Plenary speakers

​​

We are pleased to announce that ​the following speakers have accepted to give a plenary talk:

 

               Rhona M. Amos                                                Esther de Boe                                            Raphael Sannholm

            University of Geneva                                         University of Antwerp                                          Tampere University

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​​​

​You will find the abstracts of their plenary talks below.

​

​​

​

​

Empirical process research has often focused on small elements of the interpreting or translation process without reference to a broad framework that considers the cognition of practitioners and their interlocutors, and how they interact in context (López & Muñoz-Martin, 2022). It is true that empirical research often has a narrow focus on identifying the presence or absence of an effect in an object of study. Mixed-method approaches have regularly been suggested as a better way of grasping the bigger picture in Interpreting Studies (e.g., Pöchhacker, 2004). In this presentation, I will, however, focus on why, with well-defined theoretical underpinnings, rigorous empirical studies can make a clear contribution to understanding the fundamental processes that take place as we interpret, and why this fundamental understanding is essential as we try to see the bigger picture.  

 

Certain basic assumptions are often implicit in cognitive translation and interpreting studies (Halverson, 2020). I will discuss two such assumptions. First, I will consider the assumption that comprehension, language switching, and production are separate steps (e.g., Moser-Mercer, 1978) or tasks (e.g., Gile, 2009; Seeber, 2011) in a modular interpreting process, and explain how this view continues to be implicitly adopted by studies that focus on language interference and language control in simultaneous interpreting. Second, I will review the influential assumption that there is a dichotomy between a semantically-mediated and a non-semantically-mediated route to interpretation (e.g., Paradis, 1994, Seleskovitch & Lederer, 1989) by discussing data and theories from psycholinguistics that show that meaning is routinely accessed during comprehension but that cross-linguistic activation and priming regularly takes place in bi- and multilingual settings.  

 

I will then discuss how psycholinguistics methods, in particular eye-tracking in the visual world paradigm, but also recall and priming tasks, can be used to tap into the synergy between comprehension and production by using both comprehension-based and production-based measures. For instance, eye-tracking in the visual-world paradigm has demonstrated that people predict upcoming words during simultaneous interpreting – be they professional interpreters or translators (Amos, Seeber & Pickering, 2022), interpreting students (Amos, Seeber & Pickering, 2023) or untrained bilinguals (Amos, Corps & Pickering, in prep). This shows that, with or without training, people access meaning while simultaneously interpreting. I will also explain how we can use psycholinguistics methods to examine the synergy between comprehension and production, and between the semantically-mediated and non-semantically-mediated routes in interpreting. 

 

Viewing the process of interpreting through this new lens has implications for CTIS as a whole, allowing us to conceive of empirical studies that help build a more profound understanding of what it is we human translators and interpreters do. We live in a time when English is increasingly used as a lingua franca, and AI technologies are being touted not just to assist, but also to replace language professionals (Pöchhacker & Liu, 2024). In these shifting winds, an understanding of what we do as we process language provides a strong foundation upon which to practice, and teach, translation and interpreting, as well as a vantage point from which to look to the future of our profession. 

​

References

 

Amos, R. M., Corps, R. E., & Pickering, M. J. (2025). Prediction during simultaneous interpreting: Evidence for a two-stage account. [Manuscript revised and resubmitted]. Department of Interpreting, University of Geneva 

​​​

Amos, R. M., Seeber, K. G., & Pickering, M. J. (2022). Prediction during simultaneous interpreting: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Cognition, 220, 104987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104987 

​

Amos, R. M., Seeber, K. G., & Pickering, M. J. (2023). Student interpreters predict meaning while simultaneously interpreting-even before training. Interpreting, 25(2), 211-238. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00093.amo 

​

Gile, D. (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. John Benjamins Publishing. 

​

Halverson, S. L. (2020). Translation, linguistic commitment and cognition. In F. Alves & A. Jakobsen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 37-51). Routledge. 

​

López, A. M. R., & Martín, R. M. (2022). Translation process research. In F. Zanettin & C. Rundle (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and methodology (pp. 356-372). Routledge. 

​

Moser, B. (1978). Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application. In D. Gerver & H.​ W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language, Interpretation and Communication (pp. 353-368). Plenum Press. 

​

Paradis, M. (1994). Towards a neurolinguistic theory of simultaneous translation: The framework. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 10, 319-335 

​

Pöchhacker, F. (2011). Researching interpreting: Approaches to inquiry. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action (pp. 5-26). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 

​

Pöchhacker, F., & Liu, M. (2024). Interpreting technologized: Distance and assistance. Interpreting, 26(2), 157-177. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00112.poc 

​

Seeber, K. G. (2011). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories - new models. Interpreting, 13(2), 176-204. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see 

​

Seleskovitch, D., and Lederer, M. (1989). Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation [Reasoned pedagogy of interpretation]. Didier Érudition. 

​​​

​

​

​

​

Real-time communication is increasingly supported and mediated by technology or even produced by generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). Real-time communication between citizens and public institutions, for instance, may take place via telephone or video link, via digital tools such as chat conversations, or in a blended way that combines digital communication tools and face-to-face contact. When there are language barriers between the communication partners, mediation can be provided by professional interpreters, who can participate face-to-face or via distance interpreting. Alternatively, automated language mediation such as machine translation (MT) or GenAI can be used, and combined with other digital communication tools.  

​

In public services in particular, real-time communication between professionals and foreign-speaking citizens is increasingly mediated by raw or unedited MT (do Carmo, 2025). With the entry of non-expert users to the domains of translation and interpreting (T&I), the complexity of T&I processes is often reduced to their rudimentary function of sole linguistic transfer (Hsieh & Ma, 2024), based on the illusion of complete and transparent equivalence between languages. At the same time – contrary to such oversimplification of T&I processes in the public opinion –, in the professional field, a growing complexity and hybridity of T&I activities is observed. This is demonstrated, for example, by the advance of live speech-to-text interpreting, computer-assisted interpreting using full-text transcriptions of oral discourse, and interception interpreting (legal translation/interpreting from audio to text). These developments render real-time communication in professional contexts – whether mediated by professional interpreters or translators, or by raw MT and GenAI in the hands of lay users – highly multimodal and cognitively complex.  

​

In addition, traditional dividing lines are being dissolved not only within translation and interpreting, but also between T&I and other communicative practices. This is also reflected in adaptations of T&I curricula, where some institutions (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) are merging master’s programmes in translation and interpreting to develop more all-round curricula, geared towards multilingualism and interculturality. 

​​

One way of regaining control of “our” domains is to apply our T&I expertise for the benefit of non-professional users of MT and GenAI. According to Bowker (2025, p. 61), the T&I community can play an important role in enhancing MT literacy among lay users by explaining to them how MT functions, what possible risks the use of MT implies and what strategies can be used to mitigate these risks. This is particularly relevant in scenarios where language mediation or post-editing by T&I professionals cannot be employed for pragmatic reasons, such as real-time chat support or medical emergencies. 

​

In this presentation, I will explore the evolving multimodal and hybrid character of T&I activities, thereby demonstrating the need for studies that investigate how humans cognitively interact with multimodality and technology. I will also present a concrete example of how T&I expertise can be applied to improve MT literacy of non-professional users in public services where the employment of T&I professionals is not feasible for practical constraints.  

​

References

​

Bowker, L. (2025). Risks for Lay Users in Machine Translation and Machine Translation Literacy. In E. Monzó-Nebot & V. Tasa-Fuster (Eds.), The Social Impact of Automating Translation: An Ethics of Care Perspective on Machine Translation, (pp. 60–76). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003465522-4 

​​

do Carmo, F. (2025). Evidence Review Report on the Use of AI for Multilingual Communication in Public Services: With a Specific Focus on the NHS. CTS, University of Surrey. https://doi.org/10.15126/901630. ​

​

Hsieh, E. & Ma, X. (2024). Healthcare Interpreting as a Socially Contextualized Activity. In S. Tyulenev & W. Luo (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Sociology (pp. 276–291). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003340843 

​

​​

​

​

​

Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies (CTIS) research increasingly steers its focus towards empirical settings and situations that involve multiple actors operating in technology-laden settings. As units of analysis are redefined from individual language professionals and students in laboratory settings to constellations of language professionals in authentic public- and private-sector workplace settings, useful methodological and theoretical approaches are consequently sought. Considerable development for the investigation and modelling of situated translatorial cognition has taken place in recent years, both theoretically (e.g., Muñoz, 2010; Risku, 2002, 2010; Risku & Windhager, 2013; Risku et al., 2013; Sannholm & Risku, 2024) and methodologically (e.g., Hirvonen, 2025; Korhonen & Hirvonen, 2021; Risku, 2017; Risku et al., 2022; Sannholm 2025). 

​

In my talk, I will first discuss how one member of the situated approaches family (Risku & Rogl, 2020), the theory of Distributed Cognition (Hutchins, 1995, 2006) and its associated methodology cognitive ethnography, can inform research into translatorial cognition in real-life workplace settings. Distributed Cognition posits three main ways in which the distribution of cognitive processes may take place, all of which draw our attention to social interaction, human-technology interactions, and cultural practices: cognitive processes may be distributed between members of social groups, between actors and material artifacts, and across time (Hollan et al., 2000). Drawing on these tenets, I will discuss how activities in translation workplaces can be approached analytically, suggesting potentially useful complementary conceptualisations. I will also discuss what workplace studies of distributed cognition may involve in terms of data collection methods and the data produced by their use. 

​

In the second part of the talk, I will present my ongoing research project, Institutional Translating Systems (TRAILS), funded by the European Commission (2025–2027) under Horizon Europe and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) (Grant agreement ID: 101205545), on workplace communication and technology use at the European Parliament. Using cognitive ethnographic fieldwork and multimodal interaction analysis of audio-visual data, TRAILS aims to explore and model distributed cognition in institutional translation, and I will show and discuss empirical examples and emerging analyses of multimodal interaction in the workplace. 

​

References

​

Hirvonen, M. (2025). Shared cognition in the translation process: information processing and meaning production as interactive accomplishments. Translation Studies, 18(1), 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2023.2267050 

​

Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Towards a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM transactions on computer-human interaction, 7(2), 174–196. https://doi.org/10.1145/353485.353487 

​

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press. 

​

Hutchins, E. (2006). The distributed cognition perspective on human interaction. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality. Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 375–398). Routledge. 

​

Korhonen, A. & Hirvonen, M. (2021). Joint creative process in translation: socially distributed cognition in two production contexts. Cognitive linguistic studies, 8(2), 251–276. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00078.kor

​

Muñoz Martín, R. (2010). On paradigms and cognitive translatology. In G. Shreve & E. Angelone, Translation and Cognition (pp. 169–187). John Benjamins. 

​

Risku, H. (2002). Situatedness in translation studies. Cognitive systems research, 3(3), 523–533. 

​

Risku, H. (2010). A cognitive scientific view on technical communication and translation. Do embodiment and situatedness really make a difference? Target, 22(1), 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22.1.06ris 

​

Risku, H. (2017). Ethnographies of translation and situated cognition. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 290–310). Wiley-Blackwell. 

​

Risku, H., Hirvonen, M., Rogl R., & Milošević, J. (2022). Ethnographic research. In F. Zanettin & C. Rundle (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and methodology (pp. 324–339). Routledge. 

​

Risku, H. & Rogl, R. (2020). Translation and situated, embodied, distributed, embedded, and extended cognition. In F. Alves & A. Lykke Jakobsen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 478–499). Routledge. 

​

Risku, H., & Windhager, F. (2013). Extended translation. A socio-cognitive research agenda. Target, 25(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.04ris 

​

Risku, H., Windhager, F. & Apfelthaler, M. (2013). A dynamic network model of translatorial cognition and action. Translation spaces 2, 151–182. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.2.08ris 

​

Sannholm, R. (2025). Co-constructing cognitive artifacts in the translation workplace. In R. Rogl, D. Schlager, & H. Risku (Eds.), Field Research in Translation and Interpreting (pp. 200–225). John Benjamins.  

​

Sannholm, R. & Risku, H. (2024). Situated minds and distributed systems in translation. Exploring the conceptual and empirical implications. Target, 36(2), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22172.san 

 

TRAILS on the web: https://www.tuni.fi/en/research/translating-institutional-systems-trails  ​​​​​