Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 24:2 (2022) ► pp.221–253

Does interpreter location make a difference?

A study of remote vs face-to-face interpreting in simulated police interviews

ORCID logo | The University of New South Wales
ORCID logo | University of Newcastle
ORCID logo | Griffith University
| The University of New South Wales

Remote interpreting has traditionally been the less preferred option when compared to face-to-face interpreting. But the recent pandemic has shifted the landscape, making remote interpreting the default in many, if not most, settings. Improved videoconferencing technologies have facilitated this transition. The main question is whether remote interpreting has any impact on interpreter performance, including interpreting accuracy. This article presents the results of an experimental study that compared the performance of 103 qualified interpreters in three language combinations (English + Arabic, Mandarin and Spanish) in three conditions (face-to-face vs video remote vs audio remote interpreting) in the context of simulated police interviews. The interpreters’ preferences and perceptions were elicited and analysed, and their performance assessed by independent trained raters using detailed marking criteria. The results showed no significant differences between face-to-face and video interpreting, but significant decrements in audio remote interpreting performance. More than one-third of the interpreters perceived remote interpreting as being more difficult due to technological challenges. No differences emerged between the language groups on any measure.

Keywords: interpreting accuracy, interactional management, video interpreting, telephone interpreting
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Telephone remote interpreting
  • 3.Video remote interpreting
  • 4.The present study: Research questions
  • 5.Method
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Research design
    • 5.3Interview simulation materials
    • 5.4Procedures
    • 5.5Assessment of interpreting performance
  • 6.Results
    • 6.1Interpreters’ experience in remote interpreting
    • 6.2Interpreter performance
      • 6.2.1Interpreter performance by interpreter location and language
      • 6.2.2Interpreters’ professional competence by interpreter location and language
      • 6.2.3Interpreters’ general preferences
      • 6.2.4Interpreters’ perceptions of the interpreting task
      • 6.2.5Perceptions of interviewers and interviewees of interpreters’ performances according to interpreter location
  • 7.Discussion
    • 7.1Strengths and limitations
  • 8.Conclusions and recommendations
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 31 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00077.hal
References
ATA [American Translators Association]
(2021) ATA Position Paper on Remote Interpreting. [URL] (accessed 23 November).
AUSIT [Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators]
(2020a) Recommended remote video interpreting protocols for community interpreting assignments. [URL] (accessed 27 July 2021).
(2020b) Recommended telephone interpreting protocols. [URL] (accessed 27 July 2021).
Azarmina, P. & Wallace, P.
(2005) Remote interpretation in medical encounters: A systematic review. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 11 (3), 140–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S.
(2009) Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Technology and interpreting. In M. O’Hagan (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of translation and technology. New York: Routledge, 271–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) “You are just a disembodied voice really”: Perceptions of video remote interpreting by legal interpreters and police officers. In H. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 47–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, S. & Taylor, J. L.
(2011) AVIDICUS Comparative studies – Part I: Traditional interpreting and remote interpreting in police interviews. In S. Braun & J. L. Taylor (Eds.), Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings. Guildford: University of Surrey, 85–100.Google Scholar
Braun, S., Davitti, E. & Dicerto, S.
(2018) Video-mediated interpreting in legal settings: Assessing the implementation. In J. Napier, R. Skinner & S. Braun (Eds.), Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 144–179.Google Scholar
Braun, S. & Taylor, J.
(Eds.) (2012) Videoconference and remote interpreting in legal proceedings. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P. & Cramer, R. J.
(2010) The witness credibility scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 28 (6), 892–907. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J.
(1988) Statistical power analysis for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J. & Martschuk, N.
(2016) Risks and benefits of interpreter-mediated police interviews. Varstvoslovje: Journal of Criminal Justice and Security 18 (4), 451–471.Google Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., Hale, S. & Brandon, S. E.
(2020) Interpreted police interviews: A review of contemporary research. In M. Miller & B. Bornstein (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law. Switzerland: Springer, 83–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gracia-García, R.
(2002) Telephone Interpreting: A review of pros and cons. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Alexandria, VA: American Translators Association, 195–216.Google Scholar
Hale, S.
(2010) The need to raise the bar. Court interpreters as specialized experts. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London/New York: Routledge, 440–454.Google Scholar
Hale, S., Garcia, I., Hlavac, J., Kim, M., Lai, M., Turner, B. & Slatyer, H.
(2012) Improvements to NAATI testing: Development of a conceptual overview for a new model for NAATI standards, testing and assessment. Sydney: University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Hale, S., Goodman-Delahunty, J. & Martschuk, N.
(2019) Interpreter performance in police interviews. Differences between trained professional interpreters and untrained bilinguals. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13 (2), 107–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020a) Interactional management in a simulated police interview: Interpreters’ strategies. In M. Mason & F. Rock (Eds.), The discourse of police interviews. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 200–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, S., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N. & Doherty, S.
