RESEARCH carried out for EITI has shown that the attitudes of public sector workers towards telephone interpreting remain divided. Service providers are aware of the limitations of the medium, but many people are using the telephone more and more.

“There are several drawbacks to telephone interpreting,” says Marsha Sanders, author of the London Interpreting Project’s Issues and Practices of Interpreting.

“Because of the anonymity of the situation, there is much more room for error, particularly in long or complicated interviews. Filling in a form, for instance, can be extremely difficult over the phone. After all, research suggests that up to 70% of communication is through body language.”

These difficulties are more acute in situations where public sector workers do not have access to specialist telephone interpreting equipment. “Also, because the sessions are often arranged at very short notice, there is rarely time for proper briefings and debriefings,” adds Marsha.

Others take a more positive line. American interpreter Chandler Thompson is the head of the US Court Telephone Interpreting Project, which was established to cover court proceedings in remote locations. “I’ve never felt that not being able to see the person affected my interpreting,” he says.

When he first began telephone interpreting, Chandler felt uncomfortable at the thought of taking part in a conversation that was happening thousands of miles away. “But you get used to it and you adapt,” he says. “You become better at listening and you learn to focus.”

Chandler concedes that face-to-face interpreters rely heavily on visual cues, but maintains that alternatives can be given just as effectively via the telephone.

The use of telephone interpreters is certainly increasing, and Marsha agrees that they are beneficial in certain situations.

“Telephone interpreting can be useful for drop-in surgeries or emergency situations. And sometimes anonymity can be a good thing, for example in tightly-knit communities where the client is more comfortable not being able to see the interpreter.”

But she still strikes a note of caution about the rise in the number of times that telephone interpreters are being used. “There are some circumstances where the use of the telephone is avoidable,” she says.

“To take a current example, some organisations could arrange fixed times each week for, say, an Albanian interpreter to be on-site - this would take care of 70% of cases that would otherwise have to be dealt with on the telephone.”

Marsha also believes that some organisations could improve the way they provide language support. “Some agencies could be better regulated. For example, one agency issued a code of practice that encouraged the use of face-to-face interpreters - they then invested very heavily in telephone interpreting booths and handsets.”

So the debate on the merits of telephone interpreters is set to continue. Marsha sums up her views like this. “Telephone interpreting does have a role to play within the public sector, but it should complement, not replace, face-to-face interpreting. There will always be a need for face-to-face interpreters.”

March 1999