Expectations regarding interpreters in Brazil in the light of pandemic-enforced technological change: A pilot study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7203/Just.3.26652Keywords:
legal interpreting, interpreting in Brazil, interpreters’ expectations, survey research, remote interpreting
Abstract
This article examines stakeholder expectations of interpreters in the Brazilian legal system and how they may have changed with the shift to remote interpreting during the pandemic. The study explores stakeholder expectations of interpreters and the interplay of these expectations with the growth of remote interpreting. To do so, it builds on the growing awareness of the need to rethink the methods used to understand stakeholder expectations. The study is based on questionnaires administered to judges, prosecution, and defence lawyers, as well as interpreters themselves. These questionnaires explored their reactions to vignettes adapted from real-life experience and to specific questions, comparing the responses from both methods. The results revealed how remote interpreting has increased tensions between the perceived needs of interpreters and the perceived demands of those involved in the legal process. This article argues that interpreters’ expectations hinge on the concept of “linguistic presence,” a concept with different meanings for language professionals and legal professionals. The discrepancy is especially pertinent given the growth of remote interpreting and how it may impact the presence of the interpreter.
Downloads
References
Alvesson, Mats & Jörgen Sandberg. 2020. “The problematizing review: A counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s argument for integrative reviews.” Journal of Management Studies 57 (6): 1290–1304. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12582.
Angelelli, Claudia V. 2004. Revisiting the interpreter’s role. A study of conference, court, and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.55.
Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian. 2015. Speak English or what? Codeswitching and interpreter use in New York City courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337569.001.0001.
Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian. 2021. “Beyond translation equivalence: Advocating pragmatic equality before the law.” Journal of Pragmatics 174: 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.022.
Braun, Sabine. 2013. “Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice.” Interpreting 15 (2): 200–228. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra.
Braun, Sabine & Judith Taylor. 2012. "Video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings: Two European surveys." In Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings, edited by Sabine Braun & Judith Taylor, 69–98. Guildford: University of Surrey, http://www.videoconference-interpreting.net/?page_id=27.
Bühler, Hildegund. 1986. “Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters.” Multilingua 5 (4): 231–235.
Collados Aís, Angela. 1998. La evaluación de la calidad en la interpretación simultánea: la importancia de la comunicación no verbal. Granada: Comares.
Collados Aís, Ángela, María Manuela Fernández Sánchez & Daniel Gile, eds. 2003. La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: investigación. Actas del I Congreso Internacional sobre Evaluación de la Calidad en Interpretación de Conferencias, Almuñécar, 2001. Granada: Comares.
Diriker, Ebru. 2004. De-/re-contextualizing conference interpreting: Interpreters in the ivory tower? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.53.
Downie, Jonathan. 2015. “What every client wants? (Re)mapping the trajectory of client expectations research.” Meta60 (1): 18–35. https://doi.org/10.7202/1032398ar.
Downie, Jonathan. 2016. "Stakeholder expectations of interpreters: A multi-site, multi-method approach." Unpublished PhD dissertation, Heriot-Watt University.
Downie, Jonathan & Graham H. Turner. 2021. “Integrating interpreting into institutional practice: sign language interpreting in the police and National Health Service in Scotland.” The Interpreters' Newsletter 26: 235–252. https://doi.org/10.13137/2421-714X/33273.
Eraslan, Seyda. 2011. "International knowledge transfer in Turkey: The consecutive interpreter’s role in context." Unpublished PhD dissertation, Rovira i Virgili University.
Gorovitz, Sabine, Teresa Dias Carniero & Marcia Martins. 2023. “A interpretação comunitária como garantia de direitos: qual formação para qual atuação no Brasil?” Belas Infiéis 12 (1): 1–33. https://doi.org/10.26512/belasinfieis.v12.n1.2023.44480.
Iglesias Fernández, Emilia. 2010. “Verbal and nonverbal concomitants of rapport in healthcare encounters: Implications for interpreters.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 14: 216–228, https://jostrans.soap2.ch/issue14/art_iglesias.pdf.
Ko, Leong. 2006. “The need for long-term empirical studies in remote interpreting research: A case study of telephone interpreting.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 5: 325–338. https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v5i.167.
Kopczyński, Andrzej. 1994. "Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems." In Translation studies: An interdiscipline, edited by Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker & Klaus Kaindl, 189–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.2.24kop.
Kredens, Krzysztof J. 2016. “Conflict or convergence?: Interpreters’ and police interviewers’ perceptions of the public service interpreter’s role in England and Wales.” Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 3 (2): 65–77.
Kurz, Ingrid. 1994. “What do different user groups expect from a conference interpreter?” The Jerome Quarterly 9 (2): 3–7.
Kurz, Ingrid. 2001. “Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user.” In “Évaluation : paramètres, méthodes, aspects pédagogiques / Evaluation: Parameters, Methods, Pedagogical Aspects,” edited by Hannelore Lee-Jahnke. Special issue, Meta 46 (2): 394–409. https://doi.org/10.7202/003364ar.
Lee, Jieun. 2009. “Conflicting views on court interpreting examined through surveys of legal professionals and court interpreters.” Interpreting 11 (1): 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.1.04lee.
Lee, Jieun. 2015. "Court interpreting." In The Routledge handbook of interpreting, edited by Holly Mikkelson & Renée Jourdenais, 186–201. New York: Routledge.
Licoppe, Christian & Clair-Antoine Veyrier. 2020. “The interpreter as a sequential coordinator in courtroom interaction. ‘Chunking’ and the management of turn shifts in extended answers in consecutively interpreted asylum hearings with remote participants.” Interpreting 22 (1): 56–86. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00034.lic.
Liu, Zhiai. 2016. "Legal interpreters' self-perceptions of their roles and responsibilities in the British judicial system." Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of York, https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/17332/.
Mack, Gabriela & Lorella Cattaruzza. 1995. "User surveys in SI: A means of learning about quality and/or raising some reasonable doubts." In Topics in interpreting research, edited by Jorma Tommola, 37–51. Turku: University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting.
Martínez-Gómez, Aída. 2015. “Invisible, visible or everywhere in between? Perceptions and actual behaviours of non-professional interpreters and interpreting users.” The Interpreters' Newsletter 20: 175–194.
Meak, Lidia. 1990. “Interprétation simultanée et congres medical: Attentes et commentaires.” The Interpreters' Newsletter 3: 8–13.
Morris, Ruth. 2010. “Images of the court interpreter: Professional identity, role definition and self-image.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 5 (1): 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.5.1.02mor.
Moser, Peter. 1996. “Expectations of users of conference interpretation.” Interpreting 1 (2): 145–178. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.l.2.01mos.
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 2005. “Remote interpreting: Issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual task.” In “Processus et cheminements en traduction et interprétation / Processes and Pathways in Translation and Interpretation,” edited by Hannelore Lee-Jahnke. Special issue, Meta 50 (2): 727–738. https://doi.org/10.7202/011014ar.
Mouzourakis, Panayotis. 2006. “Remote interpreting: A technical perspective on recent experiments.” Interpreting 8 (1): 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.1.04mou.
Napier, Jemina & Marcel Leneham. 2011. “‘It was difficult to manage the communication’: Testing the feasibility of video remote signed language interpreting in court.” The Journal of Interpretation 21 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199239306.013.0025.
Nordin, Jaqueline Neves. 2018. Introdução à interpretação forense no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Transitiva.
Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, et al. 2021. “The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.” BMJ 372 (March): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2005. “Quality research revisited.” The Interpreters' Newsletter 13: 143–166.
Powell, Martine B., Bronwen Manger, Jacinthe Dion & Stefanie J. Sharman. 2017. “Professionals’ perspectives about the challenges of using interpreters in child sexual abuse interviews.” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law24 (1): 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1197815.
Price, Erika Leemann, Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable, Dana Nickleach, Monica López & Leah S. Karliner. 2012. “Interpreter perspectives of in-person, telephonic, and videoconferencing medical interpretation in clinical encounters.” Patient Education and Counseling 87 (2): 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.08.006.
Roy, Cynthia B. 2000. Interpreting as a discourse process. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195119480.003.0002.
Roziner, Ilan & Miriam Shlesinger. 2010. “Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting.” Interpreting 12 (2): 214–247. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz.
Salaets, Heidi. 2023. "CO-Minor-IN/QUEST." Research projects, KU Leuven, https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/english/rg_interpreting_studies/research-projects/co_minor_in_quest.
Salaets, Heidi & Katalin Balogh. 2017. "Participants’ and interpreters’ perception of the interpreter’s role in interpreter-mediated investigative interviews of minors: Belgium and Italy as a case." In Ideology, ethics and policy development in public service interpreting and translation, edited by Carmen Valero-Garcés & Rebecca Tipton, 151–178. Bristol: Blue Ridge Summit. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783097531-012.
Tannen, Deborah. 2007. Talking voices. Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618987.
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.
Washington Office on Latin America. 2016. The Brazilian prison system: Challenges and prospects for reform. 22 November 2016. Washington, DC: WOLA, https://www.wola.org/analysis/brazilian-prison-system-challenges-prospects-reform/.
World Bank. 2018. "Public policy notes — Towards a fair adjustment and inclusive growth." World Bank. 23 August 2018, https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/brazil/brief/brazil-policy-notes.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
-
Abstract212
-
PDF64
Issue
Section
License
Authors grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the work in any medium and format for any purpose, even commercially, as long as the material is not transformed, and ensuring that its authorship and initial publication in this journal are credited.
Authors retain copyright and are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) once it has been published, as it can lead to productive exchanges (see The Effect of Open Access). Gender aware practices are advised.
Similar Articles
Language
Information
Keywords
Make a Submission
