Undergraduate Interpreter Training in the Spanish State: An Analytical Comparison

Robert Neal Baxter

jstefanlari@yahoo.com
Universidad de Vigo

Recibido: 01/04/13 | Revisado: 29/04/13 | Aceptado: 20/09/13

Abstract

Following a general overview of undergraduate translation and interpreting (T/I) courses in the Spanish State as an indicator of the possibilities available for undergraduate T/I training in general, using data compiled from official sources and directly from universities and staff, this paper goes on to analyse a series of factors in order to compare and assess to what extent undergraduate degrees provide all-round, basic interpreter training, covering such aspects as language offer, core and specialised subjects and basic facilities while examining in particular detail courses offering a specific interpreting itinerary. The article concludes that there is considerable leeway for improved planning and coordination, indicating that universities could maximize efficiency by focusing on either interpreter or translator training.

Key words: undergraduate interpreter training, specialisation, itinerary, course contents, cost of study.

Resumen

Formación en interpretación en el Estado español: una comparación analítica

Tras una presentación general de los cursos de traducción e interpretación ofertadas en el Estado español como indicador de las posibilidades para la formación de grado en general, este artículo utiliza datos provenientes de fuentes oficiales así como proporcionados directamente por las universidades y el profesorado en cuestión, para analizar una serie de factores con el fin de comparar y evaluar hasta qué punto los actuales grados garantizan una formación básica en interpretación, incluyendo aspectos como la oferta lingüística, las asignaturas comunes y optativas, así como las instalaciones específicas, sobre todo al considerar aquellos cursos que cuentan con un itinerario específico de interpretación. El artículo concluye que existe una margen importante para mejorar la planificación y la coordinación, indicando que las universidades podrían maximizar su eficacia al centrarse principalmente en la formación o bien de traductores, o bien de intérpretes.

Palabras clave: formación en interpretación, especialización; itinerario; programa del curso, coste de estudios.

1. Introduction

The number of courses in the Spanish State is inordinately high with 23 public, private and semi-private universities as compared with other EU countries, e.g. 13 universities in the UK offering undergraduate translation-related courses1. As such, the situation in the Spanish State serves as an interesting test case by providing a wide enough range of universities offering T/I first degrees to make variation possible within the same basic comparative reference framework.

This article analyses a series of basic variables considered to be of interest when assessing the interpreting component of the different undergraduate first degrees in Translation and Interpreting (T/I), i.e. excluding masters Degrees, on offer in the Spanish State2, within the current framework of the Bologna reform begun in 2009-2010 which marked a shift away from the previous degree structure (licenciatura) to the new common European system (grado) (see Prieto Velasco 2011 for a more detailed discussion).

While several similar studies do exist, they attend to only partial aspects of interpreter training, e.g. Collados Aís (2007), limited to German-Spanish within the University of Granada based primarily on students’ perceptions, predate the Bologna process (Harris et al. 2002) and/or are centred primarily on translation (Tricás Preckler 1999). While Iglesias Fernández (2003) provides a very detailed study of the state of interpreting studies in the Spanish State, as in the case of Padilla Benítez (2002), the work predates the Bologna reform.

Following a general overview of universities offering T/I degrees, including location and the number of available places and the relative share of overall student uptake, the main aim of this paper is to provide a fully updated, detailed overview of undergraduate interpreter training within the Spanish State as a whole, attending to the following objectively quantifiable aspects:

• Cost of study: based on fees, included in order to estimate relative value-for-money of the interpreting component when weighed against other academic factors;

• Language offer: covering first language(s) and first foreign language(s) (A/B) and second and other foreign languages (C/D) separately;

• Equipment and facilities: number of specialised interpreting facilities, especially provision for simultaneous interpreting;

• Course contents: detailed quantified analysis of the number and type of core and optional interpreting subjects relative to translation and as a proportion of the overall course

It would also have been interesting to include information concerning the teaching staff. However, a detailed overview was considered unfeasible owing to questions of space.

The prime aim is, therefore, to use quantifiable data to examine to what extent interpreting is relegated to a minority position in degrees including both translation and interpreting in their title in order to determine whether they actually provide at least basic interpreter training, in what conditions and at what cost.

1.1. Preliminary methodological remarks

While a white book does exist for the new T/I degree structure in the Spanish State (ANECA 2004), it is sufficiently broad to allow substantial leeway for variation regarding actual course contents. Therefore, despite operating within the same basic framework, problems inevitably arise when attempting to compare features across different degrees. This can involve both terminological differences, e.g. B2 language at the Complutense University is taken here to refer to as C language, while Vigo distinguishes between ‘lingua’ (Galician/Spanish) vs. ‘idioma’ (all foreign languages), as well as structural differences, e.g. the full itinerary structure at the Complutense and Salamanca (see 3.2.1). For comparative and analytical purposes, this paper attempts to homogenise information wherever possible by referring to detailed course descriptors as necessary, with any remaining problems discussed as and when applicable.

Unless stated otherwise, all of the data analysed referring to the number of places offered, fees and course contents was gleaned from publically available sources, primarily the official individual university websites (see Bibliography). However, in the case of infrastructures (Section 3.1), most of the information presented in this study comes from data provided via private communication with the relevant departments and/or interpreting staff. The author would like to take this opportunity like to thank the universities and staff in question for their cooperation.

2. General overview

Table 1 presents a list of all of the universities offering undergraduate translation and/or interpreting degree courses in the Spanish State, together with their location and status. The table also shows the number of places offered for 2012-2013 as stated on official websites where available or via personal inquiry.

It should be noted that, although these figures do not necessarily reflect actual enrolment, they are revised annually in accordance with the trend in demand over previous years and, as such, serve as a useful standard index for comparative purposes.

CES Felipe II (UCM) is in the process of becoming the Aranjuez Campus of the UCM with which it is affiliated and UVIC is privately managed by the Balmes University Foundation.

Table 1: General overview

Full name	Code	Location	Course title	Places	Status
Universitat d’Alacant	UA	Alacant, Valencia	Translation and Interpretation	180	Public
Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio	UAX	Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid	Translation and Interpretation	50	Private
Universidad Antonio de Nebrija	UAN	Campus de la Dehesa de la Villa, Madrid	Translation	45	Private
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona	UAB	Barcelona, Catalonia	Translation and Interpretation	240	Public
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid	UAM	Madrid	Translation and Interpretation	90	Public
Universidad Complutense (Centro de Estudios Superiores Felipe II)	UCM	Aranjuez, Madrid	Translation and Interpretation	100	Public
Universidad de Córdoba	UCO	Córdoba, Andalusia	Translation and Interpretation	120	Public
Universidad Europea de Madrid	UEM	Villaviciosa de Odón, Madrid and València	Translation and Intercultural Communication	30	Private
Universidad de Granada	UGR	Granada, Andalusia	Translation and Interpretation	272	Public
Universitat Jaume I	UJI	Castelló, Valencia	Translation and Interpretation	95	Public
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria	ULPGC	Las Palmas, Canary Isles	Translation and Interpretation	120	Public
Universidad de Málaga	UMA	Málaga, Andalusia	Translation and Interpretation	155	Public
Universidad de Murcia	UM	Murcia, Murcia	Translation and Interpretation	90	Public
Universidad Pablo de Olavide	UPO	Seville, Andalusia	Translation and Interpretation	180	Public
Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea / Universidad del País Vasco	EHU	Gasteiz/Victoria, Basque Country	Translation and Interpretation	60	Public
Universitat Pompeu Fabra	UPF	Barcelona, Catalonia	Translation and Interpretation	170	Public
Universidad Pontificia Comillas	UPC	Madrid	Translation and Interpretation	60	Private
Universidad de Salamanca	USAL	Salamanca, Castilla-León	Translation and Interpretation	75	Public
Universidad San Jorge	USJ	Zaragoza, Aragón	Translation and Intercultural Communication	55	Private
Universitat de València	UV	València, Valencia	Translation and Interlinguistic Mediation	100	Public
Universidad de Valladolid	UVA	Soria, Castilla-León	Translation and Interpretation	70	Public
Universitat de Vic	UVIC	Vic (Barcelona), Catalonia	Translation and Interpretation	50	Private
Universidade de Vigo	UVIGO	Vigo, Galicia	Translation and Interpretation	120	Public

2.1. Geographical spread

The location of the different universities offering degrees in translation and/or interpreting presents a highly uneven geographical spread, with three main dense clusters around the capital Madrid (UAX, UAN, UAM, UCM, UEM, UPC); the eastern Mediterranean, especially Barcelona (UVIC, UAM, UPF, UJI, UV, UA and UM) and; Andalusia (UPO, UCO, UGR and UMA). There are poles in Castile and León (UVA and USAL), ULPGC serves the Canary Islands, with the Basque Country and Navarra served by the EHU, plus UVIGO, covering Galicia, Asturias and Leon and, finally, the private USJ in Aragón.

This situation is reflected in the way the total number of places available to study translating and/or interpreting is shared both between the public and the private sector and between Autonomous Communities.

According to the figures published for the places offered for 2012-2013, the public sector offers the vast majority of the total 2,522 places available to new students: the 17 public universities total 2,232 places, i.e. 88.5%, as opposed to the 290 places offered at the 6 private universities, i.e. 11.5%. As can be seen from Table 1, this is due not only to the larger number of public universities, but also to the proportionally smaller number of places offered at each of the private institutions.

As far as the share per geographic zone is concerned, the three main areas of concentration described above account for 80.18% of all of the places on offer for 2012-2013: Catalonia/Valencia/Murcia (total 36.68%), Andalusia (28.63%) and Madrid (14.87%).This clustering can be partly explained by the fact that together Andalusia, Catalonia, Madrid and Valencia are the four most densely populated areas of the State, with 26.65 million inhabitants in 2012, amounting to 58.5% of the population (INE 2013), with the universities further centred around the more densely populated coastal areas and main cities (e.g. Alacant, Castelló, València, Madrid and Barcelona). Nevertheless, although clustering may respond to higher demand due to greater population density the pattern revealed by this study indicates that, with a few notable exceptions, most universities offer very similar course, especially in the area of interpreting, effectively reducing competition and running the risk of saturating the market rather than opting for diversification and specialisation.

Fig. 1 Location of universities

2.2. Cost of study

The cost of studying a particular course at a given university should not be overlooked as one of the factors determining value-for-money. Students specifically intending to pursue interpreter training should bear the overall cost of study in mind when weighed against the other factors analysed, namely course contents and the availability of specialised facilities (see Sections 3.1 and 3.2).

While differences between the cost of living partially explain differences in the fees charged in different areas of the Spanish State, this does not suffice to explain the enormous difference between the two extremes for public universities, even excluding the case of UAB, which is considerably more expensive, in turn, than the other public university located within the same Autonomous Community (Catalonia) and more expensive even than two of the private universities.

Table 2 lists the published fees for 2012-2013. In two cases, estimated credit value has been recalculated based on monthly fees, namely UAX (796 €/month) and UEM (907€/month). In all other cases, the calculations are based on the cost per ECTS-credit in the first exam session, multiplied by the total 240 credits required to fulfil all courses. This is the lowest common denominator, and the actual cost of completing a course may be substantially higher, with the cost per credit point increasing exponentially with each additional examination sitting, up to and including the 4th session. All fees also exclude additional administrative handling charges which can be substantial, especially in private universities.

Table 2: Course fees

Column I: Value per credit point in first exam session
Column II: Total cost of complete course (240 credits)

	I	II		I	II
UVIGO	9.85	2364.0	UVA	19.60	4704.0
UGR	12.49	2997.6	UV	19.60	4704.0
UMA	12.49	2997.6	UPF	20.96	5029.4
UPO	12.49	2997.6	UAM	21.32	5116.8
UCO	12.49	2997.6	UCM	21.32	5116.8
ULPGC	13.20	3168.0	UAN	24.62	5910.0
UM	14.09	3381.6	UPC	26.66	6399.0
EHU	15.64	3751.2	UAB	35.77	8584.8
UA	17.43	4183.2	UVIC	82.09	19701.6
UJI	17.43	4183.2	UAX	119.40	28656.0
Average	17.40	4176	UEM	136.10	32652.0
USAL	19.60	4704.0	USJ	139.00	33360.0

Courses with above-average fees may be considered relatively expensive, with those falling below the average considered relatively cheap.

2.3. Language offer

One of the features that distinguishes universities is the range of languages offered. This section presents the overall offer and analyses to what extent it has a bearing on the interpreting component of T/I studies.

This paper distinguishes between the main working pair, i.e. the students’ first language (‘A’ language) and their first foreign language (‘B’ language), as opposed to the remaining foreign languages (‘C’ and ‘D’ languages as applicable).

Languages are referred to by their ISO 639 code, with ‘sl’ used for sign language (slc: Catalan Sign language; sle: Spanish Sign Language).

2.3.1. A and B languages

All universities offer Spanish as an A language. Universities located in Autonomous Communities with co-official languages also include these as additional and/or alternative A languages, affecting both translation and interpreting subjects, i.e. Basque (EHU), Catalan (UA, UAB, UJI, UPF, UV and UVIC) and Galician (UVIGO). In line with usage at UJI, here ‘Catalan’ is used to refer to all varieties of the language, including Valencian.

As such, co-official languages, offered at over a third of universities are far from a marginal phenomenon in undergraduate T/I training in the Spanish State.

Unsurprisingly, the number of B languages is relatively restricted, limited primarily to English, French and German, plus Arabic and Catalan sign language in two isolated cases. Mirroring market demand, all universities offer English as a B language, with eight universities offering only English as the first foreign working language. Following the tradition of foreign language teaching in the Spanish State and reflecting the availability of teachers trained in foreign languages, French is the second-most offered language (65.22%), followed by German (34.78%).

UCM offers a double-B: English and French or English and German. Seven universities offer a choice of two B languages (English and French); Six offer three B languages (English, French and German); Arabic and Catalan sign language are offered as a fourth B language at UGR and UPF respectively.

Table 3. Total offer: A & B Languages (final columns: total number of B and A languages)

	en	fr	de	ar	slc	es	ca	eu	ga	ΣB	ΣA
UA	B	B	B			A	A			3	2
UAX	B					A				1	1
UAN	B					A				1	1
UAB	B	B	B			A	A			3	2
UAM	B	B				A				2	1
UCM	B	B	B			A				3	1
UCO	B	B				A				2	1
UEM	B					A				1	1
UGR	B	B	B	B		A				4	1
UJI	B					A	A			1	2
ULPGC	B					A				1	1
UMA	B	B				A				2	1
UM	B	B				A				2	1
UPO	B	B	B			A				3	1
EHU	B	B				A		A		2	2
UPF	B	B	B		B	A	A			4	2
UPC	B					A				1	1
USAL	B	B	B			A				3	1
USJ	B					A				1	1
UV	B	B	B			A	A			3	2
UVA	B	B				A				2	1
UVIC	B					A	A			1	2
UVIGO	B	B				A			A	2	2
TOTAL B/A	23	15	8	1	1	23	6		1

The overwhelming proportion of English can be seen even more clearly when comparing the total number of places available for each B language across the universities (Table 4), with the vast majority of students trained in English as their main B language (68.87%) followed by French (20.36%) and German (8.51%), with Arabic and Catalan Sign Language being residual. This would be interesting to contrast against actual market demands at the local and/or State level in order to determine whether there is a surplus of students trained in English and to ascertain whether there is a need for other working languages. The figures for UPF represent a typical share provided by the Faculty, with the actual share based on demand: any vacancies remaining for Catalan Sign Language (slc) are reallocated between French and German.

Table 4. Relative share of B languages according to enrolment

(Figures for USAL and UVA recalculated based on current enrolment figures. No detailed data available for UCM)

	English	French	German	Arabic	Catalan Sign Language
EHU	55	5	-	-	-
UA	70	60	50	-	-
UAB	140	60	40	-	-
UAM	60	30	-	-	-
UAN	45	-	-	-	-
UAX	50	-	-	-	-
UCO	85	30	-	-	-
UEM	30	-	-	-	-
UGR	120	80	37	35	-
UJI	95	-	-	-	-
ULPGC	120	-	-	-	-
UM	60	30	-	-	-
UMA	100	55	-	-	-
UPC	60	-	-	-	-
UPF	100	25	25	-	20
UPO	120	40	20	-	-
USAL	48	18	9	-
USJ	55	-	-	-	-
UV	50	25	25	-	-
UVA	65	5	-	-	-
UVIC	50	-	-	-	-
UVIGO	90	30	-	-	-

2.3.2. C and D languages

Variation is much greater in the case of C and D languages. UCM is the only university to offer no C or D languages, but does offer a double B (English + French/German). In addition, ten others offer no D languages. In the case of ULPGC a joint degree is available with both French and German C with English B. Arabic D for French C and Russian D for German C.

Table 5. Total offer: C & D Languages

	fr	de	it	ar	en	zh	pt	el	ja	ro	ru	gl	nl	pl	bg	ca	slc	sle	fi	tr	fa	C	D	C+D
UGR	CD	CD	CD	CD	CD	CD	CD	CD		D	CD	D	D	D	D	D						9	15	15
UAM	CD	CD	D	CD	CD	D	D	D	D										D	D	D	4	12	12
UA	C	C	D	D	C	D		D		D	D			D								3	7	10
EHU	C	CD	D	D	C				D	C		D				D						4	6	9
UAB	C	C	C	C		C	C		C		C											8	0	8
UV	C	C	C	D	C	D	D			D												4	4	8
UVA	CD	CD	D	D	C	D	D															3	6	7
UMA	CD	CD	CD	CD	CD			CD														6	6	6
USAL	C	C	D		C		D						D									3	3	6
UCO	C	C	C	C	C																	5	0	5
UPO	C	C	C	C	C																	5	0	5
UPC	CD	CD	D			D			D													2	5	5
UPF	C	C			C												C					4	0	4
UVIGO	C	C			C		C															4	0	4
UEM	C	C				C																3	0	3
USJ	C			D		D																1	2	3
UAX	C	C																				2	0	2
UAN	C	C																				2	0	2
UJI	C	C																				2	0	2
UVIC	C	C																				2	0	2
ULPGC	C	C		D						D												2	2	4
UCM	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		-	-	-	-	-	-	0	0	0
UM	CD	CD	CD	CD				D										D				4	6	6
TOTAL (C+D)	22	20	13	12	12	9	7	5	4	4	3	2	2	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1

A reduced need to compete with neighbouring universities may account for the more restricted range of additional languages available at universities such as UVIGO, although other universities in a similar situation (e.g. EHU) do offer a wider range. Table 5 lists the full range hypothetically available according to the approved study plan. However, in several cases (e.g. UGR) many of the D languages are not actually offered in 2012-2013 or not at all levels.

Furthermore, D languages are not used as fully-fledged translation languages per se, exclusively involving language acquisition and as such could be learned outside the T/I degree structure if required by students seeking to increase their number of foreign languages.

As we shall see, as far as interpreting subjects are concerned, this is not only affects D languages but also to a large degree C languages (see Tables 7 and 8), with most interpreting subjects limited at most universities to A and B languages as the only real working pair.

The case of UCM is particularly noteworthy, opting to focus exclusively on providing a maximum number of subjects in the double B (English with French or German) in order to provide a solid T/I training rather than acquiring additional C/D languages. This strategic choice accounts for the excellent score achieved by UCM regarding the total overall number of interpreting credits.

3. The interpreting component

Only one university (UAN) does not offer interpreting as part of its undergraduate ‘Degree in Translation’ following the move to the new Bologna design and is, therefore, excluded from the study. Three other universities do not include the word ‘interpreting’ in the title (USJ, UEM and UV, see Table 1) but do contain interpreting courses.

Before analysing the proportion and type of interpreting courses offered at each university, it is interesting to provide a general overview of the specific equipment and facilities available for teaching interpretation.

3.1. Equipment and facilities

Several universities do not to include simultaneous interpreting (SI) as part of their basic, compulsory undergraduate T/I courses, namely UAB, UCM, UGR, UMA, UPO, EHU, UPF, UPC, USJ, UV (Table 7) of which five (UAB, UGR, UPO, UPF and UV) offer no specific SI subjects as optional specialised course (Table 8). However, this paper takes the view that if interpreting is included in the course, then it should cover at least a basic grounding in all of the main techniques, i.e. including simultaneous interpreting.

We agree with Ruiz Mezcua (2010: 171) that interpreter training requires the availability of proper facilities. As such, this study covers the total number of in-booth workstations regularly used for teaching SI practice, the way they are distributed and the student-to-booth ratio based on information provided directly by the administrative services and/or interpreting staff at the universities in question unless stated otherwise. No information is available for USJ, which provides SI as an option only (Table 8).

Where available, additional information is provided concerning other booths situated outside the main teaching areas which can also be used for specific practice work, notably booths located in amphitheatres and booths available for self-training not included in the main pool of teaching booths (Column VI, Table 6).

No details are provided regarding technical specifications (see Ruiz Mezcua 2010: 96-117) as it is considered sufficient to provide basic booth facilities capable of emulating professional conditions. Indeed, personal professional experience indicates that non-standard booths are the norm in local freelance markets as opposed to institutions such as the European Union and it is assumed that trainees familiar with non-standard equipment will be more easily able to adapt to better facilities as and when available than vice versa.

Table 6: Equipment and facilities

(d = double; s = single; p = portable booths installed as necessary, available for practice)

	I SI labs	II booths	III places	IV ratio	V other booths	VI other labs	VII places
UAB	3	23d 15d 15d	106 (+75)	N/A	2d	N/A3	-
UVIGO	4	16s+4d 10d 6d 11d	78 (+47)	1.54	3d	3	72
UAX	2	12d 12d	48 (+17)	0.96	p4	12d 12d 24s	72
UPF	35	20d	40 (+9)	N/A	-	2	50
EHU	2	10d 10d	40 (+9)	N/A	1d 2d	-	-
UJI	1	20d	40 (+9)	2.38	1d 3d (3d)6	1	40
USAL	2	14s 7d	36 (+5)	2.34	2d 4s7	-	-
UCM	2	4d 11d	30 (-1)	N/A	2d	2	29
UAM	28	12d 1s9	25 (-7)	3.60	-	-	-
UPO	1	12d	24 (-6)	N/A	2d	1	24
UEM10	1	11d	22 (-9)	1.36	-	1	21
UA	1	11d	22 (-9)	8.18	-	511	143
UM	1	11d	22 (-9)	8.18	-	212	59
UVA	1	10d	20 (-11)	3.50	-	2	70
UGR	1	12s 2d	16 (-15)	17.00	4d	2	80
UCO	1	8d	16 (-15)	7.5	2d	1	25
UMA	2	6d 3s	15 (-16)	N/A	3d	1	25
ULPGC	1	2d 10s	14 (-17)	8.57	1d 1d	213	32
UPC14	2	3d 3d	12 (-19)	N/A	3d 3d	4	128
UVIC	1	6d	12 (-19)	4.17	-	1	20

The total number of booths and workstations available (Table 6, Columns II & III) should be weighed against the actual needs of each university. As such, a booth-to-student ratio (Table 6, Column IV) is given only for those universities offering SI as a part of the basic, compulsory training based on the total number of places available for 2012-2013 (Table 1), assuming that smaller groups in specialised optional subjects will be more easily catered for by a relatively small number of work-stations. For example, a ratio of 10 indicates that one work station is available for every 10 students, with the lowest figure (1) indicating one work station per student. The figure in brackets in Column III refers to the total number of work stations available with respect to the average (≈31) , with universities ranked in the table accordingly.

Universities with a relatively low student intake will be more easily able to satisfy booth requirements. This is true of UAX which has both an above-average number of work-stations (48) and a very low student uptake (50) and also accounts for the high score of the private UEM with an almost ideal 1:1 ratio, despite the small number of workstations available (22), owing to the limited student uptake (30 students). UVIGO is outstanding in that it registers an almost ideal ratio (1:1.54) despite offering a relatively large number of places (120) owing to the significantly above-average number of workstations available (78). Conversely, UPO ranks badly more due to the high student uptake (180 students) than to the facilities available (24 workstations). On the whole, however, the lower ratios can be taken as indicative of insufficient booth facilities to cover basic needs, with such universities as UGR highly underequipped (16 workstations for 272 students), bearing in mind that all students at UGR take a compulsory course in IS (see Table 7).

Table 6 also details the way workstations are distributed (Column I), reflecting the flexibility of the facilities available in order to cover the requirements of not only larger groups for compulsory subjects, but also to cater for a number of smaller groups at the same time. Concentrating a large number of booths/work stations in one or two laboratories renders attending to the needs of a wide range of optional subjects more difficult, whilst at the same time proving ineffective for smaller groups. Information is also provided concerning whether the booths are individual or double, with individual practice potentially hindered by shared booth practice.

Finally, data is also included regarding information on other non-booth facilities specially adapted for interpreting practice. Language labs and multimedia rooms are usually used for consecutive training, which can be done outside specialised laboratories as occurs in those universities which do not make use of such facilities (e.g. UAM). Other universities may make use of special software to complete a shortage of booths for SI training (e.g. ULPGC, footnote 14), a situation considered far from ideal.

It is interesting to note that two universities (UAM and UVIC) with core SI subjects and a specialised interpreting itinerary (see 3.2.3) have a below-average number of work stations and a correspondingly high student-to-booth ratio, particularly acute in the case of UVIC.

3.2. Number of interpreting subjects

The data contained in Table 7 covers the total core subject offer. For comparative purposes, subjects are divided into three main types: specifically translation-related subjects; specifically interpreting-related subjects and other subjects, i.e. general culture and/or literary subjects, instrumental subjects (e.g. documentation, IT skills) and subjects dealing exclusively with language skills. In order to compare primarily practical interpreting subjects with similar translation subjects, purely theoretical translation-oriented subjects (e.g. history of translation) are classed as ‘other’. When appropriate, exclusively or predominantly theory-oriented interpreting subjects are indicated in the footnotes. Credits for work placements (practicum) and final dissertations are also excluded from the calculations.

It should also be noted that this study is concerned exclusively with spoken language interpreting, whereby any contents referring specifically to sign language are included as ‘other’ and indicated in the footnotes as and when appropriate.

3.2.1. Core subjects

Here ‘core subjects’ refers to subjects mandatory for all students. Table 7 covers the following information:

• Column I (T): Total number of translation credits (number of subjects)

• Column II (I): Total number of interpreting credits (number of subjects)

• Column III (O): Total number of other credits (number of subjects)

• Column IV (%T): Overall percentage of translation credits

• Column V (%I): Overall percentage of interpreting credits

• Column VI (T:I): Ratio of translation-to-interpreting credits

• Column VII: Subject type (number of credits in brackets)

Abbreviations as follows:

• BI: bilateral interpreting, incl. public service/community interpreting (UA only)

• CI: consecutive interpreting

• INTRO: introduction to interpreting, incl. interpreting theory

• L/E: legal and economic interpreting (UCO only)

• ORAL: oral communication skills and/or expression

• SI: simultaneous interpreting

• TECH: Interpreting techniques (general)

The course structure at UCM and USAL requires students to choose from specific blocks of core subjects according to their chosen itinerary in the third and fourth year respectively. These subjects are not studied by all students and are counted here as specialised subjects (Table 8), accounting for the lower credit total for core subjects in Table 7. Unless specified (‘C’ and ‘B/C’) subjects involve A/B languages only.

Table 7: Core subjects (number of subjects included in brackets after the total number of credits)

	I T	II I	III O	IV %T	V %I	VI T:I	VII
UA	84 (4)	18 (3)	132 (22)	35.90	7.69	4.67	INTRO (6) CI/BI (6) SI (6)
UAX	52 (14)	25 (5)	119 (22)	26.53	12.76	2.08	INTRO (4): ‘B/C’ BI (3) CI (6) CI (6): ‘C’ SI (6)
UAB	59 (9)	6 (1)	106 (17)	34.50	3.51	9.83	INTRO (6)15
UAM	42 (7)	6 (1)	120 (20)	25	3.57	7.00	INTRO (6)16
UCM	24 (4)	6 (1)	108 (18)	17.39	4.35	4.00	INTRO (6)
UCO	72 (12)	18 (3)	120 (20)	34.29	8.57	4.00	TECH 1 (6 ) TECH 2 (6)17 L/E (6)
UEM	72 (12)	12 (2)	108 (18)	37.5	6.25	6.00	CI/BI (6) SI (6)
UGR	48 (8)	12 (2)	138 (21)	24.24	6.06	4.00	CI/BI 1 (6) CI/BI 2 (6)
UJI	80 (12)	8 (1)	114 (18)	39.60	3.96	10.00	INTRO (8)18
ULPGC	60 (10)	30 (5)	114 (16)	29.41	14.71	2.00	CI 1 (6) CI 2 (6) CI (6): ‘C’ SI 1 (6) SI 2 (6)
UMA	48 (8)	12 (2)	123 (19)	26.23	6.56	4.00	BI (6) CI (6)
UM	60 (10)	18 (3)	120 (20)	30.30	9.09	3.33	INTRO (6) CI (6) SI (6)
UPO	54 (9)	12 (2)	126 (22)	28.13	6.25	4.5	TECH (6) BI (6)
EHU	60 (10)	6 (1)	126 (21)	31.25	3.13	10.00	INTRO (6)19
UPF	52 (13)	4 (1)	178 (28)	22.22	1.71	13.00	ORAL (4)20
UPC	39 (7)	24 (3)	120 (25)	21.31	13.11	1.63	ORAL (6) TECH (6) CI (12)
USAL	45 (7)	12 (2)	75 (17)	34.09	9.09	3.75	INTRO (6) SI (6)
USJ	60 (10)	6 (1)	120 (20)	32.26	3.23	10.00	TECH (6)21
UV	36 (6)	12 (2)	114 (19)	22.22	7.41	3.00	TECH 1 (6) TECH 2 (6)22
UVA	48 (8)	12 (2)	108 (18)	28.57	7.14	4.00	CI (6) SI (6)
UVIC	42 (10)	12 (3)	123 (23)	23.33	6.67	3.5	INTRO (3) CI (3) SI (6)
UVIGO	54 (9)	18 (3)	126 (20)	27.27	9.09	3.00	BI (6) CI (6) SI: B (6)
AVERAGE	54.14 (9.05)	13.14 (2.23)	119.91 (20.18)	28.90	7.01	4.12

ULPGC is the university with the greatest number of core interpreting credits (30), followed by UAX (25 credits), both with 5 subjects covering all types, including C language. UPF has the lowest interpreting offer with one four-credit subject with limited interpreting contents which could easily be classed as ‘other’. Four universities all offer only one six-credit introductory subject (UAB, UAM, UCM and EHU) and USJ offers a more practical six-credit subject covering general techniques. For students primarily interested in pursuing a career in interpreting, these shortcomings may be offset by the total number of interpreting subjects available, including specialised optional subjects (Table 9).

Many universities with compulsory interpreting include only a general introduction (INTRO and TECH) covering all types of interpreting (BI, CI and SI) with a relatively large amount of theoretical contents. A smaller number opt for practical BI and/or CI, including, in some cases, several modules. Under half (10 universities) offer SI.

UCO is particularly noteworthy due to the specific Legal and Economic Interpreting due to be taught as of 2013-14, although no further details are available concerning course contents, including the technique(s) involved (SI, CI, etc.)

3.2.2. Specialised subjects

While basic training forms the backbone of undergraduate translator/interpreter training within the Bologna framework, at least as applied in the Spanish State (Baxter 2012: 21), it might be expected that optional interpreting courses offer some degree of specialisation, especially at those universities offering a specific interpreting itinerary or mention.

Although greater variety exists when compared with the core subject, the total range of options available for any given language combination (Table 8) reveals a clear lack of specialisation, with little additional interpreting using C languages and little thematic specialisation.

The course structure at UCM and USAL differs from other degrees in that they offer full specific itineraries as of the third or fourth year respectively, with subjects marked OB compulsory for students following the interpreting itinerary, with those marked OP being optional.

Unless specified (‘C’, ‘D’, etc.) all subjects involve A/B languages only. In the case of EHU, A-A is Basque-Spanish

Table 8 covers the following information:

Column I (T): Total number of translation credits (number of subjects)

Column II (I): Total number of interpreting credits (number of subjects)

Column III (O): Total number of other credits (number of subjects)

Column IV (%I): Overall percentage of interpreting credits

Column V (T:I): Ratio of translation-to-interpreting credits

Column VI: Detail of the interpreting subjects (number of credits in brackets)

Abbreviations used in Table 8 as for Table 7 plus the following:

ADV: advanced

BI: bilateral interpreting, incl. public service/community interpreting (UAX, UGR, UJI, UM, UVA)

BUS: Business interpreting

C/T: Commerce and Tourism (BI: no IS component)

CONF: Conference interpreting (as opposed to specific technique: UAM)

INT: Unspecified interpreting (UAX)

PRAC: Practical (as opposed to ‘Techniques’: UAB only)

S/I: Social and institutional (BI: no IS component)

ST: sight translation (UCM)

THEORY: Interpreting theory (exclusively theoretical content, UPF only)

TRAD: interpreting for translators (UCM only)

Table 8: Specialised subjects (number of subjects included in brackets after the total number of credits)

	I T	II I	III O	IV %I	V T:I	VI
UA	36 (6)	0	24 (4)	0	-	-
UAX	9 (1½)	21 (3½)	54 (9)	25.00	0.43	BI (6): ‘C/B’ CI/SI (6) INT (6): ‘C’ BUS (6)
UAB	42 (7)	18 (3)23	59 (13)	15.13	2.33	TECH CI (6) TECH BI (6) PRAC BI (6)
UAM	54 (9)	42 (7)	36 (6)	31.82	1.29	CI 1 (6) CI 2 (6) CONF 1 (6) CONF 2 (6) SI 1 (6) SI 2 (6) SI (6): ‘C’
UCM	96 (16)	72 (12)	36 (6)	35.29	1.33	S/I CI & BI (6) [OB] S/I CI & BI (6): ‘C’ [OB] CI (6) [OB] CI (6) [OB]: ‘C’ BI (6) [OB] BI (6) [OB]: ‘C’ S/I SI & ST: B1-A (6) [OB] S/I SI & ST: B1-A (6) [OB]: ‘C’ SI (6) [OB] SI (6) [OB]: ‘C’ TRAD: B1-A (6) [OP] TRAD (6) [OP] ‘C’
UCO	24 (4)	0	0	0	-	-
UEM	6 (1)	12 (2)	18 (3)	33.33	0.5	ADV CI & BI (6) ADV SI
UGR	48 (8)	24 (4)	60 (10)	18.18	2.00	INTRO S/I (6) INTRO S/I (6): ‘C’ INTRO C/T (6) INTRO C/T (6): ‘C’
UJI	31.5 (7)	13.5 (3)	24 (5)	19.57	2.33	CI (4.5) SI (4.5) BI (4.5)
ULPGC	0	6 (2)	18 (4)	25.00	0.00	SI (3): ‘C’ CI/BI (3): ‘C’
UMA	66 (11)	18 (2)	36 (5)	15.00	3.67	SI 1 (9) SI 2 (9)
UM	36 (6)	6 (1)	18 (3)	10.00	6.00	BUS/BI (6)
UPO	15 (4)	12 (2)	58 (20)24	14.12	1.25	CONF (6) BI (6): ‘C’
EHU	6 (1)	54 (9)	30 (5)	60.00	0.11	IC 1 (6): ‘A-A’ IC 2 (6) IC 3 (6) IB (6): ‘A-A’ INTRO IB (6) IS 1 (6): ‘A-A’ IS 2 (6): ‘A-A’ IS 3 (6) IS 4 (6)
UPF	60 (5)	12 (3)	152 (38)25	5.36	5.00	ADV CI (4): ‘C’ ADV SI (4): ‘C’ THEORY (4)
UPC	66 (22)	0	66 (22)	0	-	-
USAL	67.5 (11)	25.5 (5)	52.5 (10)26	17.53	2.65	SI (4.5) [OB] SI: (4.5) [OB]: ‘C’ PRAC (4.5) [OB] ADV SI (6) [OP] SI & CI (6) [OP]: ‘D’
USJ	0	12 (2)	36 (8)	25	0.00	ADV CI & SI (6) ADV CI & SI (6): ‘C’
UV	30 (5)	0	72 (12)	0	-	-
UVA	48 (14)	9 (3)	105 (26)27	5.56	5.33	ADV CI (3) ADV SI (3) BI (3)
UVIC	24 (10)	18 (4)	48 (12)	20	1.33	ADV CI 1 (3) ADV CI 2 (6) ADV SI 1 (3) ADV SI 2 (6)
UVIGO	48 (8)	12 (2)	12 (2)	16.17	4	ADV SI (6) TECH (6): ‘C’
AVERAGE	36.95	17.73	46.11	17.61	2.08

Four universities (UA, UCO, UPC and UV) offer no interpreting options (see also Table 9). Very few universities offer any sort of thematic specialisation (Tables 8 & 9), with the notable exceptions of Commerce and Tourism (C/T) at UGR; and interpretation for translators, interpreting for business (BUS) at UAX and UM, albeit with a reduced number of credits in all cases. UCM also offers Social and Institutional Interpreting (S/I), although this could be seen as a specific type of liaison interpreting offered at all centres in some form or another as part of the basic, introductory training.

For comparative purposes, in the case of UCM the range of options labelled here as ‘C’ language for convenience are in fact fully-fledged second B languages. In total 12 Universities offer interpreting options using C languages, exceptionally including Arabic at UAM, with Portuguese also offered at USAL as a D language. In the case of EHU it is unclear whether certain language combinations options are available as C languages. However, as these subjects (IC 2 and IS 2) require level B IV, they have not been included here as C options. It is also unclear whether the interpreting options at UPF are available as B or C languages. Despite the limited scope of previous training (Table 7), it is assumed that optional advanced subjects do involve C languages, as they only appear to be available in German and French28.

3.2.3. Specialised itinerary

When discussing the design of what were to become the new Bologna degrees, Collados Aís (2007: 291-220) recommended that: “the design of the new study plans should contemplate the possibility of including interpreting itineraries [...] in order to satisfy demands by students [...]. Furthermore, this demand complies with various market studies which call for a broadening of the scope of interpreting profiles.” (Author’s translation).

Several universities do offer a specialised interpreting itinerary or special mention (Total 9). One would expect all such universities to offer an at least significantly above-average total number of interpreting credits and subjects, preferably with some degree of thematic specialisation and specific training in SI. Although this holds true in most cases, it is far from the case in all instances, with the concept of ‘itinerary’ revealing itself to be rather sui generis in several notable cases.

Table 9: Total interpreting credits (number of subjects in brackets)

	Itinerary	credits (subjects)	relative to mean
UCM	Y	78.0 (13)	+47.27 (+7.3)
EHU	Y	60.0 (10)	+29.27 (+4.3)
UAM	Y	48.0 (8)	+17.63 (+2.3)
UAX	N	46.0 (8.5)	+15.27 (+2.8)
USAL	Y	37.5 (7)	+6.77 (+1.3)
ULPGC	N	36.0 (7)	+5.27 (+1.3)
UGR	N	36.0 (6)	+5.27 (+0.3)
UVIC	Y	30.0 (7)	-0.73 (+1.3)
UVIGO	N	30.0 (5)	-0.73 (-0.7)
UMA	Y	30.0 (4)	-0.73 (-1.7)
UAB	Y	24.0 (4)	-6.73 (-1.7)
UEM	N	24.0 (4)	-6.73 (-1.7)
UM	N	24.0 (4)	-6.73 (-1.7)
UPO	N	24.0 (4)	-6.73 (-1.7)
UPC	N	24.0 (3)	-6.73 (-2.7)
UJI	Y	21.5 (4)	-9.27 (-1.7)
UVA	N	21.0 (5)	-9.73 (-0.7)
UA	N	18.0 (3)	-12.73 (-2.7)
UCO	N	18.0 (3)	-12.73 (-2.7)
USJ	Y	18.0 (3)	-12.73 (-2.7)
UPF	Y	16.0 (4)	-14.73 (-1.7)
UV	N	12.0 (2)	-18.73 (-3.7)
average		30.73 (5.7)

It is surprising that UAX has a considerably above-average number of interpreting credits and subjects but does not provide a specific interpreting itinerary. More surprising, however, is the fact that UJI, USJ and UPF do provide a specialised interpreting itinerary despite the fact that they all fall well short of the average regarding both credits and subjects, with UPF actually displaying the second lowest result of all 22 universities, although it does provide interpreting in C as also does USJ. The clearly ad hoc nature of an interpreting itinerary is also highlighted by the fact that UAB does have an itinerary whereas UEM, UM and UPO do not, despite the fact that all four offer exactly the same number of credits and subjects. This might be explained by the actual type of the subjects in each case, but again UAB fairs relatively badly as one of the very few universities to offer no specific SI training as either core or specialised subjects and no specific thematic specialisation.

As noted early, it is also significant that UAM and UVIC both offer compulsory SI and a specialised itinerary yet fail to meet the average number of work stations, with a particularly high student-to-booth average in the case of UVIC, i.e. 4.17 students for every work station (see Table 6).

Finally, whereas UM and, more especially, UCO (neither of which has a specialised itinerary) both fall well below the average number of interpreting credits and subjects, they do have the merit of providing a specialised field, i.e. legal and economic and business interpreting respectively.

4. Conclusions

First and foremost, the study reveals an overall lack of planning and coordination, with a large number of universities offering essentially the same basic language options (English, French and German) reflecting foreign-language teaching traditions which, in turn, have a bearing on the numbers of prospective students, together with perceived market needs, running the risk of flooding the market in this areas while leaving potential openings unattended for other languages. In this sense, the Conference of Translation and Interpreting Centres and Departments (CCDUTI) could possibly serve an advisory role in order to liaise between universities, whose stated aim is: “[...] to bring together representatives from the centres and departments offering a Degree in Translation and Interpreting in order to coordinate efforts between all of the centres and universities in the Spanish State teaching translation and interpreting at undergraduate level.” (Author’s translation. From the official website: http://confetradi.wordpress.com/).

One common feature is that interpreting is clearly a minority component of any T/I degree, with very few universities offering a Y-shaped itinerary early on. Significant differences exist, however, between universities regarding key features such as the facilities and infrastructures available, practical versus theoretical course contents, an introduction to all interpreting techniques (including SI) and the number and type of languages used for interpreting.

Significant differences exist regarding the specialised facilities available, with two universities (UAB and UVIGO) providing a well-above average total number of work-stations, with a considerable number of individual stations in multiple laboratories in the case of UVIGO. Although many universities are below average in this respect, those without core SI subjects or a very small student intake do manage to cover basic needs. However, two universities (UAM and UVIC) with core SI subjects and a specialised interpreting itinerary have below-average number of work stations and a correspondingly high student-to-booth ratio, particularly acute in the case of UVIC, situated in the highest fee bracket.

On the surface, when taking into account C and D languages, it may appear that the range of languages on offer varies widely from one university to the next. In practice, however, as far as interpreting is concerned, the actual variability is much less pronounced, with a reduced number of B languages, primarily English followed by French and German, plus local co-official A languages where applicable.

It is not necessarily surprising to find that that not all universities provide all-round interpreting training, in line with the recommendations contained in the white book concerning the basic structure of the new Bologna-design degrees, where ‘introduction to interpreting’ accounts for only 5% of compulsory subjects, as opposed to 40% for translation, i.e. 180 vs. 1440 hours (ANECA 4004: 123). However, it would seem reasonable to expect a basic grounding in all interpreting techniques as part of the basic T/I course, including a practical introduction to SI, in degree courses which have both translation and interpreting in the title. Furthermore, it would also seem fair to assume that universities claiming to provide a specific itinerary in interpreting would provide a complete basic training in all techniques in order to pave the way for further specialisation via postgraduate masters courses. While this is the case for several universities such as USAL which do offer a full interpreting itinerary, it does not apply in all cases, including universities where the overall cost of completing the T/I degree is well in excess of the average.

Although not specifically dealt with here, this situation also has a potential bearing on specialised post-graduate interpreter training. As not all universities offer specialised masters in interpreting, graduates from one university may need to pursue their studies at a different university. However, as post-graduate courses are designed to complete basic undergraduate training, prospective students would be well advised to study contents carefully before embarking on a master’s degree. For example, it is unclear to what extent a master’s degree in interpreting designed to complete undergraduate studies at UAB would be of any substantial benefit to USAL graduates.

The results of this study could also prove useful for prospective students interested in pursuing basic undergraduate training with a view to embarking on a career as professional interpreters when choosing a specific university based on the facilities and courses available weighed against the cost of study (value for money). Universities with high fees are typically regarded as prestigious; however, this should be contrasted with the other factors analysed.

The analysis could be also be usefully applied by universities when reviewing the current degree structure in order to optimise resources and rationalise teaching, with those approaching mean augmenting specialisation and including a wider array of specialised fields and/or language combinations in order to increase competitively and to meet potentially uncovered market demands, creating better job opportunities for would-be professional interpreters. Conversely, universities with very few interpreting credits might consider focusing on purely translating degrees, abandoning negligible and ineffective interpreter training.

Finally, similar studies would be required in order to gain an overall picture of the situation within the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) as a whole.

5. Bibliography

• ANECA (2004). Libro blanco. Título de grado en traducción e interpretación. Madrid: Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación (ANECA). [on-line] <http://www.aneca.es/var/media/150288/libroblanco_traduc_def.pdf> [Consulted: o1 April 2013].

• Baxter, R.N. (2012). A Simplified Multi-model Approach to Preparatory Training in Consecutive Interpreting. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 6(1), 21-43

• Collados Aís, A. (2007). La interpretación en la licenciatura de traducción e interpretación: perspectivas desde la especialidad de traducción. Sendebar 18, 209-222.

• Harris, B. y Fernández Nistal, P. (2002). La formación en interpretación en las universidades españolas. En Nuevas perspectivas de los estudios de traducción. J.M. Bravo (ed.), 9-34. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.

• Iglesias Fernández, E. (2003). La interpretación en la Universidad española: Estudio empírico de la situación académica y didáctica. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Universidad de Granada.

• INE [National Institute for Statistics] (2013). Cifras oficiales de población resultantes de la revisión del Padrón municipal a 1 de enero de 2012. [on-line] <http://www.ine.es/jaxi/tabla.do?path=/t20/e260/a2012/l0/&file=ccaa01.px&type=pcaxis&L=0> [Consulted: 01 April 2013].

• Padilla Benítez, P. (2002). Los estudios de interpretación y la investigación en España. Puentes 1, 71-80. [on-line] <http://www.ugr.es/~greti/puentes/puentes1/07%20Padilla.pdf> [Consulted: 01 April 2013].

• Prieto Velasco, Juan Antonio (2011). La implantación de los nuevos títulos de Grado en Traducción e Interpretación en la universidad española. En Actas del V Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Ibérica de Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación: Actualidad e Investigación en los Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación. Castelló: Universitat Jaume I. [on-line] <http://lexicon.ugr.es/pdf/pri-imp.pdf> [Consulted: 01 April 2013].

• Ruiz Mezcua, A. (2010). El equipo de interpretación simultánea y sus implicaciones didácticas. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Malaga: Universidad de Málaga. [on-line] <http://riuma.uma.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10630/4732/TD%20de%20Aurora%20Ruiz%20Mezcua.pdf?sequence=1> [Consulted: 01 April 2013].

• Tricás Preckler, M. (1999). Traducción e Interpretación: El plan de estudios y los objetivos de formación. Hieronymus Complutensis 8, 99-106. [on-line] <http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/hieronymus/pdf/08/08_099.pdf> [Consulted : 01 April 2013].

5.1. Official university sites for T/I degrees

• Universitat d’Alacant (UA)

http://cvnet.cpd.ua.es/webcvnet/planestudio/planestudiond.aspx?plan=C010

• Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio (UAX)

http://www.uax.es/index.php?id=2813

• Universidad Antonio de Nebrija (UAN)

http://www.nebrija.com/carreras-universitarias/traduccion-e-interpretacion/grado-traduccion.php

• Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB)

http://www.uab.cat/servlet/Satellite/els-estudis/totes-les-titulacions/informacio-general/traduccio-i-interpretacio-grau-eees-1096481809535.html?param1=1228291018508&param10=3

• Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM)

http://www.uam.es/ss/Satellite/FilosofiayLetras/es/1242658507137/contenidoFinal/Grado_en_Traduccion_e_Interpretacion.htm

• Universidad Complutense (CES Felipe II) (UCM)

http://www.ucm.es/?a=estudios&d=muestragrado&idgr=41

• Universidad de Córdoba (UCO)

http://www.uco.es/filosofiayletras/gtradinterpretacion/index.html

• Universidad Europea de Madrid (UEM)

http://www.uem.es/titulacion/grado-en-traduccion-y-comunicacion-intercultural

• Universidad de Granada (UGR)

http://grados.ugr.es/traduccion/pages/infoacademica/estudios

• Universitat Jaume I (UJI)

http://www.uji.es/infoest/estudis/grau/ah/trad.html

• Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC)

http://www.centros.ulpgc.es/fti/estudios_detallegrado.php

• Universidad de Málaga (UMA)

http://www.infouma.uma.es/estudios/artes/traduccion.html

• Universidad de Murcia (UM)

http://www.um.es/web/letras/contenido/estudios/grados/traduccion-ingles

• Universidad Pablo de Olavide (UPO)

http://www.upo.es/guia-estudios/grados/traduccion-interpretacion.html

• Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea/Universidad del País Vasco (EHU)

http://www.ehu.es/p200-content/es/pls/entrada/plew0040.htm_siguiente?p_sesion=&p_cod_idioma=CAS&p_en_portal=S&p_anyoAcad=act&p_cod_centro=130&p_cod_plan=GTRADU10&p_menu=intro

• Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF)

http://www.upf.edu/estudiants/titulacions/traduccio-ciencies-llenguatge/grau-traduccio/presentacio/index.html

• Universidad Pontificia Comillas (UPC)

http://www.upcomillas.es/estudios/estudiar_grado_TRAD.aspx

• Universidad de Salamanca (USAL)

http://www.usal.es/webusal/node/4622

• Universidad San Jorge (USJ)

http://www.usj.es/estudios/oficiales/grados/traduccion

• Universitat de València (UV)

http://www.uv.es/graus/artsHumanitats/traducciosp.htm

• Universidad de Valladolid (UVA)

http://www.uva.es/consultas/planesestudios/asignaturas?codigo_plan=423

• Universitat de Vic (UVIC)

http://www.uvic.es/estudi/traduccio-i-interpretacio

• Universidade de Vigo (UVIGO)

http://webs.uvigo.es/victce/index.php?Itemid=352&id=1111&option=com_content&task=view

Notas

1. Aston (Translation Studies); Cardiff (Translation); East Anglia (Interpreting with Two Foreign Languages); Herriot-Watt (Applied Languages and Translating); Hull (Two Modern Languages with Translation Studies); London Metropolitan (Translation); Middlesex (Translation); Roehampton (Modern Languages - Translation); Salford (Translation and Interpreting); Surrey (Foreign Language and Translation); Ulster (Applied Languages and Translation); Swansea (Modern Languages, Translation and Interpreting); Westminster (Translation Studies).

2. This paper prefers the term Spanish State to refer to the State administrative-level as opposed to the more usual ‘Spain’, in as much as universities in the historical Autonomous Communities also have specifically non-Spanish features, especially regarding the integration of co-official languages in their course design.

3. UAB: multimedia classrooms/labs with 30 work stations each and one with 24 workstations, the latter available for independent student practice. Multimedia rooms are not generally used for interpretation teaching.

4. UAX: Unspecified number of portable booths installed in amphitheatre for practice sessions.

5. UPF: Strictly speaking, only one laboratory with all booths located in the same room. However, for the purposes of this study it is counted as three separate laboratories owing to the fact that it can be split into three modules of 8+6+6 booths with three independent control desks, making it flexible enough for the teaching of three different groups at the same time, albeit in the same room.

6. UJI: Three extra double booths reserved for interpreting training placements (practica) and for Masters students.

7. USAL: Available for self-training.

8. UAM: Strictly speaking, there is only one laboratory. However, as flexibility of usage is the criterion used for detailing the number of laboratories, here it is counted as two laboratories, with the booths split into two blocs of 6 with independent teacher controls.

9. UAM: One booth located outside the main laboratory for handicapped access is not counted as a separate laboratory here.

10. UEM: Source: http://comunicacion.uem.es/es/instalaciones/traduccion

11. UA: Including 1 multimedia lab with 22 work stations exclusively used for self-study.

12. One independent laboratory, plus 30 non-booth workstations located within the main interpreting laboratory.

13. ULPGC: Incl. 1 multimedia lab specially adapted for SI practice with slighter higher partitions than usual for a language lab.

14. UPC: SI is not taught as part of the undergraduate degree. Interpreting booths are only used for the Master (20 places).

15. UAB: Introduction to interpreting classed here as ‘Other’. Primarily theoretical introduction with no practical interpreting component (http://www.uab.es/guiesdocents/2012-13/g101438p869t2500249a2012-13iCAT.pdf).

16. UAM: introduction to interpreting includes both theory and a practical introduction to both CI and SI (http://www.ffil.uam.es/ordenacion/guiasDocentes/2012-2013/18049.pdf).

17. UCO: Both Interpreting technique subjects include SI, CI and BI theory practice. Full description: http://www.uco.es/eguiado/guias/2012-13/101650_2012-13.pdf and http://www.uco.es/eguiado/guias/2012-13/101652_2012-13.pdf.

18. UJI: Introduction to interpreting includes a small SI component.

19. EHU: introduction to interpreting classed here as ‘Other’. Theoretical subject only with no practical component (http://www.ehu.es/p200-content/es/pls/entrada/plew0040.htm_asignatura_next?p_sesion=&p_cod_idioma=CAS&p_en_portal=S&p_cod_centro=130&p_cod_plan=GTRADU10&p_anyoAcad=act&p_pestanya=3&p_menu=guia&p_cod_asig=25424&p_ciclo=X&p_curso=2&p_dpto=&p_vengo_de=asig_cursos&p_centro_ori=130&p_plan_ori=GTRADU10).

20. UPF: General introduction including some sight translation, BI and PS and note-taking for CI.

21. USJ: General introduction with some BI.

22. UV: Both primarily theoretical subjects with a small component dealing with BI and CI only.

23. UAB: Excluding Oral expression in A language for interpreters (3cr) and Oral expression in B language for interpreters (3cr) included in the interpreting itinerary as not specifically interpreting subjects.

24. UPO: Including Intro. to Spanish Sign Language Interpreting (3cr.).

25. UPF: Including 5 sign language subjects (total 20 cr.).

26. USAL: The subject ‘Studies and Trends in interpreting (6)’ is purely theoretical in nature and as such is ranked here as ‘Other’

27. UVA: Incl. Spanish sign language (6).

28. UPF: Detailed course contents: http://www.upf.edu/pra/3343/index.html