Cover not available
Part of
Corpora in Translation and Contrastive Research in the Digital Age: Recent advances and explorations
Edited by Julia Lavid-López, Carmen Maíz-Arévalo and Juan Rafael Zamorano-Mansilla
[Benjamins Translation Library 158] 2021
► pp. 23–48

Chapter 1
Now what?

A fresh look at language technologies and resources for translators and interpreters

ORCID logo | Universidad de Málaga | University of Wolverhampton
ORCID logo | Universidad de Málaga

This chapter provides a brief outline of language technologies applied to translation and interpreting with a view to identifying challenges and research opportunities. Section 1 covers new trends within the automation of processes, the integration of language technologies in translators and interpreters’ workflows and industry demands. Section 2 moves on to other relevant technology-based resources for oral and written mediation, including new types of corpora for interpreting, computer-assisted interpreting tools (CAI) or cloud interpreting, among others. Section 3 delves into the concept of ‘tech-savviness’ and adoption of technology among language service providers (LSPs). Final thoughts are presented as a conclusion in Section 4.

Keywords: translation technologies, technology-based training, remote interpreting, corpora, CAI tools, professional uptake, tech-savviness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Current and emerging trends
    • 2.1Automating translation and crowdsourcing
    • 2.2Displacing traditional forms of interpreting
  • 3.Some data tools and resources
    • 3.1Corpora
    • 3.2CAI tools
  • 4.Translators and interpreters’ technology uptake
  • 5.Food for thought
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.158.01cor
References
Allen, Jeffrey
2003 “Post-editing.” In Computers and Translation: A Translator’s Guide, ed. by Harold Somers, 297–317. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alley, Erica
2014 “Who Makes the Rules Anyway? Reality and Perception of Guidelines in Video Relay Service Interpreting”. The Interpreter’s Newsletter 19: 13–26.Google Scholar
Amato, Amalia, Nicoletta Spinolo, and María Jesús González Rodríguez
2018 Handbook of Remote Interpreting. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arhire, Mona
2014 Corpus-based Translation for Research, Practice and Training (Topics in Translation Series). Iaşi: Institutul European.Google Scholar
Aston, Guy
2015 “Learning Phraseology from Speech Corpora.” In Multiple Affordances of Language Corpora for Data-driven Learning, ed. by Agnieszka Leńko-Szymańska and Alex Boulton, 63–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atabekova, Anastasia A., Rimma G. Gorbatenko, Tatyana V. Shoustikova, and Carmen Valero-Garcés
2018 “Cross-cultural Mediation with Refugees in Emergency Settings: ICT Use by Language Service Providers.” Journal of Social Studies Education Research 9 (3): 351–369. [URL]. (Accessed January 3, 2020).
AVIDICUS
2019 Video-Mediated Interpreting: Home of the AVIDICUS Projects. [URL]. (Accessed January 3, 2020).
Berber-Irabien, Diana
2010 Information and Communication Technologies in Conference Interpreting. PhD thesis. Barcelona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili.Google Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia
2016 “Intermodal Corpora. A Novel Resource for Descriptive and Applied Translation Studies”. In Corpus-based Approaches to Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Gloria Corpas Pastor and Miriam Seghiri Domínguez, 129–148. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia, Adriano Ferraresi and Maja Miličević
2016 “From EPIC to EPTIC–Exploring Simplification in Interpreting and Translation from an Intermodal Perspective”. Target 28 (1): 61–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia, Adriano Ferraresi, Mariachiara Russo, Camille Collard and Bart Defrancq
2018 “Building Interpreting and Intermodal Corpora: A How-to for a Formidable Task”. In Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies, ed. by Mariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli and Bart Defrancq, 21–42. London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bidoli, Cynthia J. Kellet, and Sonia Vardè
2016 “Digital Pen Technology and Consecutive Note-taking in the Classroom and beyond.” In Interchange between Languages and Cultures: The Quest for Quality, ed. by Jitka Zehnalovà, Ondřej Molnár, and Michal Kubánek, 131–150 Olomouc: Palacký University Olomouc.Google Scholar
Bower, Kathryn
2015 “Stress and Burnout in Video Relay Service (VRS) Interpreting.” Journal of Interpretation 24 (1): 2. [URL].
Bowker, Lynne, and Gloria Corpas Pastor
2015 “Translation Technology.” In Handbook of Computational Linguistics, ed. by Ruslan Mitkov. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [URL] (Accessed January 3, 2020).
2015 “Remote Interpreting.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, 346–348. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Braun, Sabine, and Judith L. Taylor
2012 Videoconference and Remote Interpreting in Legal Proceedings. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Braun, Sabine
2018 “Video-Mediated Interpreting in Legal Settings in England: Interpreters’ Perceptions in Their Sociopolitical Context.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 13 (3): 393–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cadwell, Patrick, Sharon O’Brien, and Carlos S. C. Teixeira
2018 Resistance and accommodation: factors for the (non-) adoption of machine translation among professional translators. Perspectives, 26:3, 301–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castilho, Sheila, Natália Resende, and Ruslan Mitkov
2019 “What Influences the Features of Post-Editese? A Preliminary Study.” In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Human-Informed Translation and Interpreting Technology (HiT-IT 2019), ed. by Irina Temnikova, Constantin Orasan, Gloria Corpas Pastor, and Ruslan Mitkov. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castilho, Sheila, Federico Gaspari, Joss Moorkens, Maja Popović, and Antonio Toral
2019 (eds). Machine Translation, 33 (1–2). Special Issue on Human Factors in Neural Machine Translation.Google Scholar
Chen, Sijia
2017 “Note-taking in Consecutive Interpreting: New Data from Pen Recording.” Translation & Interpreting 9(1): 4–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018a “A Pen-eye-voice Approach towards the Process of Note-taking and Consecutive Interpreting: An Experimental Design.” International Journal of Comparative Literature and Translation Studies 6(2): 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b “Exploring the Process of Note-taking and Consecutive Interpreting: a Pen-eye-voice Approach towards Cognitive Load.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(4): 467–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpas Pastor, Gloria
2001 “Compilación de un corpus ad hoc para la enseñanza de la traducción inversa especializada.” Trans. Revista de traductología, 5, 155–184.Google Scholar
2018 “Tools for Interpreters: the Challenges that Lie Ahead.” Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning E, 5: 157–182. ISSN: 2342-7205.Google Scholar
Corpas Pastor, Gloria, and Lily May Fern
2016 A Survey of Interpreters’ Needs and Practices Related to Language Technology. Technical paper [FFI2012-38881-MINECO/TI-DT-2016-1].Google Scholar
Corpas Pastor, Gloria, and Miriam Seghiri Domínguez
(editors) 2016 Corpus-based Approaches to Translation and Interpreting: From Theory to Applications. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. ISBN 9783631609569 / E-ISBN 9783653060553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpas Pastor, Gloria, and Isabel Durán Muñoz
eds. 2018 Trends in E-Tools and Resources for Translators and Interpreters. Approaches to Translation Studies 45. Leiden:Brill Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpas Pastor, Gloria, Ruslan Mitkov, Naveed Afzal, and Viktor Pekar
2008 Translation universals: do they exist? A corpus-based NLP study of convergence and simplification. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas: October 21–25, 2008, Waikiki, Hawaii, USA, 75–81.Google Scholar
Costa, Hernani, Gloria Corpas Pastor, and Isabel Durán Muñoz
2014a “A Comparative User Evaluation of Terminology Management Tools for Interpreters.” In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Computational Terminology, 68–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b “Technology assisted Interpreting,” MultiLingual 143, 25(3): 27–32. [URL]. (Accessed January 3, 2020).
