Training the Augmented Interpreter Today

Abstract

Any interpretation training programme aspiring to excellence must be closely connected with the professional world and make effective use of innovative teaching methods, cooperation with external stakeholders, and modern technologies in order to ensure a high quality of learning. This paper focuses on the different aspects of ‘quality’ in light of the advent of new technologies and the changing nature of the interpreting profession. Interpretation training programmes must learn today how to prepare a widely employable interpreter to survive the pressures of the professional world. A scenario-based approach, that simulates work-like situations, is effective in interpretation training. The paper will focus on mock conferences, as its most effective teaching practice. Mock conferences help to enhance the authenticity and diversity of lifelike situations in class, provide the students with contextualised practice that helps to develop non-linguistic competences. The latest technologies, e.g. ICTs, AI, etc., offer a new degree of automation to all professional language mediation activities, calling for a rethinking of the interpreter’s skillset. The future will accommodate both artificial and human interpreting, and the bar for humans will be raised. The interpretation students must learn how to use the latest technologies for the benefit of the client. A new, augmented interpreter profile includes the combination of the classical competences (interpretation, language and cultural, interpersonal, ethical, etc.) and technological competences which must be used for the benefit of the client and the events at which the interpreter works. The paper also explores the value added by human interpretation to communication, such as depth of message comprehension, teamwork, shared responsibility and liability and, most importantly, the value of the ‘interpreter who cares’.

References

1. Alekseeva I.S., Antonova A.M. 2021. Struktura dinamicheskoi obrazovatel’noi sredy matrichnogo tipa (na primere Sankt-Peterburgskoi vysshei shkoly perevoda pri RGPU im. A. I. Gertsena) [An Innovative Dynamic Matrix-Type Learning Environment Based on the Example of the St. Petersburg School of Conference Interpreting and Translation, Herzen University, Russia]. Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 103–116. (In Russ.)

2. Angelelli C.V. 2004. Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

3. Ardito G. 1999. The Systematic Use of Impromptu Speech in Training Interpreting Students. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, no. 9, pp. 177–189.

4. Buhler H. 1986. Linguistic (semantic) and extralinguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, no. 5(4), pp. 231–235.

5. Chui M., Manyika J., Miremadi M. 2016. Where machines could replace humans — and where they can’t (yet). McKinsey Quarterly, no. 3, pp. 58–69. URL: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/mckinsey-quarterly-2016-number-3... (accessed: 03.12.2021).

6. Downie J. 2020. Interpreters vs Machines: Can Interpreters Survive in an AIDominated World? London and New York, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. URL: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=RIrCDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&pg=GBS.PP1»... (accessed: 03.12.2021).

7. Fernandez Prieto C., Sempere Linares F. 2010. Shifting from Translation Competence to Translator Competence. In Pellatt V., Griffiths K., Wu S. (eds.). Teaching and Testing Interpreting and Translating. Bern, Peter Lang, pp. 131–147.

8. Garcia-Carbonell A., Watts F. 2010. The Effectiveness of Telematic Simulation in Languages for Specific Purposes. In Bungarten T. (ed.). Linguistic and Didactic Aspects of Language in Business Communication. Hamburg, Universitat Hamburg, pp. 1–16.

9. Garris R., Ahlers R., Driskell, J.E. 2002. Games, Motivation, and Learning. Simulation & Gaming 33, no. 4, pp. 441–467.

10. Gile D. 1990. L’evaluation de la qualite de l’interpretation par les delegues: une etude de cas. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, no. 3, pp. 66–71.

11. Gillies A. 2013. Conference Interpreting: A Student’s Practice Book. New York, Routledge.

12. Hatim B., Mason I. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London, Routledge.

13. Horvath I. 2021. Speech translation vs Interpreting. Language Studies and Modern Humanities, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 174–187. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/speechtranslation-vs-interpreting/viewer (accessed: 10.12.2021).

14. Horvath I. 2018. Quality in Conference Interpreter Training. In Alekseeva I.S., Antonova A.M., Kabakchi V.V. (eds.). Multilingualism and Russia’s Ethnic Cultures through English, French, German, Russian and Other Languages: Collection of articles. St. Petersburg, Herzen University Press, pp. 122–132.

15. Hyland K. 1993. Language-learning Simulations. English Teaching Forum, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 16–26.

16. Kurz I. 1989. The Use of Video-Tapes in Consecutive and Simultaneous Interpretation Training. In Gran L., Dodds J. (eds.). The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation. Udine, Campanotto, pp. 213–215.

17. Kurz I. 2002. Interpreting Training Programmes. In Hung E. (ed.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4: Building Bridges. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 65–72.

18. Lee M. 2005. Benefits of Creating Actual Conference Setting in Interpretation Pedagogy. Conference Interpretation and Translation, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 99–124.

19. Lim H.O. 2003. Applying Educational Models to Teaching Interpretation. Conference Interpretation and Translation, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 149–167.

20. Lin J., Davis C., Liao P. 2004. The Effectiveness of Using International Mock Conference in Interpreting Courses. Studies of Translation and Interpretation, no. 9, pp. 81–107.

21. Napier J. 2006. Effectively Teaching Discourse to Sign Language Interpreting Students. Language, Culture and Curriculum, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 251–265.

22. Parush A., Hamm H., Shtub A. 2002. Learning Histories in Simulation-based Teaching. Computers & Education, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 319–332.

23. Roy C.B. 2000. Interpreting as a Discourse Process. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

24. Setton R. 2006. Context in Simultaneous Interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 374–389.

25. Straniero Sergio F. 1998. Pedagogic Context vs. Communicative Context in the Teaching of Interpretation and Psychological Problems. In Fernandez L.F., Arjonilla E.O. (eds.). Estudios sobre traduccion e interpretacion, vol. 2. Malaga, CEDMA, pp. 833–839.

26. Tsuruta C., Naito M. 2011. Incorporating Practicums into the Conference Interpreting Program. Forum, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 103–117.

27. Yakovlev S. 2012. Mock Conferences: Helping Interpretation Students to Gain Practical Experience during Their Training Course. In Muylle N., Antonova A. (eds.). Training the Next Generation of Professionals: The St. Petersburg School of Conference Interpreting and Translation, vol. 2. St. Petersburg, Herzen University Press, pp. 71–76.