Cover not available
Part of
Introducing New Hypertexts on Interpreting (Studies): A tribute to Franz Pöchhacker
Edited by Cornelia Zwischenberger, Karin Reithofer and Sylvi Rennert
[Benjamins Translation Library 160] 2023
► pp. 214–233

Systemic modelling

A new approach to Interpreting Studies teaching and research

| University of Innsbruck , Austria
This article explains how systems theory can be used for a profound understanding of the phenomenon of interpreting. An online tool based on systems theory for the analysis and simulation of complex situations and processes was used in class for training students on how to do research in Interpreting Studies. It was found that such an approach helps to better understand and reflect the complexity of interpreting and to familiarise the students with research on interpreting. Moreover, this approach seems to be promising for interpreting research as a whole. Such a tool could be beneficial for structuring, fostering and performing interpreting research if an online model of interpreting is created jointly by the interpreting research community.
Keywords: training, Interpreting Studies, complexity, system dynamics modelling, interconnectedness
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Why a systemic approach?
  • Interpreting Studies seminar using system dynamics modelling software
  • The didactic benefits of the seminar
  • A system dynamics model for Interpreting Studies
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.160.11beh
References (61)
References
Alexieva, Bistra. 1997/2002. “A Typology of Interpreter-Mediated Events.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, and Miriam Shlesinger, 219–233. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Angelelli, Claudia V., and Brian James Baer (eds). 2016. Researching Translation and Interpreting. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baigorri Jalón, Jesús. 2014. From Paris to Nuremberg: The Birth of Conference Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behr, Martina. 2020. Dolmetschen: Komplexität, Methodik, Modellierung. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Behr, Martina, and Mandy Willert. 2017. “Wenn Didaktik an ihre Grenzen stößt: Feedback im Dolmetschunterricht.” In Education is a Whole-Person Process, ed. by Martina Behr, and Sabine Seubert, 139–169. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Brandner, Marlena. 2019. “Systemdynamische Modellierung des Dolmetschens: Submodell Dolmetscher.” Unpublished seminar thesis, University of Innsbruck.
Bühler, Hildegund. 1986. “Linguistic (Semantic) and Extra-Linguistic (Pragmatic) Criteria for the Evaluation of Conference Interpreters and Interpretation.” Multilingua 5 (4): 411–439.Google Scholar
CIRIN, Conference Interpreting Research Information Network. Accessed November 8, 2021. [URL]
Collados Aís, Ángela. 1998/2002. “Quality Assessment in Simultaneous Interpreting: The Importance of Nonverbal Communication.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, and Miriam Shlesinger, 327–336. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 1993. “Die Selbstbestimmungstheorie der Motivation und ihre Bedeutung für die Pädagogik.” Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 39 (2): 224–238.Google Scholar
DGSD, Deutsche Gesellschaft für System Dynamics. Accessed July 13, 2021. [URL]
DMP, Donella Meadows Project. Academy for Systems Change. Accessed July 13, 2021. [URL]
Donato, Valentina. 2003. “Strategies Adopted by Student Interpreters in SI: A Comparison between the English-Italian and the German-Italian language-pairs.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 12: 101–134.Google Scholar
EST, European Society for Translation Studies. Accessed November 8, 2021. [URL]
Gile, Daniel. 1989. “Les flux d’information dans les réunions interlinguistiques et l’interprétation de conférence : premières observations.” Meta 34 (4): 649–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Translator and Interpreter Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Institutional, Social and Policy Aspects of Research into Conference Interpreting.” In Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope, Vol. 1, ed. by Olalla García Becerra, E. Macarena Pradas Macías, and Rafael Barranco-Droege, 9–31. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Grimm, Franc. 2017. “Die 10 größten Irrtümer zum Vernetzten Denken.” komplex 1: 54–59.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra, and Jemina Napier. 2013. Research Methods in Interpreting: A Practical Resource. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Halford, Graeme S., Rosemary Baker, Julie E. McCredden, and John D. Bain. 2005. “How Many Variables Can Humans Process?” Psychological Science 16 (1): 70–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo. 1999. Translations in Systems. Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Kaindl, Klaus. 2004. Übersetzungswissenschaft im interdisziplinären Dialog. Am Beispiel der Comicübersetzung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Kirchhoff, Hella. 1976. “Das dreigliedrige, zweisprachige Kommunikationssystem Dolmetschen.” Le Language et l’Homme 31: 21–27.Google Scholar
Kopp, Birgitta, and Heinz Mandl. 2014. “Lerntheoretische Grundlagen von Rückmeldungen.” In Feedback und Rückmeldung. Theoretische Grundlagen, empirische Befunde, praktische Anwendungsfehler, ed. by Hartmut Ditton, and Andreas Müller, 29–42. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Liontou, Konstantina. 2013. Anticipation in German to Greek Simultaneous Interpreting: A Corpus-Based Approach. PhD diss., University of Vienna.
Lonsdale, Deryle. 1997. “Modeling Cognition in SI: Methodological Issues.” Interpreting 2 (1/2): 91–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson. 2017. Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mizuno, Akira. 2005. “Process Model for Simultaneous Interpreting and Working Memory.” Meta 50 (2): 739–752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morrison, Margaret, and Mary S. Morgan. 1999. “Models as Mediating Instruments.” In Models as Mediators. Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, ed. by Mary S. Morgan, and Margaret Morrison, 10–37. Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1994. “Paradigms Gained or the Art of Productive Disagreement.” In Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. by Barbara Moser-Mercer, and Sylvie Lambert, 17–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Identifying and Interpreting Scientific Phenomena.” In Advances in Interpreting Research. Inquiry in Action, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus, and Laurie Swabey, 47–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser, Barbara. 1978. “Simultaneous Interpretation: A Hypothetical Model and its Practical Application.” In Language Interpretation and Communication, ed. by David Gerver, and H. Wallace Sinaiko, 353–368. New York: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PACTE. 2000. “Acquiring Translation Competence: Hypotheses and Methodological Problems in a Research Project.” In Investigating Translation, ed. by Allison Beeby, Doris Ensinger, and Marisa Presas, 99–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padilla, Presentación, Teresa M. Bajo, José J. Cañas, and Francisca Padilla. 1995. “Cognitive Processes of Memory in Simultaneous Interpretation.” In Topics in Interpreting Research, ed. by Jorma Tommola, 61–71. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 1994. Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 2000. Dolmetschen. Konzeptuelle Grundlagen und deskriptive Untersuchungen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Broader, Better, Further: Developing Interpreting Studies.” In Translation Research Projects 2, ed. by Anthony Pym, and Alexander Perekrestenko, 41–49. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili.Google Scholar
. 2010. “The Role of Research in Interpreter Education.” In Translation and Interpreting 2 (1): 1–10.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Ganzheitliche Dolmetschlehre: Feedback, Freitagskonferenz und Forschung.” In Education is a Whole-Person Process. Von ganzheitlicher Lehre, Dolmetschforschung und anderen Dingen, ed. by Martina Behr, and Sabine Seubert, 91–117. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Poltermann, Andreas. 1992. “Normen des literarischen Übersetzens im System der Literatur.” In Geschichte, System, Literarische Übersetzung, ed. by Harald Kittel, 5–31. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Pradas Macías, E. Macarena. 2006. “Probing Quality Criteria in Simultaneous Interpreting: The Role of Silent Pauses in Fluency.” Interpreting 8 (1): 25–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rennert, Sylvi. 2010. “The Impact of Fluency on the Subjective Assessment of Interpreting Quality.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15: 101–115.Google Scholar
Riccardi, Alessandra. 2002. “Evaluation in Interpreting. Macrocriteria and Microcriteria.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting, Building Bridges, ed. by Eva Hung, 115–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Mikrokriterien und Makrokriterien und ihre Rolle bei der Evaluierung von Dolmetschleistungen.” In Translationskritik: Modelle und Methoden, ed. by Juliane House, and Nicole Baumgarten, 187–205. Bochum: AKS.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Neue Entwicklungen im Bereich des Simultandolmetschens.” In Translation – Sprachvariation – Mehrsprachigkeit. Festschrift für Lew Zybatow zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by Wolfgang Pöckl, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, and Peter Sandrini, 69–82. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ropohl, Günter. 2012. Allgemeine Systemtheorie. Einführung in transdisziplinäres Denken. Berlin: edition sigma. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salevsky, Heidemarie. 1986. Probleme des Simultandolmetschens: Eine Studie zur Handlungsspezifik. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Salevsky, Heidemarie (with Ina Müller). 2011. Translation as Systemic Interaction. A New Perspective and a New Methodology. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica. 1986. “Comment: Who should Assess an Interpreter’s Performance?” Multilingua 5–4: 236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin. 2015. “Models.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, 263–268. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Siever, Holger. 2015. Übersetzungswissenschaft. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
Stachowiak, Herbert. 1973. Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Wien: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stegmüller, Wolfgang. 1973. Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und Analytischen Philosophie, Bd. 4, Studienausgabe Teil A. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Thomas, John W., Lorraine Iventosch, and William D. Rohwer. 1987. “Relationships among Student Characteristics, Study Activities and Achievement as a Function of Course Characteristics.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 12: 344–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyulenev, Sergey. 2012. Applying Luhmann to Translation Studies: Translation in Society. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venzo, Tobias. 2019. “‚Gute Gesamtdolmetschleistung‘– Modeln mit dem Consideo iModeler.” Unpublished seminar thesis, University of Innsbruck.
Vermeer, Hans J. 2006. Versuch einer Intertheorie der Translation. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Vester, Frederic. 2011. Die Kunst vernetzt zu denken. Ideen und Werkzeuge für einen neuen Umgang mit Komplexität, 8. Auflage. München: dtv.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Barry J. 2002. “Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner.” Theory Into Practice 41: 64–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar