Cover not available

In:Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends
Edited by Gloria Corpas Pastor and Bart Defrancq
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 37] 2023
► pp. 27–45

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 2
Tablet interpreting

A decade of research and practice

 | CEO, techforword | UN- and EU-accredited interpreter |
Published online: 9 October 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.37.02gol
Abstract
Since the release of the first modern tablets in the early 2010s, interpreters have explored ways to incorporate these devices into their practice. This trend has grown as institutions issued tablets to staff interpreters and universities and freelancers explored tablet interpreting.
This article describes the first decade of tablet interpreting, which is defined as “the use of a tablet to support one or more aspects of interpreting.” It begins by painting a picture of its history, discussing pioneering explorations of tablet use and situating tablet interpreting within the broader context of computer-assisted interpreting (CAI). Then, it analyzes published research on tablet interpreting and considers how tablets can be used for preparation, different interpreting modes (consecutive, simultaneous, and hybrid modalities) business productivity, and the teaching of interpreting. After presenting this comprehensive snapshot of tablet interpreting research to date, it considers the strengths and shortcomings of tablets for interpreting and gaps in tablet interpreting research. It concludes by outlining six key directions for future research on tablet interpreting.
Article outline
  • 1.Background and history of tablet interpreting
  • 2.Use of tablets for preparation
  • 3.Use of tablets for consecutive interpreting
  • 4.Use of tablets for simultaneous interpreting
  • 5.Use of tablets for simultaneous consecutive interpreting and sight consecutive hybrid modalities
  • 6.Use of tablets for business productivity
  • 7.Use of tablets in teaching interpreting
  • 8.Shortcomings and strengths of tablets in interpreting
  • 9.Gaps in tablet interpreting research
  • 10.Future directions for tablet interpreting research
  • References
References (60)
References
Altieri, Mirko. 2020. “Tablet interpreting: Étude expérimentale de l’interpétation consécutive sur tablette.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 2020 25: 19–35.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arumí, Marta, and Pilar Sánchez-Gijón. 2019. “La presa de notes amb ordinadors convertibles en l’ensenyament-aprenentage de la interpretació consecutiva. Resultats d’un estudi pilot en una formació de màster.” Revista Tradumàtica. Tecnologies de la Traducció, 128–152.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behl, Holly. 2013a. “The Paperless Interpreter Experiment: Part I.” [URL]
. 2013b. “The Paperless Interpreter Experiment: Part II.” [URL]
. 2015. “The Paperless Interpreter Experiment: Part III: Microsoft Surface Pro 4.” [URL]
Berber, Diana. 2008. “ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) in Conference Interpreting: A Survey of their Usage in Professional and Educational Settings.” Unpublished doctoral thesis, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain.
Camayd-Freixas, Erik. 2005. “A Revolution in Consecutive Interpreting: Digital Voice-Recorder-Assisted CI.” The ATA Chronicle 34: 40–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corpas Pastor, Gloria. 2021. “Interpreting and Technology: Is the Sky Really the Limit?”. In Proceedings of the Translation and Interpreting Technology Online Conference (TRITON), edited by Ruslan Mitkov, Vilelmini Sosoni, Julie Christine Giguère, Elena Murgolo and Elizabeth Deysel), 15–24. Shumen, Bulgaria: INCOMA Ltd. [Online] Available at [URL]
Costa, Hernani, Corpas Pastor, Gloria, and Isabel Durán Muñoz. 2014. “A Comparative User Evaluation of Terminology Management Tools for Interpreters.” In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Computational Terminology (Computerm 2014), edited by Patrick Drouin, Natalia Grabar, Thierry Hamon, and Kyo Kageura: 68–76. Dublin, Ireland, August 23, 2014.
Defrancq, Bart, and Claudio Fantinuoli. 2020. “Automatic Speech Recognition in the Booth: Assessment of System Performance, Interpreters’ Performances and Interactions in the Context of Numbers.” Target 33 (1): 73–102. [Online] Available at
Del Pozo Caamaño, Rocío. 2016. “La integración de los dispositivos móviles en el entorno de trabajo de los profesionales de la traducción y la interpretación.” Revista Tradumàtica 14: 43–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donovan, Clare. 2006. “Trends – Where is Interpreting Heading and How Can Training Courses Keep Up?” Contribution at the EMCI conference: The Future of Conference Interpreting: Training, Technology and Research, 30 June–1 July 2006.
Drechsel, Alexander. 2019. “Technology Literacy for the Interpreter.” The Evolving Curriculum in Interpreter and Translator Education: Stakeholder Perspectives and Voices, edited by Sawyer, David Frank Austermühl and Vanessa Enríquez Raído, 259–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drechsel, Alexander, and Joshua Goldsmith. In press. “Tablet Interpreting: The use of mobile devices in interpreting”. In CIUTI-Forum 2016: Equitable Education through intercultural communication: Role and responsibility for non-state actors, edited by Martin Forstner and Hannelore Lee-Jahnke. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Drechsel, Alexander, and Holly Behl. 2016. “Kiss Paper Goodbye: Tablet Technology for Consecutive and Simultaneous Interpreting.” Paper presented at the ATA 57th Annual Conference, San Francisco, California, November 5, 2016.
Drechsel, Alexander, and Joshua Goldsmith. 2020. “The Tablet Interpreting Manual: A Beginner’s Guide.” [Online] Available at [URL]
El-Metwally, Maha. 2017. “Consec-Simo as a Tool for Consecutive Interpreting.” Webinar presented online through eCPD webinars, September19, 2017.
Ergonomics for the Artificial Booth Mate. 2021. “Survey” [Online] Available at [URL]
Fantinuoli, Claudio. 2012. InterpretBank: Design and Implementation of a Terminology and Knowledge Management Software for Conference Interpreters. Berlin: epubli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “Computer-Assisted Preparation in Conference Interpreting.” The International Journal for translation and Interpreting Research 9 (2): 24–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. “Computer-Assisted Interpreting: Challenges and Future Perspectives.” In Trends in e-tools and Resources for Translators and Interpreters, edited by Isabel Durán and Gloria Corpas Pastor, 153–174. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fantinuoli, Claudio, and Bianca Prandi. 2018. “Teaching Information and Communication Technologies: A Proposal for the Interpreting Classroom” Transkom, 11 (2): 162–182.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrari, Michele. 2001. “Consecutive Simultaneous?” SCIC News 26: 2–4.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “Traditional vs. ‘Simultaneous’ Consecutive.” SCIC News 29: 6–7.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaber, Mahmoud, Corpas Pastor, Gloria, and Ahmed Omer. 2020. “Speech-to-Text Technology as a Documentation Tool for Interpreters: A New Approach to Compiling an Ad Hoc Corpus and Extracting Terminology from Video-Recorded Speeches.” TRANS: Revista de Traductología 24: 1–18.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Joshua. 2017. “A Comparative User Evaluation of Tablets and Tools for Consecutive Interpreters.” In Proceedings from the Translating and the Computer 39 Conference, edited by João Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macan, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 40–50. Geneva: Tradulex.
. 2018. Tablet interpreting: Consecutive interpreting 2.0. Translation and Interpreting Studies 13 (3): 342–365. [Online] Available at
. 2020. “Terminology Extraction Tools for Interpreters.” In Interdependence and Innovation in Translation, Interpreting and Specialized Communication, edited by Barbara Ahrens, Morven Beaton-Thome, Monika Krein-Kühle, Ralph Krüger, Lia Link and Ursula Wienen, 279–304. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Joshua, and Alexander Drechsel. 2020. “Productivity Powerhouse.” Techforword. [Online] Available at [URL]
Goldsmith, Joshua, and Josephine Holley. 2015. Consecutive Interpreting 2.0: The Tablet Interpreting Experience. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of Geneva, Switzerland.
Goldsmith, Joshua, and Lilia Pino Blouin. 2021. “Use Automatic Speech Recognition to Improve Consecutive Interpreting: Sight Consec.” [Online] Available at [URL]
Goldsmith, Joshua, and Michelle Hof. 2021. “Tutor-Student Interaction in Online Interpreter Training: Just Press Play?” In 100 Years of Conference Interpreting: A Legacy, edited by Kilian Seeber, 162–182. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gomes, Miguel. 2002. “Digitally Mastered Consecutive: An Interview with Michele Ferrari.” Lingua franca 5–6: 6–10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamidi, Miriam, and Franz Pöchhacker. 2007. “Simultaneous Consecutive Interpreting: A New Technique Put to the Test.” Meta: Journal des traducteurs 52 (2): 276–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hof, Michelle. 2012. “iPad: The Ideal Boothmate.” [Online] Available at [URL].
Konnikova, Maria. 2014. “Being a Better Online Reader.” New Yorker. July 16. [Online] Available at [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lombardi, John. 2003. “DRAC Interpreting: Coming Soon to a Courthouse near You?”. Proteus 12 (2): 7–9.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 2015. “Technology and Interpreting: New Opportunities Raise New Questions.” [Online] Available at [URL]
Navarro-Hall, Esther. 2014. “Esther Navarro-Hall: Sim-ConsecTM con Smartpen.” [URL].
Oceguera López, Patricia. 2017. El uso de aplicaciones para tablets en la toma de notas del intérprete. Unpublished BA thesis. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Mexico.
Orlando, Marc. 2010. “Digital Pen Technology and Consecutive Interpreting: Another Dimension in Note-Taking Training and Assessment.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15: 71–86.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “A Study on the Amenability of Digital Pen Technology in a Hybrid Mode of Interpreting: Consec-Simul with Notes.” Translation and Interpreting 6 (2): 39–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015a. “Digital Pen Technology and Interpreter Training, Practice and Research: Status and Trends.” In Interpreter Education in the Digital Age, edited by Suzanne Ehrlich and Jemina Napier, 125–152. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015b. “Implementing Digital Pen Technology in the Consecutive Interpreting Classroom.” In To Know How to Suggest … Approaches to Teaching Conference Interpreting, edited by Dörte Andres and Martina Behr, 171–199. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Training 21st Century Translators and Interpreters: At the Crossroads of Practice, Research and Pedagogy. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orlando, Marc, and Jim Hlavac. 2020. “Simultaneous-Consecutive in Interpreter Training and Interpreting Practice: Use and Perceptions of a Hybrid Mode.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 2020 (25): 1–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paone, Matteo Domenico. 2016. Mobile Geräte beim Simultandolmetschen mit besonderem Bezug auf Tablets. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Vienna, Austria.
Pérez-Pérez, Pablo. 2018. “The Use of a Corpus Management Tool for the Preparation of Interpreting Assignments: A Case Study.” The International Journal for Translation and Interpreting Research 10 (1): 137–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pignataro, Clara. 2012. “Terminology and Interpreting in LSP Conferences: A Computer-Aided vs. Empirical-Based Approach. In Interpreting across Genres: Multiple Research Perspectives, edited by Cynthia Kellett Bidoli, 125–140. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prandi, Bianca. 2015. “The Use of CAI tools in Interpreters’ Training: A Pilot Study”. In Proceedings from the Translating and the Computer 37 Conference, edited by João Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macan, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 48–57. Geneva: Tradulex.
Rosado, Tony. 2013. “Note-Taking with iPad: Making our Life Easier.” [URL].
Rütten, Anja. 2003. “Computer-Based Information Management for Conference Interpreters or How Will I Make My Computer Act Like an Infallible Information Butler?” in Translating and the Computer 25, November 2003.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Singer, Lauren, and Patricia Alexander. 2016. “Reading Across Mediums: Effects of Reading Digital and Print Texts on Comprehension and Calibration.” The Journal of Experimental Education 85 (1): 155–172. [Online] Available at
Statista. 2021. “Shipment Forecast of Laptops, Desktop PCs and Tablets Worldwide from 2010 to 2025 (in million units).” [Online] Available at [URL].
Stoll, Christoph. 2009. Jenseits simultanfähiger Terminologiesysteme. Trier: WVT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tripepi Winteringham, Sarah. 2010. “The Usefulness of ICTs in Interpreting Practice.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15: 87–99.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vázquez Castilla, Jesús. 2017. La modalidad de interpretación “consecutiva-simultánea” asistida por tableta. Unpublished MA thesis. Comillas Pontificial University, Spain.
Vivas, Jose. 2003. “Simultaneous Consecutive: Report on the Comparison Session of June 11, 2003.” SCIC B4/JV D2003, Brussels, European Commission, Joint Interpreting and Conference Service.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Xinyu, and Caiwen Wang. 2019 “Can Computer-Assisted Interpreting Tools Assist Interpreting?” Transletters. International Journal of Translation and Interpreting 3: 109–139.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Zou, Deyan, Huahui Zhang, Ying Zhao & Piao Xu
2025. Unleashing the potential: how ChatGPT improves gisting skills in student interpreters. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue