15
SOME ASPECTS OF ONLINE INTERPRETING: CURRENT
STATE AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Jamilya Rustamovna Abduganieva
PhD in pedagogical sciences, Head of English Language Translation Theory
Department, Uzbekistan State World Languages University
The challenges of the global COVID-19 pandemic served as a catalyst for a
number of emerging changes in the translation industry related to the use of new
information and communication technologies (hereinafter referred to as ICT) in
interpretation [2. P. 260; 17].
Despite the fact that it was technology that contributed to the emergence of
interpretation as a profession in the 20
th
century, there have been no fundamental
changes in the tools of interpreters
– unlike translators – for decades [10] This is
probably why, relatively recently, technological innovations were not taken seriously
by the professional community [9. P. 34], and the realization that technology can
change the usual modus operandi did not come [4. P. 262]. Today, new tools, rapidly
changing the conditions of competition in the profession, require the translator to
master technological competencies and quickly adapt to new working conditions [1].
There are three components of the technological transformation of interpreting
(in the terminology of Braun
– technological turn): 1) remote translation tools
(technologies used to deliver interpreting services and enhance their reach, leading
to technology-mediated or distance interpreting); 2) computer-aided interpreting
technologies (CAI; technology-supported interpreting); 3) machine interpreting
technologies (MI); as well as hybrid technologies related to automatic speech
recognition (for example, respeaking) [5. P. 271; 10].
If automation in interpreting is a fairly new phenomenon, then the first
experiences of translation using telecommunication technologies began in the 1970s:
in 1973, the Australian Migration Service established a telephone translation service
[5: p. 275], and in 1976, UNESCO for the first time used satellite communication
technologies to broadcast simultaneous translation [16. P. 124].
Despite the broad prospects for new technological solutions, for a long time
the position of the professional community was that conference interpreters should
not switch to remote work [8]. In 2017, the AIIC (Task Force on Distance Interpreting)
working group was created, whose tasks include coordinating all issues related to
working remotely [16. P. 125].
Studies of the technical, psychophysiological, social and discursive aspects of
both simultaneous and consecutive translation in remote mode determined its special
status, pointed to the dependence of the quality of translation on technical conditions
and ergonomics of the workplace, revealed an increased cognitive load in
comparison with contact types of translation (term by Alikina [3. PP. 60
–62]), and
also pointed out the potential negative impact on the health and psychological state
of the translator [5. 11, 12, 15].
As the pandemic restrictions forced the world to move institutional and
personal communication online in April 2020, the professional
community’s thoughts
16
about poor audio and communication quality, an
interpreter’s excessive cognitive
load, and potential injuries when working remotely were temporarily sidelined, all
types of interpreting inevitably moved to the online environment [4. P. 264]. Nimdzi,
who in 2019 called virtual translation technologies
“newbies” on the market [13], will
later write: a year ago, these tools were just a fashionable solution to non-existent
problems, and in 2020 year without them, we simply would not be able to solve the
problems of the pandemic (virtual interpreting technology... became the solution to
the problem) [14].
The forced transition to
“distance learning” set the vector for ICT research in
translation education [8]. Further changes in the industry are likely to give impetus to
professional practice research in the coming years. Today, scientific projects devoted
to technologies in interpretation are not widely represented in Russian translation
studies, however, the theoretical and methodological base of the cognitive [7],
communicative functional and corpus areas can be enriched by modern research
new types of interpreting. Therefore, there is a need to systematize and unify the
metalanguage of this field of knowledge, as well as to comprehend the existing
methods, approaches and results of foreign studies of distance translation.
In addition to the variety of scenarios of human-machine interaction, among
the reasons for the indicated terminological variability is the variety of scientific
approaches in the modern DI research corpus. A significant part of remote translation
research has been carried out under the auspices of international organizations: the
UN (1999), the European Commission (2000) and the European Parliament (2001,
2004); see: [15] and review in [11]. Interest in ICT in interpreting is determined
primarily by economic and organizational considerations: remote work means not
only a reduction in travel costs, but also a solution to the problem of equipping new
booths for simultaneous translation (for example, during the expansion of the state
when new member countries join the European Union [12]). With the cooperation of
the International Telecommunication Union and the School of Translation and
Interpretation of the University of Geneva (1998), one of the first large-scale projects
devoted to the experimental evaluation of psychological and physiological factors, as
well as the technical conditions for remote simultaneous interpretation (VRI-mono-
SI) was implemented [11].
