Cover not available

Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 23:2 (2021) ► pp.222–244

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

From controversy to complexity

Replicating research and extending the evidence on language choice in note-taking for consecutive interpreting

 | Aarhus University
Published online: 14 June 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00062.dam
Abstract
A replication of previous research, this study sets out to re-examine language choice in note-taking for consecutive conference interpreting – a topic that is widely believed to be subject to conflicting evidence. Extending the existing database considerably, the study draws on data from seven different consecutive interpreting tasks involving five different languages and both interpreting directions (B into A and A into B) performed by ten participants with seven different language combinations. Interpreters’ notes from these performances served as the main data of the study, which was complemented by questionnaire data to form a mixed-methods design. Analyses of the interpreters’ notes identified the A language as by far the strongest determinant of language choice, above and beyond other language categories; this confirmed the results of the replicated research. The questionnaire data, however, did not mirror the patterns found in the interpreting data consistently, suggesting a complex interplay of behavior and norms. The article concludes with a discussion of these and previous findings, arguing for the topic of language choice in note-taking to be reframed as one of complexity rather than contradiction.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research on language choice in note-taking
  • 3.Introduction to the study
  • 4.Data and methods
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Procedures
    • 4.3Analyses
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Questionnaire results
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (44)
References
Ahrens, B. (2001). Einige Überlegungen zur Didaktik der Notizentechnik. In A. F. Kelletat (Ed.), Dolmetschen. Beiträge aus Forschung, Lehre und Praxis. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 227–241.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Note-taking. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, 283–286.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Note-taking. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London/New York: Routledge, 380–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexieva, B. (1993). On teaching note-taking in consecutive interpreting. In C. Dollerup & A. Lindegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 199–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allioni, S. (1989). Towards a grammar of consecutive interpretation. In L. Gran & J. Dodds (Eds.), The theoretical and practical aspects of teaching conference interpretation. Udine: Campanotto, 191–197.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andres, D. (2002). Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notation. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, S. (2016). Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: A review with a special focus on Chinese and English literature. JoSTrans 261, 151–171.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: New data from pen recording. Translation & Interpreting 9 (1), 4–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chmiel, A. (2010). How effective is teaching note-taking to trainee interpreters? The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 4 (2), 233–250. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). What makes interpreters’ notes efficient? Features of (non-)efficiency in interpreters’ notes for consecutive. In Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger & R. Stolze (Eds.), Doubts and directions in translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 183–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Consecutive interpreting. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 75–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gile, D. (1991). Prise de notes et attention en début d’apprentissage de l’interprétation consécutive: Une expérience. Démonstration de sensibilisation. Meta 36 (2/3), 431–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gillies, A. (2017). Note-taking for consecutive interpreting. A short course (Rev. ed.). London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gran, L. (1990). Interaction between memory and note-taking in consecutive interpretation. In H. Salevsky (Ed.), Übersetzungswissenschaft und Sprachmittlerausbildung. Berlin: Humboldt Universität, 357–364.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbert, J. (1952). Manuel de l’interprète: Comment on devient interprète de conférences. Genève: Université de Genève.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ilg, G. (1980). L’interprétation consécutive. Les fondements. Parallèles 31, 109–136.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1982). L’interprétation consécutive. La pratique. Parallèles 51, 91–109.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive: Une orientation générale. Parallèles 91, 9–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ilg, G. & Lambert, S. (1996). Teaching consecutive interpreting. Interpreting 1 (1): 69–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, R. (2002). Conference interpreting explained (Rev. ed.). Manchester, UK/Northampton, MA: St Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirchhoff, H. (1979). Die Notationssprache als Hilfsmittel des Konferenzdolmetschers im Konsekutivvorgang. In W. Mair & E. Sallager (Eds.), Sprachtheorie und Sprachenpraxis. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 121–133.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matyssek, H. (1989). Handbuch der Notizentechnik für Dolmetscher. Ein Weg zur Sprachunabhängigen Notation. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikkelson, H. (1983). Consecutive interpretation. The Reflector 61: 5–9.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orlando, M. (2010). Digital pen technology and consecutive interpreting: Another dimension in note-taking training and assessment. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 151, 71–86.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paneth, E. (1957/2002). An investigation into conference interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 30–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1984). Training in note-taking (for interpreting). In W. Wilss & G. Thome (Eds.), Die Theorie des Übersetzens und ihr Aufschlußwert für die Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschdidaktik/Translation theory and its implementation in the teaching of translating and interpreting. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 326–332.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. (2011). Conference interpreting. In K. Malmkjær & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of translation studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 307–324.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rozan, J. F. (1956). La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Genève: Georg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, D. & Takeda, K. (2015). Consecutive interpreting. In H. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of interpreting. London/New York: Routledge, 96–111.Google Scholar logo with link to 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: Learned Information, 197–204.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, D. (1975). Langage, langue et mémoire. Étude de la prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Setton, R. & Dawrant, A. (2016). Conference interpreting: A complete course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thiéry, C. (1981). L’enseignement de la prise de notes en interprétation consécutive: Un faux problème? In J. Delisle (Ed.), L’enseignement de la traduction et de l’interprétation. De la théorie à la pédagogie. Ottawa: Éditions de l’Université d’Ottawa, 99–112.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Hoof, H. (1962). Théorie et pratique de l’interprétation. München: Max Hueber.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Han, Chao & Yueqing Wang
2025. Conducting replication in translation and interpreting studies. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 37:3 ► pp. 444 ff. DOI logo
Pöchhacker, Franz
2024. Conference Interpreting. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Zou, Deyan & Jiahao Guo
2024. Parallel translation process in consecutive interpreting: Differences between beginning and advanced interpreting students. Acta Psychologica 248 ► pp. 104358 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Yuqiao, Weihua Luo & Xiaochen Wang
2023. Exploring the relationship between students’ note-taking and interpreting quality: a case study in the Chinese context. Frontiers in Education 8 DOI logo
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 DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2023. Embedding, extending, and distributing interpreter cognition with technology. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo

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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue