The Use of Portable Interpreting Devices: An Overview

El uso de los equipos portatiles de sonido ha experimentado un crecimiento exponencial en el mercado de la interpretacion en los ultimos anos. Dicha velocidad ha provocado que, en algunos casos, este tipo de equipos se utilizaran en entornos que no reunian las mejores condiciones de trabajo para que los interpretes alcanzaran un rendimiento optimo.


Introduction
With the advent of the 2008 economic crisis and the need for, on the one hand, conference interpreters to stay "afloat" in business and, on the other hand, for

Abstract
The use of portable sound equipment has grown rapidly in the conference interpretation market in the last few years, which has sometimes meant that it has been utilised in working environments ill-suited for interpreters to achieve the best performance possible.
international conference organisers to continue providing customers with language services, a determined search for economic solutions began. Many conference interpreters reduced their fees, conference agendas were reduced in time to use half-day or minimum conference rates, some events either did not take place, or did without the provision of language services. The number of days of international conferences were reduced and employees of multinational companies were forced to learn English (Chaves: 2018) and stopped using interpreters. This context also led organisers to focus on the cost of sound equipment and sound engineering fees, as there was still a need for international communication: The spread of new technologies has not replaced face-to-face communication. Rather, it has created additional communication opportunities, and this is in line with the communication needs in increasingly complex international and interdisciplinary projects requiring frequent, regular, fast and cheap communication contacts between the parties involved. (Braun: 2006: 2 Given the aforementioned success, some bilateral meetings with the Secretary General at which consecutive interpreting (CI) was the standard of use are now handled with a portable solution. The current situation is that when work has to be carried out during field missions in difficult settings, or where no infrastructure is available, UN delegates prefer using mobile equipment (Diur: 2015: 67). Also, in some cases, even if simultaneous interpretation were the modality of choice, when there are only a few delegates participating in a mission and no more than one or two interpreters, for practical reasons whispered interpretation (WI) or the bidule are more frequently used (Diur: 2015: 199).

A Theoretical Perspective
If we were to define what interpreting with portable equipment is, we might say that it would be the development of an interpreting modality with the support of a portable sound system which comprises one or several microphones (for the main speaker and the interpreter) and receivers for the audience, and even for the interpreter themselves.
I am referring to interpreting modalities because, depending on the skills the interpreter possesses and on the specific context, either simultaneous interpretation or consecutive interpreting can be used. Such precision is needed because standard reference books and manuals in the field of interpreting studies seem to define two clearly-cut working modes (Baxter, 2015: 2) or modalities. Although simultaneous would be the modality in most of the cases, there is no "prescription" regarding that, and both the speaker and the interpreter may feel more comfortable resorting to consecutive interpretation at certain times. So, an interpreting modality should not be confused with the resources used to put it to practice.
The most outstanding contribution to the understanding of portable equipment can perhaps be found in the initial few words that Setton and Dawrant use to refer to PIE in their course: "This [PIE] is also not a distinct mode, but refers to interpreting with minimal portable equipment" (2016:19).
Considering how the dynamics of WI can sometimes be hampered by the interpreter having to move about paying attention to where the listener or listeners are while trying to find the best sound conditions, it may be deducted that the use of PIE would come as a natural evolutionary step. According to Pöchhäcker: While acoustic conditions make traditional whispering very strenuous, the use of "whispering" for small groups has been facilitated by portable equipment [...] that enables the interpreter to speak into a microphone and listeners to receive the interpretation via cordless headsets, ideally with the interpreter receiving the original speech via a headset as well (2009: 239).
From a different perspective, some authors land on a definition of interpreting with PIE by referring to it as "interpreting without a booth", while including WI also under such reference: Occasionally, simultaneous interpreting can also be done without a booth.
[…] In whispered interpretation, the interpreter sits next to or behind one or two participants and provides simultaneous interpretation in a quiet voice. When working with a bidule, on the other hand, the interpreter sits in the same room together with the participants and quietly speaks his/her interpretation of the speech into a hand-held microphone which transmits the interpretation to listeners who are wearing headsets. In that sense, working with the bidule is more or less like whispering except that the interpreter does not need to sit right next to the participants who requested interpretation (Diriker: 2015, 171-72).
So, on a positive note, fatigue on the side of the listener, as well as for the interpreter -who no longer needs to force their vocal chords to an unnaturally low tone of voice -has been alleviated for all participants. Setton and Dawrant (2016:19) also refer to the poor reputation this kind of equipment has among interpreters, saying that it is "problematic […] for obvious reasons of inadequate sound quality and acoustic isolation […] and consequent impact on quality and interpreter fatigue, not to mention the voice of the interpreter distracting listeners who are not using the interpretation." Following this line of thinking, it is very dangerous to consider bidule interpreting as a separate modality of interpretation, because it has led many clients to not take into account the original settings for which the portable equipment was conceived, and tend consider it as a cheap form of simultaneous interpretation. Even then, they will still demand from the interpreter the same quality -and lack of technical problems -which may be enjoyed at a conference using conventional interpreting booths. Of course, it does not help when some interpreters in their websites advertise their services mentioning that interpreting with bidule equipment is "a sort of portable booth".
Some authors anticipated how reluctant both interpreters and some organisers are to use PIE, as is the case of interpreting for the Olympic Movement: "Tour guide systems ("bidules") are never employed, and whispering only occasionally for languages that are not offered officially" (Hollstein, 2015: 99). This shows the extreme position adopted by some institutions, which may be presumed to be supported by their previous reluctance to use whispered interpretation.