2017 “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, 7–84. Leiden: Brill Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daems, Joke, Orphée De Clercq, and Lieve Macken
2017 “Translationese and Post-editese: How Comparable Is Comparable Quality?” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies 16: 89–103.Google Scholar
Drechsel, Alexander
2013b The Tablet Interpreter Manual. [URL]. (Accessed January 4, 2020)
Drechsel, Alexander, and Joshua Goldsmith
2016 “Tablet Interpreting: The Evolution and Uses of Mobile Devices in Interpreting.” In Proceedings of the 2016 CIUTI Forum, edited by Hannelore Lee-Jahnke. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
EAGLES (Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards)
1996 Text corpora Working Group reading Guide. EAGLES Document EAG-TCWG-FR-2, version of May 1996 [URL]. (Accessed January 3, 2020).
Esperança-Rodier, Emmanuelle, and Caroline Rossi
2019 “Time is Everything: A Comparative Study of Human Evaluation of SMT vs. NMT.” In Proceedings of the 41st Conference Translating and the Computer, ASLING, London, UK, November 21–22, 2019, ed. by João Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macan, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 36–46. Geneva: Tradulex. ISBN: 978-2970-10957-0.Google Scholar
Fantinuoli, Claudio
2016 “InterpretBank. Redefining Computer-assisted Interpreting Tools.” In Proceedings of the 38th Conference Translating and the Computer, ASLING, London, UK, November 17–18, 2016, ed. by João Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macan, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 42–52. Geneva: Tradulex. ISBN: 978-2-9701095-0-1.Google Scholar
2017 “Computer-assisted Preparation in Conference Interpreting.” The International Journal for Translation and Interpreting Research 9(2): 24–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018a Computer-assisted Interpreting: Challenges and Future Perspectives. In Trends in e-tools and resources for translators and interpreters, ed. by Gloria Corpas Pastor and Isabel Durán Muñoz, 153–174. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
2018b Interpreting and Technology: The Upcoming Technological Turn. In. Interpreting and Technology, ed. by Claudio Fantinuoli, 1–2- Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
2018c “The Use of Comparable Corpora in Interpreting Practice and Training”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 23.Google Scholar
Fantinuoli, Claudio and Zanettin, Federico
(eds.) 2015 New Directions in Corpus-based Translation Studies (Translation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing 1), 133–149. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferraresi, Adriano
2016 “Intermodal Corpora and the Translation Classroom: What can Translation Trainers and Trainees Learn from Interpreting?” Linguaculture 2016 (2): 27–51. DOI logo. (Accessed January 3, 2020).Google Scholar
Fumagalli, Daniela
1999 Alla ricerca dell’interpretese. Uno studio sull’interpretazione consecutiva attraverso la corpus linguistics. Unpublished PhD thesis. Advanced School for Translators and Interpreters (SSLMIT), University of Trieste.Google Scholar
Gellerstam, Martin
1986 “Translationese in Swedish Novels Translated from English.” Translation studies in Scandinavia 1: 88–95.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
2004 “Translation Research versus Interpreting Research”. In Translation Research and Interpreting Research, ed. by Christina Schäffner, 10–34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Girletti, Sabrina, Pierrette Bouillon, Martina Bellodi, and Philipp Ursprung
2019 “Preferences of End-users for Raw and Post-edited NMT in a Business Environment.” In Proceedings of the 41st Conference Translating and the Computer, ASLING, London, UK, November 21–22, 2019, ed. by João Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macan, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 47–59. Geneva: Tradulex. ISBN: 978-2970-10957-0.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Joshua
2018 “Tablet interpreting.” Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association 13(3): 342–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, Joshua, and Josephine Holley
2015 Consecutive Interpreting 2.0: The Tablet Interpreting Experience. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Gough, Joanna, and Katerina Perdikaki
2018 “Concurrent Translation-Reality or Hype?” In Proceedings of the 40th Conference Translating and the Computer, ASLING, London, UK, November 15–16, 2018, ed. by João Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macan, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 79–88. Geneva: Tradulex. ISBN: 978-2-9701095-5-6.Google Scholar
Gracia-García, Roberto A.
