See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334508118

Interpreting Studies

Chapter · January 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 309

2 authors, including:

Xin Liu
Dalian University of Technology
7 PUBLICATIONS 66 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Xin Liu on 16 November 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020

The Routledge Handbook of

Translation and
Education

The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Education will present the state of the art of the
place and role of translation in educational contexts worldwide. It lays a sound foundation
for the future interdisciplinary cooperation between Translation Studies and Educational
Linguistics.
By adopting a transdisciplinary perspective, the handbook will bring together the various
fields of scholarly enquiry and practice that make a valuable contribution to enlarging the
notion of translation and diversifying its uses in education. Each contribution provides an
overview of the historical background to a given educational setting. Focusing on current
research approaches and empirical findings, this volume outlines the development of
pedagogical approaches, methods, assessment, and curriculum design. The handbook also
examines examples of pedagogies that integrate translation in the curriculum, the teaching
method’s approach, design, and procedure as well as assessment.
Based on a multilingual and applied-oriented approach, the handbook is essential reading
for postgraduate students, researchers, and advanced undergraduate students of Translation
Studies, and educationalists and educators in the 21st century post-global era.

Sara Laviosa. Associate Professor in English Language and Translation at Università degli
Studi di Bari ‘Aldo Moro’ (Italy). She is author of Corpus-based Translation Studies (2002),
Translation and Language Education (2014) and Linking Wor(l)ds (2018). She is founder and
editor of the journal Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts.

Maria González-Davies. Freelance translator and Associate Professor in the Department

of Foreign Languages and Education, University Ramon Llull (Barcelona, Spain). She
has authored Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom (2004), co-authored Medical
Translation Step by Step with Vicent Montalt, and is co-editor of the journal The Interpreter
and Translator Trainer.
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020

Routledge Handbooks in Translation and Interpreting Studies

Routledge Handbooks in Translation and Interpreting Studies provide comprehensive

overviews of the key topics in translation and interpreting studies. All entries for the hand-
books are specially commissioned and written by leading scholars in the field. Clear, acces-
sible, and carefully edited, Routledge Handbooks in Translation and Interpreting Studies are
the ideal resource for both advanced undergraduates and postgraduate students.

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF LITERARY TRANSLATION

Edited by Kelly Washbourne and Ben Van Wyke

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF TRANSLATION AND POLITICS

Edited by Fruela Fernández and Jonathan Evans

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF TRANSLATION AND CULTURE

Edited by Sue-Ann Harding and Ovidi Carbonell Cortés

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF TRANSLATION STUDIES AND

LINGUISTICS
Edited by Kirsten Malmkjaer

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF TRANSLATION AND PRAGMATICS

Edited by Rebecca Tipton and Louisa Desilla

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF TRANSLATION AND TECHNOLOGY

Edited by Minako O’Hagan

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF TRANSLATION AND EDUCATION

Edited by Sara Laviosa and Maria González-Davies

For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com/Routledge-Hand

books-in-Translation-and-Interpreting-Studies/book-series/RHTI.
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020

The Routledge Handbook

of Translation and
Education

Edited by
Sara Laviosa and Maria González-Davies
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020

First published 2020

by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2020 selection and editorial matter, Sara Laviosa and Maria González-Davies;
individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Sara Laviosa and Maria González-Davies to be identified as the authors of
the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted
in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
With the exception of Chapters 4, 25 and 26, no part of this book may be reprinted
or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other
means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or
in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Chapters 4, 25 and 26 of this book are available for free in PDF format as Open Access
from the individual product page at www.routledge.com. It has been made available
under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent
to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-0-815-36843-4 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-85485-0 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020

Contents

List of contributors viii

Acknowledgementsxiv

Introduction: a transdisciplinary perspective on translation and education 1

Sara Laviosa and Maria González-Davies

PART I
Theoretical foundations 9

1 Bilingualism and multilingualism 11

Katie A. Bernstein and Laura Hamman-Ortiz

2 Educational theory: from Dewey to Vygotsky 29

Konrad Klimkowski

3 Education for intercultural citizenship 46

Michael Byram, Melina Porto and Leticia Yulita

PART II
Early childhood and primary education 63

4 Preschool education 65
Cristina Corcoll López and Jane Mitchell-Smith

5 Primary bilingual classrooms: translations and translanguaging 81

Ofelia García, Gladys Y. Aponte, and Khanh Le

6 Pedagogical affordances of translation in bilingual education 95

Esa Hartmann and Christine Hélot

7 Translators in schools: valuing pupils’ linguistic skills 109

Sarah Ardizzone and Sam Holmes

v
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Contents

PART III
Secondary school education 125

8 Content-based instruction 127

Sara Laviosa

9 English as a medium of instruction 143

BethAnne Paulsrud and Jeanette Toth

10 Bilingual education 156

Anna M. Beres

PART IV
Higher education 171

11 Modern languages 173

Michael Huffmaster and Claire Kramsch

12 Translation and multilingual/creative writing 189

Margarida Vale de Gato

13 Audiovisual translation: subtitling and revoicing 207

Alejandro Bolaños-García-Escribano and Jorge Díaz-Cintas

14 Interpreting studies 226

Ludmila Stern and Xin Liu

15 Community translation in New Zealand 245

Ineke Crezee, Jo Anna Burn and Wei Teng

16 Translation and technology 264

Sharon O’Brien and Silvia Rodríguez Vázquez

17 Computer-assisted L2 learning and translation (CAL2T) 278

Vanessa Enríquez Raído, Frank Austermühl and
Marina Sánchez Torrón

PART V
Special education 301

18 Heritage language education: A global view 303

Jenna Cushing-Leubner

vi
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Contents

19 Gifted education programmes 323

Eva Reid

20 Sign languages 341

Ingela Holmström and Krister Schönström

21 Sign bilingual education of foreign languages 353

Edit H. Kontra

22 Sign language interpreting 367

Christopher Stone and Jeremy L. Brunson

PART VI
Teacher education 383

23 Translation teacher training 385

Gary Massey

24 Interpreting teacher training 400

David B. Sawyer

25 Teacher agency in plurilingual learning contexts 417

Olga Esteve

26 Developing mediation competence through translation 434

Maria González-Davies

Index451

vii
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020

14
Interpreting studies
Ludmila Stern and Xin Liu

Introduction
Interpreting, or ‘oral translation’, is an oral transfer of meaning of spoken or signed language.
It is an ancient practice that enables communication between speakers of different languages.
Interpreting takes place in different settings, both international (conferences, diplomatic, and
business negotiations) and domestic (immigration, legal, health, and welfare). Historically,
there has been a prevailing perception among interpretation users and even interpreters, that
the only requirement to become an interpreter is to be bilingual, and that no training is required
(Hale 2011a).
These perceptions began to change in the 20th century. Following short on-the-job training
of interpreters in the League of Nations (Wilss 1999, p. 33; Pöchhacker 2004, p. 28) and at
the Nuremberg-based International Military Tribunal (Gaiba 1998), the growing post-WWII
international market in Europe and the US began to realize that formal education is a path-
way to interpreters’ professional competence. This realization was also motivated by new
demands placed on interpreters, such as skills in the simultaneous interpreting mode (SI)
(Moser-Mercer 2015, p. 304). The recognition of interpreting as a profession was advocated
by interpreters themselves through the International Association of Conference Interpreters
(AIIC, founded in 1953), including a requirement for tertiary-level professional education and
training. The first universities and professionally oriented interpreting schools (les grandes
écoles) provided courses that prepared interpreters for international business and conference
settings in a limited number of European language combinations, courses in which L2 and L3
were often acquired during undergraduate education. The rise of multiculturalism, from the
1970s onwards, led to the introduction of training in the languages of migrant communities
in multicultural Europe, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. However, tertiary training
for community interpreting (public service interpreting, PSI) remained slow and limited. As
with conference interpreting, community interpreting training has been premised on the needs
of the market and society, including professional skills-set and knowledge in the training. The
industry needs also determined the choice of language combinations.
Worldwide mass migration and asylum seeking in the 1990s–2010s led to ‘superdiverse’
societies with a multitude of new communities (Vertovec 2010), and has created a need for

226
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Interpreting studies

interpreter training in new settings and in an unprecedented diversity of language combina-

tions. These new needs and practical limitations are still defining the framework of how inter-
preters are educated and trained, combining different pedagogical philosophies, curriculum
models, and modes of delivery as well as types of assessment (Moser-Mercer 2015, p. 304).
Such needs have opened new research directions, including interpreter training. This chapter
focuses on interpreter training in higher education. It outlines the historical aspects of this
domain of research and practice, it examines current studies and pedagogical practices, and
points to future directions.

