Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation and Interpreting Studies
Vol. 18:3 (2023) ► pp.399–420

The effectiveness of computer-assisted interpreting

A preliminary study based on English-Chinese consecutive interpreting

ORCID logo | Southwest University
ORCID logo | Macquarie University | North-West University
Facing a new technological turn, the field of interpreting is in great need of evidence on the effectiveness of computer-assisted interpreting. This study proposes a computer-assisted consecutive interpreting (CACI) mode incorporating speech recognition (SR) and machine translation (MT). First, the interpreter listens to the source speech and respeaks it into an SR system, creating an SR text which is then processed by an MT system. Second, the interpreter produces a target speech with reference to the SR and MT texts. Six students participated in training on CACI, after which they performed consecutive interpreting in both the conventional and the new mode. The study finds that CACI featured fewer pauses and reduced cognitive load. Moreover, the overall interpreting quality, especially the accuracy, was increased. The effectiveness of the new mode is found to be modulated by the interpreting direction.
Keywords: computer-assisted interpreting, consecutive interpreting, cognitive load, speech recognition, machine translation
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Interpreting and technology
    • Setting-oriented and process-oriented interpreting technologies
    • Bridging process-oriented technologies for use in interpreting
    • The application of SR and MT to interpreting
    • A CACI mode
    • Research questions
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Apparatus
    • Training
    • Stimulus
    • Procedure
    • Data and analysis
  • Results
    • Differences in the interpreting process
      • A comparison of the fluency
      • A comparison of the cognitive load
    • Differences in the interpreting product
      • Overall quality measured by scale rating
      • Accuracy measured by propositional rating
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.21036.che
References (53)
References
AIIC. 2002. “Interpreter Workload Study – Full Report.” [URL]. Last accessed 21 June 2022.
Arivazhagan, Naveen, Colin Cherry, Te, I., Wolfgang Macherey, Pallavi Baljekar, and George Foster. 2020. “Re-translation strategies for long form, simultaneous, spoken language translation.” In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Proceedings, Barcelona, May 4–8, 2020 1, 7919–7923. Piscataway: IEEE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azarmina, Pejman, and Paul Wallace. 2005. “Remote interpretation in medical encounters: A systematic review.” Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 111: 140–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, Alan. 2012. “Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies.” Annual Review of Psychology 631: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Sijia. 2017. “The construct of cognitive load in interpreting and its measurement.” Perspectives 25(4): 640–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “The impact of directionality on the process and product in consecutive interpreting between Chinese and English: Evidence from pen recording and eye tracking.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 341: 100–117.Google Scholar
Chmiel, Agnieszka. 2016. “Directionality and context effects in word translation tasks performed by conference interpreters.” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52(2): 269–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, Hernani, Gloria Corpas Pastor, and Isabel Durán Muñoz. 2018. “Assessing terminology management systems for interpreters.” In Trends in E-Tools and Resources for Translators and Interpreters, ed. by Gloria Corpas Pastor and Isabel Durán-Muñoz, 57–84. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, Hetty, Linda F. Cushman, Cecilia Akuete-Penn, and Dodi D. Meyer. 2008. “Satisfaction with telephonic interpreters in pediatric care.” Journal of The National Medical Association 100(4): 429–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davitti, Elena, and Annalisa Sandrelli. 2020. “Embracing the complexity: A pilot study on interlingual respeaking.” Journal of Audiovisual Translation 3(2): 103–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawson, Hayley. 2019. “Feasibility, quality and assessment of interlingual live subtitling: A pilot study.” Journal of Audiovisual Translation 2(2): 36–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawson, Hayley, and Pablo Romero-Fresco. 2021. “Towards research-informed training in interlingual respeaking: An empirical approach.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 15(1): 66–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Jong, Nivja H., Rachel Groenhout, Rob Schoonen, and Jan H. Hulstijn. 2015. “Second language fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behavior.” Applied Psycholinguistics 36(2): 223–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Desmet, Bart, Mieke Vandierendonck, and Bart Defrancq. 2018. “Simultaneous interpretation of numbers and the impact of technological support.” In Interpreting and Technology, ed. by Claudio Fantinuoli, 13–27. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Devaux, Jérôme. 2016. “When the role of the court interpreter intersects and interacts with new technologies.” In Intersect, Innovate, Interact. Ctis Occasional Papers, 7 1, ed. by Pauline Henry-Tierney and Dinithi Karunanayake, 4–21. Manchester: Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Technologies and role-space: How videoconference interpreting affects the court interpreter’s perception of her role.” In Interpreting and Technology, ed. by Claudio Fantinuoli, 91–117. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Fantinuoli, Claudio. 2018a. “Computer-assisted interpreting: Challenges and future perspectives.” In Trends in E-tools and Resources for Translators and Interpreters, edited by Isabel Durán-Muñoz and Gloria Corpas Pastor, 153–174. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. “Interpreting and technology: The upcoming technological turn.” In Interpreting and Technology, ed. by Claudio Fantinuoli, 1–12. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Fantinuoli, Claudio, and Bianca Prandi. 2021. “Towards the evaluation of automatic simultaneous speech translation from a communicative perspective.” In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (Iwslt 2021), 245–254. Bangkok: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, Joshua. 2018. “Tablet interpreting: Consecutive interpreting 2.0.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 13(3): 342–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamidi, Miriam, and Franz Pöchhacker. 2007. “Simultaneous consecutive interpreting: A new technique put to the test.” Meta 52(2): 276–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hart, Sandra G., and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. “Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research.” In Human Mental Workload, ed. by Peter A. Hancock and Najmedin Meshkati, 139–183. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karimova, Sariya, Patrick Simianer, and Stefan Riezler. 2018. “A user-study on online adaptation of neural machine translation to human post-edits.” Machine Translation 321: 309–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Ping, Fan Zhang, Anya Yu, and Xiaowei Zhao. 2020. “Language History Questionnaire (LHQ3): An enhanced tool for assessing multilingual experience.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23(5): 938–944. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Licoppe, Christian, Maud Verdier, and Claire-Antoine Veyrier. 2018. “Voice, power, and turn-taking in multilingual, consecutively interpreted courtroom proceedings with video links.” In Here or There: Research on Interpreting Via Video Link, ed. by Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner and Sabine Braun, 299–322. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, Yumeng, Qianxi Lv, and Junying Liang. 2018. “Predicting fluency with language proficiency, working memory, and directionality in simultaneous interpreting.” Frontiers in Psychology 91: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Qun, and Xiaojun Zhang. 2015. “Machine translation: General.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Technology, ed. by Sin-wai Chan, 105–119. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson. 2018. “Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 13(3): 366–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Najafian, Maryam, and Martin Russell. 2020. “Automatic accent identification as an analytical tool for accent robust automatic speech recognition.” Speech Communication 1221: 44–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicodemus, Brenda, and Karen Emmorey. 2015. “Directionality in ASL-English interpreting: Accuracy and articulation quality in L1 and L2.” Interpreting 17(2): 145–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orlando, Marc. 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
Orlando, Marc, and Jim Hlavac. 2020. “Simultaneous-consecutive in interpreter training and interpreting practice: Use and perceptions of a hybrid mode.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 251: 1–17.Google Scholar
Peris, Álvaro, Miguel Domingo, and Francisco Casacuberta. 2017. “Interactive neural machine translation.” Computer Speech & Language 451: 201–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pisani, Elisabetta, and Claudio Fantinuoli. 2021. “Measuring the impact of automatic speech recognition on number rendition in simultaneous interpreting.” In Empirical Studies of Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Caiwen Wang and Binghan Zheng, 181–197. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2016. Introducing Interpreting Studies (Second Edition). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz, and Aline Remael. 2019. “New efforts? A competence-oriented task analysis of interlingual live subtitling.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 181: 130–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quené, Hugo, Ingrid Persoon, and Nivja de Jong. 2010. “Praat script syllable nuclei.”Google Scholar
Rinne, Juha O., et al. 2000. “The translating brain: Cerebral activation patterns during simultaneous interpreting.” Neuroscience Letters 294(2): 85–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero-Fresco, Pablo. 2011. Subtitling through Speech Recognition: Respeaking. Manchester: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Respeaking in translator training curricula: Present and future prospects.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 6(1): 91–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero-Fresco, Pablo, and Carlo Eugeni. 2020. “Live subtitling through respeaking.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Audiovisual Translation and Media Accessibility, ed. by Łukasz Bogucki and Mikołaj Deckert, 269–295. Cham: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2010. “Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting.” Interpreting 12(2): 214–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G. 2011. “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories – New models.” Interpreting 13(2): 176–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tommola, Jorma, and Marketta Helevä. 1998. “Language direction and source text complexity: Effects on trainee performance in simultaneous interpreting.” In Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies, ed. by Lynne Bowker, Michael Cronin, Dorothy Kenny and Jennifer Pearson, 177–186. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Vieira, Lucas Nunes. 2019. “Post-editing of machine translation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, ed. by Minako O’Hagan, 319–335. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Xinyu, and Caiwen Wang. 2019. “Can computer-assisted interpreting tools assist interpreting?” Transletters. International Journal of Translation and Interpreting 31: 109–139.Google Scholar
Xiong, Hao, Ruiqing Zhang, Chuanqiang Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2019. Dutongchuan: Context-Aware Translation Model for Simultaneous Interpreting. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, Dong, and Li Deng. 2015. Automatic Speech Recognition: A Deep Learning Approach. London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Chen, Sijia & Jan-Louis Kruger
2024. A computer-assisted consecutive interpreting workflow: training and evaluation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 18:3 ► pp. 380 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Sijia & Jan-Louis Kruger
2024. Visual processing during computer-assisted consecutive interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 26:2 ► pp. 231 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.