2002 Telephone Interpreting: A Review of Pros and Cons. In Proceedings of the ATA 43rd Annual Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, November 6–9, 2002, 195–216. Alexandria, VA: American Translators Association.Google Scholar
Guerberof Arenas, Ana
2013 “What Do Professional Translators Think About Post-editing?” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation, 19: 75–95.Google Scholar
Guerberof Arenas, Ana, and Joss Moorkens
2019 Machine Translation and Post-editing Training as Part of a Master’s Programme. Jostrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation, 31: 217–238.Google Scholar
Hiebl, Bettina
2011 Simultanes Konsekutivdolmetschen mit dem LivescribeTM EchoTM Smartpen: Ein Experiment im Sprachenpaar Italienisch-Deutsch mit Fokus auf Zuhörerbewertung. MA thesis. University of Vienna. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hof, Michelle R.
2012 “iPad: The Ideal Boothmate?” Aiic.net, November 25. [URL]. (Accessed January 3, 2020).
Hu, Kaibao
2016 Introducing Corpus-based Translation Studies (New Frontiers in Translation Studies). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilisei, Iustina, Diana Inkpen, Gloria Corpas Pastor, and Ruslan Mitkov
2010 “Identification of Translationese: A Machine Learning Approach.” In Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, 503–511. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ippolito, Margherita
2013 Simplification, Explicitation and Normalization: Corpus-Based Research into English to Italian Translations of Children’s Classics. Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
ISO 18578:2017
Translation Services – Post-editing of Machine Translation Output – Requirements. [URL]. (Accessed January 3, 2020).
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel
2017 Crowdsourcing and Online Collaborative Translations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Crowdsourcing and Translation Quality: Novel Approaches in the Language Industry and Translation Studies.” In Translation Quality Assessment: From Principles to Practice, ed. by Sheila Castillo, Joss Moorkens, Federico Gaspari, and Stephen Doherty, 69–93. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “Technology and non-professional translation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, ed. by Minako O’Hagan, 220–238. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Nataly
2008 Telephone Interpreting: A Comprehensive Guide to the Profession. Bloomington: Trafford Publishing.Google Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy
2018 “Sustaining Disruption?: On the Transition from Statistical to Neural Machine Translation.” Tradumàtica, 16: 0059–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “Machine Translation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Philosophy, ed. by J. Piers Rawling and Philip Wilson, 428–445. London and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa, and Minna Ruokonen
2017 “Love Letters or Hate Mail? Translators’ Technology Acceptance in the Light of Their Emotional Narratives.” In Human Issues in Translation Technology, ed. by Dorothy Kenny, 8–24. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kostal, Nina
2011 Die Rolle der Notizentechnik beim Konsekutivdolmetschen: Analyse mittels LivescribeTM EchoTM Smartpen. MA thesis. University of Vienna. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leblanc, Matthieu
2013 “Translators on Translation Memory (TM): Results of an Ethnographic Study in Three Translation Services and Agencies.” Translation & Interpreting 5(2): 1–13. ti.105202.2013.a01. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “ ‘I can’t get no satisfaction!’ Should we blame translation technologies or shifting business practices?” In Human Issues in Translation Technology, ed. by Dorothy Kenny, 63–80. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lion, Casey K., Julie C. Brown, B. E. Ebel, Eileen J. Klein, Bonnie Strelitz, Kolleen Kays Gutman, Patty Hencz, Juan Fernandez, and Rita Mangione-Smith
2015 “Effect of Telephone vs Video Interpretation on Parent Comprehension, Communication, and Utilization in the Pediatric Emergency Department: a Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA Pediatrics 169(12): 1117–1125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locatis, Craig, Deborah Williamsom, Carrie Gould-Kabler, Laurie Zone-Smith, Isabel Detzler, Jason Roberson, Richard Maisiak, and Michael Ackerman
2010 “Comparing In-person, Video, and Telephonic Medical Interpretation. Journal of General Internal Medicine 25 (4), 345–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malamatidou, Sofia
2019 Corpus Triangulation: Combining Data and Methods in Corpus-Based Translation Studies (Routledge Studies in Empirical Translation). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marcus, Jessica
2017 “Quality Improvement Project Examining Nurses’ Perceptions Regarding the Use of Technology for Interpretation for Patients with Limited English Proficiency.” Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) Translational and Clinical Research Projects 26. [URL]. (Accessed January 3, 2020).
