This article reports the findings of an empirical study on the process of note-taking in consecutive interpreting (CI). The focus is on the data collected via digital pen recording and voice recording while professional interpreters performed CI between Chinese (L1) and English (L2). In both directions of interpreting, the study found that the interpreters preferred language to symbol and English to Chinese. It was also found that the physical and temporal demands of symbol and abbreviation notes were lower than those of language and full word notes, respectively, whereas the ear-pen span (EPS) of symbol notes was longer than that of language notes. As to the relationship between note-taking and interpreting performance, the data showed that a higher percentage of English notes was correlated with a worse performance in both directions of interpreting. There were also some differences between the directions: in E-C interpreting, the performance was better when the EPS was shorter, when the participants used more symbol notes, and when they used fewer language notes, but in C-E interpreting, the quality of performance was positively correlated with the quantity of notes.
Alessandrini, M. S. (1990). Translating numbers in consecutive interpretation: An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 31, 77–80.
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.
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.
Andres, D. (2002). Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notation [Consecutive interpreting and note-taking]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Barik, H. C. (1973). Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language and Speech 16 (3), 237–270.
Becker, W. (1972). Notizentechnik [Note-taking]. Germersheim: BBK.
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.
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.
Carl, M., Bangalore, S. & Schaeffer, M. (Eds.) (2016). New directions in empirical translation process research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Cham: Springer.
Chen, S. (2016). Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: A review with special focus on Chinese-English literature. JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 261, 151–171.
Chen, S. (2017). Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: New data from pen recording. Translation and Interpreting 9 (1), 4–23.
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.
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.
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. 71). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 227–254.
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.
Gillies, A. (2005). Note-taking for consecutive interpreting: A short course. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A. L. & Mees, I. M. (Eds.) (2009). Behind the mind: Methods, models and results in translation process research. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur Press.
Gran, L. (1982). L’annotazione grafica nell’interpretazione consecutiva [Note-taking in consecutive interpreting]. Trieste: Università degli Studi di Trieste.
Her, H. (2001). Notetaking in basic interpretation class: An initial investigation. Studies of Translation and Interpretation 61, 53–77.
Herbert, J. (1952). The interpreter’s handbook: How to become a conference interpreter. Geneva: Georg.
Ilg, G. (1988). La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Une orientation générale [Note-taking in consecutive interpretation: A general approach]. Parallèles 91, 9–13.
Jones, R. (1998). Conference interpreting explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
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.
Lee, T.-H. (2002). Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta 47 (4), 596–606.
Lung, R. (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.
Matyssek, H. (1989). Handbuch der Notizentechnik für Dolmetscher [Handbook of note-taking for interpreters]. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.
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.
Orlando, M. (2010). Digital pen technology and consecutive interpreting: Another dimension in note-taking training and assessment. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 151, 71–86.
Rozan, J.-F. (1956/2002). Note-taking in consecutive interpreting (A. Gillies, Trans.). Cracow: Tertium Society for the Promotion of Language Studies.
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.
Seleskovitch, D. & Lederer, M. (1995). A systematic approach to teaching interpretation. (J. Harmer, Trans.). Silver Spring, MD: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
Setton, R. & Dawrant, A. (2016). Conference interpreting: A trainer’s guide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
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.
Cited by (21)
Cited by 21 other publications
Chan, Venus
2024. Impact of technology on interpreting practice: a review of studies on technology and interpreting practice from2013 to 2024. Interactive Technology and Smart Education
Chen, Sijia & Jan-Louis Kruger
2024. A computer-assisted consecutive interpreting workflow: training and evaluation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 18:3 ► pp. 380 ff.
2024. Optimized Application of the Mobile ICT-Based Mini Program to Note-Taking Training for Consecutive Interpreting. In Proceedings of the 2023 4th International Conference on Big Data and Informatization Education (ICBDIE 2023) [Advances in Intelligent Systems Research, 178], ► pp. 71 ff.
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine & Michaela Albl-Mikasa
2024. Interpreting accuracy revisited: a refined approach to interpreting performance analysis. Perspectives 32:2 ► pp. 210 ff.
2024. Exploring student interpreters’ engagement with different sources of feedback on note-taking. Innovations in Education and Teaching International► pp. 1 ff.
Zhou, Jinhua & Yanping Dong
2024. Effects of note-taking on the accuracy and fluency of consecutive interpreters' immediate free recall of source texts: A three-stage developmental study. Acta Psychologica 248 ► pp. 104359 ff.
Han, Lili, Zhisheng (Edward) Wen & Alan James Runcieman
2023. Interpreting as Translanguaging,
Lu, Rong, Muhammad Alif Redzuan Abdullah & Lay Hoon Ang
2023. Into-A or Into-B, That is a Question: A Systematic Literature Review of Directionality and Performance in Consecutive Interpreting. Sage Open 13:4
2023. Scaffolding Strategies for Training Anxiety-Stricken Novice Interpreters. Journal of Social Science Humanities and Literature 6:5 ► pp. 138 ff.
Chen, Sijia
2022. The process and product of note-taking and consecutive interpreting: empirical data from professionals and students. Perspectives 30:2 ► pp. 258 ff.
Kuang, Huolingxiao & Binghan Zheng
2022. How does interpreting performance correlate with note-taking process, note-taking product and note-reading process? An eye-tracking and pen-recording study. Across Languages and Cultures 23:2 ► pp. 167 ff.
Kuang, Huolingxiao & Binghan Zheng
2023. Note-taking effort in video remote interpreting: effects of source speech difficulty and interpreter work experience. Perspectives 31:4 ► pp. 724 ff.
Xiang, Tingmei, Feijun Huang & Wenna Jiang
2022. 2022 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Robot Systems (AIARS), ► pp. 433 ff.
2021. From controversy to complexity. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 23:2 ► pp. 222 ff.
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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2024. 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.