Miroslava Melicherčíková
Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia
miroslava.melichercikova@umb.sk

Abstract
The paper presents an overview of pre-interpreting exercises as they are described in the literature on interpreter training. A distinction is made among general preliminary exercises, preliminary exercises for consecutive interpreting, preliminary exercises for simultaneous interpreting and other exercises. Two surveys reflecting students’ opinions on the use and effectiveness of pre-interpreting exercises are presented and compared with the literature. Apart from the most relevant findings, some limitations are pointed out. Finally, a grant is briefly introduced aiming at designing a rigorous interpreting textbook which will improve the university preparation of translation and interpreting students and streamline interpreting training at all academic institutions in Slovakia which educate future translators and interpreters.

Introduction
According to the literature on the subject, interpreter training should aim to develop and streamline task-specific professional skills (Pöchhacker 2004). Textbooks and papers dealing with interpreter training, according to Pöchhacker (2004), usually fall into three categories, although we may observe some overlaps: consecutive interpreting with note-taking (e.g. Alexieva 1994; Andres 2002; Jones 2002; Gillies 2005; Setton and Dawrant 2016), simultaneous interpreting for international conferences (e.g. Jones 2002; Setton and Dawrant 2016) and dialogue interpreting in the community (e.g. Hale 2007). Gile (2005, 131) acknowledges that virtually all interpreter training programs “are built on interpreting exercises, in both consecutive and simultaneous, with some sight translation and other peripheral exercises”.
Some scholars claim that a complex task such as interpreting should be viewed holistically; others are of the opinion that interpreting should be analysed as a set of individual skills (Pérez-Luzardo, 2015). Most scholars agree that trainees should do preliminary exercises before practising real interpreting. These may be offered within a specific course, integrated into teaching in the first few weeks of a particular course, or used as warm-up exercises at the beginning of class.
Pre-interpreting exercises focus on ancillary skills such as analytical skills in text comprehension, expressive skills for public speaking and assignment preparation (Pérez-Luzardo, 2015). In addition to these general preparatory exercises, scholars also recommend preparatory exercises for consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. Pöchhacker (2004) claims that this didactic literature usually takes the form of descriptive (“how I do it”) or prescriptive accounts (“how it should be done”).
Despite a multitude of exercises proposed by various scholars, “little is known about actual teaching practices adopted by individual instructors or institutions” (Pöchhacker 2004, 184). Certain doubts concerning the impact of specialized literature on teaching practices were voiced by Dodds and Katan (1997 In: Pöchhacker 2004). A questionnaire-based classroom survey by Pöchhacker (1999) confirmed highly diverse teaching practices within one institution among twenty-two teachers regarding input text presentation, use of media and correction. This points to heterogeneity in interpreter training determined by a particular teacher.

General preliminary exercises
Exercises aimed at enhancing expressive skills may be specific (such as focus on voice quality and diction) or general (such as public-speaking skills). Pérez-Luzardo (2015, 317) adds that “language enhancement drills may be designed to speed up vocabulary retrieval and improve fluency”. Exercises in which students are asked to imitate speaker’s intonation, use of pauses, etc. may also be helpful (Setton and Dawrant 2016). Expression in interpreting may also be improved through exercises with synonyms, parataxis, hypernyms, antonyms, re-expression, paraphrasing, making prepared or extemporaneous speeches, practising the use of idiomatic expressions and set phrases, or connective exercises (Ballester and Jiménez 1992; Nolan 2005).
Content processing is crucial in the preliminary exercise of paraphrasing. Interpreting shares certain aspects with unilingual paraphrase (Le Ny 1978), which helps develop students’ ability “to render the basic meaning of a message in other words and in different sentence constructions” (Moser 1978, 363). By practising paraphrasing, interpreter trainees learn to convey the message without time pressure and linguistic constraints of the original speech (Kalina 1998; Moser 1978). Also effective are modifications of paraphrasing, such as asking students to re-express the content of a linguistically complex text or speech more concisely while maintaining accuracy, using appropriate linking expressions and avoiding any adornment (Pérez-Luzardo 2015). These exercises train students to identify the most succinct equivalent and eliminate redundancy (Nolan 2005; Pérez-Luzardo 2015).
Memory exercises should teach students how to use their working memory to properly foreground the memorization of key concepts rather than words (Kautz 2000). Zhong (2003) suggests combining memory exercises with specific techniques of categorization, generalization, comparison and description. For developing memory skills Pérez-Luzardo (2015) recommends written or spoken summaries of a speech previously listened to, dictation-translations, and further variations on these exercises.

