Analysis of Videoconference Interpreting

【Abstract】Videoconference interpreting is a method and a concept frequently used in the foreign countries， especially in the west， to provide services for the public. However， videoconference interpreting is barely adopted in China or even scarcely known by the public. Therefore， the main purpose of this article is to demonstrate what the videoconference interpreting is and to analyse obstacles encountered in the process of interpreting. And relevant suggestions to cope with these difficulties will be briefly discussed in this paper.

【Key words】videoconference interpreting; comments; obstacles; suggestions

【作者簡介】宋欣穎，遵義師范學院外國語學院。

Ⅰ. Introduction of Videoconference Interpreting

With the boom of information and communication technology， virtual communication is introduced in peoples normal lives and it is developing at a staggering rate. Communication tools （such as smart phones， tablets， email etc.） and the Internet enable virtual communication to be used worldwide （van der Vlis 2011）. Sabine Braun and Judith L. Taylor have mentioned in one of their studies that video-mediated interpreting is widely used in conference interpreting， healthcare cases， business settings， as well as court rooms， though supporting studies of this kind of interpreting mode are still limited （Braun & Taylor 2011）. This paper will analyse two points from comments made by an interpreter doing a remote interpreting in a court room. The background of this videoconference interpreting is that the defendant was in prison， and the interpreter was in the court room.

Ⅱ. Analysis of the Comment

In legal communication and legal interpreting scenarios， the interlocutors often include judges， other legal practitioners， suspects， defendants， victims or witness， as well as interpreters. According to Braun （2011）， the role of legal interpreters contains two levels. One is transnational level which deals with cross-border cases， the other is national level that refers to interpret for individuals who are not understand or speak the language of the host country but involved in some cases in that country. Comparing with interpreters in traditional court scenarios， videoconference interpreting interpreters not only need to deal with the normal challenges facing by traditional court interpreting interpreters， but also have to bear more risks and unexpected occasions caused by “remoteness”. This can be fully verified by the interpreters comments in the source material.

I didnt know where to sit， so I was put next to the defence solicitor. I soon realize that I couldnt interpret simultaneously. […]

Firstly， the interpreters seat is not clearly provided which directly or indirectly brings obstacles for communication. Physical separation affects the communicative behavior of the interlocutors， and may also have knock-on effects on interpreters performance， especially in the context of legal communications， because the specific genres and specific different purposes in legal communication are highly commanded （Braun 2011）. The interpreter said that he/she could not find a place to sit and was put next to the defence solicitor. Hale （2007： 145） figures out that the behavior of all participants will influence with each other and has impact on effeciency of interpreting practice. This idea is verified by the comments that the interpreter could not do simultaneous interpreting because of sitting too close to the defence solicitor. However， it is hard to define which place in court is the best choice for interpreters. And different participants hold different views about interpreters position. But many interpreters prefer to sit near to non-native speaker （Braun 2011）. In the situation mentioned in comments， the interpreter and the prisoner are in two different places， although the preference of co-located with prisoner cannot be realized， to some extent， it may be better for the interpreter to be separated with other participants， since behaviors of different participants may have an adverse effect on other interlocutors. The interpreter is no exception， especially when he or she is closely sitting next to someone. That is why the interpreter could not interpret simultaneously and was distracted by worrying about the disturbance to the solicitor.

Secondly， lacking the support of essential equipment and disadvantageous of position hindered the interpreter to provide effective communication. Sound， both from interpreters themselves and the surroundings， is vital for interpreters to conduct efficient communication. In videoconferences， interlocutors are often in different environments， i.e. a court room and prison. And thus they are exposed to different environmental influences， such as background noises and disturbance （Braun 2011）. And the deficiency of providing appropriate equipment in court room even made communication harder. Braun （2011： 275） points out， “physical separation of the interlocutors creates a latent uncertainty about what ‘the other side does， i.e. the atmosphere or communicative situation at the remote site is generally more difficult to gauge.” Because of uncertainty， interpreters tend to raise their voice to compensate remoteness. The interpreters comment says that he intended to raise voice in order to be heard. Thus， lacking of equipments， such as microphones， will lead to increase of voice volume. Comparing with the traditional face-to-face interpreting， sound quality is more crucial for videoconference interpreters （Braun 2011）. Strict technical standards are required in sound quality. According to AIIC， there is a minimum standard for bandwidth used in videoconference interpreting and the equipment used in legal videoconference interpreting should be full duplex systems， so as to maintain stable and sustainable interpreting performance （Braun 2011）. In addition， Braun （2011： 274） has also illustrated that it is necessary to design a videoconference system， including microphones or loud speakers， volume control and some other possible parameters should also be considered. However， these technical preparations will not ensure the interpreter do a perfect job， because there are many other inevitable affecting factors throughout the whole session in court. This is also reflected in one of Brauns studies that interpreter often complain about the noise in court rooms， for instance poor court room acoustics， rattling court documents， or even the movement of people in court （Braun 2011）. So， well interpreting performance will not only based on equipments but is also related to the consensus of maintaining a quiet environment and providing adequate equipments for interpreters.

Ⅲ. Conclusion

Considering about the distribution of different interlocutors， there is not any standard or fixed format. But before starting a real court room interpreting， the interpreter could identify his/her need of adjusting location with the present court staffs. If there is time， it would be better for interpreter to visit the court room in advance.

In terms of the voice problem and the interference from the prisoner， additional equipments （such as microphones） and advanced available technologies should be provided， in order to keep efficient communication. The interpreter should check whether those corresponding equipments are prepared to him or not. Besides， it is necessary for the interpreter to monitor his source materials comprehensively in case that he cannot hear clearly about the prisoners words because of bad network or outdated equipment. In addition， the interpret needs to control his voice volume in order to avoid over elaborating or lacking of coherence. Over elaboration and lack of coherence easily lead to interference from other participants. And all the people in court room have the obligation to provide an ergonomic and quiet working environment for the interpreter. The legal staffs can inform the present people to be as quiet as possible in advance.

References：

[1]Braun， S.. Recommendations for the use of video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings. In Braun， S. & J. L. Taylor （Eds.）， Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings[J].Guildford： University of Surrey，2011：265-287.

[2]Braun， S. & J. L. Taylor. Video-mediated interpreting： an overview of current practice and research. In Braun， S. & J. L. Taylor （Eds.）， Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings[J].Guildford： Universityof Surrey，2011：27-57.

[3]Braun， S. & J. L. Taylor. Video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings： two European surveys. In Braun， S. & J. L. Taylor （Eds.）， Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings[J].Guildford： Universityof Surrey，2011：59-84.

[4]Hale， S.， Community Interpreting[J]. Basingstoke and New York： Palgrave Macmillan，2007.

[5]Van der Vlis， E.-J.. Videoconferencing in criminal proceedings. In Braun， S. & J. L. Taylor （Eds.）， Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings[J]. Guildford： University of Surrey， 2001：11-25.