Cameroonian interpreters’ attitude to technology
Keywords:
Conference interpreting, interpreting, technology, technology acceptanceAbstract
Conference interpreting, like many other professions, has been impacted by developments in ICTs. From its modest beginnings in the 1920s, where the most sophisticated equipment was a telephone, interpreting today employs state-of-the-art technology for ease and efficiency. Despite these advancements, there are mixed feelings on the trend. While some see these ICT tools as aids, others view them as threats or sources of laziness and inefficiency. Many still discourage the use of computers in class today for example. This influences how the tool is subsequently accepted and used. This study aimed generally to investigate the rate of acceptance and use of ICTs in conference interpreting in Cameroon and to explain how knowledge of and competence in ICTs can help conference interpreters perform better. Data collected from questionnaires, interviews, observation and documents were triangulated in a mixed method and analysed statistically for valid results. Findings showed that, computers and information and communication technologies (ICTs) have radically changed the way interpreters perform their duties. Also, the use of ICTs varies considerably in terms of age, gender and type of interpreter. While all professions are affected by this new development at varying degrees, the interpretation profession is affected as there are assignments that can almost completely be carried out with automated systems. It was recommended that training institutions should rework their syllabi to suit the needs of contemporary times.
References
AIIC. (2012a). “Code for the Use of New Technologies in Conference Interpretation”. www.aiic.net. Accessed Jan 2025.
AIIC. (2012b). “Guidelines for Remote Conferencing”. www.aiic.net. Accessed Jan 2025.
Atril. (2013). “Glossary”. http://www.atril.com/technology/glossary.asp.
Austermühl, F. (2001). Electronic Tools for Translators. Manchester, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: St. Jerome Publishing.
Baigorri-Jalón, J. (2004). Interpreters at the United Nations: A History. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
Biau, G., J. Ramón and A. Pym. (2006). “Technology and translation (a pedagogical overview)”. In Translation Technology and its Teaching, A. Pym, A. Perekrestenko and B. Starink (eds). http://isg.urv.es/library/papers/BiauPym_Technology.pdf. Accessed on 10 March 2025.
Bowen, M., D. Bowen, F. Kaufman, and I. Kurz. (1995). “Interpreters and the making of history”. In Translators through history, J. Deslile and J. Woodsworth (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 245–277.
Bühler, H. (1986). “Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters”. Multilingua 5 (4): 231–235.
Burger, P. and Zatlina, P. (1989). “Using technology in the teaching of interpretation”. In Coming of age: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, D.L. Hammond (ed). Medford, NJ: Learned Information. 91–96.
Carabelli, A. (1999). “Multimedia technologies for the use of interpreters and translators”. The interpreters’ newsletter 9: 149–155.
Cervato, E. and D. de Ferra. (1995). “Interpr-it: A Computerised Self-Access Course for Beginners in Interpreting”. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 2: 191–204.
Cordero, A. (1994). “The role of the university in the professionalization of the translators”. In Professional Issues for Translators and Interpreters, D. Hammond (ed). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 171–179.
Cronin, M. (2003). Translation and Globalization. London and New York: Routledge.
De Manuel Jerez, J. (ed). (2003a). Nuevas tecnologías y formación de intérpretes. Granada: Atrio.
De Manuel Jerez, J. (2003b). “¿Cambian las nuevas tecnologías la formación de intérpretes?” In Panorama actual de la investigación en traducción e interpretación (2 volumes), E. Ortega Arjonilla (ed). Granada: Editorial Atrio.
Esteban Causo, José A. (1997). “Interpretación de conference et nouvelles technologies”. Terminologie et traduction – revue des services linguistiques des Institutions européennes 3: 112–120.
Esteban Causo, José A. (2003). “La interpretación en el siglo XXI: desafíos para los profesionales y los profesores de interpretación”. In Nuevas Tecnologías y Formación de Intérpretes, J. de Manuel Jerez (coord). Granada: Editorial Atrio. 143–185.
Gile, D. (1990). “L’évaluation de la qualité de l’interprétation par les délégués: une étude de cas”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 3: 66–71.
Gile, D. (2000). “Opportunities in Conference Interpreting Research”. In Investigating translation, A. Beeby, D. Ensinger, and M. Presas. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 77–90.
Hutchins, W. J. (2006). Machine translation: a concise history. www.hutchinsweb.me.uk/CUHK-2006.pdf. Accessed June 2024.
Internet World Stats. (2013). http://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm.
Jekat, S. and A. Klein. (1996). “Machine interpretation. Open problems and some solutions”. Interpreting 1(1): 7–20.
Kalina, S. (2009). “Dolmetschen im Wandel – neue Technologien als Chance oder Risiko”. In Übersetzen in die Zukunft. Herausforderungen der Globalisierung für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer. Tagungsband der internationalen Fachkonferenz des Bundesverbandes der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer e.V. (BDÜ), Berlin, 11.–13. September 2009. W. Baur, S. Kalina, F. Mayer, and J. Witzel (eds). Berlin: BDÜ, 393–401.
Kies, D. (2007). “Concordancer”. The HyperText Books. Glen Ellyn, Illinois: College of DuPage, Department of English. http://papyr.com/applets/concordancer/.
Lang, A. (2009). “WebInterpret – Simultan dolmetschen online”. In Übersetzen in die Zukunft. Herausforderungen der Globalisierung für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer. Tagungsband der internationalen Fachkonferenz des Bundesverbandes der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer e.V. (BDÜ), Berlin, 11.–13. September 2009. W. Baur, S. Kalina, F. Mayer, J. Witzel (eds). Berlin: BDÜ, 401–411.
Mertz, D. (2001). “Charming Python: Developing a full text indexer in Python”. developerWorks – IBM’s resource for developers. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-pyind.html. Accessed June 2023.
Messina, A. (2002). “Quality research and quality standards in interpreting: the state of the art”. In Perspectives on interpreting, G. Garzone, P. Mead, M. Viezzi (eds). Bologna: CLUEB. 103–109.
Moser-Mercer, B. (2005a). “Remote Interpreting: Issues of Multi-Sensory Integration in a Multilingual Task”. Meta 50 (2): 727–728.
Moser-Mercer, B. (2005b). “Remote interpreting: The crucial role of presence”. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée 81: 73–97.
Mouzourakis, P. (2006). “Remote interpreting: A technical perspective on recent experiments”. Interpreting 8(1): 45–66.
Proteus. (2013). “Bitext Maps and Alignment”. http://nlp.cs.nyu.edu/bma/index.html.
SDL Trados. (2007). SDL Trados 2007. http://www.sdl.com/en/products/products-index/sdl-trados.
Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous Interpretation: a cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stoll, C. (2002). “Dolmetschen und neue Technologien”. In Übersetzen und Dolmetschen in Praxis und Lehre, J. Best and S. Kalina (eds). Tübingen: UTB Francke. 1–8.
Swabey, P. (2013). “The death of the (open) Internet”. Information Age May 2008. www.information-age.com/magazine/may-2008/departments/329056/the-death-of-the-open-internet.html.
Tommola, J. (2003). “Estimating the transfer of semantic information in interpreting”. In La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación, A. Collados Aís, M. Fernández Sánchez, and D. Gile (eds). Granada: Editorial Comares. 125–146.
Torres del Rey, Jesús. 2005. La interfaz de la traducción. Formación de traductores y nuevas tecnologías. Granada: Comares.
UNESCO. 2000. “El boom mundial de los medios de comunicación”. El Correo de la Unesco. 2000 (02). http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_02/sp/dossier/txt02.htm. Accessed June 2013.
Vuorikoski, A-R. (1998). “User Responses to Simultaneous Interpreting”. In Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies, L. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny, and J. Pearson (eds). Manchester: St. Jerome. 187–194.
Vuorikoski, A-R. (2004). A Voice of its Citizens or a Modern Tower of Babel? – The Quality of Interpreting as a Function of Political Rhetoric in the European Parliament. Academic Dissertation, Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 985 and Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 317. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere, School of Languages and Translation Studies.
Weber, M. (1968). On Charisma and Institution Building. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Wordfast. (2013). Solutions for Translators, LSPs/Agencies, Corporations, Educational Institutions. http://www.wordfast.com.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 EPASA MOTO
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
