THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERCULTURALITY
IN THE TRAINING OF THE TRANSLATOR
AND INTERPRETER
LA IMPORTANCIA DE LA INTERCULTURALIDAD EN
LA FORMACIÓN DEL TRADUCTOR E INTÉRPRETE
Diana Córdova Gramajo
Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, México
Javier Toledo García
Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, México
pág. 6577
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v10i2.23679
The Importance of Interculturality in the Training of the Translator and
Interpreter
Diana Córdova Gramajo1
dianacg31@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7547-5428
Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco
México
Javier Toledo García
javitoledo33@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0328-2245
Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco
México
ABSTRACT
Over recent decades, interculturality has become a globally relevant concern, driven by continuous
social transformation, increasing mobility, and the intensification of international connections. These
changes have reshaped patterns of communication and interaction across societies, making intercultural
competence an essential component of contemporary education. In this scenario, intercultural education
needs to be articulated through discipline‑specific objectives so that it can support effective
cross‑cultural interaction and contribute to positive social, educational, and economic outcomes. This
focus is particularly relevant in disciplines grounded in cultural contact — such as translation and
interpreting — because language and culture are inseparable. In these professions, language does more
than convey information; it also transmits cultural meanings, values, norms, and sociocultural
references linked to each speech community (Yahia, 2013). As a result, translators and interpreters must
navigate not only linguistic differences but also culturally embedded ways of understanding and
interpreting reality. Accordingly, they require not only strong linguistic proficiency but also robust
intercultural competence to mediate across cultures in a context‑sensitive and ethically responsible
manner. For these reasons, this article discusses how culture and interculturality are understood in
translation and interpreting, reviews the role of language in producing and transmitting cultural
meaning, outlines core components of intercultural competence for these professionals, and suggests
strategies to integrate interculturality more systematically into academic and professional training.
Keywords: culture; education; cultural differences; intercultural education; vocational training.
1 Autor principal
Correspondencia: dianacg31@gmail.com
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v10i2.23679
The Importance of Interculturality in the Training of the Translator and
Interpreter
Diana Córdova Gramajo1
dianacg31@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7547-5428
Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco
México
Javier Toledo García
javitoledo33@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0328-2245
Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco
México
ABSTRACT
Over recent decades, interculturality has become a globally relevant concern, driven by continuous
social transformation, increasing mobility, and the intensification of international connections. These
changes have reshaped patterns of communication and interaction across societies, making intercultural
competence an essential component of contemporary education. In this scenario, intercultural education
needs to be articulated through discipline‑specific objectives so that it can support effective
cross‑cultural interaction and contribute to positive social, educational, and economic outcomes. This
focus is particularly relevant in disciplines grounded in cultural contact — such as translation and
interpreting — because language and culture are inseparable. In these professions, language does more
than convey information; it also transmits cultural meanings, values, norms, and sociocultural
references linked to each speech community (Yahia, 2013). As a result, translators and interpreters must
navigate not only linguistic differences but also culturally embedded ways of understanding and
interpreting reality. Accordingly, they require not only strong linguistic proficiency but also robust
intercultural competence to mediate across cultures in a context‑sensitive and ethically responsible
manner. For these reasons, this article discusses how culture and interculturality are understood in
translation and interpreting, reviews the role of language in producing and transmitting cultural
meaning, outlines core components of intercultural competence for these professionals, and suggests
strategies to integrate interculturality more systematically into academic and professional training.
Keywords: culture; education; cultural differences; intercultural education; vocational training.
1 Autor principal
Correspondencia: dianacg31@gmail.com
pág. 6578
La Importancia de la Interculturalidad en la Formación del Traductor e
Intérprete
RESUMEN
En las últimas décadas, la interculturalidad se ha convertido en un eje central de alcance global,
impulsado por transformaciones sociales continuas y por la intensificación de los vínculos
internacionales. Ante este escenario, la educación intercultural requiere formularse mediante objetivos
concretos en cada disciplina, de modo que favorezca interacciones eficaces entre culturas y contribuya
a resultados positivos en los planos social, educativo y económico. Esta mirada es especialmente
pertinente en áreas donde el contacto entre culturas forma parte del quehacer cotidiano, como la
traducción y la interpretación, debido al vínculo inseparable entre lengua y cultura. En estos ámbitos,
la lengua no solo transmite información: también vehicula significados culturales, valores, normas y
referencias socioculturales propias de cada comunidad lingüística (Yahia, 2013). Por ello, quienes
traducen o interpretan necesitan, además del dominio lingüístico, una competencia intercultural sólida
que les permita mediar entre culturas de forma pertinente y situada. En consecuencia, este artículo revisa
las nociones de cultura e interculturalidad en la traducción y la interpretación; analiza el papel de la
lengua en la construcción y transmisión del sentido cultural; identifica componentes clave de la
competencia intercultural en dichos perfiles profesionales; y plantea estrategias para integrar la
interculturalidad de manera sistemática en su formación académica y profesional.
Palabras clave: cultura; educación; diferencias culturales; educación intercultural; formación
profesional.
Artículo recibido 20 marzo 2026
Aceptado para publicación: 15 abril 2026
La Importancia de la Interculturalidad en la Formación del Traductor e
Intérprete
RESUMEN
En las últimas décadas, la interculturalidad se ha convertido en un eje central de alcance global,
impulsado por transformaciones sociales continuas y por la intensificación de los vínculos
internacionales. Ante este escenario, la educación intercultural requiere formularse mediante objetivos
concretos en cada disciplina, de modo que favorezca interacciones eficaces entre culturas y contribuya
a resultados positivos en los planos social, educativo y económico. Esta mirada es especialmente
pertinente en áreas donde el contacto entre culturas forma parte del quehacer cotidiano, como la
traducción y la interpretación, debido al vínculo inseparable entre lengua y cultura. En estos ámbitos,
la lengua no solo transmite información: también vehicula significados culturales, valores, normas y
referencias socioculturales propias de cada comunidad lingüística (Yahia, 2013). Por ello, quienes
traducen o interpretan necesitan, además del dominio lingüístico, una competencia intercultural sólida
que les permita mediar entre culturas de forma pertinente y situada. En consecuencia, este artículo revisa
las nociones de cultura e interculturalidad en la traducción y la interpretación; analiza el papel de la
lengua en la construcción y transmisión del sentido cultural; identifica componentes clave de la
competencia intercultural en dichos perfiles profesionales; y plantea estrategias para integrar la
interculturalidad de manera sistemática en su formación académica y profesional.
Palabras clave: cultura; educación; diferencias culturales; educación intercultural; formación
profesional.
Artículo recibido 20 marzo 2026
Aceptado para publicación: 15 abril 2026
pág. 6579
INTRODUCTION
Interculturality has become a key topic in contemporary education, largely because cultural diversity is
increasingly visible in everyday social life. Initial academic work in this area took shape in Europe and
later extended to Latin America, where it has grown notably over the last two decades (Trejo et al.,
2017). This body of research calls for a rethinking of conventional educational approaches so that
schools and universities can respond to the challenges — and possibilities — created by intercultural
encounters.
In practice, interculturality has often been developed mainly within language education. In that setting,
learners are encouraged to build their identities from local cultural frameworks while remaining open
to other perspectives and broader global viewpoints. The goal is to promote respect for diversity and to
develop communication skills that extend beyond grammar and vocabulary to include attitudes, values,
and interactional abilities. However, in the Mexican context, intercultural approaches have frequently
centered on native and indigenous cultures; as a consequence, interculturality understood from an
international perspective has received less sustained attention, especially in disciplines that require
systematic engagement with multiple cultural systems (Trejo et al., 2017).
A major driver of these educational demands is market internationalization, which has expanded
economic, academic, and professional exchanges across borders. This trend is closely tied to cultural
globalization, through which ideas, values, and communicative practices circulate widely. Migration
also contributes to intensified diversity by increasing the frequency and complexity of intercultural
contact in daily life (Paricio, 2014). In this context, education cannot be detached from the social and
professional realities that graduates will face. When intercultural education is weak, academic
knowledge may be applied without the tools needed to respond effectively to contemporary demands.
These issues are evident in foreign language education and become even more critical in translation and
interpreting, since both professions work at the intersection of languages and cultures. Practitioners are
expected not only to render linguistic content but also to negotiate cultural meanings, values, and
communicative norms. For this reason, intercultural education should be considered a core component
of professional preparation in these fields (Gonzáles, 2018).
INTRODUCTION
Interculturality has become a key topic in contemporary education, largely because cultural diversity is
increasingly visible in everyday social life. Initial academic work in this area took shape in Europe and
later extended to Latin America, where it has grown notably over the last two decades (Trejo et al.,
2017). This body of research calls for a rethinking of conventional educational approaches so that
schools and universities can respond to the challenges — and possibilities — created by intercultural
encounters.
In practice, interculturality has often been developed mainly within language education. In that setting,
learners are encouraged to build their identities from local cultural frameworks while remaining open
to other perspectives and broader global viewpoints. The goal is to promote respect for diversity and to
develop communication skills that extend beyond grammar and vocabulary to include attitudes, values,
and interactional abilities. However, in the Mexican context, intercultural approaches have frequently
centered on native and indigenous cultures; as a consequence, interculturality understood from an
international perspective has received less sustained attention, especially in disciplines that require
systematic engagement with multiple cultural systems (Trejo et al., 2017).
A major driver of these educational demands is market internationalization, which has expanded
economic, academic, and professional exchanges across borders. This trend is closely tied to cultural
globalization, through which ideas, values, and communicative practices circulate widely. Migration
also contributes to intensified diversity by increasing the frequency and complexity of intercultural
contact in daily life (Paricio, 2014). In this context, education cannot be detached from the social and
professional realities that graduates will face. When intercultural education is weak, academic
knowledge may be applied without the tools needed to respond effectively to contemporary demands.
These issues are evident in foreign language education and become even more critical in translation and
interpreting, since both professions work at the intersection of languages and cultures. Practitioners are
expected not only to render linguistic content but also to negotiate cultural meanings, values, and
communicative norms. For this reason, intercultural education should be considered a core component
of professional preparation in these fields (Gonzáles, 2018).
pág. 6580
Nevertheless, intercultural competence is often developed only indirectly through language study,
which reduces opportunities for explicit practice, reflection, and assessment in training programs
(Giralt, A., 2020).
To address this gap, the present article examines the implications of intercultural competence for
translation and interpreting. It reviews key perspectives on culture and interculturality, discusses how
language participates in cultural meaning, and highlights the relevance of intercultural education for
professional training. Ultimately, it aims to support more comprehensive models that prepare future
practitioners to navigate intercultural communication in an increasingly globalized environment.
METHODOLOGY
This study adopts a narrative documentary review design to bring together key conceptual and
pedagogical work on interculturality and intercultural competence in translator and interpreter
education. A narrative approach fits this topic because the literature spans diverse sources: conceptual
debates, teaching proposals, and empirical studies; and because the article aims to offer an interpretive,
integrated account rather than an exhaustive systematic evaluation.
The documentary search was conducted by combining keywords related to the object of study and its
educational context (e.g., interculturality, intercultural competence, intercultural communication,
translation, interpreting, and training/education). Sources were identified in academic databases and
scholarly search engines, and we also used reference-list searching to trace foundational works that are
frequently cited in the field. We included publications in both English and Spanish to reflect the
international scope of research on intercultural education and to account for the Latin American contexts
discussed in the paper.
To guide the selection process, the review prioritized documents that (a) defined or problematized
culture/interculturality; (b) conceptualized intercultural competence in relation to language mediation;
or (c) proposed implications for translator and interpreter education (competencies, curricula, learning
activities, or assessment). Works were excluded when they addressed interculturality without an
educational dimension or without clear relevance to translation/interpreting.
After an initial screening based on titles and abstracts, the retained documents were read in full to
confirm their thematic fit and to extract the main conceptual claims and training-oriented contributions.
Nevertheless, intercultural competence is often developed only indirectly through language study,
which reduces opportunities for explicit practice, reflection, and assessment in training programs
(Giralt, A., 2020).
To address this gap, the present article examines the implications of intercultural competence for
translation and interpreting. It reviews key perspectives on culture and interculturality, discusses how
language participates in cultural meaning, and highlights the relevance of intercultural education for
professional training. Ultimately, it aims to support more comprehensive models that prepare future
practitioners to navigate intercultural communication in an increasingly globalized environment.
METHODOLOGY
This study adopts a narrative documentary review design to bring together key conceptual and
pedagogical work on interculturality and intercultural competence in translator and interpreter
education. A narrative approach fits this topic because the literature spans diverse sources: conceptual
debates, teaching proposals, and empirical studies; and because the article aims to offer an interpretive,
integrated account rather than an exhaustive systematic evaluation.
The documentary search was conducted by combining keywords related to the object of study and its
educational context (e.g., interculturality, intercultural competence, intercultural communication,
translation, interpreting, and training/education). Sources were identified in academic databases and
scholarly search engines, and we also used reference-list searching to trace foundational works that are
frequently cited in the field. We included publications in both English and Spanish to reflect the
international scope of research on intercultural education and to account for the Latin American contexts
discussed in the paper.
To guide the selection process, the review prioritized documents that (a) defined or problematized
culture/interculturality; (b) conceptualized intercultural competence in relation to language mediation;
or (c) proposed implications for translator and interpreter education (competencies, curricula, learning
activities, or assessment). Works were excluded when they addressed interculturality without an
educational dimension or without clear relevance to translation/interpreting.
After an initial screening based on titles and abstracts, the retained documents were read in full to
confirm their thematic fit and to extract the main conceptual claims and training-oriented contributions.
pág. 6581
We conducted an iterative thematic synthesis. First, we identified relevant passages and grouped them
into recurring themes that match the article’s structure: (1) how culture and interculturality are
conceptualized, (2) how language contributes to cultural meaning-making, (3) what intercultural
competence involves for translators and interpreters, and (4) training strategies for curricular
integration. We then refined these themes by repeatedly comparing sources, which helped us surface
common ground, points of tension, and discipline-specific emphases (translation vs. interpreting). The
findings are presented as an interpretive narrative that links theory to educational practice.
To make the process as transparent as possible, we kept a record of the search terms used, our inclusion
and exclusion decisions, and the thematic categories applied in the synthesis. Even so, as with any
narrative review, this approach has limitations, including the possibility of selection bias and the fact
that the goal is conceptual integration rather than complete coverage of every available study. Despite
these constraints, the method is well suited to clarifying how interculturality is framed in the literature
and to developing coherent, practice-oriented recommendations for translator and interpreter education.
The concept of culture and interculturality in translation and interpreting
Culture may be defined as the shared (and historically accumulated) set of values, knowledge, beliefs,
customs, and behavioral patterns that guide life in a community (Yahia, 2013). In language education,
views of culture have shifted over time: earlier approaches tended to associate culture with artistic
production and historical achievements, whereas more recent perspectives foreground social meanings,
as well as semantic and pragmatic dimensions of communication (Paricio, 2014).
Under this broader framework, culture can be approached through aesthetic, social, semantic, and
pragmatic lenses, which together help explain how cultural meaning is embedded in language use (Pérez
& Alonso, 2019).
Because culture operates within multiple layers of social organization, it can be examined at individual,
social, and broader collective levels. At the individual level, culture is shaped by personal histories,
values, beliefs, and experiences that influence how people interpret reality and relate to others. This
view emphasizes that cultural identity is not static; rather, it is continuously constructed through
experience and interaction (Byram, 1997).
We conducted an iterative thematic synthesis. First, we identified relevant passages and grouped them
into recurring themes that match the article’s structure: (1) how culture and interculturality are
conceptualized, (2) how language contributes to cultural meaning-making, (3) what intercultural
competence involves for translators and interpreters, and (4) training strategies for curricular
integration. We then refined these themes by repeatedly comparing sources, which helped us surface
common ground, points of tension, and discipline-specific emphases (translation vs. interpreting). The
findings are presented as an interpretive narrative that links theory to educational practice.
To make the process as transparent as possible, we kept a record of the search terms used, our inclusion
and exclusion decisions, and the thematic categories applied in the synthesis. Even so, as with any
narrative review, this approach has limitations, including the possibility of selection bias and the fact
that the goal is conceptual integration rather than complete coverage of every available study. Despite
these constraints, the method is well suited to clarifying how interculturality is framed in the literature
and to developing coherent, practice-oriented recommendations for translator and interpreter education.
The concept of culture and interculturality in translation and interpreting
Culture may be defined as the shared (and historically accumulated) set of values, knowledge, beliefs,
customs, and behavioral patterns that guide life in a community (Yahia, 2013). In language education,
views of culture have shifted over time: earlier approaches tended to associate culture with artistic
production and historical achievements, whereas more recent perspectives foreground social meanings,
as well as semantic and pragmatic dimensions of communication (Paricio, 2014).
Under this broader framework, culture can be approached through aesthetic, social, semantic, and
pragmatic lenses, which together help explain how cultural meaning is embedded in language use (Pérez
& Alonso, 2019).
Because culture operates within multiple layers of social organization, it can be examined at individual,
social, and broader collective levels. At the individual level, culture is shaped by personal histories,
values, beliefs, and experiences that influence how people interpret reality and relate to others. This
view emphasizes that cultural identity is not static; rather, it is continuously constructed through
experience and interaction (Byram, 1997).
pág. 6582
From a social standpoint, culture refers to the norms, conventions, practices, and shared knowledge that
structure behavior within a community. These shared meanings help coordinate interaction, shape
expectations about roles and relationships, and influence what counts as appropriate language use. In
this sense, culture functions as a collectively learned and transmitted system of meaning that is
negotiated through socialization and discourse (Hall, 1976; Kramsch, 1998).
At a broader (often national) level, culture is sometimes described in relation to societies defined by
geographic and political boundaries, including institutions, historical narratives, value systems, and
widely shared social norms (Giralt, A., 2020). Although national cultures are neither homogeneous nor
unchanging, this angle can be useful for identifying recurring patterns that may influence
communication across borders (Hofstede, 2001).
For translation and interpreting, conceiving culture as a layered construct is particularly helpful because
professionals must simultaneously consider individual viewpoints, social conventions, and broader
cultural frameworks. Recognizing these layers supports more informed decisions by helping
practitioners anticipate potential misunderstandings and interpret messages not only as linguistic forms
but also as culturally situated communicative intentions.
In translation and interpreting, culture is better approached as a dynamic interpretive framework than
as a checklist of facts to memorize. Texts are produced within specific sociocultural and historical
contexts, and translators may face comprehension problems when cultural references are unfamiliar
(Albaladejo, 2011). In such situations, “neutralizing” culturally marked elements can reduce nuance
and affect communicative impact. In interpreting, cultural knowledge also shapes discourse
comprehension; effective performance depends on sensitivity to contextual cues and on the ability to
manage nonverbal communication, which may carry different meanings across cultures (Giralt, A.,
2020).
Interculturality, in turn, seeks to encourage dialogue, mutual understanding, and negotiated meaning by
recognizing cultural diversity as a legitimate basis for interaction (Wereszczyńska, 2018). For
translators and interpreters, this implies approaching cultures as equally valid, communicating with
openness and respect, and remaining aware of one’s own cultural assumptions. Because cultural
From a social standpoint, culture refers to the norms, conventions, practices, and shared knowledge that
structure behavior within a community. These shared meanings help coordinate interaction, shape
expectations about roles and relationships, and influence what counts as appropriate language use. In
this sense, culture functions as a collectively learned and transmitted system of meaning that is
negotiated through socialization and discourse (Hall, 1976; Kramsch, 1998).
At a broader (often national) level, culture is sometimes described in relation to societies defined by
geographic and political boundaries, including institutions, historical narratives, value systems, and
widely shared social norms (Giralt, A., 2020). Although national cultures are neither homogeneous nor
unchanging, this angle can be useful for identifying recurring patterns that may influence
communication across borders (Hofstede, 2001).
For translation and interpreting, conceiving culture as a layered construct is particularly helpful because
professionals must simultaneously consider individual viewpoints, social conventions, and broader
cultural frameworks. Recognizing these layers supports more informed decisions by helping
practitioners anticipate potential misunderstandings and interpret messages not only as linguistic forms
but also as culturally situated communicative intentions.
In translation and interpreting, culture is better approached as a dynamic interpretive framework than
as a checklist of facts to memorize. Texts are produced within specific sociocultural and historical
contexts, and translators may face comprehension problems when cultural references are unfamiliar
(Albaladejo, 2011). In such situations, “neutralizing” culturally marked elements can reduce nuance
and affect communicative impact. In interpreting, cultural knowledge also shapes discourse
comprehension; effective performance depends on sensitivity to contextual cues and on the ability to
manage nonverbal communication, which may carry different meanings across cultures (Giralt, A.,
2020).
Interculturality, in turn, seeks to encourage dialogue, mutual understanding, and negotiated meaning by
recognizing cultural diversity as a legitimate basis for interaction (Wereszczyńska, 2018). For
translators and interpreters, this implies approaching cultures as equally valid, communicating with
openness and respect, and remaining aware of one’s own cultural assumptions. Because cultural
pág. 6583
knowledge varies across contexts and experiences, intercultural work involves continuous learning
rather than fixed mastery (Giralt, A., 2020).
The role of language in culture
Historically, translators and interpreters have been essential to communication between societies,
especially in trade, diplomacy, and the circulation of knowledge (Guanilo & Cornejo, 2017). From this
perspective, culture can be viewed as a symbolic system built from conventional elements that combine
to produce abstract and complex meanings, with language representing one of the most developed
symbolic resources available (Darias Marrero, 2016).
Language and culture are deeply intertwined: cultural practices, knowledge, and value systems are
expressed and reproduced through linguistic choices, so any communicative event carries a cultural
dimension (Yahia, 2013). In translation and interpreting, this interdependence becomes especially
visible, since contrasts between linguistic systems and cultural frameworks can generate non-
equivalence and increase interpretive complexity (Albaladejo, 2011).
Intercultural communication may be understood as a competence that individuals and groups use to
interact in social settings (Wereszczyńska, 2018). Because people are shaped by their sociocultural
environments, both spoken and written discourse often contains culturally specific references that
reflect particular backgrounds (Darias Marrero, 2016). As a result, translators and interpreters need
strategies that allow them to convey meaning accurately while minimizing misunderstanding and
avoiding distortions of communicative intent (Gregorio, 2012).
Successful communication involves more than linguistic form: it depends on the sociocultural context
in which language is produced and interpreted. Pragmatic meaning emerges from context, intention,
and social relations; when these dimensions are ignored, communication can fail and stereotypes may
be unintentionally reinforced (Yahia, 2013). In this sense, translators and interpreters act as cultural and
linguistic mediators who anticipate potential problems and help create understanding across cultural
boundaries (Pérez & Alonso, 2019).
Intercultural competence in translation and interpreting
Intercultural education aims to recognize and accept cultural diversity while supporting equitable
interaction across cultural groups (Giralt, A., 2020). However, simply acknowledging multiculturalism
knowledge varies across contexts and experiences, intercultural work involves continuous learning
rather than fixed mastery (Giralt, A., 2020).
The role of language in culture
Historically, translators and interpreters have been essential to communication between societies,
especially in trade, diplomacy, and the circulation of knowledge (Guanilo & Cornejo, 2017). From this
perspective, culture can be viewed as a symbolic system built from conventional elements that combine
to produce abstract and complex meanings, with language representing one of the most developed
symbolic resources available (Darias Marrero, 2016).
Language and culture are deeply intertwined: cultural practices, knowledge, and value systems are
expressed and reproduced through linguistic choices, so any communicative event carries a cultural
dimension (Yahia, 2013). In translation and interpreting, this interdependence becomes especially
visible, since contrasts between linguistic systems and cultural frameworks can generate non-
equivalence and increase interpretive complexity (Albaladejo, 2011).
Intercultural communication may be understood as a competence that individuals and groups use to
interact in social settings (Wereszczyńska, 2018). Because people are shaped by their sociocultural
environments, both spoken and written discourse often contains culturally specific references that
reflect particular backgrounds (Darias Marrero, 2016). As a result, translators and interpreters need
strategies that allow them to convey meaning accurately while minimizing misunderstanding and
avoiding distortions of communicative intent (Gregorio, 2012).
Successful communication involves more than linguistic form: it depends on the sociocultural context
in which language is produced and interpreted. Pragmatic meaning emerges from context, intention,
and social relations; when these dimensions are ignored, communication can fail and stereotypes may
be unintentionally reinforced (Yahia, 2013). In this sense, translators and interpreters act as cultural and
linguistic mediators who anticipate potential problems and help create understanding across cultural
boundaries (Pérez & Alonso, 2019).
Intercultural competence in translation and interpreting
Intercultural education aims to recognize and accept cultural diversity while supporting equitable
interaction across cultural groups (Giralt, A., 2020). However, simply acknowledging multiculturalism
pág. 6584
is not enough. Intercultural competence entails relating constructively with people from different
cultural backgrounds in ways that promote mutual understanding and shared learning. Because learners
incorporate cultural elements differently, training should be attentive to personal experiences, needs,
and learning processes (Gregorio, 2012).
In translation and interpreting, insufficient intercultural preparation produces challenges that vary with
professional demands. Translators typically have more time for documentary research, which enables
deeper analysis of cultural references before producing a target text (Giralt, A., 2020). Interpreters, by
contrast, depend heavily on prior preparation and must make decisions spontaneously during real-time
interaction. In both profiles, intercultural competence remains dynamic and context dependent, because
it is shaped by the specific communicative situation (Darias Marrero, 2016).
As a result, translation programs should strengthen documentary research and translation strategies that
support accurate interpretation of culturally marked content. Interpreting programs, in turn, should
prioritize flexible cultural awareness and rapid comprehension skills so students can mediate effectively
in diverse communicative contexts.
Strategies for implementing interculturality in training
Training in translation and interpreting should make it explicit which competencies are required for
high-quality professional performance. Practice entails meeting quality standards, responding to client
needs, following ethical principles, and working within real constraints of time and context (Gutiérrez,
2016). For this reason, programs benefit from experiential approaches that connect classroom learning
with the demands of professional practice.
Intercultural competence develops through sustained interaction and through contact with authentic
materials that reflect real language use (Gonzáles, 2018). Cooperative learning can also strengthen
social competence by cultivating leadership, responsibility, and respect for different perspectives
(Martínez Lirola, 2018). In translator and interpreter education, working with culturally diverse texts
and situations can help students become familiar with unfamiliar realities and transfer this learning to
professional contexts.
Experiential opportunities — such as academic mobility and extended cultural immersion — can further
strengthen intercultural competence (Gutiérrez, 2016). Likewise, multimedia resources (film,
is not enough. Intercultural competence entails relating constructively with people from different
cultural backgrounds in ways that promote mutual understanding and shared learning. Because learners
incorporate cultural elements differently, training should be attentive to personal experiences, needs,
and learning processes (Gregorio, 2012).
In translation and interpreting, insufficient intercultural preparation produces challenges that vary with
professional demands. Translators typically have more time for documentary research, which enables
deeper analysis of cultural references before producing a target text (Giralt, A., 2020). Interpreters, by
contrast, depend heavily on prior preparation and must make decisions spontaneously during real-time
interaction. In both profiles, intercultural competence remains dynamic and context dependent, because
it is shaped by the specific communicative situation (Darias Marrero, 2016).
As a result, translation programs should strengthen documentary research and translation strategies that
support accurate interpretation of culturally marked content. Interpreting programs, in turn, should
prioritize flexible cultural awareness and rapid comprehension skills so students can mediate effectively
in diverse communicative contexts.
Strategies for implementing interculturality in training
Training in translation and interpreting should make it explicit which competencies are required for
high-quality professional performance. Practice entails meeting quality standards, responding to client
needs, following ethical principles, and working within real constraints of time and context (Gutiérrez,
2016). For this reason, programs benefit from experiential approaches that connect classroom learning
with the demands of professional practice.
Intercultural competence develops through sustained interaction and through contact with authentic
materials that reflect real language use (Gonzáles, 2018). Cooperative learning can also strengthen
social competence by cultivating leadership, responsibility, and respect for different perspectives
(Martínez Lirola, 2018). In translator and interpreter education, working with culturally diverse texts
and situations can help students become familiar with unfamiliar realities and transfer this learning to
professional contexts.
Experiential opportunities — such as academic mobility and extended cultural immersion — can further
strengthen intercultural competence (Gutiérrez, 2016). Likewise, multimedia resources (film,
pág. 6585
television, and digital platforms) offer accessible forms of ongoing cultural exposure. Alongside these
experiences, training should encourage genuine interest in cultural diversity and promote a respectful,
professionally neutral stance that reduces stereotyping and supports effective mediation (Darias
Marrero, 2016).
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The documentary review indicates that interculturality is not treated as an add-on but as a transversal
competence that shapes the quality of translation and interpreting work. To present the findings more
clearly, the synthesis below groups recurring points from the reviewed sources and links them to the
main themes developed earlier in the article (culture/interculturality, the role of language, professional
competence, and training strategies). Overall, intercultural competence is repeatedly associated with:
A. a broader understanding of culture that avoids reducing cultural difference to national stereotypes;
B. attention to the contextual and pragmatic conditions under which language produces meaning; and
C. the need to make meaning-based decisions under professional constraints (time, ethics, and
communicative expectations).
First, the literature converges on a layered understanding of culture, consistent with the conceptual
discussion presented earlier. Culture is described as dynamic and operating across individual
trajectories, social conventions, and broader collective frameworks. For translators and interpreters, this
implies that effective mediation requires more than “cultural facts”: it demands the ability to read
communicative intentions in context and to anticipate where different cultural frames may lead to
divergent interpretations.
Second, the sources reinforce the idea developed in the section on language and culture: meaning is
inseparable from context, pragmatics, and sociocultural norms. From this perspective, difficulties in
translation and comprehension problems in interpreting frequently arise from culturally marked
references, implicit meanings, or differences in interactional expectations. When these cues are
overlooked, mediation becomes more vulnerable to distortion, misunderstanding, and the uncritical
reproduction of stereotypes.
television, and digital platforms) offer accessible forms of ongoing cultural exposure. Alongside these
experiences, training should encourage genuine interest in cultural diversity and promote a respectful,
professionally neutral stance that reduces stereotyping and supports effective mediation (Darias
Marrero, 2016).
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The documentary review indicates that interculturality is not treated as an add-on but as a transversal
competence that shapes the quality of translation and interpreting work. To present the findings more
clearly, the synthesis below groups recurring points from the reviewed sources and links them to the
main themes developed earlier in the article (culture/interculturality, the role of language, professional
competence, and training strategies). Overall, intercultural competence is repeatedly associated with:
A. a broader understanding of culture that avoids reducing cultural difference to national stereotypes;
B. attention to the contextual and pragmatic conditions under which language produces meaning; and
C. the need to make meaning-based decisions under professional constraints (time, ethics, and
communicative expectations).
First, the literature converges on a layered understanding of culture, consistent with the conceptual
discussion presented earlier. Culture is described as dynamic and operating across individual
trajectories, social conventions, and broader collective frameworks. For translators and interpreters, this
implies that effective mediation requires more than “cultural facts”: it demands the ability to read
communicative intentions in context and to anticipate where different cultural frames may lead to
divergent interpretations.
Second, the sources reinforce the idea developed in the section on language and culture: meaning is
inseparable from context, pragmatics, and sociocultural norms. From this perspective, difficulties in
translation and comprehension problems in interpreting frequently arise from culturally marked
references, implicit meanings, or differences in interactional expectations. When these cues are
overlooked, mediation becomes more vulnerable to distortion, misunderstanding, and the uncritical
reproduction of stereotypes.
pág. 6586
Third, as discussed in the section on intercultural competence, the way intercultural competence is
enacted differs by professional profile. Translation workflows usually allow time for documentary
research and revision, which supports deliberate analysis of cultural content; interpreting requires
anticipatory preparation and rapid decision-making during real-time processing. Despite these
differences, both roles benefit from reflective cultural awareness, professional neutrality, and the
capacity to justify decisions that balance fidelity to meaning with communicative effectiveness.
Finally, the reviewed proposals suggest that intercultural competence is still often developed implicitly
through language learning, which limits systematic reflection and assessment in translator and
interpreter education. This is why the literature emphasized, in the strategies section above, experiential
and sustained forms of exposure: authentic materials, cooperative work that strengthens social
competence, and mobility or virtual exchange experiences that place learners in guided intercultural
interaction. Taken together, these findings support making intercultural objectives, activities, and
assessment criteria explicit and aligning them with professional tasks.
In discussion, the findings collectively point to a consistent implication: interculturality should be
approached as a core, assessable component of professional preparation rather than as a diffuse by-
product of language learning. A layered view of culture and the centrality of pragmatics both reinforce
the need to train students to interpret communicative intentions in context and to recognize how
meaning shifts across cultural frames. At the same time, the differences between translation and
interpreting workflows suggest that programs should operationalize intercultural competence in ways
that reflect the actual constraints of each profession.
CONCLUSION
The documentary review and discussion indicate that interculturality should be treated as a central,
measurable component of translator and interpreter education. The findings reinforce a layered view of
culture: individual, social, and broader collective frames, which means that professional mediation
requires interpreting intentions in context rather than relying on static “cultural facts.”
Therefore, intercultural competence must be developed alongside linguistic proficiency, with sustained
attention to pragmatics, implicit meanings, and sociocultural norms that shape communication.
Third, as discussed in the section on intercultural competence, the way intercultural competence is
enacted differs by professional profile. Translation workflows usually allow time for documentary
research and revision, which supports deliberate analysis of cultural content; interpreting requires
anticipatory preparation and rapid decision-making during real-time processing. Despite these
differences, both roles benefit from reflective cultural awareness, professional neutrality, and the
capacity to justify decisions that balance fidelity to meaning with communicative effectiveness.
Finally, the reviewed proposals suggest that intercultural competence is still often developed implicitly
through language learning, which limits systematic reflection and assessment in translator and
interpreter education. This is why the literature emphasized, in the strategies section above, experiential
and sustained forms of exposure: authentic materials, cooperative work that strengthens social
competence, and mobility or virtual exchange experiences that place learners in guided intercultural
interaction. Taken together, these findings support making intercultural objectives, activities, and
assessment criteria explicit and aligning them with professional tasks.
In discussion, the findings collectively point to a consistent implication: interculturality should be
approached as a core, assessable component of professional preparation rather than as a diffuse by-
product of language learning. A layered view of culture and the centrality of pragmatics both reinforce
the need to train students to interpret communicative intentions in context and to recognize how
meaning shifts across cultural frames. At the same time, the differences between translation and
interpreting workflows suggest that programs should operationalize intercultural competence in ways
that reflect the actual constraints of each profession.
CONCLUSION
The documentary review and discussion indicate that interculturality should be treated as a central,
measurable component of translator and interpreter education. The findings reinforce a layered view of
culture: individual, social, and broader collective frames, which means that professional mediation
requires interpreting intentions in context rather than relying on static “cultural facts.”
Therefore, intercultural competence must be developed alongside linguistic proficiency, with sustained
attention to pragmatics, implicit meanings, and sociocultural norms that shape communication.
pág. 6587
Strengthening these dimensions helps future professionals anticipate misunderstandings, avoid
stereotyping, and make decisions that preserve meaning and communicative purpose across languages.
In addition, the way this competence is operationalized should reflect professional constraints.
Translation training can emphasize documentary research and revision as tools to address culturally
marked content, whereas interpreting training should prioritize preparation strategies and rapid, context-
sensitive decision-making during live interaction. Aligning learning activities and evaluation criteria
with these distinct demands can make intercultural development more systematic and observable.
Finally, intercultural education benefits from explicit curricular integration and from opportunities for
guided international interaction (including mobility and virtual exchange). Making intercultural
objectives visible across the program supports not only technical accuracy but also ethical, effective
mediation. In a globalized and culturally diverse environment, these competencies help translators and
interpreters facilitate understanding and reduce communicative friction across communities.
REFERENCES
Albaladejo, J. (2011). La marca cultural como problema de traducción: interculturalidad diatópica y
diacrónica. Synergies Tunisie, 3, 71-84.
https://www.academia.edu/8131726/La_marca_cultural_como_problema_de_traducci%C3%B
3n_interculturalidad_diat%C3%B3pica_y_diacr%C3%B3nica
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual
Matters.
Darias-Marrero, A. (2016). Tratamiento didáctico de aspectos culturales en interpretación. Revista de
Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 22(21), 154-176.
https://ojsspdc.ulpgc.es/ojs/index.php/LFE/article/view/306
Helm & A. Beaven (Eds.), Designing and implementing virtual exchange: A collection of case studies
(pp. 191–203). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.34961/1438
Strengthening these dimensions helps future professionals anticipate misunderstandings, avoid
stereotyping, and make decisions that preserve meaning and communicative purpose across languages.
In addition, the way this competence is operationalized should reflect professional constraints.
Translation training can emphasize documentary research and revision as tools to address culturally
marked content, whereas interpreting training should prioritize preparation strategies and rapid, context-
sensitive decision-making during live interaction. Aligning learning activities and evaluation criteria
with these distinct demands can make intercultural development more systematic and observable.
Finally, intercultural education benefits from explicit curricular integration and from opportunities for
guided international interaction (including mobility and virtual exchange). Making intercultural
objectives visible across the program supports not only technical accuracy but also ethical, effective
mediation. In a globalized and culturally diverse environment, these competencies help translators and
interpreters facilitate understanding and reduce communicative friction across communities.
REFERENCES
Albaladejo, J. (2011). La marca cultural como problema de traducción: interculturalidad diatópica y
diacrónica. Synergies Tunisie, 3, 71-84.
https://www.academia.edu/8131726/La_marca_cultural_como_problema_de_traducci%C3%B
3n_interculturalidad_diat%C3%B3pica_y_diacr%C3%B3nica
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual
Matters.
Darias-Marrero, A. (2016). Tratamiento didáctico de aspectos culturales en interpretación. Revista de
Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 22(21), 154-176.
https://ojsspdc.ulpgc.es/ojs/index.php/LFE/article/view/306
Helm & A. Beaven (Eds.), Designing and implementing virtual exchange: A collection of case studies
(pp. 191–203). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.34961/1438
pág. 6588
Giralt, A. (2020). Competencia intercultural en interpretación [Trabajo de fin de grado, Universitat
Pompeu Fabra]. http://hdl.handle.net/10230/46491
Giralt, M. (2020). Communication across cultures: When the virtual meets the classroom. In F.
Gonzáles, L. (2018). Desarrollo de la competencia intercultural en la enseñanza de inglés como segunda
lengua extranjera para Traducción e Interpretación: una propuesta metodológica. CLINE, 4(2),
83-102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14201/clina20184283102
Gregorio, A. (2012). La competencia cultural e intercultural en traducción: estado de la cuestión. Íkala,
revista de lenguaje y cultura, 17(2), 129-144.
http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0123-
34322012000200002&lng=en&nrm=.pf&tlng=es
Guanilo, E. & Cornejo, H. (2017). La comunicación intercultural en las relaciones internacionales
Elemento clave para el traductor y el intérprete. TRADICIÓN, (16), 70-78.
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7701707
Gutiérrez, S. (2016). La competencia intercultural en la profesión del traductor: aproximación desde la
formación de traductores y presentación de un estudio de caso. TRANS-Revista de
Traductología, (20), 57-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24310/TRANS.2016.v0i20.2064
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.).
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford University Press. (1) 134.
Martínez-Lirola, M. La importancia de introducir la competencia intercultural en la educación superior:
Propuesta de actividades prácticas. Revista Electrónica Educare, 22(1), 1-19. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15359/ree.22-1.3
Paricio, S. (2014). Competencia intercultural en la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras. PORTA
LINGUARUM, (21), 215-226.
https://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PL_numero21/14%20%20Silvina.pdf
Giralt, A. (2020). Competencia intercultural en interpretación [Trabajo de fin de grado, Universitat
Pompeu Fabra]. http://hdl.handle.net/10230/46491
Giralt, M. (2020). Communication across cultures: When the virtual meets the classroom. In F.
Gonzáles, L. (2018). Desarrollo de la competencia intercultural en la enseñanza de inglés como segunda
lengua extranjera para Traducción e Interpretación: una propuesta metodológica. CLINE, 4(2),
83-102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14201/clina20184283102
Gregorio, A. (2012). La competencia cultural e intercultural en traducción: estado de la cuestión. Íkala,
revista de lenguaje y cultura, 17(2), 129-144.
http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0123-
34322012000200002&lng=en&nrm=.pf&tlng=es
Guanilo, E. & Cornejo, H. (2017). La comunicación intercultural en las relaciones internacionales
Elemento clave para el traductor y el intérprete. TRADICIÓN, (16), 70-78.
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7701707
Gutiérrez, S. (2016). La competencia intercultural en la profesión del traductor: aproximación desde la
formación de traductores y presentación de un estudio de caso. TRANS-Revista de
Traductología, (20), 57-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24310/TRANS.2016.v0i20.2064
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.).
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford University Press. (1) 134.
Martínez-Lirola, M. La importancia de introducir la competencia intercultural en la educación superior:
Propuesta de actividades prácticas. Revista Electrónica Educare, 22(1), 1-19. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15359/ree.22-1.3
Paricio, S. (2014). Competencia intercultural en la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras. PORTA
LINGUARUM, (21), 215-226.
https://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PL_numero21/14%20%20Silvina.pdf
pág. 6589
Pérez, L. & Alonso, M. (2019). A travel to the land ok King Morvan: acquiring cultural competence.
Universitas-Revista de Ciencias Sociales Y Humanas de la Universidad Politécnica Salesiana,
30, 125-145. DOI: http://doi.org/10.17163/uni.n30.2019.06
Trejo, M., Culebro, M., Llaven, G. & Pérez, H. (2017). Enfoque intercultural en lenguas en el ámbito
educativo. Revista Conexión, (17), 19-24. http://aliatuniversidades.com.mx/conexxion/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/C17_Articulo_2.pdf
Wereszczyńska, K. (2018). Importance of and need for intercultural education according to students:
future teachers. Polish Journal of Education Studies, I(LXXI), 212-228. DOI: 10.2478/poljes-
2018-0017
Yahia, A. (2013). Problemas de traducción.
https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/publicaciones_centros/PDF/oran_2013/14_ya
hia.pdf
Pérez, L. & Alonso, M. (2019). A travel to the land ok King Morvan: acquiring cultural competence.
Universitas-Revista de Ciencias Sociales Y Humanas de la Universidad Politécnica Salesiana,
30, 125-145. DOI: http://doi.org/10.17163/uni.n30.2019.06
Trejo, M., Culebro, M., Llaven, G. & Pérez, H. (2017). Enfoque intercultural en lenguas en el ámbito
educativo. Revista Conexión, (17), 19-24. http://aliatuniversidades.com.mx/conexxion/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/C17_Articulo_2.pdf
Wereszczyńska, K. (2018). Importance of and need for intercultural education according to students:
future teachers. Polish Journal of Education Studies, I(LXXI), 212-228. DOI: 10.2478/poljes-
2018-0017
Yahia, A. (2013). Problemas de traducción.
https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/publicaciones_centros/PDF/oran_2013/14_ya
hia.pdf