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. 465–485

Students’ views on the use of film-based LangPerform computer simulations for dialogue interpreting

| University of Tampere
This article describes the results of the pilot testing phase of the first LangPerform dialogue interpreting simulations, which replicated authentic communication situations in a Finnish daycare center and consisted of interpreting and sight translation tasks. Five students with German and three with English as their B-language participated in the pilot testing. Afterwards, they were interviewed about their experience and thoughts about the simulations. They were positively surprised by the authenticity of the simulation and regarded the simulation as an excellent additional training method for self-training and self-evaluation. Negative feedback that drew away from authenticity mainly concerned the predetermined time reserved for interpreting, which resulted in there sometimes being long pauses or, on several occasions, not enough time to interpret.
Keywords: film-based simulations, dialogue interpreting, public service interpreting, interpreter training, CAIT
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Interpreting pedagogy, CAIT, and CLIL
  • The LangPerform simulation system for SLA and CLIL
  • LangPerform simulations for DI: Content and structure of the pilot simulations
    • Creating the dialogue interpreting simulations
    • Structure and plot of the DI simulations
    • User interface of DI simulations
  • Pilot testing the LangPerform DI simulations
    • Procedure and data
    • Background of participants
  • Results of pilot testing: Selected topics
    • First impressions
    • Perspectives on the system
    • Time frame reserved for interpreting
    • Authenticity of simulation
    • User interface (UI)
    • Own performance: Self-evaluation
  • Discussion and future work
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00025.vil
References (44)
References
Blasco Mayor, Maria Jesús, and Amparo Jiménez Ivars. 2007. “E-Learning for interpreting.” Babel 53(4): 292–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blasco Mayor, Maria Jesús. 2015. “L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting. An empirical study.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 10(1): 108–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Sabine. 2014. “Comparing traditional and remote interpreting in police settings: quality and impact factors.” In Traduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni, ed. by Maurizio Viezzi and Caterina Falbo, 161–176. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste.Google Scholar
Braun, Sabine, and Catherine Slater. 2014. “Populating a 3D virtual learning environment for interpreting students with bilingual dialogues to support situated learning in an institutional context.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8(3): 469–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CLILiG Finnland. 2016. CLILiG-FINNLAND. Ein Überblick mit Einblick. [URL]. Last accessed 20 August 2018.
Coyle, Do, Philip Hood, and David Marsh. 2010. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Developing interactional skills for dialogue interpreting through digital technologies.” Conference presentation at InDialog. Community Interpreting in Dialogue with Technology. 20–21 November 2015. Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea. 2016. “Embodied participation: What multimodal analysis can tell us about interpreter-mediated encounters in pedagogical settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 1071: 105–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degueldre, Christian, and Claudia V. Angelelli. 2013. “Implementing new technologies in the teaching of interpreting.” Cuadernos de ALDEEU 251: 253–269.Google Scholar
Gorm Hansen, Inge, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2007. “The silver lining: Technology and self-study in the interpreting classroom.” Interpreting 9(1): 95–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosbois, Muriel. 2016. “Computer supported collaborative writing and language learning.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology, ed. by Fiona Farr and Liam Murray, 269–280. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gran, Laura, Angela Carabelli and Raffaela Merlini. 2002. “Computer-assisted interpreter training.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and Opportunities, ed. by G. Garzone and Maurizio Viezzi, 277–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haataja, Kim. 2009. “Das Konzept LangPerform: Computersimulationen zur Einübung, Überprüfung und Dokumentierung von (fremd-)sprachlichen Kommunikationsfertigkeiten – über die Hintergründe, den Ersteinsatz des Prototyps für Deutsch als Fremdsprache und die Weiterentwicklung des Konzepts.” [The concept LangPerform: Computer simulations for practicing, evaluating and documenting (foreign) language communicative skills – About the background, first usage of the prototype German as a foreign language and the further development of the concept.] Deutsche Lehrer im Ausland 56(4): 356–364. Münster: Aschendorff.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Das Konzept LangPerform: Entwicklung und Einsatz von Simulationsinstrumenten zur computermedialen Dokumentierung von (fremd-)sprachlichen Kompetenzen – innovativ und integrativ.” [The concept LangPerform: Development and usage of simulation tools for the computer-mediated documentation of second language competences – innovative and integrative.] In Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache 361, ed. by Andrea Bogner, et al., 183–199. München: iudicium.Google Scholar
. 2016. “Dem Mehrwert des CLIL auf der Spur. Profilierung sprachlich-fachlicher Kompetenzen in CLIL-Umgebungen mittels Computertechnologie.” [In search of added value through CLIL. Profiling linguistic and content competences in CLIL environments though computer technology.] In Fremdsprache Deutsch. Sonderdruck Fach- und sprachintegriertes Lernen (CLILiG) 541: 1–10.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra. 2007. Community Interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasan, Eva-Lisa. 2011. L’influence de l’âge sur l’acquisition de la prononciation du français. Une étude pilote sur un test de prononciation utilisant le concept de LangPerform. Master’s thesis. Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Helminen, Laura. 2014. Developing Language Proficiency Through Multimodal Learning Environments. Master’s thesis. Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Ibrahim-González, Noraini. 2011. “E-learning in interpreting didactics: Students’ attitudes and learning patterns, and instructor’s challenges.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 161: 224–241.Google Scholar
Ilkankoski, Katja. 2012. Apprendre pour la vie ou pour une épreuve, telle est la question. Analyse concept LangPerform. Master’s thesis. Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
INNOCLILiG. 2016. INNOCLILiG. Innovative Wege und Werkzeuge für integriertes Lernen in der Zielsprache Deutsch weltweit. [URL]. Last accessed 20 August 2018.
Kalina, Sylvia. 1998. Strategische Prozesse beim Dolmetschen: theoretische Grundlagen, empirische Fallstudien, didaktische Konsequenzen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid. 2002. “Interpreting training programmes. The benefits of coordination, cooperation, and modern technology.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4. Building Bridges, ed. by Eva Hung, 65–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsh, David, and María Jesús Frigols Martín. 2013. “Content and Language Integrated Learning.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. by Carol A. Chapelle, 1–10. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Peterson, Mark. 2016. “Virtual worlds and language learning: an analysis of research.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology, ed. by Fiona Farr and Liam Murray, 308–319. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
PROFICOM. 2016. Profiling Learning Progression in CLIL Environments through Computer Simulations. [URL]. Last accessed 20 August 2018.
Roberts, Roda P. 2002. “Community Interpreting. A profession in search of its identity.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4. Building Bridges, ed. by Eva Hung, 157–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sahin, Mehmet. 2013. “Virtual worlds in interpreter training.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 7(1): 91–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandrelli, Annalisa. 2005. “Designing CAIT (Computer-Assisted Interpreter Training) Tools: Black Box .” In EU-High-Level Conference Series: MuTra 2005. Challenges of Multidimensional Translation: Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
Sandrelli, Annalisa, and Jesús de Manuel Jerez. 2007. “The Impact of Information and Communication Technology on Interpreter Training: State-of-the-Art and Future Prospects.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1(2): 269–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skaaden, Hanne, and Maria Wattne. 2009. “Teaching Interpreting in Cyberspace. The Answer to All Our Prayers?” In Interpreting and Translating in Public Service Settings: Policy, Practice, Pedagogy, ed. by Raquel De Pedro Ricoy, Isabelle Perez, and Christine W. L. Wilson, 74–88. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Tipton, Rebecca, and Olgierda Furmanek. 2016. Dialogue Interpreting. A Guide to Interpreting in Public Services and the Community. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuuna-Kyllönen, Tanja. 2011. Zur Beurteilung der mündlichen Sprachfertigkeit in der Endphase der gymnasialen Oberstufe: Der Test des Zentralamtes für Unterrichtswesen und die Computersimulation LangPerform im Vergleich. Master’s thesis. Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Tymczýnska, Maria. 2009. “Integrating in-class and online learning activities in a healthcare interpreting course using Moodle .” The Journal of Specialised Translation 121: 148–164.Google Scholar
Viljanmaa, Anu. 2017. “Von der Fremdsprachendidaktik zum Dolmetschunterricht. Filmbasierte Computersimulation und Dialogdolmetschertraining.” [From foreign language didactics to interpreter training. Film-based computer simulations and dialogue interpreter training.] In Interpreting Studies at the Crossroads of Disciplines, ed. by Aleksanda Nuc and Simon Zupan, 57–80. Berlin: Frank and Timme.Google Scholar
. 2015a. “Two modes of practice in dialogue-interpreter training: adding live practice in the interpreting booth alongside traditional face-to-face training.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 201: 217–232.Google Scholar
. 2015b. “Wie den richtigen Ton finden? Gedanken zum professionellen Stimmgebrauch beim Dolmetschen von prosodischen Emotionsausdrücken und ihre Behandlung im Dolmetschunterricht.” [How to find the right tone of voice? Reflections on professional use of voice and prosody in the interpretation of prosodic elements linked to emotions and how to address them in interpreter training.] mTm 71: 126–149.Google Scholar
. 2015c. “Practicing Interpersonal Skills with the Computer: Film-Based Simulations and the Training of Community Interpreters.” Conference presentation at InDialog. Community Interpreting in Dialogue with Technology. 20–21 November, 2015. Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Zwischen Mensch und Maschine: Film-basierte Computersimulationstechnik im Dialogdolmetschertraining – lassen sich Lehrer ersetzen?” [Between man and machine: Film-based computer simulation technology and interpreter training – can teachers be substituted?] In Man vs. Machine?: The Future of Translators, Interpreters and Terminologists, Vo1. 11, ed. by Wolfram Baur et al., 1034–1040. Berlin: BDÜ Fachverlag.Google Scholar
Wewer, Taina. 2014. Assessment of Young Learners’ English Proficiency in Bilingual Content Instruction CLIL. Turku: Annales Universitatis Turkuensis.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1999. “Telephone interpreting and the synchronisation of talk in social interaction.” The Translator 5(2): 247–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Perspectives on role play: analysis, training and assessments.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8(3): 437–451.1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zannirato, Alessandro. 2008. “Teaching Interpreting and Interpreting Teaching: A Conference Interpreter’s Overview of Second Language Acquisition.” In Translator and Interpreter Training. Issues, Methods and Debate, ed. by John Kearns, 19–38. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Mellinger, Christopher D.
2023. Chapter 8. Embedding, extending, and distributing interpreter cognition with technology. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Braun, Sabine, Elena Davitti & Catherine Slater
2020. ‘It’s like being in bubbles’: affordances and challenges of virtual learning environments for collaborative learning in interpreter education. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:3 ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo

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