): Article 3.Google Scholar
2014 “Interpreting,” PhD Diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lee, Robert G.
2005 “From Theory to Practice: Making the Interpreting Process Come Alive in the Classroom.” In Advances in Teaching Sign Language Interpreters, ed. by Cynthia Roy, 138–150. Washington, DC Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Robert G., and Peter Llewellyn-Jones
2011 “Re-visiting role: Arguing for a multi-dimensional analysis of interpreter behaviour.” Paper presented at the Supporting Deaf People online conference. January 2011.Google Scholar
Leeds, Rebecca
2009 “Who do they think we are? The view of the interpreter, as seen by medical practitioners”, Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Linton, Ralph
1936 The Study of Man. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.Google Scholar
Llewellyn-Jones, Peter
2014 “The impact of monological interpreting models when applied to remote interpretation.” In D. Fišer and J. Peverelli (eds) Technology vs Interpreter: Support or Replacement? Proceedings of the 2013 efsli Conference, Brussels: European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters.Google Scholar
Llewellyn-Jones, Peter, and Robert G. Lee
2009 “The ‘Role’ of the Community/Public service interpreter.” Paper presented at the Supporting Deaf People online conference. January 2009.Google Scholar
2013 “Getting to the core of role: Defining the role-space of interpreters.” International Journal of Interpreter Education, 5(2): 54–72.Google Scholar
2014 Redefining the role of the Community interpreter: The concept of role-space. Carlton-le-Moorland, UK: SLI Press.Google Scholar
Malone, Martin
1997 Worlds of Talk: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Conversation. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Metzger, Melanie
1999 Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Benjamin Bahan, and Robert G. Lee
2000 The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, Rico
2011 “Profession in pentimento: A narrative inquiry into interpreting in video settings.” In Advances in interpreting research, ed. by Laura Swabey, and Brenda Nicodemus, 199–223. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Porrero, Placencia, and Gunnar Hellstrom
1998 “The Public Swedish Video Relay Service:. In Improving the Quality of Life for the European Citizen: Technology for Inclusive Design and Equality (Volume 4), ed. by Placencia Porrero, and E. Ballabio, (eds.), 267–270 IOS Press.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, Laurie Reese
2015 “Deaf-Hearing Interpreter Teams: Navigating Trust in Shared Space,” MA thesis, University of Western Oregon.Google Scholar
Roy, Cynthia
1993 “The problem with definitions, descriptions and the role metaphor of interpreters.” Journal of Interpretation, 6:127–153Google Scholar
2000 Interpreting as a discourse process. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Salaets, Heidi, and Katalin Balogh
2017 “Participants’ and Interpreters’ Perception of the Interpreter’s Role in Interpreter-mediated Investigative Interviews of Minors: Belgium and Italy as a Case Study.” In Ethics, Ideology and Policy Development in Public Service Interpreting and Translating. R. Tipton, and C. Valero-Garces, (eds) 151–178. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sedran, Denise
2016 “Questioning assumptions of “relay” in VRS: An application of role-space”. (Paper presented at the Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada Conference, Fredericton, NB, Canada, 13 July 2016).Google Scholar
Telecommunications 47 United States Code of Federal Regulations § 64.604
Turner, Ralph H.
1956 “Role-taking, role standpoint, and reference-group behaviour.” American Journal of Sociology, 61(4):316–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1998 Interpreting as Interaction. New York: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Warnicke, Camilla, and Charlotte Plejert
2016 “The positioning and bimodal mediation of the interpreter in a Video Relay Interpreting (VRI) service setting.” Interpreting 18 (2): 198–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar