Cover not available
Article published In:
Community Interpreting, Translation, and Technology
Edited by Nike K. Pokorn and Christopher D. Mellinger
[Translation and Interpreting Studies 13:3] 2018
► pp. 366–392

Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility

| University of North Carolina at Charlotte
| Butler University
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.
Keywords: communication apprehension, community interpreting, technology adoption, technology use, visibility
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Technology use and adoption
    • Visibility and communication apprehension
    • Surveying the field
  • Methods
    • Participants
    • Procedures
    • Measures
    • Technology adoption propensity index
    • Personal report of communication apprehension
    • Media and technology usage and attitudes scale
    • Interpreter Interpersonal Role Inventory (IPRI)
    • Analysis
  • Results
    • Community vs. conference interpreting
    • Correlations
    • Court vs. medical interpreting
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00021.mel
References (61)
References
2004b. Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. “The role of the interpreter in the healthcare setting: A plea for dialogue between research and practice.” In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas, ed. by Carmen Valero-Garcés and Anne Martin, 147–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. “Invisibility.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, 214–215. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baigorri-Jalón, Jesús. 2014. From Paris to Nuremberg: The Birth of Conference Interpreting. Trans. By Holly Mikkelson and Barry Slaughter Olsen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baraldi, Claudio and Laura Gavioli (eds). 2012. Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Remote Interpreting.” In Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson and Reneé Jourdenais. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cadwell, Patrick. 2015. Translation and Trust: A Case Study of How Translation was Experienced by Foreign Nationals Resident in Japan for the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Dublin City University.Google Scholar
Davis, Fred D., Jr. 1986. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-user Information Systems: Theory and Results. Ph.D. dissertation. Sloan School of Management, MIT.Google Scholar
Degueldre, Christian and Claudia V. Angelelli. 2013. “Implementing new technologies in the teaching of interpreting.” Cuadernos de ALDEUU 251: 253–269.Google Scholar
Downie, Jonathan. 2017. “Finding and critiquing the invisible interpreter – a response to Uldis Ozolins.” Interpreting 19(2): 260–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dysart-Gale, Deborah. 2005. “Communication models, professionalization, and the work of medical interpreters.” Health Communication 17(1): 91–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erdoğmuş, Nihat and Murat Esen. 2011. “An investigation of the effects of technology readiness on technology acceptance in e-HRM.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 241: 487–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Federici, Federico (ed). 2016. Mediating Emergencies and Conflicts: Frontline Translating and Interpreting. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frampton, Bethany D. and Jeffrey T. Child. 2013. “Friend or not to friend: Coworker Facebook friend requests as an application of communication privacy management theory.” Computers in Human Behavior 29(6): 2257–2264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaiba, Francesca. 1998. The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Joshua. 2018. “Tablet interpreting: Consecutive interpreting 2.0.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 13(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griol, David, Jesús García-Herrero, and José Manuel Molina. 2016. “Military usages and language technologies: A review.” In Meeting Security Challenges through Data Analytics and Decision Support, ed. by Elisa Shahbazian and Galina Rogova, 44–68. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra Beatriz. 2007. Community Interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopf, Tim and Noelle Colby. 1992. “The relationship between interpersonal communication apprehension and self-efficacy.” Communication Research Reports 9(2): 131–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, Elaine. 2016. Bilingual Health Communication. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inghilleri, Moira. 2012. Interpreting Justice: Ethics, Politics and Language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
ISO 13611. 2014. Interpreting – Guidelines for community interpreting. Geneva: ISO.Google Scholar
Kalina, Sylvia and Klaus Ziegler. 2015. “Technology.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, 410–412. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lin, Carolyn A. and David J. Atkin (eds). 2007. Communication Technology and Social Change: Theory and Implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Martin, Anne and Isabel Abril Martí. 2008. “Community interpreter self-perception: A Spanish case study.” In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas, ed. by Anne Martin and Carmen Valero-Garcés, 203–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Gómez, Aída. 2015. “Invisible, visible, or everywhere in between? Perceptions and actual behaviours of non-professional interpreters and interpreting users.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 201: 175–194.Google Scholar
McCroskey, James C. 1982. An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication, 4th Ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
McCroskey, James C., Michael J. Beatty, Patricia Kearney, and Timothy G. Plax. 1985. “The content validity of the PRCA-24 as a measure of communication apprehension across communication contexts.” Communication Quarterly 33(3): 165–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCroskey, James C., Steven Booth-Butterfield, and Steven K. Payne. 1989. “The impact of communication apprehension on college student retention and success.” Communication Quarterly 37(2): 100–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCroskey, James C., John A. Daly, Virginia P. Richmond, and Raymond L. Falcione. 1977. “Studies of the relationship between communication apprehension and self-esteem.” Human Communication Research 3(3): 269–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D. 2015. “On the applicability of Internet-mediated research methods to investigate translators’ cognitive behaviour.” Translation & Interpreting 7(1): 59–71.Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D. and Thomas A. Hanson. 2017. Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Metzger, Melanie. 1999. Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Mick, David Glenn and Susan Fournier. 1998. “Paradoxes of technology: Consumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies.” Journal of Consumer Research 25(2): 123–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olson, Gary M. and Judith S. Olson. 2012. “Collaboration technologies.” In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications, ed. by Julie A. Jacko, 549–564. New York: CRC Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orlando, Marc. 2015. “Digital pen technology and interpreting training, practice and research: status and trends.” In Interpreter Education in the Digital Age, ed. by Susanne Ehrlich and Jemina Napier, 125–152. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Ozolins, Uldis. 2016. “The myth of the myth of invisibility?” Interpreting 18(2): 273–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parasuraman, Ananthanarayanan. 2000. “Technology readiness index (TRI): A multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies.” Journal of Service Research 2(4): 307–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2009. “Conference Interpreting: Surveying the Profession.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 4(2): 172–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Evolution of interpreting research.” In The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson and Renée Jourdenais, 62–76. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pribyl, Charles B., James A. Keaten, Masahiro Sakamoto, and Fusako Koshikawa. 1998. “Assessing the cross-cultural content validity of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension scale (PRCA-24).” Japanese Psychological Research 40(1): 47–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ratchford, Mark and Michelle Barnhart. 2012. “Development and validation of the technology adoption propensity (TAP) index.” Journal of Business Research 65(8): 1209–1215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rogers, Everett M. 1962/2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edition. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Rosen, Larry D., Kelly Whaling, L. Mark Carrier, Nancy A. Cheever, and Jeffrey Rokkum. 2013. “The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation.” Computers and Human Behavior 29(6): 2501–2511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2010. “Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting.” Interpreting 12(2): 214–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rütten, Anja. 2004. “Why and in which sense do conference interpreters need special software?” Linguistica Antverpiensia 31: 167–177.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Terminology.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, 416–417. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scott, Craig R. and Steven C. Rockwell. 1997. “The effect of communication, writing, and technology apprehension on likelihood to use new communication technologies.” Communication Education 46(1): 44–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Craig R. and Erik Timmerman. 2005. “Relating computer, communication, and computer-mediated communication apprehensions to new communication technology use in the workplace.” Communication Research 32(6): 683–725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica and Marianne Lederer 1989. Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation (Traductologie 4). Brussels: Didier Erudition OpoceGoogle Scholar
Sleptsova, Marina et al. 2015. “Wie verstehen ihre Rolle in medizinischen Konsultationen und wie verhalten sie sich konkret in der Praxis?” [What do interpreters understand as their role in medical consultations and how to they carry it out in reality.] PPmP-Psychotherapie· Psychosomatik· Medizinische Psychologie 65(09/10): 363–369.Google Scholar
Sun, Sanjun. 2016. “Suvey-based studies.” In Researching Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Claudia V. Angelelli and Brian James Baer, 269–279. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tipton, Rebecca and Olgierda Furmanek. 2016. Dialogue Interpreting. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valero-Garcés, Carmen. 2007. “Challenges in multilingual societies. The myth of the invisible interpreter and translator.” Across Languages and Cultures 8(1): 81–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1999. “Telephone interpreting and the synchronization of talk in social interaction.” The Translator 5(2): 247–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wahlster, Wolfgang (ed). 2000. Verbmobil: Foundations of Speech-to-Speech Translation. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Jihong. 2018. “‘Telephone interpreting should be used only as a last resort.’ Interpreters’ perceptions of the suitability, remuneration and quality of telephone interpreting.” Perspectives 26(1): 100–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weijters, Bert, Elke Cabooter, and Niels Schlilewaert. 2010. “The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 27(3): 236–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (14)

