1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interpreting
  4. Volume 18, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This study explores the interpreter’s positioning in a Video Relay Interpreting (VRI) service that offers bimodal mediation between people using Swedish Sign Language (SSL) and people using spoken Swedish. Positioning subsumes the ways in which interpreters orient themselves to the contingencies of the setting on a moment-by-moment basis, in relation to the impact of technology, participants’ knowledge asymmetries (e.g., prior experience of VRI), their physical separation, and the need for two arenas (visual and auditive). The interpreting is bimodal, each of the two users being in direct contact with the interpreter through a different medium (telephone for one, videophone for the other). Nine excerpts from two calls within the VRI service serve as examples to show how the interpreter’s positioning emerges dynamically in relation to contingent variables of the setting, such as the initial importance of briefing users on the service, temporary loss of sound and image, the perceived need to inform either user of extralinguistic items, or situational awareness that it is time to conclude the interaction. This new research perspective on VRI can afford a better understanding of its moment-by-moment complexity and specificities, thus helping improve it and train interpreters better for it.

© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.18.2.03war
2016-10-21
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/intp.18.2.03war
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adelswärd, V
    (1989) Laughter and dialogue: The social significance of laughter in institutional discourse. Nordic Journal of Linguistics12, 107–136. doi: 10.1017/S0332586500002018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586500002018 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahlgren, I. & Bergman, B
    (2006) Teckenspråk och teckenspråkiga Kunskaps- och forskningsöversikt. www.regeringen.se/sb/d/6150/a/60648 (accessed30 June 2014).
  3. Angelelli, C.V
    (2004) Revisiting the interpreter’s role. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.55
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.55 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, R.B.W
    (2002) Perspectives on the role of interpreter. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 208–217.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bamberg, M.G.W
    (1997) Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History7 (1-4), 335–342. doi: 10.1075/jnlh.7.42pos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.42pos [Google Scholar]
  6. Bower, K
    (2015) Stress and burnout in Video Relay Service (VRS) interpreting. Journal of Interpretation24 (1), article 2.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Braun, S. & Taylor, J.L
    (2012) Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings [E-book]. Guildford, UK: University of Surrey. www.videoconference-interpreting.net/?page_id=27 (accessed24 March 2015).
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Brunson, J.L
    (2011) Video Relay Service interpreters. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Davies, B. & Harré, R
    (1990) Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour20 (1), 43–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.1990.tb00174.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Goffman, E
    (1981) Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Haakana, M
    (2002) Laughter in medical interaction: From quantification to analysis, and back. Journal of Sociolinguistics6 (2), 207–235. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9481.00185
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00185 [Google Scholar]
  12. Harré, R. & Van Langenhove, L
    (1998) Positioning theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Haualand, H.M
    (2012) Interpreting ideals and relaying rights. PhD dissertation. Fafo.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Hopper, R
    (1992) Telephone conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Ingram, R.M
    (1974) A communication model of the interpreting process. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association7 (3), 3–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Janzen, T. & Korpiniski, D
    (2005) Ethics and professionalism in interpreting. In T. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in signed language interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 165–202. doi: 10.1075/btl.63.11jan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.11jan [Google Scholar]
  17. Janzen, T. & Shaffer, B
    (2008) Intersubjectivity in interpreted interactions: The interpreter’s role in co-constructing meaning. In J. Zlatev , T.P. Racine , C. Sinha & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 333–356. doi: 10.1075/celcr.12.18jan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.12.18jan [Google Scholar]
  18. Keating, E. , Edwards, T. & Mirus, G
    (2008) Cybersign and new proximities: Impacts of new communication technologies on space and language. Journal of Pragmatics40 (6), 1067–1081. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.009 [Google Scholar]
  19. Keating, E. & Mirus, G
    (2003) American Sign Language in virtual space: Interactions between deaf users of computer-mediated video communication and the impact of technology on language practices. Language in Society32 (5), 693–714. doi: 10.1017/S0047404503325047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404503325047 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee, J
    (2007) Telephone interpreting – seen from the interpreters’ perspective. Interpreting9 (2), 231–253. doi: 10.1075/intp.9.2.05lee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.2.05lee [Google Scholar]
  21. Linell, P
    (1998) Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and context in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2011) Samtalskulturer: Kommunikativa verksamhetstyper i samhället, Vol. 1. Department of Culture and Communication. Linköping: Linköping University.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lundström, B
    (2001) Teckenspråket är grunden i vår profession: en bok om tolkyrket och om Sveriges teckenspråkstolkars förening. Stockholm: Sveriges teckenspråkstolkars förening (STTF).
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Mason, I
    (2009) Role, positioning and discourse in face-to-face interpreting. In R. de Pedro Ricoy , I. Perez & C. Wilson (Eds.), Interpreting and translating in public service settings. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 52–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2012) Gaze, positioning and identity in interpreted-mediated dialogues. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 177–200. doi: 10.1075/btl.102.08mas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.08mas [Google Scholar]
  26. Mason, I. & Ren, W
    (2014) Power in face-to-face interpreting events. In C. Angelelli (Ed.), The sociological turn in translation and interpreting studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 115–134. doi: 10.1075/tis.7.2.08mas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.7.2.08mas [Google Scholar]
  27. Metzger, M
    (1999) Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Moser-Mercer, B
    (2005) Remote interpreting: Issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual task. Meta50 (2), 727–738. doi: 10.7202/011014ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/011014ar [Google Scholar]
  29. Mouzourakis, P
    (2006) Remote interpreting: A technical perspective on recent experiments. Interpreting8 (1), 45–66. doi: 10.1075/intp.8.1.04mou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.1.04mou [Google Scholar]
  30. Oldfield, N.L
    (2010) A competency model for video relay interpreters. International Journal of Interpreter Education2, 41–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Oviatt, S.L , Cohen, P.R. & Podlozny, A
    (1992) Spoken language in interpreted telephone dialogues. Computer Speech and Language6 (3), 277–303. doi: 10.1016/0885‑2308(92)90021‑U
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2308(92)90021-U [Google Scholar]
  32. Peterson, R
    (2011) Profession in pentimento: A narrative inquiry into interpreting in video settings. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 199–224. doi: 10.1075/btl.99.12pet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.99.12pet [Google Scholar]
  33. Pollitt, K. & Haddon, C
    (2005) Cold calling? Retraining interpreters in the art of telephone interpreting. In C. Roy (Ed.), Advances in teaching sign language interpreters. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 187–210.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Pöchhacker, F
    (2004) Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Roy, C.B
    (2000) Interpreting as a discourse process. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. (2002) The problem with definitions, descriptions, and the role metaphors of interpreters. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 344–353.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Sun, H
    (2004) Opening moves in informal Chinese telephone conversations. Journal of Pragmatics36 (8), 1429–1465. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  38. Taleghani-Nikazm, C
    (2002) A Cconversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings between native and non-native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics34 (12), 1807–1832. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00049‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00049-8 [Google Scholar]
  39. Wadensjö, C
    (1998) Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. (1999) Telephone interpreting and the synchronization of talk. The Translator5 (2), 247–264. doi: 10.1080/13556509.1999.10799043
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1999.10799043 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2004) Dialogue interpreting – A monologising practice in a dialogically organised world. Target16 (1), 105–124. doi: 10.1075/target.16.1.06wad
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.16.1.06wad [Google Scholar]
  42. Wallin, L. , Mesch, J. & Nilsson, A.-L
    (2010) Transcription guide lines for Swedish Sign Language discourse. Department of Linguistics, Stockholm: Stockholm University.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Warnicke, C. & Plejert, C
    (2012) Turn-organisation in mediated phone interaction using Video Relay Service (VRS). Journal of Pragmatics44 (1), 1313–1334. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  44. Wessling, D.M. & Shaw, S
    (2014) Persistent emotional extremes and Video Relay Service interpreters. Journal of Interpretation23 (1), article 6.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Wilcox, S. & Shaffer, B
    (2005) Towards a cognitive model of interpreting. In T. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in signed language interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 27–50. doi: 10.1075/btl.63.06wil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.06wil [Google Scholar]
  46. Wilkinson, R
    (2007) Managing linguistic incompetence as a delicate issue in aphasic talk-in-interaction: On the use of laughter in prolonged repair sequences. Journal of Pragmatics39 (3), 542–569. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  47. Zimmerman, D.H
    (1998) Identity, context and Iinteraction. In C. Antaki & S. Viddicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk. London: Sage, 87–106.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.18.2.03war
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): positioning; role; signed language; Video Relay Interpreting (VRI); Video Relay Service (VRS)

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error