The equipment
There are few references in the literature to the use of PIE, but there is plenty of online information sourced either by companies providing equipment rental services or by the users themselves, that is, the interpreters. For example, at the interpreting.info website, devoted to answering questions on this discipline, abundant information can be found on the advantages and disadvantages of using such equipment depending on the working environment. Also, the website of the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) offers a certain number of entries regarding both the description of typical equipment and its technical characteristics, adequate conditions of use, etc.
The usual equipment is made up of the following: a portable case with a built-in power source and cells to store and charge each receiver; a variable number of receivers (from 10 up to around 100) (Guelbenzu, 2018); if possible, not one but a couple of microphones, one for the speaker to send their speech to the interpreter and another one for the interpreter to relay its  (Guelbenzu, 2018). This means that both the speaker and the interpreter may speak and receive sound with the help of one single device. Usually, this technology also allows the audience to switch channels, so they may listen to the original sound as additional help if the environment is too noisy for them to follow the speaker directly. Another advantage this type of equipment entails is that, even if the setup can become quite complicated, additional languages may be included in the configuration. In other words, the speaker may use a language that is only understood by one of the interpreters, and an exchange/common language may be used by that interpreter so the rest of the team may in turn interpret into a tertiary language.
4. Working environment 4.1. Interpreting modality As was pointed out at the beginning, depending on the setting, the interpreter can agree with either the organisers of the event or the speaker on the modality of interpretation to use. In the case of study/field visits, the speaker will probably expect to take shifts with the interpreter as is the case in consecutive interpretation. That may be the case if the interpreter is qualified in consecutive interpretation but does not have the needed command of simultaneous interpretation. Apart from that type of setting, most clients will expect the interpreter to resort to simultaneous interpretation, even if the working conditions resemble those of liaison interpreting (Guelbenzu, 2018). In any case, the interpreter must make very clear what can be expected from the modality agreed taking into account the local conditions.   Not counting on the protection of the booth increases the difficulty for the interpreter to focus. It is not just the noise problem or having to depend on equipment which does not always offer a consistent sound quality, but also having to take care of a changeable environment without a sound engineer to cover up for that. The booth creates a feeling of security for the interpreter: they may work from a protected environment, from some kind of a "bubble" where the interpreter acts as the "conductor" of their own work. On Finally, that the booth also acts as an environment of confidentiality (Guelbenzu, 2019 isolation, but it could be agreed to begin with delivering the core of the information prior to entering the facilities, and maybe some conclusions at the end.
Working outdoors involves monitoring the range of the equipment so that neither the interpreter loses the signal from the speaker's emitter, nor the audience loses the interpreter's signal.
Quite a different environment is that in which the interpreter's audience remain seated in a room because the organiser considers that using a portable equipment would save a decent amount of money. The organiser might deem it possible for the interpreter to use the sound coming out of the room's loudspeakers as the In fact, the full-room and PIE type of configuration mainly poses different types of problems to cope with: It is only with a full room and with all sound equipment functioning (and this includes the PA system of the room as well) that the interpreter will realise if they are in the best conditions to perform well. As a start, the interpreter should place themself as close as possible to the speaker, maintaining a body posture which would let them listen to them with as much clarity as possible.
If located in a room equipped with a PA system, the sound from the loudspeakers may not be enough for the interpreter to follow while interpreting simultaneously and coping with self-monitoring, and there can be noise in the room which would hamper the interpreter's ability to follow the speeches; a discreet visit to the working room some time beforehand can prevent the interpreter from suffering many a headache; In good faith, the organiser may invite the interpreter to take a seat beside the speaker, believing that it would be the best place to follow the speech.
That can be true in a room with no sound equipment, where the voice is going to be heard in a natural environment, with no artificial echoes. But this will backlash in rooms equipped with a microphone and loudspeakers: the sound will be projected from the stage towards the audience, and the stage itself would be the worst place to hear anything. In such cases, the best place for the interpreter would be in first row of seats of the stalls. Once again, an additional microphone for the speaker to send an exclusive signal to a set of headphones for the interpreter will minimise sound hearing problems.
As Magalhães (2016) states, in a sound setting where several microphones are connected to the sound mixing board, there is always the possibility of connecting a transmitter which could send the exact sound quality offered by the board to the interpreter's receiver.
The interpreter will be focused on their work, will not be protected by any booth's panels and may be speaking louder than in a normal conversation, not aware of the actual sound level generated. As said earlier, this can be very disturbing to any members of the audience sitting nearby.
In order to solve the problem of bothering the audience with the interpreter's rendition, one possible solution could be for the interpreter to sit at the back end of the room, wherever there is an empty space or enough room between the interpreter and the audience. Of course, PR abilities and a fluent communication with both the organiser and the audience is a must in order to gain the understanding of all of them, always using the argument that small reorganisation arrangements will improve the quality of communication.
It should also be remembered that, as mentioned above, not all equipment offers the right quality. Accordingly, the working conditions may vary dramatically. Some rental companies still offer old sets which for the interpreter mean "long hours of standing and poor sound quality" (Magalhães, 2016) -although this can also happen when interpreting in a booth. As old devices would not include a microphone for the speaker, the interpreter would have to chase one or several speakers around a room to make the most of natural hearing. With crystal clear sound available and the interpreter able to sit wherever they deem most appropriate, this "pilgrimage" should not be a problem. If no decent conditions are met in the end, it might be the type of assignment or environment where a clear "no" by the interpreter will probably be met with a satisfactory response in terms of the election of a different brand name or model.

