Riccardo Moratto, Ph.D.

Media interpreting studies GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

We are seeking contributions to an edited volume focusing on the plurality of Media Interpreting (MI) studies from a global perspective over the last decade. This volume sets out to explore the most recent studies on MI from authoritative voices around the world.


MI, sometimes also referred to as broadcast interpreting, is a form of language transfer in the media (or audiovisual translation, in the broader sense) used primarily for live mass media broadcasts (Pöchhacker 2010). Over the last three decades, MI has received increasing attention from interpreting scholars (e.g., Kurz 1990). One of the reasons is that we live in an exceedingly globalized world and live mass media broadcasts are increasingly commonplace.


Radio interpreting was the first embodiment of MI. It all started back in the 1930s, when renowned conference interpreters such as André Kaminker and Hans Jacob interpreted speeches by Hitler in the simultaneous mode for French radio. Nowadays, MI includes numerous scenarios, modes, and modalities depending on the event and on the culture of the host country or region and several other factors. Certain broadcast stations prefer the consecutive mode to engage the interpreter in a triadic conversational exchange so that the interpreter becomes very much visible, malgré soi. The topic of visibility is indeed one of the research hot topics in MI studies.


Nowadays, numerous television stations actually have staff interpreters who work with press conferences, interviews, live reporting, and in-studio reporting. Media interpreters work in all forms of media: television, radio, and film. The largest demand for MI comes from the news arena. In the literature, MI has been defined as one of the most challenging, tiring, and demanding types of interpreting. Television MI involves simultaneous interpretation with no lag. The interpreter must exercise exceptionally fluent delivery, a trained and steady voice, a clear message, and the final rendition must be very much like dubbing. One can thus infer that parameters such as pleasant voice, flawless diction, and lack of accent are of the uttermost importance in MI, even more so, if possible, than in conference or community interpreting.


Over the last few decades, an increasing number of scholars researched MI. However, most efforts have been conducted amongst Western scholars. Our volume aims at uniting a plurality of diverse voices conducting research on MI in different countries and regions around the globe.


We believe that an international, dynamic, and interdisciplinary exploration of matters related to MI, including radio interpreting, TV interpreting, film interpreting, news interpreting, live talk-show interpreting, etc. will provide valuable insights for anyone who wishes to have a better understanding of the relationship between MI and the broader realm of Translation and Interpreting Studies, as well as the main challenges that media interpreters face. For this purpose, we especially welcome contributions, based on different research methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, corpus-based, case studies, etc.), including, but not limited to:


l  (In)visibility of interpreters in the media

l  Code of MI ethics

l  Culture in MI

l  Interactions and participation frameworks in MI

l  Interpreting at award ceremonies

l  Interpreting in live television coverage

l  Interpreting in mass media broadcasts

l  Media interpreters via phone

l  MI in different countries and regions

l  News interpreting

l  Phone interpreting

l  Physiological stress responses in MI

l  Radio interpreting

l  Role and responsibilities of media interpreters

l  Simultaneous film interpreting

l  Simultaneous interpreting for the media

l  Strategies used by media interpreters

l  Talk-show interpreting

l  Technical issues in MI

l  Television interpreting


For more information regarding our publisher please contact the editorial team. Please submit a 300-word abstract, to the following address:




You will receive notifications of acceptance of abstracts on or before January 15, 2021. If your proposal is accepted, you will be requested to submit a complete essay (approximately 8,000-10,000 words) by the end of June 2021. All manuscripts will be subject to a blind peer-review process before they are accepted for publication. More details on the paper submission process will be provided once your proposal has been accepted. For any further inquiries, please contact the editorial team at mintstud2021@gmail.com


Key deadlines:

-  Abstract submission: January 10, 2021

-  Initial confirmation with a title and an abstract: January 15, 2021

-  Submission of the first draft:  June 30, 2021 (approximately 8000-10,000 words.)

-  Expected publication date: Autumn 2021



Language: English


We look forward to receiving your submission.

Kind regards,


Riccardo Moratto (GDUFS)




Amalia, A.; Mack, G. (2011) Interpreting the Oscar Night on Italian TV: An interpreters' nightmare? Interpreters Newsletter 16:37-60.

Gile, D. (2011). “Errors, omissions and infelicities in broadcast interpreting: Preliminary findings from a case study.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild & Elisabet Tiselius (eds), 201-218. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kurz, I. (1990). “Overcoming language barriers in European television.” In Interpreting – Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, David Bowen & Margareta Bowen (eds), 168–175. Binghamton, NY: SUNY.

Kurz, I. (1996). “Special features of media interpreting as seen by interpreters and users.” In New Horizons. Proceedings of the XIVth World Congress of FIT, vol. 2, 957–965. Melbourne: AUSIT.

Kurz, I. (1997). “Getting the message across – Simultaneous interpreting for the media.” In Translation as Intercultural Communication, Mary Snell-Hornby, Zuzana Jettmarová & Klaus Kaindl (eds), 195–205. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kurz, I. (2002). “Physiological stress responses during media and conference interpreting.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities, Giuliana Garzone & Maurizio Viezzi (eds), 195–202. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Mack, G. (2002). “New perspectives and challenges for interpretation: The example of television.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities, Giuliana Garzone & Maurizio Viezzi (eds), 203–213. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Mizuno, A. (1997). “Broadcast interpreting in Japan.” In Conference Interpreting. Current Trends in Research, Yves Gambier, Daniel Gile & Christopher Taylor (eds), 192–194. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Pöchhacker, F. (2007). “Coping with culture in media interpreting.” Perspectives 15 (2): 123–142.

Pöchhacker, F. (2010). Media Interpreting. In: Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer (Eds.). Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 1, 224–226.

Russo, M. (2005). Simultaneous film interpreting and users’ feedback. Interpreting 7:1, 1–26

Straniero Sergio, F. (1999). “The interpreter on the (talk)show: Interaction and participation framework.” The Translator 5 (2): 303–326.

Wadensjö, C. (2008) “In and off the show: Co-constructing ‘invisibility’ in an interpreter-mediated talk show interview.” Meta 53 (1): 184–203.