Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility

Abstract

Research on technology and interpreting regularly investigates technology-mediated interpreting settings and contrasts various interpreting configurations to better understand how technology changes the interpreting task. This scholarship generally does not account for various personality or character attributes exhibited by interpreters, nor does it examine the actual adoption and usage of these tools. This article presents findings from a survey-based study that examines several interpreter-specific constructs, namely their self-perception of the interpreter’s role and communication apprehension, in conjunction with attitudes toward technology use and adoption. Findings suggest that community interpreters differ from their conference interpreting counterparts and that domain-specific differences emerge between medical and court interpreters with respect to their perceived role and their propensity to adopt new technologies.

Technology solutions for interpreters: the VIP system

“…Interpreters need to be equipped with tools which support new functionalities and can provide assistance during all phases of the interpretation process (both onsite and remote), including selfassessment and training. And yet studies on interpreting technologies are still in their infancy (see, for instance, the two special issues edited by Pokorn and Mellinger, 2018, andJiménez Serrano, 2019, as well as the papers in Rodríguez Melchor, Horváth and Ferguson, 2020).…”

“…Interpreting as a human activity has resisted complete automation for various reasons, such as fear, unawareness, communication complexities, lack of tools tailored to interpreters' needs, interpreters' negative attitudes to technology, etc. (Mellinger and Hanson, 2018). However, interest in developing tailor-made solutions for interpreters has risen exponentially in recent years.…”

Methodological considerations for survey research: Validity, reliability, and quantitative analysis

“…However, there are examples in the extant literature. For example, Mellinger and Hanson (2018) reported alpha coefficients from published examples in previous studies along with the figures from their sample as part of their methodological discussion of several survey instruments. In addition, a confidence interval for Cronbach's alpha can be reported to provide further information about the likely range of the true value (Mellinger & Hanson, 2017).…”

Interpreting is Interpreting: Why we need to leave behind interpreting settings to discover Comparative Interpreting Studies

“…The problem for this argument is that there is precious little data to verify such a hypothesis, and the data that is available actually points to similarities across settings, not differences, as has been seen most clearly in the surprising similarity between the interpreters studied by Diriker (2004) and Angermeyer (2015). While there are indeed some differences in interpreter self-perception (e.g., Angelelli 2004a; Mellinger and Hanson 2018), some work on this area (e.g., Zwischenberger 2015) has argued that the continued existence of setting-specific professional norms -most notably those related to the figure of the interpreter as a neutral, distant mediator -are under threat, precisely because of the growth in research showing interpreters to be active participants across settings. Indeed, there seems to be growing evidence that there is a great difference between interpreter self-perception and their actual behavior (Diriker 2004;Martínez-Gómez 2015).…”