SHIFT in Orality (Shaping Interpreters of the Future and of Today) is an Erasmus+ project funded by the European Commission within Key Action 2: Strategic Partnership in Higher Education.

Project summary

As a result of globalization and of the continuous development and improvement of Information and Communication Technologies, language travels through new devices and media. Similar trends can be observed in the field of spoken-language interpreting where, alongside traditional onsite interpreting – where interpreters and speakers share the same space – remote interpreting is spreading through the use of telephone and videoconferencing. There is therefore a strong need to re-think and re-frame theoretical models of oral communication and interpreter-mediated communication as well as current approaches to interpreter training.

Against this backdrop, the goal of SHIFT project is developing a comprehensive solution for training in remote interpreting in Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, through the cooperation of a European network of universities offering interpreting programmes and interpreting service providers. This solution will be based on a thorough study of orality in remote monolingual communication (English, Spanish, Italian) and remote, interpreter-mediated multilingual communication (for Italian<->Spanish, English<->Spanish, Italian<->English). A market analysis will also be carried out to gain an insight of the current and future demand for remote interpreting and understand educational implications. Since the demand for remote interpreting is growing, in particular in public service and business, and its main mode is dialogue interpreting, the project will focus on the teaching of remote dialogue interpreting.

The project is co-ordinated by the University of Bologna in Forli. The project partners are the Universities of Surrey, Granada and Pablo de Ovide, as well as Dualia and Veasyt.

For more information, please visit the SHIFT project website.

    

                  

Customised support for the planning, design and implementation of solutions for bilingual video-conferencing and practical training for legal professionals and legal interpreters are available through the AVIDICUS 3 project. If you are interested in our training or consultancy services, please contact Prof Sabine Braun at training@videoconference-interpreting.net.

This section of the website provides information on the services that we offer based on the research conducted on video-mediated interpreting and bilingual videoconfererencing, i .e.

• Videoconference-based training in bilingual videoconferencing
• Consultance services

The publications section of this website gives access to the following types of publications:

• Our 2012 book on video-mediated interpreting in legal proceedings
• The research reports compiled in the AVIDICUS projects
• A list of articles and book chapters written by members of the AVIDICUS partnership

A bibliography on the topic of video-mdiated interpreting is available here.

 

The following aricles and book chapters have been/will be published by members of the AVIDICUS consortium:

2018

Balogh, K., Salaets, H. (2017). Videoconferencing in legal context: a comparative study of simulated and real-life settings. In J. Napier, S. Braun &  R. Skinner (Eds.), in preparation.

Braun, S., Davitti, E., Dicerto, S. (2017). Video-mediated interpreting in legal settings: Assessing the implementation. In J. Napier, S. Braun &  R. Skinner (Eds.), in preparation.

Licoppe, C. & Veyrier, C.A. (2017). Managing remote documents and participants in the courtroom during video-mediated hearings. In J. Napier, S. Braun &  R. Skinner (Eds.), in preparation.

Napier, J., Braun, S., Skinner, R. (Eds) 2017). Here or there: Research on remote interpreting. Washington: Gallaudet Press, in preparation.

2017

Braun, S. (2017). What a micro-analytical investigation of additions and expansions in remote interpreting can tell us about interpreter’s participation in a shared virtual space. Journal of Pragmatics 107, 165-177 (Special Issue “Participation in Interpreter-Mediated Interaction”, guest-edited by M. Biagini, E. Davitti, A. Sandrelli).

 

2016

Braun, S. (2016). Videoconferencing as a tool for bilingual mediation. In B. Townsley (Ed.), Understanding Justice: An enquiry into interpreting in civil justice and mediation. London: Middlesex University.

Braun, S. & Balogh, K. (2016). Bilingual videoconferencing in legal proceedings: Findings from the AVIDICUS projects. Proceedings of the Conference on Electronic protocol – an opportunity for a transparent and fast process, Warsaw May 2015. Warsaw: Ministry of Justice of Poland.

Braun, S. (2016). The European AVIDICUS projects: Collaborating to assess the viability of video-mediated interpreting in legal proceedings. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1-7.

2015

Braun, S. (2015). Remote Interpreting. In Mikkelson, H, & Jourdenais, R (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Interpreting (pp. 352-367). New York: Routledge.

Braun, S. (2015). Videoconference Interpreting. In Pöchhacker, F, Grbic, N, Mead, P, & Setton, R (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge.

Braun, S. (2015). Remote Interpreting. In Pöchhacker, F, Grbic, N, Mead, P, & Setton, R (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge.

Licoppe, C. & Verdier, M. (2015).  L’interprétariat par visioconférence au sein des chambres de l’instruction en France: une étude conversationnelle de l’activité d’interprétariat dans un dispositif interactionnel médiatisé. Langage et société 153(3), 109–131.

2014

Braun, S. (2014). Comparing traditional and remote interpreting in police settings: quality and impact factors. In Viezzi, M, & Falbo, C (Eds.), Traduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni (pp. 161-176). Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste.

Braun, S., Sandrelli, A. & Townsley, B. (2014). Technological support for testing. In C. Giambruno (Ed.), Assessing legal interpreter quality through testing and certification: the QUALITAS project (pp. 109-139). Alicante: Publicaciones de Alicante.

2013

Braun S. (2013) Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice. Interpreting 15 (2), 200-228.

Licoppe, C. & Verdier, M. (2013). Interpreting, video communication and the sequential reshaping of institutional talk in the bilingual and distributed courtroom. Int. J. Speech Lang. Law 20, 247–276.

2012

Balogh, K. & Hertog, E. (2012). AVIDICUS comparative studies – part II: Traditional, videoconference and remote interpreting in police interviews. In Braun, S. & J. Taylor (Eds), 119-136.

Braun, S. (2012). Recommendations for the use of video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings. In Braun, S. & J. Taylor (Eds), 301-328.

Braun, S. & J. Taylor (Eds.) (2012a). Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings. Antwerp: Intersentia.

Braun, S. & Taylor, J. (2012b). Video-mediated interpreting: an overview of current practice and research. In Braun, S & J Taylor (Eds), 33-68.

Braun, S. & Taylor, J. (2012c).Video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings: two European surveys. In Braun, S & J Taylor (Eds), 69-98.

Braun, S. & Taylor, J. (2012d). AVIDICUS comparative studies – part I: Traditional interpreting and remote interpreting in police interviews. In Braun, S & J Taylor (Eds), 99-118.

Braun, S., Taylor, J., Miler-Cassino, J., Rybinska, Z., Balogh, K., Hertog, E., Vanden Bosch, Y., Rombouts, D. (2012). Training in video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings: modules for interpreting students, legal interpreters and legal practitioners. In S Braun & J Taylor (Eds), 137-159.

Corsellis, A. (2012). AVIDICUS: Conclusions and implications. In Braun, S. & J. Taylor (Eds), 255-264.

Miler-Cassino, J. & Rybinska, Z. (2012). AVIDICUS comparative studies – part III: Traditional interpreting and videoconference interpreting in prosecution interviews. In Braun, S. & J. Taylor (Eds), 117-136.

Rombouts, D. (2012).The police interview using videoconferencing with a legal interpreter: a critical view from the perspective of interview techniques. Braun, S. & J. Taylor (Eds), 159-166.

Van den Hoogen, R. & Van Rotterdam, P. (2012). True-to-life requirements for using videoconferencing in legal proceedings. In Braun, S. & J. Taylor (Eds), 215-226.

Van der Vlis, E. (2012). Videoconferencing in criminal proceedings. In S Braun & J Taylor (Eds), 13-32.

2007

Braun, S. (2007). Interpreting in small-group bilingual videoconferences: Challenges and adaptation processes. Interpreting 9 (1), 21-46.

2006

Braun, S. (2006). Multimedia communication technologies and their impact on interpreting. In M. Carroll, H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast & S. Nauert (Eds), Audiovisual Translation Scenarios. Proceedings of the Marie Curie Euroconferences MuTra: Audiovisual Translation Scenarios Copenhagen, 1-5 May 2006.

2004

Braun, S. (2004). Kommunikation unter widrigen Umständen? Fallstudien zu einsprachigen und gedolmetschten Videokonferenzen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

 

AVIDICUS 3 (2014-16)

Research Report: AVIDICUS 3 focused on videoconferencing solutions for legal proceedings that involve an interpreter. The project conducted a comprehensive assessment of existing VC solutions in the justice sector across Europe in order to ascertain whether they are suitable for bilingual, interpreted-mediated communication. The research drew on  a series of interviews with different stakeholder groups, site visits to courts, police stations and prisons with VC facilities, observation of VC-based bilingual proceedings and a qualitative analysis of interpreter-mediated court hearings using video links. This report presents the findings of all parts of the study. – Download pdf version

Handbook of Bilingual Videoconferencing: This handbook is designed to be a comprehensive guide to the use of videoconference (VC) in legal proceedings where such proceedings are conducted with the assistance of an interpreter, leading to situations of bilingual (or multilingual) videoconferencing. The handbook applies to the use of VC in judicial and law enforcement proceedings at national level and to cases of mutual legal assistance, which entail cross-border videoconferencing. This guide is designed for policy makers interested in learning more about good practices in order to develop or improve the procedures of procuring and implementing VC at institutional level; legal professionals (e.g. judges, lawyers, prosecutors, court clerks, police officers) using VC in their everyday work at different levels, from organising VCs to handling or chairing them, or even ‘just’ VC participation; legal interpreters wishing to expand their knowledge about VC communication for their continuous professional development; technicians tasked with installing, maintaining and managing VC equipment, setting up and operating VC sessions; and system designers developing VC facilities for the justice sector. The handbook may also serve as a resource for eliciting guidance for speakers of another language who take part in video links as litigants, witnesses, victims, accused persons, suspects or defendants and require the assistance of an interpreter. – Download pdf version

AVIDICUS 2 (2011-13)

Research report: As a follow-up to the AVIDICUS 1 Project, AVIDICUS 2 sought to expand the initial research into videoconference-based interpreting that was conducted in the earlier project with the broad aim of enhancing and refining the initial insights intohow the combination of videoconferencing and interpreting affects the specific goals of legal communication; how problems arising can be overcome or mitigated; the role that system design, training and familiarisation can play in this process; the guidance that users need to optimise videoconference-based and interpreter-mediated communication in legal proceedings. This report provides the context in which this research took place and describe the specific research objectives. It then reports the main results and outlines the conclusions to be drawn. – Download pdf version

Workshop Report: One of the aims of AVIDICUS 2 was to disseminate the knowledge about videoconference-based interpreting in criminal proceedings gained in AVIDICUS 1 and the guidelines and recommendations developed in AVIDICUS 1. A related aim was then to develop the training further into a joint training module for legal practitioners and legal interpreters. The first of these aims was achieved by organising a series of European training workshops on videoconference-based interpreting in legal settings targeted at legal practitioners and legal interpreters, and by giving presentations about videoconference-based interpreting at the four European TRAFUT workshops for legal practitioners. The feedback from these workshops and events and the additional insights gained through the research conducted in AVIDICUS 2 were used to achieve the second aim, i.e. to develop a training module on video-mediated interpreting in legal proceedings that addresses the information and practice needs of legal practitioners and interpreters alike and by piloting this module in two joint training workshops. This report focuses on the workshops and events that were organised. The report is divided into three sections. Section 1 is devoted to the workshops for legal practitioners and legal interpreters which were based on the training modules developed in AVIDICUS 1. Each workshop report first outlines the basic parameters such as workshop location, date and participants, and then describes the main aims, the key content and materials used, before giving a summary of the discussion, which always took an important place on the agenda, and providing an evaluation of the workshop based on the participants’ feedback and/or the observations of the AVIDICUS partners who coordinated the workshop. – Download pdf version

AVIDICUS 1 (2008-11)

For information on the results of the AVIDICUS1 project, see the book page.

