Cover not available
Article published In:
Community Interpreting, Translation, and Technology
Edited by Nike K. Pokorn and Christopher D. Mellinger
[Translation and Interpreting Studies 13:3] 2018
► pp. 342–365

Tablet interpreting

Consecutive interpreting 2.0

ORCID logo | University of Geneva
This pilot study examines the recent phenomenon of tablet interpreting. Based on in-depth interviews with six practitioners, which were transcribed and analyzed inductively, the article presents an overview of software, tools, and technology that interpreters currently utilize in their work. Qualitative and quantitative results demonstrate regular, effective tablet use in various consecutive interpreting settings. Participants feel that these tools meet their needs and outstrip the functionalities offered by pen and paper in most contexts. This study compiles best practices for tablet interpreting, discusses their benefits and challenges, and describes features to consider when assessing new and existing tablets, applications, and styluses. The data underscore the need for training in this budding field, which represents a key area for future research and professional practice.
Keywords: consecutive interpreting, tablet interpreting, qualitative interviews, tablet, NVivo
Article outline
  • Background
    • Note-taking
  • Methodology
  • Respondents
  • Results
    • Preferences, settings, and client and colleague reactions
    • Pros and cons of tablets, applications and styluses
    • Pros and cons of applications
    • Pros and cons of styluses
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00020.gol
References (66)
References
Aliperta, Valeria. 2011. “ the interpreting wars (or 7 ‘wartime’ survival tips for the booth).” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Alyahya, Suzan and James E. Gall. 2012. “iPads in education: A qualitative study of students’ attitudes and experiences.” In Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2012, ed. by Tel Amiel and Brent Wilson. Chesapeake, Virginia: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
Behl, Holly. 2013a. “The paperless interpreter experiment: Part I.” Retrieved from [URL] Last accessed 19 August 2018.
. 2013b. “The paperless interpreter experiment: Part II.” Retrieved from [URL] Last accessed 19 August 2018.
. 2015. “The paperless interpreter experiment Part III: Microsoft Surface Pro 4.” Retrieved from [URL] Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Brinkmann, Svend. 2013. Qualitative Interviewing. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camayd-Freixas, Erik. 2005. “A revolution in consecutive interpreting: Digital voice-recorder-assisted CI.” The ATA Chronicle 341: 40–46.Google Scholar
Corsellis, Ann. 2008. Public Service Interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creswell, John W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Creswell, John W. and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Crowson, Matthew G., Russel Kahmke, Marisa Ryan and Richard Scher. 2015. “Utility of daily mobile tablet use for residents on an otolaryngology head & neck surgery inpatient service.” Journal of Medical Systems 40(55).Google Scholar
Dimond, Tom. 1957. “Devices for reading handwritten characters.” In Proceedings from the Eastern Joint Computer Conference, 232–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drechsel, Alexander. 2017. The Tablet Interpreter. 2017 ed. Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Drechsel, Alexander and Holly Behl. 2016. “Kiss paper goodbye: Tablet technology for consecutive and simultaneous interpreting.” Paper presented at the ATA 57th Annual Conference, San Francisco, California, November 5, 2016.Google Scholar
Drechsel, Alexander and Goldsmith, Joshua. In press. “Tablet Interpreting: The use of mobile devices in interpreting.” In CIUTI-Forum 2016: Equitable Education through intercultural communication: Role and responsibility for non-state actors, ed. by Martin Forstner and Hannelore Lee-Jahnke. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Dündar, Hakan and Murat Akçayir. 2014. “Implementing tablet PCs in schools: Students’ attitudes and opinions.” Computers in Human Behavior 321: 40–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durand, Claude. 2014. “Consecutive notes, symbols and the use of the notepad.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Eaton, Nick. 2010. “The iPad/tablet PC market defined?” Seattle Pi. Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
El-Metwally, Maha. 2017. “Consec-Simo as a tool for Consecutive Interpreting.” Webinar presented online through eCPD webinars, September 19, 2017.Google Scholar
Ferrari, Michele. 2001. “Consecutive simultaneous?” SCIC News 261: 2–4.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Traditional vs. ‘simultaneous’ consecutive.” SCIC News 291: 6–7.Google Scholar
Gillies, Andrew. 2005. Note-taking for Consecutive Interpreting: A Short Course. Oxford: Alden Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Joshua. 2017. A comparative user evaluation of tablets and tools for consecutive interpreters. In Proceedings from the Translating and the Computer 39 conference, ed. by João Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macabn, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 40–50. Geneva: Tradulex.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Joshua and Alexander Drechsel. 2016. “Tablet interpreting: Tips, tools and applications to make the most of your tablet while interpreting.” Webinar presented at the Proz 2016 Virtual Conference for International Translation Day, 30 September 2016. Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Goldsmith, Joshua and Josephine Holley. 2015. Consecutive Interpreting 2.0: The Tablet Interpreting Experience. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Gomes, Miguel. 2002. “Digitally mastered consecutive: An interview with Michele Ferrari.” Lingua franca 5–6: 6–10.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra. 2007. Community Interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamidi, Miriam and Franz Pöchhacker. 2007. “Simultaneous consecutive interpreting: A new technique put to the test.” Meta: Journal des traducteurs 52(2): 276–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbert, Jean. 1952. Manuel de l’interprète: Comment on devient interprète de conférences. Geneva: Libraire de l’Université.Google Scholar
Hof, Michelle. 2011. “Of notepads and writing utensils.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
. 2012. “iPad: The ideal boothmate.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Hursh, Tony. 2005. “Tablet PCs for classroom use: Technology and application.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 15 October 2015.
Kvale, Steinar. 1996. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Lombardi, John. 2003. “DRAC interpreting: Coming soon to a courthouse near you?” Proteus 12(2): 7–9.Google Scholar
McNamara, Carter. 2009. “General guidelines for conducting research interviews.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Merriam, Sharan B. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Navarro-Hall, Esther. 2014. “Esther Navarro-Hall: Sim-Consec™ con Smartpen.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 18 August 2018.
Nguyen, Lemai, Siew Mee Barton and Linh Thuy Nguyn. 2014. “iPads in higher education – Hype and hope.” British Journal of Educational Technology 46(1): 190–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oceguera López, Patricia. 2017. El uso de aplicaciones para tablets en la toma de notas del intérprete. Unpublished BA thesis. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Mexico.Google Scholar
Orlando, Marc. 2010. “Digital pen technology and consecutive interpreting: Another dimension in note-taking training and assessment.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 151: 71–86.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Interpreting training and digital pen technology.” [URL] April 8, 2018. Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 18 August 2018.
. 2014. “A study on the amenability of digital pen technology in a hybrid mode of interpreting: Consec-simul with notes.” Translation & Interpreting 6(2): 39–54.Google Scholar
. 2015a. “Digital pen technology and interpreter training, practice and research: Status and trends.” In Interpreter Education in the Digital Age, ed. by Suzanne Ehrlich and Jemina Napier, 125–152. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
. 2015b. “Implementing digital pen technology in the consecutive interpreting classroom.” In To know how to suggest…approaches to teaching conference interpreting, ed. by Dörte Andres and Martina Behr, 171–199. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
. 2016. Training 21st Century Translators and Interpreters: At the Crossroads of Practice, Research and Pedagogy. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Paone, Matteo Domenico. 2016. Mobile Geräte beim Simultandolmetschen mit besonderem Bezug auf Tablets. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Plano Clark, Vicki L., and Kimberly Galt. 2009. “Using a mixed methods approach to strengthen instrument development and validation.” Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Pharmacists Association, San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar
Rosado, Tony. 2013. “Note-taking with iPad: Making our life easier.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Rozan, Jean-François. 1956. La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Geneva: Libraire de l’Université Georg.Google Scholar
Ryan, Gery and H. Russell Bernard. 2003. “Techniques to identify themes.” Field Methods 15(1): 85–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schedeen, Jesse. 2010. “The history of the tablet PC.” IGN. Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Schooley, Benjamin, Steven Walczak, Neset Hikmet and Nitin Patel. 2016. “Impacts of mobile tablet computing on provider productivity, communications and the process of care.” International Journal of Medical Informatics 881: 62–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schweda Nicholson, Nancy. 1990. “Consecutive note-taking for Community Interpretation.” In Interpreting: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, ed. by David Bowen and Margareta Bowen, 136–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Statista. 2018. “Shipment forecast of laptops, desktop PCs and tablets worldwide from 2010 to 2022 (in million units).” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Tarabocchia, Laura. 1985. L’annotazione grafica nell’interpretazione consecutive. Trieste: Università degli Studi di Trieste.Google Scholar
Tipton, Rebecca and Olgierda Furmanek. 2016. Dialogue Interpreting: A Guide to Interpreting in Public Services and the Community. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres-Díaz, María Gracia. 1998. Manual de Interpretación Consecutiva. Malaga: Universidad de Málaga.Google Scholar
Turner, Daniel W., III. 2010. “Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators.” The Qualitative Report 15(3): 754–760.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, Dapzury and Pallavi Shrivastava. 2002. “Interview as a method for qualitative research.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Vanhecke, Katrin and Julia Lobato Patricio. 2009. La enseñanza-aprendizaje de la interpretación consecutiva: Una propuesta didáctica. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Vivas, Jose. 2003. “Simultaneous consecutive: Report on the comparison session of June 11, 2003.” SCIC B4/JV D2003, Brussels, European Commission, Joint Interpreting and Conference Service.Google Scholar
Ware, Willis H. 2008. RAND and the information evolution: A history in essays and vignettes. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, Kate and Phil Barter. 2016. “Do mobile learning devices enhance learning in Higher Education anatomy classrooms?” Journal of Pedagogical Development 6(1): 14–23.Google Scholar
Yaman, Hakan, Erdinç Yavuz, Adem Er, Ramazan Vural, Yalçin Albayrak, Ahmet Yardimci and Özcan Aslikan. 2015. “The use of mobile smart devices and medical apps in the family practice setting.” Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 22(2): 290–296. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Yanikoglu, Berrin and Aytac Gogus. 2017. “Use of handwriting recognition technologies in tablet-based learning modules for first grade education.” Educational Technology Research and Development 65(5): 1369–1388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yeung, Michelle and Chung Haejung. 2011. “iPEP talk: Pedagogical conversations from the iPad Exploration Project.” Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, ed. by Matthew Koehler and Punya Mishra, 3036–3041. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Chen, Sijia & Jan-Louis Kruger
2023. The effectiveness of computer-assisted interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies 18:3 ► pp. 399 ff. DOI logo
Deysel, Elizabeth
2023. Chapter 6. Investigating the use of technology in the interpreting profession. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 142 ff. DOI logo
Fantinuoli, Claudio
2023. Chapter 3. Towards AI-enhanced computer-assisted interpreting. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 46 ff. DOI logo
Goldsmith, Joshua
2023. Chapter 2. Tablet interpreting. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2023. Chapter 8. Embedding, extending, and distributing interpreter cognition with technology. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Hermosa-Ramírez, Irene
2022. Physiological instruments meet mixed methods in Media Accessibility. Translation Spaces 11:1 ► pp. 38 ff. DOI logo
Zhao, Nan
2022. Use of Computer-Assisted Interpreting Tools in Conference Interpreting Training and Practice During COVID-19. In Translation and Interpreting in the Age of COVID-19 [Corpora and Intercultural Studies, 9], ► pp. 331 ff. DOI logo
Corpas Pastor, Gloria & Fernando Sánchez Rodas
2021. Chapter 1. Now what?. In Corpora in Translation and Contrastive Research in the Digital Age [Benjamins Translation Library, 158], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Orlando, Marc
2021. L’interprétation consécutive-simultanée. À la découverte d’un mode hybride. Traduire :245 ► pp. 76 ff. DOI logo
Orlando, Marc
2023. Chapter 1. Using smartpens and digital pens in interpreter training and interpreting research. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D. & Thomas A. Hanson
2018. Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility. Translation and Interpreting Studies 13:3 ► pp. 366 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 november 2024. 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.