Here or There

Research on Interpreting via Video Link

Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, Sabine Braun, Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, Sabine Braun

• Publisher: Gallaudet University Press
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781944838232
• Topic: Sprachen & Linguistik
• Subtopic: Sprachwissenschaft

The field of sign language interpreting is undergoing an exponential increase in the delivery of services through remote and video technologies. The nature of these technologies challenges established notions of interpreting as a situated, communicative event and of the interpreter as a participant. As a result, new perspectives and research are necessary for interpreters to thrive in this environment. This volume fills that gap and features interdisciplinary explorations of remote interpreting from spoken and signed language interpreting scholars who examine various issues from linguistic, sociological, physiological, and environmental perspectives. Here or There presents cutting edge, empirical research that informs the professional practice of remote interpreting, whether it be video relay service, video conference, or video remote interpreting. The research is augmented by the perspectives of stakeholders and deaf consumers on the quality of the interpreted work. Among the topics covered are professional attitudes and motivations, interpreting in specific contexts, and adaptation strategies. The contributors also address potential implications for relying on remote interpreting, discuss remote interpreter education, and offer recommendations for service providers.

Part 1 overview of Interpreting via Video link

Introduction

Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun

The twenty-first century generation has not known a world without the Internet. Although access to the internet varies, depending on where in the world you are, in Western countries at least, this statement gives us insight into the way in which society now draws upon technology and the internet for the purpose of communication. Using either the telephone or internet networks, we can exchange audio or video messages, choose to make real-time private point-to-point telephone or video calls, host (audio and/or audio-video) conference calls, and use live-streaming platforms to communicate with a public or private audience. It is clear that digital telecommunication has revolutionized the way people, services, and businesses communicate across the globe. We have come to expect the immediate and rapid exchange of information, either using text-based services, audio, or audio-video contact.

This same expectation is equally relevant when seeking to communicate across languages. For some time, governments and businesses around the world have been experimenting with the use of digital telecommunication as a means for increasing the supply of interpreting services to meet the constant growing demand for cross-linguistic communication in different contexts, initially through telephone-based remote interpreting services, but increasingly through video-based services. Interpreting is a specialized skill, and the demand for such services is on the rise, as global migration and interaction increase. Thus, it is unsurprising that there is an emerging international body of research that examines the deployment of interpreting services via audio-video telecommunications technology, in particular through internet-based platforms and through different types of video link.

The chapters in this volume provide a snapshot of this rapidly growing area of research and unify the body of knowledge collected from research with spoken and signed language interpreting. The contributors to this volume include leading scholars in spoken and signed language interpreting studies who have conducted research on interpreting involving video links. They are interested in participating in the ongoing dialogue across languages and language modalities about the efficacy of interpreting via video link and in developing evidence-based recommendations for policy, provision, and practice.

A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY

Throughout this volume, specific terms are used for the different settings of interpreting via video link (see Napier, Skinner, & Turner, this volume, for more discussion). Spoken language interpreting involving a video link mainly occurs as videoconference interpreting (VCI), where there are two locations and the interpreter is in either one, or as remote interpreting (RI), where all primary participants are together in one location and the interpreter is in a separate, remote location. Three-way connections, whereby the primary participants are distributed and the interpreter is in a third location have been studied (Braun, 2004, 2007) but are still rare in practice. Braun and Taylor (2012) have coined the term video-mediated interpreting (VMI) as an umbrella term for all configurations combining videoconferencing and interpreting. In the signed language interpreting sector, however, typically VCI is referred to as video remote interpreting (VRI), and links between three different locations, where participants are in two different locations and an interpreter is in a third remote location, are much more frequent, particularly through video relay services (VRS). A specific feature of VRS is that the interpreter is linked to the deaf person through video link and to a hearing person through a telephone link (Alley, 2012).

Thus, to avoid any confusion between the differences, we use a more generic over-arching term to refer to any of the above combinations—hence the title of the volume: Research on Interpreting via Video link, emphasizing the fact that interpreters are mediating communication by linking up through video, but that the participants could be in any number of locations, and it is difficult to say who is remote. The notion of interpreting via video link is a superordinate concept and covers all forms of terminology. Contributors to this volume use any of the above terms and definitions, depending on the nature of their research, whether they are writing from the spoken or signed language paradigm and the type of interpreting via video link they have investigated.

THE STRUCTURE OF THIS VOLUME

This volume is divided into three parts: The first provides an overview of the volume and the field of remote interpreting, beginning with this introduction and then a mapping of the field by Robert Skinner, Jemina Napier, and Sabine Braun in terms of its development and research to date.

The second part is devoted to insights into interpreting via video link, with a focus on the perspectives of key participants who experience interpreting in this way, including spoken and signed language interpreters themselves and other stakeholders, such as clinicians and prisoners. The five chapters in this part draw primarily on interviews with interpreters and participants to provide a rich, in-depth qualitative understanding of reported perceptions of the processes, practices, and identities of people involved in communicating and interpreting via video link.

Brunson explores the impact VRS has had on professional attitudes, including the personal motivations of interpreters who take up employment in these settings. In the United States, the quantity of interpreting services delivered via audio-video technologies has increased exponentially and is unmatched anywhere else in the world. With state funding, deaf and hard of hearing people can access the telephone by calling VRS for free, at any time, 7 days a week, 365 days of the year. To enjoy unlimited access to the telephone networks, interpreters on the ground, who previously provided face-to-face interpreting services, are migrating to VRS call centers. Brunson turns to the sociological studies of Ritzer (1977) and Weber (1946) to highlight the risk of industries who colonize professional skills and services and attempt to repackage an established service in a way that increases maximum output at little cost.

Why then do interpreters knowingly walk into such a culture of industrialization? Brunson explores why interpreters willingly switch their preference for on-site work to a remote, factory-like, industry. The interviews give personal insight into the kinds of choices individuals make and the kinds of career or work-life choices that are being considered.

In contrast, Tyer examines the concept of professional isolation experienced by remote interpreters by comparing similar experiences of sign language interpreters to teleworkers. Based on an adapted UCLA Loneliness Scale questionnaire (Russell, 1996) and interviews with five interpreters, Tyer uncovers the conflicting values and experiences that interpreters report when working in isolation.

Like the interpreters in the Brunson study, Tyer found that video interpreting brings particular professional challenges as well as satisfaction. However, as a consequence of the lack of contact with other interpreters and clients, interpreters also fear that they are cut off from the typical forms of feedback and learning that keep their skills in check. The sense conveyed in Tyer’s research suggests remote interpreting is good for the client but not for interpreters as professionals, thus she calls for a careful balance between working remotely versus on-site.

Koller and Pöchhacker’s study discusses the experiences of five young university graduate interpreters employed by an Austrian VRI company. Overall, the participants’ experience of working in a call center environment and working remotely was not perceived as anything different or special compared to working on-site with clients. The university training they had received, and their confidence in using technology, meant the interpreters felt prepared and capable of delivering their service in another way, via video link. The authors recognize how this experience reconfirms the claim that VRI is a method of service delivery rather than an interpreting mode (Braun, 2015). The authors also attribute the interpreters’ confidence in working remotely as a sign of a new generation in thinking, underpinned by their graduate-level training and flexible attitude in using technology.

The findings in Koller and Pöchhacker’s study contrast with previous studies that have explored the use of VRI in conference settings (Roziner & Shlesinger, 2010). The difference could be related to the level of demands and controls (Dean & Pollard, 2013) experienced by the interpreters at work. The interpreters based in the Austrian call center handle VRI interactions, where primary participants are co-located in one place. This suggests there is a mutual agreement between participants to contact a remote interpreter to facilitate the interaction. These particular calls are in spaces where the primary participants can see each other and visually interact with each other (talking and gesturing and indicating a turn), and cooperation can emerge. This contrasts with findings in other chapters in this volume (see Tyer; Brunson; Warnicke; and Napier, Skinner, and Turner), whose studies focus on sign language interpreters handling calls between participants based in different locations. These calls are defined as VRS, where one person is initiating a call (sometimes a spontaneous call) to another person (who is sometimes caught off guard and unprepared) to receive an interpreted call. The interpreter in these situations is impacted by the unbalanced level of knowledge between interlocutors, or asymmetries as described by Warnicke (this volume) and Napier, Skinner, and Turner (this volume). Nonetheless, Koller and Pöchhacker’s work helps to differentiate and identify what works when delivering an interpreting service remotely.

Based on a VRI service model similar to that described in Koller and Pöchhacker, Ryan and Conway report on the experience of doctors and their deaf patients in a London-based clinic that is testing the use of VRI as a form of standby service. Their chapter provides insight into the viewpoints and preferences of users, to determine when and where to use VRI. The collective involvement between doctors, patients, and interpreters seeks to tackle both the demand and supply imbalance of interpreters without compromising quality.

In their chapter, Braun, Davitti, and Dicerto analyze institutional processes and practices of implementing and using video links in legal proceedings and assess them in terms of how they accommodate and support interpreter-mediated communication. The study, which is based on findings from the European AVIDICUS 3 project, shows that the videoconferencing facilities and practices have undergone little adjustment to account for interpreter-mediated communication. Interpreters are not sufficiently recognized as a relevant user group and are excluded from decision-making processes, whereas legal and institutional stakeholders generally underestimate the complexity of combining interpreting and videoconferencing. However, the authors also argue that the variation of perceptions within and across different stakeholder groups suggests that video-mediated interpreting has not yet been normalized; that is, questions relating to system design and use are still being negotiated.

Part 3 includes five chapters that report on empirical studies of interaction in interpreting via video link. All the authors of these chapters have had access to authentic or semi-authentic instances of interpretermediated communication via video link that has been analyzed using different theoretical frameworks. The case studies presented delve into the actual practice of interpreting via video link that can be directly compared to the reported perceptions presented in Part 2.

Fowler’s ethnographic work draws on her PhD data of observations and field notes of videoconference interpreting (VCI-A and VCI-B) and on-site interpreting in English and Welsh courts and prisons. Fowler starts off by recognizing how those who are relying on an interpreter to gain access to a public authority are often at a disadvantage. Therefore, she suggests that it is incumbent upon the public authority to take additional steps to enable the interpreters to deliver their services in complex or unfamiliar environments. Fowler also finds that judges are not consistent in how they manage interpreters to assist them in facilitating communication.

The next two chapters by Warnicke and Napier, Skinner, and Turner look at actual call data facilitated by VRS interpreters. They are complementary in the sense that they take a linguistic approach to the analysis of VRS calls, and they discuss similar discourse features of video-mediated interpreting.

Warnicke uses the theoretical framework of dialogism in analyzing a corpus of 25 authentic calls in Sweden across general topics. This data set is reflective of a typical VRS interpreter’s daily work. The data in Warnicke’s analysis provides insight into how interpreters manage both spontaneous and pre-planned interactions via the telephone. Alternatively, Napier, Skinner, and Turner’s chapter is a case study of two calls of a specific genre—political talk—supported by focus group data, revealing interpreters’ experiences in mediating political interactions via video link. The two chapters contrast nicely, as each discusses how participants collaboratively work together to enable conversation to happen and how interpreters deploy strategies to mitigate any types of asymmetries brought about by the technology or mode of communication.

Balogh and Salaets compare data collected from an actual court case using videoconferencing facilities to link a judge and interpreter based in Austria with a Belgium defendant with data collected from simulated trials in the European AVIDICUS project. Balogh and Salaets’ data set from the video link between Austria and Belgium contains the work of an unethical, and possibly untrained, interpreter who is not closely monitored by an Austrian judge. The lack of involvement or coordination from the judge resonates with similar concerns in Fowler’s chapter.

Licoppe, Verdier, and Veyrier analyze turn-taking management in interpreter-mediated asylum proceedings that involve a video link to the asylum seeker. The study, which is based on the authors’ work in the European AVIDICUS project, focuses on situations where an asylum seeker launches into an extended answer that is interpreted in chunks. After each of the interpreter’s renditions, the floor can either be given back to the asylum seeker, allowing him/her to continue answering and making his/her voice heard, or the floor is seized by the judge, taking control of the situation. The authors argue that the way in which turntaking is managed at such junctures is affected by the technical setup, in the sense that in VCI-A (interpreter in court), the interpreter has fewer resources for managing the turn-taking process than in VCI-B (interpreter co-located with asylum seeker), so that VCI-A leads to greater control by the judge.

CONCLUSION

We recognize that this volume only scratches the surface of the emerging research in this field, but are heartened to see various studies on spoken and signed language interpreting via video link combined into one volume, which we hope will provoke more debate and ideas for further research in this field, and more discussion of the implications for practice, policy, and pedagogy of video-mediated ...