Pedagogical review
RU EN






Today: 23.10.2026
Home Search
  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
    • 2026 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
    • 2025 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2024 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2023 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2022 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2021 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2020 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2019 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2018 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
    • 2017 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
    • 2016 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
    • 2015 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
    • 2014 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
    • 2013 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
  • Search
  • Rating
  • News
  • Editorial Board
  • Information for Authors
  • Review Procedure
  • Information for Readers
  • Editor’s Publisher Ethics
  • Contacts
  • Manuscript submission
  • Received articles
  • Accepted article
  • Subscribe
  • Service Entrance
vestnik.tspu.ru
praxema.tspu.ru
ling.tspu.ru
npo.tspu.ru
edujournal.tspu.ru

E-LIBRARY (РИНЦ)
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory
Google Scholar
DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)
EBSCO
Search by Author
- Not selected -
  • - Not selected -

Search

- Not selected -
  • - Not selected -
  • - Not selected -

#SearchDownloads
1

Bubenchikova A.V., Frolova A.I. Cognitively responsible interpretation as a didactic category in training interpreters for business communication. Pedagogical Review. 2026. Issue 5 (69). P. 47-56

The article substantiates the need to introduce the concept of cognitively responsible interpreting (CRI) into the methodology of interpreter training in the context of digitalization and the rapid integration of automatic speech translation (AST) systems. The relevance of the study is determined by a shift in professional requirements: from mere linguistic proficiency to the ability to consciously manage the cognitive, communicative, and ethical dimensions of the interpreting process in real time, particularly in business communication, where responsibility for the accuracy, appropriateness, and consequences of interpretive decisions is significantly increased. The aim of the study is to provide a theoretical foundation and operationalization of CRI as a didactic category applicable in higher education interpreter training. The methodological framework draws on activity theory (A.N. Leontiev), the interpretive theory of translation (D. Seleskovitch, M. Lederer), and the competence-based approach (I.A. Zimnyaya, A.V. Khutorskoy), complemented by contemporary research on metacognitive strategies, self-regulation, and decision-making under uncertainty. The study proposes a four-component structure of CRI: cognitive, ethical, temporal, and professional-pragmatic components. Each component is described in terms of its psychological foundations, its manifestation in interpreting activity, and a system of observable behavioral indicators that enable assessment of CRI development. The concept is differentiated from related constructs, which clarifies its status as an integrative didactic construct and expands its methodological applicability. The paper formulates key instructional principles and proposes a four-stage model for developing CRI, including awareness, modeling, guided practice, and reflective integration. The model is grounded in metacognitive strategies and aims to foster self-regulation, critical reflection, and informed decision-making in dynamic professional contexts. The scientific novelty lies in the operationalization of CRI with an emphasis on temporal and ethical dimensions, while its practical significance consists in its applicability to curriculum design, assessment development, and the organization of systematic reflective practice in interpreter education.

Keywords: cognitively responsible interpretation, interpreting, business communication, interpreting teaching methodology, automatic speech translation, translation competence, metacognitive strategies, temporal responsibility, reflexive empathy

2

2026 Pedagogical Review

Development and support: Network Project Laboratory TSPU

Данный сайт применяет файлы cookie и метрики для оценки. Продолжая его использование, вы соглашаетесь на обработку этих данных. Если вы не согласны, пожалуйста, покиньте сайт.