Cover not available
Part of
Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends
Edited by Gloria Corpas Pastor and Bart Defrancq
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 37] 2023
► pp. 109–141

Chapter 5
Public service interpreters’ perceptions and acceptance of remote interpreting technologies in times of a pandemic

| Vrije Universiteit Brussel , Belgium |
| Vrije Universiteit Brussel , Belgium | Universidad de Alcalá , Spain |
| Vrije Universiteit Brussel , Belgium |

In the past two decades, the use of technology in the professional practice of interpreting has evolved at an impressive pace. The fast development of communication and digital technologies has led to profound changes in how interpreting services are delivered. In this study, we present the results of a questionnaire study into public service interpreters’ perceptions and acceptance of remote interpreting technologies (RITs). The survey was conducted through an online questionnaire containing both closed and open-ended questions, and taps into public service interpreters’ use of remote interpreting technologies, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use of these technologies and interpreters’ acceptance of the technologies in different settings of PSI.

Keywords: remote interpreting technologies, over-the-phone interpreting, PSI, public service interpreting, survey, remote simultaneous interpreting, technology acceptance, video remote interpreting
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Related studies
  • 3.Research questions and methodology
    • 3.1Scope of the study
    • 3.2Questionnaire preparation
    • 3.3Questionnaire distribution
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Demographic and professional profile
    • 4.2RIT use
      • 4.2.1User percentage and tools
      • 4.2.2Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on RIT use
      • 4.2.3Frequency of use
      • 4.2.4Fields of expertise and RIT use
      • 4.2.5Reasons for not using RIT
    • 4.3RIT acceptance
      • 4.3.1Perceived usefulness
        • 4.3.1.1OPI
        • 4.3.1.2VRI
        • 4.3.1.3RSI
      • 4.3.2Perceived ease of use
        • 4.3.2.1OPI
        • 4.3.2.2VRI
        • 4.3.2.3RSI
      • 4.3.4Behavioral intention
    • 4.4Participants’ comments
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1RIT use and impact of COVID 19
    • 5.2RIT use and fields of expertise
    • 5.3Reasons for not using RIT
    • 5.4RIT acceptance
  • 6.Conclusion
  • 7.Limitations and further research
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 9 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.37.05ste
References
Adams, Heather
2021 “Technology and Conference Interpreting: An Introduction to the Use of Instant Messaging Apps Linguistics.” Technium Social Sciences Journal 15: 567–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Maroof, Rana Saeed, Salloum, Said Abdelrahim, Al Hamadand, Ahmad Qasim, and Khaled A. Shaalan
2020 “Understanding an Extension Technology Acceptance Model of Google Translation: A Multi-Cultural Study in United Arab Emirates.” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (IJIM) 14 (03): 157–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Sabine
2018 “Video-Mediated Interpreting in Legal Settings in England Interpreters’ Perceptions in Their Sociopolitical Context.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 13 (3): 393–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “Technology and Interpreting.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, edited by Minako O’Hagan, 1st ed., 271–88. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabrera Méndez, Gabriel
2016 La Interpretación a Distancia: Nacimiento, Maduración y Proyección de Futuro. Valencia: Universidad Internacional de Valencia.Google Scholar
Corpas Pastor, Gloria
2018 “Tools for Interpreters: The Challenges That Lie Ahead.” Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning E 5: 157–82.Google Scholar
Corpas Pastor, Gloria, and Mahmoud Gaber
2020 “Remote Interpreting in Public Service Settings: Technology, Perceptions and Practice.” SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation 13 (2): 58–68.Google Scholar
Davis, Fred D.