Most recent work

AVIDICUS 3 Handbook of Bilingual Videoconferencing: This handbook is designed to be a comprehensive guide to the use of videoconference (VC) in legal proceedings where such proceedings are conducted with the assistance of an interpreter, leading to situations of bilingual (or multilingual) videoconferencing. The handbook applies to the use of VC in judicial and law enforcement proceedings at national level and to cases of mutual legal assistance, which entail cross-border videoconferencing. This guide is designed for the following policy makers interested in learning more about good practices in order to develop or improve the procedures of procuring and implementing VC at institutional level; legal professionals (e.g. judges, lawyers, prosecutors, court clerks, police officers) using VC in their everyday work at different levels, from organising VCs to handling or chairing them, or even ‘just’ VC participation; legal interpreters wishing to expand their knowledge about VC communication for their continuous professional development; technicians tasked with installing, maintaining and managing VC equipment, setting up and operating VC sessions; system designers of VC systems for the justice sector. – Download pdf version

Previous work

AVIDICUS 2 Guidelines 2013: Videoconferencing can potentially be a useful tool in national proceedings (e.g. links between courts and prisons), cross-border proceedings (e.g. hearings of witnesses abroad) and international proceedings such as at the International Criminal Court (not covered by this guide). Each of these settings can entail the use of video-mediated interpreting (VMI). However, given the challenges of VMI, it should be used with caution. This document provides guidance on using VMI in criminal proceedings, i.e. its use up to and including a criminal trial. It covers lawyer-client consultations, investigative interviews, court hearings and trials. It is primarily at members of the judiciary, prosecutors, defence lawyers, authorities responsible for criminal proceedings in their national jurisdiction; legal interpreters; and system designers. Criminal Justice Service is broader, and those frequently working post-sentence may also find themselves using VMI and may benefit from this guide. – Download pdf version

AVIDICUS 2 Mini-Guides 2013: In addition to the guidelines document above, the AVIDICUS 2 project created three mini-guides, aimed more specifically at EU citizens involved in videooconference-based bilingual proceedings, legal practitioners and police officers, and legal interpreters.

 

Aims and outcomes

AVIDICUS 3 focused on the use of videoconferencing in bilingual legal proceedings involving an interpreter. The rationale was twofold. First, videoconferences (VCs) are frequently used in both national and cross-border proceedings e.g. to link to a defendant in prison or a witness in another country. The current scale of migration and multilingualism in Europe means that such proceedings are often bilingual and require the integration of an interpreter into the VC. Second, VCs are used to optimise access to qualified legal interpreters, as envisaged in Directives 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and 2012/29/EU on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime.

Given these developments and the crucial role of videoconferencing in European eJustice, bilingual VCs are likely to become so frequent in legal proceedings across Europe that the implementation of VC facilities in European jurisdictions needs to make appropriate provisions for the integration of interpreters. The findings of the AVIDICUS 1 and AVIDICUS 2 projects, which assessed the viability and quality of VC-based interpreting in criminal proceedings, suggested that such provisions should include

1. Measures for identifying and mitigating basic communication and interpreting problems in VCs including awareness-raising and training; specification of appropriate communication procedures; and development of guidelines;
2. Due regard for technological and design-related factors such as the quality of the equipment, room layout, participant distribution and positioning; mode(s) of interpreting, and the impact of these factors on the efficiency and fairness of justice.

Whilst AVIDICUS 1 and 2 each focused on different aspects of point 1) above, AVIDICUS 3 turned to the design and implementation of bilingual VC solutions. The main aim was to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the VC solutions used in legal institutions across Europe in order to ascertain whether these solutions are suitable for bilingual communication. A related aim was to identify institutional and individual needs for training in relation to bilingual videoconferencing and to develop an innovative approach to training by using the medium of VC itself to deliver training in bilingual videoconferencing.

