Cover not available
Article published In:
Community Interpreting, Translation, and Technology
Edited by Nike K. Pokorn and Christopher D. Mellinger
[Translation and Interpreting Studies 13:3] 2018
► pp. 342–365

Tablet interpreting

Consecutive interpreting 2.0

ORCID logo | University of Geneva

This pilot study examines the recent phenomenon of tablet interpreting. Based on in-depth interviews with six practitioners, which were transcribed and analyzed inductively, the article presents an overview of software, tools, and technology that interpreters currently utilize in their work. Qualitative and quantitative results demonstrate regular, effective tablet use in various consecutive interpreting settings. Participants feel that these tools meet their needs and outstrip the functionalities offered by pen and paper in most contexts. This study compiles best practices for tablet interpreting, discusses their benefits and challenges, and describes features to consider when assessing new and existing tablets, applications, and styluses. The data underscore the need for training in this budding field, which represents a key area for future research and professional practice.

Keywords: consecutive interpreting, tablet interpreting, qualitative interviews, tablet, NVivo
Article outline
  • Background
    • Note-taking
  • Methodology
  • Respondents
  • Results
    • Preferences, settings, and client and colleague reactions
    • Pros and cons of tablets, applications and styluses
    • Pros and cons of applications
    • Pros and cons of styluses
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00020.gol
References

