Cover not available
Part of
Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends
Edited by Gloria Corpas Pastor and Bart Defrancq
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 37] 2023
► pp. 142–168

Chapter 6
Investigating the use of technology in the interpreting profession

A comparison of the Global South and Global North

| Stellenbosch University, South Africa |
Over the course of the past decades of human history, technology has reshaped our personal lives as well as our professions. However, technological developments in interpreting have been gradual, more especially when compared to the pace of technological developments in translation. In addition, some interpreters hold a negative perception when it comes to the incorporation of technology in their workflow.
This chapter presents research conducted as part of a PhD thesis which investigated the extent of use of technology in the interpreting profession on a global scale as well as an examination on the perceptions of interpreters regarding the use and implementation of technology in the interpreters’ workflow. A comparative multiple case study research design was used to address these research aims. The cases were divided according to geographical regions, namely the Global North and Global South. Data collected by means of a survey provided a reflection on the true state of use of interpreting technology utilised by interpreters in their profession. In the analysis of the data the similarities and differences between the two cases are highlighted and discussed. The key findings from the analysis of the data indicates interpreters are no longer hesitant to the use of technology in their workflow but remain concerned with the issue of divided attention when using technology during interpreting.
Keywords: computer-assisted interpreting (CAI), computer-assisted interpreter training (CAIT), Global North, Global South, interpreting, interpreting technology, interpreting workflow, technology-mediated interpreting, remote interpreting (RI), video-conference interpreting (VCI)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The history of technology and interpreting
    • 1.2An overview of interpreting technologies
      • 1.2.1Technology for rendering interpreting services
      • 1.2.2Technology to aid an interpreter’s performance
        • 1.2.2.1Computer-assisted interpreting (CAI) tools
        • 1.2.2.2Tablet interpreting
        • 1.2.2.3Digital pens
        • 1.2.2.4Terminology management systems
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Questionnaire
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Demographical information of the participants
    • 3.2Interpreters’ access to technology
    • 3.3Technology used in the preparation phase of the interpreting process
      • 3.3.1Paperless preparation
      • 3.3.2Technological tools used most frequently in preparation
    • 3.4Technology used during the interpreting process
    • 3.5Interpreters’ concerns about the use of technology during interpreting
      • 3.5.1Divided attention
        • 3.5.1.1Time consuming
        • 3.5.1.2Distraction
        • 3.5.1.3Lose focus / concentration
        • 3.5.1.4Attention
        • 3.5.1.5Interfere
      • 3.5.2Reliable access to internet
      • 3.5.3Device failure and flat batteries
      • 3.5.4Professional image and competence of interpreter
      • 3.5.5Accuracy
      • 3.5.6Lack of knowledge / training
      • 3.5.7Physical environment
      • 3.5.8Confidentiality issues
      • 3.5.9Reliance on technology
      • 3.5.10Poor sound quality
    • 3.6The value of specific technological skills
      • 3.6.1Value of tablet interpreting
      • 3.6.2Value of digital smart pen note taking
      • 3.6.3Value of terminology management systems
      • 3.6.4Value of video remote interpreting
      • 3.6.5Value of telephone interpreting
      • 3.6.6Value of use of online dictionaries
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Do interpreters have access to technology?
    • 4.2What tools do interpreters use in preparation
      for an interpreting assignment?
    • 4.3Are interpreters’ still hesitant to use technology?
    • 4.4What is the interpreters’ preference when encountering
      a challenge with terminology?
    • 4.5What tools are used most frequently during interpreting?
    • 4.6What are interpreters’ concerns when it comes to the use
      of technology during interpreting?
      • 4.6.1The concern regarding divided attention when using technology
        during interpretation
    • 4.7Difference and similarities in the use of technology in interpreting
      in Global South and Global North
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.37.06dey
References (34)
References
Behr, Martina. 2015. “Nuremberg Trial”. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, edited by Franz Pöchhacker, Nadja Grbić, Peter Mead, and Robin Setton, 288. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berber-Irabien, Diana. 2010. Information and communication technologies in conference interpreting. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain.
Biagini, Giulio. 2015. Glossario cartaceo e glossario elettronico durante l’interpretazione simultanea: Uno studio comparativo. Unpublished MA thesis. Università di Trieste, Italy.
Braun, Sabine. 2006. Multimedia communication technologies and their impact on interpreting. Proceedings of the EUHighLevel Scientific Conference Series MuTra 2006 Audiovisual Translation Scenarios Conference. 1–15. [Online] Available at [URL] [2021, February 9]
. 2015. “Remote Interpreting”. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, edited by Franz Pöchhacker, Nadja Grbić, Peter Mead, and Robin Setton, 346–347. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chen, Sijia. 2017. “The construct of cognitive load in interpreting and its measurement”. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 25 (4): 640–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “The Interpreter and Translator Trainer Exploring the process of note-taking and consecutive interpreting: a pen-eye-voice approach towards cognitive load”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 6 (2):1–8.Google Scholar
Costa, Hernani, Corpas Pastor, Gloria, and Isabel Durán Muñoz. 2014. “Technology-assisted interpreting”. MultiLingual 2 (3):27–32.Google Scholar
Dados, Nour, and Raewyn Conell. 2012. “Global South”. Contexts 11 (1): 12–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drechsel, Alexander. 2013. The tablet interpreter. [Online] Available at [URL]
. 2015. The tablet interpreter. Canada: Lean Publishing.Google Scholar
Fantinuoli, Claudio. 2016. “InterpretBank. Redefining computer-assisted interpreting tools”. In Proceedings of the 38th Conference Translating and the Computer. Geneva: Editions Tradulex.
. 2017. “Computer-assisted preparation in conference interpreting”. Translation and Interpreting 9 (2): 24–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Interpreting and technology: the upcoming technological turn”. In Interpreting and Technology, edited by Claudio Fantinuoli, 1–12. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Gacek, Michael. 2015. Softwarelösungen für DolmetscherInnen. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Vienna, Austria.
Goldsmith, Joshua. 2017. “A Comparative User Evaluation of Tablets and Tools for Consecutive Interpreters”. Proceedings of the 39th Conference Translating and the Computer, London, UK, November 16–17, 2017.
. 2018. “Tablet interpreting: Consecutive interpreting 2.0”. Translation and Interpreting Studies 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, Switzerland.
Gorjanc, Vojko. 2009. “Terminology resources and terminological data management for medical interpreters”. In Spürst Du, wie der Bauch rauf-runter? Fachdolmetschen im Gesundheitsbereich/ Is everything all topsy turvy in your tummy? Healthcare Interpreting, edited by Dörte Andres and Sonja Pöllabauer, 85–95. Munich: Meidenbauer.Google Scholar
Jones, Roderick. 2014. “Interpreting: A communication profession in a world of non-communication”. [URL]. [October 21, 2014]. [Online] Available at [URL] [2019, February 14].
Kalina, Sylvia, and Klaus Ziegler. 2015. “Technology”. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, edited by Franz Pöchhacker, Nadja Grbić, Peter Mead, and Robin Setton, 410–412. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ko, Leong. 2006. “Teaching Interpreting by Distance Mode”. Interpreting 81: 67–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 2005. “Remote Interpreting. The Crucial Role of Presence”. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée 8 (1): 73–97.Google Scholar
. 2015. ‘Pedagogy’. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, edited by Franz Pöchhacker, Nadja Grbić, Peter Mead, and Robin Setton, 303–306. London: Routledge.Google 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
. 2014. “A study on the amenability of digital pen technology in a hybrid mode of interpreting: Consec-simul with notes”. Translation and Interpreting 6 (2): 39–54.Google Scholar
Prandi, Bianca. 2015. “The use of CAI tools in interpreters’ training: A pilot study”. In Proceedings of the Translating and the Computer 37 Conference. Geneva: Editions Tradulex.
. 2018. “An exploratory study on CAI tools in simultaneous interpreting: Theoretical framework and stimulus validation.” In Interpreting and Technology, edited by Claudio Fantinuoli. 29–59. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Rutten, Anja. 2017. “Terminology Management Tools for Conference Interpreter – Current Tools and How They Address the Specific Needs of Interpreters”. Proceedings of the 39th Conference Translating and the Computer. 98–103.
Sandrelli, Annalisa. 2005. “Designing CAIT Computer-Assisted Interpreter Training tools: BlackBox”. In Challenges of Multidimensional Translation. Proceedings of the Marie Curie Euroconferences Saarbrücken, edited by Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast and Sandra Nauert. 2–6 May 2005, 191–209.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Becoming an interpreter: the role of computer technology”. MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación 2 (2): 111–138.Google Scholar
Tripepi-Winteringham, Sarah. 2010. “The usefulness of ICTs in interpreting practice”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15: 87–99.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1999. “Telephone interpreting and the synchronization of talk in social interaction”. The Translator 5 (2): 247–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Ran. 2015. Terminology preparation for simultaneous interpreters. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Leeds.
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Fan, Damien Chiaming
2024. Conference interpreters’ technology readiness and perception of digital technologies. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting DOI logo
Lázaro Gutiérrez, Raquel
2024. Methodological Challenges of Multimodal Corpus Analysis of Interpreter-Mediated Conversations. In Artificial Intelligence in HCI [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 14735], ► pp. 424 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 october 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.