1989 “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.” MIS Quarterly 13 (3): 319–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Boe, Esther
2019 “Remote Healthcare Interpreting: A Methodology to Investigate Quality.” Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics 7 (1): 58–78.Google Scholar
de Cotret, Francois René, Beaudoin-Julien, Andrée-Anne, and Yvan Leanza
2020 “Implementing and Managing Remote Public Service Interpreting in Response to COVID-19 and Other Challenges of Globalization.” Meta 65 (3): 618–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devaux, Jerome
2018 “Technologies and Role-Space: How Videoconference Interpreting Affects the Court Interpreter’s Perception of Her Role.” In Interpreting and Technology, edited by Claudio Fantinuoli, 91–117. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Doumanidis, Evangelos
2020 “Does Video Interpreting meet the Requirements of a Court Proceedings?” Babel-Revue Internationale de la Traduction-International Journal of Translation 66 (2): 346–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Pérez, María Magdalena
2012 Identificación de Las Destrezas de La Interpretación Telefónica. La Laguna: Universidad de La Laguna.Google Scholar
2015 “Propuestas de Ejercicios de Simulación Para La Didáctica de La Interpretación Telefónica.” MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación 2: 259–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Yvonne
2013 “Business as Usual? Prison Video Link in the Multilingual Courtroom.” In Interpreting in a Changing Landscape: Selected Papers from Critical Link 6, edited by Christina Schäffner, Krzysztof Kredens, and Yvonne Fowler, 225–48. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González Rodríguez, María Jesús
2019 “La Interacción Telefónica Mediada Por Intérprete Telefónico: Algunos Ejemplos En El Ámbito Policial-Judicial.” In Telephone Interpreting. The Impact of Technology on Dialogue Interpreting – L’interpretazione Telefonica. L’impatto Della Tecnologia Sull’interpretazione Dialogica, edited by Mariachiara Russo, Emilia Iglesias Fernández, María Jesús González Rodríguez, Amalia Agata Amato, Sabine Braun, Elena Davitti, and Nicoletta Spinolo, 119–59. Bologna: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
Gracia-García, Roberto A.
2002 “Telephone Interpreting: A Review of Pros and Cons.” In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference, edited by Scott Brennan, 195–216.
Heh, Yung-Chung, and Qian Hu
1997 “Over-the-Phone Interpretation: A New Way of Communication between Speech Communities.” In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference, edited by Muriel Jérôme-O’Keeffe, 51–62. Alexandria, Virginia: American Translators Association.
Hlavac, Jim
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
Jaime Pérez, Adriana
2015 “Remote Interpreting in Public Services: Developing a 3G Phone Interpreting Application.” In Investigación Emergente En Traducción e Interpretación, edited by Raquel Lázaro Gutiérrez, María del Mar Sánchez Ramos, and Francisco Javier Vigier-Moreno, 73–82. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Jiménez Serrano, Óscar
2020 “Foto fija de la interpretación simultánea remota al inicio del 2020.” Revista Tradumàtica. Tecnologies de la Traducció 17: 59–80.Google Scholar
Kelly, Nataly
2008a Telephone Interpreting: A Comprehensive Guide to the Profession. Victoria B.C.: Trafford Publishing.Google Scholar
2008b A Medical Interpreter’s Guide to Telephone Interpreting. International Medical Interpreters Association.Google Scholar
Kerremans, Koen, Lázaro Gutiérrez, Raquel, Stengers, Helene, Cox, Antoon, and Pascal Rillof
2019 “Technology Use by Public Service Interpreters and Translators: The Link Between Frequency of Use and Forms of Prior Training.” FITISPos International Journal 6 (1): 107–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kletecka-Pulker, Maria, Parrag, Sabine, Doppler, Klara, Voelkl-Kernstock, Sabine, Wagner, Michael, and Thomas Wenzel
2021 “Enhancing Patient Safety through the Quality Assured Use of a Low-Tech Video Interpreting System to Overcome Language Barriers in Healthcare Settings.” Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 133 (11–12): 610–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lázaro Gutiérrez, Raquel
2018 “Design and Compilation of a Multilingual Corpus of Mediated Interactions about Roadside Assistance.” In Approaches to Telephone Interpretation: Research, Innovation, Teaching and Transference, edited by Aurora Ruiz Mezcua, 87–106. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2021 “Remote (Telephone) Interpreting in Healthcare Settings.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Health, edited by Şebnem Susam-Saraeva and Eva Spišiaková, 216–31 London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lázaro Gutiérrez, Raquel, and Gabriel Cabrera Méndez
