Article published In:
FORUM: Online-First Articles

What do interpreters expect of digital literacy training?

A case of the Korean Association of Translators and Interpreters

| Chung Ang University
ORCID logo | Chung Ang University
| Ewha Womans University

In recent years, digital transformation has profoundly impacted a wide range of professions, including interpreting. As technology advancements continue to develop rapidly, it is imperative for interpreters to be able to work in a digital environment and use different tools than in traditional workplaces (Sang 2020). Against this backdrop, this paper examines a post-training survey administered by the Korean Association of Translators and Interpreters (KATI) following their digital literacy academy seminar and offers recommendations for future implementations. Three research questions guide this paper: (1) What do trainees expect from the digital literacy training provided by the association? (2) What kind of training do trainees want to see in the future? (3) What are interpreters’ expectations for the future development of Computer-Assisted Interpreting (CAI)? The research includes a descriptive account of KATI’s first rollout of digital literacy training for interpreters in Korea and an analysis of the post-training survey, followed by implications for future training.

Keywords: computer-assisted interpreting (CAI), digital literacy, interpreting technologies, interpreter training, post-training survey
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Calls for relevant training
    • 2.2State-of-the-art CAI: What is it, and what does it offer?
    • 2.3How can training be delivered?
  • 3.Implementation
    • 3.1Workshops on the use of digital tools for interpreting
    • 3.2Survey administration
    • 3.3Post-training survey analysis
  • 4.Survey analysis
    • 4.1The respondents’ profiles and training needs
    • 4.2First research question: Expectations about the association’s digital literacy training
    • 4.3Second research question: Preferred type of training session
    • 4.4Third research question: Expectations for future CAI development
  • 5.Conclusion and implications for future training
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 June 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.23019.jin
References (39)
Berber-Irabien, Diana
2010 Information and communication technologies in conference interpreting: A survey of their usage in professional and educational settings. PhD diss. Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
Bilgen, Baris
2010 Investigating terminology management for conference interpreters. PhD diss. University of Ottawa. DOI logo
Braun, Sabine
2019 Technology and interpreting. In Routledge handbook of translation and technology, ed. by Minako O’Hagan, 1–20. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Ai-Li
2021 “Study on interpreting competence needed in the age of distance interpreting.” Interpretation and Translation, 23(1): 213–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, Moon Sun
2021 “Interpreting 4.0: Remote interpreting norms and practices.” The Journal of Translation Studies, 22(1): 279–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022 “Human-machine collaboration in interpreting: A review of the state of the art in computer-assisted interpreting (CAI) research.” Interpreting and Translation Studies, 26(2): 133–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chun, Hyunju
2017 “The 4th Industrial Revolution and the Status of Korean Translation Industry, and the Future of Interpretation and Translation Education.” The Journal of Interpretation and Translation Education, 15(3): 235–261.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]. The University of Malaga. [URL]
Corpas Pastor, Gloria
2017 “VIP: Voice-text integrated system for interpreters.” Proceedings of the 39th Conference Translating and the Computer: 7–10.Google Scholar
2018 “Tools for interpreters: The challenges that lie ahead.” Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning, E(5): 157–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 “Technology solutions for interpreters: The VIP system.” Hermeneus, 231: 91–123.Google Scholar
Costa, Hernani, Gloria Corpas Pastor, and Isabel Durán Muñoz
2014 “Technology-assisted interpreting.” Multilingual, 1431: 27–32. [URL]
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
Djafri, Fatmawati, and Lufi Wahidati
2022 “Examining digital technology literacy of professional Japanese language translator and interpreter.” Lingua Cultura, 16(1): 89–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donovan, Clare
