Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility
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.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Technology use and adoption
- Visibility and communication apprehension
- Surveying the field
- Methods
- Participants
- Procedures
- Measures
- Technology adoption propensity index
- Personal report of communication apprehension
- Media and technology usage and attitudes scale
- Interpreter Interpersonal Role Inventory (IPRI)
- Analysis
- Results
- Community vs. conference interpreting
- Correlations
- Court vs. medical interpreting
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References
Angelelli, Claudia V.
2004b Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Angelelli, Claudia V.
2015 “
Invisibility.” In
Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by
Franz Pöchhacker, 214–215. New York: Routledge.

Baraldi, Claudio and Laura Gavioli
Braun, Sabine
2015 “
Remote Interpreting.” In
Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by
Holly Mikkelson and
Reneé Jourdenais. London: Routledge.

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 Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.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.

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.

Degueldre, Christian and Claudia V. Angelelli
2013 “
Implementing new technologies in the teaching of interpreting.”
Cuadernos de ALDEUU 251: 253–269.

Dysart-Gale, Deborah
2005 “
Communication models, professionalization, and the work of medical interpreters.”
Health Communication 17(1): 91–103.


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 241: 487–495.


Federici, Federico
(ed) 2016 Mediating Emergencies and Conflicts: Frontline Translating and Interpreting. London: Palgrave Macmillan.


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.


Gaiba, Francesca
1998 The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

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.

Hale, Sandra Beatriz
2007 Community Interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.


Hopf, Tim and Noelle Colby
1992 “
The relationship between interpersonal communication apprehension and self-efficacy.”
Communication Research Reports 9(2): 131–135.


Hsieh, Elaine
2016 Bilingual Health Communication. New York: Routledge.


Inghilleri, Moira
2012 Interpreting Justice: Ethics, Politics and Language. New York: Routledge.

ISO 13611
2014 Interpreting – Guidelines for community interpreting. Geneva: ISO.

Kalina, Sylvia and Klaus Ziegler
2015 “
Technology.” In
Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by
Franz Pöchhacker, 410–412. New York: Routledge.

Lin, Carolyn A. and David J. Atkin
(eds) 2007 Communication Technology and Social Change: Theory and Implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Martin, Anne and Isabel Abril Martí
Martínez-Gómez, Aída
2015 “
Invisible, visible, or everywhere in between? Perceptions and actual behaviours of non-professional interpreters and interpreting users.”
The Interpreters’ Newsletter 201: 175–194.

McCroskey, James C.
1982 An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication, 4th Ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

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.


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.


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.


Mellinger, Christopher D.
2015 “
On the applicability of Internet-mediated research methods to investigate translators’ cognitive behaviour.”
Translation & Interpreting 7(1): 59–71.

Mellinger, Christopher D. and Thomas A. Hanson
2017 Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge.

Metzger, Melanie
1999 Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Mick, David Glenn and Susan Fournier
1998 “
Paradoxes of technology: Consumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies.”
Journal of Consumer Research 25(2): 123–147.


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.


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.

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.


Pöchhacker, Franz
2015 “
Evolution of interpreting research.” In
The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by
Holly Mikkelson and
Renée Jourdenais, 62–76. New York: Routledge.

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.


Ratchford, Mark and Michelle Barnhart
2012 “
Development and validation of the technology adoption propensity (TAP) index.”
Journal of Business Research 65(8): 1209–1215.


Rogers, Everett M.
1962/2003 Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edition. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

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.


Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger
Rütten, Anja
2004 “
Why and in which sense do conference interpreters need special software?”
Linguistica Antverpiensia 31: 167–177.

Rütten, Anja
2015 “
Terminology.” In
Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by
Franz Pöchhacker, 416–417. New York: Routledge.

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.


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.


Seleskovitch, Danica and Marianne Lederer
1989 Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation (Traductologie 4). Brussels: Didier Erudition Opoce

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.

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.

Tipton, Rebecca and Olgierda Furmanek
2016 Dialogue Interpreting. New York: Routledge.


Valero-Garcés, Carmen
2007 “
Challenges in multilingual societies. The myth of the invisible interpreter and translator.”
Across Languages and Cultures 8(1): 81–101.


Wadensjö, Cecilia
1998 Interpreting as Interaction. New York: Longman.

Wadensjö, Cecilia
1999 “
Telephone interpreting and the synchronization of talk in social interaction.”
The Translator 5(2): 247–264.


Wahlster, Wolfgang
(ed) 2000 Verbmobil: Foundations of Speech-to-Speech Translation. Singapore: Springer.


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.


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.


Cited by
Cited by 9 other publications
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020.
Researching Professional Translator/Interpreter Experiences and Roles. In
Translator and Interpreter Education Research [
New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],
► pp. 125 ff.

Chen, Sijia & Jan-Louis Kruger
Chmiel, Agnieszka & Nicoletta Spinolo
Downie, Jonathan
Giustini, Deborah
2022.
Haken conference interpreters in Japan: Exploring status through the sociology of work and of professions.
Interpreting and Society 2:1
► pp. 3 ff.

Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk & Julie Lim
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.

Yang, Yanxia, Xiangling Wang & Qingqing Yuan
Zhu, Xuelian & Vahid Aryadoust
2022.
A Synthetic Review of Cognitive Load in Distance Interpreting: Toward an Explanatory Model.
Frontiers in Psychology 13

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 february 2023. 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.