I am happy to share a new edited volume in Linguistica Antverpiensia entitled Machine and Computer-Assisted Interpreting, which I co-edited with Prof. Xinchao Lu from Beijing Foreign Studies University.
The volume is published in open access form — as, in my view, every publication in such a niche domain as interpreting should be. I will therefore not focus on the open-access issue itself: you can simply open the page and read the book. Just let me stress that all papers are in my opinion very valuable and represent a useful contribution to the corpus of knowledge we have in the area. Instead of going into them, I would like to share a few broader and personal reflections on the volume and on what it may signal for Interpreting Studies (link to introductory chapter and 7 papers: https://lans-tts.uantwerpen.be/index.php/LANS-TTS/issue/view/26)
Our call for contributions explicitly addressed the humanities rather than computer science. The goal was to bring together the two most influential forces shaping what I named the “technological turn” in interpreting: augmentation and automation (the third being remote interpreting).
Yet the final distribution of published papers (seven on computer-assisted interpreting, only two on machine interpreting) suggests that Interpreting Studies still struggles to see machine interpreting as an equally interesting object of inquiry. The field remains largely anchored in a uniquely interpreter-centred perspective. The fact that only two papers are dedicated to automation—arguably the most impactful technological development for the interpreting ecosystem—reveals the current stance of much interpreting research. Even allowing for the inevitable delay introduced by editorial processes, the field still appears to struggle to move beyond an interpreter-centred perspective, at a time when AI should be approached as another—increasingly capable—actor in multilingual communication My hope is that Interpreting Studies will increasingly embrace this turn. Let’s touch base again by 2030 (a key date for many aspects in my opinion).
A striking feature of the volume is that most contributions — including those ultimately published — have a strong Asian background. I believe there is considerable momentum in Asia in Translation and Interpreting Studies, and within that, a strong interest in new technologies. There may well be cultural factors at play — and here I speak cautiously and intuitively — but Asian academic contexts often appear more open to innovation, while Western academia can be more cautious or sceptical. Moreover, the discipline is comparatively younger in many Asian contexts, and thus less strongly shaped by a long-standing, exclusively human-agent focus.
One limitation of the volume — and one that reflects a broader trend in Interpreting Studies and Technology — is that computer-assisted interpreting research remains overwhelmingly focused on conference interpreting. Once again, we are largely missing what is arguably the area of greatest societal impact: public service and non-professional interpreting (read here an article about this point). I maintain this is my strongest critique to the discipline (and also to myself).
Why is this the case? I suspect there are two main reasons. First, although conference interpreting is arguably the least socially impactful form of interpreting (if nothing because its marginal in numbers), it remains the most prestigious, including in academic contexts. Many scholars in Interpreting Studies have traditionally focused on conference interpreting, and this legacy continues to shape research agendas. Second — and perhaps more provocatively — there is a certain reluctance to venture into less explored territory. Using ASR in conference interpreting is a “safe” research choice, partly because others have already done it. What we need are bolder ideas. Newer ideas. Impactful ideas. Ideas that are worth exploring.
All in all, my wish for the future is threefold:
- firstly, and most importantly, to engage with machine interpreting as a new agent of multilingual oral communication — an area to which Interpreting Studies has much to contribute;
- secondly, to move beyond an exclusive focus on conference interpreting and address public service interpreting more seriously, given its far greater societal relevance;
- to be bolder in exploring and testing new ideas. This is what the safe space of academia should stand for.