Title
Friction and smoothness in remote sign language interpreting in educational settings
Conference name
XXI KäTu symposium on translation and interpreting studies
City
Country
Finland
Modalities
Date
19/04/2024-20/04/2024
Abstract
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic several domains and settings shifted into the digital world overnight. This also affected the field of sign language interpreting, and interpreters had to rapidly adjust their work to new environments and platforms. (De Meulder et al., 2021.) However, the practices employed in these settings have not yet been documented.
Previous research has identified that educational interpreting onsite is not unproblematic due to, for example, the multimodal nature of the setting. However, research also reveals that in classrooms a variety of multimodal practices take place. These practices can involve the teacher, the students, and/or the interpreter. (See, e.g., Berge & Thomassen 2016; Brewis 2022).
My recent MA thesis project (Alapuranen 2023) focused on the overlap of remote and educational settings, and the multimodal practicesthat interpreters employ. In the presentation, I will discuss my findings on how interpreters utilize visual aids in their work on an online educational interpreting setting and how their decisions might be explained. I draw on data from a simulated remote educational setting, in which seven professionals interpreted the same source text and took part in retrospective interviews after the task. The data were analyzed using multimodal (inter)action analysis framework (Norris 2004).
The analysis shows that as the interpreters are making fast decisions during their work, the constraints from the visual and spoken source texts, along with the remote environment, can lead to ‘friction’ (see e.g., Brewis 2022). For example, the interpreters assess the readability of the slides and make decisions based on the delivery of the spoken source text. They also adjust their work based on their understanding of what the end-user sees on their screen.
However, interpreters also demonstrate ‘smoothness’ by transferring practices they are familiar with from offline to online environments. They also modify and adapt those practices to fit the remote setting and its affordances, such as merging the physical space they are located in and the virtual space in which the shared content and their video frame exist on the screen.
The results reinforce that, even though meaning is constructed and communicated multimodally both in online and offline environments, the remote environment has distinctive features. Practitioners and trainers need to be aware of these features and adapt their working practices accordingly.
Previous research has identified that educational interpreting onsite is not unproblematic due to, for example, the multimodal nature of the setting. However, research also reveals that in classrooms a variety of multimodal practices take place. These practices can involve the teacher, the students, and/or the interpreter. (See, e.g., Berge & Thomassen 2016; Brewis 2022).
My recent MA thesis project (Alapuranen 2023) focused on the overlap of remote and educational settings, and the multimodal practicesthat interpreters employ. In the presentation, I will discuss my findings on how interpreters utilize visual aids in their work on an online educational interpreting setting and how their decisions might be explained. I draw on data from a simulated remote educational setting, in which seven professionals interpreted the same source text and took part in retrospective interviews after the task. The data were analyzed using multimodal (inter)action analysis framework (Norris 2004).
The analysis shows that as the interpreters are making fast decisions during their work, the constraints from the visual and spoken source texts, along with the remote environment, can lead to ‘friction’ (see e.g., Brewis 2022). For example, the interpreters assess the readability of the slides and make decisions based on the delivery of the spoken source text. They also adjust their work based on their understanding of what the end-user sees on their screen.
However, interpreters also demonstrate ‘smoothness’ by transferring practices they are familiar with from offline to online environments. They also modify and adapt those practices to fit the remote setting and its affordances, such as merging the physical space they are located in and the virtual space in which the shared content and their video frame exist on the screen.
The results reinforce that, even though meaning is constructed and communicated multimodally both in online and offline environments, the remote environment has distinctive features. Practitioners and trainers need to be aware of these features and adapt their working practices accordingly.