Prevođenje na daljinu

Distance interpreting

In the last few years, we have witnessed a rapid development of technologies that now greatly help us in our everyday lives. Naturally, new technologies have sprung up in the conference industry, and there is a growing number of different video-conferencing solutions and specialised platforms for simultaneous interpreting. The Covid-19 pandemic saw widespread use of such applications and platforms, and they remained in use after the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions, albeit to a lesser extent. 

As conference interpreters adapt to developments in technology, the HDKP prepared Distance Interpreting (DI) recommendations, informed by members’ experiences, as well as by recommendations coming from other national associations and the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC). They are intended for conference organisers and interpreters who decide to accept that mode of interpretation. The Recommendations are geared towards making all concerned aware of the consequences of online meetings on the dynamics of multilingual communication as well as highlighting matters that require particular attention.

None of the currently available solutions – either those where the interpreters are situated in so-called interpreting hubs, or those where the interpreters, just like the participants, are in different locations – can replace traditional conference equipment used in physical meetings. Given the current stage of development of technical solutions, any form of distance interpreting is, unfortunately, flawed for a number of reasons, some of which are listed below.  Remote interpreting platforms and video-conferencing software rely on the end user’s devices and equipment, and not on specialised professional hardware. Once the sound and picture reach the end user (the meeting participant or interpreter), the responsibility of the platform supplier ends, and it is no longer possible to significantly improve quality. 

Therefore, both interpreters and participants are at greater risk of experiencing acoustic shock, while longer exposure to low-quality sound and picture may also cause other serious health issues. This also includes a much higher cognitive load on interpreters who, in addition to simultaneous or consecutive interpreting, must also keep track of a number of technical elements, which significantly shortens their capacity to maintain the concentration necessary for interpreting. There is also the issue of confidential and/or personal data protection, which, in this interpreting mode, cannot be fully guaranteed. Finally, partially sighted and blind conference interpreters at the current stage of development of distance interpreting tools cannot use the remote interpreting interface displayed on a computer screen.

According to conference interpreting standards, interpreters always work in language teams of two or three interpreters, depending on the duration and difficulty and the language regime of the conference. This kind of teamwork is essential to ensure high quality interpretation and thus for the success of any multilingual meeting. Working from an interpreting hub comes closest to this kind of setting in conditions of distance  interpreting. In an interpreting hub, interpreters sit together, just as in a standard interpreting booth, enjoying the best possible acoustic and other conditions, with the possibility of seamlessly communicating with one another – both verbally and non-verbally.

The working conditions in distance interpreting are currently sub-optimal and can only be justified in exceptional situations and for as short a time as possible, when traditional simultaneous interpreting or physical participation are not desirable or possible on account of various crisis situations, such as epidemics or natural catastrophes. In spite of all this, the interpreting community cannot ignore reality and has been forced to respond to the needs of the market until it is possible again to organise physical meetings. Since at this time the biggest demand is for simultaneous interpreting in this context, HDKP recommendations mostly concern what is known as remote simultaneous interpreting, but many of its aspects are also applicable to other forms of distance interpreting, especially consecutive interpreting using video-conferencing facilities.

You can find HDKP’s recommendations for event organisers and conference interpreters below.

 
 

Distance interpreting

In the last few years, we have witnessed a rapid development of technologies that now greatly help us in our everyday lives. Naturally, new technologies have sprung up in the conference industry, and there is a growing number of different video-conferencing solutions and specialised platforms for simultaneous interpreting. The Covid-19 pandemic saw widespread use of such applications and platforms, and they remained in use after the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions, albeit to a lesser extent.

        As conference interpreters adapt to developments in technology, the HDKP prepared Distance Interpreting (DI) recommendations, informed by members’ experiences, as well as by recommendations coming from other national associations and the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC). They are intended for conference organisers and interpreters who decide to accept that mode of interpretation. The Recommendations are geared towards making all concerned aware of the consequences of online meetings on the dynamics of multilingual communication as well as highlighting matters that require particular attention.

      None of the currently available solutions – either those where the interpreters are situated in so-called interpreting hubs, or those where the interpreters, just like the participants, are in different locations – can replace traditional conference equipment used in physical meetings. Given the current stage of development of technical solutions, any form of distance interpreting is, unfortunately, flawed for a number of reasons, some of which are listed below.  Remote interpreting platforms and video-conferencing software rely on the end user’s devices and equipment, and not on specialised professional hardware. Once the sound and picture reach the end user (the meeting participant or interpreter), the responsibility of the platform supplier ends, and it is no longer possible to significantly improve quality.  Therefore, both interpreters and participants are at greater risk of experiencing acoustic shock, while longer exposure to low-quality sound and picture may also cause other serious health issues. This also includes a much higher cognitive load on interpreters who, in addition to simultaneous or consecutive interpreting, must also keep track of a number of technical elements, which significantly shortens their capacity to maintain the concentration necessary for interpreting. There is also the issue of confidential and/or personal data protection, which, in this interpreting mode, cannot be fully guaranteed. Finally, partially sighted and blind conference interpreters at the current stage of development of distance interpreting tools cannot use the remote interpreting interface displayed on a computer screen.         According to conference interpreting standards, interpreters always work in language teams of two or three interpreters, depending on the duration and difficulty and the language regime of the conference. This kind of teamwork is essential to ensure high quality interpretation and thus for the success of any multilingual meeting. Working from an interpreting hub comes closest to this kind of setting in conditions of distance  interpreting. In an interpreting hub, interpreters sit together, just as in a standard interpreting booth, enjoying the best possible acoustic and other conditions, with the possibility of seamlessly communicating with one another – both verbally and non-verbally. The working conditions in distance interpreting are currently sub-optimal and can only be justified in exceptional situations and for as short a time as possible, when traditional simultaneous interpreting or physical participation are not desirable or possible on account of various crisis situations, such as epidemics or natural catastrophes. In spite of all this, the interpreting community cannot ignore reality and has been forced to respond to the needs of the market until it is possible again to organise physical meetings. Since at this time the biggest demand is for simultaneous interpreting in this context, HDKP recommendations mostly concern what is known as remote simultaneous interpreting, but many of its aspects are also applicable to other forms of distance interpreting, especially consecutive interpreting using video-conferencing facilities. You can find HDKP’s recommendations for event organisers and conference interpreters below.