2006 “Trends -Where is interpreting heading and how can training courses keep up.” A Contribution at the EMCI conference: The Future of Conference Interpreting: Training, Technology and Research.
Fantinuoli, Claudio
2018 “Computer-assisted interpreting: Challenges and future perspectives.” In Trends in E-Tools and Resources for Translators and Interpreters, ed. by Corpas Pastor, Gloria, and Isabel Durán Muñoz, 153–74. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “The Technological Turn in Interpreting: The Challenges That Lie Ahead.” Accessed April 24, 2024. [URL]
Fantinuoli, Claudio, and Vorya Dastyar
2022 “Interpreting and the emerging augmented paradigm.” Interpreting and Society, 2(2): 185–194. 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
Im, Sei-inn
2020 “Interpreter training in a post-human world: A techne-humanities approach.” Interpreting and Translation Studies, 24(2): 159–179.Google Scholar
Jin, Silhee
2016 An Action Research on the Application of Constructivism in an Interpreting Classroom: Focused on an ICT-based Experiential Learning Environment. PhD diss. Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.
2017 “Applying Educational Technology to Interpreting Pedagogy: Considerations for Instructional Design in CAIT.” Interpreting and Translation Studies, 21 (2): 133–162.Google Scholar
2019 “A Case of Technology Integration in T&I Curriculum.” The Journal of Translation Studies, 20 (4): 189–218.Google Scholar
2020 “A model of live interlingual subtitling using respeaking.” Babel, 66 (4–5): 733–749. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalina, Sylvia
2005 “Quality assurance for interpreting processes.” Meta, 50(2): 768–784. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “New technologies in conference interpreting.” Am Schnittpunkt von Philologie und Translationswissenschaft: Festschrift zu Ehren von Martin Forstner, ed. by Lee-Jahnke, Hannelore, and Erich Prunc, 79–96. Lausanne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lee, Jong Kwan
2015 “A future of humanity toward post-humanity?” Future Horizon. 261: 4–9.Google Scholar
Lee, Juriae
2022 “A study of interpreter training in the changing digital environment: Focused on the use of automatic speech recognition.” The Korean Journal of Japanology, 1331: 95–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Juriae, Hae Kyung Park, and SungJoo Park
2017 “Using smart learning technology in consecutive interpreting class: Focusing on the Korean-Japanese language pair.” Journal of Japanese Language and Culture, 411: 227–251.Google Scholar
Lee, Juriae, Hae Kyung Park, and Woo Yon Sang
2018 “App Design for an Assistive Tool for Simultaneous Interpretation Courses.” The Korea Journal of Japanese Education, 421: 99–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher
2017 “Translators and machine translation: Knowledge and skill gaps in translator pedagogy.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 11(4): 280–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “Computer-assisted interpreting technologies and interpreter cognition: A product and process-oriented perspective.” Revista Tradumàtica, 171: 32–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mihalache, Iulia
2021 Human and non-human crossover: Translators partnering with digital tools. In When translation goes digital: Case studies and critical reflections, ed. by Desjardins, Renée, Claire Larsonneur, and Philippe Lacour, 19–43. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prandi, Bianca
2020 “The use of CAI tools in interpreter training: Where are we now and where do we go from here.” inTRAlinea: 1–10. [URL]
Ortiz, Luis Eduardo Schild, and Patrizia Cavallo
2018 “Computer-assisted interpreting tools (CAI) and options for automation with automatic speech recognition.” TradTerm, 321: 9–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sang, Woo Yon
2020 “Educational suggestions based on the current situations of remote interpreting and demands for interpreters.” The Journal of Translation Studies, 21(5): 129–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Son, Ji-Bong
2019 “The Current State and Meanings of the Content of Interpretation and Translation Education in South Korea.” The Journal of Translation Studies, 20 (4): 115–140.Google Scholar
Tripepi Winteringham, Sarah
2010 “The usefulness of ICTs in Interpreting Practice.” Interpreters Newsletter, 151, 87–99.Google Scholar
Will, Martin
2020 “Computer aided interpreting (CAI) for conference interpreters. Concepts, content and prospects.” Journal for Communication Studies, 131: 37–71.Google Scholar