Mikhailov, Mikhail and Robert Cooper
2016 Corpus Linguistics for Translation and Contrastive Studies: A guide for research. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikkelson, Holly
2003 “Telephone Interpreting: Boon or Bane?” In Speaking in Tongues: Language across Contexts and Users, ed. by Luis Pérez González, 251–269. Valencia: Universitat de València.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara
2003 “Remote Interpreting: Assessment of Human Factors and Performance Parameters.” In Joint Project International Telecommunication Union (ITU)-Ecole de Traduction et d’Interpretation, Université de Genève (ETI). [URL]. (Accessed January 3, 2020).
Mouzourakis, Panayotis
1996 “Videoconferencing: Techniques and challenges.” Interpreting 1(1): 21–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Remote Interpreting: a Technical Perspective on Recent Experiments.” Interpreting 8(1): 45–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mouzourakis, Takis
2003 “That Feeling of Being There: Vision and Presence in Remote Interpreting.” The AIIC Webzine 23. [URL]. (Accessed January 3, 2020).
Mutal, Jonathan, Lise Volkart, Pierrette Bouillon, Sabrina Girletti, and Paula Estrella
2019 “Differences between SMT and NMT Output: A Translators’ Point of View.” In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Human-Informed Translation and Interpreting Technology (HiT-IT 2019), ed. by Irina Temnikova, Constantin Orasan, Gloria Corpas Pastor, and Ruslan Mitkov, 19–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naimushin, Boris
2019 “Interviews with Translators and Interpreters.” Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23(2): 584–590.Google Scholar
NAJIT
2009 “Telephone interpreting in legal settings.” [URL]. (Accessed January 3, 2020).
Napier, Jemina, Robert Skinner, and Graham H. Turner
2017 “ ‘It’s Good for them but not so for me’: Inside the Sign Language Interpreting Call Centre.” Translation & Interpreting 9(2): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nash Fernandez, Annalisa
2017 “Requisite or Redundant: Spanish Language Interpreters in Urban Medical Systems.” Translation Journal. [URL]. (Accessed January 31, 2020).
Navarro-Hall, Esther
2012 “An introduction to sim-consec.” [URL]. (Accessed April 30, 2020).
O’Brien, Sharon
2012 “Translation as Human–Computer Interaction.” Translation Spaces 1(1): 101–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve
2017 “Technology, translation and society.” Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 29(2): 264–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “Sociological Approaches to Translation Technology.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, ed. by Minakoed O’Hagan, 384–397. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orlando, Marc
2010 “Digital Pen Technology and Consecutive Interpreting: Another Dimension in Notetaking Training and Assessment.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15: 71–86.Google Scholar
2011 “Beyond Pen and Paper: Note-taking Training and Digital Technology.” In Proceedings of the “Synergise!” Biennial National Conference of the Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators: AUSIT 2010, ed. by Annamaria Arnall and Uldins Ozolins, 76–85. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2013 “Interpreting Training and Digital Pen Technology.” [URL]. (Accessed January 3, 2020).
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. DOI logoGoogle 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, 171–200. 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
Ozolins, Uldins
2012 “Telephone Interpreting: Understanding Practice and Identifying Research Needs.” Translation & Interpreting 3(2): 33–47.Google Scholar
Pielmeier, Hélène and O’Mara, Paul
2020 The State of the Linguist Supply Chain Translators and Interpreters in 2020. CSA Research. [URL] (Accessed January 30, 2020).
