Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 28:1 (2026) ► pp.30–57
Interpreters’ multimodal management of rapport
Does video remote interpreting have an impact? A quantitative approach
Published online: 13 January 2026
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00129.cav
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00129.cav
Abstract
Given the rise of video remote interpreting (VRI), it is
surprising that there is limited research on interpreters’ multimodal management
of interpersonal relations in this interpreting mode. This study addresses this
gap by investigating how interpreters manage rapport challenges in onsite
interpreting (OSI) and VRI. It provides a quantitative analysis of interpreters’
use of embodied resources, verbal resources, and strategies when conveying
rapport challenges in both modalities. The article analyses 28 video recordings
(14 OSI and 14 VRI) involving professional interpreters and role-players in the
context of a reception centre for asylum seekers. The interactions were coded
using a coding scheme based on Spencer-Oatey’s Rapport Management Theory. The
findings indicate that interpreters use significantly fewer verbal and embodied
resources to manage rapport challenges in VRI in comparison to OSI. The study
also shows that interpreters in VRI employ fewer mitigating strategies, which
might be attributed to the increased sense of security and physical distance
provided by the modality. These findings highlight the impact of VRI on
interpreters’ multimodal management of rapport challenges and seem to suggest
that interpreters possibly adapt their strategies based on the affordances of
the interpreting method.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature review
- 2.1Video remote interpreting
- 2.2Rapport management in interpreting
- 3.Data and methods
- 4.Results
- 5.Discussion
- 6.Conclusion
- CRediT authorship contribution statement
- Declaration of competing interest
- Data availability
- Notes
References
References (67)
Atkins, S. (2019). Assessing health professionals’ communication through role-play: An interactional analysis of simulated versus actual general practice consultations. Discourse Studies 21 (2), 109–134.
Braun, S. (2013). Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice. Interpreting, 15 (2), 200–228.
(2015). Remote interpreting. In H. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), Routledge handbook of interpreting. London: Routledge, 364–379.
(2017). 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 1071, 165–177.
(2019). Technology and interpreting. In M. O’Hagan (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of translation and technology. London/New York: Routledge, 271–288.
Braun, S., Davitti, E. & Dicerto, S. (2018). Video-mediated interpreting in legal settings: Assessing the implementation. In J. Napier, R. Skinner & S. Braun (Eds.), Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 144–179.
Braun, S. & Taylor, J. L. (2012a). AVIDICUS comparative studies — part I: Traditional interpreting and remote interpreting in police interviews. In S. Braun & J. L. Taylor (Eds.), Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings. Antwerp/Cambridge: Intersentia, 85–101.
(2012b). Video-mediated interpreting in criminal proceedings — two European studies. In S. Braun & J. L. Taylor (Eds.), Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings. Antwerp/Cambridge: Intersentia, 59–84.
Brown, L., Kim, H., Hübscher, I. & Winter, B. (2022). Gestures are modulated by social context: A study of multimodal politeness across two cultures. Gesture 21 (2–3), 167–200.
Brown, L. & Prieto, P. (2017). (Im)politeness: Prosody and gesture. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 357–379.
(2021). Gesture and prosody in multimodal communication. In D. Z. Kádár, M. Terkourafi & M. Haugh (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 430–453.
Brown, L. & Winter, B. (2019). Multimodal indexicality in Korean: “Doing deference” and “performing intimacy” through nonverbal behavior. Journal of Politeness Research 15 (1), 25–54.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cavents, D. (2025). (Multi-)modality Matters. A comparative analysis of interpreters’ multimodal management of rapport in onsite and video remote settings. Doctoral thesis, Ghent University.
Cavents, D. & De Wilde, J. (2023). Face-work in video remote interpreting: A multimodal micro-analysis. In E. De Boe, J. Vranjes, & H. Salaets (Eds.), Interactional dynamics in remote interpreting: Micro-analytical approaches. London/New York: Routledge, 155–175.
Cavents, D., De Wilde, J. & Vranjes, J. (2025a). Towards a multimodal approach for analysing interpreter’s management of rapport challenge in onsite and video remote interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics 2351, 220–237.
Cavents, D., Vranjes, J. & De Wilde, J. (2025b). Interpreters’ use of embodied resources to manage rapport challenge in video remote interpreting. Perspectives (online).
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Davitti, E. (2019). Methodological explorations of interpreter-mediated interaction: Novel insights from multimodal analysis. Qualitative Research 19 (1), 7–29.
Davitti, E. & Braun, S. (2020). Analysing interactional phenomena in video remote interpreting in collaborative settings: Implications for interpreter education. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14 (3), 279–302.
De Boe, E., Vranjes, J. & Salaets, H. (Eds.) (2023). Interactional dynamics in remote interpreting: Micro-analytical approaches. London/New York: Routledge.
Debras, C. (2017). The shrug: Forms and meanings of a compound enactment. Gesture 16 (1), 1–34.
Doherty-Sneddon, G. & McAuley, S. (2000). Influence of video mediation on adult–child interviews: Implications for the use of the live link with child witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology 141, 379–392.
Doherty-Sneddon, G. & Phelps, F. G. (2005). Gaze aversion: A response to cognitive or social difficulty? Memory & Cognition 33 (4), 727–733.
Ekman, P. (2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
ELAN (2025). [Computer software, version 6.8]. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Language Archive. [URL]
Exline, R., Gray, D. & Schuette, D. (1965). Visual behavior in a dyad as affected by interview content and sex of respondent. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1 (3), 201–209.
Gijsels, M., De Wilde, J. & Maryns, K. (2023). Videotolken in het Fedasil-opvangnetwerk. (Scientific Report). Gent: Universiteit Gent. [URL]
Givens, D. B. (2002). The nonverbal dictionary of gestures, signs & body language cues. Washington, DC: Center for Nonverbal Studies Press.