The project used a combination of over 100 stakeholder interviews, fieldwork in VC facilities and observations and qualitative analysis of over 300 VC-based proceedings to investigate the current practices of bilingual videoconferencing in different justice sector institutions in 12 European member states. The research conducted in AVIDICUS 3 sows that the complexities of interpreter-mediated communication and bilingual videoconferencing are generally under-estimated by legal and institutional stakeholders, and that they need to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the specific requirements that arise from the combination of VC and interpreter-mediated communication in legal settings. The practical resources developed (training, handbook) provide hands-on solutions for designing and implementing appropriate systems and solutions for bilingual videoconferencing and for their effective use in legal proceedings at national and cross-border level.

The project produced the following key deliverables:

1. AVIDICUS3 Research Report documenting the findings from the stakeholder interviews, observations and qualitative analyses of bilingual videoconferencing in legal proceedings including the partnership’s assessment of the current situation
2. A comprehensive Handbook of Bilingual Videoconferencing addressing those responsible for implenenting and managing videoconferencing facilities in the justice sector; legal professionals (including police officers, lawyers, prosecutors, judges and other officers); and legal interpreters
3. A Training Service that uses the medium of videoconferencing itself to deliver training for bilingual videoconferencing

The outcomes are of direct relevance to all stakeholders involved in European eJustice, i.e. those responsible for implementing and managing VC facilities in the justice sector, legal professionals and interpreters, and European citizens requiring interpreting support during legal proceedings. Following AVIDICUS 1 and 2, the AVIDICUS 3 project constituted a final step in the assessment of VC-based interpreting in legal proceedings, by focusing attention on in situ implementation and with the aim of making the practice of bilingual videoconferencing as user-friendly and efficient as possible, to ensure equality of all citizens before the law, irrespective of the need for linguistic and/or technological mediation.

Partners

• University of Surrey (co-ordinator)
• Ministry of Security and Justice of The Netherlands
• KU Leuven
• Institut Mines Télécom
• University of Trieste
• University of Alicante
• Ann Corsellis OBE (internal evaluator)

Research into Video-Mediated Interpreting has analysed the quality of the interpreter’s performance and a range of psychological and physiological factors associated with this method of interpreting; the dynamics of participant interaction; and the strategies that interpreters develop in relation to video-mediated interpreting. In addition, Video-Mediated Interpreting has been investigated in terms of efficiency gains compared to onsite interpreting. Most studies have focused either on Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) or on Videoconference Interpreting (VCI) (see What is Video-Mediated Interpreting for definitions). This page page is therefore divided into research on VRI and research on VCI.

Full bibliographical details of the works cited in this section are available in the bibliography.

Research on Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)

VRI in supranational institutions: The earliest documented experiment with VRI was organised by UNESCO in 1976, to test the use of the Symphonie satellite. It linked the UNESCO headquarters in Paris with a conference centre in Nairobi, with the interpreters being situated in Paris. Similar experiments were organised by the UN in the 1970s and 1980s. When ISDN-based videoconferencing became available in the 1990s, feasibility studies were conducted in many supranational institutions, using the simultaneous mode of interpreting (see Moser-Mercer 2003; Mouzourakis 2006; Roziner & Shlesinger 2010), although ISDN connections were incompatible with the ISO 2063 standard in terms of sound quality and were therefore considered to be unacceptable for simultaneous interpreting by the AIIC (AIIC 2000/2012). The feasibility studies used a variety of technical conditions and revealed physiological and psychological challenges which recurred in different technical conditions, making it difficult to attribute them to a particular technical setup (Mouzourakis 2006). Two studies in particular addressed physiological and psychological variables, as well as the quality of VRI: the studies conducted by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in collaboration with the École de Traduction et d’Interprétation (ETI) (Moser-Mercer 2003), and by the European Parliament (EP) in 2004 (reported in Roziner & Shlesinger 2010). As well as investigating the performance of the participating interpreters, the studies also elicited the interpreters’ emotional responses to VRI, and measured stress indicators and aspects of the working environment. The outcomes of the two studies differ in several ways. For example, the ITU/ETI study found that the interpreters’ performance in VRI declined faster than their on-site performance, whilst the EP study found no significant differences in VRI and on-site performance. However, both studies highlight a sense of discomfort with VRI on the part of the interpreters which is hard to account for by objective measures. The most striking result of research on VRI in this setting thus seems to be the discrepancy between objective findings and subjective perception.

VRI in legal settings: In legal settings VRI has been used to cope with a shortage of qualified interpreters, a lack of time and the short duration of many assignments, which make the interpreter’s travel and physical presence particularly uneconomical. The practice of VRI in this field goes back to the 1980s, when VRI by telephone was introduced in the US. Over time, this has gradually been replaced by video VRI. A well-known example is the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, which introduced a central video interpreting hub in 2007. The interpreters’ workstations in the hub are configured to allow a combination of consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. The Metropolitan Police Service in London introduced VRI in 2011, with interpreters working in consecutive mode from centralised hubs linked to London police stations. The European Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (2010/64/EU) explicitly refers to the possibility of using VRI to gain access to qualified legal interpreters. The first studies to address VRI in legal proceedings were conducted in the European AVIDICUS projects. Based on the outcomes of a survey designed to identify problems and needs, AVIDICUS 1 (2008‒2011) compared the quality of on-site interpreting and VRI (and VCI). The findings of these experiments reveal a significantly higher number of problems and, like Moser-Mercer’s (2003) data, a faster decline of interpreting performance in VRI (Braun 2013, 2014; Braun & Taylor 2012).  AVIDICUS 2 (2011‒2013) replicated the experiments after providing the interpreters with short-term training, and using better equipment. The findings yield a complex picture, making it impossible to say without reservation that training, familiarisation and the use of better equipment led to a clear improvement in performance (Braun & Taylor forthcoming). It is, however, possible to identify strategic attempts by the interpreter to overcome the lack of co-presence and the ensuing VC-induced problems (Braun 2016). AVIDICUS 3 (2014‒2016) currently assesses videoconferencing facilities in legal institutions in Europe, in terms of their fitness for interpreter-mediated communication.

VRI in healthcare: In healthcare settings VRI is used with similar motivations to those in legal settings, that is, optimising access to interpreters and achieving efficiency gains. VRI in healthcare is often delivered by telephone, but this has been changing with the advent of mobile videoconferencing devices (Locatis et al. 2011). A number of smaller, mostly survey-based studies of VRI in medical encounters using telephone and video link have been carried out. However, their findings are difficult to compare due to highly variable conditions. In a review of nine studies conducted between 1996 and 2003, Azarmina and Wallace (2005) find evidence that VRI is at least as acceptable as on-site interpreting to patients, doctors and (to a lesser extent) interpreters. Although none of these studies included an actual assessment of the interpreters’ performance, the authors also conclude that VRI “appears to be associated with levels of accuracy at least as good as those found in physically present interpretation” (2005: 144). They do, however, note that interpreters generally preferred on-site interpreting to VRI, and video to telephone. This is corroborated by more recent studies comparing the three modalities (Locatis et al. 2010; Price et al. 2012).

Research in Videoconference Interpreting (VCI)

VCI in supranational institutions: The earliest documented experiment with videoconferencing and interpreting took place in UNESCO in 1976. It included tests of both VRI and VCI (see above under VRI in supranational institutions). At the UNISPACE conference in Vienna in 1982, communication from the Soviet cosmonauts on board the MIR space station was transmitted to the Vienna delegates by video link and interpreted for them by interpreters in the Vienna conference room. Reports about these early tests suggest that VRI was perceived to be challenging or unacceptable, whilst VCI seemed less problematic. This overall trend was not confirmed in VCI tests using ISDN-based videoconferences, e.g. in the European Commission in 1995 (see Mouzourakis 2006), where sound quality was found to be insufficient for simultaneous interpreting. However, the view that VCI is acceptable under defined circumstances, whilst VRI is not, is also reflected in the AIIC guidance on the use of technologies in interpreting (AIIC 2000/2012).