Pérez-Pérez, Pablo
2018 “The Use of a Corpus Management Tool for the Preparation of Interpreting Assignments: A Case Study.” The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 10 (1): 137–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plaza Lara, Cristina
2019 “Análisis DAFO sobre la inclusión de la traducción automática y la posedición en los másteres de la red EMT.” JosTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 31: 260–280.Google Scholar
Porlán Moreno, R.
2019 The Use of Portable Interpreting Devices: An Overview. Tradumàtica 17: 45–58.Google Scholar
Prandi, Bianca
2018 “An Exploratory Study on CAI Tools in Simultaneous Interpreting: Theoretical Framework and Stimulus Validation.” In Interpreting and Technology, ed. by Claudio Fantinuoli, 29–60. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Price, Erika Leemann, Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable, Dana Nickleach, Mónica López, and Leah S. Karliner
2012 “Interpreter Perspectives of In-person, Telephonic, and Videoconferencing Medical Interpretation in Clinical Encounters. Patient Education and Counseling 87(2): 226–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2011 “What Technology does to Translating.” Translation & Interpreting 3(1): 1–9. [URL]. (Accessed January 3, 2020).
Rabinovich, Ella and Wintner, Shuly
2015 Unsupervised Identification of Translationese. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 3: 419–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruffo, Paola
2018 “Human-Computer Interaction in Translation: Literary Translators on Technology and Their Roles.” In Proceedings of the 40th Conference Translating and the Computer, ASLING, London, UK, November 15–16, 2018, ed. by João Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macan, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 127–131. Geneva: Tradulex. ISBN: 978-2-9701095-5-6.Google Scholar
2019 “ ‘I Wish They Could See the Magic’: Literary Translators on Their Roles and Technology.” In EST Congress 2019: Book of Abstracts. [URL] (Accessed January 3, 2020).
Ruiz Mezcua, Aurora
(editor) 2018 Approaches to Telephone Interpretation: Research, Innovation, Teaching, and Transference. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russo, Mariachiara, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Bart Defrancq
(eds.) 2018 Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rütten, Anja
2017 “Terminology Management Tools for Conference Interpreters: Current Tools and How They Address the Specific Needs of Interpreters.” In Proceedings of the 39th Conference Translating and the Computer, ASLING, London, UK, November 16–17, 2017, ed. by João Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macan, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 98–103. Geneva: Tradulex. ISBN: 9782970109532.Google Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G., Laura Keller, Rhona Amos, and Sophie Hengl
2019 “Expectations vs. Experience: Attitudes towards Video Remote Conference Interpreting.” Interpreting 21(2): 270–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sgourou, Maria
2019 “The Four Stages of Machine Translation Acceptance in a Freelancer’s Life.” In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Human-Informed Translation and Interpreting Technology (HiT-IT 2019), ed. by Irina Temnikova, Constantin Orasan, Gloria Corpas Pastor, and Ruslan Mitkov, 134–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
1998 “Corpus-based Interpreting Studies as an Offshoot of Corpus-based Translation Studies.” Meta 43(4): 486–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Towards a Definition of Interpretese.” In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research, ed. by Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 237–253. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam, and Noam Ordan
2012 “More Spoken or More Translated? Exploring a Known Unknown of Simultaneous Interpreting.” Target 24(1): 43–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Robert, Jemina Napier, and Sabine Braun
2018 “Interpreting via Video Link: Mapping of the Field.” In Here or there: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. by Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 11–35. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steurs, Frida
2016 “The Translator in a New Era: Towards Collaborative Translation and New Tools.” In TETRA Conference, Date: 2016/09/30-2016/09/30, Location: Bologna, Italy: [URL]. (Accessed January 3, 2020).
