Tecnologies d’interpretació assistida per ordinador i cognició d’intèrprets: una perspectiva orientada al producte i al procés
Resum
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 interpretacióReferències
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.
Publicades
Com citar
Descàrregues
Drets d'autor (c) 2019 Christopher D. Mellinger
Aquesta obra està sota una llicència internacional Creative Commons Reconeixement 4.0.