Preliminary exercises for consecutive interpreting
Consecutive interpreting is either performed as short consecutive without notes (as used in dialogue interpreting) or as classic consecutive using note-taking and rendering passages lasting five to ten minutes (as used in conference interpreting) (Pöchhacker 2004). For training consecutive interpreting without note-taking, the previously mentioned memory enhancing exercises are used. According to Gile (2005, 131-132) “they are very useful for the purpose of demonstrating to the students how memory works, and in particular the fact that if they listen carefully and understand the logic of the speech, its content will be stored in their memory even without a conscious effort to memorise it, although recalling it actively may be problematic unless they have cues”.
Ilg and Lambert (1996) found out that publications dealing with the teaching of consecutive interpreting focus primarily on note-taking. For training note-taking skills, the preliminary exercises are recommended to improve message analysis, message recall and active listening, combined with the techniques of clozing, chunking and visualization (Kalina 1998). Exercises for analysis and comprehension are also supposed to enhance listening and understanding. Students listen to a speech and either before or afterwards are given a specific task such as answering multiple choice questions, filling in a form, accurately rendering numbers, proper names, dates (with or without the use of notes) or producing the structure of the speech (Ballester and Jiménez 1992). Gillies (2005) recommends looking at speeches at a macro-level to focus on their structure. Mini-summaries represent an exercise aiming at a very brief summary of the main ideas (Gillies 2005).
Public-speaking skills are essential to the production phase of consecutive interpreting (Pöchhacker 2004). Bottan (2000 In: Pöchhacker 2004, 184) experimentally confirmed that “specific training in public speaking (including breathing, voice control, eye contact) raised students’ awareness of their delivery and enhanced their presentation in consecutive interpreting”. In order to provide feedback on performance, video recording may prove useful (Kellet 1995).

Preliminary exercises for simultaneous interpreting
Simultaneous interpreting is a complex cognitive task which involves listening and speaking at the same time. The skill of simultaneous listening and speaking can be trained by means of dual-task exercises. Dual tasks, as their name suggests, involve two different cognitive tasks; for example, listening to a recording in combination with a second task, such as reading another text aloud, or counting forwards or backwards (Moser 1978). Other modifications are also possible. Some scholars (Déjean le Féal 1997; Kalina 1998) question the usefulness of dual-task exercises in interpreter training, claiming that “the performance of cognitively unrelated tasks does not approximate the processing demands of simultaneous interpreting” (Pöchhacker 2004, 184).
Another preliminary exercise for simultaneous interpreting is shadowing, which can be defined as “the immediate repetition of auditory input in the same language with either minimal delay (phoneme shadowing) or at greater latencies (phrase shadowing)” (Pöchhacker 2004, 184). Literature on interpreter training views shadowing as a rather controversial issue, having both its advocates (Lambert 1991) and opponents (Seleskovitch and Lederer 1989 In: Pöchhacker 2004). Drawing from neuropsychology, Kurz characterizes shadowing as monolingual repetitive speech production which only poorly approximates simultaneous interpreting, since it misses a crucial element: “the active analysis of speech input” (Kurz 1992, 248). Kurz (1992) tested this experimentally in a longitudinal study testing five first-year students on shadowing and two simultaneous question-and-answer tasks (Yes/No questions, Why questions) at the beginning and at the end of one semester of simultaneous interpreting training. Students improved on all three tasks, but the best test results were recorded for the most demanding task (answering a why question while listening to the next why question). Moser (1978) came to similar results while testing introductory exercises (abstraction of ideas, message prediction, dual tasks and shadowing). The least significant difference between experimental (five students in their 5th semester who had never been enrolled in an interpreting course before) and control (five students in their 5th semester who were currently enrolled in courses in the translation section) groups was found for the shadowing task, whereas the most pronounced difference was identified for the extended lag test (repetition or translation of sentences while staying one or two sentences behind). These experiments proved that shadowing requires less processing capacity for meaning (Pöchhacker 2004). This conclusion was later confirmed by Moser-Mercer et al. (2000) who found that five students were better at shadowing than five professional interpreters, suggesting that interpreters apply acquired content-processing strategies.
Though shadowing is viewed as controversial in professional literature, we believe that its modification may be useful in interpreter training. For didactic purposes we select authentic speeches with formal deficiencies such as false starts, repetitions, incomplete sentences, syntactical and morphological mistakes and ask students to shadow them while correcting/avoiding these deficiencies. Apart from this modification, Kalina (1992) recommends other variants, such as transforming the passive voice into active under shadowing conditions or transforming direct speech into reported speech and performing the required grammatical adjustments while shadowing. Shadowing tasks combined with cloze exercises which also provoke anticipation (Kalina 1992) may also be useful.
In anticipation tasks students are expected to comprehend the meaning of a text displayed in segments on a screen while reading it aloud. In spite of a time lag, their reading has to be communicative (Kalina 1992). Likewise, exercises targeted at enhancing active listening focus on the process of anticipation through inferencing and knowledge mobilization (Chernov 2004). A teacher may ask students to write notes on the ideas they expect to hear in a speech before listening to it (Pérez-Luzardo 2015). Another variant includes interrupting the speech after particular segments and requiring students to complete it, continuing the ideas. More demanding are so-called productive anticipation tasks (Kalina 1992), containing unexpected turns which force students to amend/correct their output after anticipation.
Kalina (1992) agrees that consecutive interpreting is the gateway to simultaneous interpreting and should be taught first, but at the same time she is convinced that preliminary exercises for simultaneous interpreting should be practiced in parallel with consecutive interpreting teaching.

Other exercises
Weber (1990) claims that sight translation involves most of the skills required of conference interpreters and therefore should be incorporated into interpreter training programmes from the beginning up to the end. He presents four different skills included in sight translation: rapid text analysis, avoiding word-for-word interpreting, rapid conversion of information from one culture/language into another and public-speaking techniques (Weber 1990). This exercise can be effectively applied to both consecutive and simultaneous interpreting training, though Viezzi (1990 In: Pöchhacker 2004, 186) “questioned the similarity of task demands assumed for sight translation and simultaneous interpreting”.
We consider the practice of keeping a journal as an effective tool for providing additional data on interpreter training among beginning students. In such journals, students can monitor their individual progress and record their opinions as well as potential difficulties with introductory exercises (applied for instance by Moser-Mercer 2000 In: Pöchhacker 2004).
The exercises presented above are primarily applied in training the two basic modes of conference interpreting (consecutive and simultaneous), emphasizing cognitive processing. Exercises helping students to manage anxiety, grow more confident and develop situation-based problem-solving skills should be incorporated into training (dialogue) interpreting by such means as theatrical training (Pérez-Luzardo 2015).
The foregoing overview of frequently applied and recommended (pre-)interpreting exercises is by no means exhaustive or complete. The use of (pre-)interpreting exercises in interpreter training should be justified. In this context, Gile’s (2005, 149) remark would seem particularly relevant: “The best methods for one environment may not be best for another”. Interpreter trainers have to be aware of the actual interpreting needs of their particular students in their particular environment and be ready to, if necessary, apply methods that deviate considerably from those advocated in the literature.

Slovak textbooks and monographs on interpreter training
Despite the growing volume of theoretical accounts, Slovakia has yet to produce a practical publication focusing on the comprehensive training of interpreting skills. The lack of methodological materials has been long pointed out by interpreting instructors. In recent years, we have noted the efforts of some scholars to fill this gap by publishing textbooks for interpreting or didactic materials, such as Djovčoš and Šveda et al. (2018); Fedorko (2017); Šveda (2016); Kredátusová (2016; 2012); Vertanová et al. (2015); Opalková (2014; 2013a; 2013b; 2011); Opalková et al. (2013); Šavelová and Melicherčíková (2013); Veselá (2006). These teaching materials are intended either for a particular language combination, for a selected mode of interpreting (consecutive or simultaneous interpreting), or for new forms (community interpreting). However, there is still a need for a comprehensive textbook, based on exact methods and the results of research, which would be available to all interpreter training institutions in Slovakia. Some relevant data can be provided by theses successfully defended at Slovak universities, though their focus is often limited.
The author of the present paper has supervised two theses (Dubovská 2009; Slučiaková 2013) dealing with the topic of (pre)-interpreting exercises. In her master’s thesis, Dubovská (2009) focused on types of preparatory interpreting exercises and their legitimacy in the didactics of interpreting. In her bachelor’s thesis, Slučiaková (2013) investigated the efficiency of exercises applied during interpreter training.

Survey 1
The first survey was conducted in order to find out students’ opinions and personal experience with preparatory interpreting exercises. The original intention was to research first- and second-year master’s-level translation and interpreting (T&I) students and to compare their views. Since there were no such first-year students at the university studied at that time, the survey was conducted solely among second-year students of T&I (Dubovská 2009).
Subjects
Subjects were students of T&I at the Faculty of Arts, Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia in the second year, second (and final) semester of their master’s studies; their interpreter training had begun in the third (and final) year of their bachelor’s studies, namely in the fifth semester. The total sample consisted of 50 subjects, of which 96% were females (N=48) and 4% were males (N=2); they were aged 22 to 27.
Questionnaire
The author opted for a questionnaire, the most frequently used instrument in survey studies (Liu 2011), in order to find out subjects’ opinions and their personal experience with preparatory interpreting exercises. The questionnaire was designed by Dubovská (2009), based on relevant literature and consisted of two parts. The first part contained three identification questions serving to determine subjects’ age, gender and year of study. The second part comprised 30 questions relating to the didactics of interpreting and preparatory interpreting exercises, composed predominantly of closed-ended questions (either dichotomous questions such as yes/no questions and true/false questions, or multiple-choice questions including ranking on the scale “not important–important–very important”) and two open-ended questions.
Procedure
The questionnaire was administered to students of T&I at the beginning of interpreting class; students filled in a printed version in groups corresponding to their language combination (each containing no more than 14 subjects due to the interpreting classroom booth capacity). The survey was carried out between 29 September 2008 and 3 October 2008.
Results
All subjects (N=50) stated that they were familiar with the term “preparatory interpreting exercises” and the majority (N=45, 90%) agreed that interpreting exercises helped them to develop their interpreting competence and skills. The remaining 10% (N=5) were of the opinion that only a part of those exercises might be beneficial to interpreting training. None of the subjects stated that the exercises were useless in interpreter training. When asked to consider their overall interpreting skills after two years of training, 8% (N=4) noted that their progress was more than visible while for 92% (N=46) interpreting exercises represented a useful tool of improvement, but they claimed they needed more training. This finding corroborates the theory that, apart from compulsory classes, interpreting training requires a great deal of self-study (see Kornakov 2000; Djovšoš – Šveda 2018).
Almost all the respondents (N=48, 96%) were convinced that interpreting exercises contributed to developing interpreting competence, one respondent (2%) attributed only a partial role to interpreting exercises in developing interpreting competence and one respondent (2%) was of the opinion that interpreting competence is something one is born with and therefore cannot be developed.
Responses were more diverse on the time that should be dedicated to preparatory exercises. On the assumption that one interpreting class lasts 90 minutes, 14% (N=7) would welcome pre-interpreting exercises taking half of the class (45 minutes), 32% (N=16) would be satisfied with less than half of the class (less than 45 minutes), and 8% (N=4) invited spending more than half of the class (more than 45 minutes). Almost half of the sample (N=23, 46%) was convinced that the duration of preparatory exercises should be adjusted specifically to the training level. These responses are in line with the varied approaches to integrating pre-interpreting exercises into teaching (see Pérez-Luzardo 2015).
The questionnaire also provided data on the sequence of teaching. In line with the literature documenting the differing cognitive demands of consecutive and simultaneous interpreting, 76% of subjects (N=38) stated that consecutive and simultaneous interpreting should be trained separately, while the remaining 24% (N=12) were against such a separation. More than one third of subjects (38%, N=19) believed that consecutive interpreting training should precede simultaneous interpreting training, while nearly two thirds (62%, N=31) claimed it should not (due to the structure of the particular question it is not obvious whether they thought simultaneous interpreting training should precede consecutive interpreting training or whether they should be trained simultaneously).
Other sets of questions yielded data on particular pre-interpreting exercises. Most subjects (68%, N=34) would welcome a division of consecutive exercises into pre-consecutive and consecutive exercises. 32% (N=16) considered such a division unnecessary. Almost all the subjects (N=48, 96%) viewed note-taking exercises as a useful and effective training tool. In spite of contradictory views on shadowing in literature, 90% of the subjects (N=45) considered shadowing to be a helpful tool in acquiring the ability to listen to and speak at the same time. Only 10% of the subjects (N=5) did not view shadowing as a helpful tool in interpreter training. Majority of the subjects (64%, N=32) were of the opinion that phonemic shadowing should precede phrase shadowing; the remaining subjects (36%, N=18) saw no reason for such a sequence. 62% (N=31) would welcome shadowing if combined with other monolingual exercises, such as Yes/No questions and Why questions. For 32% (N=16) shadowing should not be replaced by other monolingual exercises, because it has its own place in interpreter training. Only 6% (N=3) considered other monolingual exercises more useful than shadowing.
As regards the role of cloze tasks in interpreter training, a vast majority of respondents (N=45, 90%) were convinced that these exercises help develop interpreting skills and competences (such as inference and anticipation). Similarly, 92% (N=46) viewed sight translation exercises as very helpful in interpreter training. Out of the total sample, 58% of subjects (N=29) would apply sight translation into both consecutive and simultaneous interpreting training, 38% (N=19) would integrate these exercises only into simultaneous interpreting training and 4% (N=2) were against their use in interpreter training.
The combination of dual tasks with other exercises was recommended by 58% of the subjects (N=29), 24% (N=12) opted for separate application into didactics of consecutive and simultaneous interpreting, while 18% (N=9) would exclude them from interpreter training. The relevance ranking of individual exercises showed that note-taking exercises were viewed as the most important pre-interpreting exercise (average 2.58); 62% of subjects (N=31) marked them as very important. These were followed by transformation and paraphrasing exercises (average 2.3), which 40% of the subjects (N=20) viewed as very important. Shadowing exercises ranked third (average 2.24); 30% of subjects (N=15) considered them to be very important. Sight translation and cloze-task exercises tied for fourth place (average 2.04); in both cases 16% of subjects (N=8) were of the opinion that they were very important. The last place was occupied by dual tasks (average 1.42); although 20% (N=10) considered them very important, approximately the same number of participants, 18% (N=9), marked them as not important.

Survey 2
The second survey aimed at identifying the most and least practiced and efficient (pre-)interpreting exercises and at providing personal opinions on some exercises. In contrast to the first survey, it was conducted as part of a bachelor’s thesis (Slučiaková 2013), which is reflected in its more limited scale and less comprehensive data processing and evaluation.
Subjects
The survey was conducted among second-year master’s students and graduates of translation and interpreting (Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica and Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia). The author (Slučiaková 2013) opted for these two groups of respondents due to their having previously completed or almost completed interpreter training and their experience with interpreting exercises. Out of the total sample of 60 subjects, the students comprised 43.3% (N=26) and the graduates 56.7% (N=34). At the time of the research the subjects were aged 22–33, their average age being 24.5. With regard to gender, 83.3% of the respondents were females (N=50) and 16.7% were males (N=10).
Questionnaire
The research tool represented a questionnaire designed by the author (Slučiaková 2013) and drawing from the literature on interpreting. It was divided into two parts, the second part being further subdivided into two sections. The first part comprised four identification questions aiming at eliciting data on subjects’ age, gender, current study status and language competencies. The first section of the second part contained five general questions focusing on awareness, practical experience and opinions related to interpreting exercises (closed-ended questions combined with open-ended questions). The second section of the second part consisted of nine questions dealing with particular (pre-)interpreting exercises (open-ended questions combined with multiple-choice questions).
Procedure
The questionnaire was sent to students and graduates of translation and interpreting at Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica and Comenius University in Bratislava via e-mail and the social network Facebook. The data collection took place between 7 December 2012 and 20 January 2013. The respondents filled in and submitted 60 questionnaires.
Results
All the respondents (N=60) confirmed knowledge of interpreting exercises and their relevance to interpreter training. 96.5% (N=58) were convinced that exercises had helped them in their interpreter training. Separate training of consecutive and simultaneous interpreting was recommended by 93.3% (N=56). The majority of the respondents believed that paraphrasing and shadowing were the most useful interpreting exercises; for others, anticipation exercises were of more importance. In spite of recognizing the relevance of interpreting exercises, 76.7% of the respondents (N=46) believed that interpreting exercises should be practiced every day – only 20% (N=12) practiced them at home. The result for exercises practiced only during interpreting classes, from most to least recommended, was as follows: dual tasks (66.7%), paraphrasing (66.7%), shadowing (66.7%), sight translation (63.3%), rebuilding sentences (60%), text condensation (56.7%), exercises dealing with synonyms and antonyms (53.3%); other exercises scored less than 50%, such as code switching, transformation of the text, univerbization of multiword expressions, cloze tasks, and proper use of conjunctions. The most commonly practiced exercises at home were shadowing (53.3%), sight translation (53.3%) and paraphrasing (50%). Although a majority of the respondents did not consider interpreting exercises useless, some viewed some of them as a waste of time: shadowing (13.3%), proper use of conjunction (13.3%), transformation of the text (6.7%), cloze tasks (6.7%), exercises dealing with synonyms, antonyms (6.7%), dual tasks (3.3%). As regards the time that should be devoted to practicing interpreting exercises, 58.3% (N=35) of respondents agreed on approximately 30 minutes a day, while 23.3% (N=14) did not think it necessary to practice them every day. The last finding of the survey concerned students’ view on training through interpreting exercises: 76.7% (N=46) concluded that it is underestimated, meaning that more time should be devoted to it.

Discussion and limitations
The main research tools applied in both surveys were questionnaires. Although they were thematically similar, they were not identical, which precludes a detailed comparison of the investigated aspects. The surveys also differed in their extent of data processing and evaluation.
Nevertheless, according to both surveys, students and graduates are aware of (pre-)interpreting exercises (indicating that these exercises are applied in interpreter training) and acknowledge their relevance in interpreter training. Most of the subjects confirmed such exercises’ importance in developing interpreting competence and skills. Both surveys confirmed students’ preference for separate training of consecutive and simultaneous interpreting (their separation was recommended by a greater number in the second survey). We cannot compare the data related to the training time of exercises, since the first survey investigated it within an interpreting class, whereas the second one focused on training on a daily basis.
Some similarities were observed with regard to the most relevant exercises. Among the first three places in both surveys were paraphrasing and shadowing, even though shadowing proved to be a controversial issue in the second survey.
Apart from obvious or expected findings, the surveys also provided some unexpected findings. Namely, in the first survey, students viewed note-taking exercises as very important, earning them the highest score. The reason for this may be the awareness that if note-taking is not trained systematically, it may be reflected in poor interpreting performances (see Melicherčíková 2017). Similarly, rather surprising was the position of last place for dual tasks within the first survey. This may be supported by critics’ claims that dual tasks are based on cognitively unrelated tasks. Unexpected in the second survey was the fact that only one fifth of respondents reported that they practiced interpreting exercises also at home, in spite of the general awareness of the importance of self-training in interpreter training (Kornakov 2000).
We can conclude that in general, both surveys yielded some relevant and interesting data, even though they also had certain limitations.
The first obvious limitation of the presented surveys is the time they were conducted (2008 and 2012/2013). Since then other pre-interpreting exercises and their modifications have been integrated into interpreter training. Neither in the first nor in the second survey did the subjects sign an informed consent form, which is a necessary part of contemporary research. This fact may also be attributed to the time the surveys were conducted (2008 and 2012/2013). Both the samples were comparable in terms of size and study period. These samples can be regarded as satisfactory in relation to the particular field of study (T&I), despite their small size.
Some limitations concern the structure and design of the questionnaires. The first questionnaire contained predominantly closed-ended questions. These are easier to analyse, but more difficult to construct. When asking closed-ended questions, all reasonable alternative answers should be provided (Bradburn et al. 2004). For some questions used in the first questionnaire we would recommend completing additional responses. Although closed-ended questions have some advantages, the character of research (the main intention of the survey was to find out subjects’ opinions) would also require open-ended questions, which allow and encourage respondents to fully give their opinions (Bradburn et al. 2004). Therefore, the optimum approach would seem to be a combination of both closed-ended and open-ended questions. As regards the structure of the second questionnaire, in some cases one question actually contained two questions and therefore should have been formulated as two separate questions (e.g. Do you think consecutive and simultaneous interpreting should be trained separately or simultaneously? Why?). Another limitation can be attributed to the data evaluation in the second survey. The author (Slučiaková 2013) did not specify the findings for two distinct samples (students and graduates), but evaluated the data for the whole sample. The findings might have been different for the two samples in certain aspects such as time devoted to exercises, home practice or relevance of individual exercises. For some questions, only a general evaluation was provided; concrete numbers/percentage are missing for certain categories. Both surveys focused exclusively on subjective responses. Empirical testing reflecting the effectiveness of individual exercises is missing.

Conclusion and future prospects
The present paper has focused on several (pre-)interpreting exercises and their categorisations. This overview is by no means complete or exhaustive, as a number of other exercises, their variations and modifications are used in interpreter training. The differing needs of different environments require different methods. Also decisive is the personality of the instructor. The author has also presented two surveys on (pre-)interpreting exercises (Dubovská 2009 and Slučiaková 2013), which were conducted as part of theses. These surveys provided additional data on students’ subjective perception of particular exercises; however, they did not test the effectiveness of (pre-)interpreting exercises in interpreter training.
The Cultural and Educational Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic has approved the grant KEGA 026UMB-4/2019: Exaktná učebnica tlmočenia (Rigorous Interpreting Textbook), confirming the need for a rigorous interpreting textbook with innovative features, something which lacks in Slovak translation and interpreting programmes. The principal investigator (Faculty of Arts, Matej Bel University, Banská Bystrica) and co-investigators (Faculty of Arts, Comenius University, Bratislava and Faculty of Arts, University of Ostrava, Ostrava) will strive to design teaching materials focused on the comprehensive training of the skills necessary for mastering consecutive and simultaneous interpreting, grounded in recognized theories and models of interpreting, and applying empirical findings concerning diverse aspects of interpreting. The longitudinal research started in September 2019 and will last until May 2021. The testing is being performed on an experimental (students of translation and interpreting) and a control group (students of teaching of academic subjects), and the data gathered will be processed statistically. Additional data on research subjects will be provided from an electronic questionnaire. One of the tasks of the project is to test the effectiveness of individual exercises, gain students’ opinions on particular teaching practices from continuous interpreting journals, and compare findings with previous studies and theoretical accounts. The ambition of the research team (of which the author of this paper is a member), including investigators from three universities, is to design a rigorous interpreting textbook which will improve the university preparation of translation and interpreting students and streamline interpreting training at all academic institutions in Slovakia which educate future translators and interpreters.

This paper was written as part of the grant KEGA 026UMB-4/2019: Exaktná učebnica tlmočenia (Rigorous Interpreting Textbook).

References
Alexieva, Bistra. 1994. On teaching note-taking in consecutive interpreting. In: Dollerup, Cay and Lindegaard, Annette (eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aims, Visions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 199-206.
Andres, Dörte. 2002. Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notation. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Ballester, Ana and Jiménez, Catalina. 1992. Approaches to the teaching of interpreting: mnemonic and analytic strategies. In: Dollerup, Cay and Lindegaard, Anne (eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Training, Talent, and Experience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 237-243.
Bottan, Lorena. 2000. La présentation en interprétation consecutive: comment développer une habileté de base. In: The Interpreters’ Newsletter. No. 10: 47-67.
Bradburn, Norman et al. 2004. Asking Questions. The Definite Guide to Questionnaire Design – For Market Research, Political Polls, and Social and Health Questionnaires. Revised Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chernov, Ghelly V. 2004. Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Probability Prediction Model. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Déjean le Féal, Karla. 1997. Simultaneous interpretation with “training wheels”. In: Meta. Vol. 42 (No. 4): 616-621.
Djovčoš, Martin and Šveda, Pavol et al. 2018. Didaktika prekladu a tlmočenia na Slovensku [The Didactics of Translation and Interpreting in Slovakia]. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave.
Dodds, John and Katan, David. 1997. The Interaction between Research and Training. In: Gambier, Yves et al. (eds), Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 89-107.
Dubovská, Lenka. 2009. Types of preparatory interpreting exercises and their legitimacy in the didactics of interpreting. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Banská Bystrica: FHV UMB.
Fedorko, Marián. 2017. Učebnica a cvičebnica tlmočenia 1 [Textbook and exercise book of interpreting 1]. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešove.
Gile, Daniel. 2005. Teaching conference interpreting: a contribution. In: Tennent, Martha (ed.), Training for the New Millennium. Pedagogies for translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 127-151.
Gillies, Andrew. 2005. Note-Taking for Consecutive Interpreting – A Short Course. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Hale, Sandra Beatriz. 2007. Community Interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ilg, Gérard and Lambert, Sylvie. 1996. Teaching consecutive interpreting. Interpreting. Vol. 1 (No. 1): 69-99.
Jones, Roderick. 1998. Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St Jerome.
Kalina, Sylvia. 1992. Discourse processing and interpreting strategies – an approach to the teaching of interpreting. In: Dollerup, Cay and Lindegaard, Anne (eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Training, Talent, and Experience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 251-257.
Kalina, Sylvia. 1998. Strategische Prozesse beim Dolmetschen. Theoretische Grundlagen, empirische Fallstudien, didaktische Konsequenzen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Kautz, Ulrich. 2000. Handbuch Didaktik des Übersetzens und Dolmetschens [Translation and Interpreting Teaching Handbook]. Munich: Iudicium.
Kellett, Cynthia J. 1995. Video-aided Testing of Student Delivery and Presentation in Consecutive Interpretation. In: The Interpreters’ Newsletter. No. 6: 43-66.
Kornakov, Peter. 2000. Five Principles and Five Skills for Training Interpreters. In: Meta. Vol. 45 (No. 2): 241-248.
Kredátusová, Jarmila. 2012. Konzekutívne tlmočenie I. (pre ukrajinistov) [Consecutive interpreting I. (for students of Ukrainian)]. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešove.
Kredátusová, Jarmila. 2016. Konzekutívne tlmočenie pre ukrajinistov: kultúra [Consecutive interpreting for students of Ukrainian: culture]. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešove.
Kurz, Ingrid. 1992. “Shadowing” exercises in interpreter training. In: Dollerup, Cay and Lindegaard, Anne (eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 245-250.
Lambert, Sylvie. 1991. Aptitude testing for simultaneous interpretation at the University of Ottawa. In: Meta. Vol. 36 (No. 4): 586-594.
Le Ny, Jean François. 1978. Psychosemantics and simultaneous interpretation. In: Gerver, David and Sinaiko, H. Wallace (eds.), Language Interpretation and Communication. New York/London: Plenum Press. 289-298.
Liu, Minhua. 2011. Methodology in interpreting studies: A methodological review of evidencebased research. In Nicodemus, Brenda and Swabey, Laurie (eds.), Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 85-119.
Melicherčíková, Miroslava. 2017. Kognitívne charakteristiky a tlmočnícky výkon. „Súvisia spolu?” [Cognitive characteristics and interpreting performance. “Is there a relationship?”]. Banská Bystrica: Belianum.
Moser, Barbara. 1978. Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application. In: Gerver, David and Sinaiko, H. Wallace (eds.), Language Interpretation and Communication. New York/London: Plenum Press, 353-368.
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 2000. The rocky road to expertise in interpreting: Eliciting knowledge from learners. In: Kadric, Mira et al (eds.), Translationswissenschaft: Festschrift für Mary Snell-Hornby zum 60. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. 339-352.
Moser-Mercer, Barbara et al. 2000. Searching to define expertise in interpreting. In: Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta and Hyltenstam, Kenneth (eds.), Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 107-132.
Nolan, James. 2005. Interpretation: Techniques and Exercises. Clevedon: Multilingual. Matters.
Opalková, Jarmila. 2011. Konzekutívne tlmočenie [Consecutive interpreting]. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešove.
http://www.pulib.sk/web/kniznica/elpub/dokument/Opalkova2. Accessed on: 5 April 2019.
Opalková, Jarmila. 2013a. Konzekutívne tlmočenie 1 (pre ruštinárov) [Consecutive interpreting 1 (for the students of Russian)]. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešove.
Opalková, Jarmila. 2013b. Konzekutívne tlmočenie 3: sprievodcovstvo (pre ruštinárov) [Consecutive interpreting 3: guide interpreting (for the students of Russian)]. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešove.
Opalková, Jarmila. 2014. Konzekutívne tlmočenie 2 vs. tlmočenie z listu [Consecutive interpreting 2 vs sight translation]. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešove.
Opalková, Jarmila et al. 2013. Komunitné tlmočenie: cvičebnica [Community interpreting: an exercise book]. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešove.
Pérez-Luzardo, Jessica. 2015. Pre-interpreting exercises. In: Pöchhacker, Franz (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. London/New York: Routledge. 317-318.
Pöchhacker, Franz. 1999. Teaching Practices in Simultaneous Interpreting. In: The Interpreters’ Newsletter. No. 9: 157-176.
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London/New York: Routledge.
Seleskovitch, Danica and Lederer, Marianne. 1989. Pédagogie Raisonnée de l’Interprétation. Paris: Didier Érudition.
Setton, Robin and Dawrant, Andrew. 2016. Conference Interpreting: A Complete Course and Trainer’s Guide (2 vols). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Slučiaková, Kristína. 2013. Exercises Applied during Interpreter Training and Their Efficiency. Unpublished bachelor thesis. Banská Bystrica: FHV UMB.
Šavelová, Jana and Melicherčíková, Miroslava. 2013. Simultaneous Interpreting. Banská Bystrica: FHV UMB.
Šveda, Pavol. 2016. Vybrané kapitoly z didaktiky simultánneho tlmočenia [Selected chapters from the didactics of simultaneous interpreting]. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave.
Veselá, Dagmar. 2006. Konzekutívne a simultánne tlmočenie z francúzskeho jazyka. Texty a cvičenia [Consecutive and simultaneous interpreting from French. Texts and exercises]. Banská Bystrica: FiF UMB.
Vertanová, Silvia et al. 2015. Tlmočník ako rečník. Učebnica pre študentov tlmočníctva [Interpreter as orator. A textbook for students of interpreting]. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave.
Viezzi, Maurizio. 1990. Sight translation, simultaneous interpretation and information retention. In: Gran, Laura and Taylor, Christopher (eds.), Aspects of Applied and Experimental Research on Conference Interpretation. Udine: Campanotto. 54–60.
Weber, Wilhelm K. 1990. The importance of sight translation in an interpreter training program. In: Bowen, David and Bowen, Margareta (eds.), Interpreting – Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Binghamton, NY: SUNY. 44-52.
Zhong, Weihe. 2003. Memory training in interpreting. In: Translation Journal. Vol. 7 (No. 3). http://translationjournal.net/journal/25interpret.htm. Accessed on: 12 August 2019.