References (11)
References
Buzungu, H. F. and Hansen, J. P. B. 2020. Bridging divides in the interpreting profession: Response to Gile and Napier (2020). International Journal of Interpreter Education 12(2): 57–62.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Downie, J. 2021. Interpreting is interpreting: Why we need to leave behind interpreting settings to discover Comparative Interpreting Studies. Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association 16(3): 325–346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gile, D., and Napier, J. 2020. Spoken language interpreters and signed language interpreters: Towards cross-fertilization. International Journal of Interpreter Education 12(1): 62–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gillies, A. 2024. AI tools and confidentiality in the booth: a survey. Available at: [URL] (Accessed: 24 March 2026).
Hamidi, M., and Pöchhacker, F. 2007. Simultaneous consecutive interpreting: A new technique put to the test. Meta: Translators’ Journal 52(2): 276–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hudelson, P., and Chappuis, F. 2024. Using voice-to-voice machine translation to overcome language barriers in clinical communication: An exploratory study Journal of General Internal Medicine [Preprint]. Available at: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hwang, K. et al. 2021. Testing the use of translation apps to overcome everyday healthcare communication in Australian aged-care hospital wards — An exploratory study. Nursing Open 9(1): 578–585. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, L. 2025. The vicious circle: how systemic barriers perpetuate maternity interpreting service inadequacies for migrant women in the UK. Frontiers in Global Women’s Health, 61. Available at: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikkelson, H. 1999. Interpreting is interpreting-Or is it? Originally presented at the GSTI 30th Anniversary Conference, Graduate School of Translation and Interpretation, Middlebury Institute of International Studies, Monterey, USA.
Orlando, M. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, D. 1986. Comment: Who should assess an interpreter’s performance. Multilingua 5(4): 236.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue