Volume 64, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study provides a framework that immediately and efficiently guides the selection of the message components for note-taking to successfully capture implicatures in consecutive interpretation. The framework revisits the Quantity, Informativeness, and Manner (Q, I and M) heuristics of communication by Levinson (19952000). Three interpretation principles are suggested (I-Q, I-I and I-M) (I for interpretation). The principles are applied to the main parts of the message (vocabulary, connectives, and marked forms) following Johns (2014). The I-Q principle advises interpreters to select the words that are most consistent with the speaker’s best knowledge of the world and to communicate them as such; the I-I principle advises interpreters to simply and systematically notate the connectives that exemplify a similar connection to the SM; the I-M principle advocates that interpreters should mark any instances of marked forms such as over-lexicalization, prolixity, and repetition, and relay them with a similar level of markedness to communicate a similar attitude of the SM speaker in the TL.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Atlas, Jay D.; and Levinson, Stephen C.
    1981 “It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: radical pragmatics” (revised standard version). InRadical Pragmatics, ed. byPeter Cole, 1–62. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Gillies, Andrew
    2005Note taking for Consecutive Interpreting: A Short Course. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. González, Roseann D.; Vasquez, Victoria F.; and Mikkelson, Holly
    1991Fundamentals of court interpretation. Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Grice, Paul H.
    1975 “Logic and conversation”. InSyntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole; and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Horn, Laurence R.
    1984 “Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R- based implicature”. InMeaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, ed. byDeborah Schiffrin, 11–42. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ilg, Gérard
    1980 “L’interprétation consécutive: Les fondements”. Parallèles3: 109–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Jones, Roderick
    2014Conference interpreting explained. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315760322
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760322 [Google Scholar]
  8. Kohn, Kurt; and Albl-Mikasa, Michaela
    2002 “Note-taking in consecutive interpreting. On the reconstruction of an individualised language”. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies1: 257–272.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1995 “Three Levels of meaning”. InGrammar and Meaning, ed. byF. R. Palmer, 109–116. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620638.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620638.006 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2000Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Lung, Rachel
    1999 “Note-taking skills and comprehension in consecutive interpretation”. Babel45 (4): 311–317. 10.1075/babel.45.4.04lun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.45.4.04lun [Google Scholar]
  12. Mizuno, Akira
    2005 “Process Model for Simultaneous Interpreting and Working Memory”. Meta50 (2): 739–752. 10.7202/011015ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011015ar [Google Scholar]
  13. Shlesinger, Miriam
    2000 “Interpreting as a cognitive process: How can we know what really happens?” InTapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research, ed. bySonia Tirkkonen-Condit; and Ritta Jääskeläinen, 3–15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.37.03shl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.37.03shl [Google Scholar]
  14. Stanislav, Dornic
    1978 “The bilingual’s performance: Language dominance, stress and individual differences”. InLanguage interpreting and communication, ed. byDavid Gerver; and H. Wallace Sinaiko, 259–272. New York: Plenum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Szabó, C.
    2006 “Language choice in note-taking for consecutive interpreting”. Interpreting8 (2): 129–147. 10.1075/intp.8.2.02sza
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.2.02sza [Google Scholar]
  16. Weber, Wilhelm K.
    1984 ”Training Translators and Conference Interpreters. Language in Education: Theory and Practice, No. 58”. https://archive.org/stream/ERIC_ED246696/ERIC_ED246696_djvu.txt
  17. Wilson, Deirdre; and Sperber, Dan
    2004 “Relevance theory”. InHandbook of Pragmatics, ed. byLaurence R. Horn; and Greory Ward, 607–632. Malden MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error