Abstract
Interpreting Technologies—Current and Future Trends is a fitting sequel to the collected volume Interpreting and Technology, edited by Claudio Fantinuoli (2018), and indeed confirms Fantinuoli’s (2018, p. 4) prophetic claim that computer-assisted (CAI), remote (RI), and machine interpreting (MI) will play central roles in what he calls the “technological turn” in interpreting studies.
According to the marketing blurb, the aim of the volume is “to inform and empower interpreters” and to “spark new reflections.” This it certainly does. Without saying it explicitly, these aims are also evident in the general introduction, which, instead of lambasting Johnathan Downie (2020) for his lack of foresight and highlighting the rapidly changing face of technology, could have fleshed out the volume’s aims and objectives more concretely. In short, the volume focuses mainly on the three main areas outlined by Fantinuoli (2018).
Chapter 1 by Marc Orlando on the use of smartpens and digital pens in interpreter training and research and Chapter 2 by Joshua Goldsmith on tablet interpreting are to me the most innovative, presenting options that have been under-researched in interpreting studies. Although both chapters are overviews and not research reports themselves, they certainly provide some useful ideas and references for those interested in researching these new applications. Although his hedge that technology changes continuously is noted, Orlando’s detailed comparison and specifications of smartpens on the market inform researchers/educators on the most optimal equipment for their projects. Similarly, Goldsmith cautions researchers on not simply using what their institutions make available and suggests, if faster, more advanced technology can yield better results (especially in terms of cognitive load studies), and by implication, affect the impact of their publications. In addition, Goldsmith lists six potential areas of tablet research in interpreting. Interpreter training and performance, note-taking, and the differences between students and professionals are familiar research avenues in interpreting studies, albeit with new foci, whereas explorations of paperless interpreting events and hybrid modalities are new.
Chapter 3 (“Towards AI-enhanced computer-assisted interpreting”) by Claudio Fantinuoli and Chapter 10 (“Automatic speech translation in the classroom and lecture setting”) by William D. Lewis and Jan Niehues also overview lesser-researched aspects in the field. Both chapters (also overviews and not research reports) highlight the usefulness of artificial intelligence (AI) translation platforms for interpreters on the one hand (Chapter 3), and on the other, students in multilingual classrooms (Chapter 10). Chapter 3 offers a useful and detailed (including historical) overview of CAI systems aimed at bringing non-technologically informed readers up to speed, whereas Chapter 10 offers a slightly more technical overview of speech translation technology, as well as providing a useful overview of previous case studies (research!), thereby providing welcome impetus for others wishing to research these technologies.
Chapters 4, 5, 7, and 9 deal with RI—mainly video-mediated interpreting—in the public services fields (Chapters 4, 5, and 7) and in conference settings (Chapter 9). Chapter 4 by Diana Singureanu, Graham Hieke, Joanna Gough, and Sabine Braun is a research report on “how court interpreters cope with the demands of video-mediated interpreting in hearings with remote defendants.” The study uses interviews and observation to explore various challenges experienced by interpreters in a video-mediated environment. Despite the technical challenges reported, the study finds that interpreters become more visible and more part of the court-room team and not just an extension of the defendant. Ironically, the study indicates that defendants become more invisible. Chapter 5 (“Public service interpreters’ perceptions and acceptance of RI technologies in times of a pandemic” by Hélene Stengers, Raquel Lázaro Gutiérrez, and Koen Kerremans) uses questionnaires to determine which RI technologies are used by public service interpreters, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their use, and to what extent interpreters accept these technologies in different settings. Both studies thereby add empirical evidence to a current research theme in interpreting studies. By contrast, Chapter 7 by Xiaojun Zhang, Gloria Corpus Pastor, and Jing Zhang entitled “Videoconference interpreting goes multimodal” and Chapter 9 on “Conference interpreting and technology” by Thomas Jayes offer critical overviews and strategic analysis on the use of technologies; Chapter 7 in the various tools that researchers can use, whereas Chapter 9 focuses on the technologies used at EU Parliament interpreting events. Although neither chapter reports on a specific research project, they do suggest potential aspects for research. Chapter 7 not only focuses mainly on specifications for technology development but also notes the need for user-based studies on the acceptance and use of multimodal technology, as well as on cognitive load, interpreter performance, and communication among role-players. In the EU Parliament context, Jayes notes the need to compare interpreter workloads in the physical and remote contexts, to experiment with and develop support technology and effective institutional communication channels, and to explore using additional remote languages and development of more effective switching mechanisms between physical and remote workplaces. Jayes’ chapter highlights the enormous challenges presented in providing interpreting services for thousands of members in 24 languages during the COVID-19 crisis and is a testimony to the tenacity and dedication of interpreters who were forced to adapt to, and survive in, the new virtual environment.
