Course Description

Designed for eighth-semester students, this course builds on Simultaneous Interpreting Greek into French I. It develops accurate, coherent, natural delivery of demanding Greek speeches in French as a second active language. Practice covers longer speeches, complex arguments, spontaneous contributions, specialized terminology, and audiovisual materials. Students strengthen vocabulary retrieval, sentence planning, and prosody while becoming more independent in preparation and booth teamwork. Across thirteen thematic units, targeted feedback and conference simulations help students manage difficulties, explain their decisions, and recognize the professional and ethical limits of interpreting. Reflective practice supports the flexible use of French language resources in increasingly demanding assignments.

Learning Outcomes

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

• Build on the skills acquired in Course I to interpret more demanding Greek speeches into French as a second active language, selecting strategies appropriate to the setting, audience, and their language resources.
• Analyze complex Greek contributions to identify the line of reasoning, implied meanings, the speaker’s stance, and references to individuals and institutions, conveying them without unsupported interpretations or additions.
• Simultaneously interpret Greek speeches lasting six to eight minutes into French on topics they have prepared, preserving essential information, structure, and the speaker’s positions as task demands increase.
• Promptly retrieve appropriate French terms, established collocations, and useful formulations, and choose an accurate paraphrase when a term is unavailable, while continuing to listen to the source speech.
• Manage their lag behind the speaker and restructure long Greek sentences into complete French sentences with explicit subjects, clear references, and logical connections, maintaining accuracy in tense, negation, and modality.
• Produce coherent, grammatically accurate, natural spoken French with appropriate register, intelligible pronunciation, and effective prosody, avoiding literal transfers of Greek expressions and unnecessarily complex syntax that hinders delivery.
• Accurately convey numbers, proper names, specialized terms, qualifications, and commitments; briefly correct consequential errors; and explain when intervention or a different interpreting mode is required.
• Prepare independently for interpreting assignments by compiling documented Greek–French glossaries with usage examples and concise sheets of useful French formulations, and selectively use slides and documents while listening.
• Work effectively with booth partners by providing timely support, coordinating microphone handovers, and following equipment checks and procedures for reporting technical problems in in-person and hybrid meetings.
• Distinguish comprehension and attention management difficulties from difficulties formulating speech in French, document them with examples from recordings, and evaluate the effectiveness of their practice using unfamiliar material.
• Critically use approved digital preparation and practice tools, verify the linguistic and terminological reliability of their outputs, protect confidential material, and follow the course policy on artificial intelligence.

Course Content (Syllabus)

Week 1 – Multilingual democracy and public consultation

Skills: Review of Course I skills through a separate short presentation in French, simultaneous interpretation of a four- to five-minute Greek contribution, and an equipment check. Distinguishing comprehension and listening difficulties from problems with vocabulary retrieval and French sentence planning. Selection of two individual learning goals for interpreting into French.

Week 2 – European institutions and policy negotiation

Skills: Conveying institutional roles, procedural stages, and negotiating positions through established French formulations. Restructuring lengthy Greek sentences with explicit subjects and accurate use of articles, prepositions, and referring expressions. Interpretation of successive Greek contributions, preserving distinctions between agreement, reservations, and disagreement.

Week 3 – Cultural heritage and cultural diplomacy

Skills: Rendering Greek cultural references, metaphors, and evaluative language in natural, appropriately concise French. Choosing between an established equivalent and an accurate paraphrase according to the audience. Preparation for pronouncing proper names and place names. First portfolio sample, including a check of the application of the same strategies to an unfamiliar passage.

Week 4 – Education, research, and international academic cooperation

Skills: Organizing extended arguments in French with clear connectives, accurate tense use, and appropriate formulations for hypotheses, conclusions, and scientific qualifications. Combining listening with selective reading of slides while prioritizing the spoken message. Interpretation of a Greek presentation and spontaneous answers, preserving the line of reasoning.

Week 5 – Economic policy, employment, and social inequalities

Skills: Prompt and accurate delivery of numbers, dates, and economic comparisons in French, including the distinction between percentages and percentage points. Preserving the relationship between an indicator, reporting period, and conclusion through concise sentences and appropriate French collocations. Combining spoken commentary with charts, with booth partner support. Review of the first two portfolio samples.

Week 6 – Climate adaptation and food security

Skills: Managing dense Greek speech through accurate, concise French formulations for risks, scenarios, probabilities, and measures. Preserving hypotheses, conditions, and cause-and-effect relationships when condensing wording. Submission of the first interpreting preparation project and use of the glossary to interpret an unfamiliar Greek speech.

Week 7 – Energy transition and infrastructure resilience

Skills: Integrating technical information, numerical data, and policy arguments into coherent French delivery. Midterm assessment using two previously unheard four-minute Greek speeches on a prepared topic. Targeted practice in completing French sentences, reformulating promptly, and correcting consequential errors while continuing to listen.

Week 8 – Migration, asylum, and humanitarian coordination

Skills: Accurate use of French terminology for individuals’ status and institutional responsibilities, avoiding stigmatizing language. Attention to reported speech, tense sequence, and the attribution of statements and claims. Handling shifts between institutional discourse and personal testimony in a public discussion. Examination of the possibilities of simultaneous interpreting in group briefings and its limitations in individual interviews.

Week 9 – Public health and risk communication

Skills: Conveying specialized information in accessible French appropriate to the audience while preserving the degree of certainty and the content of recommendations. Simulated press conference featuring Greek contributions by experts and spontaneous questions. Checking negation, quantities, and temporal references, and practicing clear delivery. Discussion of the limits of simultaneous interpreting in individual clinical encounters.

Week 10 – Justice, equality, and fundamental rights

Skills: Using documented French terminology for obligations, rights, exceptions, and procedural safeguards without misleading equivalences between legal systems. Interpretation of Greek contributions at a thematic conference, preserving legal meaning, modality, and rhetorical intensity. Accurate paraphrase where needed and explanation of professional decisions when uncertainty threatens the reliability of the rendition.

Week 11 – Digital government and artificial intelligence

Skills: Maintaining coherent French delivery when interpreting a Greek presentation with slides and departures from the available text. Controlled comparison of performance with and without automatic transcription in terms of meaning, continuity, and attention. Machine-translated text is not read aloud as a ready-made rendition. Submission of the second preparation project and explanation of decisions to use or reject digital aids.

Week 12 – Diplomacy, the United Nations, and international security

Skills: Using established French formulations for diplomatic reservations, indirect criticism, appeals, and commitments while preserving the source’s strategic ambiguity. Simulated hybrid meeting featuring Greek contributions, coordinated microphone handovers, and booth partner support. Prompt reporting of audio problems and suspension of interpreting when reliable delivery is impossible. Completion of the fifth portfolio sample.

Week 13 – Mediterranean cooperation and maritime governance: conference simulation

Skills: Independent preparation and integrated application of the semester’s skills to unfamiliar material. At the joint bilingual conference, individual simultaneous interpretation into French of a six- to eight-minute Greek speech and a brief question-and-answer exchange, alongside support for a booth partner while off microphone. Individual assessment and a final review identifying specific priorities for further development in interpreting into a second active language.

Bibliography

Recommended reading

Greek-language publications

Ιωαννίδης, Α. (2022). Θεωρία και πράξη της διερμηνείας. Κάλλιπος, Ανοικτές Ακαδημαϊκές Εκδόσεις. https://doi.org/10.57713/kallipos-93

Publications in other languages

Bartłomiejczyk, M. (2006). Strategies of simultaneous interpreting and directionality. Interpreting, 8(2), 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.2.03bar

European Masters Project Group. (2004). Teaching simultaneous interpretation into a B language: Preliminary findings. Interpreting, 6(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.2.06don

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. (2013). Conference interpreting: A student’s practice book. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Conference-Interpreting-A-Students-Practice-Book/Gillies/p/book/9780415532365

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.

Li, T., & Chmiel, A. (2024). Automatic subtitles increase accuracy and decrease cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 26(2), 253–281. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00111.li

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

Seeber, K. G. (2011). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories — new models. Interpreting, 13(2), 176–204. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see

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.

Relevant academic journals

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

Sources for teaching materials and terminology research

• Assemblée nationale: https://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/
• Council of the European Union Video: https://video.consilium.europa.eu/
• EUR-Lex: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
• European Commission Audiovisual Service: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/
• European Parliament Multimedia Centre: https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/
• gov.gr (Greek public sector portal): https://www.gov.gr/
• Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs: https://www.mfa.gr/
• Hellenic Parliament Television (Vouli Tileorasi): https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/Enimerosi/Vouli-Tileorasi/
• IATE: https://iate.europa.eu/
• Speech Repository: https://speech-repository.webcloud.ec.europa.eu/
• UN Web TV: https://webtv.un.org/

Teaching Methods

The course is taught in person in the interpreting laboratory, using booths or appropriately configured workstations with separate source and target channels. It assumes the skills developed in Course I. Teaching combines brief theoretical input, instructor demonstrations and discussion of strategies, individual practice, and work in groups of three.

Students rotate through the roles of interpreter, booth partner, and listener. Each practice cycle includes an initial rendition, self-assessment with timestamped references to the recording, feedback, targeted repetition, and application to unfamiliar material. Speech length increases from four to five minutes to six to eight minutes. Speed, density, spontaneity, and the use of visual information are varied in a controlled way so that the causes of difficulties can be identified.

Language practice focuses on prompt vocabulary retrieval, established French collocations, syntax, tense sequence, and prosody. Students test alternative formulations and assess whether they can use them in unfamiliar speeches. French as used in France serves as the reference variety for production, without requiring a native-speaker accent. Where possible, feedback is supplemented by a professional interpreter or collaborator with French as an A language. Regular independent preparation and practice are expected. The course is coordinated with Simultaneous Interpreting French into Greek II through a shared thematic schedule and final simulation, with separate assessment.

Use of Information and Communication Technologies

Digital speech collections and authentic Greek-language audiovisual materials are selected to match the learning objectives and the gradual increase in task demands. Parallel French texts and speeches support terminology research and the study of appropriate register.

The course eClass site is used for learning materials, instructions, deadlines, submissions, and feedback. Practice is supported by listening and recording equipment, a projector, official terminology databases, and parallel institutional texts. Recordings are used in accordance with course instructions on access and personal data protection.

Dedicated preparation and practice environments (Workbenches) and H5P-compatible activities are used under the instructor’s guidance to combine auditory and visual information and develop specific skills.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is used under the following conditions:

• Scope of use. AI is permitted only for the educational purposes described below and under the instructor’s supervision. It does not replace students’ own preparation, interpreting performance, or explanation of their decisions.
• Preparation and teaching. The instructor may use AI to create and adapt exercises in attention, memory, comprehension, and multimodal processing, along with activities of increasing difficulty. The instructor checks all materials for accuracy, suitability, and language quality before classroom use.
• Workbenches and H5P. AI tools may support activity design in dedicated environments and the integration of H5P-compatible materials into eClass. Activities simulate speaker changes, the combination of speech and visual information, and controlled changes in speed or density.
• Performance assessment. Any use of AI to support feedback follows predetermined criteria, and the instructor checks each output. There is no autonomous automated assessment. Final judgments and grading remain the instructor’s sole responsibility.
• Assignments and preparatory research. AI-generated assignments, reflective writing, and other submissions are not permitted. For preliminary research, AI use is limited to activities approved by the instructor, requires verification against primary sources, and must be disclosed, identifying the tool and its use. Final selection and writing remain the student’s own work.
• Specialized glossaries. AI may suggest terms for investigation, but its suggestions do not constitute evidence. Each Greek term, French equivalent, and proposed collocation is verified in authoritative terminology databases, such as IATE, and official texts in the relevant field. Sources and any restrictions on the use of an equivalent are recorded.
• Critical and responsible use. Activities examine accuracy, omissions, bias, latency, and the effects of tools on the interpreter’s attention. Automatic transcripts are used only in approved comparative exercises. Confidential material or material containing personal data is not entered into unapproved services, and machine translation does not substitute for the student’s spoken rendition.

Assessment

An ungraded diagnostic assessment takes place in Week 1. It includes a short presentation in French, simultaneous interpretation of a four- to five-minute Greek speech, and a separate check of equipment use. Comparing the presentation and the interpretation helps distinguish speaking difficulties from difficulties in simultaneous processing. Each student sets two individual learning goals based on specific examples.

Formative assessment continues throughout the semester, with descriptive feedback on comprehension, French expression, and interpreting strategies. It includes self-assessment, peer assessment in groups of three, and whole-class discussion. Weekly practice exercises receive no separate grade; only the assignments and assessments specified below contribute to the course grade.

Two interpreting preparation projects are submitted in Weeks 6 and 11. Each includes a one-page brief on the setting, audience, speakers, and issues to be discussed, together with a 30-entry Greek–French glossary. Each entry includes the Greek term, French equivalent, brief definition, useful French collocation or usage example, source with access date, and an indication of verification status.

The two projects are equally weighted. Each is assessed using the following criteria:

• conceptual accuracy and verifiable documentation 50%,
• usefulness of the materials during interpreting 30%,
• justification of terminology choices 20%.

The portfolio contains five samples from Weeks 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12. Each sample includes an initial rendition, targeted repetition, interpretation of an unfamiliar passage, and a 250-word analysis in French with timestamped references to the recordings. The first two samples are assessed after Week 5; the remaining samples are assessed in Week 13, together with a 500-word final reflection in French. The two stages account for 40% and 60% of the portfolio grade, respectively. The criteria are:

• evidence-based identification and analysis of difficulties 35%,
• use of feedback 30%,
• application of skills to unfamiliar material and progress 25%,
• organization and clear documentation of the learning process 10%.

Summative assessment includes a midterm, a conference simulation, and a final examination. The overall course grade is calculated as follows: preparation projects 10%, portfolio 15%, midterm 15%, conference simulation 20%, and final examination 40%.

• The midterm in Week 7 comprises two equally weighted, previously unheard four-minute Greek speeches on a prepared topic. Students receive an assignment brief without the speech texts. Individual written feedback is provided before Week 9.
• The conference simulation in Week 13 is assessed individually. Each student interprets a six- to eight-minute Greek speech and a brief question-and-answer exchange into French and also supports a booth partner while off microphone.

Interpreting performance accounts for 60% of the simulation grade, using the common course rubric. The remaining 40% assesses observable professional skills: usable preparation 15%, booth partner support and coordinated microphone handovers 15%, and technical procedures and justified professional decisions 10%. Other team members’ performance does not affect the individual student’s grade.

The final examination takes place in person and comprises simultaneous interpretation into French of two equally weighted, previously unheard Greek speeches on topics covered during the course: a seven-minute structured presentation and a five-minute argumentative contribution. The indicative delivery rate is 110–130 words per minute, with controlled information density and difficulties comparable to those encountered in practice. The audience and topics are announced 48 hours in advance, without the speech texts, and students receive 15 minutes of immediate preparation time. A personal verified glossary and assignment brief are permitted; live machine translation, automatic transcription, and external assistance are not. Renditions in the midterm, simulation, and final examination are assessed using five common criteria:

• fidelity and completeness of the message 40,
• accuracy, naturalness, and appropriateness of spoken French 30,
• clarity and prosody 10,
• terminology, proper names, and numerical information 10,
• continuity of delivery and management of difficulties 10.

Each criterion is rated from 0 to 4, and its points are calculated as weight × rating / 4. Justified half-point ratings are permitted. The same error is not penalized twice. Accurate paraphrase is accepted when it preserves meaning and register. Assessment focuses on linguistic accuracy, clarity, and appropriateness without requiring a native-speaker accent or elaborate idiomatic expressions. Speed and density are considered together as factors affecting difficulty. Performance level descriptors, criteria, and the schedule are posted on eClass before each graded activity.