Cover not available
Part of
Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends
Edited by Gloria Corpas Pastor and Bart Defrancq
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 37] 2023
► pp. 302–319

Chapter 12
Technology in interpreter education and training

A structured set of proposals

 | Ghent University, Belgium |
Technology is coming to interpreting but are we preparing students and professionals well enough to the technological turn? This chapter argues in favour of a structured academic approach to the integration of interpreting technology in education and training. The approach is based on a definition of technological competence based on knowledge, skills, and personal, social and methodological abilities. It demonstrates how training programmes can empower trainees, promote digital equality and an ethical stance in the face of technological advances.
Keywords: interpreting, education, technology, remote interpreting, computer-assisted interpreting (CAI)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Interpreting technology and the role of universities
  • 3.Technology in competence models and training
    programmes for interpreters
    • 3.1Knowledge
    • 3.2Skills
    • 3.3Personal and social abilities
    • 3.4Methodological abilities
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.37.12def
References (61)
References
AIIC. 2016. “Memorandum concerning the use of recordings of interpretation at conferences”. Online: [URL]
. 2019–2020. AIIC Guidelines for Distance Interpreting (Version 1.0). Online: [URL]
. 2020. Evaluation of Simultaneous Interpreting Delivery Platforms for ISO Compliance. Online: [URL]
Albl-Mikasa, Michaela. 2013. “Developing and Cultivating Expert Interpreter Competence”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 18: 17–34.Google Scholar
. 2019. “Lingua Franca, Interpreting (ELF)”. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker and Saldanha Gabriela, 285–209. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amato, Amalia, Spinolo, Nicoletta, and María González-Rodríguez (eds.). 2018. Handbook of Remote Interpreting. Bologna: European Commission.Google Scholar
Babych, Bogdan, Hartley, Anthony, Kageura, Kyo, Thomas, Martin, and Masao Utiyama, 2012. “MNH-TT: a collaborative platform for translator training”, in Proceedings of Translating and the Computer 34, 1–18. London: Aslib.Google Scholar
Baigorri-Jalón, Jesús. 2004. De Paris à Nuremberg. Naissance de l’interprétation de conférence. Ottawa: Presses Universitaires d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
Baroni, Marco, and Silvia Bernardini. 2004. “BootCaT: Bootstrapping corpora and terms from the web”. In Proceedings of LREC 2004, edited by Lino, Maria Teresa, Xavier, Maria Francisca, Ferreira, Fátima, Costa, Rute, and Raquel Silva. Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Remote interpreting”. In The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, edited by Holly Mikkelson and Renée Jourdenais, 352–367. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Buysschaert, Joost, Fernández-Parra, María, Kerremans, Koen, Koponen, Maarit, and Gys-Walt van Egdom. 2018. “Embracing Digital Disrupiton in Translator Training: Technology Immersion in Simulated Translation Bureaus”. Revista Tradumàtica. Tecnologies de la Traducció 16: 125–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Clayton. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Cooper, Alan. 2004. The Inmates are Running the Asylum: Why Hi-Tech Products Drive us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity. Indianapolis: Sams Publishing.Google Scholar
Corpas Pastor, Gloria. 2021. “Interpreting and Technology: Is the Sky Really the Limit?”. In Proceedings of the Translation and Interpreting Technology Online Conference (TRITON), edited by Ruslan Mitkov, Vilelmini Sosoni, Julie Christine Giguere, Elena Murgolo, and Elizabeth Deysel, 15–24. Shumen: Incoma.
Corpas Pastor, Gloria, and Lily May Fern. 2016. A Survey of Interpreters’ Needs and Practices Related to Language Technology. Tech. rep. Málaga: University of Málaga.Google Scholar
Corpas Pastor, Gloria, and Mahmoud Gaber. 2020. “Remote interpreting in public service settings: technology, perceptions and practice”. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation. 13 (2): 58–78.Google Scholar
Davidson, Rob. 2019. “Remote simultaneous interpreting: time to start a dialogue”. Communicate 74: 10–11. Online: [URL]
Davitti, Elena, and Sabine Braun. 2020. “Analysing Interactional Phenomena in Video Remote Interpreting in Collaborative Settings: Implications for Interpreter Education”, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14 (3): 279–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Defrancq, Bart. 2021. “What can research deliver and how?” In 100 Years of Conference Interpreting. A Legacy, edited by Kilian Seeber, 244–248. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholar.Google Scholar
Dong, Yanping. 2018. “Complex dynamic systems in students of interpreting training. Translation and interpreting studies”. Translation and Interpreting Studies 13 (2): 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Gary Massey. 2017. “Socio-technical issues in professional translation practice”. Translation Spaces 6 (1): 104–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
European Union. 2008. “Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning.” Official Journal of the European Union C-111.Google Scholar
Fantinuoli, Claudio. 2021. “Conference interpreting: new technologies”. In Routledge Handbook of Conference Interpreting, edited by Michaela Albl-Mikasa and Elizabet Tiselius, 508–522. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fantinuoli, Claudio, and Bianca Prandi. 2018. “Teaching information and communication technologies. A proposal for the interpreting classroom”. Trans-kom 11 (2): 162–182.Google Scholar
Fantinuoli, Claudio, Marchesini, Giulia, Landan, David, and Lukas Hora. 2022. “KUDO Interpreter Assist: Automated Real-time Support for Remote Interpretation”. Preprint. Online: [URL].
Gentile, Paola. 2016. The Interpreter’s Professional Status. A Sociological Investigation into the Interpreting Profession. PhD thesis. University of Trieste, Italy.
Gerver, David. 1969. “The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters”. In Proceedings of the 2nd Louisville Conference on Rate and/or Frequency Controlled Speech, edited by Foulke Emerson, 162–184. University of Louisville: Centre for Rate-Controlled Recordings.
Gillies, Andrew. 2019. Consecutive Interpreting. A Short Course. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hlavac, Jim. 2013. “A Cross-national Overview of Translator and Interpreter Certification Procedures”. Translation and Interpreting 5 (1): 32–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollnagel, Erik, and David Woods. 2005. Joint cognitive systems: Foundations of cognitive systems engineering. Boca Raton: CRC Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horváth, Ildikó. 2022. “AI in interpreting: Ethical considerations.” Across Languages and Cultures 23 (1): 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
International Labour Organisation. 2021. Shaping skills and lifelong learning for the future of work. ILC109/Report VI. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Ivars, María Amparo, Pinazo, Daniel, and Marta Ruiz. 2014. “Self-efficacy and language proficiency in interpreter trainees”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8 (2): 167–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy. 2020. “Technology in Translator Training”. In The Routledge Handbook of Translation Technology, edited by Minako O’Hagan, 498–515. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornacki, Michał. 2018. Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT) Tools in the Translator Training Process. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutz, Wladimir. 2010. Dolmetschkompetenz: Was Muss Der Dolmetscher Wissen und Können?. München: European University Press.Google Scholar
Lamberger-Felber, Heike. 2001. “Text-oriented Research into Interpreting – Examples from a Case-study.” Hermes 26: 39–64.Google Scholar
Lecci, Claudia. 2021. “Interpretazione e nuove tecnologie.” In Interpretare da e verso l’italiano. Didattica e innovazione per la formazione dell’interprete, edited by Mariachiara Russo, 135–149. Bologna: BUP.Google Scholar
Li, Changshuan. 2010. “Coping Strategies for Fast Delivery in Simultaneous Interpretation”. The Journal of Specialised Translation 13: 19–25.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Jim, Vermeulen, Leopold, and Prevendren Naidoo. 2009. “Flying glass: a qualitative analysis of pilot perceptions of automated flight-decks after 20 years”. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies 9 (1): 13–28.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 2003. Remote Interpreting: Assessment of Human Factors and Performance Parameters. Online: [URL].
. 2005. “Remote Interpreting: Issues of Multi-Sensory Integration in a Multilingual Task”. Meta 50 (2): 727–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mouzourakis, Panayotis. 2006. “Remote Interpreting. A Technical Perspective.” Interpreting 8 (1): 45–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neagu, Adriana, and Renata Georgescu. 2020. “Riding the High-Tech Wave. Conference Interpreting and the ‘Geeky’ Edge”. In The Translator, the Interpreter and the Dialogue of Languages in the Digital Age, edited by Adriana Neagu, 36–52. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Orlando, Marc, and Jim Hlavac. 2020. “Simultaneous-consecutive in interpreter training and interpreting practice: use and perceptions of a hybrid mode”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 25: 1–17.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2013. “Translation Skill-Sets in a Machine-Translation Age”. Meta 58 (3): 487–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2012. “Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting”. Interpreting 12 (2): 214–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez, Susana, Gretter, Roberto, Matassoni, Marco, Falavigna, Daniele, Alonso, Alvaro, Corcho, Oscar, and Mariano Rico. 2021. “SmarTerp: A CAI system to support simultaneous interpreters in real-time”. In Proceedings of the Translation and Interpreting Technology Online Conference (TRITON), edited by Ruslan Mitkov, Vilelmini Sosoni, Julie Christine Giguere, Elena Murgolo, and Elizabeth Deysel, 102–109. Shumen: Incoma.
Sawyer, David. 2004. Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education. Curriculum and Assessment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian. 2017. “Interpreting at the European Institutions: faster, higher, stronger”. CLINA 3 (2): 73–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian, Keller, Laura, Amos, Rhona, and Sophie Hengl. 2019. “Expectation vs. experience. Attitudes towards video remote conference interpreting”. Interpreting 21 (2): 270–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin, and Andrew Dawrant. 2016. Conference Interpreting – A Complete Course. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, Elisabet, and Adelina Hild. 2017. “Expertise and competence in translation and interpreting”. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited by John Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 425–444. Hoboken: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Alan. 1999. “Tertiary Education and Lifelong Learning: Perspectives, Findings and Issues from OECD Work”. Higher Education Management 11 (1): 55–68.Google Scholar
Wang, Weiwei, Xu, Yi, Wang, Binhua, and Lei Mu. 2020. “Developing Interpreting Competence Scales in China”. Frontiers in Psychology 11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Binhua, and Lihong Pan. 2022. “Delivering the first Ma/PGDip Business and Public Service Interpreting programme in the UK: Experience from the University of Leeds”. In Global Insights into Public Service Interpreting. Theory, Practice and Training, edited by Ricardo Moratto and Li Defeng, 220–240. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Warnicke, Camilla, and Charlotta Plejert. 2012. “Turn-organisation in mediated phone interaction using Video Relay Service (VRS)”. Journal of Pragmatics: 44 (10): 1313–1334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “The headset as an interactional resource in a video relay interpreting (VRI) setting”. Interpreting 20 (2): 285–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Sixuan, Kwong, Luke, Kang, and Soo Ngee Koh. 2012. “Accent reducation for computer-aided language learning.” In Proceedings of the 20th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO 2012), 335–339.
Ziegler, Klaus, and Sebastiano Gigliobianco. 2018. “Present? Remote? Remotely present! New technological approaches to remote simultaneous conference interpreting”. In Interpreting and Technology, edited by Claudio Fantinuoli, 119–139. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Fan, Damien Chiaming
2024. Conference interpreters’ technology readiness and perception of digital technologies. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 26:2 ► pp. 178 ff. DOI logo
Tian, Yuan & Yuying Wang
2024. Understanding instructors’ tablet adoption for note-taking in interpreting: insights from the GETAMEL model. Frontiers in Education 9 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.