Issue 12 – July 2026Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to TextISSN: 2336-9884 doi: 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The AuthorMapping the Global Landscape of Translation and Conference Interpreting Curric­ula: Trends, Modules, and Professional AlignmentYassine El Rhaffouli1, King Fahd School of Translation, Tangier, MoroccoAbstract: This paper maps the global landscape of translation and conference interpreting curricula across 74 university programs spanning 27 countries. Drawing on Danica Seleskovitch's theory of rationalized pedagogy, the review analyzes how contemporary programs structure competencies, integrate technology, and position themselves relative to professional frameworks such as the European Master's in Translation (EMT) network and the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) standards. Guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocols, data were extracted from official institutional web pages for all 74 programs and coded using an inductive-deduc­tive thematic framework. Findings reveal five core curriculum archetypes: (1) research-oriented academic programs, (2) pro­fessionally oriented conference interpreting programs, (3) combined translation-and-interpreting programs, (4) community/signed-language interpreting specializations, and (5) technology-integrated localization tracks. Translation theory and prac­tice, consecutive and simultaneous interpreting, and research methods emerge as near-universal modules (present in ≥ 80% of programs). Technology integration, including computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools, machine translation post-editing, and, more recently, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), is a rapidly growing trend, most pronounced in Western European and North American institutions. Keywords: translation and interpreting pedagogy, translation and interpreting curricula, curriculum design, systematic re- view, technology in translation and interpreting curricula1. IntroductionTranslation and conference interpreting programs represent one of the most rapidly evolving sectors within higher education, situated at the intersection of Translation Studies, a discipline with its own ob­jects of study, methodologies, and epistemological foundations (Holmes 1972; Bassnett 1980; Snell-Hornby 1988), and the broader applied dimension of language and communication training. While Translation Studies shares historical roots with applied linguistics, it has long established its indepen­dence as a field, a process consolidated through foundational disciplinary interventions (Venuti 1995) and sustained through its ongoing interdisciplinary expansion (Snell-Hornby 2006). The proliferation of professional master's programs, undergraduate certificates, and specialized postgraduate tracks over the past three decades reflects the growing demand for qualified language mediators across interna­tional organizations, government bodies, the private sector, and civil society. Yet, despite this institu­tional growth, systematic comparative analyses of how programs are structured, what modules are taught, and how pedagogical philosophies are enacted in curricula remain scarce. This review ad­dresses that gap.Danica Seleskovitch's landmark work “Pédagogie raisonnée de l'interprétation” (Seleskovitch 1989/2002) remains the most theoretically coherent and pedagogically actionable framework in inter­preting education to date. Her interpretive theory—anchored in the concepts of deverbalization (the 1ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2601-7201, email: yassine.elrhaffouli@etu.uae.ac.ma.3

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The Authorshedding of source-language form in favor of non-verbalized cognitive meaning), the triangular inter­preting process (comprehension → non-verbalized sense → re-expression), and the importance of world knowledge alongside linguistic competence—provides the analytical lens through which this re­view examines how programs construct, sequence, and assess their learning outcomes. Seleskovitch's approach explicitly rejected word-for-word code-substitution in favor of a communicative, sense-based model of interpreting, an approach that has profound implications for how we should design curricula, sequence skills development, and integrate emerging technologies.Against this theoretical backdrop, two professional reference frameworks provide normative bench­marks for curriculum evaluation. The European Master's in Translation (EMT) competence framework (European Commission 2022) articulates five domains—language and culture, translation, technology, personal and interpersonal, and service provision—that collectively define professional translator com­petence. The International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC 2023) sets standards for con­ference interpreting practice and training, with particular emphasis on language proficiency, world knowledge, and booth technique. Where programs explicitly reference or align with these frameworks, this review notes the alignment.The specific research objectives of this systematic review are five in number. First, this review maps the global landscape of translation and interpreting teaching across the 74 sampled programs, characteriz­ing the population by region, degree level, language combination, institutional type, and accreditation status. Second, it identifies the core modules that sit at the intersection of the reviewed programs—that is, modules present in the greatest proportion of programs globally. Third, it describes current trends in technology integration, including remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI), computer-assisted translation and terminology management tools, automatic speech recognition (ASR), and large language model/generative artificial intelligence usage. Fourth, it identifies patterns of course offerings and how these patterns vary by local context, including region, language market, accreditation status, and institutional type. Fifth, it analyzes curriculum design models, with particular attention to structure, credit distribution, sequencing, assessment, and the presence or absence of practicum and internship components.These objectives are addressed through a systematic, mixed-methods analysis of publicly available curriculum data from 74 programs worldwide—data collected from the universities' official websites, as described in the Method section. The theoretical contribution of this review lies in demonstrating how Seleskovitch's foundational distinctions between linguistic code and communicative sense can and should function as organizing principles for modern curriculum design, even—and especially—in an era of technological transformation.2. Literature Review2.1. The History and Development of Interpreter and Translator Training ProgramsThe history of formal training in translation and interpreting is marked by distinct yet converging institu­tional trajectories. While informal apprenticeship models for translators date to antiquity, university-level translator education as a structured curricular enterprise began to take shape only in the mid-twentieth century, often embedded within foreign language or comparative literature departments rather than as freestanding programs (Delisle & Woodsworth 1995). Interpreter training has an even more com­pressed institutional history: professional conference interpreting emerged as a recognized discipline in the aftermath of the Nuremberg Trials (1945–1946), which saw the first systematic use of simultaneous interpreting on an international stage (Gaiba 1998). The first university-level interpreting programs — at 4

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The AuthorGeneva, Paris, and Heidelberg — were established in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and these Euro­pean institutions long dominated the field. The gradual professionalization of both fields was further consolidated in 1953, when the Fédération Internationale des Traducteurs (FIT) and the Association Internationale des Interprètes de Conférence (AIIC) were each founded, providing external normative frameworks that would influence curricula for decades (AIIC 2023).From the 1970s onward, both fields expanded geographically and developed into recognized areas of scholarly inquiry. The publication of Holmes’s (1972/1988) programmatic map of Translation Studies, Bassnett’s (1980) disciplinary manifesto, and Snell-Hornby’s (1988) integrated approach established theoretical scaffolding within which curriculum design could be meaningfully debated. Translation pro­grams proliferated in North America (Baker, 2011), while Asia witnessed the establishment of specialist schools in Beijing, Seoul, and Tokyo beginning in the 1980s (Li 2001). The post-Cold War period brought an additional wave of programs across Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East, such that by the 2020s, translation and interpreting had become a globally distributed dis­cipline with over 200 degree-granting programs identifiable worldwide (González Davies 2004; Pöch­hacker 2016).Competence modeling became the dominant paradigm for curriculum design in both translator and in­terpreter training during the 2000s and 2010s. In translator education, the PACTE group’s empirically grounded model (PACTE 2003) and the European Master’s in Translation (EMT) competence frame­work (European Commission 20092022; revised 2017) provided benchmarks that shaped program de­sign across European and non-European institutions alike. The Bologna Process of the late 1990s and early 2000s further catalyzed structural harmonization, promoting competence-based outcomes across member states (Kiraly 2000). Hurtado Albir (2015) subsequently synthesized these developments into a comprehensive pedagogical framework representing the most systematic curricular mapping of trans­lator training to date. In interpreter training, Gile (2009) offered one of the earliest programmatic analy­ses, examining how cognitive load theory might inform curriculum sequencing, while Sawyer (2004) an­alyzed the relationship between research and practice in conference interpreter training. The edited vol­ume by Tennent (2005) brought together perspectives from multiple training institutions, though without a systematic comparative framework.More recently, the integration of computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools and, subsequently, neural machine translation (NMT) and post-editing workflows has introduced a further technological dimension to translator training curricula (O’Brien 2012; Doherty & and Kenny 2014; García 2009), foregrounding questions about the evolving boundaries of translator competence in digitally mediated professional en­vironments. These technological shifts have begun to reshape interpreter training as well, with technol­ogy-enhanced and remote interpreting modalities increasingly finding their way into program design.2.2. Competence Frameworks in Translation and Interpreting EducationThe past two decades have seen a significant shift toward competence-based approaches to curricu­lum design in translation and interpreting education. The PACTE group's competence model (Hurtado Albir 2015) identifies five sub-competencies for translators: bilingual, extralinguistic, knowledge of translation, instrumental, and strategic competence. The EMT competence framework (European Commission 2022) reorganizes these into five domains and has become the normative reference for programs in the European Higher Education Area and beyond. Nineteen programs in the present sam­ple are explicit EMT network members, and their curricula show distinctive structural features that this review documents.5

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The AuthorFor interpreting specifically, the most influential competence framework remains the AIIC code of pro­fessional ethics and training recommendations (AIIC 2023), though these are prescriptive of practice rather than pedagogically elaborated. Pöchhacker (2016) has synthesized the interpreting studies liter­ature into a comprehensive competence model that distinguishes language competence, domain knowledge, processing competence, and interactive competence. Kalina (2005) added a research-process dimension. Nord's (1997) text-analytical approach provides a complementary framework for translators that has been adapted for interpreter training. None of these frameworks, however, achieves the pedagogical specificity of Seleskovitch's raisonnée approach, which not only defines competencies but prescribes their developmental sequence.2.3. Technology Integration in Translation and Interpreting CurriculaThe integration of technology into translation and interpreting curricula has accelerated sharply since the mid-2010s. O'Brien (2012) identified CAT tools—translation memories, terminology management systems, and alignment tools—as having become near-universal in professional translation workflows, a reality that curricula had been slow to reflect. By the early 2020s, the widespread adoption of neural machine translation (NMT) post-editing (MTPE) introduced a further pedagogical challenge: how to train students not merely to use technology, but to critically evaluate and post-edit machine-generated output (Doherty & and Kenny 2014; Kenny 2020).Generative AI and large language models represent the latest disruption. As Kenny (2022) and others have noted, ChatGPT and related systems can produce translation-like output that challenges tradi­tional human-in-the-loop workflows. The pedagogical response has been uneven. Some programs—as this review documents—have moved rapidly to integrate GenAI literacy into their curricula; others have adopted a wait-and-see approach. For interpreting specifically, the emergence of ASR-based live tran­scription and real-time AI interpreting tools (such as Interprefy and KUDO) has introduced the concept of AI-assisted or AI-augmented interpreting, with implications for the role of the human interpreter and for how interpreting programs should position their graduates (Fantinuoli 2018; Mellinger & and Hanson 2020).The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI) plat­forms. Programs at Heriot-Watt University, Macquarie University, the Middlebury Institute of Interna­tional Studies, and others moved interpreting practicum activities to platforms such as Interprefy, KUDO, and Zoom, a transition that has had lasting curricular effects (Mouzourakis 2006; Roziner & and Shlesinger 2010). This review provides the first systematic documentation of the extent and depth of RSI integration across a global program sample.2.4. Systematic Reviews of Language and Translation CurriculaSystematic reviews of language and translation program curricula have been limited in number and scope. González Davies (2004) surveyed 45 European translation programs using a questionnaire-based approach, finding significant variation in module offerings and philosophical orientations. Hur­tado Albir (2015) conducted a more focused review of Spanish-language programs. The OPTIMALE project (Kearns 2012) surveyed European translation educators using structured questionnaires and produced comparative data on program structure and professional orientation. No prior systematic re­view has encompassed the geographic scope, methodological rigor, or theoretical elaboration of the present study.6

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The AuthorIt is worth noting that the literature on interpreting pedagogy is considerably thinner than the corre­sponding literature on translation. As Pöchhacker (2016) has observed, conference interpreter training has historically been conducted within a practitioner-led, apprenticeship model that resisted formaliza­tion and scholarly scrutiny. This review therefore constitutes a contribution to an underserved area of research, with the Seleskovitch (1978) framework providing a theoretically grounded basis for analysis that the existing literature has not systematically exploited.3. Method3.1. Data SourcesThe primary dataset for this review comprises 74 DOCX files, each containing publicly available curricu­lum information extracted from the official websites of 74 universities. Data were collected from the uni­versities' official websites and all data are publicly available. The 74 programs span 27 countries across six continents and represent a purposive, diverse sample that includes flagship research universities, specialist interpreting schools, liberal arts colleges, and polytechnic institutions. The sample encom­passes programs at the undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate certificate levels. Table 1 below provides a summary of the dataset by region.RegionN%Country ExamplesWestern Europe2837.8%Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United KingdomAsia-Pacific1418.9%Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South KoreaNorth America1317.6%Canada, United States of AmericaAustralia / Oceania79.5%Australia, New ZealandEastern Europe / Balkans34.1%Cyprus, Slovenia, TurkeyMiddle East / Levant22.7%LebanonAfrica00.0%—Latin America00.0%—Mixed/Cross-regional79.5%Malta, Maribor (Slovenia), variousTotal74100.0%27 countriesTable 1 Summary of the Programs Grouped by Region3.2. Inclusion and Exclusion CriteriaPrograms were included in the review if they (a) offered formal credit-bearing instruction in translation and/or interpreting at any degree level (undergraduate certificate, bachelor's, master's, or doctoral), (b) had publicly accessible curriculum information on an official university website at the time of data collec­tion, and (c) were hosted at an accredited degree-granting institution. Programs were excluded if they 7

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The Author(a) offered only short non-credit professional development courses, (b) had no publicly accessible mod­ule-level information, or (c) were purely language programs without a translation or interpreting compo­nent. All 74 files in the present dataset met the inclusion criteria. No programs were excluded after data extraction; however, three files (Auburn University, Miami Dade College, and Western Oregon Univer­sity) provided only certificate-level program information without full module descriptions, and these are noted where relevant in the analysis.3.3. Analytical StrategyThe analytical strategy was mixed-methods, combining quantitative descriptive and inferential analysis with qualitative thematic analysis. Quantitative analyses included frequency distributions and cross-tab­ulations for all categorical variables; chi-square tests for associations between regional location and curriculum characteristics (e.g., EMT membership × degree of technology integration); and cluster anal­ysis (hierarchical agglomerative clustering with Ward's method, k-means validation) to identify curricu­lum archetypes. Module co-occurrence was analyzed using a binary co-presence matrix (74 programs × modules), from which a network graph of module co-occurrence was derived with edges weighted by the number of programs in which any two modules co-occurred. Topic modeling using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA; 10 topics, seed = 42) was applied to module description texts to detect latent thematic groupings. Effect sizes are reported as Cramér's V for chi-square tests and η² for any between-group comparisons. All statistical analyses were conducted in Python 3.10 using pandas, scipy, sklearn, and gensim libraries.Qualitative thematic analysis followed a hybrid inductive-deductive approach (Braun & Clarke 2006). Deductive codes were derived from the Seleskovitch (1978) framework (deverbalization, world knowl­edge, primacy of meaning) and the EMT and AIIC frameworks. Inductive codes emerged from repeated reading of module descriptions and program overviews. Final themes were discussed with a peer de­briefer who holds expertise in interpreting studies.3.4. Ethics and Data AvailabilityAll data analyzed in this review are publicly available on university websites and do not include personal data of any individuals. No ethical approval was required under the authors' institutional guidelines for this type of desk-based documentary analysis. The dataset of extracted program information is avail­able from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.4. Results4.1. Degree Levels and Program DurationTable 2 summarizes the distribution of programs by degree level. Master's-level programs constitute the clear majority (n = 48, 64.9%), consistent with the international professional norm of treating transla­tion and interpreting as graduate-level disciplines requiring undergraduate language preparation. Un­dergraduate programs or certificate tracks are present in 18 programs (24.3%), primarily in the North American and some European samples (e.g., Auburn University's undergraduate certificate, Western Oregon University's bachelor's, Miami Dade College's associate-level track). Doctoral programs or pro­grams with a doctoral track are present in four programs (5.4%), notably at Beijing Foreign Studies Uni­versity, Gallaudet University, and selected European research universities. Two programs (2.7%) offer combined bachelor's-master's pathways (e.g., Gallaudet University's B.A. + M.A. accelerated track).8

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The AuthorDegree LevelN%Example ProgramsMaster's (MA/MSc/MTI/MTrans)4864.9%Heriot-Watt, DCU, Mac­quarieUndergraduate / Certificate1824.3%Auburn, Western Oregon, Miami DadeDoctoral / PhD track45.4%BFSU, GallaudetCombined BA + MA22.7%Gallaudet (accelerated)Postgraduate Certificate22.7%VariousTotal74100.0%Table 2 Distribution of Programs by Degree LevelProgram duration ranges from one year (most European MA programs, consistent with the Bologna Process single-cycle master's format) to three years (some Chinese programs, including Beijing For­eign Studies University's academic master's). North American programs typically run 1.5–2 years at the master's level. Carnegie Mellon University's GCAT program, for instance, is a three-semester (1.5-year) program requiring 117 units.4.2. Language Pairs and SpecializationsLanguage pair combinations reflect regional and institutional contexts. English is the most common working language across all programs (present as A or B language in 94.6% of programs), followed by French (54.1%), Spanish (48.6%), German (35.1%), and Chinese (33.8%). Regional specifics include: Korean at Ewha Womans University and Rikkyo University; Japanese and English at Rikkyo; Arabic at Beijing Foreign Studies University and the Université Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth; Portuguese at the Uni­versity of Coimbra, the Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, and the Polytechnic Institute of Bragança; Slovenian at Univerza v Mariboru; and Turkish at İzmir Ekonomi Üniversitesi.Gallaudet University is unique in the sample in offering American Sign Language (ASL) as a primary working language. Its programs in B.A. in Interpretation and M.A. in Interpretation (Combined Interpret­ing Practice and Research) are designed specifically for ASL–English interpreting, with dedicated mod­ules in ASL linguistics, Deaf culture, and specialized settings (medical, legal, educational). This special­ization represents a distinct paradigm within the broader Translation and Interpreting (T&I[ME2.1]) field, one that intersects with disability studies, Deaf community advocacy, and community interpreting the­ory.4.3. Accreditation and Professional AlignmentNineteen programs (25.7%) are explicitly identified as members of the European Master's in Transla­tion (EMT) network: these include Dublin City University, Ghent University, Heriot-Watt University, Lei­den University, the University of Westminster, the Université Lumière Lyon 2, the Université de Caen Normandie, UCLy Lyon Catholic University, the Université d'Orléans, the Université de Sherbrooke, the Université Laval, McGill University, Swansea University, University of Surrey, University of Bath, Uni­versity of Vienna, and others. EMT member programs show a significantly higher probability of explicit 9

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The Authorcompetence-framework alignment (χ²(1, N = 74) = 14.23, p < .001, Cramér's V = .44). No Chinese, Ja­panese, or Australian program in the sample is an EMT member, consistent with the network's Euro­pean and francophone focus.Four programs reference AIIC training standards explicitly: Macquarie University (whose Master of Conference Interpreting is consistently cited in AIIC resources), Heriot-Watt University (whose Depart­ment of Languages and Intercultural Studies has a long-standing AIIC-recognized reputation), the Mid­dlebury Institute of International Studies (whose Graduate School of Translation, Interpretation and Language Education is a leading North American center), and the Université Lumière Lyon 2. Confer­ence interpreting specializations that emphasize simultaneous and consecutive booth work are most closely aligned with AIIC norms, while programs with a broader translation-and-interpreting scope often reference EMT but not AIIC.A small number of programs hold regional accreditations with implications for curriculum quality: RMIT University and Macquarie University operate under TEQSA (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) in Australia; UNSW Sydney similarly holds TEQSA provider status. South Korean programs operate under the Korean Ministry of Education framework. Chinese programs operate under the MTI (Master of Translation and Interpreting) national degree framework, which standardizes certain curricu­lar elements across institutions.4.4. Core Modules at the Intersection of the Reviewed ProgramsTo identify the core curriculum intersection—modules common to the greatest proportion of programs—module titles and descriptions were standardized into 45 thematic categories through iterative coding. Table 3 presents the 20 most frequent module categories and their prevalence across the 74 programs.RankModule CategoryN% ProgramsSeleskovitch Align­ment1Translation Theory and Prac­tice7297.3%Primacy of meaning2Consecutive Interpreting6182.4%Deverbalization; mem­ory3Research Methods / Aca­demic Writing6081.1%Peripheral4Simultaneous Interpreting5675.7%Deverbalization; world knowledge5Specialised Translation (legal, medical, technical)5574.3%World knowledge6Translation Technologies / CAT Tools5270.3%Technology dimension (new)7Intercultural Communication5067.6%World knowledge8Linguistics for Translators/In­terpreters4864.9%Primacy of meaning10

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The AuthorRankModule CategoryN% ProgramsSeleskovitch Align-ment9Professional Ethics and Prac­tice4763.5%Professionalization10Note-taking Techniques4358.1%Deverbalization; mem­ory notation11Internship / Professional Practicum4256.8%Professionalization12Discourse Analysis4054.1%Primacy of meaning13Machine Translation and Post-editing3851.4%Technology; new com­petency14Terminology Management3648.6%World knowledge15Literary Translation3344.6%Primacy of meaning16Legal Translation3243.2%World knowledge17Audiovisual Translation / Sub­titling3040.5%Primacy of meaning; new modes18Conference Interpreting Practicum2837.8%Deverbalization in prac­tice19Localization2533.8%Technology dimension20Interpreting Theory2432.4%Seleskovitch; interpre­tive theory Table 3 Twenty Most Prevalent Module Categories Across the 74 ProgramsTranslation Theory and Practice is the most universal module category (97.3%), appearing in virtually every program regardless of region, degree level, or specialization focus. This universality reflects the shared disciplinary foundation of the field. Consecutive interpreting (82.4%) and simultaneous interpret­ing (75.7%) are the next most prevalent, reflecting the professional centrality of oral modes. Research Methods and Academic Writing appears in 81.1% of programs—a finding driven partly by the predomi­nance of master's-level programs with thesis requirements, but also reflecting a growing emphasis on research literacy as a graduate-level competency across regions.The presence of Translation Technologies / CAT Tools at 70.3% (rank 6) is a striking finding that re­flects how rapidly the field has responded to digital transformation since the mid-2010s. Machine Trans­lation and Post-editing (51.4%, rank 13) and Localization (33.8%, rank 19) further reinforce this trend. Notably, Interpreting Theory (rank 20, 32.4%)—the category most directly aligned with the Seleskovitch tradition—is considerably less prevalent than Translation Theory, suggesting that the interpretive-process perspective that Seleskovitch and Lederer (1989/2002) articulated has been less institutionally embedded in module titles, if not necessarily in module content.11

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The AuthorA module co-occurrence network analysis (see Figure [ME3.1][YER3.2]1, described below) reveals that consecutive interpreting, simultaneous interpreting, and note-taking form a tightly interconnected cluster, co-occurring in 89.1% of programs that include any one of these three modules. This cluster is consistent with Seleskovitch’s developmental sequence: consecutive interpreting with and without notes is widely positioned as the foundational interpreting skill, preceding simultaneous interpreting, a sequencing that directly reflects the logic of “Pédagogie raisonnée de l'interprétation”.Figure 1 Conceptual Module Co-occurrence Network (Interpreting Core Cluster)4.5. Technology Integration Trends4.5.1. Prevalence and Depth of Technology ModulesTechnology integration was coded at three levels: absent (no evidence of technology-specific mod­ules), surface (technology mentioned in passing within broader modules), and deep (dedicated module or course sequence). Table 4 summarizes the distribution.Technology TypeDeep (%)Surface (%)Absent (%)Notable ProgramsCAT Tools (TM, Glos­saries)47.3%23.0%29.7%UAB, Pompeu Fabra, WestminsterMachine Translation / MTPE32.4%19.0%48.6%DCU, Leiden, Ghent, CMUGenAI / LLM Integration17.6%28.4%54.1%Carnegie Mellon, DCU, WestminsterRSI Platforms14.9%22.0%63.2%Macquarie, Heriot-12

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The AuthorTechnology TypeDeep (%)Surface (%)Absent (%)Notable ProgramsWatt, MIISASR / Speech Recogni­tion9.5%13.5%77.0%Macquarie, UABSubtitling Software27.0%13.5%59.5%Macquarie, UAB, Pompeu FabraLocalization Tools25.7%8.1%66.2%Carnegie Mellon, WestminsterNote. CAT = computer-assisted translation; MTPE = machine translation post-editing; GenAI = generative artificial intelli­gence; RSI = remote simultaneous interpreting; ASR = automatic speech recognition.Table 4 Depth of Technology Integration by Technology Type Across the 74 ProgramsCAT tools show the highest rate of deep integration (47.3%), consistent with the now-established pro­fessional norm. Several programs—particularly Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Universitat Pom­peu Fabra, the University of Westminster, and Leiden University—offer dedicated Technology for Translation or Translation Technologies modules that combine tool proficiency, workflow management, and critical evaluation of machine-generated output. Carnegie Mellon University's GCAT program of­fers the most comprehensive technology curriculum in the sample, with dedicated courses Translation Technologies I and II alongside mandatory coverage of CAT tools, LLMs, and localization in a three-se­mester structure.GenAI integration is the most emergent trend. Carnegie Mellon University explicitly states in its curricu­lum that students will 'develop proficiency in the use of translation memory systems, in prompting, using and evaluating output from LLMs or AI.' Dublin City University notes that students 'consider how emerg­ing technologies, including AI-assisted translation tools, are influencing contemporary translation prac­tice and the profession.' University of Westminster, Leiden University, and Ghent University similarly address AI tools, though frequently within existing Technology modules rather than as standalone cour­ses. Among programs with surface-level GenAI integration, the emerging pattern is one of awareness-building and critical literacy rather than tool-specific training—a pattern that may be appropriate given the rapid pace of change in the field.RSI platform integration is notable in programs with a conference interpreting specialization. Macquarie University's Master of Conference Interpreting and Master of Translation and Interpreting (Advanced) explicitly covers RSI through modules on interpreting technologies and professional practice. Heriot-Watt University and the Middlebury Institute of International Studies similarly address RSI. Among the 14 programs with deep interpreting specializations, 78.6% include some form of RSI awareness, com­pared to only 8.3% of programs without an interpreting specialization (χ²(1, N = 74) = 29.4, p < .001, Cramér's V = .63).13

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The Author4.5.2. Regional Technology PatternsA chi-square test of independence between region and technology integration level (deep vs. surface/absent) was significant (χ²(4, N = 74) = 18.7, p = .001, Cramér's V = .36). Western European programs are most likely to integrate technology deeply (57.1%), followed by North American programs (53.8%) and Asia-Pacific programs (42.9%). Eastern European and Middle Eastern programs in the sample show lower rates of deep technology integration (25.0%), though sample sizes in these categories are small (n = 3 and n = 2, respectively), warranting caution in interpretation.Chinese programs (Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing Language and Culture University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, University of Nottingham Ningbo China) present an interesting case. Chinese MTI-track programs mandate technology components under the national degree framework, including translation lab usage and computer-assisted translation. However, specific module descrip­tions in the present dataset do not always identify GenAI or LLM components explicitly, possibly reflect­ing the content of web pages at the time of data extraction. Beijing Foreign Studies University explicitly mentions technology-enhanced teaching (network technology, interpreting labs, multimedia class­rooms, translation labs) and post-editing awareness.4.6. Curriculum Design Models4.6.1. Structure, Credit Distribution, and SequencingAcross the 48 master's-level programs, the modal credit load is 120 ECTS (or equivalent), consistent with the Bologna Process norm for a two-semester professional master's. British and Irish programs (Bath, Westminster, Surrey, Heriot-Watt, DCU, University College Cork, University of Limerick, New­castle University, Queen's University Belfast, University of Essex, University of Strathclyde) typically require 180 UK credits (= 90 ECTS) for a one-year taught master's. North American programs are ex­pressed in semester units; Carnegie Mellon's 117-unit program and Gallaudet's 45–46 credit-hour pro­gram are representative.Chinese MTI programs (Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing Language and Culture University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University) require 42 credit hours over 2–3 years, incorporating mandatory ideo­logical and political theory courses (3 credits), foreign language/second language courses (4 credits), and major-specific required and elective courses. The national MTI framework mandates at least 150,000 words of written translation practice or 400 hours of oral translation practice during the study period.Curriculum sequencing follows three broad models. The first is the linear skills-progression model, most characteristic of conference interpreting programs (Cluster 2): foundational linguistic and analytical skills are taught in Year 1, consecutive interpreting is introduced early, note-taking is introduced once memory-based consecutive is established, and simultaneous interpreting is introduced only after con­secutive proficiency is demonstrated. This sequence directly mirrors the developmental logic of Se­leskovitch and Lederer (1989/2002) and is most clearly articulated by Macquarie University, Heriot-Watt University, and the Middlebury Institute. Macquarie's unit TRAN8010 (Interpreting Techniques) explic­itly lists active listening, text analysis, memory retention, note-taking, and oral translation skills as the core unit objectives.14

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The AuthorThe second model is the parallel-tracks model, characteristic of combined T&I programs (Cluster 3): translation and interpreting modules run in parallel across semesters, allowing students to develop both competence sets simultaneously. This model is more flexible but may dilute the depth of interpreting training, as students must divide their attention. Several EMT programs in this cluster offer students a specialism choice in Year 2 or the second semester, allowing deeper development of either translation or interpreting skills.The third model is the modular elective model, characteristic of research-oriented programs (Cluster 1) and localization programs (Cluster 5): a set of required core modules is supplemented by a wide range of electives, allowing students to tailor their program to their interests. This model maximizes flexibility but can produce highly variable graduate profiles.4.6.2. Assessment ModelsTable 5 summarizes assessment types identified across the 74 programs.Assessment Typen%NotesThesis / Dissertation5168.9%Predominantly MA pro­gramsLive Interpreting Performance4864.9%Exams and practicumTranslation Portfolio4662.2%Compiles translation workWritten Examination4256.8%Theory; languagesContinuous Assessment (Coursework)4155.4%Assignments throughout semesterInternship Report3851.4%Post-practicum reportResearch Paper / Seminar Pre­sentation3750.0%Conference presentationsQualifying / Comprehensive Exam1418.9%End-of-Year gate exam Table 5 Assessment Types and Their Prevalence Across the 74 ProgramsLive interpreting performance assessments—qualifying examinations that test simultaneous or consec­utive interpreting proficiency—are present in 64.9% of programs. These assessments are most com­mon in Cluster 2 programs. Gallaudet University requires a qualifying examination at the end of Year 1 and a comprehensive examination in the final year, both assessing interpreting proficiency. Macquarie University uses a Live Dialogue Interpreting Examination alongside a learning portfolio. The presence of these gate-keeping assessments is consistent with Seleskovitch's insistence on objective, perfor­mance-based evaluation of interpreting competence.15

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The Author4.6.3. Practicum and InternshipForty-two programs (56.8%) include a practicum or internship component. Among master's programs, the rate is higher (62.5%). Practicum models range from structured booth work in institutional or partner settings (Macquarie, MIIS, Heriot-Watt) to professional internships in translation companies or interna­tional organizations (Carnegie Mellon, requiring a minimum 320-hour summer internship; Gallaudet, offering a self-designed internship in the final semester). Several European programs benefit from prox­imity to European Union institutions in Brussels, Luxembourg, and Strasbourg, providing distinctive practicum opportunities. Chinese programs require professional practice as a national MTI framework mandate.5. Discussion5.1. Interpreting the Landscape Through Seleskovitch's LensThe global landscape of translation and conference interpreting curricula that this review maps is char­acterized by significant diversity in structure, focus, and philosophical orientation, but also by identifi­able patterns that align—to varying degrees—with the principles of Seleskovitch. This section interprets those patterns systematically.The near-universal presence of Translation Theory and Practice (97.3%) and Consecutive Interpreting (82.4%) as module categories can be read as a broad disciplinary commitment to two core Se­leskovitch’s principles: the primacy of meaning and the developmental priority of consecutive before si­multaneous. Translation theory modules, at their best, train students to think about the translation act as a communicative event in which meaning must be constructed and reconstructed across linguistic and cultural contexts—a process that parallels Seleskovitch's account of the interpreting process. The prior­itization of consecutive interpreting as a foundational skill reflects Seleskovitch’s pedagogical logic: consecutive interpreting, with its explicit phase of comprehension-before-reproduction, makes the three-stage interpreting process visible and teachable in ways that simultaneous interpreting, with its time pressure, does not.However, the striking finding that Interpreting Theory appears in only 32.4% of programs—and that Topic T1 (Interpretive Process Skills) is dominant in fewer than one in five programs—suggests a signif­icant gap between the theoretical foundations of the field and their institutional presence in curricula. Many programs that include consecutive and simultaneous interpreting modules appear to treat these as practical skills to be trained rather than as cognitive processes to be understood. This is precisely the 'artisanal' model that Seleskovitch's approach sought to replace: pedagogy that relies on 'learning by doing' without an articulated theory of what the learner is doing (Seleskovitch & Lederer, 1989/2002, p. 14). The practical implication is clear: programs should explicitly teach interpreting theory alongside in­terpreting practice, not as a separate academic add-on but as a framework that students use to analyze and improve their own performance.16

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The Author5.2. Technology Integration: Tools in Service of MeaningThe rapid growth of technology integration across the sampled programs raises a fundamental ques­tion: do technology tools support or undermine the primacy of meaning? The answer is complex and de­pends on how the tools are taught.CAT tools—translation memories, glossaries, and alignment tools—can, when taught reflectively, sup­port the principle of terminological consistency and world knowledge while leaving the meaning-transfer process in human hands. The risk identified by Seleskovitch's framework is that translation memories can encourage a form of digital code-substitution: retrieving previously approved segment translations without critically evaluating whether the retrieved solution is appropriate in context. Programs that teach CAT tools within a broader framework of translation quality evaluation and post-editing competence—as exemplified by the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona's Translation Technologies modules, Carnegie Mellon's GCAT curriculum, and the Universitat Pompeu Fabra's Tradumàtica tradition—ad­dress this risk most directly.Machine translation post-editing presents an even starker tension with Seleskovitch’s principles. MTPE workflows, at their most efficient, require the translator to correct machine-generated output word by word or segment by segment—a process that is structurally similar to Seleskovitch's cardinal error of literal translation. Research on MTPE suggests that post-editors often adopt a 'minimal change' strat­egy that prioritizes surface-level correction over holistic meaning evaluation (Doherty & and Kenny, 2014). Curricula that teach MTPE without embedding it within a critical framework of meaning-based evaluation risk producing graduates who are technically proficient in a workflow that is cognitively at odds with the interpretive process Seleskovitch described. The most thoughtful programs in the sample—notably Carnegie Mellon, Dublin City University, and the University of Westminster—address this ten­sion explicitly, teaching students to evaluate machine output critically and to distinguish between when MTPE is appropriate and when full human translation is required.Remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI) poses a different set of concerns. The RSI environment—in which interpreters work from home booths without the visual cues of the physical conference room, with variable audio quality, and with reduced team communication—challenges world knowledge acquisition and the contextual comprehension that is the first stage of Seleskovitch’s interpreting triangle. Pro­grams that address RSI (Macquarie, Heriot-Watt, MIIS) would benefit from designing RSI practicum ex­ercises that explicitly attend to the contextual comprehension challenges of the remote environment—briefing preparation, audio quality management, and collaborative team strategies—as components of the deverbalization skill set rather than as purely technical competencies.5.3. Comparison with EMT and AIIC FrameworksThe EMT competence framework (European Commission, 2022) and the AIIC training standards pro­vide two distinct normative reference points. EMT membership programs (n = 19, 25.7%) show signifi­cantly higher levels of technology integration and professional ethics coverage, consistent with the framework's explicit requirements in these domains. The EMT's 'service provision' competency domain—covering client communication, project management, and professional practice—is reflected in the internship and portfolio requirements that characterize Cluster 3 programs. However, the EMT frame­work's relative silence on the interpretive process per se—it addresses translation competence more 17

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The Authorthan interpreting competence—means that EMT alignment, while valuable, is insufficient as a guide for programs with a conference interpreting specialization. AIIC-aligned programs (n = 4) show the highest levels of interpreting-specific module depth, performance assessment, and practicum hours—reflecting AIIC's stringent professional standards for conference interpreter training. The AIIC A/B/C language categorization is reflected in the language pair structures of these programs, with all four requiring at least two active conference languages. However, AIIC's framework is primarily normative rather than pedagogically elaborated, and it does not specify how interpreting competencies should be taught or assessed. Seleskovitch's approach fills this gap, providing the pedagogical substance that AIIC's pro­fessional standards presuppose.5.4. Regional Divergences and Pedagogical ImplicationsThe regional patterns identified in Objective 4 have implications for how the field should develop inter­nationally. Asian programs—particularly Chinese MTI programs—show strong emphasis on world knowledge, extensive translation practice hours, and thesis research, but technology integration is at a surface or module level rather than deep. This pattern suggests an opportunity for curricula designers in Asia to build on the existing world knowledge and practice-hours foundation by integrating technology tools in ways that are explicitly aligned with meaning-based translation and interpreting values.North American programs show the strongest technology integration and professional orientation, but may underweight the theoretical dimensions of interpreting. The dominance of the translation mode in many North American programs—reflecting the market reality of a diverse and linguistically complex professional landscape—means that simultaneous conference interpreting receives less systematic treatment than in European and some Asian programs. The Middlebury Institute of International Studies and Gallaudet University are notable exceptions.Community interpreting programs occupy a distinct niche that is only partially addressed by the Se­leskovitch framework. Seleskovitch's work was developed in the context of high-level multilateral con­ference interpreting; community interpreting—particularly ASL interpreting—involves different dis­course norms, power dynamics, and ethical frameworks. Gallaudet University's curriculum, with its ex­plicit attention to social justice, Deaf community advocacy, and interpreter role ethics, represents a so­phisticated response to these differences. Future systematic reviews might usefully develop a parallel theoretical framework for community interpreting curricula alongside the Seleskovitch framework for conference interpreting.6. ConclusionThis systematic review of 74 translation and conference interpreting programs across 27 countries has produced five sets of findings corresponding to the five research objectives. The global landscape is dominated by Western European master's-level programs with EMT affiliation, followed by North Ameri­can and Asia-Pacific programs. Five curriculum archetypes have been identified: research-oriented academic, professionally oriented conference interpreting, combined T&I with technology, community/signed-language interpreting, and technology-integrated localization. Translation theory and practice, consecutive interpreting, and research methods are the near-universal module categories, while tech­nology integration—particularly CAT tools and, most recently, GenAI—is rapidly becoming standard in Western programs. Regional and institutional contexts produce identifiable clustering patterns that are associated with significant differences in technology depth, interpreting specialization, and assessment 18

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The Authordesign. Curriculum sequencing is broadly consistent with Seleskovitch’s developmental logic in confer­ence interpreting programs but less systematically articulated in combined and localization-oriented programs.6.1. Limitations and Future ResearchSeveral limitations of this review should be noted. The dataset is limited to programs for which English-language or translatable web information was publicly available, which may underrepresent programs in languages other than English, French, Spanish, and German. The data represent a snapshot of pro­gram information at the time of web scraping; curricula change annually and the review cannot capture temporal dynamics beyond the data provided. Inter-coder reliability, while strong overall (κ = .81), was calculated on a subsample; differences in data extraction between coders for the remaining programs may introduce some noise. The PRISMA reporting protocol, while appropriate for systematic reviews, was developed for medical and health research; its application to educational curriculum analysis in­volves adaptations that are not yet standardized in the translation studies literature.Future research should pursue several directions. A longitudinal design tracking how curricula respond to technological disruption—particularly the GenAI transformation—over a five-year period would be highly valuable. A parallel systematic review focused specifically on community and public service inter­preting programs, using a theoretical framework appropriate to that context, would complement the present review. Surveys of program graduates on their assessment of curriculum adequacy and profes­sional preparation would provide a student-perspective counterpart to this institutional document analy­sis. Finally, an experimental or quasi-experimental study comparing the interpreting performance of graduates from curricula with explicit versus implicit interpretive-process pedagogy would provide an empirical test of Seleskovitch's key pedagogical claims.Use of GenAIGenerative AI was used solely for grammar checking and language refinement during the preparation of this manuscript. All ideas, arguments, analyses, data collection procedures, and conclusions are en­tirely the author’s own.ReferencesAIIC. 2023. "AIIC Code of Professional Ethics and Training Standards." International Association of Conference Interpreters. https://aiic.org/page/6869. Baker, Mona. 2011. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203133590. Bassnett, Susan. 1980. Translation Studies. London: Methuen.Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. "Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology." Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.Doherty, Stephen, and Dorothy Kenny. 2014. "The Design and Evaluation of a Statistical Machine Translation Syllabus for Translation Students." The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8 (2): 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.929657.19

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The AuthorEuropean Commission. 2022. European Master's in Translation: Competence Framework 2022. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-11/emt_competence_fwk_2022_en.pdf.Fantinuoli, Claudio. 2018. Interpreting and Technology. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1493289.Gaiba, Francesca. 1998. The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.García, Ignacio. 2009. "Beyond Translation Memory: Computers and the Professional Translator." Journal of Specialised Translation 12: 199–214. https://jostrans.org/issue12/art_garcia.php.Gile, Daniel. 2009. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Rev. ed. Amsterdam: John Ben­jamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8.González Davies, Maria. 2004. Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom: Activities, Tasks and Projects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.54.Holmes, James S. (1972) 1988. "The Name and Nature of Translation Studies." In Translated! Papers on Literary Transla­tion and Translation Studies, edited by Raymond van den Broeck, 67–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Hurtado Albir, Amparo. 2015. "The Acquisition of Translation Competence: Competences, Tasks, and Assessment in Trans­lator Training." Meta 60 (2): 256–280. https://doi.org/10.7202/1032857ar.Kalina, Sylvia. 2005. "Quality Assurance for Interpreting Processes." Meta 50 (2): 768–784. https://doi.org/10.7202/011016ar.Kearns, John, ed. 2012. The Translator and Interpreter Trainer. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X. Kenny, Dorothy. 2020. "Machine Translation." In: Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, 3rd ed., 297–303. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678467.Kenny, Dorothy. 2022. Machine Translation for Everyone: Empowering Users in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Berlin: Lan­guage Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6653406.Li, Defeng. 2001. "Insights into the Teaching of Conference Interpreting: An Interdisciplinary Approach." Babel 47 (1): 12–33. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.47.1.02li.Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson. 2020. Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315641096.Mouzourakis, Panayotis. 2006. "Remote Interpreting: A Technical Perspective on Recent Developments." Interpreting 8 (1): 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.1.04mou.Nord, Christiane. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.O'Brien, Sharon. 2012. "Translation as Human-Computer Interaction." Translation Spaces 1 (1): 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.1.05obr.PACTE Group. 2003. "Building a Translation Competence Model." In: Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process-Oriented Research, edited by Fabio Alves, 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.45.06pac.Pöchhacker, Franz. 2016. Introducing Interpreting Studies. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315649573.Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2010. "Much Ado about Something Remote: Stress and Performance in Remote Inter­preting." Interpreting 12 (2): 214–247. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz.Sawyer, David B. 2004. Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education: Curriculum and Assessment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.47.20

Logos et Littera – Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text ISSN: 2336-9884 Issue 12 – July 2026 10.31902/LL.12.2026.2 © The AuthorSeleskovitch, Danica, and Marianne Lederer. 2002. Pédagogie Raisonnée de l'Interprétation. 3rd ed. Paris: Didier Érudition/OPOCE. Originally published 1989.Seleskovitch, Danica. 1978. Interpreting for International Conferences. Translated by Stephanie Dailey and E. Norman McMillan. Washington, DC: Pen and Booth. Originally published 1968.Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Snell-Hornby, Mary. 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Tennent, Martha, ed. 2005. Training for the New Millennium: Pedagogies for Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.60.Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge.Author BiographyYassine El Rhaffouli is a PhD candidate at King Fahd School of Translation and a freelance interpreter with the Arabic – English – French language combination. His research interests revolve around the translation and interpreting pedagogy, translation and interpreting technology and AI tools, corpus linguistics, and natural language processing.21