Large-scale studies of remote conference interpreting were followed by
experiments aimed at describing the features of DI in the social sphere and business.
The possibilities of an interpreter working in small tripartite conferences using ISDN
videotelephony were studied in the ViKiS project (Germany, 1996
–1998) [7]. A series
of AVIDICUS projects (2008
–2016) was dedicated to a comprehensive study of VMI
for use in the legal field (translation in court, police, correctional institutions) [7].
The materials of the SHIFT in Orality Erasmus+ project (2015
–2018) describe
the theoretical foundations of remote translation research (TI and VRI), as well as
recommendations for developers of professional educational programs. In these
projects, in order to solve applied problems, the cognitive and social aspects of DI are
subjected to theoretical comprehension, the psychological and physiological features
of the work of an interpreter in remote mode are empirically revealed; linguistic aspects
are studied using the method of introspection, conversational analysis and multimodal
discourse analysis. Since the requirement of confidentiality often prevents the
collection of material in real translation situations, many DI studies are based on
17
translations in simulated typical situations of communication (however, the
experimental nature of the task is not reported to translators in some cases, since the
very fact of recording can cause additional stress, for example, see [8]). Thus, DI
linguistic research is based on small samples, which is compensated by the multi-level
markup of the material and the complexity of scientific approaches in general. The
corpus direction stands out as promising (for example, [14]).
When studying remote conference interpreting, the psychological aspects of
work (stress, motivation of the interpreter, social isolation,
“alienation”), the impact of
new conditions on the
interpreter’s health (the impact on vision of the video image as
the only source of visual information during translation) come to the fore [15]), as well
as the distribution of cognitive load [11]. One way or another, each of these studies
is aimed at identifying the fundamental differences between remote and contact
translation, as well as the factors influencing ICT on the work of an interpreter. As
Braun notes, this problem has not been solved to date, since the results of individual
experiments are contradictory, and a wide range of conditions for their
implementation does not allow full comparison and generalization. Nevertheless, a
number of categories are distinguished in the corpus of studies used in the
interpretation of the features of distance translation.
A number of recent studies have indicated a generally positive attitude towards
some configurations of remote interpreting, both for experienced conference
interpreters (VRI-mono / dia-SI [16]) and interpreters working in social situations
(public service VRImono / dia-SI / CO [9: p. 73]). New opportunities for searching for
orders, more comfortable conditions for efficient work, increased access to the
services of professionals
– all these are the advantages of working remotely.
However, the key disadvantage, according to translators, is stress [Ibid.]. Moral
exhaustion, feeling of loneliness, despondency, absent-mindedness, as well as
fatigue, headaches and other health problems are associated by translators with
stress, including that caused by the technical aspect of work. The ergonomics of the
translation space is of particular importance in the VRI-dia-CO configuration.
Problems with the connection, the lack of technological competencies of the
customer
(“80% of the work in Zoom goes to consultations, 20% to orders”), as well
as the lack of paralinguistic information in remote communication in the long run can
lead to professional burnout. Thus, the study of the causes of fatigue and burnout of
an interpreter (post-work exhaustion [15])
Among the basic grounds for distinguishing between categories of remote
translation, it is worth highlighting the location of the interpreter and communication
participants, as well as the communication technology. Each remote translation
scenario has its own specifics, due to the peculiarities of both human and human-
machine interaction. As a key factor influencing the work of an interpreter in a remote
mode, they name the limitations of the visual channel of information, which lead to
additional cognitive and psychological stress.
In conclusion, we note the inevitable inclusion of remote translation studies in
the paradigm of mediatization. Technologies, mediating interaction, become an agent
of sociocultural changes. With the ubiquity of technology, the idea of remote
translation is being strengthened not as a measure applied in extremis, but as a full
replacement for traditional types of translation (cf.
“hyperbolic, business-led
discourse on
VMI” [5: p. 282], “normalization” of technology” [6. P. 283]). The
“business as usual” position [12] – equalizing the status of remote and contact
18
translation
– is actively supported by technology platforms: new solutions are
positioned as
“an interpreter at the push of a button”. Thus, in the situation of
“uberization” of the industry [1], scientific research acquires special significance and
is designed to dispel the naive ideas that exist in society about the peculiarities of the
work of an interpreter.
REFERENCES:
1. Achkasov A.V. (2018). Remote interpretation and training of translators. In:
XLVII International Philological Scientific Conference: Section
“Problems of methods of
teaching
translation”, St. Petersburg, March 19–28, 2018. Saint Petersburg,
2018.
Available
at:
https://www.conference-spbu.ru/conference/38/reports/7222/
(accessed 21.04.2021). (In Russ.).
2. Alekseitseva T.A., Magnes N.O., Ivanova E.P., Koryshev M.V. (2020).
Professional training of translators in the new reality: new challenges and new
competencies. Ancient and New Romania, 26: 260
–271. (In Russ.).
3. Alikina E.V. (2011). Taxonomic aspect of interpretation. Bulletin of the
Udmurt University. History and Philology series, 2: 59
–66. (In Russ.). AIIC Position
on Distance Interpreting. (2018).
4. Ball M. (2021). Distance interpreting and the risk of alienation. In: 100 Years
of Conference Interpreting: A Legacy. Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 262
–269. ISBN 1-5275-6719-2.
5. Braun S. (2007). Interpreting in small-group bilingual videoconferences:
Challenges and adaptation processes. Interpreting, 9 (1): 21
–46. DOI:
10.1075/intp.9.1.03bra.
6. Braun S. (2019). Technology and interpreting. In: The Routledge Handbook
of Translation and Technology. London: Routledge. 271
–288. ISBN 9781315311258.
7. Chistova E.V. (2019). Multichannel and multimodality of perception in the
cognitive activity of a simultaneous interpreter. Philological sciences. Questions of
theory and practice, 12 (9): 337
–342. DOI: 10.30853/filnauki.2019.9.69. (In Russ.).
8. Constable A. (2015). Distance Interpreting: A Nuremberg Moment for our
Time. In: AIIC 2015 Assembly Day 3: Debate on Remote. 18 January. Available at:
https://aiic.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/di-a-nuremberg-moment-for-our-time-
andrewconstable-01182015.pdf (accessed 06.05.2021).
9. Corpas Pastor G., Fern L.M. (2016). A survey of
interpreter’s needs and
their practices related to language technology. Technical report. Universidad de
Málaga. – P. 54.
10. Fantinuoli C. (2019). The technological turn in interpreting: the challenges
that lie ahead. Proceedings of the
BDÜ Conference Übersetzen und Dolmetschen
4.0, 22
– 24 November 2019, 4: 334–354.
11. Moser-Mercer, B. (2003). Remote Interpreting: Assessment of Human
Factors and Performance Parameters. In: AIIC
– International Association of
Conference Interpreters. Available at: https://aiic.org/document/516/AIICWebzine_
Summer2003_3_MOSER-MERCER_Remote_interpreting_Assessment_of_hum
12. Mouzourakis P. Remote interpreting: a technical perspective on recent
experiments / P. Mouzourakis // Interpreting.
– 2006. – Vol. 8 (1). – PP. 45–66. –
DOI: 10.1075/intp.8.1.04mou.
19
13. Nimdzi. (2019). The 2019 Nimdzi Interpreting Index. In: Nimdzi Insights.
3 September. Available at: https://www.nimdzi.com/the-2019-nimdzi-interpreting
index/ (accessed 11.05.2021).
14. Nimdzi. (2020). The Virtual Interpreting Landscape. In: Nimdzi Insights.
13 May. Available at: https://www.nimdzi.com/virtual-interpreting-landscape/
(accessed 13.05.2021).
15. Roziner I. Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in
remote interpreting / I. Roziner, M. Shlesinger // Interpreting.
– 2010. – Vol. 12 (2). –
Pp. 214
–247. – DOI: 10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz.
16. Seeber, K. G. (2020). Distance Interpreting: Mapping the landscape. In:
Interdependenzen und Innovationen in Translation und Fachkommunikation. Berlin:
Frank & Timme, 2020. 123
–172. ISBN 9783732905669.
17. Spinolo N., Amato A.A.M. (2020). Technology in Interpreter Education and
Practice: Introduction. In: InTRAlinea. Special Issue: Technology in Interpreter
Education and Practice. Available at: https://www.intralinea.org/index.php/specials/
article/2520 (accessed 17.05.2021).
