Report of meeting published In:
Interpreting: Online-First Articles
REPORT

Conference interpreters’ technology readiness and perception of digital technologies

| National Taiwan University
The author reports on the findings of a survey among conference interpreters regarding their readiness for and perceptions of digital technologies and artificial intelligence. The Technology Readiness Index (TRI 2.0) was administered to a sample of 496 conference interpreters, most of them members of AIIC. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 of them to gain deeper insights into their attitudes towards AI-enabled tools and the potential impact on their professional practice. The results indicate a cautious openness towards technology balanced by concerns about cognitive load, ethical issues and the impact on traditional skills. The findings suggest the need for comprehensive training to enhance technological skills while maintaining ethical standards and also for research on the cognitive effects of AI-generated content and the evolving role of interpreters in a technology-driven landscape.
Keywords: technology, artificial intelligence, AIIC, ethics, computer-assisted interpreting
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Questionnaire
    • 2.2Procedure
    • 2.3Interview content and analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Survey participants and interviewees
    • 3.2Technology readiness
    • 3.3Interviews
      • 3.3.1Technology use
      • 3.3.2Impact of technology
      • 3.3.3Future prospects of the profession
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 September 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00110.fan
References (36)
References
ATLAS.ti (2023). ATLAS.ti (23.2.1) [Qualitative data analysis software]. [URL] (accessed 31 July 2024).
Baigorri-Jalón, J. (2014). From Paris to Nuremberg: The birth of conference interpreting (H. Mikkelson & B. Slaughter Olsen, trans.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baigorri-Jalón, J., Fernández-Sánchez, M. M. & Payàs, G. (2022). Historical developments in conference interpreting: An overview. In M. Albl-Mikasa & E. Tiselius (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of conference interpreting. London/New York: Routledge, 9–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernardi, R. & Exworthy, M. (2020). Clinical managers’ identity at the crossroad of multiple institutional logics in IT innovation: The case study of a health care organization in England. Information Systems Journal 30 (3), 566–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheung, A. K. & Li, T. (2022). Machine aided interpreting: An experiment of automatic speech recognition in simultaneous interpreting. Translation Quarterly 104 1, 1–20.Google Scholar
Corpas Pastor, G. & Defrancq, B. (Eds.) (2023). Interpreting technologies — current and future trends. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Defrancq, B. (2023). Technology in interpreter education and training: A structured set of proposals. In G. Corpas Pastor & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Interpreting technologies — current and future trends. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 302–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Defrancq, B. & Corpas Pastor, G. (2023). Introduction. In G. Corpas Pastor & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Interpreting technologies — current and future trends. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deysel, E. (2023). Investigating the use of technology in the interpreting profession: A comparison of the Global South and Global North. In G. Corpas Pastor & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Interpreting technologies — current and future trends. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 142–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downie, J. (2020). Interpreters vs machines: Can interpreters survive in an AI-dominated world? London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2023). Where is it all going? Technology, economic pressures and the future of interpreting. In G. Corpas Pastor & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Interpreting technologies — current and future trends. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 277–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fantinuoli, C. (2017). Computer-assisted preparation in conference interpreting. Translation and Interpreting 9 (2), 24–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018a). Interpreting and technology: The upcoming technological turn. In C. Fantinuoli (Ed.), Interpreting and technology. Berlin: Language Science Press, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2018b). Interpreting and technology (Translation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing 11). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
(2019). The technological turn in interpreting: The challenges that lie ahead. In W. Baur & F. Mayer (Eds.), Übersetzen und Dolmetschen 4.0: Neue Wege im Digitalen Zeitalter. Berlin: BDÜ Fachverlag, 334–354.Google Scholar
(2022). Conference interpreting and new technologies. In M. Albl-Mikasa & E. Tiselius (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of conference interpreting. London/New York: Routledge, 508–522.Google Scholar
Fantinuoli, C. & Prandi, B. (2021). Towards the evaluation of automatic simultaneous speech translation from a communicative perspective. arXiv. [URL] (accessed 31 July 2024). DOI logo
Frittella, F. M. & Rodríguez, S. (2022). Putting SmartTerp to test: A tool for the challenges of remote interpreting. INContext 2 (2), 137–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Germain, M.-L. & Grenier, R. S. (Eds.) (2022). Expertise at work: Current and emerging trends. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Goto, M. (2021). Collective professional role identity in the age of artificial intelligence. Journal of Professions and Organization 8 (1), 86–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jayes, T. (2023). Conference interpreting and technology: An institutional perspective. In G. Corpas Pastor & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Interpreting technologies — current and future trends. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 217–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalina, S. & Ziegler, K. (2015). Technology. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, 410–412.Google Scholar
Lewis, W. D. & Niehues, J. (2023). Automatic speech translation in the classroom and lecture setting: Challenges, approaches, and future directions. In G. Corpas Pastor & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Interpreting technologies — current and future trends. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 241–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, M. (2019). In search of a cognitive model for interpreting expertise. In Z. Wen, P. Skehan, A. Biedroń, S. Li & R. L. Sparks (Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research and practice. London/New York: Routledge, 299–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, C. D. (2023). Embedding, extending, and distributing interpreter cognition with technology. In G. Corpas Pastor & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Interpreting technologies — current and future trends. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 195–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, C. D. & Hanson, T. A. (2018). Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility. Translation and Interpreting Studies 13 (3), 366–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mirbabaie, M., Brünker, F., Möllmann, N. R. J. & Stieglitz, S. (2022). The rise of artificial intelligence — understanding the AI identity threat at the workplace. Electronic Markets 32 1, 73–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, B. (2022). Conference interpreting and expertise. In M. Albl-Mikasa & E. Tiselius (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of conference interpreting. London/New York: Routledge, 386–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OpenAI (2023, April). ChatGPT. [URL] (accessed 31 July 2024).
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI): A multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research [2] (4), 307–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parasuraman, A. & Colby, C. L. (2015). An updated and streamlined Technology Readiness Index: TRI 2.0. Journal of Service Research 18 (1), 59–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prandi, B. (2023). Computer-assisted simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive-experimental study on terminology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Simon, F. M. (2022). Uneasy bedfellows: AI in the news, platform companies and the issue of journalistic autonomy. Digital Journalism 10 (10), 1832–1854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, E. & Hild, A. (2017). Expertise and competence in translation and interpreting. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 423–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., Corpas Pastor, G. & Zhang, J. (2023). Videoconference interpreting goes multimodal: Some insights and a tentative proposal. In G. Corpas Pastor & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Interpreting technologies — current and future trends. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 169–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhao, S., Koh, S. N. & Luke, K. K. (2012). Accent reduction for computer-aided language learning. In EUSIPCO 2012: 20th European Signal Processing Conference , 27–31 August 2012, Bucharest, Romania, 335–339. [URL] (accessed 31 July 2024).