Cited by 14 other publications

Chan, Venus
2024. Impact of technology on interpreting practice: a review of studies on technology and interpreting practice from2013 to 2024. Interactive Technology and Smart Education DOI logo
Lázaro Gutiérrez, Raquel
2024. Methodological Challenges of Multimodal Corpus Analysis of Interpreter-Mediated Conversations. In Artificial Intelligence in HCI [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 14735], ► pp. 424 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Sijia & Jan-Louis Kruger
2023. The effectiveness of computer-assisted interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies 18:3 ► pp. 399 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2023. Chapter 8. Embedding, extending, and distributing interpreter cognition with technology. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Stengers, Hélène, Raquel Lázaro Gutiérrez & Hélène Stengers
2023. Chapter 5. Public service interpreters’ perceptions and acceptance of remote interpreting technologies in times of a pandemic. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Chmiel, Agnieszka & Nicoletta Spinolo
2022. Testing the impact of remote interpreting settings on interpreter experience and performance. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:2 ► pp. 250 ff. DOI logo
Giustini, Deborah
2022. Hakenconference interpreters in Japan: Exploring status through the sociology of work and of professions. Interpreting and Society 2:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk & Julie Lim
2022. Does interpreter location make a difference?. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:2 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Zhu, Xuelian & Vahid Aryadoust
2022. A Synthetic Review of Cognitive Load in Distance Interpreting: Toward an Explanatory Model. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Downie, Jonathan
2021. Interpreting is interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies 16:3 ► pp. 325 ff. DOI logo
Downie, Jonathan
2023. A comparative interpreting studies view of interpreting in religious contexts. Translation and Interpreting Studies 18:3 ► pp. 448 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Yanxia, Xiangling Wang & Qingqing Yuan
2021. Measuring the usability of machine translation in the classroom context. Translation and Interpreting Studies 16:1 ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020. Researching Professional Translator/Interpreter Experiences and Roles. In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Man, Deliang, Aiping Mo, Meng Huat Chau, John Mitchell O’Toole & Charity Lee
2020. Translation technology adoption: evidence from a postgraduate programme for student translators in China. Perspectives 28:2 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.