(2021) The effects of mode on interpreting performance in a simulated police interview. Translation and Interpreting Studies (online-first). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, S., Martschuk, N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Taibi, M. & Xu, H.
(2020b) Interpreting profanity in police interviews. Multilingua 39 (4), 369–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heydon, G.
(2005) The language of police interviewing. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hlavac, J.
(2013) Should interpreters be trained and tested in telephone and video-link interpreting? Responses from practitioners and examiners. International Journal of Interpreter Education 5 (1), 34–50.Google Scholar
Howes, L. M.
(2019) Community interpreters’ experiences of police investigative interviews: How might interpreters’ insights contribute to enhanced procedural justice? Policing and Society 29 (8), 887–905. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ImPLI Project
(2012) Improving police and legal interpreting: Final report. Paris: Institut de Management et de Communication Interculturels.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, A. & Buckley, B.
(1975) Australian Government Commission of Inquiry into Poverty – Law and Poverty Series Migrants and the Legal System. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Kelly, N.
(2008) Telephone interpreting: A comprehensive guide to the profession. Bloomington: Trafford Publishing.Google Scholar
Ko, L.
(2006) The need for long-term empirical studies in remote interpreting research: A case study of telephone interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series 5 1, 325–338.Google Scholar
Koller, M. & Pöchhacker, F.
(2018) “The Work and Skills ...”: A profile of first-generation video remote interpreters. In J. Napier, R. Skinner & S. Braun (Eds.), Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 89–110.Google Scholar
Lee, J.
(2007) Telephone interpreting – seen from the interpreters’ perspective. Interpreting 9 (2), 231–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Licoppe, C. & Verdier, M.
(2013) Interpreting, video communication and the sequential reshaping of institutional talk in the bilingual and distributed courtroom. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law 20 (2), 247–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Licoppe, C. & Veyrier, C.-A.
(2017) How to show the interpreter on screen? The normative organization of visual ecologies in multilingual courtrooms with video links. Journal of Pragmatics 107 1, 147–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Määttä, S. K.
(2018) Accuracy in telephone interpreting. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 23 1, 1–17.Google Scholar
Mehrabian, A.
(1972) Nonverbal communication. New Brunswick/London: AldineTransaction.Google Scholar
(1981) Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Mehrabian, A. & Wiener, M.
(1967) Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 (1), 109–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, C. D. & Hanson, T. A.
(2018) Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility. Translation and Interpreting Studies 13 (3), 366–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minkley, N., Xu, K. M. & Krell, M.
(2021) Analyzing relationships between causal and assessment factors of cognitive load: Associations between objective and subjective measures of cognitive load, stress, interest, and self-concept. Frontiers in Education 6 1, 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, B.
(2003) Remote interpreting: Assessment of human factors and performance parameters. [URL] (accessed 19 January 2021).
Oviatt, S. L. & Cohen, P. R.
(1992) Spoken language in interpreted telephone dialogues. Computer Speech & Language 6 (3), 277–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozolins, U.
(1998) Interpreting and translating in Australia: Current issues and international comparisons. Melbourne: Language Australia.Google Scholar
(2011) Telephone interpreting: Understanding practice and identifying research needs. Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 3 (2), 33–47.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, B. A.
(2007) A data driven analysis of telephone interpreting. In C. Wadensjö, B. Englund Dimitrova & A. L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 65–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roziner, I. & Shlesinger, M.
(2010) Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting. Interpreting 12 (2), 214–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, K. G., Keller, L., Amos, R. & Hengl, S.
(2019) Expectations vs experience: Attitudes towards video remote conference interpreting. Interpreting 21 (2), 270–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, S. A. & Evans, J. R.
(2018) Interpreters in law enforcement contexts: Practices and experiences according to investigators. Applied Cognitive Psychology 32 (2), 150–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skinner, R., Napier, J. & Braun, S.
(2018) Mapping of the field. In J. Napier, R. Skinner & S. Braun (Eds.), Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 11–35.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C.
(1999) Telephone interpreting and the synchronization of talk in social interaction. The Translator 5 (2), 247–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wakefield, S. J., Kebbell, M. R., Moston, S. & Westera, N.
(2015) Perceptions and profiles of interviews with interpreters: A police survey. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 48 (1), 53–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, J.
(2018) “Telephone interpreting should be used only as a last resort.” Interpreters’ perceptions of the suitability, remuneration and quality of telephone interpreting. Perspectives 26 (1), 100–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) “I only interpret the content and ask practical questions when necessary.” Interpreters’ perceptions of their explicit coordination and personal pronoun choice in telephone interpreting. Perspectives 29 (4), 625–642. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, H., Hale, S. & Stern, L.
(2020) Telephone interpreting in lawyer–client interviews: An observational study. Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 12 (1), 18–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar