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