Course Description

Designed for sixth-semester students, this course builds on Consecutive Interpreting Greek into French I through longer speeches, more complex arguments, and increasingly demanding communication settings. Emphasis is placed on accurate, natural French, grammatical control, appropriate terminology, and faithful rendition of the speaker’s register and stance. Students refine their personal note-taking systems, develop and evaluate terminology resources, and interpret institutional speeches, negotiations, and sensitive exchanges in public service settings. Training also includes online and hybrid meetings. Structured practice, individual feedback, and evidence-based reflection help students strengthen their French production, apply improvements to new material, and document their progress throughout the semester.

Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion of the course, students will be able to:

• Analyze complex spoken Greek, identifying structure, argumentation, rhetorical techniques, implied meanings, cultural references, and the speaker’s stance. Distinguish what is stated explicitly from what is inferred from context.
• Retain and interpret structured speech lasting up to three minutes into French without notes, preserving the main ideas, their relationships, and essential details.
• Use a consistent, efficient personal note-taking system for segments lasting up to 8–10 minutes, recording structure, arguments, lists, numbers, proper names, negation, and qualifications concisely. Use notes to support delivery rather than as a script to read aloud.
• Convey the message in accurate, coherent, natural French, using complete sentences, clear syntax, and an appropriate register. Control tenses, agreement, pronoun reference, negation, and expressions of probability, obligation, or commitment, without unjustified additions or omissions or substituting a summary for a full interpretation.
• Use verified French terminology, common collocations, and appropriate expressions confidently across institutional and professional settings. Use accurate paraphrase when a term cannot be recalled, avoiding Greek calques and unsupported explanations.
• Interpret with intelligible pronunciation, an appropriate pace, and natural intonation while preserving rhetorical purpose, register, and emotional intensity. Correct significant errors briefly without repeated restarts that make the message difficult to follow.
• Work effectively with rapid or information-dense speech, speeches read from scripts, demanding question-and-answer exchanges, and audio or connection problems, adapting their practice to in-person, remote, and hybrid communication.
• Participate in bidirectional interpreting of sensitive exchanges in public service settings. Interpret Greek-language contributions fully into French in the first person, preserving uncertainty, contradictions, and hesitation, and maintaining impartiality, confidentiality, and professional role boundaries. Make requests for clarification and corrections explicit to everyone involved.
• Develop structured Greek–French terminology resources for specific assignments, verifying equivalents, French collocations, gender, articles, and prepositions where relevant. Use corpora, terminology extraction and management tools, and AI assistance where permitted, with verification against official sources.
• Search for terms quickly between segments, maintain consistency in the French rendition, and update terminology resources after use, recording gaps, errors, and corrections.
• Prepare and deliver well-researched speeches in Greek and French for classmates to use as practice material, and evaluate their progress with specific examples from recordings, distinguishing comprehension and note-taking difficulties from difficulties formulating the message in French.
• Evaluate and use approved digital preparation and practice tools critically, check the reliability of their outputs, and follow the course policy on artificial intelligence.

Course Content

Week 1 — Political Discourse, Rhetoric, and Public Debate

Skills and activities: An initial assessment reviews the skills developed in Consecutive Interpreting Greek into French I. Students examine argumentation, repetition, contrast, rhetorical questions, and rhetorical buildup in Greek political speeches. Practice focuses on conveying these features through natural French phrasing, clear connections, and complete sentences without weakening the force of the speech. Students review their personal note-taking systems and interpret segments lasting 3–4 minutes with notes and up to 2 minutes without notes.

Building on Course I: Producing short, accurate French sentences develops into coherently conveying arguments and rhetorical choices. Students assess the consistency of their notes as the content becomes more demanding.

Week 2 — The Rule of Law, Fundamental Rights, and European Justice

Skills and activities: Students interpret Greek institutional and legal discourse containing long sentences, dense noun phrases, and unclear or omitted subjects. They restructure the message in French, make agency clear where the context supports it, and preserve conditions, exceptions, and negation. They distinguish related concepts such as regulations, directives, decisions, and recommendations and verify French institutional names. Work begins on a structured terminology resource with definitions, sources, contexts, verification records, and French collocations. Practice involves 4–5-minute segments.

Building on Course I: Basic glossaries develop into documented terminology resources. Breaking up long Greek sentences is combined with more precise rendition of legal relationships and control of French articles and prepositions.

Week 3 — Greek Public Discourse for French-Speaking Audiences

Skills and activities: Students interpret speeches containing Greek institutional names, cultural references, place names, and concepts without direct French equivalents. They establish whether an official rendering exists or a brief, accurate paraphrase is needed. Wording is adapted for the French-speaking audience without unsupported additions or treating distinct institutions as equivalent. Students examine terminology and usage appropriate to different French-speaking settings, including France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Canada. Practice includes five-minute segments and exercises without notes lasting up to 2.5 minutes.

Building on Course I: Introductory practice in paraphrasing cultural concepts develops into systematic handling of institutional and cultural differences. Adaptation focuses on vocabulary and register appropriate to the audience.

Week 4 — Macroeconomics, Fiscal Policy, and Financial Markets

Skills and activities: Students interpret speeches containing sequences of figures, percentages, percentage points, economic indicators, trends, and forecasts. Figures are recorded together with the measure, unit, and time period they refer to. Practice develops accurate delivery of numbers in French, prepositions of quantity and change, and comparative structures. Students compile a small corpus of parallel institutional texts and identify candidate terms using tools such as Sketch Engine or AntConc. Practice involves 5–6-minute segments.

Building on Course I: Interpreting individual figures develops into handling sequences of data and complex comparisons while preserving the argument. Corpus-based terminology extraction is introduced.

Week 5 — The Climate Crisis, International Negotiations, and the Energy Transition

Skills and activities: Students interpret Greek scientific speeches and contributions to negotiations, distinguishing commitments, targets, and intentions and conveying terms, conditions, and qualifications accurately in French. Practice includes speeches read from scripts, delivered more rapidly and with fewer pauses. Students develop more concise French phrasing without losing content. AI may assist with initial term identification, but every suggestion is checked against IATE and institutional sources, and rejected suggestions are recorded. Segments last six minutes.

Building on Course I: Basic expressions of cause and condition are applied to dense speech delivered from a prepared text. Terminology preparation includes AI-assisted extraction and documented verification.

Week 6 — Bioethics, Medical Research, and Public Health

Skills and activities: Students convey scientific explanations and conflicting ethical arguments in accurate, accessible French. They preserve the limitations of findings, the distinction between correlation and causation, and the speaker’s degree of certainty without strengthening claims or promises of therapeutic benefits. Practice includes French expressions of caution and paraphrases of specialized concepts. Students submit their first terminology resource assignment and test its usefulness with 6–7-minute segments.

Building on Course I: Brief scientific explanations develop into longer renditions of complex arguments, including positions with which the interpreter disagrees. Terminology resources are tested during interpreting.

Week 7 — Digital Transformation, Artificial Intelligence, and Regulation

Skills and activities: Students interpret speech containing neologisms, Anglicisms, and terms without settled Greek–French correspondences. They verify official French equivalents and justify their choice of an established term, a loanword, or an accurate paraphrase. Terminology searches are brief and take place between segments. The midterm assessment includes a three-minute speech without notes and a six-minute speech with notes. Feedback identifies priorities for interpreting and French production.

Building on Course I: Accurate paraphrasing is combined with more systematic verification of terminology choices. Assessment speech length increases from 90 seconds to three minutes without notes and from two to six minutes with notes.

Week 8 — Geopolitics, Defense, and Crisis Management

Skills and activities: Students interpret Greek diplomatic statements on politically sensitive issues, attending to descriptions of the parties, place names, euphemisms, and distinctions between possibility, intention, and commitment. They practice French institutional phrasing, qualifications, and courteous forms of address without strengthening or weakening the position expressed. Activities include statements lasting 7–8 minutes and demanding exchanges with journalists, preserving attribution and question form.

Building on Course I: Short diplomatic statements and individual questions develop into longer contributions and aggressive or misleading questioning. Students maintain control of French production under pressure.

Week 9 — Asylum and International Protection: Interviews with Vulnerable Individuals

Skills and activities: Students interpret in both directions in simulated asylum interviews involving sensitive or traumatic experiences. Greek-language contributions are conveyed fully into French in the first person, without embellishment, smoothing over contradictions, or filling gaps without justification. Particular attention is paid to tenses, family relationships, dates, negation, and expressions of uncertainty. Students practice clear clarification requests in French, made explicit to everyone involved. Activities address emotional strain, impartiality, and role boundaries. Turns last 30–90 seconds.

Building on Course I: Short reception and social service dialogues develop into longer interviews involving vulnerable individuals. Notes support accurate French renditions of discontinuous narratives.

Week 10 — Medical Communication in Challenging Situations

Skills and activities: Students interpret in both directions in simulated encounters involving bad news, treatment options, and informed consent. Accounts of experiences and symptoms are conveyed in French without turning them into diagnoses that have not been stated. Quantities, dosages, probabilities, risks, and qualifications are preserved. Students develop terminology materials linking medical terms with French expressions patients can understand. They flag potential misunderstandings and refrain from offering personal advice. Turns last 30–90 seconds.

Building on Course I: Symptom descriptions and care instructions expand into more demanding clinical discussions. Students control shifts between specialized and plain-language French while preserving the patient’s voice.

Week 11 — Criminal and Administrative Justice: Interpreting Hearings

Skills and activities: Students interpret in both directions in a simulated hearing involving more than two participants. Greek testimony, questions, denials, and claims are conveyed in French without smoothing over contradictions or changing the degree of certainty. Hesitations, self-corrections, and distinctions between claims, hypotheses, and established facts are preserved. Practice includes French procedural terminology, turn management, and explicit correction of errors. A graded simulation lasts 12–15 minutes, with turns of 30–90 seconds.

Building on Course I: Basic legal and administrative dialogues develop into proceedings involving cross-examination, multiple participants, and greater demands for precision in French.

Week 12 — Negotiations, Business Communication, and Remote Interpreting

Skills and activities: Students consecutively interpret Greek business presentations and contributions to negotiations lasting 8–9 minutes. Practice focuses on accurately conveying proposals, counterproposals, terms, deadlines, and financial data in French. Activities also take place in online or hybrid meetings, including audio and connection checks, handling delays, managing turns, and coordinating with the chair. Requests for repetition and interventions about technical problems are expressed clearly in French. Students submit their second terminology resource assignment.

Building on Course I: Remote briefings develop into longer negotiations that require linguistic precision alongside management of technical difficulties.

Week 13 — Cultural Diplomacy and Official Ceremonies: A Simulated International Conference

Skills and activities: Students prepare for and participate in a simulated international conference featuring Greek-language opening speeches, formal addresses, toasts, and a roundtable discussion. They choose French expressions appropriate to the occasion and audience while faithfully conveying cultural references, quotations, and humor. They interpret a main segment lasting 8–10 minutes and the question-and-answer exchange that follows. Terminology resources are used, evaluated, and updated after the simulation. The unit concludes with self-assessment, peer assessment, and a review of progress in interpreting and French production.

Building on Course I: A simulated institutional visit with a five-minute speech develops into an international conference with 8–10-minute segments, more demanding ceremonial language, and systematic evaluation of terminology resources.

References

Greek-Language Reference

Ιωαννίδης, Α. [Ioannidis, A.] (2022). Θεωρία και πράξη της διερμηνείας [Theory and practice of interpreting]. Κάλλιπος, Ανοικτές Ακαδημαϊκές Εκδόσεις [Kallipos, Open Academic Editions]. https://doi.org/10.57713/kallipos-93

References in Other Languages

Albl-Mikasa, M. (2008). (Non-)Sense in note-taking for consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, 10(2), 197–231. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.10.2.03alb

Dam, H. V. (2004). Interpreters’ notes: On the choice of language. Interpreting, 6(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.03dam

Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8

Gillies, A. (2005). Note-taking for consecutive interpreting: A short course. St. Jerome Publishing.

Gillies, A. (2017). Note-taking for consecutive interpreting: A short course (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315648996

Gillies, A. (2019). Consecutive interpreting: A short course. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315648972

Ilg, G., & Lambert, S. (1996). Teaching consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, 1(1), 69–99. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.1.1.05ilg

International Organization for Standardization. (2019). Interpreting services — Legal interpreting — Requirements (ISO Standard No. 20228:2019). https://www.iso.org/standard/67327.html

International Organization for Standardization. (2020). Interpreting services — Healthcare interpreting — Requirements and recommendations (ISO Standard No. 21998:2020). https://www.iso.org/standard/72344.html

International Organization for Standardization. (2022). Interpreting services — Conference interpreting — Requirements and recommendations (ISO Standard No. 23155:2022). https://www.iso.org/standard/74749.html

International Organization for Standardization. (2024). Interpreting services — Community interpreting — Requirements and recommendations (ISO Standard No. 13611:2024). https://www.iso.org/standard/82387.html

Jones, R. (2002). Conference interpreting explained (2nd ed.). St. Jerome Publishing.

Pöchhacker, F. (2022). Introducing interpreting studies (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003186472

Rozan, J.-F. (1984). La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Librairie de l’Université.

Setton, R., & Dawrant, A. (2016a). Conference interpreting: A complete course. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.120

Setton, R., & Dawrant, A. (2016b). Conference interpreting: A trainer’s guide. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.121

Souza, I. E. T. de V., & Fragkou, E. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook of research on medical interpreting. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9308-9

Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. Longman.

Woo, K. (2025). Analysis of student interpreters’ self-assessment from the perspective of self-regulated learning. FORUM, 23(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.24006.woo

Related Scholarly Journals

• FORUM
• The Interpreter and Translator Trainer
• Interpreting
• Translation & Interpreting

The initial article The is disregarded when alphabetizing journal titles.

Sources for Teaching Materials and Terminology Research

• Assemblée nationale
• Council of the European Union Video
• Élysée — Présidence de la République française
• EUR-Lex
• European Commission Audiovisual Service
• European Parliament Multimedia Centre
• FranceTerme
• Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Hellenic Parliament Television
• IATE
• Speech Repository
• TERMIUM Plus
• UN Web TV
• UNESCO
• Vitrine linguistique — Grand dictionnaire terminologique
• World Health Organization Newsroom

Teaching Methods

The course is taught in person in the interpreting laboratory. It combines brief theoretical presentations, demonstrations in which the instructor explains her interpreting choices, individual practice, and work in groups of three.

Students take turns as speakers, interpreters, and listeners or observers. Each practice cycle includes an initial interpretation, self-assessment supported by examples at specific timestamps in the recording, feedback, a second attempt focused on identified difficulties, and application to a new excerpt.

Interpreting practice is combined with targeted development of French production: common collocations, sentence restructuring, grammatical control, pronunciation, rhythm, and intonation. Feedback distinguishes comprehension, retention, and note-taking difficulties from difficulties formulating the message in French. Students express the same information again using different French wording to develop flexibility without changing the meaning.

Length and difficulty increase gradually, progressing from shorter segments with complex content to speeches lasting 8–10 minutes. Practice includes speeches read from scripts, numerical information, rhetorical features and register shifts, question-and-answer exchanges, and technical difficulties.

The bidirectional simulations in Weeks 9–11 are coordinated with Consecutive Interpreting French into Greek II, using shared scenarios and separate assessment for each course. This course assesses Greek-into-French renditions and interaction management. Emphasis is placed on ethics, role boundaries, and emotional strain.

Terminology preparation is integrated throughout the semester. Students compile corpora of parallel institutional texts, identify and verify terms and French collocations, and organize the material in a terminology management tool or structured spreadsheet. They test quick searches on a mobile device and record how the resource affects accuracy and continuity of delivery in French. Resources are updated after each use.

Use of Information and Communication Technologies

Practice is supported by digital learning materials, Greek-language institutional speeches, online speech collections, and audiovisual archives. Authentic French-language sources and parallel institutional texts support preparation of terminology, register, and appropriate phrasing.

The course’s eClass site is used to post materials, instructions, and deadlines, collect assignments, recordings, and terminology resources, and provide feedback. Other resources include a projector, listening and recording equipment, videoconferencing platforms, official terminology databases, corpus analysis tools, and terminology management applications.

Specialized digital workspaces and practice environments (Workbenches), along with H5P-compatible tools, support interactive activities combining text, speech, sound, and images. Students use these resources under the instructor’s guidance and close supervision.

The following rules govern the use of artificial intelligence (AI):

• Permitted uses: AI may be used only for the educational purposes described below and under the instructor’s strict supervision.
• Preparing teaching materials: The instructor may use AI to create and adapt materials for advanced interpreting practice and French production. These include memory exercises, multimodal activities, audio and visual stimuli presented sequentially or simultaneously, exercises of increasing difficulty, and multiple-choice questions. Every activity is reviewed before it is used in class with the available audiovisual equipment.
• Digital practice and H5P: AI may support the integration of specialized practice environments with eClass and the incorporation of H5P-compatible tools. These environments support different types of material, changes of speaker, and controlled increases in difficulty, such as faster delivery, denser information, or more frequent turn changes.
• Assessment: AI is not used to assess students except in specific cases for which the instructor has established clear conditions and criteria. Any such use remains under the instructor’s control. Final assessment decisions and grading are solely the instructor’s responsibility.
• Assignments and preparation: Students may not use AI to write assignments or reflective texts or to generate a finished French rendition for submission. For research and preparation, AI may be used within the specialized practice environments or for initial exploration, provided that information is cross-checked and sources are verified. This permission does not extend to using AI to produce submitted work.
• Terminology resources: AI may assist with initial identification of candidate terms, suggest French equivalents and collocations, and help organize entry fields. Every suggestion must be checked against official terminology databases such as IATE, institutional sources, and official parallel texts. Rejected suggestions and the reasons for rejection are recorded in the verification log. AI responses do not count as supporting sources and do not replace students’ own research or writing.
• Critical and responsible use: Students examine accuracy, omissions, distortions of meaning, bias, and suitability for interpreting. Automatically generated captions and transcripts are checked against the audio. The course develops informed tool selection, protection of confidential material and personal data, and responsible use of technology.

Assessment

Initial Diagnostic Assessment

An ungraded diagnostic assessment takes place in Week 1. Students interpret two Greek speeches that have not been provided in advance: a two-minute speech without notes and a four-minute speech with notes. They also complete a self-assessment questionnaire.

Performance is compared with the level achieved at the end of Consecutive Interpreting Greek into French I. Each student identifies two priorities: one concerning comprehension, retention, or notes, and one concerning French production. Goals are supported by examples from the recording.

Formative Assessment and Ongoing Feedback

Weekly exercises are submitted within 48 hours and are not graded separately. They receive descriptive feedback on each rubric criterion, together with self-assessment and peer assessment. Students work in groups of three, rotating the roles of speaker, interpreter, and observer, or participate in whole-class discussion.

Feedback links observations to specific timestamps in the recording. Fidelity to meaning and the quality of French formulation are examined separately so that each new attempt has a clear focus and is followed by application to new material.

Terminology Resource Assignments

Students complete two terminology preparation assignments for specific interpreting assignments. These are due 24 hours before the class meetings in Weeks 6 and 12, respectively. Each submission includes:

• A one-page briefing on the assignment, audience, and setting.
• A corpus of parallel institutional texts used to identify candidate terms.
• A terminology resource containing 40 Greek–French entries, organized in a terminology management tool or structured spreadsheet.
• A short original speech in Greek suited to the assignment, for use in classroom practice.

Each entry includes the Greek term, its French equivalent, a brief definition, a French example in context and a common collocation, a dated source reference, verification status, and usage notes. Where needed, entries specify gender, plural form, article, preposition, or syntactic pattern, as well as an alternative in plainer language.

Each assignment is accompanied by two logs:

• Verification log: Records rejected candidate terms, equivalents, and AI suggestions, together with the reasons for rejection.
• Post-use review log: Records searches during interpreting, gaps and errors, difficulties using the French terms, and subsequent corrections.

Assignments are assessed on:

• Documentation and verification of terms, equivalents, and French collocations: 40%.
• Usability during interpreting, particularly organization, search speed, and practical value for French delivery: 35%.
• Review and updating after use: 25%.

Portfolio

The portfolio contributes to the overall assessment and includes work from Weeks 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12. Each sample includes:

• The initial interpretation into French.
• An improved interpretation following feedback.
• An interpretation of a new excerpt demonstrating application of the improvements.
• The interpreter’s notes.
• A 250-word analysis supported by specific timestamps in the recordings, addressing French production and the use of terminology resources.

Submission and assessment take place in two stages. Work from Weeks 3 and 5 is submitted within 48 hours after Week 5. Work from Weeks 8, 10, and 12 is submitted within 48 hours after Week 13, together with a final 500-word reflection.

The assessment criteria are:

• Evidence-based identification of strengths and difficulties in interpreting and French production: 40%.
• Application of improvements to new material: 40%.
• A plan for further development: 20%.

Summative Assessment

Summative assessment measures performance at specified points during the semester. It consists of the midterm assessment, the bidirectional interpreting simulation, and the final examination.

Midterm Assessment — Week 7

Students interpret two Greek speeches into French on a topic they have prepared. The speeches are not provided in advance:

• A three-minute speech, without notes.
• A six-minute speech, with notes.

The two interpretations are weighted equally. Individual written feedback is provided before Week 9, with specific observations on fidelity and French production.

Bidirectional Interpreting Simulation — Week 11

The simulation lasts 12–15 minutes and recreates a hearing involving more than two participants. Students are assessed individually and separately from their assessment in Consecutive Interpreting French into Greek II.

Greek-into-French interpretations account for 70% of the grade. The remaining 30% assesses interaction management and professional ethics, as follows:

• Maintaining professional role boundaries, impartiality, and confidentiality: 10%.
• Managing turns and interpreting in the first person: 10%.
• Making clarification requests explicit to all participants and openly correcting interpreting errors: 10%.

Final Examination

The final examination takes place in person and involves consecutive interpreting into French with notes of two Greek speeches that have not been provided in advance. The speeches are set in a European or international institutional context and are weighted equally:

• A six-minute explanatory speech.
• A ten-minute argumentative speech or diplomatic statement followed by a brief question-and-answer exchange.

Topics are announced 48 hours before the examination, but the speech texts are not provided. Students have twenty minutes to prepare immediately before the examination.

Students may use their personal verified terminology resource, either in print or on a mobile device without internet access. Notes are taken while listening. Prepared translations, live transcription, and automatically generated interpretations are not permitted.

Common Assessment Criteria for Interpreting Performance

Interpretations are assessed using five criteria worth a total of 100 points:

• Faithful rendition of the content and the speaker’s stance: 45 points.
• Accuracy, naturalness, and appropriateness of French vocabulary, syntax, and grammar: 25 points.
• Organization and coherence, information retention, and use of notes: 15 points.
• Intelligible pronunciation, rhythm, intonation, and oral delivery: 5 points.
• Accuracy of terminology, proper names, and numbers: 10 points.

Each criterion is rated on a performance scale from 0 to 4. The score is calculated by multiplying the maximum points for the criterion by the performance rating and dividing the result by 4:

Criterion score = maximum points for the criterion × performance rating ÷ 4.

The same error is not penalized twice. Pronunciation is assessed on the basis of intelligibility rather than similarity to a native speaker’s accent. Brief pauses and self-corrections are accepted provided they do not disrupt the flow or understanding of the message.

Assessment criteria and schedules are posted on eClass before the corresponding graded assignments and assessments.