![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Remote interpreting (RI), where the interpreter communicates with the interlocutors via technological solutions across geographical distance, enhances the availability of trained interpreters in the public sector and institutional discourse in general. In refugee crises, where new unexpected language needs may arise, access to skilled interpreters presents a particular challenge. RI is an apt solution in such cases. Yet, although the professionals who are in need of interpreting services within the legal and health systems embrace the option of RI, the interpreters themselves seem less enthusiastic. They report to experience more challenges and stress in RI than in onsite interpreting. Research suggests that for RI to succeed, the interpreters’ working conditions require special attention and caution. Lending ears to the interpreters is therefore worthwhile in trying to identify what aspects should receive special attention during RI.
Approaching RI in an action research mode, this article reports on interpreting students’ reflections on their experiences with RI via Skype in an online classroom setting, as well as their reflections on their real-life experiences with RI in legal and healthcare settings. The qualitative analysis draws on logs from text-only chat sessions, in which the students describe challenges with feedback signals, turn-taking and information overflow, leading to increased stress during RI. However, they also offer suggestions as to what can be done by those in charge of institutional encounters to address these challenges and improve the quality of the Remote interpreting.
Acknowledgement
This project is registered with the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD), Project no 41565, in line with requirements of research ethics. Photo illustrations are published with the participants' permission. The illustrations do not display the actual students.
Notes
1. One example is the unexpected arrival of thousands of Afghan refugees on Norway’s northern border with Russia in September of 2015, a region where interpreters of Dari and Pashto had previously not been in great demand.
2. Agar, “Institutional Discourse,” 147.
3. Gentile, Ozolins, and Vasilakakos, Liaison Interpreting, 1.
4. Hale, Community Interpreting, 10–12, 32.
5. Since this is the terminology used by the participants in the current dataset, I chose to apply RI (or “on-screen interpreting”) and DI in opposition to onsite interpreting. Evidently, as technology and RI develop, further terminological differentiation is necessary. In “Video-Mediated Interpreting,” Braun and Taylor differentiate between (video) Remote interpreting, (V)RI, and video conferenced interpreting, VCI (40–41). In their terms, (V)RI denotes a situation where the interpreter sits alone, whereas VCI indicates that the interpreter is co-located with one of the interlocutors—normally, the professional administering the institutional encounters. The terminological variation reflects the rising number of new options for communication. In “Remote Interpreting,” Moser-Mercer, who is exclusively concerned with simultaneous interpreting, delineates RI as a mode “where the interpreter works away from the meeting room either through a video-conferencing set-up or through a cabled arrangement close to the meeting facilities, either in the same building or at a neighboring location” (1). With respect to future terminological differentiations, I agree with Constable’s point in “Distance Interpreting” that the interpreter’s working conditions and access to visual information should serve as primary vantage points in drawing up the criteria for refinements of the Remote or “on-screen” sub-categories.
6. Kelly, Telephone Interpreting; Wadensjö, “Telephone Interpreting.”
7. Mouzourakis, “Videoconferencing,” and “Remote Interpreting”; Skaaden, “On-Screen Interpreting”; Moser-Mercer, “Remote Interpreting”; Roziner and Shlesinger, “Much Ado About Something Remote”; Korak, Remote Interpreting via Skype; Balogh and Hertog, “AVIDICUS Comparative Studies—Part II”; Braun et al., “Training in Video-mediated Interpreting”; Braun and Taylor, “AVIDICUS Comparative Studies—Part I” and “Video-Mediated Interpreting.”
8. NOU, Tolking i offentlig sektor, 152.
9. UDI, Skjermtolking.
10. Skaaden, “On-Screen Interpreting,” 73, 74.
11. Balogh and Hertog, “AVIDICUS Comparative Studies—Part II,” 134.
12. Braun and Taylor, “AVIDICUS Comparative Studies,” 107.
13. Roziner and Shlesinger, “Much Ado About Something Remote,” 219.
14. Moser-Mercer, “Remote Interpreting,” 11; Roziner and Shlesinger, “Much Ado About Something Remote,” 229.
15. Moser-Mercer, “Remote Interpreting,” 1; Roziner and Shlesinger, “Much Ado About Something Remote,” 241.
16. Moser-Mercer, “Remote Interpreting,” 1, 17.
17. Roziner and Shlesinger, “Much Ado About Something Remote,” 227, 233, 241–43.
18. The one semester course equals 15 credits (ECTS) in the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System.
19. Skaaden, “No Set Answers?” 13–14; and “‘That We All Behave’,” 325–27.
20. Braun et al., “Training in Video-mediated Interpreting,” 238.
21. Korak, Remote Interpreting via Skype, 157.
22. Skaaden, “No Set Answers?” 16–18; and “‘That We All Behave’,” 330–31.
23. Holmer, “Discourse Structure Analysis,” 1.
24. Osman and Herring, “Interaction, Facilitation, and Deep Learning,” 2.
25. Holmer, “Discourse Structure Analysis,” 2, 5.
26. Dimitrova, När två samtalar; Wadensjö, Interpreting as Interaction.
27. Wadensjö, Interpreting as Interaction, 104–5.
28. Dimitrova, När två samtalar, 63.
29. Skaaden, “‘That We All Behave’,” 328.
30. Wadensjö, “Telephone Interpreting.”
31. Roziner and Shlesinger, “Much Ado About Something Remote,” 219.
32. Arminen, Licoppe, and Spagnolli, “Respecifying Mediated Interaction,” 291.
33. Moser-Mercer, “Remote Interpreting,” 17.
34. Schön, The Reflective Practitioner, 31; Skaaden, “‘That We All Behave’,” 326, 339.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Hanne Skaaden
Hanne Skaaden is professor at the Department of International Studies and Interpreting at Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway. Her research covers interpreting in institutional encounters as well as bilingualism and migrants’ first language attrition, along with online learning for interpreters. Since 2003 she has been teaching interpreting on campus and online to multiple language groups.