1887
Volume 13, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This pilot study examines the recent phenomenon of tablet interpreting. Based on in-depth interviews with six practitioners, which were transcribed and analyzed inductively, the article presents an overview of software, tools, and technology that interpreters currently utilize in their work. Qualitative and quantitative results demonstrate regular, effective tablet use in various consecutive interpreting settings. Participants feel that these tools meet their needs and outstrip the functionalities offered by pen and paper in most contexts. This study compiles best practices for tablet interpreting, discusses their benefits and challenges, and describes features to consider when assessing new and existing tablets, applications, and styluses. The data underscore the need for training in this budding field, which represents a key area for future research and professional practice.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tis.00020.gol
2018-11-09
2019-09-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aliperta, Valeria
    2011 “the interpreting wars (or 7 ‘wartime’ survival tips for the booth).” Retrieved fromrainylondontranslationsblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/the-interpreting-wars-or-8-wartime-survival-t/. Last accessed19 August 2018.
  2. Alyahya, Suzan and James E. Gall
    2012 “iPads in education: A qualitative study of students’ attitudes and experiences.” InProceedings of the World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2012, ed. byTel Amiel and Brent Wilson. Chesapeake, Virginia: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Behl, Holly
    2013a “The paperless interpreter experiment: Part I.” Retrieved frompaperlessinterpreter.com/paperless-interpreter-part-i/Last accessed19 August 2018.
  4. 2013b “The paperless interpreter experiment: Part II.” Retrieved frompaperlessinterpreter.com/paperless-interpreter-part-iiLast accessed19 August 2018.
  5. 2015 “The paperless interpreter experiment Part III: Microsoft Surface Pro 4.” Retrieved frompaperlessinterpreter.com/the-paperless-interpreter-experiment-part-iii-microsoft-surface-pro-4/Last accessed19 August 2018.
  6. Brinkmann, Svend
    2013Qualitative Interviewing. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199861392.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199861392.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Camayd-Freixas, Erik
    2005 “A revolution in consecutive interpreting: Digital voice-recorder-assisted CI.” The ATA Chronicle34: 40–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Corsellis, Ann
    2008Public Service Interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230581951
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230581951 [Google Scholar]
  9. Creswell, John W.
    2009Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Creswell, John W. and Vicki L. Plano Clark
    2011Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Crowson, Matthew G., Russel Kahmke, Marisa Ryan and Richard Scher
    2015 “Utility of daily mobile tablet use for residents on an otolaryngology head & neck surgery inpatient service.” Journal of Medical Systems40(55).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dimond, Tom
    1957 “Devices for reading handwritten characters.” InProceedings from the Eastern Joint Computer Conference, 232–237. 10.1109/AFIPS.1957.60
    https://doi.org/10.1109/AFIPS.1957.60 [Google Scholar]
  13. Drechsel, Alexander [Google Scholar]
  14. Drechsel, Alexander and Holly Behl
    2016 “Kiss paper goodbye: Tablet technology for consecutive and simultaneous interpreting.” Paper presented at theATA 57th Annual Conference, San Francisco, California, November 5, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Drechsel, Alexander and Goldsmith, Joshua
    . In press. “Tablet Interpreting: The use of mobile devices in interpreting.” InCIUTI-Forum 2016: Equitable Education through intercultural communication: Role and responsibility for non-state actors ed. by Martin Forstner and Hannelore Lee-Jahnke. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dündar, Hakan and Murat Akçayir
    2014 “Implementing tablet PCs in schools: Students’ attitudes and opinions.” Computers in Human Behavior32: 40–46. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.020
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.020 [Google Scholar]
  17. Durand, Claude
    2014 “Consecutive notes, symbols and the use of the notepad.” Retrieved fromwebcast.ec.europa.eu/fe663a72b27bdc613873fbbb512f6f67. Last accessed19 August 2018.
  18. Eaton, Nick
    2010 “The iPad/tablet PC market defined?” Seattle Pi. Retrieved fromblog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2010/03/22/the-ipad-tablet-pc-market-defined/. Last accessed19 August 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. El-Metwally, Maha
    2017 “Consec-Simo as a tool for Consecutive Interpreting.” Webinar presented online through eCPD webinars, September19 2017.
  20. Ferrari, Michele
    2001 “Consecutive simultaneous?” SCIC News26: 2–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2002 “Traditional vs. ‘simultaneous’ consecutive.” SCIC News29: 6–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gillies, Andrew
    2005Note-taking for Consecutive Interpreting: A Short Course. Oxford: Alden Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldsmith, Joshua
    2017 A comparative user evaluation of tablets and tools for consecutive interpreters. InProceedings from the Translating and the Computer 39 conference, ed. byJoão Esteves-Ferreira, Juliet Macabn, Ruslan Mitkov, and Olaf-Michael Stefanov, 40–50. Geneva: Tradulex.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldsmith, Joshua and Alexander Drechsel
    2016 “Tablet interpreting: Tips, tools and applications to make the most of your tablet while interpreting.” Webinar presented at theProz 2016 Virtual Conference for International Translation Day, 30 September 2016. Retrieved fromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24bWGxifdUE. Last accessed19 August 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Goldsmith, Joshua and Josephine Holley
    2015 Consecutive Interpreting 2.0: The Tablet Interpreting Experience. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of Geneva, Switzerland.
  26. Gomes, Miguel
    2002 “Digitally mastered consecutive: An interview with Michele Ferrari.” Lingua franca5–6: 6–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hale, Sandra
    2007Community Interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230593442
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230593442 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hamidi, Miriam and Franz Pöchhacker
    2007 “Simultaneous consecutive interpreting: A new technique put to the test.” Meta: Journal des traducteurs52(2): 276–289. 10.7202/016070ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/016070ar [Google Scholar]
  29. Herbert, Jean
    1952Manuel de l’interprète: Comment on devient interprète de conférences. Geneva: Libraire de l’Université.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hof, Michelle
    2011 “Of notepads and writing utensils.” Retrieved fromtheinterpreterdiaries.com/2011/11/03/of-notepads-and-writing-utensils/. Last accessed19 August 2018.
  31. 2012 “iPad: The ideal boothmate.” Retrieved fromaiic.net/p/6354. Last accessed19 August 2018.
  32. Hursh, Tony
    2005 “Tablet PCs for classroom use: Technology and application.” Retrieved fromcourses.education.illinois.edu/edpsy317/sp03/challenge-reports/hursh-tabletpc.html. Last accessed15 October 2015.
  33. Kvale, Steinar
    1996InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lombardi, John
    2003 “DRAC interpreting: Coming soon to a courthouse near you?” Proteus12(2): 7–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. McNamara, Carter
    2009 “General guidelines for conducting research interviews.” Retrieved frommanagementhelp.org/businessresearch/interviews.htm. Last accessed19 August 2018.
  36. Merriam, Sharan B.
    2009Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Navarro-Hall, Esther
    2014 “Esther Navarro-Hall: Sim-Consec™ con Smartpen.” Retrieved fromwww.ivoox.com/esther-navarro-hall-sim-consec-smartpen-audios-mp3_rf_3254210_1.html. Last accessed18 August 2018.
  38. Nguyen, Lemai, Siew Mee Barton and Linh Thuy Nguyn
    2014 “iPads in higher education – Hype and hope.” British Journal of Educational Technology46(1): 190–203. 10.1111/bjet.12137
    https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12137 [Google Scholar]
  39. 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.
  40. Orlando, Marc
    2010 “Digital pen technology and consecutive interpreting: Another dimension in note-taking training and assessment.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter15: 71–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2013 “Interpreting training and digital pen technology.” aiic.netApril8 2018 Retrieved fromaiic.net/p/6484. Last accessed18 August 2018.
  42. 2014 “A study on the amenability of digital pen technology in a hybrid mode of interpreting: Consec-simul with notes.” Translation & Interpreting6(2): 39–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2015a “Digital pen technology and interpreter training, practice and research: Status and trends.” InInterpreter Education in the Digital Age, ed. bySuzanne Ehrlich and Jemina Napier, 125–152. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2015b “Implementing digital pen technology in the consecutive interpreting classroom.” InTo know how to suggest…approaches to teaching conference interpreting, ed. byDörte Andres and Martina Behr, 171–199. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2016Training 21st Century Translators and Interpreters: At the Crossroads of Practice, Research and Pedagogy. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Paone, Matteo Domenico
    2016 Mobile Geräte beim Simultandolmetschen mit besonderem Bezug auf Tablets. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Vienna, Austria.
  47. Plano Clark, Vicki L., and Kimberly Galt
    2009 “Using a mixed methods approach to strengthen instrument development and validation.” Paper presented at theAnnual meeting of the American Pharmacists Association, San Antonio, Texas.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Rosado, Tony
    2013 “Note-taking with iPad: Making our life easier.” Retrieved fromrpstranslations.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/note-taking-with-ipad-making-our-life-easier-2/. Last accessed19 August 2018.
  49. Rozan, Jean-François
    1956La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Geneva: Libraire de l’Université Georg.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ryan, Gery and H. Russell Bernard
    2003 “Techniques to identify themes.” Field Methods15(1): 85–109. 10.1177/1525822X02239569
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569 [Google Scholar]
  51. Schedeen, Jesse
    2010 “The history of the tablet PC.” IGN. Retrieved fromign.com/articles/2010/04/01/the-history-of-the-tablet-pc. Last accessed19 August 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Schooley, Benjamin, Steven Walczak, Neset Hikmet and Nitin Patel
    2016 “Impacts of mobile tablet computing on provider productivity, communications and the process of care.” International Journal of Medical Informatics88: 62–70. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.01.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.01.010 [Google Scholar]
  53. Schweda Nicholson, Nancy
    1990 “Consecutive note-taking for Community Interpretation.” InInterpreting: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, ed. byDavid Bowen and Margareta Bowen, 136–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.iv.24sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.iv.24sch [Google Scholar]
  54. Statista
    Statista 2018 “Shipment forecast of laptops, desktop PCs and tablets worldwide from 2010 to 2022 (in million units).” Retrieved fromwww.statista.com/statistics/272595/global-shipments-forecast-for-tablets-laptops-and-desktop-pcs/. Last accessed19 August 2018.
  55. Tarabocchia, Laura
    1985L’annotazione grafica nell’interpretazione consecutive. Trieste: Università degli Studi di Trieste.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Tipton, Rebecca and Olgierda Furmanek
    2016Dialogue Interpreting: A Guide to Interpreting in Public Services and the Community. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315644578
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315644578 [Google Scholar]
  57. Torres-Díaz, María Gracia
    1998Manual de Interpretación Consecutiva. Malaga: Universidad de Málaga.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Turner, Daniel W., III
    2010 “Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators.” The Qualitative Report15(3): 754–760.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Valenzuela, Dapzury and Pallavi Shrivastava
    2002 “Interview as a method for qualitative research.” Retrieved frompublic.asu.edu/~kroel/www500/Interview%20Fri.pdf. Last accessed19 August 2018.
  60. Vanhecke, Katrin and Julia Lobato Patricio
    2009La enseñanza-aprendizaje de la interpretación consecutiva: Una propuesta didáctica. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 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.
  62. Ware, Willis H.
    2008RAND and the information evolution: A history in essays and vignettes. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 10.7249/CP537
    https://doi.org/10.7249/CP537 [Google Scholar]
  63. Wilkinson, Kate and Phil Barter
    2016 “Do mobile learning devices enhance learning in Higher Education anatomy classrooms?” Journal of Pedagogical Development6(1): 14–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Yaman, Hakan, Erdinç Yavuz, Adem Er, Ramazan Vural, Yalçin Albayrak, Ahmet Yardimci and Özcan Aslikan
    2015 “The use of mobile smart devices and medical apps in the family practice setting.” Journal of evaluation in clinical practice22(2): 290–296. 10.1111/jep.12476.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12476 [Google Scholar]
  65. Yanikoglu, Berrin and Aytac Gogus
    2017 “Use of handwriting recognition technologies in tablet-based learning modules for first grade education.” Educational Technology Research and Development65(5): 1369–1388. 10.1007/s11423‑017‑9532‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9532-3 [Google Scholar]
  66. Yeung, Michelle and Chung Haejung
    2011 “iPEP talk: Pedagogical conversations from the iPad Exploration Project.” Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, ed. byMatthew Koehler and Punya Mishra, 3036–3041. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tis.00020.gol
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/tis.00020.gol
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): consecutive interpreting , NVivo , qualitative interviews , tablet and tablet interpreting
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error