Tecnologies d’interpretació assistida per ordinador i cognició d’intèrprets: una perspectiva orientada al producte i al procés



Fins ara, la recerca sobre la interpretació assistida i intercedida per la tecnologia ha adoptat un enfocament centrat principalment en el producte per tal d’entendre el paper de la tecnologia durant l’exercici de la interpretació. A fi de respondre a la necessitat d’una recerca empírica addicional sobre la intersecció entre la interpretació, la tecnologia i la cognició, aquest article posa de manifest la necessitat d’incloure una recerca orientada al procés de la interpretació i determina diverses àrees de recerca de possible interès.

Paraules clau

tecnologies d’interpretació assistida per ordinador, cognició d’intèrprets, investigació orientada al procés de la interpretació


Angelelli, C. (2004). Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A study of conference, court and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. <https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.55>

Bendazzoli, C. (2017). Corpus-based interpreting studies: Past, present and future developments of a (wired) cottage industry, in: M. Russo; C. Bendazzoli; B. Defrancq (eds). Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. London: Springer, pp. 1–19. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_1>

Braun, S. (2013). Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice, Interpreting, v. 15, n. 2, pp. 200–228. <https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra>

Braun, S. (2019). Technology and interpreting, in: M. O’Hagan (ed). The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology. New York: Routledge. <https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315311258-16>

Chen, Sijia. (2017). Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: New data from pen recording. Translation & Interpreting, v. 9, n. 1, pp. 4–23.

Class, B.; Moser-Mercer, B. (2013). Training conference interpreter trainers with technology: a virtual reality, in: O. García Becerra, E.; M. Pradas Macías; R. Barranco-Droege (eds). Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope, Vol. 1. Granada: Comares, pp. 293–313.

Corpas Pastor, G. (2018). Tools for interpreters: The challenges that lie ahead. Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning E (CTTL E), n. 5, pp. 157–182.

Darden, V.; Maroney, E. M. (2018). Craving to hear from you…’: An exploration of m-learning in global interpreter education. Translation and Interpreting Studies, v. 13, n. 3, pp. 442–464. <https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00024.dar>

Desmet, B.; Vandierendonck, M.; Defrancq, B. (2018). Simultaneous interpretation of numbers and the impact of technological support, in: C. Fantinuoli (ed), Interpreting and Technology. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 13–27.

Englund Dimitrova, B.; Tiselius, E. (2009). Exploring retrospection as a research method for studying the translation process and the interpreting process, in: I. M. Mees; F. Alves; S. Göpferich (eds). Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 109-134.

Englund Dimitrova, B.; Tiselius, E. (2014). Retrospection in interpreting and translation: Explaining the process?. MonTI Special Issue 1, pp: 177–200. <https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.5>

Fantinuoli, C. (2017). Speech recognition in the interpreter workstation, in: J. Esteves-Ferreira, et al. (eds). Proceedings of the 39th Conference Translating and the Computer. Geneva: Tradulex, pp. 25–34.

Fantinuoli, C. (2018a). Computer-assisted interpreting: Challenges and future perspectives, in: I. Durán-Muñoz; G. Corpas Pastor (eds). Trends in e-Tools and Resources for Translators and Interpreters. Leiden: Brill, pp. 153–174. <https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004351790_009>

Fantinuoli, C. (2018b). Interpreting and technology: The upcoming technological turn, in: C. Fantinuoli (ed). Interpreting and Technology. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 1–12.

Fantinuoli, C. (ed). (2018c). Interpreting and Technology. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Furr, M. (2018). Psychometrics: An Introduction. London: Sage.

Goldsmith, J. (2018). Tablet interpreting: Consecutive interpreting 2.0. Translation and Interpreting Studies, v. 13, n. 3, pp. 342–365. <https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00020.gol>

Hunt-Gómez, C. I.; Gómez Moreno, P. (2015). Reality-based court interpreting didactic material using new technologies. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, v. 9, n. 2, pp. 188–204. <https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1051770>

ISO 20109. (2016). Simultaneous interpreting – Equipment – Requirements. Geneva: ISO.

ISO/FDIS 20539. (n.d.). Translation, interpreting and related technology – vocabulary. Geneva: ISO.

Kalina, S.; Ziegler, K. (2015). Technology, in: F. Pöchhacker (ed). Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 410–412.

Kerremans, K.; Stengers, H. (2017). Using online and/or mobile virtual communication tools in interpreter and translator training: Pedagogical advantages and drawbacks, in: J. Esteves-Ferreira, et al. (eds). Proceedings of the 39th Conference Translating and the Computer. Geneva: Tradulex, pp. 55–58.

Kerremans, K., et al. (2019). Technology use by public service interpreters and translators: The link between frequency of use and forms of prior training. FITISPos International Journal, v. 6, n. 1, pp. 107–122.

Ko, L.; Chen, N. S. (2011). Online interpreting in synchronous cyber classrooms. Babel, v. 57, n. 2, pp. 123–143. <https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.57.2.01ko>

Korpal, P. (2016). Interpreting as a stressful activity: Physiological measures of stress in simultaneous interpreting. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, v. 52, n. 2, pp. 297–316. <https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0011>

Lee, T. (2014). Using computer-assisted interpreter training methods in Korean undergraduate English classrooms. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, v. 8, n. 1, pp. 102–122. <https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.908560>

Lim, L. (2013). Examining students’ perceptions of computer-assisted interpreter training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, v. 7, n. 1, pp. 71–89. <https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2013.798844>

Mellinger, C. D. (2019). Core research questions and methods, in: E. Angelone; M. Ehrensberger-Dow; G. Massey (eds). Bloomsbury Companion to Language Industry Studies. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 15–35. <https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350024960.0006>

Mellinger, C. D.; Hanson, T. A. (2018). Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility. Translation and Interpreting Studies v. 13, n. 3, pp. 366–392. <https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00021.mel>

Moser-Mercer, B. (1997). Beyond curiosity: Can interpreting research meet the challenge?, in: J. H. Danks, et al. (eds). Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 176–195.

Moser-Mercer, B. (2008). Skill acquisition in interpreting: A human performance perspective. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, v. 2, n. 1, pp. 1–28. <https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798764>

Muñoz Martín, R. (2016). Reembedding translation process research: An introduction, in: R. Muñoz Martín (ed). Reembedding Translation Process Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–20. <https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128>

Muñoz, E.; Calvo, N.; García, A. M. (2019). Grounding translation and interpreting in the brain: What has been, can be, and must be done. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, v. 27, n. 4, pp. 483–509. <https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1549575>

Napier, J.; Leneham, M. (2011). It was difficult to manage the communication’: Testing the feasibility of video remote signed language interpreting in court. Journal of Interpretation, v. 21, n. 1, article 5. <https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199239306.013.0025>

Ortiz, L. E. S.; Cavallo, P. (2018). Computer-assisted interpreting tools (CAI) and options for automation with automatic speech recognition. TradTerm, n. 32, pp. 9–31. <https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2317-9511.v32i0p9-31>

Plevoets, K.; Defrancq, B. (2016). The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting: A corpus-based regression analysis. Translation and Interpreting Studies, v. 11, n. 2, pp. 202–224. <https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple>

Plevoets, K.; Defrancq, B. (2018). The cognitive load of interpreters in the European Parliament: A corpus-based study of predictors for the disfluency uh(m). Interpreting, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 1–29. <https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00001.ple>

Pokorn, N. K.; Mellinger, C. D. (eds). (2018). Community Interpreting, Translation, and Technology: a special issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies, v. 13, n. 3. <https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.13.3>

Roziner, I.; Shlesinger, M. (2010). Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting. Interpreting, v. 12, n. 2, pp. 214-47. <https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz>

Sandrelli, A. (2015). Becoming an interpreter: The role of computer technology. MonTI Special Issue 2, pp. 111–138. <https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2015.ne2.4>

Sandrelli, A.; Manuel Jerez, J. de. (2007). The impact of information and communication technology on interpreter training: State-of-the-art and future prospects. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, v. 1, n. 2, pp. 269–303. <https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798761>

Setton, R. (2011). Corpus-based Interpreting Studies (CIS): Overview and Prospects, in: A. Kruger; K. Wallmach; J. Munday (eds). Corpus-based Translation Studies: Research and Applications. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 33–75.

Shreve, G. M.; Angelone, E. (2010). Translation and cognition: Recent developments, in: G. M. Shreve; E. Angelone (eds). Translation and Cognition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–13. <https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.01shr>

Thiemann, D.; Hesse, F. W.; Kozlov, M. (2019). The benefits of collaboration in computer-mediated preference exchange in teams: A psychological perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, v. 97, pp. 24–34. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.032>

Tiselius, E. (2018). Exploring cognitive aspects of competence in sign language interpreting of dialogues: First impressions. Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication in Business, n. 57, pp. 49–61. <https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v0i57.106193>

Viljanmaa, A. (2018). “Students’ views on the use of film-based LangPerform computer simulations for dialogue interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies, v. 13, n. 3, pp. 465–485. <https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00025.vil>

Warnicke, C.; Plejert, C. (2018). The headset as an interactional resource in a video relay interpreting (VRI) setting. Interpreting, v. 20, n. 2, pp. 285–308. <https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00013.war>

Wehrmeyer, E. (2019). A corpus for signed language interpreting research. Interpreting, v. 21, n. 1, pp. 62–90. <https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00020.weh>

Wilmer, H. H.; Sherman, L. E.; Chein, J. M. (2017). Smartphones and cognition: A review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. Frontiers in Psychology, n. 8, article 605. <https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00605>

Winteringham, S. T. (2010). The usefulness of ICTs in interpreting practice. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, n. 15, pp. 87–99.

Ziegler, Klaus; Gigliobianco, S. (2018). Present? Remote? Remotely present! New technological approaches to remote simultaneous conference interpreting, in: C. Fantinuoli (ed). Interpreting and Technology. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 119–139.




Les dades de descàrrega encara no estan disponibles.