Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 22:1 (2020) ► pp.117–139
The process of note-taking in consecutive interpreting
A digital pen recording approach
Published online: 10 April 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00036.che
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00036.che
Abstract
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Research background
- 2.1Note-taking in CI
- 2.2Research questions
- 3.Method
- 3.1Participants
- 3.2Apparatus
- 3.3Stimulus texts
- 3.4Procedures
- 3.5Data
- 3.5.1Categorisation of notes
- 3.5.2Pen recording data
- 3.5.3Rating of interpreting performance
- 4.Results
- 4.1What was noted down
- 4.2When were notes taken
- 4.3Note-taking choices
- 4.3.1The choice of form
- 4.3.2The choice of language
- 4.4Varied temporal, physical demands and EPS of different note-taking choices
- 4.4.1Language vs. symbol
- 4.4.2Abbreviation vs. full word
- 4.4.3Chinese vs. English
- 4.5Note-taking and interpreting performance
- 5.Discussion
- 5.1Content and timing of note-taking
- 5.2Choice of form and choice of language
- 5.3Temporal, physical, and cognitive demands of note-taking
- 5.4The relationship between note-taking and interpreting performance
- 6.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (50)
Abuín González, M. (2012). The language of consecutive interpreters’ notes: Differences across levels of expertise. Interpreting 14 (1), 55–72.
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.
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.
Alves, F. (Ed.) (2003). Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Alvstad, C., Hild, A. & Tiselius, E. (Eds) (2011). Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
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.
(2017). Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: New data from pen recording. Translation and Interpreting 9 (1), 4–23.
Cheung, A. K. F. (2008). Simultaneous interpreting of numbers: An experimental study. Forum 6 (2), 23–38.
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. (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.
(2004b). Interpreters’ notes: On the choice of language. Interpreting 6 (1), 3–17.
(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.
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.
Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Göpferich, S. & O’Brien, S. (Eds.) (2015). Interdisciplinarity in translation and interpreting process research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
(2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (revised edition). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
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.
Lim, H.-O. (2010). Doing a double take on note-taking. Forum 8 (1), 161–179.
Lung, R. (1999). Note-taking skills and comprehension in consecutive interpretation. Babel 45 (4), 311–317.
(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.
Muñoz Martín, R. (Ed.) (2016). Reembedding translation process research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
O’Brien, S. (2013). The borrowers: Researching the cognitive aspects of translation. Target 25 (1), 5–17.
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.
Szabó, C. (2006). Language choice in note-taking for consecutive interpreting. Interpreting 8 (2), 129–147.
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.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. & Jääskeläinen, R. (Eds) (2000). Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (23)
Cited by 23 other publications
Borg, Claudine, Carmen Heine & Hanna Risku
2025. Observations and diaries. In Research Methods in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 10], ► pp. 108 ff.
Chan, Venus
Xue, Ruqian & Qin Liu
Chen, Sijia & Jan-Louis Kruger
Chen, Sijia & Jan-Louis Kruger
2024. Visual processing during computer-assisted consecutive interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 26:2 ► pp. 231 ff.
Gao, Ping & Weiqi Chen
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine & Michaela Albl-Mikasa
Gu, Chonglong & Binhua Wang
2024. From “Within” to “Beyond” in interpreting studies. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation / Revista Internacional de Traducción 70:6 ► pp. 783 ff.
Hu, Bei
Moratto, Riccardo & Zhimiao Yang
2024. Probing the cognitive load of consecutive interpreters. Translation and Interpreting Studies 19:2 ► pp. 234 ff.
Zhou, Jinhua & Yanping Dong
Lu, Rong, Muhammad Alif Redzuan Abdullah & Lay Hoon Ang
Orlando, Marc
2023. Using smartpens and digital pens in interpreter
training and interpreting research. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 6 ff.
Xu, Shengyi, Jun Pan & Michael Carl
2023. Economy and efficiency of note-taking in consecutive interpreting from
English to Chinese. In Translation in Transition [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XX], ► pp. 157 ff.
Yu, Sheng
Chen, Sijia
Kuang, Huolingxiao & Binghan Zheng
Kuang, Huolingxiao & Binghan Zheng
Xiang, Tingmei, Feijun Huang & Wenna Jiang
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.
Dam, Helle V.
2021. From controversy to complexity. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 23:2 ► pp. 222 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. 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.
