Cover not available
Part of
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 8
Embedding, extending, and distributing interpreter cognition with technology

| University of North Carolina at Charlotte , United States |

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.

Keywords: extended cognition, embedded cognition, distributed cognition, situated cognition, interpreting technologies
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
Published online: 9 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.37.08mel
References
Adams, Frederick, and Kenneth Aizawa
2008 The Bounds of Cognition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Adams, Heather
2021 “Technology and conference interpreting: An introduction to the use of instant messaging apps.” Technium Social Sciences Journal 15: 567–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barik, Henri C.
1972 “Interpreters talk a lot, among other things.” Babel 18 (1): 3–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Sabine
2020 “Technology and interpreting.” In Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, edited by Minako O’Hagan, 271–288. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camayd-Freixas, Erik
2005 “A revolution in consecutive interpreting: digital voice-recorder-assisted CI.” The ATA Chronicle 34: 40–46.Google Scholar
Carroll, John M.
edited 2003 HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Chernov, Ghelly V.
1979 “Semantic aspects of psycholinguistic research in simultaneous interpretation.” Language and Speech 22 (3): 277–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Andy, and David Chalmers
1998 “The extended mind.” Analysis 58: 7–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
2021 “Technology solutions for interpreters: The VIP System.” Hermēneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación 23: 91–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dam, Helle
2004 “Interpreters’ notes: On the choice of language.” Interpreting 6(1): 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawson, Michael
2014 “Embedded and situated cognition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition, edited by Lawrence Shapiro, 59–67. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Díaz-Galaz, Stephanie
2011 “The effect of previous preparation in simultaneous interpreting: Preliminary results.” Across Languages and Cultures 12 (2): 173–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara
2006 “Computer-aided translation as a distributed cognitive task.” Pragmatics & Cognition 14 (2): 443–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dror, Itiel E., and Stevan Harnad
(eds.) 2008 Cognition Distributed: How Cognitive Technology Extends Our Minds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C.
2019 “Essentials of a theory of language cognition.” The Modern Language Journal 103 (S1): 39–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fantinuoli, Claudio
2017a “Computer-assisted preparation in conference interpreting.” Translation & Interpreting 9 (2): 24–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b “Interpreting and technology: The upcoming technological turn.” In Interpreting and Technology, edited by Claudio Fantinuoli, 1–12. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2018c Interpreting and Technology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logo
Frittella, Francesca Maria
2021 “Computer-assisted conference interpreter training: Limitations and future directions.” Journal of Translation Studies 2: 103–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, Adolfo
2019 The Neurocognition of Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerver, David
1975 “A psychological approach to simultaneous interpretation.” Meta 20 (2): 119–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
2009 “Interpreting studies: A critical view from within.” MonTI: Monografías de traducción e interpretación 1: 135–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995/2009 Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, Joshua
2018 “Tablet interpreting: Consecutive interpreting 2.0.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 13 (3): 342–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gorm Hansen, Inge, and Miriam Shlesinger
2007 “The silver lining: Technology and self-study in the interpreting classroom.” Interpreting 9 (1): 95–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, Sandra L., and Álvaro Marín García
(eds.) 2022 Contesting Epistemologies in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hamidi, Miriam, and Franz Pöchhacker
2007 “Simultaneous consecutive interpreting: A new technique put to the test.” Meta 52 (2): 276–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hokkanen, Sari
2017 “Analyzing personal embodied experiences: Autoethnography, feelings, and fieldwork.” Translation & Interpreting 9 (1): 24–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hovy, Dirk, and Shrimai Prabhumoye
2021 “Five sources of bias in natural language processing.” Language and Linguistics Compass 15 (8): e12432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, Edwin
1995 Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, John E.
2018 Language, Mind and Body: A Conceptual History. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kool, V. K, and Rita Harnad
(eds.) 2016 Psychology of Technology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 “Bridging the epistemological gap: Issues in CTS knowledge application to training.” Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8 (2): 462–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2018 “Re-thinking translation quality: Revision in the digital age.” Target 30 (2): 310–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “Computer-Assisted Interpreting Technologies and Interpreter Cognition: A Product and Process-Oriented Perspective.” Tradumàtica 17: 33–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022 “Cognitive behavior during consecutive interpreting: Describing the notetaking process.” Translation & Interpreting 14 (2): 103–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b “Order effects in the translation process.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 1 (1): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 “Methodological considerations for survey research: Validity, reliability, and quantitative analysis.” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies 19: 172–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Nike K. Pokorn
2018 “Community interpreting, translation and technology.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 13 (3): 337–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menary, Richard
(ed.) 2012 The Extended Mind. MIT Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
2005a “Remote interpreting: Issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual task.” Meta 50 (2): 727–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005b “Remote interpreting: The crucial role of presence.” Bulletin VALS-ASLA 81: 73–97.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nurminen, Mary
2020 “Raw machine translation use by patent professionals: A case of distributed cognition.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 3 (1): 100–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Obler, Loraine K.
2012 “Conference interpreting as extreme language use.” International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (2): 177–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2012 “Translation as human–computer interaction.” Translation Spaces 1 (1): 101–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.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 25: 1–17.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
2005 “From operation to action: Process-orientation in interpreting studies.” Meta 50 (2): 682–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porlán Moreno, Rafael
2019 “The use of portable interpreting devices: An overview.” Tradumàtica 17: 45–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna
2014 “Translation process research as interaction research: From mental to socio-cognitive processes.” MonTI Special Issue – Minding Translation 1: 331–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, and Angela Dickinson
2009 “Translators as networkers: The role of virtual communities.” Hermes 42: 49–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, and Florian Windhager
2013 “Extended translation: A sociocognitive research agenda.” Target 25 (1): 33–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Douglas
2020 “Reframing translational norm theory through 4EA cognition.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 3 (1): 122–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rowlands, Mark
2010 The New Science of the Mind: From Extended Mind to Embodied Phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger
2010 “Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting.” Interpreting 12 (2): 214–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russo, Mariachiara, Bendazzoli, Claudio, and Bart Defrancq
(eds.) 2018 Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G.
2011 “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories – new models.” Interpreting 13 (2): 176–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Lawrence
(ed.) 2014 The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Lawrence, and Shannon Spaulding
2021 “Embodied cognition.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. Stanford. [URL]Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stachowiak-Szymczak, Katarzyna
2019 Eye Movements and Gestures in Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpreting. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, Elisabet, and Birgitta Englund Dimitrova
2021 “Turn-taking in dialogue interpreting: Coping with cognitive constraints.” Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8 (2): 328–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Phil
2016 HCI Redux: The Promise of Post-cognitive Interaction. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varela, Francisco J., Rosch, Elanor, and Evan Thompson
1991 The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winteringham, Sarah T.
2010 “The usefulness of ICTs in interpreting practice.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15: 87–99.Google Scholar
Xu, Ran
2018 “Corpus-based terminological preparation for simultaneous interpreting.” Interpreting 20 (1): 29–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, Klaus, and Sebastiano Gigliobianco
2018 “Present? Remote? Remotely present! New technological approaches to remote simultaneous conference interpreting.” In Interpreting and Technology, edited by Claudio Fantinuoli, 119–139. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar