Cover not available
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. 393–420

Video-mediated interpreting in legal settings in England

Interpreters’ perceptions in their sociopolitical context

| University of Surrey

The increasing use of videoconferencing technology in legal proceedings has led to different configurations of video-mediated interpreting (VMI). Few studies have explored interpreter perceptions of VMI, each focusing on one country, configuration (e.g., interpreter-assisted video links between courts and remote participants) and setting (e.g., immigration). The present study is the first that draws on multiple data sets, countries, settings and configurations to investigate interpreter perceptions of VMI. It compares perceptions in England with other countries, covering common configurations (e.g., court-prison video links, links to remote interpreters) and settings (e.g., police, court, immigration), and considers the sociopolitical context in which VMI has emerged. The aim is to gain systematic insights into factors shaping the interpreters’ perceptions as a step toward improving VMI.

Keywords: interpreting, video-mediated interpreting, legal interpreting, videoconferencing
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Videoconferencing and interpreting in the justice sector in England
  • Methodological approach
  • Perceptions of video-mediated interpreting by interpreters in England
    • Satisfaction with VMI
    • Technical quality
    • Interacting with the videoconference equipment
    • Participant distribution and spatial organization
  • Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00022.bra
References
Balogh, Katalin, and Erik Hertog
2012 “AVIDICUS comparative studies – Part II: Traditional, videoconference and remote interpreting in police interviews.” In Videoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 119–136. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
BID Bail for Immigration Detainees
2008 Immigration Bail Hearings by Video Link: A Monitoring Exercise by Bail for Immigration Detainees and the Refugee Council. [URL]. Last accessed 21 May 2018.
2012 “Recommendations for the use of video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings.” In Videoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 301–328. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
2014 “Comparing traditional and remote interpreting in police settings: quality and impact factors.” In Traduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni, ed. By Maurizio Viezzi and Caterina Falbo, 161–176. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste.Google Scholar
2015 “Remote Interpreting.” In Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson and Renée Jourdenais, 352–367. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2017 “What a micro-analytical investigation of additions and expansions in remote interpreting can tell us about interpreter’s participation in a shared virtual space.” Journal of Pragmatics 1071: 165–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Sabine, Elena Davitti, and Sara Dicerto
2018 “Assessing the implementation of facilities for bilingual videoconferencing in the European justice sector.” In Here or There: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. by Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 144–179. Washington, DC: Gallaudet.Google Scholar
Braun, Sabine, and Judith Taylor
(eds) 2012a Videoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
2012b “Video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings: Two European surveys.” In Videoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 69–98. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
2012c “AVIDICUS comparative studies – part I: Traditional interpreting and remote interpreting in police interviews.” In Videoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 99–118. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Braun, Sabine, Judith Taylor, Joanna Miler-Cassino, Zofia Rybinska, Katalin Balogh, Erik Hertog, and Dirk Rombouts
2012 “Training in video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings: modules for interpreting students, legal interpreters and legal practitioners.” In Videoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 233–288. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Devaux, Jerome
2017 Technologies in Interpreter-mediated Criminal Court Hearings: An Actor-Network Theory Account of the Interpreter’s Perception of her Role-space. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Salford, Salford.Google Scholar
Ellis, Ronald
2004 Videoconferencing in Refugee Hearings. Ellis Report to the Immigration and Refugee Board Audit and Evaluation Committee. [URL]. Last accessed 21 May 2018.
Fowler, Yvonne
2013 Non-English-speaking Defendants in the Magistrates’ Court: A Comparative Study of Face-to-Face and Prison Video Link Interpreter-mediated Hearings in England. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Aston University, Birmingham.Google Scholar
Hedges, Larry
1981 “Distribution theory for Glass’ estimator of effect size and related estimators.” Journal of Educational Statistics 6(2): 107–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Justice Committee
2013 Interpreting and Translation Services and the Applied Language Solutions Contract. [URL]. Last accessed 21 May 2018.
Koller, Myriam, and Franz Pöchhacker
2018 “The work and skills…: A profile of first-generation video remote interpreters.” In Here or there: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. by Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 89–110. Washington, DC: Gallaudet.Google Scholar
Licoppe, Cristian, and Maud Verdier
2014 “Interpreting, video communication and the sequential reshaping of institutional talk in the bilingual and distributed courtroom.” International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 201: 247–276.Google Scholar
Licoppe, Cristian, Maud Verdier, and Clair-Antoine Veyrier
2018 “Voice, power and turn-taking in multilingual, consecutively interpreted courtroom proceedings with video links.” In Here or there: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. by Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 299–322. Washington, DC: Gallaudet.Google Scholar
Locatis, Craig, Deborah Williamson, Carrie Gould-Kabler, Laurie Zone-Smith, Isabel Detzler, Jason Roberson, Richard Maisiak, and Michael Ackerman
2010 “Comparing in-person, video, and telephonic medical interpretation.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 25(4): 345–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara
2003 “Remote interpreting: assessment of human factors and performance parameters.” Communicate! Summer 2003 [URL]. Last accessed 21 May 2018.
Mouzourakis, Panagiotis
2006 “Remote interpreting: a technical perspective on recent experiments.” Interpreting 8(1): 45–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina
2012 “Here or there? An assessment of video remote signed language interpreter-mediated interaction in court.” In Videoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 167–214. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Miler-Cassino, Joanna, and Zofia Rybinska
2012 “AVIDICUS comparative studies – part III: Traditional interpreting and videoconference interpreting in prosecution interviews.” In Videoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings, ed. by Sabine Braun and Judith Taylor, 117–136. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Plotnikoff, Joyce, and Richard Woolfson
1999 Preliminary Hearings: Video Links Evaluation of Pilot Projects. Final Report. [URL]. Last accessed 21 May 2018.
2000 Evaluation of Video Link Pilot. Project at Manchester Crown Court. Final Report. [URL]. Last accessed 21 May 2018.
Price, Erika, Eliseo Pérez-Stable, Dana Nickleach, Monica López, and Leah Karliner
2012 “Interpreter perspectives of in-person, telephonic, and videoconferencing medical interpretation in clinical encounters.” Patient Education and Counseling 87(2): 226–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Public Accounts Committee
2012 “The Ministry of Justice’s language service contract.” [URL]. Last accessed 21 May 2018.
Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger
2010 “Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting.” Interpreting 12(2): 214–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruxton, Graeme
2006 “The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student’s t-test and the Mann – Whitney U test.” Behavioral Ecology 17(4): 688–690. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Robert, Jemina Napier, and Sabine Braun
2018 “Interpreting via video link: Mapping of the field.” In Here or there: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. by Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 11–35. Washington, DC: Gallaudet.Google Scholar
Terry, Matthew, Steve Johnson, and Peter Thompson
2010 Virtual Court Pilot Outcome Evaluation. [URL]. Last accessed 21 May 2018.
Cited by

Cited by 7 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. DOI logo
Corpas Pastor, Gloria & Fernando Sánchez Rodas
2021. Chapter 1. Now what?. In Corpora in Translation and Contrastive Research in the Digital Age [Benjamins Translation Library, 158], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Feng, Cheng, S. Zhu, Y. Chen & J. Liang
2023. Studies on Global Remote Interpreting: A PRISMA Systematic Review. SHS Web of Conferences 162 ► pp. 01031 ff. DOI logo
Gilbert, Andrew Simon, Samantha Croy, Kerry Hwang, Dina LoGiudice & Betty Haralambous
2022. Video remote interpreting for home-based cognitive assessments. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:1 ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
Russo, Mariachiara, Emilia Iglesias Fernández & Sabine Braun
2020. Introduction. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:3 ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Singureanu, Diana, Graham Hieke, Joanna Gough & Sabine Braun
2023. Chapter 4. ‘I am his extension in the courtroom’. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 72 ff. DOI logo
Stengers, Hélène, Raquel Lázaro Gutiérrez & Hélène Stengers
2023. Chapter 5. Public service interpreters’ perceptions and acceptance of remote interpreting technologies in times of a pandemic. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 april 2024. 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.