Article published in:
Community Interpreting, Translation, and Technology
Edited by Nike K. Pokorn and Christopher D. Mellinger
[Translation and Interpreting Studies 13:3] 2018
► pp. 366–392

Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility

| University of North Carolina at Charlotte
| Butler University
Research on technology and interpreting regularly investigates technology-mediated interpreting settings and contrasts various interpreting configurations to better understand how technology changes the interpreting task. This scholarship generally does not account for various personality or character attributes exhibited by interpreters, nor does it examine the actual adoption and usage of these tools. This article presents findings from a survey-based study that examines several interpreter-specific constructs, namely their self-perception of the interpreter’s role and communication apprehension, in conjunction with attitudes toward technology use and adoption. Findings suggest that community interpreters differ from their conference interpreting counterparts and that domain-specific differences emerge between medical and court interpreters with respect to their perceived role and their propensity to adopt new technologies.
Keywords: communication apprehension, community interpreting, technology adoption, technology use, visibility
Published online: 09 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00021.mel
References

References

Angelelli, Claudia V.
2004 Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference, Court, and Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004b Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “The role of the interpreter in the healthcare setting: A plea for dialogue between research and practice.” In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas, ed. by Carmen Valero-Garcés and Anne Martin, 147–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Invisibility.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, 214–215. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baigorri-Jalón, Jesús
2014 From Paris to Nuremberg: The Birth of Conference Interpreting. Trans. By Holly Mikkelson and Barry Slaughter Olsen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baraldi, Claudio and Laura Gavioli
(eds) 2012 Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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
2015 “Remote Interpreting.” In Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson and Reneé Jourdenais. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cadwell, Patrick
2015 Translation and Trust: A Case Study of How Translation was Experienced by Foreign Nationals Resident in Japan for the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Dublin City University.[ p. 385 ]Google Scholar
Davis, Fred D., Jr.
1986 A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-user Information Systems: Theory and Results. Ph.D. dissertation. Sloan School of Management, MIT.Google Scholar
Degueldre, Christian and Claudia V. Angelelli
2013 “Implementing new technologies in the teaching of interpreting.” Cuadernos de ALDEUU 25: 253–269.Google Scholar
Downie, Jonathan
2017 “Finding and critiquing the invisible interpreter – a response to Uldis Ozolins.” Interpreting 19(2): 260–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dysart-Gale, Deborah
2005 “Communication models, professionalization, and the work of medical interpreters.” Health Communication 17(1): 91–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erdoğmuş, Nihat and Murat Esen
2011 “An investigation of the effects of technology readiness on technology acceptance in e-HRM.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 24: 487–495. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Federici, Federico
(ed) 2016 Mediating Emergencies and Conflicts: Frontline Translating and Interpreting. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frampton, Bethany D. and Jeffrey T. Child
2013 “Friend or not to friend: Coworker Facebook friend requests as an application of communication privacy management theory.” Computers in Human Behavior 29(6): 2257–2264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gaiba, Francesca
1998 The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Joshua
2018 “Tablet interpreting: Consecutive interpreting 2.0.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 13(3). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Griol, David, Jesús García-Herrero, and José Manuel Molina
2016 “Military usages and language technologies: A review.” In Meeting Security Challenges through Data Analytics and Decision Support, ed. by Elisa Shahbazian and Galina Rogova, 44–68. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra Beatriz
2007 Community Interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopf, Tim and Noelle Colby
1992 “The relationship between interpersonal communication apprehension and self-efficacy.” Communication Research Reports 9(2): 131–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, Elaine
2016 Bilingual Health Communication. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Inghilleri, Moira
2012 Interpreting Justice: Ethics, Politics and Language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
ISO 13611
2014 Interpreting – Guidelines for community interpreting. Geneva: ISO.Google Scholar
Kalina, Sylvia and Klaus Ziegler
2015 “Technology.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, 410–412. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lin, Carolyn A. and David J. Atkin
(eds) 2007 Communication Technology and Social Change: Theory and Implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Martin, Anne and Isabel Abril Martí
2008 “Community interpreter self-perception: A Spanish case study.” In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas, ed. by Anne Martin and Carmen Valero-Garcés, 203–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Gómez, Aída
2015 “Invisible, visible, or everywhere in between? Perceptions and actual behaviours of non-professional interpreters and interpreting users.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 20: 175–194.[ p. 386 ]Google Scholar
McCroskey, James C.
1982 An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication, 4th Ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
McCroskey, James C., Michael J. Beatty, Patricia Kearney, and Timothy G. Plax
1985 “The content validity of the PRCA-24 as a measure of communication apprehension across communication contexts.” Communication Quarterly 33(3): 165–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCroskey, James C., Steven Booth-Butterfield, and Steven K. Payne
1989 “The impact of communication apprehension on college student retention and success.” Communication Quarterly 37(2): 100–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCroskey, James C., John A. Daly, Virginia P. Richmond, and Raymond L. Falcione
1977 “Studies of the relationship between communication apprehension and self-esteem.” Human Communication Research 3(3): 269–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2015 “On the applicability of Internet-mediated research methods to investigate translators’ cognitive behaviour.” Translation & Interpreting 7(1): 59–71.Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D. and Thomas A. Hanson
2017 Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Metzger, Melanie
1999 Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Mick, David Glenn and Susan Fournier
1998 “Paradoxes of technology: Consumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies.” Journal of Consumer Research 25(2): 123–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Gary M. and Judith S. Olson
2012 “Collaboration technologies.” In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications, ed. by Julie A. Jacko, 549–564. New York: CRC Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Orlando, Marc
2015 “Digital pen technology and interpreting training, practice and research: status and trends.” In Interpreter Education in the Digital Age, ed. by Susanne Ehrlich and Jemina Napier, 125–152. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Ozolins, Uldis
2016 “The myth of the myth of invisibility?” Interpreting 18(2): 273–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parasuraman, Ananthanarayanan
2000 “Technology readiness index (TRI): A multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies.” Journal of Service Research 2(4): 307–320. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
2009 “Conference Interpreting: Surveying the Profession.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 4(2): 172–186.Google Scholar
2015 “Evolution of interpreting research.” In The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson and Renée Jourdenais, 62–76. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pribyl, Charles B., James A. Keaten, Masahiro Sakamoto, and Fusako Koshikawa
1998 “Assessing the cross-cultural content validity of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension scale (PRCA-24).” Japanese Psychological Research 40(1): 47–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ratchford, Mark and Michelle Barnhart
2012 “Development and validation of the technology adoption propensity (TAP) index.” Journal of Business Research 65(8): 1209–1215. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, Everett M.
1962/2003 Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edition. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.[ p. 387 ]Google Scholar
Rosen, Larry D., Kelly Whaling, L. Mark Carrier, Nancy A. Cheever, and Jeffrey Rokkum
2013 “The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation.” Computers and Human Behavior 29(6): 2501–2511. 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
Rütten, Anja
2004 “Why and in which sense do conference interpreters need special software?” Linguistica Antverpiensia 3: 167–177.Google Scholar
2015 “Terminology.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, 416–417. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scott, Craig R. and Steven C. Rockwell
1997 “The effect of communication, writing, and technology apprehension on likelihood to use new communication technologies.” Communication Education 46(1): 44–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Craig R. and Erik Timmerman
2005 “Relating computer, communication, and computer-mediated communication apprehensions to new communication technology use in the workplace.” Communication Research 32(6): 683–725. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica and Marianne Lederer
1989 Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation (Traductologie 4). Brussels: Didier Erudition OpoceGoogle Scholar
Sleptsova, Marina et al.
2015 “Wie verstehen ihre Rolle in medizinischen Konsultationen und wie verhalten sie sich konkret in der Praxis?” [What do interpreters understand as their role in medical consultations and how to they carry it out in reality.] PPmP-Psychotherapie· Psychosomatik· Medizinische Psychologie 65(09/10): 363–369.Google Scholar
Sun, Sanjun
2016 “Suvey-based studies.” In Researching Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Claudia V. Angelelli and Brian James Baer, 269–279. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tipton, Rebecca and Olgierda Furmanek
2016 Dialogue Interpreting. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Valero-Garcés, Carmen
2007 “Challenges in multilingual societies. The myth of the invisible interpreter and translator.” Across Languages and Cultures 8(1): 81–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1998 Interpreting as Interaction. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
1999 “Telephone interpreting and the synchronization of talk in social interaction.” The Translator 5(2): 247–264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wahlster, Wolfgang
(ed) 2000 Verbmobil: Foundations of Speech-to-Speech Translation. Singapore: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Jihong
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weijters, Bert, Elke Cabooter, and Niels Schlilewaert
2010 “The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 27(3): 236–247. Crossref[ p. 388 ]Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020.  In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 125 ff. Crossref logo
Downie, Jonathan
2020. Interpreting is interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Man, Deliang, Aiping Mo, Meng Huat Chau, John Mitchell O’Toole & Charity Lee
2020. Translation technology adoption: evidence from a postgraduate programme for student translators in China. Perspectives 28:2 ► pp. 253 ff. Crossref logo
Yang, Yanxia, Xiangling Wang & Qingqing Yuan
2020. Measuring the usability of machine translation in the classroom context. Translation and Interpreting Studies Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2020. 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.