Consecutive interpreting

Helle V. Dam
Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University

Table of contents

Interpreting may be classified, labelled and divided into types and subtypes based on various criteria, working mode being one of the most important of these. When categorizing according to mode, two major types of interpreting emerge: simultaneous and consecutive interpreting. In consecutive interpreting, the interpreter starts rendering the target-language version after the speaker has stopped speaking: the interpreter speaks consecutively to the speaker, hence the name.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Albl-Mikasa, Michaela
2007 Notationssprache und Notizentext: Ein kognitiv-linguistisches Modell für das Konsekutivdolmetschen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Andres, Dörte
2002 Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notation. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Dam, Helle V
2004 “Interpreters’ notes: on the choice of language.” Interpreting 6 (1): 3–17. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
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 [Accessed on 29 September 2011].Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
2001 “Consecutive vs. simultaneous: Which is more accurate?” Tsuuyakukenkyuu – Interpreting Studies 1 (1): 8–20.  TSB DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 2nd edition. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
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2010 “Consecutive - an outdated skill or a mode with a new profile?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.Google Scholar
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.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Matyssek, Heinz
1989 Handbuch der Notizentechnik für Dolmetscher. Ein Weg zur Sprachunabhängigen Notation Vol. I–II. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Rozan, Jean-François
1956 La Prise de Notes en Interprétation Consécutive. Geneva: Georg.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica
1975 Langage, Langue et Mémoire. Étude de la Prise de Notes en Interprétation Consécutive. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes.Google Scholar
Szabo, Csilla
2006 “Language choice in note-taking for consecutive interpreting.” Interpreting 8 (2): 129–147. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar

Further reading

Gillies, Andrew
2005 Note-taking for Consecutive Interpreting – A Short Course. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Ilg, Gérard & Lambert, Sylvie
1996 “Teaching consecutive interpreting.” Interpreting 1 (1): 69–99. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
2004 Introducing Interpreting Studies. London & New York: Routledge.  BoPGoogle Scholar