Historical perspectives

The origins of interpreter education

Historically, tertiary-level training of interpreters that originated in Europe in the 1940s was
motivated by international commercial and conference needs. The first interpreting programmes
were founded in university settings: the Mannheim college for business translators/interpreters
(1930), which was later transferred to the University of Heidelberg (Pöchhacker 2004, p. 28);
the programmes at the Universities of Geneva and Vienna, the Moscow State Pedagogical Insti-
tute of Foreign Languages (1942), the Universities of Graz and Innsbruck (1946), of Mainz/
Germersheim (1947) and Saarbrücken (1948). The recognition of interpreting as a profession
was associated with the creation of post–WWII international institutions such as the UN. And
the 1950s growing international and multilingual contacts and the European unification was a
motivating factor (Pym 2011, p. 477) for the creation of other tertiary institutions for conferences
interpreter training, a trend that continued globally in the US and Asia (Pöchhacker 2011a). Pro-
fessionalization and tertiary education in conference interpreting was strongly advocated by the
conference interpreters’ professional association, AIIC, created in 1953. Because of their profes-
sional orientation, interpreting departments tended to distinguish themselves from the classical
university model and often described themselves as Schools (Ecole supérieure, Institut supé-
rieur): the Division of Translation and Interpretation at Georgetown University (1949), Scuola
Superiore di Lingue Moderne per Interpreti et Traduttori at the University of Trieste (1954), the
Graduate School of Translation and Interpretation at Monterey Institute of International Studies
(1969), École supérieure d’interprétation et de traduction (ESIT 1957), and the Institut Supérieur
d’Interprétation et de Traduction (ISIT 1957) in Paris.

Early approaches to interpreter education

Formal training of interpreters for international settings

These interpreter training departments and schools from the start distinguished themselves
from conventional language departments (Sawyer 2015, p. 97), while undergraduate inter-
preter training was closely linked to L2 and L3 acquisition (Pöchhacker 2011a, pp. 312–313)
as part of a five-year long curriculum (Heidelberg University, Moscow State Pedagogical
Institute of Foreign Languages). The masters programmes expected students to develop lan-
guage skills independently and generally shared their professionally oriented approaches to
the curriculum, student admission, and training (Stern 2011). Influenced by AIIC, both under-
graduate and graduate programmes built their curricula on the international industry needs
and expectations, and trained interpreters in consecutive interpreting (CI) with note taking and
simultaneous interpreting (SI) in booths into their L1 – referred to as Language A.

227
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Ludmila Stern and Xin Liu

Admission requirements and language proficiency

Admission to conference interpreter training programmes included rigorous procedures which
included an aptitude test to assess the applicants’ suitability for training. To be admitted to
a masters conference interpreting programme (e.g. ESIT), applicants were required to have
a native and near-native bilingual or trilingual proficiency in an ‘established’ European lan-
guage, namely in their native L1 (Language A) as well as other working languages L2 and L3
(near-native active Language B and passive Languages C/D). General knowledge, analytical
skills, and transfer skills were counted among the other aptitudes that supposedly pre-disposed
applicants for training as conference interpreters.

Curriculum, pedagogy, and educators

Curriculum, course content, and teaching approaches in these earlier days of interpreter
training were mostly designed by practitioners – experienced conference interpreters
­(Pöchhacker 2011a) who analyzed their own practice as interpreters to lay the foundations
of practical training and developed the methodology of teaching using authentic materials.
Training content included skills and modes used in conference interpreting practice: CI with
note-taking; the acquisition of additional knowledge (Herbert 1952); SI with equipment in
booths, without equipment (chuchotage), and from written texts (sight translation/interpret-
ing). The foundations of note-taking in CI were laid by Rozan based on his professional
experience (Rozan 1956).
Approaches to delivering this form of training were mostly intuitive, ‘pre-scientific’ (Gile
1994, p. 149), and holistic, based on apprenticeship whereby a student would learn by imitat-
ing the master (Pöchhacker 2004, p. 177, 2011a, p. 313) by means of demonstration followed
by attempts at successive approximation of the modelled behaviour (Shaw et al. 2006, p. 3).
Danica Seleskovitch and Marianne Lederer, ESIT educators and founders of the influential
théorie du sens and déverbalisation, presupposed that suitably selected students with a full
mastery of their working languages (Gile 2001, p. 381) would automatically know how to
reformulate and transfer meaning across languages (Gile 1994, p. 150). Later, this approach
met with criticism as being unscientific, arbitrary in the selection of training methods, and
prescriptive (Stern 2011, p. 493).
Students’ progress and outcomes were traditionally assessed both through continuous
assessment to evaluate progress (for example, in the CI with note-taking preceding the pro-
gression to SI), and the final (for example, in SI), with interpreting quality criteria including
the accuracy of interlingual transfer (sense consistency), fluency of delivery, voice quality,
and stress resistance. The final assessment focused on the output and the graduates’ suitability
to work “immediately and reliably on the market” (Sawyer 2004, p. 56) – an approach that
remains current.

Evolution of evidence-based approach

In the 1980s, the development of interpreting studies research led to calls for a research-based
approach to training, based on scientific data and verification of teaching methods. As inter-
preter education began the process of academization, leading to pedagogical research (Pöch-
hacker 2011a), departments such as Geneva-based ETI conducted interdisciplinary research
into the interpreting process, involving natural/cognitive sciences such as psychology, neu-
ropsychology, and neurolinguistics, often using experimental research methods to inform

228
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Interpreting studies

teaching methods (Stern 2011). Empirical research conducted from the 1990s further focused
on the learning process (Gile 1995), leading to the understanding that interpreting expertise
needs to be developed gradually, through the identification of the necessary skills and sub-
skills, rather than by training holistically (Dodds et al. 1997, p. 93). Empirical research has
led “to the introduction of evidence-based teaching methods, skills teaching, and scientifically
validated methods of assessment and admission to training programs” (Stern 2011, p. 493) and
resulted in the development of a more process-oriented approach. This entails step-by-step
progressive building of interpreting skills, with the focus not only on the quality of the market-
tested product, but also on the cognitive aspects of the interpreting process (e.g. memory,
perception, recall, and dual tasking in SI) (Stern 2011, p. 493).

The introduction of community interpreting

(public service interpreting) training
Originally, training in community interpreting was offered in vocational colleges and in short
format (Stern and Liu 2019a) – a practice that remains current. Formal training in commu-
nity interpreting, introduced by some universities from the 1970s–80s, mostly in Northern
Europe, Australia, New Zealand, the US, and Canada, was in sign and migrant languages,
and approaches to interpreter training in spoken languages largely followed those in sign lan-
guage (Napier 2010). Unlike conference interpreting courses, those in community interpreting
prepared interpreters for domestic settings where migrants and refugees interacted with host
country professionals – service providers in immigration, welfare, police, courts, and health-
care. Training courses focused on bi-directional dialogue interpreting (short consecutive) and
interpreters’ professional ethics (Stern 2011). Prior to the creation of community interpret-
ing courses, the languages of migrant communities, with some exceptions such as Spanish,
Russian, Chinese, and Arabic, had not been offered in conference interpreting programmes
and taught formally. Applicants were mostly native speakers of migrant languages with the
language of their host country being their L2. They were trained to interpret bi-directionally.
Research that arose in these departments focused on the interactive aspect of community inter-
preting, using the methods of discourse analysis and ethnographic methods to examine the
ways in which interpreters interact in different settings (Mason 2015, pp. 111–116). Unlike in
conference interpreting training, where a degree certifying the completion of the programme
paved the way into the profession, industry accreditation/certification had been a requirement
and a seal of professionalism at the completion of some community interpreting programmes
(e.g. NAATI in Australia; legal interpreting accreditation in Spain and USA).

Research approaches and key findings

As discussed earlier, interpreter training in the early days was intuitive and practice-oriented;
trainee interpreters mostly learned from the hands-on experience of their trainers. Formal
training methodology or interpreting pedagogy based on scientific research only started from
the late 1980s due to the rapid growth of training programmes in higher education institutes
worldwide (Stern 2011). The increased number of research studies on interpreter education,
together with those on translator education, have stimulated the publication of academic
journals with a clear focus on training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer (ITT) and the
International Journal of Interpreter Education (IJIE) have contributed to making interpreter
and translator training a distinct field of research in interpreting studies. Thus far, pedagogy-
oriented interpreting research has covered a wide spectrum of areas, from curriculum studies

229
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Ludmila Stern and Xin Liu

at the macro level to the prosodic aspects of languages at the micro level. This section reviews
the recent major research approaches and key findings in interpreter education, focusing on
three aspects; namely learner factors, institutional practices (programmes, models, and cur-
ricula), and teaching and learning activities (class content, methods, and assessment).

Research approaches
Research approaches in the field of interpreter education draw on those adopted in social sci-
ences, humanities, and education. Historically, interpreter education-related studies, similar to
interpreting studies in general, have typically been based on trainers’ intuition and personal
experience, and are descriptive in nature (Hale and Napier 2013, p. 175). In recent years, there
has been a shift from descriptive studies to evidence-based research (Liu 2011). As a branch of
interpreting studies, interpreter education research largely echoes this trend.
In general, studies on T&I training can be classified into empirical and non-empirical. The
former “seeks new data, new information derived from the observation of data and from exper-
imental work” (Williams and Chesterman 2002, p. 58 in Yan et al. 2015) and can be further
classified into observational and experimental approaches. Instead, non-empirical research
consists of descriptive and theoretical approaches (Yan et al. 2015). An observational approach
refers to the type of research in which researchers make naturalistic observations without mak-
ing any interventions (Shaughnessy et al. 2012 in Liu 2016). It includes a few subcategories,
for example, case study, survey research, correlational research, action research, and corpus
research (Yan et al. 2015). Experimental studies in the field of interpreting usually adopt one
or more of the following designs: natural groups design, one-variable design, factorial design,
quasi-experiments, and pre-experiments (Hale and Napier 2013, pp. 168–170; also see Liu
2011). On the non-empirical end, descriptive studies usually describe a “fact, phenomenon or
even anecdote”, whereas theoretical studies aim to (re)define and clarify concepts (Yan et al.
2015, p. 11).
In terms of data collection and analysis, frequently used approaches in interpreter education
include qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches, which allow researchers to
explore the nature of an educational problem and/or a pattern of a phenomenon. A qualita-
tive approach is usually used in case studies, discourse analytical studies, focus group, and
action research. A quantitative approach usually features in survey studies, experimental stud-
ies, and correlational research. Nowadays, more and more interpreting research adopts the
mixed-methods approach where a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches is
used (Liu 2011).

Major research areas and key findings

Learner factors: individual variables and learning outcomes

In pedagogy-oriented T&I studies, learner factors such as needs, personality traits, and com-
petence, have received considerable scholarly attention (Abdel Latif 2018). Research in this
area usually adopts an experimental approach, for instance pre- and post-intervention design,
as well as other quantitative and qualitative methods such as surveys and interviews. Using
one or a combination of the aforementioned methods, studies that focus on learner factors
have thus far examined students’ individual variables such as learning beliefs (Jiménez Ivars
et al. 2014; Li 2018), cognitive and motivational traits (Shaw 2011), personality characteris-
tics (Shaw and Hughes 2006), gender, confidence level, self-perceived language ability, and

230
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Interpreting studies

the relationship between these factors and students’ learning outcomes (Pan and Yan 2012;
Rosiers et al. 2014).
A few studies discuss students’ use of strategies and strategic competence. These studies,
based on cognitive sciences, have a clear interest in the process of interpreting. For exam-
ple, using retrospection and experiment as methods, Bartłomiejczyk (2006) analyzed stu-
dents’ strategies of simultaneous interpreting and directionality and found that the strategies
employed vary significantly for different interpreting directions. Focusing on strategic com-
petence of novice and advanced interpreting students, Arumí Ribas’s pilot study compares
problems encountered by these two groups of students and interpreting strategies they adopt
(Ribas 2012).
Another group of studies are aimed at finding out what personal traits can predict inter-
preting performance or learning outcomes. These studies usually take a statistical approach
and examine the relationship between learner factors and learning outcomes. The findings
obtained in this research area are usually beneficial to the implementation of admission tests,
the development of students’ aptitude, and curricular design. For example, L2 proficiency
and memory capacity have been identified as important predictors for students’ interpreting
aptitude and performance (Blasco Mayor 2017; Cai et al. 2015). These findings suggest that
L2 and memory training can be beneficial for the competence development of student inter-
preters and therefore should be included in interpreting curricula. In the field of sign language
interpreting, Bontempo and Napier (2011) have examined emotional stability, including anxi-
ety and neuroticism, as predictors of interpreter’s self-perceived competence. They suggest
including personal traits for screening purposes in the admission test and the teaching of anxi-
ety or stress management in interpreter education curricula.

Institutional practices: programmes, models, and curricula

Against the backdrop of globalization, there has been an increased demand for professional
interpreters, which has prompted the rapid emergence of T&I programmes in higher educa-
tion institutions, especially at the graduate level. Consequently, there are a number of studies
introducing and/or evaluating a certain training programme, model, and curriculum for docu-
mentation, reflection, and improvement of teaching and learning practices. As interpreting
programmes in higher education institutions are usually offered together with translation pro-
grammes, interpreting programmes, models, and curricula are usually discussed as part of T&I
programmes. For example, Álvarez-Álvarez and Arnáiz-Uzquiza (2017) assess whether the
curricula of undergraduate T&I training in Spain meet the demands of the professional market.
Lim (2006) compares and contrasts four representative T&I graduate courses in Korea. Wang
and Mu (2009) review the mushrooming T&I training programmes at both undergraduate and
graduate levels in China.
In the field of legal interpreting, there has traditionally been a lack of specialized train-
ing opportunities (Hale 2004). Whenever formal training is available, it is usually offered as
course units and modules as part of the postgraduate T&I curricula. For example, in Australia,
Stern and Liu (2019a) review the state-of-the art of formal legal interpreter training offered
by higher education institutions and whether it is sufficient for preparing competent legal
interpreters for Australia’s diverse communities. Graduates from such programmes are usually
competent to work in general and para-legal settings, such as police and immigration, how-
ever they are often incompetent to work in courts or tribunals. In addition, legal interpreting
training in Australia also faces other difficulties, particularly the language service needs of the
‘new and emerging’ (N&E) communities. Similar to legal interpreting, medical and healthcare

231
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Ludmila Stern and Xin Liu

interpreting also needs specialized education/training. Countries vary in different aspects of

medical interpreting training programmes, such as levels of training provided, the training
providers, duration, content, and methods (Crezee 2015). In this context, Tomassini (2012)
analyzes the current needs of healthcare interpreting in Italy and encourages the collaboration
between universities and healthcare service providers.

Classroom teaching and learning: content, methods,

and assessment
Different from studies that evaluate a programme or curriculum, research on classroom teach-
ing and learning investigates in more detail the content of teaching/learning, teaching meth-
ods, and assessment of students’ performance.
In terms of what to teach in an interpreting class, studies have covered a wide range of
topics from students’ linguistic competency enhancement, interpreting skills/techniques, to
professionalism. For example, Cho and Park (2006) suggest including pronunciation train-
ing for students who interpret into L2 as phonological/phonetic knowledge is conducive to
the students’ interpretation delivery. Chmiel (2010) addresses the effectiveness of teaching
note-taking to trainee interpreters and finds that layout and visualization techniques are more
transferrable to students’ own note-taking systems than other elements. Li (2015) argues for
the necessity of teaching strategies to interpreting students to help them overcome cogni-
tive constraints. In terms of professionalism, studies often discuss teaching ethics to students,
especially in the field of community interpreting (Hale 2007), but rather sparsely in conference
interpreting (Donovan 2011). Recently, a number of research-oriented interpreting studies
have paid close attention to the pragmatic aspects of interpreting. For example, in the field of
legal interpreting, Liu and Hale (2018) demonstrate that specialized training on the pragmatics
of courtroom discourse can benefit students’ interpreting accuracy (also see Liu 2018). Simi-
larly, in general interpreting settings, Yenkimaleki and van Heuven (2018) have also found that
teaching prosody awareness positively influences trainees’ interpreting performance.
Compared to what to teach, how to teach seems to attract even greater scholarly attention
nowadays, in contrast to the earlier approach whereby students on admission were expected
to be able to interpret naturally. A large proportion of educational research reported on or
evaluated specific teaching approaches and methods. Such studies usually employ a variety
of research methods, for instance, case study and action research as well as an experimental
approach. One group of studies focuses on the use of situated learning (see Lave and Wenger
1991) in interpreting classes, which aims to enhance student interpreters’ professional compe-
tence (González-Davies and Enríquez Raído 2016). Activities that adopt the situated learning
approach may take different forms such as storytelling (Napier 2010), theatrical training (Cho
and Roger 2010), and mock conference (Li 2015; Pan 2016). These situated teaching activities
allow students to combine theories and practice, as well as to practice problem-solving skills
in an environment that assembles real-life interpreting. In addition to situated learning, there
are also a number of other approaches to interpreter learning and teaching. For example, a cor-
pus can be a useful tool to improve students’ lexical knowledge and interpreting performance
(Bale 2013). A genre-based approach helps students to understand the speaker’s communi-
cative intentions and discourse structure, thus improving interpreting quality (Tebble 2014).
Observation protocol and guidance can assist with students’ observations of real interpreting
work, which is beneficial to the acquisition of interpreting skills. More towards the student-
centred end in the teaching and learning spectrum, interpreting students are encouraged to per-
form autonomous learning (Horváth 2007), including conducting self-assessment (Y.-H. Lee

232
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Interpreting studies

2005), where students are responsible for their own independent practice as well as coopera-
tive learning with others. In addition to the traditional classroom teaching methods, there also
has been increased scholarly attention to long-distance or online learning as well as blended
learning with the assistance of technology. Such studies usually examine the possibilities and
effectiveness of using virtual environment for training interpreters (Ko and Chen 2011; Braun
and Slater 2014) and the effectiveness of E-learning/blended-learning platforms (Hansen and
Shlesinger 2007; Chan 2013).
As regards studies on interpretation assessment within the higher education context, there
are usually two major categories, namely the admission test and formative and summative
assessment for classroom learning. Admission tests usually concern the measurement of inter-
preter competence and the predictability of candidates’ performance. Discussions usually
surround forms of tests and their effectiveness in predicting interpreters’ aptitude (Moser-
Mercer 1994; Timarová and Ungoed-Thomas 2008; Pöchhacker 2011b; Chabasse 2014). At
the institutional level, there is general agreement regarding which skills are best assessed by
which tests, although the specific tests adopted by different institutions are different ­(Timarová
and Ungoed-Thomas 2008). Most schools attach importance to ‘hard skills’ such as lin-
guistic and communication skills, but rarely focus on ‘soft skills’, for instance, motivation
(pp. 43–44). As for classroom assessment of interpreting quality, there has been an increasing
use of scale-based assessment methods in the education of interpreters and translators (J. Lee
2008; ­Angelelli and Jacobson 2009; S.-B. Lee 2015; Wang et al. 2015) (also see Han 2018
for a review on rating scales for interpretation assessment). Besides rating scales, there are
also a number of other assessment methods, for example, the use of metacognitive evaluation
method, such as self-evaluation, problem-finding, and profiling among novice interpreters for
consecutive interpreting training (Choi 2006). Role play is used to assess interpreters’ perfor-
mances (Wadensjö 2014).

Pedagogic approaches and methods

As articulated by González-Davies and Enríquez-Rado (2016), the three main questions
that have been long discussed and have helped to advance translator and interpreter train-
ing are “(1) Is T&I a question of intuition or of training?; (2) Can T&I be taught?; and (3)
Is there a best method to teach and learn how to translate/interpret?” (2016, p. 5). Unlike
the earlier practice that prioritized innate qualities over training (“interpreters are born not
made” Herbert 1978, p. 9 in Mackintosh 1999, p. 67), today’s interpreter pedagogy has been
generally steeped in sound educational models, with research-based approaches impacting
on educational practice. This section will address the current educational practices of inter-
preter training programmes, including (1) types of programmes and curriculum models, (2)
approaches to student admission, (3) pedagogy and teaching methodology, and (4) assess-
ment. While the 21st century interpreting landscape has been changed by the multitude
of languages previously not offered in interpreter training and the emergence of new set-
tings where interpreting is required, the need to train in ‘languages of low diffusion’ (LLD)
has posed challenges (cf. Garzone and Viezzi 2002; Schäffner et al. 2013). However, the
‘multilingual turn’ has not been addressed in interpreter training literature, and, as we shall
see further, the traditional notions of native speaker’s proficiency and bilingualism prevail.
Moreover, training in the “languages of low diffusion” (Balogh et al. 2016, pp. 21–23) or
the “new and emerging” communities languages (Lai and Mulayim 2013; Stern 2018) has
not been offered in higher education in a significant way, except in the countries of these
languages (cf. Balogh et al. 2016).

233
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Ludmila Stern and Xin Liu

Types of programmes and curriculum models

At the end of the 20th century 230 academic institutions worldwide offered interpreter train-
ing across more than 60 countries. Out of them, in Europe, “100 institutions offered 3–5 year
undergraduate programs and 23 schools had 1–2 year graduate programs” (Niska 2005 in
Bao 2015, p. 400). By 2015 the number had almost tripled, with around 600 programmes
worldwide, mostly offered at postgraduate level in Asia, Africa, and South America, with 159
graduate schools in China alone (Bao 2015, p. 400). The undergraduate degrees either prepare
students for the more advanced, professional, degrees (e.g. ETI, Heidelberg University) or
cover grounds similar to those of postgraduate programmes (e.g. WSU in Australia in Stern
and Liu 2019a). A planned programme of instruction (such as at the MA in Conference Inter-
pretation offered by Middleberry Institute of International Studies at Monterey) addresses the
progression of skills and knowledge acquisition aiming to achieve professional competence
and expertise (Sawyer 2015, p. 97). The inclusion of community interpreting programmes
and course units at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels has been slow (Hale 2011a),
with governments providing little support and resources (Corsellis 2008, p. 53). However, at
the time of writing this chapter, even some conference interpreting departments like ESIT are
introducing community interpreting into their curriculum.
Masters in conference interpreting are offered over one to two years (ESIT, Heidelberg
University), sometimes they are preceded by a three-year undergraduate bachelor degree (e.g.
ETI). In the EU, the languages include English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish, and
only some institutions have expanded this list, adding Arabic, Chinese, and Russian outside
the countries of these languages. The few European universities that offer community inter-
preting training (e.g. University of Westminster) include some community languages (e.g.
Polish, Portuguese). The masters programmes in Australian universities with a high demand
for community interpreting offer a variety of ‘established’ international and community lan-
guages – European, Asian, and Middle Eastern (Stern and Liu 2019a). At least one Australian
university, RMIT, offers several N&E languages of recent migrant communities that represent
languages of need. The languages offered by the European Masters in Conference Interpreting
(EMCI) include language combinations described as “less widely used and less taught lan-
guages” (www.emcinterpreting.org/course-structure) of the EU member countries where these
programmes are offered. Since the introduction of these new languages, departments have
been changing their traditional curricula built around specific language combinations (e.g.
Middleberry Institute of International Studies at Monterey). More recent curricula include
“the multicultural classroom comprising students from a range of educational and national
backgrounds”, similar to language classrooms (Corsellis 2008, pp. 69–70), and non-language
specific course units include language-specific components (e.g. Stern and Liu 2019a). With
the proliferation of the latter type of programmes, there are calls for a balance between
­language-specific and general instruction (Sawyer 2015, p. 99).

Conference interpreting curriculum and content

Conference interpreting programmes aim to provide an all-round education and training
through a structured curriculum that includes admission test, progressive skills training, and
assessment. In an attempt to deliver a rounded curriculum, European programmes include gen-
eral humanistic education (contextual knowledge such as EU and international organizations)
as well as interpreting skills combined with language enhancement in specific areas (technical,
scientific), and professional ethics (Stern 2011). For example, a shared curriculum of EMCI

234
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Interpreting studies

has the following core course units: theory of interpretation; practice of interpretation (includ-
ing interpreting skills, public speaking, voice, ethics, conference preparation techniques); CI
(content analysis, memory exercises, CI without notes, summarization, sight translation, note-
taking in a variety of subject areas in different styles and registers); SI, with the same approach
plus booth techniques and team interaction; the EU and international organizations (introduc-
tion to organizations, their institutional processes and procedures) (Stern 2011). While train-
ing interpreters in professional skills, the 21st century programmes see a greater inclusion of
theory into the curriculum and the emergence of higher degree research (including MA and
PhDs), although this process has remained slow (Pöchhacker 2004, p. 31). While bilingualism
or multilingualism has been a sine qua non in interpreter training, and historically conference
interpreters were trained to work into their L1 (Language A) only, the increasing use of retour,
that is, working into both L1 and L2 (Languages A and B), has required a different approach
to training (Pöchhacker 2011a, p. 319) and has stimulated interpreter training research in this
field.

Community interpreting programmes

Until now university programmes in community interpreting have been few and incentives
for training in community interpreting have been insufficient (cf. Hale 2011a; Stern and Liu
2019b), however the number of institutions training community interpreters has increased
(Hale 2011a), and Moser-Mercer (2015) notes a significant progress in community interpret-
ing pedagogy. Although community interpreting professional standards are the same as for
conference interpreting, the admission, training, and assessment differ (Corsellis 2008, p. 53)
in as far as it focuses on the interactive exchange in community interpreting and ethical dilem-
mas. Specialized legal and health interpreting courses frequently included in the curricula
introduce the context of administrative procedures and settings and teach relevant interpreting
skills (e.g. consecutive dialogue interpreting, sight translation, chuchotage). Interpreter stu-
dents receive training in specialized terminology so as to improve their language proficiency
and interpreting accuracy (Wadensjö 1998, p. 36). While these programmes have a practical
skill-building orientation, some include an end-of-studies treatise or a research project, poten-
tially leading to admission to a masters by research or a PhD, as at UNSW Sydney. The limited
length of some of these programmes does not generally allow sufficient time for a theoretical
component (Hale 2007, p. 168), or for students to improve their command of L2 (Language B)
(Gile 2001), or else achieve specialization such as in court interpreting (Stern and Liu 2019a).
While research acknowledges insufficient mastery of languages as a hurdle in interpreting
skills acquisition, “to date no studies explicitly describe specific levels of interpreting that are
attainable through interpreter education” (Blasco Mayor 2017, p. 104). With few exceptions,
advanced bilingual enhancement is encouraged rather than provided, with isolated courses
offering scaffolding for the students’ learning such as Bilingual Enhancement and Personalised
English Language Enhancement (PELE) at UNSW Sydney (Kim and Jing forthcoming).

Student admission
Literature on entry requirements for admission to conference interpreting courses discusses
aptitude tests (Arjona-Tseng 1994; Moser-Mercer 1994). While educators agree that success-
ful training requires rigorous selection of suitable candidates, however, admission criteria and
the selection process vary depending on the type of institution (Stern 2011, p. 494). While
some Spanish master’s programmes select students with “superior skills in at least two of their

235
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Ludmila Stern and Xin Liu

working languages” (Blasco Mayor 2017, p. 104), most undergraduate programmes do not
use the same admission criteria (p. 105). While some departments (ETI, ESIT, Heidelberg) set
high admission standards with the expectation that future students have a perfect mastery of
L1 and L2 (Languages A and B), and an excellent comprehension of L3 (Language C), more
recent interpreter training programmes (University of Westminster in UK, Australian universi-
ties) limit admission requirements to English language proficiency with IELTS Band 6.5–7
or equivalent. As a result, in some schools, both applicants and students have an insufficient
proficiency in their L2 (B language) (Gile 2001), a low level of rhetorical sensitivity in their
A language (Altman 1994, p. 37), and limited general knowledge (Stern 2011).
An entrance exam (often described as an aptitude test), if and when administered, aims to
assess the applicants’ languages proficiency and suitability for training. The former is assessed
by testing oral comprehension, written summary, sight translation, etc. and the latter tests the
applicant’s capacity for analysis, concentration, and ability to work under pressure (Niska
2005, pp. 49–50). It is recognized, however, that existing aptitude tests have not necessarily
provided adequate assessment of aptitude for interpreter training and have no predictive value
regarding how much improvement can be expected during training (Moser-Mercer 1994, p. 60;
Sawyer 2004, p. 111). One of the legacies of the earlier programmes in the existing admission
tests has been the criticisms of the “appropriateness of these assessment instruments which
seem to expect applicants to perform almost at the level of professional interpreters before
they even commence the training course” (Gerver et al. 1984 in Campbell and Hale 2003,
p. 212). More recent studies have examined features that indicate an aptitude in a prospective
interpreter, how these qualities may be measured and which types of test should be adminis-
tered, the issue of valid and reliable testing, proposals for test designs, and, finally, description
of aptitude tests which have identified statistically significant predictors (Russo 2014, p. 7).
Admission criteria and process for community interpreting programmes vary. Stating
that “native speaker competence might not be expected in a second language” of commu-
nity interpreters (Corsellis 2008, p. 25) is a significant shift from the expectations of high
bilingual proficiency in conference interpreting. Corsellis (2008, p. 58) acknowledges a likely
imbalance “between the levels of [language] proficiency, competencies (reading, writing,
listening, speaking) and the domains of use”. Students applying for community interpreting
programmes such as for a BA at Gallaudet University are screened for language proficiency
through exercises, followed by an interview and further screening (Shaw et al. 2006, p. 9).
Other programmes, for example in some English-speaking countries, base their admission on
the quality of the BA in a cognate discipline (language studies, linguistics) and the IELTS test
band 6.5–7, which are deemed unsuitable for professional interpreting studies (Stern and Liu
2019a). In addition to these admission requirements being insufficiently high, they are also not
predictive of the future students’ ability to apply their language combination to interpreting.
As mentioned earlier, while students with inadequate bilingual proficiency departments may
be admitted, little is done to scaffold their studies by improving their command of their L2
(B language) during their studies (Stern and Liu 2019a).

Pedagogy and teaching methodology

Xiu et al. (2018, p. 3) note that teaching and learning (as well as assessment) are the major
themes in interpreter training research. Today’s approaches to interpreter training are gen-
erally steeped in educational principles. However, discussion on what and how to teach is
ongoing, and institutions vary in relation to teaching content, course sequencing, sequencing

236
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Interpreting studies

of interpreting modes, and skills-development, effective teaching methods, and the utility of
some activities (Stern 2011, p. 501). To address the question of resources when training in a
large number of languages, sometimes in small groups, institutions have combined multilin-
gual (non-language specific) lectures and seminars with language-specific tutorials (e.g. Stern
and Liu 2019a on Australian universities’ T&I programmes).
A significant reorientation of teaching has been in the inclusion of a process- (rather than
a product-) oriented approach to optimize learning (Gile 1994, 1995). Teaching methodology
has been enriched with more “transactional, transformational, and student-centred learning”
models (González-Davies and Enríquez-Raído 2016, p. 6). Transition from teacher- to student-
oriented learning has meant that students have greater independence, they are more in charge
of their learning (Sawyer 2004), and are able to assess their own performance (Hale 2007).
The original view that only a practising interpreter can be an interpreting teacher has been
moderated. There is an agreement that interpreting practice alone cannot inform teaching, and
that interpreter trainers need to be familiar with interpreter training pedagogy and interpreting
research on teaching (cf. Pöchhacker 2011a; Hale 2007). Familiarity with research will help
trainers to guide students to pinpoint problems, solve problems (Kurz 2002, p. 65), and justify
their decisions (Hale 2007). While conference interpreting courses that train the trainers have
provided teachers with skills that help respond to different levels of student aptitude, facilitate
learning, create simulated practice, and support student self-practice (Moser-Mercer 2015,
p. 305), community interpreter training is still facing a number of challenges such as “scarcity
of qualified graduate language tutors in the range of languages required, uneven levels of
existing language skills and a lack of appropriate teaching materials” (Corsellis 2008, p. 54).
Departments remain divided on the inclusion of translation in interpreter training and the
progression from the CI mode to the SI. The widely recognized organizing principle of confer-
ence interpreting education, adopted by some programmes (e.g. ETI, Moscow State Linguistic
University), includes the sequence of training in translation (optional), followed by CI skills
acquisition followed by training in SI (Sawyer 2015, p. 98). Others offer interpreting only, also
progressing from the CI to SI (ESIT, EMCI) (Sawyer 2004). As in the earlier interpreting pro-
grammes, most conference interpreting training follows a staged approach which begins with
pre-interpreting techniques (summarizing, paraphrasing, clozing exercises, chunking, and
visualization), and expressive skills for public speaking. CI training is usually associated with
note taking, which in conference interpreting programmes starts immediately at the beginning
of training. In community interpreting programmes note taking is introduced a few weeks
into the training. SI preparatory exercises include sight translation and ‘dual-task’ exercises,
which some educators believe to be useful in preparing students to listen and speak simultane-
ously (e.g. Lambert 1989; Kalina 1994). Yet, the benefits of shadowing, as demonstrated by
some experimental research, have shown mixed results (Kurz 1993). In community interpreter
training, students acquire skills in several modes: consecutive dialogue interpreting, sight
translation, and whispered simultaneous interpreting (chuchotage), often domain focused (e.g.
Angelelli on Healthcare interpreter education 2006, pp. 23–45; Stern and Liu 2019a, 2019b on
legal/court interpreting). Teaching methods and exercises involve problem solving (Angelelli
2006), role play that emulates real-life situations (Kadric 2015, p. 361), sight translation sup-
ported by the studies of specialized settings (health, legal), discussions of professional role and
ethics (Hale 2007), and a ‘life-long learning’ approach is adopted (Moser-Mercer 2015). Situ-
ated learning (learning by doing) is a desirable component of training of interpreters not only
in interpreting skills acquisition but to promote future interpreters’ professional competence to
work in the industry (cf. González-Davies and Enríquez Raído 2016).

237
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Ludmila Stern and Xin Liu

Assessment
Assessment is an integral part of interpreter education. It is usually carried out by admin-
istering a test and is used in student selection, progress monitoring, and conferral of the
degree (Sawyer 2004 in Liu 2015, p. 20). Assessment is one of the main topics of interpreter
education research (Xiu et al. 2018, p. 3). Assessment is usually conducted on admission
as well as at the intermediate and final stages of the course (Sawyer 2004). Formative (con-
tinuing) assessment helps monitor students’ progress by providing constructive feedback on
the skill-building, informed decision making and the use of appropriate techniques (Sawyer
2004; Stern and Liu 2019a). Increased student participation in assessment (Gile 2001, p. 389)
encourages students to critically assess their own and their peers’ performance (Sawyer 2004,
p. 93). Portfolios (Sawyer 2004, p. 125; Angelelli 2006, pp. 37–38) allow the monitoring and
ongoing evaluation of the students’ progress through self-assessment, peer review, and teacher
feedback (Pöchhacker 2004, p. 187). Summative (final) assessment in interpreter training is
product-oriented and involves the testing of fidelity, including accuracy and completeness,
and fluency of language use and delivery of the output – these features are commonly used as
quality criteria (Liu 2015, p. 20). Summative assessment marks the successful completion of
an interpreter training course unit or stage (e.g. the transition from the first to the second year
of a two-year ESIT programme) or the entire programme. Its aim is to evaluate the student’s
suitability for the market (Stern 2011, p. 505). As mentioned earlier, in community interpreting
industry accreditation bodies may conduct credentialing by administering external examina-
tions (e.g. Certified Interpreter examinations, Specialized Certified interpreter, Certified Con-
ference Interpreter in Australia by NAATI).
Even with the use of the set marking criteria, interpreting examiners show subjectivity in
exercising individual decision making and different perceptions of accuracy and linguistic
appropriateness of the students’ performance and product (Sawyer 2004). Liu (2015, p. 21)
notes raters’ subjectivity in the decision about the severity of an error and a strong rater bias in
the definition of what constitutes a major or a minor error. Comprehensive and detailed mark-
ing systems for final examinations have been developed by some departments (on ETI see
Mackintosh 1995, p. 128 in Campbell and Hale 2003, p. 216). However, a comparison between
deduction of marks for every type of error and the intuitive marking shows similar results for
both systems (Longley 1978 in Campbell and Hale 2003, p. 217). More recently, assessment
has seen a transition from the deductive system, taking off marks for errors of different degree
of seriousness, to a scoring rubric, where each criterion is scored on a separate scale with a cor-
responding descriptor. In this system subjectivity in rating can be reduced and the descriptors
can be used as a form of feedback to the student assessed (Liu 2015, p. 21). Some concerns
remain about the lack of adherence in test designs to the test reliability. In addition to problems
with inter-rater reliability, there is inconsistency with the input variables, speech rate, and the
conditions under which the test is delivered (Liu 2015, p. 22). This is a problem encountered
in high stakes summative assessment such as final/exit examinations. Problems concerning
the reliability of assessment that is linked to professional accreditation has been discussed in
the literature on community interpreter training (e.g. Campbell and Hale 2003, pp. 218–219).

Conclusions and future directions

Worldwide migration and superdiversity in both multicultural and previously monolingual
societies have created new industry demands for new settings and interpreting in languages

238
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Interpreting studies

previously not used, and the need for quality of interpreting, especially in community inter-
preting. The process of interpreter professionalization that began in the late 20th century has
led to an unprecedented worldwide increase in the number of interpreter training programmes.
At the same time, empirical and theoretical research in interpreting studies has brought about
new developments in T&I education.
The most significant change in interpreter education has been the shift from the traditional
‘natural interpreter’ and apprenticeship approach to a more evidence-based training approach.
Research into interpreter training covers a variety of topics, many of them from the learner-
centred perspective such as individual variables and learning outcomes, institutional prac-
tices, classroom teaching/learning, and assessment. Questions such as the predictive value
of aptitude tests, the validation of progression and the inclusion of certain types of activities,
language directionality, and the role and impact of modern technology in interpreter training
are to be further explored.
Today’s interpreter training continues to be steeped in educational principles and focuses
on programmes/curriculum, selection/admission, pedagogy, assessment, and addressing the
needs of the changing industry. Thus, research into community interpreter training includes
innovative student-centred methods of classroom teaching and assessment. At the same
time, the inclusion of the LLD and N&E languages required by the interpreting industry has
remained limited and the impact of research on curriculum design and training in higher edu-
cation has been marginal.

Further reading
Sawyer, D.B. (2004) Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education. Curriculum and Assessment.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
This volume remains an important scholarly study of conference interpreting education, with a focus
on curriculum and assessment. It combines theory and practice-based case studies of some existing
programmes.
Pöchhacker, F. and Liu, M. (eds) (2014) Aptitude for Interpreting. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
This edited volume contains articles reflecting recent studies on aptitude tests. It focuses on training
predictors that include linguistic, cognitive, and personality traits.
Hale, S. and Napier, J. (2013) Research Methods in Interpreting: A Practical Resource. London:
Bloomsbury.
A practical introduction to interpreting research, with a chapter on research into interpreter educa-
tion and assessment. A valuable introductory resource for current and future research students.

Related topics
interpreting studies, translation studies, translation and social inclusion, translation teacher training

References
Abdel Latif, M. (2018) Towards a typology of pedagogy-oriented translation and interpreting research.
The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 12(3), pp. 322–345.
Altman, J. (1994) Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous interpreting: A pilot study, in Lambert,
S. and Moser-Mercer, B. (eds) Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 25–38.

239
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Ludmila Stern and Xin Liu

Álvarez-Álvarez, S. and Arnáiz-Uzquiza, V. (2017) Translation and interpreting graduates under con-
struction: Do Spanish translation and interpreting studies curricula answer the challenges of employ-
ability? The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 11(2–3), pp. 139–159.
Angelelli, C. (2006) Designing curriculum for healthcare interpreting education: A principles approach,
in Cynthia, B.R. (ed) New Approaches to Interpreter Education. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Univer-
sity Press. pp. 23–45.
Angelelli, C. and Jacobson, H. (eds) (2009) Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting
Studies: A Call for Dialogue Between Research and Practice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Arjona-Tseng, E. (1994) Psychometric selection tests. In S. Lambert and B. Moser-Mercer (eds) Bridg-
ing the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins. pp. 69–86.
Arumí Ribas, M. (2012) Problems and strategies in consecutive interpreting: A pilot study at two different
stages of interpreter training. Meta. 57(3), pp. 812–835.
Bale, R. (2013) Undergraduate consecutive interpreting and lexical knowledge. The Interpreter and
Translator Trainer. 7(1), pp. 27–50.
Balogh, K., Salayets, H. and van Schoor, D. (2016) TraiLLD: Training in Languages of Lesser Diffusion.
Campus Handbook. Leuven: Lannoo Campus Publishers.
Bao, C. (2015) Pedagogy, in Mikkelson, H. and Jourdenais, R. (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Inter-
preting. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 400–416.
Bartłomiejczyk, M. (2006) Strategies of simultaneous interpreting and directionality. Interpreting. 8(2),
pp. 149–174.
Blasco Mayor, M.J. (2017) L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting: An empirical study,
in Colina, S. and Angelelli, C.V. (eds) Translation and Interpreting Pedagogy in Dialogue with Other
Disciplines. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 103–127.
Bontempo, K. and Napier, J. (2011) Evaluating emotional stability as a predictor of interpreter compe-
tence and aptitude for interpreting. Interpreting. 13(1), pp. 85–105.
Braun, S. and Slater, C. (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), pp. 469–485.
Cai, R., Dong, Y., Zhao, N. and Lin, J. (2015) Factors contributing to individual differences in the devel-
opment of consecutive interpreting competence for beginner student interpreters. The Interpreter and
Translator Trainer. 9(1), pp. 104–120.
Campbell, S. and Hale, S. (2003) Translation and interpreting assessment in the context of educational
measurement, in Anderman, G. and Rogers, M. (eds) Translation Today: Trends and Perspectives.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 205–224.
Chabasse, C. and Kader, S. (2014) Putting interpreting admissions exams to the test: The MA KD Ger-
mersheim Project. Interpreting. 16(1), pp. 19–33.
Chan, C.H-Y. (2013) From self-interpreting to real interpreting: A new web-based exercise to launch
effective interpreting training. Perspectives. 21(3), pp. 358–377.
Chmiel, A. (2010) How effective is teaching note-taking to trainee interpreters? The Interpreter and
Translator Trainer. 4(2), pp. 233–250.
Cho, J. and Park, H-K. (2006) A comparative analysis of Korean-English phonological structures and
processes for pronunciation pedagogy in interpretation training. Meta. 51(2), pp. 229–246.
Cho, J. and Roger, P. (2010) Improving interpreting performance through theatrical training. The Inter-
preter and Translator Trainer. 4(2), pp. 151–171.
Choi, J.Y. (2006) Metacognitive evaluation method in consecutive interpretation for novice learners.
Meta. 51(2), pp. 273–283.
Corsellis, A. (2008) Public Service Interpreting: The First Steps. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Crezee, I. (2015) Semi-authentic practices for student health interpreters. Translation & Interpreting.
7(3), pp. 50–62.

240
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Interpreting studies

Dodds, J., Katan, D., Aarup, H., Gringiani, A., Riccardi, A., Schweda Nicholson, N. and Viaggio, S.
(1997) The interaction between research and training, in Gambier, Y., Gile, D. and Taylor, C. (eds)
Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
pp. 89–107.
Donovan, C. (2011) Ethics in the teaching of conference interpreting. The Interpreter and Translator
Trainer. 5(1), pp. 109–128.
Gaiba, F. (1998) Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial. Ottawa: Ottawa Univer-
sity Press.
Garzone, G. and Viezzi, M. (eds) (2002) Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (1994) Opening up in interpretation studies, in Snell-Hornby, M., Pöchhacker, F. and Kaindl,
K. (eds) Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
pp. 149–158.
Gile, D. (1995) Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (2001) L'Évaluation de la qualité de l'interprétation en cours de formation. Meta. 46(2),
pp. 379–393.
González-Davies, M. and Enríquez Raído, V. (2016) Situated learning in translator and interpreter train-
ing: Bridging research and good practice. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 10(1), pp. 1–11.
Hale, S. (2004) The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the
Interpreter. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hale, S. (2007) Community Interpreting. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hale, S. (2011a) Public service interpreting, in Malmkjaer, K. and Windle, K. (eds) The Oxford Hand-
book of Translation Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 343–356.
Hale, S. (2011b) Interpreter Policies, Practices and Protocols in Australian Courts and Tribunals:
A National Survey. Melbourne: The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated.
Hale, S. and Napier, J. (2013) Research Methods in Interpreting: A Practical Resource. London and New
York: Bloomsbury.
Han, C. (2018) Using rating scales to assess interpretation. Interpreting. 20(1), pp. 59–95.
Hansen, I.G. and Shlesinger, M. (2007) The silver lining: Technology and self-study in the interpreting
classroom. Interpreting. 9(1), pp. 95–118.
Herbert, J. (1952) Manuel d'interprète. Geneva: Georg.
Herbert, J. (1978) How conference interpretation grew, in Gerver, D. and Sinaiko, H.W. (eds) Language
Interpretation and Communication. Nato Conference Series III. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 5–10.
Horváth, I. (2007) Autonomous learning: What makes it work in postgraduate interpreter training? Across
Languages and Cultures. 8(1), pp. 103–122.
Jiménez Ivars, A., Pinazo Catalayud, D. and Ruiz i Forés, M. (2014) Self-efficacy and language profi-
ciency in interpreter trainees. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 8(2), pp. 167–182.
Kadric, M. (2015) Role play, in Pöchhacker, F. (ed) Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies.
London and New York: Routledge. pp. 360–361.
Kalina, S (1994) Discourse processing and interpreting strategies: An approach to the teaching of inter-
preting, in Dollerup, C. and Lindegaard, A. (eds) Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights,
Aim and Visions. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 251–257.
Kim, M. and Jing, B. (forthcoming). A personalised autonomous model for enhancing translation stu-
dents’ linguistic competence, in Koletnik, M. and Froeliger, N. (eds) Translation and Language
Teaching – Continuing the Dialogue Between Translation Studies and Language Didactics. Newcas-
tle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ko, L. and Chen, N-S. (2011) Online-interpreting in synchronous cyber classrooms. Babel. 57(2),
pp. 123–143.
Kurz, I. (1993) ‘Shadowing’ exercises in interpreter training, in Dollerup, C. and Lindegaard, A. (eds)
Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aim and Visions. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins. pp. 245–250.

241
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Ludmila Stern and Xin Liu

Kurz, I. (2002) Interpreting training programmes, in Hung, E. (ed) Teaching Translation and Interpreting
4: Building Bridges. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 65–72.
Lai, M. and Mulayim, S. (2013) Training interpreters in rare and emerging languages: The problems of
adjustment to a tertiary education setting, in Schäffner, C., Kredens, K. and Fowler, Y. (eds) Interpret-
ing in a Changing Landscape. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 287–303.
Lambert, S. (1989) Information processing among conference interpreters: A test of the depth-of-­
processing hypothesis, in Gran, L. and Dodds, J. (eds) The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of
Teaching Conference Interpretation. Udine: Campanotto. pp. 83–91.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lee, J. (2008) Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator
Trainer. 2(2), pp. 165–184.
Lee, S. -B. (2015) Developing an analytic scale for assessing undergraduate students’ consecutive inter-
preting performances. Interpreting. 17(2), pp. 226 (2)
Lee, Y.-H. (2005) Self-assessment as an autonomous learning tool in an interpretation classroom. Meta.
50(4).
Li, X. (2015) Mock conference as a situated learning activity in interpreter training: A case study of its
design and effect as perceived by trainee interpreters. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 9(3),
pp. 323–341.
Li, X. (2018) Teaching beliefs and learning beliefs in translator and interpreter education: An exploratory
case study. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 12(2), pp. 132–151.
Lim, H-O. (2006) A comparison of curricula of graduate schools of interpretation and translation in
Korea. Meta. 51(2), pp. 215–228.
Liu, M. (2011) Methodology in interpreting studies: A methodological review of evidence-based
research, in Nicodemus, B. and Swabey, L. (eds) Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in
Action. ­Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 85–120.
Liu, M. (2015) Assessment, in Pöchhacker, F. (ed) Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies.
­London and New York: Routledge. pp. 20–22.
Liu, M. (2016) Putting the horse before the cart: Righting the experimental approach in interpreting stud-
ies, in Bendazzoli, C. and Monacelli, C. (eds) Addressing Methodological Challenges in Interpreting
Studies Research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 87–105.
Liu, X. (2018) Talking like a Lawyer: Interpreting Cross-Examination Questions into Chinese. Chang-
chun: Jilin University Press.
Liu, X. and Hale, S. (2018) Achieving accuracy in a bilingual courtroom: The effectiveness of specialised
legal interpreter training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 12(3), pp. 299–321.
Mackintosh, J. (1995) A Review of conference interpretation: Practice and training. Target 7(1), pp. 119–
133, in Campbell, S. and Hale, S. (2003) Translation and interpreting assessment in the context of
educational measurement, in Anderman, G. and Rogers, M. (eds) Translation Today: Trends and
Perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 205–224.
Mackintosh, J. (1999) Interpreters are made not born. Interpreting. 4(1), pp. 67–68.
Mason, I. (2015) Discourse analytical approaches, in Pöchhacker, F. (ed) Routledge Encyclopedia of
Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 111–116.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1994) Aptitude testing for conference interpreting: Why, where and how, in Lambert,
S. and Moser-Mercer, B. (eds) Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 57–68.
Moser-Mercer, B. (2015) Pedagogy, in Pöchhacker, F. (ed) Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Stud-
ies. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 303–307.
Napier, J. (2010) A case study of the use of storytelling as a pedagogical tool for teaching interpreting
students. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 4(1), pp. 1–32.
Niska, H. (2005) Training interpreters: Programmes, curricula, practices, in Tennent, M. (ed) Training
for the New Millennium: Pedagogies for Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins. pp. 35–64.

242
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Interpreting studies

Pan, J. (2016) Linking classroom exercises to real-life practice: A case of situated simultaneous interpret-
ing learning. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 10(1), pp. 107–132.
Pan, J. and Yan, X. (2012) Learner variables and problems perceived by students: An investigation of a
college interpreting programme in China. Perspectives. 20(2), pp. 199–218.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004) Introducing Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Pöchhacker, F. (2011a) Conference interpreting, in Malmkjaer, K. and Windle, K. (eds) Oxford Hand-
book of Translation Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 307–324.
Pöchhacker, F. (2011b) Assessing aptitude for interpreting: The SynCloze test. Interpreting. 13(1), pp. 106–120.
Pym, A. (2011) Training translators, in Malmkjaer, K. and Windle, K. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Transla-
tion Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 475–490.
Rosiers, A., Eyckmans, J. and Bauwens, D. (2014) A story of attitudes and aptitudes? Investigating indi-
vidual difference variables within the context of interpreting. Interpreting. 13(1), pp. 53–69.
Rozan, J-F. (1956) La Prise de Notes en Interprétation Consécutive. Geneva: Georg.
Russo, M. (2014) Aptitude testing over the years, in Pöchhacker, F. and Liu, M. (eds) Aptitude for Inter-
preting. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 7–31.
Sawyer, D.B. (2004) Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education: Curriculum and Assessment.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sawyer, D.B. (2015) Curriculum, in Pöchhacker, F. (ed) Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies.
London and New York: Routledge. pp. 96–99.
Schäffner, C., Kredens, K. and Fowler, Y. (eds) (2013) Interpreting in a Changing Landscape. Amster-
dam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shaughnessy, J., Zechmeister, B. and Zechmeister, S. (2012) Research Methods in Psychology. 9th ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shaw, R., Collins, S.D. and Metzger, M. (2006) MA to BA: A quest for distinguishing between under-
graduate and graduate interpreter education, Bachelor of Arts in interpretation curriculum at Gallau-
det University, in Roy, C. (ed) New Approaches in Teaching Interpreters. Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Press. pp. 1–22.
Shaw, S. (2011) Cognitive and motivational contributors to aptitude: A study of spoken and signed lan-
guage interpreting students. Interpreting. 13(1), pp. 70–84.
Shaw, S. and Hughes, G. (2006) Essential characteristics of sign language interpreting students: Perspec-
tives of students and faculty. Interpreting. 8(2), pp. 195–221.
Stern, L. (2011) Courtroom Interpreting, in Malmkjaer, K. and Windle, K. (eds) Oxford Handbook of
Translation Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 325–342.
Stern, L. (2018) Legal interpreting in domestic and international courts: Responsiveness in action, in
Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity: An
Interdisciplinary Perspective. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 396–410.
Stern, L. and Liu, X. (2019a) See you in court: How do Australian institutions train legal interpreters? The
Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 13(2). Available from: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080
/1750399X.2019.1611012.
Stern, L. and Liu, X. (2019b). Ensuring interpreting quality in legal and courtroom settings: Australian
language service providers’ perspectives on their role. Journal of Specialised Translation. 32 (July),
pp. 90–120.
Tebble, H. (2014) A genre-based approach to teaching dialogue interpreting: The medical consultation.
The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 8(3), pp. 418–436.
Timarová, Š. and Ungoed-Thomas, H. (2008) Admission testing for interpreting courses. The Interpreter
and Translator Trainer. 2(1), pp. 29–46.
Tomassini, E. (2012) Healthcare interpreting in Italy: Current needs and proposals to promote collabo-
ration between universities and healthcare services. The Interpreters’ Newsletter. 17(1), pp. 39–54.
Vertovec, S. (2010) Super-diversity and its implications, in Vertovec, S. (ed) Anthropology of Migration
and Multiculturalism: New Directions. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 65–95.
Wadensjö, C. (1998) Community interpreting, in Baker, M. and Saldanha, G. (eds) Routledge Encyclope-
dia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 33–37.

243
 Review Copy – Not for Redistribution
Xin Liu - Dalian University of Technology - 01/02/2020
Ludmila Stern and Xin Liu

Wadensjö, C. (2014) Perspectives on role play: Analysis, training and assessments. The Interpreter and
Translator Trainer. 8(3), pp. 437–451.
Wang, B. and Mu, L. (2009) Interpreter training and research in mainland China: Recent developments.
Interpreting. 11(2), pp. 267–283.
Wang, J., Napier, J., Goswell, D. and Carmichael, A. (2015) The design and application of rubrics to assess
signed language interpreting performance. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 9(1), pp. 83–103.
Williams, J. and Chesterman, A. (2002) The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in Translation
Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Wilss, W. (1999) Translation and Interpreting in the 20th Century: Focus on Germany. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Xiu, J., Pan, Y.J. and Wang, H. (2018) Research on Translator and Interpreter Training. A Collective
Volume of Bibliometric Reviews and Empirical Studies on Learners. Singapore: Springer.
Yan, J.X., Pan, J. and Wang, H. (2015) Studies on translator and interpreter training: A data-driven review
of journal articles 2000–12. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 9(3), pp. 263–286.
Yenkimaleki, M. and van Heuven, V.J. (2018) The effect of teaching prosody awareness on interpreting
performance: An experimental study of consecutive interpreting from English into Farsi. Perspec-
tives. 26(1), pp. 84–99.

244

View publication stats