In:Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends
Edited by Gloria Corpas Pastor and Bart Defrancq
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 37] 2023
► pp. 195–216
Chapter 8Embedding, extending, and distributing interpreter cognition with
technology
Christopher D. Mellinger | University of North Carolina at Charlotte, United States | cmelling@charlotte.edu
Published online: 9 October 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.37.08mel
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.37.08mel
Abstract
Interpreters work in increasingly technologized
environments, with access to hardware and software prior to and during the
interpreting task, which can support their work in a variety of ways. Some
of these tools are used prior to the interpreting task as a means to prepare
materials, terminology, and resources that can be later used while
interpreting. Other tools seek to support interpreters while interpreting,
including automated speech recognition systems, digital recording materials,
and digital pens, to allow interpreters to augment their ability to process
information and potentially enhance their performance. The presence and use
of these technologies ultimately alters and influences the work of
interpreters, particularly since these tools can extend and distribute
cognitive processes and resources across multiple interpreters and
technologies. This chapter takes a socio-cognitive perspective on
interpreting in order to more closely examine the interaction of technology
and interpreter cognition, focusing on several interrelated constructs of
interpreting, namely embedded and embodied cognition, extended cognition,
and distributed cognition. These cognitive frameworks, which are often
collectively referred to as situated or 4EA cognition, illustrate the
importance of recognizing the contextualized and situated nature of
interpreting with respect to technologies used to support interpreters in
their work.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Opening the black box of interpreter cognition
- 3.Embodied and embedded cognition
- 4.Extended cognition
- 5.Distributed cognition
- 6.Open questions and future directions
Notes References
References (108)
Adams, Heather. 2021. “Technology
and conference interpreting: An introduction to the use of instant
messaging apps.” Technium Social
Sciences
Journal 15: 567–572.
Ahrens, Barbara, and Marc Orlando. 2022. “Note-taking
for consecutive conference
interpreting.” In Routledge
Handbook of Conference Interpreting, edited
by Michaela Albl-Mikasa and Elisabet Tiselius, 34–48. New York: Routledge.
Alley, Erica. 2020. “Reframing
the role of the interpreter in a technological
environment.” In The
Second International Symposium on Signed Language Interpretation and
Translation Research: Selected
Papers, edited Danielle I. J. Hunt and Emily Shaw, 147–163. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Alves, Fabio, and Igor A. Lourenço da Silva. 2022. “Looking
back to move forward: Towards a situated, distributed, and extended
account of
expertise.” In Contesting
Epistemologies in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting
Studies, edited by Sandra L. Halverson and Álvaro Marín García, 153–175. New York: Routledge.
Barik, Henri C. 1972. “Interpreters
talk a lot, among other
things.” Babel 18 (1): 3–10.
Beer, Randall D. 2014. “Dynamical
systems and embedded
cognition.” In The
Cambridge Handbook of Artificial
Intelligence, edited
by Keith Frankish and William M. Ramsey, 128–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braun, Sabine. 2020. “Technology
and
interpreting.” In Routledge
Handbook of Translation and Technology, edited
by Minako O’Hagan, 271–288. London: Routledge.
Camayd-Freixas, Erik. 2005. “A
revolution in consecutive interpreting: digital
voice-recorder-assisted CI.” The ATA
Chronicle 34: 40–46.
Carroll, John M., edited 2003. HCI
Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary
Science. New York: Elsevier.
Chang, Chia-chien, Wu, Michelle Min-chia, and Tien-chun Gina Kuo. 2018. “Conference
interpreting and knowledge acquisition: How professional
interpreters tackle unfamiliar
topics.” Interpreting 20 (2): 204–231.
Chen, Sijia. 2016. “Note-taking
in consecutive interpreting: A review with special focus on Chinese
and English literature.” JoSTrans:
The Journal of Specialised
Translation 26: 151–171.
Chernov, Ghelly V. 1979. “Semantic
aspects of psycholinguistic research in simultaneous
interpretation.” Language and
Speech 22 (3): 277–195.
Corpas Pastor, Gloria. 2018. “Tools
for interpreters: The challenges that lie
ahead.” Current Trends in Translation
Teaching and Learning E (CTTL
E) 5: 157–182.
. 2021. “Technology
solutions for interpreters: The VIP
System.” Hermēneus. Revista de
Traducción e
Interpretación 23: 91–123.
Corpas Pastor, Gloria, and Fernando Sánchez Rodas. 2021. “Now
what? A fresh look at language technologies and resources for
translators and
interpreters.” In Corpora
in Translation and Contrastive Research in the Digital Age: Recent
advances and explorations, edited
by Julia Lavid-López, Carmen Maíz-Arévalo, and Juan Rafael Zamorano-Mansilla, 23–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dam, Helle. 2004. “Interpreters’
notes: On the choice of
language.” Interpreting 6(1): 3–17.
. 2021. “From
controversy to complexity: Replicating research and extending the
evidence on language choice for consecutive
interpreting.” Interpreting 23 (2): 222–244.
Dawson, Michael. 2014. “Embedded
and situated
cognition.” In The
Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition, edited
by Lawrence Shapiro, 59–67. New York: Routledge.
Defrancq, Bart, and Claudio Fantinuoli. 2021. “Automatic
speech recognition in the booth: Assessment of system performance,
interpreters’ performances and interactions in the context of
numbers.” Target 33 (1): 73–102.
Desmet, Bart, Vandierendonck, Mieke, and Bart Defrancq. 2018. “Simultaneous
interpretation of numbers and the impact of technological
support.” In Interpreting
and Technology, edited
by Claudio Fantinuoli, 13–27. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Díaz-Galaz, Stephanie. 2011. “The
effect of previous preparation in simultaneous interpreting:
Preliminary results.” Across
Languages and
Cultures 12 (2): 173–191.
Díaz-Galaz, Stephanie, Padilla, Presentación, and María Teresa Bajo. 2015. “The
role of advance preparation in simultaneous interpreting: A
comparison of professional interpreters and interpreting
students.” Interpreting 17 (1): 1–25.
Dragsted, Barbara. 2006. “Computer-aided
translation as a distributed cognitive
task.” Pragmatics &
Cognition 14 (2): 443–464.
Dror, Itiel E., and Stevan Harnad (eds.). 2008. Cognition
Distributed: How Cognitive Technology Extends Our
Minds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, Nick C. 2019. “Essentials
of a theory of language
cognition.” The Modern Language
Journal 103 (S1): 39–60.
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta, and Elisabet Tiselius. 2016. “Cognitive
aspects of community interpreting: Toward a process
model.” In Reembedding
Translation Process Research, edited
by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, 195–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fantinuoli, Claudio. 2017a. “Computer-assisted
preparation in conference
interpreting.” Translation &
Interpreting 9 (2): 24–37.
. 2017b. “Speech
recognition in the interpreter
workstation.” In Proceedings
of the 39th Conference Translating and the
Computer, edited
by João Esteves-Ferreira et al., 25–34. Geneva: Tradulex.
. 2018a. “Computer-assisted
interpreting: Challenges and future
perspectives.” In Trends
in e-Tools and Resources for Translators and
Interpreters, edited by Gloria Corpas Pastor and Isabel Durán-Muñoz, 153–174. Leiden: Brill.
. 2018b. “Interpreting
and technology: The upcoming technological
turn.” In Interpreting
and Technology, edited
by Claudio Fantinuoli, 1–12. Berlin: Language Science Press.
. 2022. “Conference
interpreting and new
technologies.” In Routledge
Handbook of Conference Interpreting, edited
by Michaela Albl-Mikasa and Elisabet Tiselius, 508–522. New York: Routledge.
Fantinuoli, Claudio, and Bianca Prandi. 2021. “Towards
the evaluation of automatic simultaneous speech translation from a
communicative
perspective.” In Proceedings
of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language
Translation (IWSLT
2021), 245–254. Bangkok: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Frittella, Francesca Maria. 2021. “Computer-assisted
conference interpreter training: Limitations and future
directions.” Journal of Translation
Studies 2: 103–142.
García, Adolfo. 2019. The
Neurocognition of Translation and
Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gerver, David. 1975. “A
psychological approach to simultaneous
interpretation.” Meta 20 (2): 119–128.
Gilbert, Andrew Simon, Croy, Samantha, Hwang, Kerry, LoGiudice, Dina, and Betty Haralambous. 2022. “Video
remote interpreting for home-base cognitive assessments:
Stakeholders’
perspectives.” Interpreting 24 (1): 84–110.
Gile, Daniel. 1997. “Conference
interpreting as a cognitive management
problem.” In Cognitive
Processes in Translation and Interpreting, edited
by Joseph H. Danks et al., 196–214. London: Sage.
. 2009. “Interpreting
studies: A critical view from
within.” MonTI: Monografías de
traducción e
interpretación 1: 135–155.
. 1995/2009. Basic
Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator
Training. Revised
edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldsmith, Joshua. 2018. “Tablet
interpreting: Consecutive interpreting
2.0.” Translation and Interpreting
Studies 13 (3): 342–365.
Gorm Hansen, Inge, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2007. “The
silver lining: Technology and self-study in the interpreting
classroom.” Interpreting 9 (1): 95–118.
Halverson, Sandra L. 2021. “Translation,
linguistic commitment and
cognition.” In Routledge
Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited
by Fabio Alves and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 37–51. New York: Routledge.
Halverson, Sandra L., and Álvaro Marín García (eds.). 2022. Contesting
Epistemologies in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting
Studies. New York: Routledge.
Hamidi, Miriam, and Franz Pöchhacker. 2007. “Simultaneous
consecutive interpreting: A new technique put to the
test.” Meta 52 (2): 276–289.
Hervais-Adelman, Alexis, and Laura Babcock. 2020. “The
neurobiology of simultaneous interpreting: Where extreme language
control and cognitive control
intersect.” Bilingualism: Language
and
Cognition 23 (4): 740–751.
Hokkanen, Sari. 2017. “Analyzing
personal embodied experiences: Autoethnography, feelings, and
fieldwork.” Translation &
Interpreting 9 (1): 24–35.
Hovy, Dirk, and Shrimai Prabhumoye. 2021. “Five
sources of bias in natural language
processing.” Language and Linguistics
Compass 15 (8): e12432.
Joseph, John E. 2018. Language,
Mind and Body: A Conceptual
History. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kohn, Kurt, and Michaela Albl-Mikasa. 2002. “Note-taking
in consecutive interpreting. On the reconstruction of an
individualized language.” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies 1: 257–272.
Kuang, Huolingxiao, and Binghan Zheng. 2023. “Note-taking
effort in video remote interpreting: effects of source speech
difficulty and interpreter work
experience.” Perspectives 31 (4): 724–744.
Marín García, Álvaro. 2017. Theoretical
Hedging: The Scope of Knowledge in Translation Process
Research. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Kent State
University, Kent, OH, USA.
. 2019. “The
opportunities of epistemic pluralism for Cognitive Translation
Studies.” Translation, Cognition
&
Behavior 2 (2): 165–185.
. 2021. “Bridging
the epistemological gap: Issues in CTS knowledge application to
training.” Cognitive Linguistic
Studies 8 (2): 462–481.
Martín de León, Celia, and Alba Fernández Santana. 2021. “Embodied
cognition in the booth: Referential and pragmatic gestures in
simultaneous interpreting.” Cognitive
Linguistic
Studies 8 (2): 277–306.
Massaro, Dominic W., and Miriam Shlesinger. 1997. “Information
processing and a computational approach to the study of simultaneous
interpretation.” Interpreting 2 (1–2): 13–53.
Mellinger, Christopher D. 2018. “Re-thinking
translation quality: Revision in the digital
age.” Target 30 (2): 310–331.
2019. “Computer-Assisted
Interpreting Technologies and Interpreter Cognition: A Product and
Process-Oriented
Perspective.” Tradumàtica 17: 33–44.
2022. “Cognitive
behavior during consecutive interpreting: Describing the notetaking
process.” Translation &
Interpreting 14 (2): 103–119.
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson. 2018a. “Interpreter
traits and the relationship with technology and
visibility.” Translation and
Interpreting
Studies 13 (3): 366–394.
. 2018b. “Order
effects in the translation
process.” Translation, Cognition
&
Behavior 1 (1): 1–20.
. 2020. “Methodological
considerations for survey research: Validity, reliability, and
quantitative analysis.” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies 19: 172–190.
. 2022. “Latent
variables in translation and interpreting studies: Ontology,
epistemology, and
methodology.” In Contesting
Epistemologies in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting
Studies, edited by Sandra L. Halverson and Álvaro Marín García, 104–128. New York: Routledge.
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Gregory M. Shreve. 2016. “Match
evaluation and over-editing in a translation memory
environment.” In Re-embedding
Translation Process Research, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, 131–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Nike K. Pokorn. 2018. “Community
interpreting, translation and
technology.” Translation and
Interpreting
Studies 13 (3): 337–341.
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1997. “Beyond
curiosity: Can interpreting research meet the
challenge?” In Cognitive
Processes in Translation and Interpreting, edited
by Joseph H. Danks et al., 176–195. London: Sage.
. 2005a. “Remote
interpreting: Issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual
task.” Meta 50 (2): 727–738.
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2017. “Looking
toward the future of Cognitive Translation
Studies.” In The
Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited
by John W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 555–572. Wiley.
Nurminen, Mary. 2020. “Raw
machine translation use by patent professionals: A case of
distributed cognition.” Translation,
Cognition &
Behavior 3 (1): 100–121.
Obler, Loraine K. 2012. “Conference
interpreting as extreme language
use.” International Journal of
Bilingualism 16 (2): 177–182.
O’Brien, Sharon. 2012. “Translation
as human–computer
interaction.” Translation
Spaces 1 (1): 101–122.
Orlando, Marc. 2014. “A
study on the amenability of digital pen technology in a hybrid mode
of interpreting: Consec-simul with
notes.” Translation &
Interpreting 6 (2): 39–54.
Orlando, Marc, and Jim Hlavac. 2020. “Simultaneous-consecutive
in interpreter training and interpreting practice: Use and
perceptions of a hybrid mode.” The
Interpreters’
Newsletter 25: 1–17.
Perry, Mark. 2003. “Distributed
cognition.” In HCI
Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary
Science, edited by John M. Carroll, 193–223. New York: Elsevier.
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2005. “From
operation to action: Process-orientation in interpreting
studies.” Meta 50 (2): 682–695.
Porlán Moreno, Rafael. 2019. “The
use of portable interpreting devices: An
overview.” Tradumàtica 17: 45–58.
Risku, Hanna. 2014. “Translation
process research as interaction research: From mental to
socio-cognitive processes.” MonTI
Special Issue – Minding
Translation 1: 331–353.
Risku, Hanna, and Angela Dickinson. 2009. “Translators
as networkers: The role of virtual
communities.” Hermes 42: 49–70.
Risku, Hanna, and Regina Rogl. 2021. “Translation
and situated, embodied, distributed, embedded and extended
cognition.” In The
Routledge Handbook of Translation and
Cognition, edited by Fabio Alves and Arnt Lykke Jakobson, 478–499. New York: Routledge.
Risku, Hanna, and Florian Windhager. 2013. “Extended
translation: A sociocognitive research
agenda.” Target 25 (1): 33–45.
Robinson, Douglas. 2020. “Reframing
translational norm theory through 4EA
cognition.” Translation, Cognition
&
Behavior 3 (1): 122–142.
Rowlands, Mark. 2010. The
New Science of the Mind: From Extended Mind to Embodied
Phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2010. “Much
ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote
interpreting.” Interpreting 12 (2): 214–247.
Russo, Mariachiara, Bendazzoli, Claudio, and Bart Defrancq (eds.). 2018. Making
Way in Corpus-based Interpreting
Studies. Singapore: Springer.
Sandrelli, Annalisa, and Jesús de Manuel Jerez. 2007. “The
impact of information and communication technology on interpreter
training.” The Interpreter and
Translator
Trainer 1 (2): 269–303.
Seeber, Kilian G. 2011. “Cognitive
load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories – new
models.” Interpreting 13 (2): 176–204.
Seeber, Kilian G., Keller, Laura, Amos, Rhona, and Sophie Hengl. 2019. “Expectations
vs. experience: Attitudes towards video remote conference
interpreting.” Interpreting 21 (2): 270–304.
Shapiro, Lawrence, and Shannon Spaulding. 2021. “Embodied
cognition.” In The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited
by Edward N. Zalta. Stanford. [URL]
Shreve, Gregory M. 2021. “Translation
as a complex adaptive system: A framework for theory building in
cognitive
translatology.” In Routledge
Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited
by Fabio Alves and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 69–87. New York: Routledge.
Shreve, Gregory M., and Bruce J. Diamond. 2016. “Cognitive
neurosciences and cognitive translation studies: About the
information processing
paradigm.” In Border
Crossings: Translation Studies and other
disciplines, edited
by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 141–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shreve, Gregory M., Angelone, Erik, and Isabel Lacruz. 2018. “Are
expertise and translation competence the same? Psychological reality
and the theoretical status of
competence.” In Innovation
and Expansion in Translation Process
Research, edited by Isabel Lacruz and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 37–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stachowiak-Szymczak, Katarzyna. 2019. Eye
Movements and Gestures in Simultaneous and Consecutive
Interpreting. Springer.
Tiselius, Elisabet, and Birgitta Englund Dimitrova. 2021. “Turn-taking
in dialogue interpreting: Coping with cognitive
constraints.” Cognitive Linguistic
Studies 8 (2): 328–355.
Tomalin, Marcus, Byrne, Bill, Concannon, Shauna, Saunders, Danielle, and Stefanie Ullmann. 2021. “The
practical ethics of bias reduction in machine translation: Why
domain adaptation is better than data
debiasing.” Ethics and Information
Technology 23: 419–2021.
Turner, Phil. 2016. HCI
Redux: The Promise of Post-cognitive
Interaction. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Ustaszewski, Michael. 2019. “Optimising
the Europarl corpus for translation studies with the EuroparlExtract
toolkit.” Perspectives: Studies in
Translation Theory and
Practice 27 (1): 107–123.
Varela, Francisco J., Rosch, Elanor, and Evan Thompson. 1991. The
Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human
Experience. MIT Press.
Viljanmaa, Anu. 2018. “Students’
views of the use of film-based LangPerform computer simulations for
dialogue interpreting.” Translation
and Interpreting
Studies 13 (3): 465–485.
Winteringham, Sarah T. 2010. “The
usefulness of ICTs in interpreting
practice.” The Interpreters’
Newsletter 15: 87–99.
Xu, Ran. 2018. “Corpus-based
terminological preparation for simultaneous
interpreting.” Interpreting 20 (1): 29–58.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Martín, Ricardo Muñoz, Sanjun Sun, Zhiqiang Du & Sara Puerini
2025. Keylogging. In Research Methods in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 10], ► pp. 157 ff.
Fan, Damien Chiaming
2024. Conference interpreters’ technology readiness and perception of digital technologies. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 26:2 ► pp. 178 ff.
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.
