Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

The Consequences of Fully Remote Interpretation on Interpreter Interaction and Cooperation: A threat to professional cohesion?


The emergence of conference interpreting as a profession, with the related formal attributes of a professional association, a code of ethics, and professionally-run training institutions, coincided with and was facilitated by the spread of simultaneous interpretation (SI) in the post-World War II period. SI enabled the increase in interpreted events and in the number of languages interpreted, thus accompanying the development of a multilingual institutional architecture. Whilst it also marked the beginning of a trend towards the greater distancing of interpreters from meetings, it led to greater proximity with peers, with the formation of interpreter teams. This helped to shape and consolidate informal professional attributes, such as a set of self-beliefs and norms. The greater physical distance of interpreters from the actual event has culminated in remote interpreting configurations of different types, the most extreme being full remote where interpreters interpret from their computers in separate locations.

On-site interpreter interaction encompasses many features, including practical forms of mutual assistance, but it also involves face-saving techniques, the sharing of knowledge and expertise, the alleviation of performance-related tensions and reinforcement of professional cohesion. Professional cohesion is understood here as compliance with a shared set of norms and adherence to shared beliefs, creating a feeling of belonging to and identification with the profession.

The use of remote interpreting involving interpreter home-working (henceforth called full remote) marks a sharp break with on-site teamwork, rendering some forms of cooperation difficult. In the following, we wish to consider how this might impact interpreter interaction and professional cohesion. To do so, a preliminary investigation of seven meetings has been conducted – two with interpreting on-site and five with interpreters in fully remote mode, with a view to identifying trends and patterns in interpreter exchanges in each. Preliminary observations indicate a notable reduction is some forms of interaction and cooperation. The intention of the article is to open up a new area of investigation and a new angle on the impact of remote interpreting on interpreters and the profession.


simultaneous interpretation (SI), fully remote interpretation, interpreter interaction, interpreter professionalization, history of interpreting



  1. AIIC. (2020). Covid-19 Distance Interpreting Recommendations, Retrieved March 23 2023 from,
  2. AIIC. (1999). Practical guide for professional conference interpreters. Retrieved March 15 2023 from,
  3. AIIC. (2018). AIIC position on distance interpreting. Retrieved March 21, 2023 from,
  4. AIIC. (2018). Distance Interpreting, Survey Results. Retrieved March 23, 2023 from,
  5. Braun, Sabine. (2015). Remote interpreting. In Holly Mikkelson & Renée Jourdenais (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting (pp. 364-379). Routledge.
  6. Bühler, Hildegund (1985) Conference Interpreting : A multichannel communication phenomenon. Meta 30 (1),(pp 49-54)
  7. Chmiel, Agnieszka. (2008). Boothmates forever?– On teamwork in a simultaneous interpreting booth. Across Languages and Cultures 9, (2) (pp 261-276)
  8. Collard, Camille & Marta Bujan. (2022). First Overview of Survey Results. ESIT website. Retrieved April 11, 2023 from file:///Users/utilisateur/Downloads/BUJAN_COLLARD_RSI_preliminaryresults-1.pdf.
  9. Dam, Helle v.& Zethsen, Karen Korning. (2013). Conference interpreters – the stars of the translation profession ? A study of the professional status of Danish EU interpreters as compared to Danish EU translators. Interpreting 15 (2), (pp229-259)
  10. Dam, Helle v. & Gentile, Paola. (2022). Status and Profession(alization). In The Routledge Handbook of Conference Interpreting. London : Routledge, (pp 275-289)
  11. Diriker, Ebru (2009). « Meta-discourse as a Source for Exploring the Professional Image(s) of Conference Interpreters » in Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Studies no 42-2009 (pp71-91)
  12. Diriker, Ebru. (2004). De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting : Interpreters in the Ivory Tower ? Amsterdam : John Benjamins
  13. Donovan, Clare. (2017). The place of the interpreter and interpreting in an institutional setting. In Mariachiara Russo & Icíar Alonso Araguás (Eds.), Interpreting in International Organisations. Research, Training and Practice (pp. 91-113). Ediciones Universidades de Salamanca.
  14. Donovan, Clare (2010). Training and Professional Advocacy. CIUTI Forum Global Governance and Intercultural Dialogue : Translation and Interpreting in a new Geopolitical Setting. Eds Forstner, Martin & Hannelore Lee-Jahnke. Peter Lang, (pp 99-108)
  15. Duflou, Veerle. (2016). Be(com)ing a Conference Interpreter. An Ethnography of EU interpreters as a professional community. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
  16. Fantinouli, Claudio. (2018). Interpreting and Technology: the upcoming technological turn. Interpreting and Technology; (pp.1-12)
  17. Garzone, Giuliana (2015) Norms. Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. Ed Franz Pöchhacker. Routledge, pp 281-283
  18. Gile, Daniel. (1995) Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
  19. Herbert, Jean (1952). Manuel de l’interprète : comment on devient interprète de conférence. Geneva : Librairie de l’Université
  20. Jones, Roderick. (2002). Conference Interpreting Explained. 2nd edition. St Jerome publishing
  21. Kadrić, Mira. (2014). Giving interpreters a voice: Interpreting studies meets theatre studies. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8(3), pp 452-468.
  22. Kritsis, Konstantinos (2021). The Interpreter as Actor : Towards a Theatre-Informed Interpreting Pedagogy in Sendebar 32 ; pp 146-161
  23. Monacelli, Claudia. (2009) Self-Preservation in Simultaneous Interpreting, Amsterdam : John Benjamins
  24. Moser-Mercer, Barbara. (2005). Remote interpreting: Issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual task. Meta, 50(2), 727-738.
  25. Mouzourakis, Panayotis. (2006). Remote interpreting: A technical perspective on recent experiments. Interpreting, 8(1), 45-66.
  26. Mouzourakis,Panayotis. (2003). That feeling of being there : vision and presence in remote interpreting. Retrieved August 7, 2022 from
  27. Nunghatai Rangponsmrit. (2016) Teamwork in Simultaneous Interpretation, in Journal of Translation and Interpretation Thailand
  28. Seeber, Kilian & Brian Fox. (2022). Distance Interpreting. In The Routledge Handbook of Conference Interpreting. pp 491-507
  29. Taylor-Bouladon, Valerie (2007). Conference Interpreting. Principles and Practice. Charleston: BookSurge Publishing
  30. Thiéry, Christopher. (2015). AIIC, Routledge Encyclopédia of Interpreting Studies. Ed. Franz Pöchhacker, Routledge, (pp 13-15)
  31. Toury, Gideon. (2012). Descriptive Translation Studies- and Beyond. Rev. edn. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
  32. Viaggio, Sergio. (2018). The Tribulations of a Chief Interpreter. Now on-line. Retrieved April 5, 2023 from


Download data is not yet available.