Straniero Sergio, Francesco, and Caterina Falbo
(editors) 2012 Breaking Ground in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. Bern/New York: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temnikova, Irina, Constantin Orasan, Gloria Corpas Pastor, and Ruslan Mitkov
(editors) 2019 Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Human-Informed Translation and Interpreting Technology (HiT-IT 2019). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Paul
2005 “Spoken Language Corpora.” In Developing Linguistic Corpora: a Guide to Good Practice, ed. by Martin Wynne, 59–70. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Toral, Antonio
2019 “Post-editese: An Exacerbated Translationese.” In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XVII, Volume 1: Research Track. [URL]. (Accessed January 3, 2020).
Toral, Antonio, and Andy Way
2014 “Is Machine Translation Ready for Literature?” In Conference Chairs and Editors of the Proceedings (p. 174).Google Scholar
UNHCR
2016 Connecting Refugees: How Internet and Mobile Connectivity can Improve Refugee Well-Being and Transform Humanitarian Action. Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
Veale, Tony, and Andy Way
1997 “Gaijin: A Bootstrapping, Template-Driven Approach to Example-Based Machine Translation,” in International Conference, Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, 239–244.Google Scholar
Vieira, Lucas Nunes
2018 “Automation anxiety and translators”. Translation Studies, 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “Post-editing of Machine Translation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, ed. by Minako O’Hagan, 319–337. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Volkart, Lise, Pierrette Bouillon, and Sabrina Girletti
2018 “Statistical vs. Neural Machine Translation: A Comparison of MTH and DeepL at Swiss Post’s Language Service.” In Proceedings of the 40th Conference Translating and the Computer, ASLING, London, UK, November 15–16, 2018, ed. by João Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macan, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 145–150. Geneva: Tradulex. ISBN: 978-2-9701095-5-6.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1999 “Telephone Interpreting & the Synchronization of Talk in Social Interaction.” The Translator 5(2): 247–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Jihong
2018a “ ‘It keeps me on my Toes’: Interpreters’ Perceptions of Challenges in Telephone Interpreting and Their Coping Strategies.” Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 30(3): 430–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b “ ‘Telephone Interpreting Should Be Used Only as a Last Resort.’ Interpreters’ Perceptions of the Suitability, Remuneration and Quality of Telephone Interpreting.” Perspectives 26(1): 100–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasik, Zosia
2017 “Migrant Crisis Triggers a Wave of Tech Innovation.” Financial Times, October 26. [URL]. (Accessed January 4, 2020).
Wessling, Dawn M., and Shaw Sherry
2014 “Persistent Emotional Extremes and Video Relay Service Interpreters.” Journal of Interpretation 23(1), article 6.Google Scholar
Wladyka-Leittretter, Anna Maria
2018 “Automating Terminology Management. Discussion of IATE and Suggestions for Enhancing its Features.” In Proceedings of the 40th Conference Translating and the Computer, ASLING, London, UK, November 15–16, 2018, ed. by João Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macan, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 151–160. Geneva: Tradulex. ISBN: 978-2-9701095-5-6.Google Scholar
Xu, Ran
2018 Corpus-based terminological preparation for simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting Research. 20 (1). 29–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zang, Jinyi, and Matsumoto, Tadahiro
2019 Corpus Augmentation for Neural Machine Translation with Chinese-Japanese Parallel Corpora. Applied Sciences, 9. 2036. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaretskaya, Anna, Gloria Corpas Pastor, and Miriam Seghiri Domínguez
2015 “Translators’ Requirements for Translation Technologies: a User Survey.” In New Horizons in Translation and Interpreting Studies (Full papers), ed. by Gloria Corpas Pastor, Miriam Seghiri, Rut Gutiérrez Florido, and Miriam Urbano Mendaña. Geneva: Tradulex, 247–254.Google Scholar
2018 “User Perspective on Translation Tools: Findings of a User Survey.” In Trends in E-tools and Resources for Translators and Interpreters, ed. by Gloria Corpas Pastor and Isabel Durán Muñoz, 37–56. Leiden: Brill Rodopi.Google Scholar
Zhang, Mike and Toral, Antonio
2019 The Effect of Translationese in Machine Translation Test Sets. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 1: Research Papers), 73–81. Florence, Italy: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar