Article published in:
Interpreting
Vol. 22:1 (2020) ► pp. 117139
References

[ p. 136 ]References

Abuín González, M.
(2012) The language of consecutive interpreters’ notes: Differences across levels of expertise. Interpreting 14 (1), 55–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ahrens, B.
(2005) Rozan and Matyssek: Are they really that different? A comparative synopsis of two classic note-taking schools. Forum 3 (2), 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alessandrini, M. S.
(1990) Translating numbers in consecutive interpretation: An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 3, 77–80.Google Scholar
Alexieva, B.
(1994) On teaching note-taking in consecutive interpreting. In C. Dollerup & A. Lindegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 2: Insights, aims, visions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 199–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allioni, S.
(1989) Towards a grammar of consecutive interpretation. In L. Gran & J. M. Dodds (Eds.), The theoretical and practical aspects of teaching conference interpretation. Udine: Campanotto, 191–197.Google Scholar
Alves, F.
(Ed.) (2003) Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alvstad, C., Hild, A. & Tiselius, E.
(Eds) (2011) Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andres, D.
(2002) Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notation [Consecutive interpreting and note-taking]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Barik, H. C.
(1973) Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language and Speech 16 (3), 237–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Becker, W.
(1972) Notizentechnik [Note-taking]. Germersheim: BBK.Google Scholar
Brown, C., Snodgrass, T., Kemper, S. J., Herman, R. & Covington, M. A.
(2008) Automatic measurement of propositional idea density from part-of-speech tagging. Behavior Research Methods 40 (2), 540–545. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardoen, H.
(2013) The effect of note-taking on target-text fluency. In G. González Núñez, Y. Khaled & T. Voinova (Eds.), Emerging research in translation studies: Selected papers of the CETRA Research Summer School 2012. Leuven: CETRA, 1–22.Google Scholar
Carl, M., Bangalore, S. & Schaeffer, M.
(Eds.) (2016) New directions in empirical translation process research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S.
(2016) Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: A review with special focus on Chinese-English literature. JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 26, 151–171.Google Scholar
(2017) Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: New data from pen recording. Translation and Interpreting 9 (1), 4–23.Google Scholar
Cheung, A. K. F.
(2008) Simultaneous interpreting of numbers: An experimental study. Forum 6 (2), 23–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dai, W. & Xu, H.
(2007) 汉英交替传译过程中译员笔记特征实证研究——以职业受训译员和非职业译员为例 [An empirical study of the features of interpreters’ notes in Chinese-English consecutive interpreting: The examples of professionally trained and unprofessional interpreters]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 39 (2), 136–144.Google Scholar
Dam, H. V.
(2004a) Interpreters’ notes: On the choice of form and language. In G. Hansen, K. Malmkjær & D. Gile (Eds.), Claims, changes and challenges in Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 251–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 137 ]
(2004b) Interpreters’ notes: On the choice of language. Interpreting 6 (1), 3–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) What makes interpreters’ notes efficient? Features of (non-)efficiency in interpreter’s notes for consecutive. In Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger & R. Stolze (Eds.), Doubts and directions in Translation Studies: Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Lisbon 2004. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 183–197. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dam, H. V. & Engberg, J.
(2006) Assessing accuracy in consecutive interpreting: A comparison of semantic network analyses and intuitive assessments. In C. Heine, K. Schubert & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Text and translation: Theory and methodology of translation. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto, 215–234.Google Scholar
Dam, H. V., Engberg, J. & Schjoldager, A.
(2005) Modelling semantic networks on source and target texts in consecutive interpreting: A contribution to the study of interpreters’ notes. In H. V. Dam, J. Engberg & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Knowledge systems and translation (Vol. 7). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 227–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Göpferich, S. & O’Brien, S.
(Eds.) (2015) Interdisciplinarity in translation and interpreting process research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gile, D.
(1991) Prise de notes et attention en début d’apprentissage de l’interprétation consécutive–une expérience– démonstration de sensibilisation [Note-taking and attention at the beginning of consecutive interpreting learning – an experience–demonstration of awareness]. Meta 36 (2/3), 431–439. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (revised edition). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gillies, A.
(2005) Note-taking for consecutive interpreting: A short course. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A. L. & Mees, I. M.
(Eds.) (2009) Behind the mind: Methods, models and results in translation process research. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur Press.Google Scholar
Gran, L.
(1982) L’annotazione grafica nell’interpretazione consecutiva [Note-taking in consecutive interpreting]. Trieste: Università degli Studi di Trieste.Google Scholar
Her, H.
(2001) Notetaking in basic interpretation class: An initial investigation. Studies of Translation and Interpretation 6, 53–77.Google Scholar
Herbert, J.
(1952) The interpreter’s handbook: How to become a conference interpreter. Geneva: Georg.Google Scholar
Ilg, G.
(1988) La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Une orientation générale [Note-taking in consecutive interpretation: A general approach]. Parallèles 9, 9–13.Google Scholar
Jones, R.
(1998) Conference interpreting explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Kirchhoff, H.
(1979) Die Notationssprache als Hilfsmittel des Konferenzdolmetschers im Konsekutivvorgang [The language of note-taking as a tool for the conference interpreter in consecutive interpreting]. In W. Mair & E. Sallager (Eds.), Sprachtheorie und Sprachpraxis [Language theory and language practice]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 121–133.Google Scholar
Lee, T.-H.
(2002) Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta 47 (4), 596–606. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lim, H.-O.
(2010) Doing a double take on note-taking. Forum 8 (1), 161–179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 138 ]
Lung, R.
(1999) Note-taking skills and comprehension in consecutive interpretation. Babel 45 (4), 311–317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Taking “notes” seriously in the interpretation classroom. In Á. Collados Aís, M. M. Fernández Sánchez & D. Gile (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Investigación [Quality assessment in interpretation: Research]. Granada: Comares, 199–205.Google Scholar
Matyssek, H.
(1989) Handbuch der Notizentechnik für Dolmetscher [Handbook of note-taking for interpreters]. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, R.
(Ed.) (2016) Reembedding translation process research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, S.
(2013) The borrowers: Researching the cognitive aspects of translation. Target 25 (1), 5–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oléron, P. & Nanpon, H.
(1965/2002) Research into simultaneous translation. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 43–50.Google Scholar
Orlando, M.
(2010) Digital pen technology and consecutive interpreting: Another dimension in note-taking training and assessment. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15, 71–86.Google Scholar
Rozan, J.-F.
(1956/2002) Note-taking in consecutive interpreting (A. Gillies, Trans.). Cracow: Tertium Society for the Promotion of Language Studies.Google Scholar
Schweda-Nicholson, N.
(1993) An introduction to basic note-taking skills for consecutive interpretation. In E. Losa (Ed.), Keystones of communication: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, 197–204.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, D. & Lederer, M.
(1995) A systematic approach to teaching interpretation. (J. Harmer, Trans.). Silver Spring, MD: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.Google Scholar
Setton, R. & Dawrant, A.
(2016) Conference interpreting: A trainer’s guide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Szabó, C.
(2006) Language choice in note-taking for consecutive interpreting. Interpreting 8 (2), 129–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Timarová, Š., Dragsted, B. & Hansen, I. G.
(2011) Time lag in translation and interpreting: A methodological exploration. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 121–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. & Jääskeläinen, R.
(Eds) (2000) Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Treisman, A. M.
(1965) The effects of redundancy and familiarity on translating and repeating back a foreign and a native language. British Journal of Psychology 56 (4), 369–379. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 139 ]
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Chen, Sijia
2021. The process and product of note-taking and consecutive interpreting: empirical data from professionals and students. Perspectives  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Chen, Sijia, Jan-Louis Kruger & Stephen Doherty
2021. Reading patterns and cognitive processing in an eye-tracking study of note-reading in consecutive interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 23:1  pp. 76 ff. Crossref logo
Dam, Helle V.
2021. From controversy to complexity. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 23:2  pp. 222 ff. Crossref logo
胡, 敏霞
2021. The Two-Way Relationship between Interpreting Experience and Working Memory—A Review of Empirical Evidence. Modern Linguistics 09:01  pp. 187 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 august 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.