Chapter 6 by Elizabeth Deysel reports on a research study that uses questionnaires to compare the use of various technologies (namely, tablets, smartpens, terminology management systems, and online dictionaries) used by interpreters in the Global North with those used in the Global South, in the context of video RI and telephone interpreting. Despite the obvious research design weakness (surveys render perceptions and not the “true state of use of interpreting technology” as claimed), the findings regarding the reported perceptions of her participants support those reported in Chapter 4 for public service interpreters. The scope of the study encompasses almost all the themes dealt with in the other chapters of the volume, and therefore, the overview overlaps with those for other chapters in the volume. In addition, while the North-South comparison is interesting and novel, the findings supplement those of other studies (see, e.g., Boe, 2023) but contribute minimal new information to the field.
Chapter 8 on the interrelationship between technology and cognition by Chris Mellinger is a bit of an odd bedfellow for the volume in that it focuses more on cognitive frameworks using the 4EA model (embodied, embedded, extended, enacted, affective cognition) than it does on technological tools. Mellinger points out the disadvantages and advantages of using technology in terms of interpreters’ cognitive load. Notwithstanding, the chapter offers a novel theoretical framework from which to design future research projects.
The final two chapters offer tentative peeks into the future of technology in interpreting. In Chapter 11, “Where is all going? Technology, economic pressures, and the future of interpreting,” Jonathan Downie wrestles with the delicate balance of technology-as-threat versus technology-as-partner in the future of human interpreters—without completely reassuring the reader that the new partnership will have a positive outcome for interpreter job security. By contrast, Bart Defrancq in his chapter on “Technology in interpreter education and training” (Chapter 12) embraces the new technologies and assesses the implications and necessity of including technological training in interpreter education.
In summary, therefore, the volume is a bit of a jack-of-all-(interpreting)-trades. While not a research monograph, it certainly functions as an overview of existing research and application in the field, as well as a springboard for potential future research projects, thereby living up to its aims of “informing” and “empowering,” as well as that of “sparking new ideas.” Its primarily informative function makes it an excellent resource for interpreters already in the field, as well as for educators and senior interpreting students. The dense style makes it less suitable as a textbook for undergraduates, who will probably need mediated access to the material. What I also liked about the book was the mix of experienced interpreting scholars and new names in the field.
On the downside, a second edition might consider providing a more thematic structure, as the chapters in the current edition seem for the most part to be randomly strung together. Notwithstanding, the broad scope of topics and perspectives is commendable, making the volume a valuable resource across subdisciplines of interpreting in various settings. Second, if a broader readership than the academic world is envisaged, the style could be made more reader-friendly—it took some motivation and dedication to wade through the whole volume in one reading. (There are also a few irritating typos, particularly in Chapter 3.) Third, and perhaps most importantly, the contribution that the volume makes in the long term towards scholarly research needs to be given more attention, especially since most of the articles do not report on research projects and the frontiers of technological development change rapidly. For example, besides functioning as a milestone that technological tools have “arrived” at in interpreting studies—they were only beginning to emerge in 2018—how does the current volume add to the contribution already made by Fantinuoli’s edited volume, or to the increasing number of articles and books (see, e.g., Boe, 2023; Salaets & Geert, 2020) on the topic? Increasing the research component of the volume would considerably enhance its contribution and impact on the field of interpreting studies. While Lima Florido’s (2023, p. 524) claim that the volume can help create “a real impact, both in society and in the economy” is over the top, it can be expected that the volume will create a real impact in the way that practitioners and researchers view and use technology in the field of interpreting, and its usefulness in equipping future practitioners in the field is undisputed.