Guerrero, L. K. & Floyd, K. (2006). Nonverbal communication in close relationships. New York: Routledge.
Hale, S., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N. & Lim, J. (2022). Does interpreter location make a difference?: A study of remote vs face-to-face interpreting in simulated police interviews. Interpreting 24 (2), 221–253.
Hansen, J. P. B. (2020). Video-mediated interpreting. The interactional accomplishment of interpreting in video-mediated environments. Doctoral thesis, University of Oslo. [URL]
(2022). Recruiting repair: Making sense of interpreters’ embodied actions in a video-mediated environment. Discourse Studies 24 (6), 719–740.
(2023). Interpreters’ repair initiators in video-mediated environments. In E. De Boe, J. Vranjes, & H. Salaets (Eds.), Interactional dynamics in remote interpreting: micro-analytical approaches. London/New York: Routledge, 91–112.
Hansen, J. P. B. & Svennevig, J. (2021). Creating space for interpreting within extended turns at talk. Journal of Pragmatics 1821, 144–162.
Hübscher, I., Sánchez-Conde, C., Borràs-Comes, J., Vincze, L. & Prieto, P. (2023). Multimodal mitigation: How facial and body cues index politeness in Catalan requests. Journal of Politeness Research 19 (1), 1–29.
Jacobsen, B. (2008). Interactional pragmatics and court interpreting: An analysis of face. Interpreting 10 (1), 128–158.
Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13 (2), 215–247.
Klammer, M. & Pöchhacker, F. (2021). Video remote interpreting in clinical communication: A multimodal analysis. Patient Education and Counseling 104 (12), 2867–2876.
Li, R. (2022). Interpreters’ rapport management in press conferences held by American institute in Taiwan. Doctoral thesis, Hong Kong Polytechnic University. [URL]
Li, X. (2015). Putting interpreting strategies in their place: Justifications for teaching strategies in interpreter training. Babel 61 (2), 170–192.
Licoppe, C. & Veyrier, C.-A. (2017). How to show the interpreter on screen? The normative organization of visual ecologies in multilingual courtrooms with video links. Journal of Pragmatics 1071, 147–164.
(2020). 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.
Licoppe, C., Verdier, M. & Veyrier, C.-A. (2018). Voice, power, and turn-taking in multilingual, consecutively interpreted courtroom proceedings with video links. In J. Napier, R. Skinner, & S. Braun (Eds.), Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, 299–322.
Mapson, R. (2015). Interpreting linguistic politeness from British Sign Language to English. Doctoral thesis, University of Bristol.
Mapson, R. & Major, G. (2021). Interpreters, rapport, and the role of familiarity. Journal of Pragmatics 1761, 63–75.
Martínez-Gómez, A. (2016). Facing face: Non-professional interpreting in prison mental health interviews. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 4 (1), 93–115.
Mason, I. & Stewart, M. (2001). Interactional pragmatics, face and the dialogue interpreter. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges. Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing, 51–70.
Moser-Mercer, B. (2005). Remote interpreting: Issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual task. Meta 50 (2), 727–738.
Mouzourakis, P. (2006). Remote interpreting: A technical perspective on recent experiments. Interpreting 8 (1), 45–66.
Nadeu, M. & Prieto, P. (2011). Pitch range, gestural information, and perceived politeness in Catalan. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3), 841–854.
Niemants, N. (2013). Interpreter role(s) in healthcare: From role-playing to role-taking. In C. Schäffner, K. Kredens & Y. Fowler (Eds.), Interpreting in a changing landscape: Selected papers from Critical Link 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 305–319.
Pöllabauer, S. (2007). Interpreting in asylum hearings: Issues of saving face. In C. Wadensjö, B. E. Dimitrova & A. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4. Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–52.
Price, E. L., Pérez-Stable, E. J., Nickleach, D., López, M. & Karliner, L. S. (2012). Interpreter perspectives of in-person, telephonic, and videoconferencing medical interpretation in clinical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling 87 (2), 226–232.
Riese, J. (2019). What is ‘access’ in the context of qualitative research? Qualitative Research 19 (6), 669–684.
Rodríguez Vicente, N. (2021). Dialogue interpreting in Psychological Medicine: An exploration of rapport management practices. Doctoral thesis, Heriot-Watt University. [URL]
Roziner, I. & Shlesinger, M. (2010). Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting. Interpreting 12 (2), 214–247.
Schofield, M. & Mapson, R. (2014). Dynamics in interpreted interactions: An insight into the perceptions of healthcare professionals. Journal of Interpretation 23 (1), 1–15.
Skinner, R., Napier, J. & Braun, S. (2018). Interpreting via video link: Mapping of the field. In J. Napier, R. Skinner & S. Braun (Eds.), Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 11–35.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory. Second edition. London/New York: Continuum, 11–47.
Spinolo, N., Bertozzi, M. & Russo, M. (2018). Basic tenets and features characterising telephone-and video-based remote communication in dialogue interpreting. In A. Amato, M. J. González Rodríguez, & N. Spinolo (Eds.), Handbook of remote interpreting. Bologna: University of Bologna, 12–25.
Stokoe, E., Sikveland, R. O., Albert, S., Hamann, M. & Housley, W. (2019). Can humans simulate talking like other humans? Comparing simulated clients to real customers in service inquiries. Discourse Studies 22 (1), 87–109.
Swerts, M. & Krahmer, E. (2005). Audiovisual prosody and feeling of knowing. Journal of Memory and Language 53(1), 81–94.
Tickle-Degnen, L. & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychological Inquiry 1 (4), 285–293.