VCI in legal settings: Legal institutions have turned to videoconferencing to make legal proceedings more efficient, minimise security concerns arising from prisoner transport, and support cross-border judicial co-operation. This has led to a growing demand for VCI in legal proceedings, normally conducted in consecutive mode. In many English-speaking countries, ISDN-based videoconference facilities were installed in the 1990s to link courts to other courts (e.g. to hear remote witnesses) and prisons (e.g. for bail hearings). A worldwide spread of videoconference technology in legal proceedings began in the 2000s, following the availability of broadband technology. In some countries, all courtrooms use the same videoconference equipment and layout to facilitate the work of all involved, including the interpreter. Such approaches are likely to have contributed to relatively positive attitudes towards VCI among interpreters in these countries, whilst scepticism prevails in countries where videoconference equipment often still dates from the ISDN era (Braun & Taylor 2012b). Fowler (2007) notes problems with the interpreter’s positioning and access to the microphone, and with the quality of the video image, in English magistrates’ courts. She argues that these problems, together with the absence of specific protocols on VCI in court, lead to frequent disruptions, requests for repetition and misunderstanding. One question arising, regardless of such issues, concerns the location of the interpreter in VCI. This was also one of the questions addressed by a comprehensive survey of VCI in Canadian immigration proceedings (Ellis 2004). In the setting examined, the immigration judge, the refugee protection officer and the interpreter sat in the immigration office, whilst the refugee and his/her lawyer were in another city. The fact that the interpreter was not co-located with the refugee was thought to have weakened the personal rapport between the two. It also caused interactional difficulties and precluded whispered interpreting. Judges felt that consecutive interpreting was disruptive. The hearings by video link also tended to be longer and were considered to be more fatiguing than comparable face-to-face hearings. These findings were corroborated by the European AVIDICUS projects, which have focused on the viability of VCI and VRI in legal proceedings. In addition, experimental studies conducted in AVIDICUS 1 (2008‒11) showed that VCI (and VRI) affected the quality of interpreting and caused more interaction problems than on-site interpreting. Overlapping speech proved difficult to resolve and led to information loss (Braun & Taylor 2012c). Furthermore, qualitative analyses of the communicative dynamics in interpreter-mediated videoconference-based investigative interviews, court hearings and cross-border settlement cases, carried out in AVIDICUS 2 (2011‒13), suggest that VCI entails not only a reduction in the quality of the relations between the participants but also a greater fragmentation of the discourse (Braun & Taylor forthcoming). AVIDICUS 3 (2014‒16) currently assesses the implementation of videoconferencing facilities in legal institutions across Europe in terms of their fitness for VCI.

Other settings: The use of VCI in other settings is not very well documented, but some reports and interpreting service provider websites suggest that VCI is used across different segments of the interpreting market and that solutions in the commercial sector tend to be custom-made. They may also combine the use of the telephone and of videoconferencing to integrate interpreters into proceedings. One configuration that is likely to gain momentum is three-way videoconferencing, whereby the primary participants and the interpreter are each in a different location. In the late 1990s, the ViKiS project in Germany assessed this configuration (Braun 2004). Using a prototype system, problems as well as adaptation strategies developed by the participating interpreters in this (then) novel working condition were identified. As in other studies, participants found the communication fatiguing and had difficulty establishing a rapport with the other participants. The sound quality in the ISDN-based prototype was insufficient. The one aspect to which interpreters were able to adapt was the interaction. The strategies evolved from reactive to more proactive strategies. However, the interpreters felt that they had to moderate the interaction, which posed ethical problems and increased the coordination effort (Braun 2004, 2007). With regard to cognitive processing, Moser-Mercer (2005) outlines problems with multi-sensory integration in videoconferences, which she believes make it more difficult for interpreters to process information and build mental representations of the situation.

A more comprehensive overview of Video-Mediated Interpreting is available in Braun, S. (2015). Remote Interpreting. In Mikkelson, H, & Jourdenais, R (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Interpreting (pp. 352-367). New York: Routledge.