What the current situation looks like
Whatever the advantages or disadvantages PIE pose, one must admit that the use of these systems has become increasingly popular with international organisations (Magalhães, 2016), especially when the physical infrastructure does not allow for the setup of a full booth nor a CCTV installation.

Should interpreters defend some caveats?
The spread of the use of PIE's should make interpreters aware of when to demand minimum working conditions and when to simply say "no". Let's exemplify this with some cases: The client or the person responsible for an event might be of the opinion that the interpreter should do their work and take care of any technical issues affecting the equipment. The client should then be made aware that if they assume that the interpreter should take charge of setting up channels, replacing a receiver which run out of battery or offering faulty sound, etc., they must stop working and maybe lose focus. Sometimes, the intermediary (i.e. the event organiser helping the original customer with the setup of the conference) will even expect the interpreter to be in charge of transporting the equipment to the venue and delivering the individual receptors to the audience. That should never be considered a mandatory task for the professional.
Apart from putting logical provisions in place, such as looking for a good quality equipment -in case of assuming the responsibility of offering it -, or warning about the limitations of PIE equipment in a contract or warning document, the interpreter must be ready to defend themself in case the speaker does not use the microphone correctly, or if someone fails to keep their earphones plugged in or to merely start their receiver. A stern warning regarding how the quality of sound will never be that of a boothed interpreting environment should also be a must, as that is bound to influence the quality of the interpretation considering the extra stress -and effort -involved in the processing (Gile, 1995) of a speech affected by poor sound conditions.
It must be said that the use of this system does not justify reducing the number of interpreters in the team (at least two interpreters for two languages) (Keil, 2011), not that it means a cheap version of simultaneous interpretation with a booth, nor an excuse not to learn or practise consecutive interpretation (Guelbenzu, 2012). When drafting a quote for a prospective client, who may not be aware of the relationship between effort and the specific technical resources needed in interpretation, elements such as these one should appear clearly stated.
As early as 1991, the (AIIC) devoted a special document (the "Text on bidule") to the use of portable equipment "without a booth". The last available version of that document short meetings (2 hours, for example); limited number of participants (maybe a dozen); two-way equipment (i.e. 2 transmission channels and one from interpreters to participants, the other from speakers' microphones (essential) to interpreters' earphones; compliance of such equipment with IEC914 standard.
It is not by chance that some researchers have found close similarities between telephone interpretation and bidule interpreting in terms of the problems interpreters found, and regarding how the quality of interpreting and the working conditions may be negatively affected. For example, in an Australian survey on telephone interpretation (Wang, 2018) some respondents complained about it "being used in inappropriate situations" and how "they preferred on-site interpreting to telephone interpreting".
Something else may also be used from Wang's paper in terms of having interpreting quality as the final aim: the conclusion that both interpreters, clients and interpreter employers need to work together to improve the quality of the service (Wang, 2018: 2).
Another usable proposal would be developing national and international protocols for telephone (or PIE) interpreting; national protocols could be agreed with conference organisers' associations as well as with the public institutions which make regular use of these services.
As a final note in this section, I would like to quote Magalhães (2016) words: [the use of the bidule] It is not supposed to question the value of good consecutive interpretation at high-level diplomatic or commercial bilateral meetings.
[…] As a conscientious interpreter you must continue to enforce the fine working conditions our profession has fought Possible noise, loss of eye contact with the visit guide -who may forget that the interpreter should be following them both physically and cognitively -mean that the interpreter may see themself having to deal with the natural speech speed of the guide and far from an adequate environment: "[…] since continuously changing working conditions make it increasingly difficult for interpreters to work under the same or very similar conditions for a long period of time" (Braun, 2006: 2). The issue of adaptation and adaptability (Braun, 2006: 2) takes the front line here. The classical choice some very apt conference interpreters would make between consecutive or simultaneous interpreting becomes blurred here. There is no set environment, no static sound equipment and booth protecting the interpreter from eventual whims of the client or from a sudden change in the communication setting (i.e. the client group becoming reduced after a shift in the day's agenda and a possible change of the conference room, a problem with the equipment running out of batteries, or the interpreter's microphone itself drying out, etc.).
Can interpreters be trained to deal with the conditions described? Although it is quite difficult to represent those in the academic environment, mock commercial visits in which PIE is used, like the ones I have been doing at the University of Cordoba, may be quite representative of what lies ahead for students. There is no point in programming such visits too early in the curriculum, as students would still be too focused in the training of basic interpreting skills, but once the initial tests are close in the calendar, they can help them make up an idea of what interpreted visits are like while boosting their confidence in a near-to-real environment. At the beginning we did not count on any equipment we could use, but our Department was able to acquire a full set (2 microphones, 2 emitters and 40 receivers) through a European grant some years ago. A study is in progress process through which I plan to check student's impressions regarding these visits both with and without the help of portable equipment. Preliminary results show a) that our students feel much more responsible for their performance when set in this type of environment and with their class mates having to follow their interpretation; b) that the preparation effort (drawing terminology lists, reading materials on the type of industry the visit will be about) is really worth doing, as they may see immediate results in terms of good or bad performance; and c) that interpreting "dawns" in their minds as something they can professionally do in the future, even if not in the conference interpretation environment. Also, initial queries made to the teaching staff of different faculties where interpreting is taught in Spain show that PIE's are either not owned by the faculties or they are not used for visits but at mock international conferences. This last issue may be dangerous, as it could perpetuate the idea among future interpreters that the bidule may be perfect for simultaneous interpretation without a booth.
Finally, the business side of bidule interpreting could also be explored with students: conditions to include in a contract, possible warnings with regards sound quality and working environment, setting up a team with enough interpreters depending on the day's agenda, etc.

Conclusions
Interpretation with PIE systems is the right solution for small groups, visits and environments which make it difficult to set up traditional simultaneous interpretation booths and systems. Even so, their use has been stretched to the point of placing interpreters in dire situations for which the equipment was never designed. Interpreter training programmes and interpreter's associations should make clear which environments are adequate for using the bidule and the difficulties it entails. In sum, interpreters should refrain from accepting certain jobs if conditions for the use of a PIE are not suitable; a good communication policy with clients on how interpreting works, and on the circumstances which allow for making the most of such equipment is very much needed even at the present time.