Tõlkimist saab kategoriseerida, määratleda ja liigitada eri kriteeriumide alusel, millest üks olulisemaid on tööviis. Selle järgi kategoriseerides eristatakse kahte peamist suulise tõlke liiki: sünkroon- ja järeltõlget. Järeltõlke korral alustab tõlk sihtkeelse versiooni esitamist pärast seda, kui kõneleja on rääkimise lõpetanud – tõlk räägib kõneleja järel, sellest ka tõlke nimi.

Kasutatud allikad

Albl-Mikasa, Michaela

2007 Notationssprache und Notizentext: Ein kognitiv-linguistisches Modell für das Konsekutivdolmetschen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Andres, Dörte

2002 Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notation. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.  TSB

Cardoen, Hanne

2013 “The effect of note-taking on target-text fluency”. In Emerging Research in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Summer School 2012, Gabriel González Núñez, Yasmine Khaled & Tanya Voinova (eds). Leuven: KULeuven. http://​www​.arts​.kuleuven​.be​/cetra​/papers​/files​/cardoen [Kasutatud 9. september 2014].  TSB

Chmiel, Agnieszka

2010 “How effective is teaching note-taking to trainee interpreters?” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 4 (2): 233–250.  TSB

Dam, Helle V.

2004a ”Interpreters’ notes: on the choice of form and language”. In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies, Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjær & Daniel Gile (eds), 251–261. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Dam, Helle V.

2004b “Interpreters’ notes: on the choice of language.” Interpreting 6 (1): 3–17.  BoP

Dam, Helle V.

2007 ”What makes interpreters’ notes efficient? Features of (non-)efficiency in interpreters’ notes for consecutive.” In Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, Yves Gambier, Miriam Shlesinger & Radegundis Stolze (eds), 183197. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Eraslan, Seyda

2011 International Knowledge Transfer in Turkey: The Consecutive Interpreter’s Role in Context. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Available at http://​www​.tdx​.cat​/handle​/10803​/37342 [Kasutatud 9. september 2014].

Gile, Daniel

2001 “Consecutive vs. simultaneous: Which is more accurate?” Tsuuyakukenkyuu – Interpreting Studies 1 (1): 8–20.  TSB

Gile, Daniel

2009 2nd edition. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  BoP

Kalina, Sylvia & Ahrens, Barbara

2010 “Consecutive – an outdated skill or a mode with a new profile? Implications for teaching.” In Les Pratiques de l’Interprétation et l’Oralité dans la Communication Interculturelle, 143–158. Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme.

Lambert, Sylvie

1989 “Information processing among conference interpreters: A test of the depth-of-processing hypothesis.” In The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation, Laura Gran & John Dodds (eds), 83–91. Udine: Campanotto.  TSB

Matyssek, Heinz

1989 Handbuch der Notizentechnik für Dolmetscher. Ein Weg zur Sprachunabhängigen Notation Vol. I–II. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.

Rozan, Jean-François

1956 La Prise de Notes en Interprétation Consécutive. Geneva: Georg.  TSB

Seleskovitch, Danica

1975 Langage, Langue et Mémoire. Étude de la Prise de Notes en Interprétation Consécutive. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes.

Szabo, Csilla

2006 “Language choice in note-taking for consecutive interpreting.” Interpreting 8 (2): 129–147.  BoP

Lisalugemist

Gillies, Andrew

2005 Note-taking for Consecutive Interpreting – A Short Course. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.  TSB

Ilg, Gérard & Lambert, Sylvie

1996 “Teaching consecutive interpreting.” Interpreting 1 (1): 69–99.  TSB

Mead, Peter

2002 “Exploring hesitation in consecutive interpreting: An empirical study.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century, Guiliana Garzone & Maurizio Viezzi (eds), 73–82. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  TSB

Pöchhacker, Franz

2004 Introducing Interpreting Studies. London & New York: Routledge.  BoP