Cover not available

Article published In: Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 2:2 (2019) ► pp.147–164

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

Metacognitive self-perception in interpreting

 | Universidad Pontificia Comillas
Published online: 6 September 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00025.fer
Abstract
The ability of interpreters to engage in metacognitive activity enabling them to self-assess the changing purpose of their task and subsequent strategies can play a pivotal role in their global attainment levels. This paper argues that developing a high degree of metacognition can be key, not only for the expert’s interpreting performance, but also for trainees’ learning processes, helping them develop a more accurate professional self-concept and better self-regulation techniques. The study, carried out with 199 interpreting trainees, tested a tool to assess self-perceived metacognition levels. The measurement tool was developed on the basis of previous relevant academic contributions to the overlapping fields of Education, Interpreting and Psychology. According to the results of a factor analysis, self-perceived metacognition in interpreting trainees can be defined as a construct made up of four dimensions: self-knowledge perception, consolidation of one’s own set of criteria, development of a macro-strategy, and task-focused flow.
Article outline
  • 1.Relating metacognition to quality in interpreting
  • 2.Turning metacognition into a more tangible construct
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.The four dimensions of self-perceived metacognition
    • 4.1Self-knowledge perception
    • 4.2Consolidation of their own set of criteria
    • 4.3Development of an interpreting macro-strategy
    • 4.4Task-focused flow
  • 5.Final remarks
  • Note
  • References
References (37)
References
Aguirre Fernández Bravo, Elena. 2015. El desarrollo metacognitivo del estudiante de interpretación: estudio de caso [The Interpreting student's metacognitive development: a case study]. Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas. [URL]
Arumí Ribas, Marta. 2008. “La práctica reflexiva en la formación de intérpretes [Reflective practice in interpreter training].” In La traducción del futuro: Mediación lingüística y cultural en el siglo XXI. Actas del III congreso internacional de la Asociación Ibérica de Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación. Barcelona 22–24 de marzo de 2007. Edited by L. Pegenaute, J. A. Decesaris, M. Tricás, and E. Bernal, 442–454. Barcelona: Publicaciones Periódicas Universitarias.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bandura, Albert. 2002. Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blignault, Ilse, Maria Stephanou and Cassandra Barrett. 2009. Achieving Quality in Health Care Interpreting. In The Critical Link 5. Quality in interpreting—a shared responsibility. Edited by S. Hale, U. Ozolins, and L. Stern, 221–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bransford, John D., Brown, Ann L., and Rodney R. Cocking, 1999. How People Learn. Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bühler, Hildegund. (1986). “Linguistic (Semantic) and Extra-linguistic (Pragmatic) Criteria for the Evaluation of Conference Interpretation and Interpreters.” Multilingua 5 (4): 231–235.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiaro, Delia C., and Giuseppe Nocella. 2004. “Interpreter’s Perception of Linguistic and Non-linguistic Factors Affecting Quality: A Survey through the World Wide Web.” Meta 49 (2): 278–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collados Aís, Ángela, Ma Manuela Fernández Sánchez, Esperanza M. Pradas Macías, Elisabeth Stévaux, and Luisa Von Bernstorff. 2003. “Material audiovisual sobre interpretación simultánea: Investigación experimental en evaluación de la calidad” [Audiovisual material form simultaneous interpreting: Experimental research on quality assessment]. In La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Docencia y profesión. Edited by Á. Collados, Ma M. Fernández, E. M. Pradas, C. Sánchez-Adam, and E. Stévaux, 17–29. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Csíkszentmihályi, Mihály. 1975. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Déjean Le Féal, Karla. 1990. “Some Thoughts on the Evaluation of Simultaneous Interpretation.” In Interpreting—Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Edited by D. Bowen, and M. Bowen, 154–160. Binghamton, NY: SUNY at Binghamton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doǧan, Aymil, Marta Arumí Ribas, and Begonya Mora Rubio. 2009. “Metacognitive Tools in Interpreting Training: A Pilot Study.” Journal of Faculty of Letters, Hacettepe University 26 (1): 69–84.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flavell, John H. 1976. “Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving.” In The Nature of Intelligence. Edited by L. B. Resnick, 231–236. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1985. “Le modèle d’efforts et l’équilibre d’interprétation en interprétation simultanée” [The model of efforts and interpreting balance in simultaneous interpreting]. Meta 30 (1): 44–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gopher, Daniel. 1993. “The Skill of Attention Control: Acquisition and Execution of Attention Strategies.” In Attention and Performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience—A silver jubilee. Edited by D. E. Meyer, and S. Kornblum, 299–322. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra, and Uldis Ozolins. 2009. “Quality in Interpreting: A Shared Responsibility.” In The Critical Link 5. Quality in Interpreting—A Shared Responsibility. Edited by S. Hale, U. Ozolins, and L. Stern, 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Brian. 2003. “The Need for Several Standards of Conference Interpretation.” In La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Docencia y profesión. Edited by Á. Collados, Ma M. Fernández, E. M. Pradas, C. Sánchez-Adam, and E. Stévaux, 3–16. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kalina, Sylvia. 2005. “Quality Assurance for Interpreting Processes.” Meta 50 (2): 768–784. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kent, Stephanie J. 2009. “A Discourse of Danger and Loss. Interpreters on Interpreting for the European Parliament.” In The Critical Link 5. Quality in interpreting—A shared responsibility. Edited by S. Hale, U. Ozolins, and L. Stern, 55–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid. 1993. “Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter 51: 13–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, Ian. 1999. “Introduction.” Dialogue interpreting. The Translator 5 (2): 147–160.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moser, Peter. 1995. Survey on Expectations of Users of Conference Interpretation. Accessed 11 September 2018 [URL]
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1996. “Quality in Interpreting: Some Methodological Issues.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter 71: 43–55.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. “The Rocky Road to Expertise in Interpreting: Eliciting Knowledge from Learners.” In Translationswissenschaft. Edited by M. Kadric, K. Kaindl, & F. Pöchhacker, 339–352. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pignataro, Clara, and Silvia Velardi. 2013. “The Quest for Quality Assessment Criteria in Media Interpreting.” In Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Edited by O. García, E. M. Pradas, and R. Barranco, 129–147. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pintrich, Paul R. 2004. “A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in College Students.” Educational Psychology Review 16 (4): 385–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2001. “Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting.” Meta 46 (2): 410–425. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. ”Researching Quality: A Two-pronged Approach.” In Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Edited by O. García, E. M. Pradas, and R. Barranco, 33–55. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pradas Macías, Esperanza M. 2007. “La incidencia del parámetro fluidez ” [Repercussions of the fluency parameter]. In La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: Parámetros de incidencia. Edited by Á. Collados, E. M. Pradas, E. Stévaux and O. García, 53–70. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rennert, Sylvie. 2013. “The Production of Experimental Material for Fluency Research.” In Quality in interpreting: widening the scope. Edited by O. García, E. M. Pradas, and R. Barranco, 175–200. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sawyer, David B. 1994. “Monitoring Processes in Conference Interpreting: Towards a Model for Interpreter-Trainees.” Meta 39 (3): 433–438. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “Deconstructing SI: A Contribution to the Debate on Component Processes.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter 111: 1–26.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tolosa Igualada, Miguel. 2013. “Del ‘síndrome de Mafalda’ a la metacognición. La autoevaluación de la calidad de los intérpretes en formación a través de una nueva plataforma multimedia” [From ‘Mafalda’s Syndrom to metacognition. Interpreting trainee quality self-assessment through a new multimedia platform]. In Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Edited by O. García, E. M. Pradas, and R. Barranco, 315–335. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torre Puente, Juan C. 2007. Una triple alianza para un aprendizaje universitario de calidad [A triple alliance for quality higher education]. Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Viaggio, Sergio. 2003. “La calidad en la mediación interlingüe. Qué es, quién la determina, quién la juzga y quién la enseña” [Quality in interlinguistic mediation. What is it? who determines it? who evaluates it? and who teaches it?]. In La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Docencia y profesión. Edited by Á. Collados, Ma M. Fernández, E. M. Pradas, C. Sánchez-Adam, and E. Stévaux, 17–29. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2013. Qualität und Rollenbilder beim simultanen Konferenzdolmetschen [Quality and role construction in simultaneous interpreting]. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Mei, Huan & Shanshan Yang
2025. Empowering Metacognitive Interpreter Training: How Standards‐Based Self‐Assessment Affects Metacognitive Strategy Use and Interpreting Performance. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Zhu, Xuelian & Vahid Aryadoust
2022. A Synthetic Review of Cognitive Load in Distance Interpreting: Toward an Explanatory Model. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020. Translation and Interpreting Assessment Research. In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 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