Remote interpreting

Barbara Moser-Mercer

Table of contents

Remote interpreting (also called tele-interpreting) is the term used to describe a bi- or multilingual video-conference where interpreters are physically remote from the meeting room and thus do not have a direct view of speakers and delegates. Video-conference interpreting relates to a meeting scenario where participants are distributed across two or more sites with interpreters located at one of these sites. Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) uses video or web cameras and telephone lines to provide sign language interpreting services for deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals, through an offsite interpreter, in order to communicate with hearing persons. It is similar to a Video-Relay-Service, where the hearing and signing parties are each located in different places. The term remote interpreting also covers telephone interpreting, where the interpreter is connected to the service provider via a standard phone line attached to a speaker phone and works in the consecutive mode. Video-conference technologies are used in a variety of interpreted settings: conference, court, public service, healthcare, and education, and involve both spoken and signed languages.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Grice, Herbert Paul
1975“Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 225–242. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heh, Yung-Chung & Qian, Hu
1997“Over-the-phone interpretation: A new way of communication between speech communities.” In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference, Muriel Jerome-O’Keeffe, Muriel (ed.), 51–62. Alexandria, VA: American Translators Association.Google Scholar
Mikkelson, Holly
2003“Telephone Interpreting: Boon or Bane?” In Speaking in Tongues: Language across Contexts and Users, Luis Perez Gonzalez (ed.), 251–269. Valencia: Universitat de Valencia.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara
2005a“Remote interpreting: Issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual task.” Meta 50 (2): 727–738. Crossref logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
2005b“Remote interpreting: The crucial role of presence.” Bulletin Suisse de linguistique appliquée 81: 73–97.  TSBGoogle Scholar
2010“The search for neuro-physiological correlates of expertise in interpreting.” In Translation and cognition, Erik Angelone & Greg Shreve (eds), 263–287. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins  TSB. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Mouzourakis, Takis
2006“Remote interpreting: A technical perspective on recent experiments.” Interpreting 8 (1): 45–66. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Phelan, Mary
2001The interpreter’s resource. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Sperling, Jessica
2011Communicating more for less: Using translation and interpretation technology to serve limited English proficient individuals. Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute.Google Scholar

Further reading

Braun, Sabine
2003Kommunikation unter widrigen Umständen? – Fallstudie zu einsprachigen und gedolmetschten Videokonferenzen. Tübingen: Narr.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, William E
1995Court interpretation: Model guides for policy and practice in the state courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
Hornberger, John C., Gibson, Count D., Jr., Wood, William, Degueldre, Christian, Corso, Irene, Palla, Barbara, Bloch, Daniel A
1996“Eliminating language barriers for non-English-speaking patients.” Medical Care 34 (8): 845–856. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar