EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 162 (2023) SHS Web Conf., 162 (2023) 01031 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 162, 2023
5th International Conference on Art, Design and Cultural Studies (ADCS 2023)
Article Number 01031
Number of page(s) 7
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316201031
Published online 21 April 2023
  1. Abelha, M., Fernandes, S., Mesquita, D., Seabra, F., & Ferreira-Oliveira, A. T. Graduate employability and competence development in higher education—a systematic literature review using PRISMA. Sustainability, 12 (15), 5900 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahrens, B., Beaton-Thome, M., & Rütten, A. The pivot to remote online teaching on the MA in Conference Interpreting in Cologne: Lessons learned from an unexpected experience. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 36, 251-284 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  3. Angelelli, C. V., & Ross, J. M. Contextual diversity in telephone interpreting: Voices from healthcare interpreters in Scotland. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies, 20 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  4. Braun, S., Davitti, E., & Slater, C. ‘It’s like being in bubbles’: affordances and challenges of virtual learning environments for collaborative learning in interpreter education. The interpreter and translator trainer, 14 (3), 259-278 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  5. Braun, S. Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice1. Interpreting, 15 (2), 200-228 (2013). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Braun, S. Video-mediated interpreting in legal settings in England: Interpreters’ perceptions in their sociopolitical context. Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association, 13 (3), 393-420 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  7. Braun, S. What a micro-analytical investigation of additions and expansions in remote interpreting can tell us about interpreters’ participation in a shared virtual space. Journal of Pragmatics, 107, 165-177 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  8. Burkle, C. M., Anderson, K. A., Xiong, Y., Guerra, A. E., & Tschida-Reuter, D. A. Assessment of the efficiency of language interpreter services in a busy surgical and procedural practice. BMC Health Services Research, 17 (1), 1-6 (2017). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Davitti, E., & Braun, S. Analysing interactional phenomena in video remote interpreting in collaborative settings: implications for interpreter education. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 14 (3), 279-302 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  10. D’Hayer, D. Public service interpreting and translation: Moving towards a (virtual) community of practice. Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 57 (1), 235-247 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  11. Fiedler, J., Pruskil, S., Wiessner, C., Zimmermann, T., & Scherer, M. Remote interpreting in primary care settings: a feasibility trial in Germany. BMC Health Services Research, 22 (1), 1-12 (2022). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gany, F., Leng, J., Shapiro, E., Abramson, D., Motola, I., Shield, D. C., & Changrani, J. Patient satisfaction with different interpreting methods: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of general internal medicine, 22 (2), 312-318 (2007). [Google Scholar]
  13. Gilbert, A. S., Croy, S., Hwang, K., LoGiudice, D., & Haralambous, B. Video remote interpreting for home-based cognitive assessments: Stakeholders’ perspectives. Interpreting, 24 (1), 84-110 (2022). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Havelka, I. Video-mediated remote interpreting in healthcare: Analysis of an Austrian pilot project. Babel, 66 (2), 326-345 (2020). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hornberger, J. C., Gibson C. D.Jr, Wood, W., Dequeldre, C., Corso, I., Palla, B., & Bloch, D. A. Eliminating language barriers for non-Englishspeaking patients. Medical care, 845-856 (1996). [Google Scholar]
  16. Iglesias Fernández, E., & Russo, M. A multidisciplinary theoretical and methodological framework for the study of telephone interpreting. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 14 (3), 240-258 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  17. James, T. G., Coady, K. A., Stacciarini, J. M. R., McKee, M. M., Phillips, D. G., Maruca, D., & Cheong, J. “They’re not willing to accommodate Deaf patients”: communication experiences of Deaf American Sign Language users in the emergency department. Qualitative Health Research, 32 (1), 48-63 (2022). [Google Scholar]
  18. Klammer, M., & Pöchhacker, F. Video remote interpreting in clinical communication: a multimodal analysis. Patient Education and Counseling, 104 (12), 2867-2876 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  19. Kletečka-Pulker, M., Parrag, S., Doppler, K., VölklKernstock, S., Wagner, M., & Wenzel, T. Enhancing patient safety through the quality assured use of a low-tech video interpreting system to overcome language barriers in healthcare settings. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 133 (11), 610-619 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  20. Leng, J. C., Changrani, J., Tseng, C. H., & Gany, F. Detection of depression with different interpreting methods among Chinese and Latino primary care patients: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of immigrant and minority health, 12 (2), 234-241 (2010). [Google Scholar]
  21. Licoppe, C., & Boéri, J. Is there such a thing as summary interpreting?“Cross-linguistic formulation”, facilitation and mediation in French asylum proceedings. Language & Communication, 77, 56-69 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  22. Licoppe, C., & Veyrier, C. A. How to show the interpreter on screen? The normative organization of visual ecologies in multilingual courtrooms with video links. Journal of Pragmatics, 107, 147-164 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  23. Licoppe, C., & Veyrier, C. A. 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 (2020). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Licoppe, C., & Verdier, M. Interpreting, video communication and the sequential reshaping of institutional talk in the bilingual and distributed courtroom. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 20 (2) (2013). [Google Scholar]
  25. Martínez-Gómez, A. Interpreting in prison settings: An international overview. Interpreting, 16 (2), 233-259 (2014). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. McKinn, S., Duong, T. L., Foster, K., & McCaffery, K. ‘I do want to ask, but I can’t speak’: a qualitative study of ethnic minority women’s experiences of communicating with primary health care professionals in remote, rural Vietnam. International Journal for Equity in Health, 16 (1), 1-12 (2017). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Moser-Mercer, B. Remote interpreting: issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual task. Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 50 (2), 727-738 (2005). [Google Scholar]
  28. Mouzourakis, P. Remote interpreting: a technical perspective on recent experiments. Interpreting, 8 (1), 45-66 (2006). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Mouzourakis, P. Videoconferencing: Techniques and challenges. Interpreting, 1 (1), 21-38 (1996). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Phillips, C. Remote telephone interpretation in medical consultations with refugees: metacommunications about care, survival and selfhood. Journal of Refugee Studies, 26 (4), 505-523 (2013). [Google Scholar]
  31. Price, E. L., Pérez-Stable, E. J., Nickleach, D., López, M., & Karliner, L. S. Interpreter perspectives of inperson, telephonic, and videoconferencing medical interpretation in clinical encounters. Patient education and counseling, 87 (2), 226-232 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  32. René de Cotret, F., Beaudoin-Julien, A. A., & Leanza, Y. Implementing and managing remote public service interpreting in response to COVID-19 and other challenges of globalization. Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 65 (3), 618-642 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  33. Roziner, I., & Shlesinger, M. Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting. Interpreting, 12 (2), 214-247 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Seeber, K. G., Keller, L., Amos, R., & Hengl, S. Expectations vs. experience: Attitudes towards video remote conference interpreting. Interpreting, 21 (2), 270-304 (2019). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Skaaden, H. Remote interpreting: potential solutions to communication needs in the refugee crisis and beyond. The European Legacy, 23 (7-8), 837-856 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  36. Stachowiak-Szymczak, K., & Korpal, P. Interpreting accuracy and visual processing of numbers in professional and student interpreters: An eyetracking study. Across Languages and Cultures, 20 (2), 235-251 (2019). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang, J. ‘Telephone interpreting should be used only as a last resort.’Interpreters’ perceptions of the suitability, remuneration and quality of telephone interpreting. Perspectives, 26 (1), 100-116 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  38. Yonamine, M. Domestication and foreignization in interlingual subtitling: A systematic review of contemporary research. Translation & Interpreting, 14 (1), 198-213 (2022). [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.