2019 “Context and Pragmatic Meaning in Telephone Interpreting.” In Technology Mediated Service Encounters, edited by Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Lucía Fernández-Amaya, and María de la O Hernández-López, 45–70. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Jieun
2007 “Telephone Interpreting – Seen from the Interpreters’ Perspective.” Interpreting 9 (2): 231–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Gómez Gómez, Aída
2008 “La interpretación telefónica en los servicios de atención al inmigrante de Castilla – La Mancha.” In Investigación y práctica en traducción e interpretación en los servicios públicos: desafíos y alianzas, edited by Carmen Valero Garcés, Carmen Pena Díaz, and Raquel Lázaro Gutiérrez, 338–53. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá.Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson
2018 “Interpreter Traits and the Relationship with Technology and Visibility.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 13 (3): 366–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mouzourakis, Panayotis
2006 “Remote Interpreting: A Technical Perspective on Recent Experiments.” Interpreting 8 (1): 45–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murgu, Dora, and Sandra Jiménez
2011 “La formación de un intérprete telefónico.” In Traducción e Interpretación en los Servicios Públicos en un mundo INTERcoNEcTado (TISP en INTERNET), edited by Carmen Valero Garcés, 214–19. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá.Google Scholar
Napier, Jemina, and Marcel Leneham
2011 ““It Was Difficult to Manage the Communication”: Testing the Feasibility of Video Remote Signed Language Interpreting in Court.” Journal of Interpretation 21 (1): 1–12.Google Scholar
Oviatt, Sharon L., and Philip R. Cohen
1992 “Spoken Language in Interpreted Telephone Dialogues.” Computer Speech & Language 6 (3): 277–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peiró, José María, and Ángel Soler
2020 “El Impulso al Teletrabajo Durante El COVID-19 y Los Retos Que Plantea.” IvieLAB, 1–10.Google Scholar
Pertusa Elorriaga, Iciar
2012 “La Interpretación En La Distancia.” Revista Traditori Suplemento: la traducción y la interpretación en los servicios públicos: 25–29.Google Scholar
Phelan, Mary
2001 The Interpreter’s Resource. Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto/Sydney: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prieto, María Nieves
2008 “La interpretación telefónica en los servicios sanitarios públicos. Estudio del caso: el servicio de “conversación a tres” del Hospital Carlos Haya de Málaga.” In Investigación y práctica en traducción e interpretación en los servicios públicos: desafíos y alianzas, edited by Carmen Valero Garcés, Carmen Pena Díaz, and Raquel Lázaro Gutiérrez, 369–84. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá.Google Scholar
Rossi, Caroline, and Jean-Pierre Chevrot
2019 “Uses and Perceptions of Machine Translation at the European Commission.” The Journal of Specialized Translation, no. 31: 177–200.Google Scholar
Ruiz Mezcua, Aurora
ed. 2018 Approaches to Telephone Interpretation: Research, Innovation, Teaching and Transference. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tipton, Rebecca, and Olgierda Furmanek
2016 Dialogue Interpreting: A Guide to Interpreting in Public Services and the Community. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venkatesh, Viswanath
2000 “Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model.” Information Systems Research 11 (4): 342–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venkatesh, Viswanath, and Fred D. Davis
2000 “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies.” Management Science 46 (2): 186–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verrept, Hans
2011 “Intercultural Mediation through the Internet in Belgian Hospitals.” In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Public Service Interpreting and Translation.
Vigier-Moreno, Francisco Javier, and Raquel Lázaro Gutiérrez
2019 “La formación en interpretación remota: una experiencia docente interuniversitaria.” Innovación educativa 29: 141–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1999 “Telephone Interpreting & the Synchronization of Talk in Social Interaction.” The Translator 5 (2): 247–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weng, Fumei, Yang, Rong-Jou, Ho, Hann-Jang, and Hui-Mei Su
2018 “A TAM-Based Study of the Attitude towards Use Intention of Multimedia among School Teachers.” Applied System Innovation 1 (3): 36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Han, Hale, Sandra, and Ludmila Stern
2020 “Telephone Interpreting in Lawyer-Client Interviews: An Observational Study.” The Translation & Interpreting 12 (1): 18–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, Yanxia, and Xiangling Wang
2019 “Modeling the Intention to Use Machine Translation for Student Translators: An Extension of Technology Acceptance Model.” Computers & Education 133: 116–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar