Introduction

Mapping synergies in cognitive research on Multilectal Mediated Communication

1.Introduction

The last special issue of Target focusing on cognitive aspects of translation was published in 2013 (25:1) and edited by Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Susanne Göpferich, and Sharon O’Brien. More than a decade later, we are pleased to revisit this field of research with a new special issue as it presents us with the possibility of observing and highlighting continuities within the field as well as taking stock of some theoretical and methodological developments.

Many of the topics and focuses in the current special issue were foreshadowed in 2013. For example, Hanna Risku and Florian Windhager’s (2013)Risku, Hanna, and Florian Windhager 2013 “Extended Translation: A Sociocognitive Research Agenda.” Target 25 (1): 23–45. launch of the notion of ‘Extended Translation’, which puts a spotlight on the interdependence of action, social and material environment, interaction, and cognition, has gained momentum. In the current issue, the socio-cognitive theoretical perspective is reflected in Álvaro Marín Garcia’s approach to modelling cognition in Multilectal Mediated Communication (MMC). Further, Juliane House (2013)House, Juliane 2013 “Towards a New Linguistic-Cognitive Orientation in Translation Studies.” Target 25 (1): 46–60. called for a linguistic-cognitive orientation in Translation Studies which could be employed to examine the processes of comprehension and re-verbalization in the translator’s mind. Her call is echoed in Rhona Amos and Martin J. Pickering’s examination of language processing during simultaneous interpreting using insights from psycholinguistic studies. Finally, Inger M. Mees, Barbara Dragsted, Inge Gorm Hansen, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen (2013)Mees, Inger M., Barbara Dragsted, Inge Gorm Hansen, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen 2013 “Sound Effects in Translation.” Target 25 (1): 140–154. presaged the professional importance of adopting new technological advances and learning hybrid practices, with an examination of oral translation with speech recognition. In the current issue, Elena Davitti and Anna-Stiina Wallinheimo follow in this vein by studying upskilling in interlingual respeaking and the cognitive and interpersonal factors that influence success.

2.The current Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies landscape

Since the 2013 special issue of Target, research on cognitive aspects of translation and interpreting has evolved along lines the origins of which predate the 2013 issue (see Halverson and Muñoz 2020Halverson, Sandra L., and Ricardo Muñoz Martín 2020 “The Times, They Are a-Changin’.” In Multilingual Mediated Communication and Cognition, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín and Sandra L. Halverson, 1–17. London: Routledge. ; Sun, Muñoz, and Li 2021Sun, Sanjun, Ricardo Muñoz Martín, and Defeng Li 2021 “Introduction: One More Step Forward — Cognitive Translation Studies at the Start of a New Decade.” In Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, Sanjun Sun, and Defeng Li, 1–18. Singapore: Springer. ). The label Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies (CTIS) (see, e.g., Halverson 2010Halverson, Sandra L. 2010 “Cognitive Translation Studies: Developments in Theory and Method.” In Translation and Cognition, edited by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, 349–370. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ; Marín and Halverson 2022Marín Garcia, Álvaro, and Sandra L. Halverson 2022 “Introduction: Scientific Maturity and Epistemological Refection in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies (CTIS).” In Contesting Epistemologies in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies, edited by Sandra L. Halverson and Álvaro Marín Garcia, 1–8. London: Routledge.) has gained ground, and the scholarly territory previously encompassed by the label of Translation Process Research (TPR) has been subsumed into CTIS. However, as noted by Marín and Halverson (2022)Marín Garcia, Álvaro, and Sandra L. Halverson 2022 “Introduction: Scientific Maturity and Epistemological Refection in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies (CTIS).” In Contesting Epistemologies in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies, edited by Sandra L. Halverson and Álvaro Marín Garcia, 1–8. London: Routledge., two strands with different epistemological perspectives inherited from the cognitive sciences have crystallized, now co-inhabiting CTIS. Sun, Muñoz, and Li (2021Sun, Sanjun, Ricardo Muñoz Martín, and Defeng Li 2021 “Introduction: One More Step Forward — Cognitive Translation Studies at the Start of a New Decade.” In Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, Sanjun Sun, and Defeng Li, 1–18. Singapore: Springer. , 8) refer to these as “computational cognitive translatology and cognitive translatology.” They explain that the computational strand largely carries the epistemological and methodological legacy of TPR, conceiving of cognition as the predominantly intra-cranial processing of information, which is reflected in the mind-as-computer metaphor. Cognitive translatology is a somewhat broader church, but aligns primarily with assumptions put forward in the situated cognition paradigm, which points, at a minimum, to the need to consider subjects’ interactions with their environments in analyses of cognition in MMC. While it is safe to say that the previous preponderance towards the information-processing paradigm has now been somewhat more balanced, both perspectives still co-exist in CTIS, as they have been doing at least during the last decade (see Sun, Muñoz, and Li 2021Sun, Sanjun, Ricardo Muñoz Martín, and Defeng Li 2021 “Introduction: One More Step Forward — Cognitive Translation Studies at the Start of a New Decade.” In Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, Sanjun Sun, and Defeng Li, 1–18. Singapore: Springer. , 8). As the observant reader will notice, this applies also to the contributions to this special issue, which do not all ascribe to the same epistemological perspectives. Instead, the theoretical grounding ranges from primarily intra-cranial perspectives to situated and extended ones. This not only reflects the current stage of CTIS research, but is also in line with a pluralistic stance (see Marín 2017Marín Garcia, Álvaro 2017 Theoretical Hedging: The Scope of Knowledge in Translation Process Research. PhD diss. Kent State University., 154) that, we believe, is ultimately beneficial for the field as a whole.

3.Multilectal Mediated Communication

The diversification of language-related practices from (more) clear-cut cases of translation and interpreting in their different forms to hybrid practices needs to be reflected in the labels used to describe them. This led to the introduction of the term ‘Multilectal Mediated Communication’ which we also use to frame the focus of the special issue. The MMC label was suggested by Sandra Halverson and Ricardo Muñoz Martín (2020)Halverson, Sandra L., and Ricardo Muñoz Martín 2020 “The Times, They Are a-Changin’.” In Multilingual Mediated Communication and Cognition, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín and Sandra L. Halverson, 1–17. London: Routledge. precisely as a means to conceptually cover different communication practices sharing relevant similarities, such as the involvement of more than one language, contextual impact, as well as social and cognitive influences and limitations. Muñoz and Tiselius (2025)Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and Elisabet Tiselius 2025 “Written Words Speak as Loud: On the Cognitive Differences Between Translation and Interpreting.” In Routledge Handbook of Interpreting and Cognition, edited by Christopher D. Mellinger, 15–31. London: Routledge. develop the argument and state that a strict categorization can even overlook the commonalities and thus hinder our understanding of the “assumed architecture and workings of the mind” (2025, 18). Of course, even though their conceptual delimitations are not all-encompassing and static, translation and interpreting are not in any way moot concepts or practices, quite the opposite, and the majority of the contributions to this special issue address what we would recognize as translation and interpreting in quite traditional forms: (community) translation, simultaneous interpreting, and consecutive interpreting are all at the center of attention.

4.This special issue: In search of synergies

For this special issue, we invited contributions that by their design or their focus sought to uncover synergies in cognitively oriented research on MMC. The Oxford English Dictionary gives a useful definition of the term ‘synergy’: “Any interaction or cooperation which is mutually reinforcing; a dynamic, productive, or profitable affinity, association, or link.”11.Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “synergy (n.), sense 3,” September 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/4226651433. We believe it safe to suggest that such “mutually reinforcing” interactions can be distilled from the contributions, in terms of both theory and methodology.

In the first article, Rhona Amos and Martin Pickering revisit the foundational question in research on simultaneous interpreting (SI), namely how interpreters process language. They shed new light on this question through the inspection of findings from psycholinguistics studies of language processing in bilinguals. Amos and Pickering begin by interrogating the dichotomy set up in many influential models of SI between a semantically-mediated route and a non-semantically-mediated route. They conclude that it is unlikely that comprehension occurs without accessing meaning. Further, they present evidence that both the source language and the target language are activated during source language comprehension. Rather than viewing this cross-linguistic activation as inherently detrimental to the interpreting process, the authors argue that it can also be facilitatory, an aspect that has been overlooked when characterizing the complexity of SI. They conclude with an examination of prediction during SI, asserting that it occurs regularly and may facilitate interpreting. Amos and Pickering argue for a synergetic view of comprehension and production during SI, thus revising our understanding of language processing during simultaneous interpreting.

The second article, authored by Nan Zhao and Yumeng Lin, moves the focus from theoretical modelling of language comprehension and production during interpreting to the empirical investigation of these processes. In contrast to numerous previous studies that have rated interpreter performance and inevitably focused on errors, these authors flip the script and focus on the repairs that interpreters make. Specifically, they examine how individual differences in language proficiency, working memory, and anxiety influence the presence and success of speech error repairs. The participants were students of interpreting who consecutively interpreted an English-language speech on computer technology to their native Chinese. The results indicate a large influence of the type of error on repair rates, with about 80% of lexical, phonological, and syntactic errors being repaired, but only 16% of conceptual errors. Repair rate and repair success rate, though, were influenced by language proficiency, working memory, and anxiety. This was particularly evident for conceptual errors, where higher anxiety was connected with fewer repairs while higher working memory and English language proficiency were connected with greater repair success.

In the third contribution, Susana Valdez, Leticia Pablos Robles, and Karin van den Berg present a study on the reception of translated health information. CTIS research has hitherto typically focused on different aspects of the production of accounts in MMC, leaving the not only interesting but also important topic of how actual target audiences receive and understand the outcome of MMC practices largely unexplored (however, see Kruger and Kruger 2017Kruger, Haidee, and Jan-Louis Kruger 2017 “Cognition and Reception.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited by John W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 71–89. Hoboken: Wiley. ). For target audiences there is arguably a lot at stake given that correct and efficient cross-linguistic communication may be crucial (e.g., for getting adequate health care). Addressing this research gap, the authors investigate the reception of translated texts by different groups of readers with different language competences. Specifically, their focus is on the reception of health information translated into English from Dutch in the Netherlands by groups with either Spanish or English as their native language. They used authentic translations of a variety of health information texts published on the Health Ministry’s website. Interestingly, the study shows that comprehension difficulties did not occur only within the Spanish group. Participants with English as their native language also exhibited comprehension difficulties, not least in respect of medical terminology. The authors suggest that an increased knowledge of target audiences’ reception of MMC could inform language professionals’ practices and the training of students alike. The current study clearly reinforces the importance of studying the reception of MMC practices within CTIS.

Elena Davitti and Anna-Stiina Wallinheimo delve into interlingual respeaking (IRSP) in the fourth contribution to the special issue. This hybrid practice, which includes both human language transfer and human-AI interaction, involves the simultaneous rendering of an utterance to speech recognition software that produces subtitles. The authors investigate participants’ cognitive abilities and interpersonal traits as well as the effect of a twenty-five-hour upskilling course. The object of study is at the conceptual center of MMC, with a practice that comprises both oral and written translation skills, as well as AI literacy. As the authors point out, their study focuses on border-crossing practices, both diamesic (spoken-to-written) and linguistic (source-to-target language). They argue that IRSP is a “unique form of real-time human-AI interaction (HAII)” which presumably further increases the complexity of the MMC task. The study shows that higher scores in complex working memory tasks predicted accuracy in the performance, and that different working memory resources were found to be involved in different error categories. The authors also stress the necessity for acquiring the specific competences involved in this practice. This study demonstrates the utility of concepts such as MMC rather than only translation or interpreting ‘proper’. IRSP combines both skills and practices from translation and interpreting, and methods for studying them need to be adapted accordingly. By applying an MMC approach, similarities are in focus rather than differences.

In the last article, Álvaro Marín García presents a theoretical contribution, the contents of which resonate closely with the above-mentioned rationale for the special issue. Marín challenges some of the long-lived simplifications manifest in dichotomous terms such as translation and interpreting, arguing that an epistemological stance that instead observes the complex and non-dualistic nature of MMC allows for the emergence of theoretical synergies within CTIS. Using the notion of ‘constraints’ to denote emergent elements that arise through subjects’ interactions with their environment, Marín argues that such elements may not always be neatly put into categories in line with a dichotomous logic (imagine, for instance, the potential procedural and cognitive overlap between ‘translation’ and ‘post-editing’). Instead, he presents a general task model that may be fed with observations of interactions between actors, and between subjects and their experienced environment as well the abstract environment in which the tasks in question are being performed. Marín’s contribution can be seen to align with Muñoz’s (e.g., 2010Muñoz Martín, Ricardo 2010 “On Paradigms and Cognitive Translatology.” In Translation and Cognition, edited by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, 169–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ) framework for Cognitive Translatology, which employs a situated cognitive perspective on MMC, and it is also related — as mentioned above — to Risku and Windhager’s (2013)Risku, Hanna, and Florian Windhager 2013 “Extended Translation: A Sociocognitive Research Agenda.” Target 25 (1): 23–45. modelling of translation as an extended activity that involves not only internal resources within individuals, but also acknowledges the synergetic emergence of processes that encompass interactions between subjects and features of their environment. In line with such a perspective, Marín’s contribution constitutes an important step towards developing complex understandings of MMC cognitive processes.

5.Concluding remarks

To conclude this introduction to the special issue, we wish to convey some thoughts on how the contributions reflect the current CTIS landscape, as well as to point toward aspects we consider important that have received somewhat less attention here. A first observation is that research in the field does indeed continue on the path toward greater theoretical and methodological complexity. Previously taken-for-granted constructs are challenged, widening the exploration of theoretical and empirical territories. We also think the contributions to this special issue showcase a diversity of approaches, which increasingly characterizes CTIS. However, in the current issue, this diversity mainly concerns theoretical aspects and there is also considerable methodological diversity in the field, ranging from highly experimental to ethnographic approaches. Different paradigms, and the various assumptions they bring, inevitably lead to somewhat siloed enterprises, but — in the spirit of the current issue — we encourage further explorations of theoretical and empirical synergies, not only in CTIS but also in Translation Studies more generally.