Cover not available
Article published In:
Technology
Edited by Franz Pöchhacker and Minhua Liu
[Interpreting 26:2] 2024
► pp. 201–230

Space, body and presence

An analytical framework for remote interpreting

 | University of Graz
The trend towards remote interpreting has caused a radical change for interpreters worldwide, one that has shifted their workplace from well-known physical spaces to new digital spaces. Research to date has documented specific settings, language combinations and/or interpreting modes, and it has usually focused on certain forms of remote interpreting (e.g., video remote interpreting, video relay service). The combinations of different characteristics and factors in remote interpreting are almost infinite, however, and single terms fail to depict and cover all possible variations. This article proposes an analytical framework that uses conceptualisations of space, body and presence to analyse interpreting assignments in digital spaces, regardless of language combination, setting and mode. Two examples are used to illustrate the application of this framework: a hybrid conference and a meeting in virtual reality (VR), both of them involving sign language interpreting. The use of VR has undergone a substantial increase in the past few years, having developed rapidly. It is therefore possible that future interpreting assignments might take place in this new digital space. The application of these two scenarios shows that the analytical framework can be used both to reflect on past and to anticipate future assignments.
Keywords: remote interpreting, space, body, presence, sign language interpreting
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Building blocks of the analytical framework
    • 2.1Spatial triad
    • 2.2Physical body, lived body and represented body
    • 2.3Social presence theory
  • 3.Building the analytical framework
  • 4.Applying the analytical framework to interpreting scenarios in digital spaces
    • 4.1Testing the framework on a hybrid conference
    • 4.2Future challenges: Virtual reality?
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 8 July 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00105.jer
References (59)
References
Argyle, M. & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry 28 (3), 289–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auslander, P. (1992). Presence and resistance: Postmodernism and cultural politics in contemporary American performance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bahadir-Berzig, Ş. (2022). Von dolmetschenden Kabinen zu gebärdenden Avataren: Kritische Reflexionen zu den Herausforderungen der Digitalisierung in der Dolmetschlehre. In K. Ables, S. Hansen-Schirra, K. Oster, M. J. Schaeffer, S. Signer & M. Wiedmann (Eds.), Re-thinking translator education. In honour of Don Kiraly’s Social Constructivist Approach. Berlin: Frank & Timme, 255–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barfield, W., Zeltzer, D., Sheridan, T. & Slater, M. (1995). Presence and performance within virtual environments. In W. Barfield & T. A. Furness III (Eds.), Virtual environments and advanced interface design. New York: Oxford University Press, 473–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bondareva, Y. & Bouwhuis, D. (2004). Determinants of social presence in videoconferencing. In L. Ardissono & G. Semeraro (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on environments for personalized information access. Working conference on advanced visual interfaces AVI 2004. [URL] (accessed 18 December 2023), 1–9.
(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., Slater, C., Gittins, R., Ritsos, P. D. & Roberts, J. C. (2013). Interpreting in virtual reality: Designing and developing a 3D virtual world to prepare interpreters and their clients for professional practice. In D. Kiraly, S. Hansen-Schirra & K. Maksymski (Eds.), New prospects and perspectives for educating language mediators. Tübingen: Narr Verlag, 93–120.Google Scholar
Braun, S. & Taylor, J. L. (Eds.) (2012). Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings. Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E. & Ivkovic, M. (2010). Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia tools and applications 51 1, 341–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Meulder, M., Pouliot, O. & Gebruers, K. (2021). Remote sign language interpreting in times of Covid-19. [URL] (accessed 6 July 2021).
Dean, R. K. & Pollard, R. Q. (2013). The Demand Control Schema: Interpreting as a practice profession. North Charleston: CreateSpace.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1996). Meditations on first philosophy (edited by J. Cottingham). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devaux, J. (2017). Technologies in interpreter-mediated criminal court hearings: An Actor-Network Theory account of the interpreter’s perception of her role-space. PhD dissertation, The University of Salford.
Fheodoroff, M. (2022). The agent-centred translation zone: Researching the people within translational spaces. Translation in Society 1 (2), 177–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, T. (2017). Intercorporeality and interaffectivity. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck & J. S. Jordan (Eds.), Intercorporeality. Emerging socialities in interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galvão, E. Z. (2020). Gesture functions and gestural style in simultaneous interpreting. In H. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 151–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Grbić, N. (2015). Settings. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, 370–371.Google Scholar
Gulliver, M. S. (2009). DEAF space, a history: The production of DEAF spaces. Emergent, autonomous, located and disabled in 18th and 19th century France. PhD dissertation, The University of Bristol.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social Presence Theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 1 (2/3), 147–166.Google Scholar
Gunawardena, C. N. & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education 11 (3), 8–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Havelka, I. (2018). Videodolmetschen im Gesundheitswesen: Dolmetschwissenschaftliche Untersuchung eines österreichischen Pilotprojekts. Berlin: Frank & Timme (TRANSÜD Arbeiten zur Theorie und Praxis des Übersetzens und Dolmetschens 96).Google Scholar
Heyerick, I. (2020). The importance of video recordings in signed language interpreting research. In H. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 127–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hills, A., Hauber, J. & Regenbrecht, H. (2005). Videos in space: A study on presence in video mediating communication systems. In ICAT ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on augmented tele-existence. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 247–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyatt, M. & Honenberger, P. (2019). “Translator’s preface”. In H. Plessner: The levels of the organic and the human: An introduction to philosophical anthropology. New York: Fordham University Press, ix–xiii.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (2011). Developing an instrument to measure social presence in distance higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology 42 (5), 763–777. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krystallidou, D. (2020). Going video: Understanding interpreter-mediated clinical communication through the video lens. In H. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 181–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kusters, A. (2009). Deaf on the lifeline of Mumbai. Sign Language Studies 10 (1), 36–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, H. (1984/1991). The production of space. Oxford, UK, Cambridge, USA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lindemann, G. (2015). Die Verschränkung von Leib und Nexistenz. In F. Süssenguth (Ed.), Die Gesellschaft der Daten. Über die digitale Transformation der sozialen Ordnung. Bielefeld: transcript, 41–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, G. & Schünemann, D. (2020). Presence in digital spaces: A phenomenological concept of presence in mediatized communication. Human Studies 43 1, 627–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lombard, M. & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3 (2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Löw, M. & Sturm, G. (2019). Raumsoziologie: Eine disziplinäre Positionierung zum Sozialraum. In F. Kessl & C. Reutlinger (Eds.), Handbuch Sozialraum. Grundlagen für den Bildungs- und Sozialbereich. Wiesbaden: Springer, 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945/1966). Phänomenologie der Wahrnehmung. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Meta (2023a). Meta Horizon Workrooms. [URL] (accessed 23 February 2023).
(2023b). This is Meta Quest Pro. [URL] (accessed 23 February 2023).
Moser-Mercer, B. (2005). Remote interpreting: Issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual task. Meta 50 (2), 727–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mouzourakis, P. (2006). Remote interpreting: A technical perspective on recent experiments. Interpreting 8 (1), 45–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, J., Skinner, R. & Braun, S. (Eds.) (2018). Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, D. (2020). Negotiating academic environments: Using Lefebvre to conceptualise deaf spaces and disabling/enabling environments. Journal of Cultural Geography 37 (1), 26–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plessner, H. (1975). Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch: Einleitung in die philosophische Anthropologie (3rd unrevised ed.). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). The levels of the organic and the human: An introduction to philosophical anthropology. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. (2020). “Going video”: Mediality and multimodality in interpreting. In H. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with video. Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rolshoven, J. (2012). Zwischen den Dingen: der Raum. Schweizerisches Archiv für Volkskunde 108 1, 156–169.Google Scholar
Salaets, H. & Brône, G. (Eds.) (2020). Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, H. (1967). System der Philosophie: Der leibliche Raum. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
(1977). System der Philosophie, Band 3, Teil IV: Der Raum. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
Sheridan, S. & O’Donnell, J. (2023). Irish sign language interpreter workplace wellness during COVID-19: Looking back and moving forward. Journal of Interpretation 31 (1). [URL]
Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London/New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Simon, S. (2013). Translation zone. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies. Volume 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 181–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slater, M. (2018). Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality. British Journal of Psychology 109 1, 431–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vranjes, J. & Brône, G. (2020). Eye-tracking in interpreter-mediated talk. In H. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 203–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiener, M. & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York, NY: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar
Wohlgenannt, I., Simons, A. & Stieglitz, S. (2020). Virtual reality. Business & Information Systems Engineering 62 1, 455–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, K. & Gigliobianco, S. (2018). Present? Remote? Remotely present! New technological approaches to remote simultaneous conference interpreting. In C. Fantinuoli (Ed.), Interpreting and technology. Berlin: Language Science Press, 119–139.Google Scholar