Interpreter adaptation in hybrid ecology: the case of video-mediated commissioning of equipment

Tyumen State University Herald. Humanities Research. Humanitates


Release:

2022, Vol. 8. № 2 (30)

Title: 
Interpreter adaptation in hybrid ecology: the case of video-mediated commissioning of equipment


For citation: Krasnopeyeva E. S., Kraeva S. S. 2022, “Interpreter adaptation in hybrid ecology: the case of video-mediated commissioning of equipment”. Tyumen State University Herald. Humanities Research. Humanitates, vol. 8, no. 2 (30), pp. 6-23. DOI: 10.21684/2411-197X-2022-8-2-6-23

About the authors:

Ekaterina S. Krasnopeeva, Cand. Sci. (Philol.), Associate Professor, Department of Theory and Practice of Translation/Interpreting, Chelyabinsk State University; kraeva.svetlana@gmail.com; ORCID: 0000-0002-3503-1849

Svetlana S. Kraeva, Cand. Sci. (Philol.), Associate Professor, Department of Theory and Practice of Translation/Interpreting, Chelyabinsk State University; kraeva.svetlana@gmail.com; ORCID: 0000-0002-2039-4022

Abstract:

Video-mediated interpreting is a relatively new object of research, which requires integration of theoretical and methodological frameworks of translation studies, communication theory, media theory, and cognitive science.

This paper examines the way an interpreter adapts to a hybrid environment, which merges communication in physical and virtual spaces. We describe the case of dialogue interpreting during the commissioning of equipment supervised by an instructor via video link. The study is based on transcripts as well as the interpreter’s retrospective commentary. The interpreter’s decision-making is examined through the lens of metacognition theory and monitoring processes.

Among the key factors determining the complexity of this job, are the nature of dialogue interpreting in an industrial shop floor, and the limitations of video communication via a smartphone. In addition to the relaying and coordinating functions common to dialogue interpreting, in a hybrid ecology interpreter also monitors the status of the communication device. This kind of media-multitasking may result in additional cognitive monitoring, potentially leading to reduced attention span and affecting the interpreting quality. Additionally, the interpreter actively contextualizes the physical scenario for the remote participant, which leads to over-elaboration, excessive repetition, and addition of non-renditions. While many turn-taking devices are not available in video-mediated communication, the interpreter resorts to verbal turn-taking patterns and ultimately takes control of communication. In а hybrid environment, the logic of transition from a problematic situation to its solution becomes more unpredictable. The fragmented nature of interaction challenges the identification of relevant meanings and the process of probabilistic prediction.

References:

  1. Voyskunskiy A., Khokhlova E., Mitina O., Dorokhov E. 2020. “Multitasking in a Virtual Environment: Empirical Study”. Informatsionnoe obshchestvo: obrazovanie, nauka, kultura i tekhnologii budushchego, no. 4, pp. 129-142. [In Russian]
  2. Garbovskiy N., Kostikova O. 2020. “Myths about Translation: from Babylon to ‘Figures’”. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference “Russian Language and Culture Reflected in Translation”, pp. 65-80. Moscow. [In Russian]
  3. Kostikova O. 2011. “The History of Translation: Subject Matter, Methodology, Place in Translation Studies”. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 22: Teoriya perevoda, no. 2, pp. 3-22. [In Russian]
  4. Kraeva S., Krasnopeyeva E. 2021. “On the Interpreter-mediated Communication via Video Link During Equipment Testing and Commissioning”. Proceedings of the 6th International Scientific Conference “MEDIAEducation: Media Inclusion vs Media Isolation” (23-25 November 2021, Chelyabinsk), pt. 2, pp. 32-37. [In Russian]
  5. Krasnopeyeva E. 2021. “Distance Interpreting: Terminology, Taxonomy, and Key Directions of Research”. Nauchnyy dialog, no. 11, pp. 143-167. [In Russian]
  6. Sdobnikov V. 2016. Translation and the Communicative Situation: Monograph. Moscow: Flinta Nauka. [In Russian]
  7. Firstov M. 2010. “On the Sequence of Operations in Consecutive Interpreting and Specific Competences Required”. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta, no. 9 (588), pp. 142-155. [In Russian]
  8. Tsvilling M. 2009. About Translation and Interpreters. Collection of Research Papers. Moscow: Vostochnaya kniga. [In Russian]
  9. Chernov G. 2019. Theory and Practice of Simultaneous Interpretation. Moscow: LENAND. [In Russian]
  10. Chistova Е. 2019. “Multi-channel Nature and Multimodality of Perception in a Simultaneous Interpreter’s Cognitive Activity”. Philology. Theory & Practice, no. 12 (9), pp. 337-342. [In Russian]
  11. Braun S. Interpreting in small-group bilingual videoconferences. Challenges and adaptation processes / S. Braun // Interpreting. 2007. Vol. 9. No. 1. Pp. 21-46. DOI: 10.1075/intp.9.1.03bra
  12. Crabtree A. Hybrid ecologies: understanding cooperative interaction in emerging physicaldigital environments / A. Crabtree, T. Rodden // Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. 2008. Vol. 12. No. 7. Pp. 481-493.
  13. Englund Dimitrova B. Cognitive Aspects of Community Interpreting / B. Englund Dimitrova, E. Tiselius // Reembedding Translation Process Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2016. Pp. 195-214. DOI: 10.1075/btl.128.10eng
  14. Flavell J. H. Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry / J. H. Flavell // American Psychologist. 1979. Vol. 34. No. 10. Pp. 906-911.
  15. Interpreting and Technology / edited by C. Fantinuoli. Berlin: Language Science Press, 2018. 159 pp. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1493281
  16. Mellinger C. D. Computer-assisted Interpreting Technologies and Interpreter Cognition: A Product and Process-Oriented Perspective / C. D. Mellinger // Revista Tradumàtica. Tecnologies de la Traducció. 2019. No. 17. Pp. 33-44. DOI: 10.5565/rev/tradumatica.228
  17. Pöchhacker F. “Going Video.” Mediality and Multimodality in Interpreting / F. Pöchhacker // Linking Up with Video: Perspectives on Interpreting Practice and Research. 2020. Рр. 13-45.
  18. Remkhe I. N. Rethinking the Translator’s Role within the GILT project: an Integrated Approach / I. N. Remkhe, L. A. Nefedova, D. C. Gillespie // Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2017. Vol. 21. No. 4. Pр. 910-926.
  19. Wadensjö C. The Double Role of a Dialogue Interpreter / C. Wadensjö // Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. 1993. No. 1 (1). Pp. 105-121.
  20. Yus F. Smartphone Communication: Interactions in the App Ecosystem / F. Yus. 1st edition. London: Routledge, 2021. 330 pp.