References

Aliperta, Valeria
2011 “ the interpreting wars (or 7 ‘wartime’ survival tips for the booth).” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Alyahya, Suzan and James E. Gall
2012 “iPads in education: A qualitative study of students’ attitudes and experiences.” In Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2012, ed. by Tel Amiel and Brent Wilson. Chesapeake, Virginia: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
Behl, Holly
2013a “The paperless interpreter experiment: Part I.” Retrieved from [URL] Last accessed 19 August 2018.
2013b “The paperless interpreter experiment: Part II.” Retrieved from [URL] Last accessed 19 August 2018.
2015 “The paperless interpreter experiment Part III: Microsoft Surface Pro 4.” Retrieved from [URL] Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Brinkmann, Svend
2013 Qualitative Interviewing. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camayd-Freixas, Erik
2005 “A revolution in consecutive interpreting: Digital voice-recorder-assisted CI.” The ATA Chronicle 341: 40–46.Google Scholar
Corsellis, Ann
2008 Public Service Interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creswell, John W.
2009 Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Creswell, John W. and Vicki L. Plano Clark
2011 Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Crowson, Matthew G., Russel Kahmke, Marisa Ryan and Richard Scher
2015 “Utility of daily mobile tablet use for residents on an otolaryngology head & neck surgery inpatient service.” Journal of Medical Systems 40(55).Google Scholar
Dimond, Tom
1957 “Devices for reading handwritten characters.” In Proceedings from the Eastern Joint Computer Conference, 232–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drechsel, Alexander
2017 The Tablet Interpreter. 2017 ed. Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Drechsel, Alexander and Holly Behl
2016 “Kiss paper goodbye: Tablet technology for consecutive and simultaneous interpreting.” Paper presented at the ATA 57th Annual Conference, San Francisco, California, November 5, 2016.Google Scholar
Drechsel, Alexander and Goldsmith, Joshua
In press. “Tablet Interpreting: The use of mobile devices in interpreting.” In CIUTI-Forum 2016: Equitable Education through intercultural communication: Role and responsibility for non-state actors ed. by Martin Forstner and Hannelore Lee-Jahnke Frankfurt am Main Peter Lang
Dündar, Hakan and Murat Akçayir
2014 “Implementing tablet PCs in schools: Students’ attitudes and opinions.” Computers in Human Behavior 321: 40–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durand, Claude
2014 “Consecutive notes, symbols and the use of the notepad.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Eaton, Nick
2010 “The iPad/tablet PC market defined?” Seattle Pi. Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
El-Metwally, Maha
2017 “Consec-Simo as a tool for Consecutive Interpreting.” Webinar presented online through eCPD webinars, September 19 2017.Google Scholar
Ferrari, Michele
2001 “Consecutive simultaneous?” SCIC News 261: 2–4.Google Scholar
2002 “Traditional vs. ‘simultaneous’ consecutive.” SCIC News 291: 6–7.Google Scholar
Gillies, Andrew
2005 Note-taking for Consecutive Interpreting: A Short Course. Oxford: Alden Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Joshua
2017 A comparative user evaluation of tablets and tools for consecutive interpreters. In Proceedings from the Translating and the Computer 39 conference, ed. by João Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macabn, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 40–50. Geneva: Tradulex.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Joshua and Alexander Drechsel
2016 “Tablet interpreting: Tips, tools and applications to make the most of your tablet while interpreting.” Webinar presented at the Proz 2016 Virtual Conference for International Translation Day, 30 September 2016. Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Goldsmith, Joshua and Josephine Holley
2015 Consecutive Interpreting 2.0: The Tablet Interpreting Experience. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Gomes, Miguel
2002 “Digitally mastered consecutive: An interview with Michele Ferrari.” Lingua franca 5–6: 6–10.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra
2007 Community Interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamidi, Miriam and Franz Pöchhacker
2007 “Simultaneous consecutive interpreting: A new technique put to the test.” Meta: Journal des traducteurs 52(2): 276–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbert, Jean
1952 Manuel de l’interprète: Comment on devient interprète de conférences. Geneva: Libraire de l’Université.Google Scholar
Hof, Michelle
2011 “Of notepads and writing utensils.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
2012 “iPad: The ideal boothmate.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Hursh, Tony
2005 “Tablet PCs for classroom use: Technology and application.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 15 October 2015.
Kvale, Steinar
1996 InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Lombardi, John
2003 “DRAC interpreting: Coming soon to a courthouse near you?” Proteus 12(2): 7–9.Google Scholar
McNamara, Carter
2009 “General guidelines for conducting research interviews.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Merriam, Sharan B.
2009 Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Navarro-Hall, Esther
2014 “Esther Navarro-Hall: Sim-Consec™ con Smartpen.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 18 August 2018.
Nguyen, Lemai, Siew Mee Barton and Linh Thuy Nguyn
2014 “iPads in higher education – Hype and hope.” British Journal of Educational Technology 46(1): 190–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oceguera López, Patricia
2017 El uso de aplicaciones para tablets en la toma de notas del intérprete. Unpublished BA thesis. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Mexico.Google Scholar
Orlando, Marc
2010 “Digital pen technology and consecutive interpreting: Another dimension in note-taking training and assessment.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 151: 71–86.Google Scholar
2013 “Interpreting training and digital pen technology.” [URL] April 8 2018 Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 18 August 2018.
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.Google 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, 171–199. 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
Paone, Matteo Domenico
2016 Mobile Geräte beim Simultandolmetschen mit besonderem Bezug auf Tablets. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Plano Clark, Vicki L., and Kimberly Galt
2009 “Using a mixed methods approach to strengthen instrument development and validation.” Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Pharmacists Association, San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar
Rosado, Tony
2013 “Note-taking with iPad: Making our life easier.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Rozan, Jean-François
1956 La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Geneva: Libraire de l’Université Georg.Google Scholar
Ryan, Gery and H. Russell Bernard
2003 “Techniques to identify themes.” Field Methods 15(1): 85–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schedeen, Jesse
2010 “The history of the tablet PC.” IGN. Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Schooley, Benjamin, Steven Walczak, Neset Hikmet and Nitin Patel
2016 “Impacts of mobile tablet computing on provider productivity, communications and the process of care.” International Journal of Medical Informatics 881: 62–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schweda Nicholson, Nancy
1990 “Consecutive note-taking for Community Interpretation.” In Interpreting: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, ed. by David Bowen and Margareta Bowen, 136–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Statista
2018 “Shipment forecast of laptops, desktop PCs and tablets worldwide from 2010 to 2022 (in million units).” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Tarabocchia, Laura
1985 L’annotazione grafica nell’interpretazione consecutive. Trieste: Università degli Studi di Trieste.Google Scholar
Tipton, Rebecca and Olgierda Furmanek
2016 Dialogue Interpreting: A Guide to Interpreting in Public Services and the Community. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres-Díaz, María Gracia
1998 Manual de Interpretación Consecutiva. Malaga: Universidad de Málaga.Google Scholar
Turner, Daniel W., III
2010 “Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators.” The Qualitative Report 15(3): 754–760.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, Dapzury and Pallavi Shrivastava
2002 “Interview as a method for qualitative research.” Retrieved from [URL]. Last accessed 19 August 2018.
Vanhecke, Katrin and Julia Lobato Patricio
2009 La enseñanza-aprendizaje de la interpretación consecutiva: Una propuesta didáctica. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Vivas, Jose
2003 “Simultaneous consecutive: Report on the comparison session of June 11, 2003.” SCIC B4/JV D2003, Brussels, European Commission, Joint Interpreting and Conference Service.Google Scholar
Ware, Willis H.
2008 RAND and the information evolution: A history in essays and vignettes. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, Kate and Phil Barter
2016 “Do mobile learning devices enhance learning in Higher Education anatomy classrooms?” Journal of Pedagogical Development 6(1): 14–23.Google Scholar
Yaman, Hakan, Erdinç Yavuz, Adem Er, Ramazan Vural, Yalçin Albayrak, Ahmet Yardimci and Özcan Aslikan
2015 “The use of mobile smart devices and medical apps in the family practice setting.” Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 22(2): 290–296. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Yanikoglu, Berrin and Aytac Gogus
2017 “Use of handwriting recognition technologies in tablet-based learning modules for first grade education.” Educational Technology Research and Development 65(5): 1369–1388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yeung, Michelle and Chung Haejung
2011 “iPEP talk: Pedagogical conversations from the iPad Exploration Project.” Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, ed. by Matthew Koehler and Punya Mishra, 3036–3041. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Chen, Sijia & Jan-Louis Kruger
2022. The effectiveness of computer-assisted interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies DOI logo
Corpas Pastor, Gloria & Fernando Sánchez Rodas
2021. Chapter 1. Now what?. In Corpora in Translation and Contrastive Research in the Digital Age [Benjamins Translation Library, 158], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Hermosa-Ramírez, Irene
2022. Physiological instruments meet mixed methods in Media Accessibility. Translation Spaces 11:1 ► pp. 38 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D. & Thomas A. Hanson
2018. Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility. Translation and Interpreting Studies 13:3 ► pp. 366 ff. DOI logo
Zhao, Nan
2022. Use of Computer-Assisted Interpreting Tools in Conference Interpreting Training and Practice During COVID-19. In Translation and Interpreting in the Age of COVID-19 [Corpora and Intercultural Studies, 9], ► pp. 331 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 february 2023. 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.