1887
Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00036.che
2020-04-10
2020-09-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abuín González, M.
    (2012) The language of consecutive interpreters’ notes: Differences across levels of expertise. Interpreting14 (1), 55–72. 10.1075/intp.14.1.03abu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.14.1.03abu [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahrens, B.
    (2005) Rozan and Matyssek: Are they really that different? A comparative synopsis of two classic note-taking schools. Forum3 (2), 1–15. 10.1075/forum.3.2.01ahr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.3.2.01ahr [Google Scholar]
  3. Alessandrini, M. S.
    (1990) Translating numbers in consecutive interpretation: An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter3, 77–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexieva, B.
    (1994) On teaching note-taking in consecutive interpreting. InC. Dollerup & A. Lindegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 2: Insights, aims, visions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 199–206. 10.1075/btl.5.28ale
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.5.28ale [Google Scholar]
  5. Allioni, S.
    (1989) Towards a grammar of consecutive interpretation. InL. Gran & J. M. Dodds (Eds.), The theoretical and practical aspects of teaching conference interpretation. Udine: Campanotto, 191–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Alves, F.
    (Ed.) (2003) Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.45 [Google Scholar]
  7. Alvstad, C., Hild, A. & Tiselius, E.
    (Eds) (2011) Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.94
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94 [Google Scholar]
  8. Andres, D.
    (2002) Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notation [Consecutive interpreting and note-taking]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barik, H. C.
    (1973) Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language and Speech16 (3), 237–270. 10.1177/002383097301600307
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097301600307 [Google Scholar]
  10. Becker, W.
    (1972) Notizentechnik [Note-taking]. Germersheim: BBK.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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 Methods40 (2), 540–545. 10.3758/BRM.40.2.540
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.2.540 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cardoen, H.
    (2013) The effect of note-taking on target-text fluency. InG. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Carl, M., Bangalore, S. & Schaeffer, M.
    (Eds.) (2016) New directions in empirical translation process research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen, S.
    (2016) Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: A review with special focus on Chinese-English literature. JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation26, 151–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2017) Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: New data from pen recording. Translation and Interpreting9 (1), 4–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cheung, A. K. F.
    (2008) Simultaneous interpreting of numbers: An experimental study. Forum6 (2), 23–38. 10.1075/forum.6.2.02kfc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.6.2.02kfc [Google Scholar]
  17. 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 Research39 (2), 136–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dam, H. V.
    (2004a) Interpreters’ notes: On the choice of form and language. InG. Hansen, K. Malmkjær & D. Gile (Eds.), Claims, changes and challenges in Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 251–261. 10.1075/btl.50.21dam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.50.21dam [Google Scholar]
  19. (2004b) Interpreters’ notes: On the choice of language. Interpreting6 (1), 3–17. 10.1075/intp.6.1.03dam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.03dam [Google Scholar]
  20. (2007) What makes interpreters’ notes efficient? Features of (non-)efficiency in interpreter’s notes for consecutive. InY. 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. 10.1075/btl.72.19dam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.72.19dam [Google Scholar]
  21. Dam, H. V. & Engberg, J.
    (2006) Assessing accuracy in consecutive interpreting: A comparison of semantic network analyses and intuitive assessments. InC. Heine, K. Schubert & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Text and translation: Theory and methodology of translation. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto, 215–234.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 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. InH. V. Dam, J. Engberg & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Knowledge systems and translation (Vol.7). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 227–254. 10.1515/9783110924305.227
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924305.227 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Göpferich, S. & O’Brien, S.
    (Eds.) (2015) Interdisciplinarity in translation and interpreting process research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.72
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.72 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]. Meta36 (2/3), 431–439. 10.7202/002898ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/002898ar [Google Scholar]
  25. (2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (revised edition). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gillies, A.
    (2005) Note-taking for consecutive interpreting: A short course. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A. L. & Mees, I. M.
    (Eds.) (2009) Behind the mind: Methods, models and results in translation process research. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gran, L.
    (1982) L’annotazione grafica nell’interpretazione consecutiva [Note-taking in consecutive interpreting]. Trieste: Università degli Studi di Trieste.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Her, H.
    (2001) Notetaking in basic interpretation class: An initial investigation. Studies of Translation and Interpretation6, 53–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Herbert, J.
    (1952) The interpreter’s handbook: How to become a conference interpreter. Geneva: Georg.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ilg, G.
    (1988) La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Une orientation générale [Note-taking in consecutive interpretation: A general approach]. Parallèles9, 9–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jones, R.
    (1998) Conference interpreting explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]. InW. Mair & E. Sallager (Eds.), Sprachtheorie und Sprachpraxis [Language theory and language practice]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 121–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lee, T.-H.
    (2002) Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta47 (4), 596–606. 10.7202/008039ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/008039ar [Google Scholar]
  35. Lim, H.-O.
    (2010) Doing a double take on note-taking. Forum8 (1), 161–179. 10.1075/forum.8.1.07lim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.8.1.07lim [Google Scholar]
  36. Lung, R.
    (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]
  37. (2003) Taking “notes” seriously in the interpretation classroom. InÁ. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Matyssek, H.
    (1989) Handbuch der Notizentechnik für Dolmetscher [Handbook of note-taking for interpreters]. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Muñoz Martín, R.
    (Ed.) (2016) Reembedding translation process research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.128
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128 [Google Scholar]
  40. O’Brien, S.
    (2013) The borrowers: Researching the cognitive aspects of translation. Target25 (1), 5–17. 10.1075/target.25.1.02obr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.02obr [Google Scholar]
  41. Oléron, P. & Nanpon, H.
    (1965/2002) Research into simultaneous translation. InF. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 43–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Orlando, M.
    (2010) Digital pen technology and consecutive interpreting: Another dimension in note-taking training and assessment. The Interpreters’ Newsletter15, 71–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Rozan, J.-F.
    (1956/2002) Note-taking in consecutive interpreting (A. Gillies, Trans.). Cracow: Tertium Society for the Promotion of Language Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Schweda-Nicholson, N.
    (1993) An introduction to basic note-taking skills for consecutive interpretation. InE. Losa (Ed.), Keystones of communication: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, 197–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Seleskovitch, D. & Lederer, M.
    (1995) A systematic approach to teaching interpretation. (J. Harmer, Trans.). Silver Spring, MD: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Setton, R. & Dawrant, A.
    (2016) Conference interpreting: A trainer’s guide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 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]
  48. Timarová, Š., Dragsted, B. & Hansen, I. G.
    (2011) Time lag in translation and interpreting: A methodological exploration. InC. Alvstad, A. Hild & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 121–146. 10.1075/btl.94.10tim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.10tim [Google Scholar]
  49. Tirkkonen-Condit, S. & Jääskeläinen, R.
    (Eds) (2000) Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.37
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.37 [Google Scholar]
  50. Treisman, A. M.
    (1965) The effects of redundancy and familiarity on translating and repeating back a foreign and a native language. British Journal of Psychology56 (4), 369–379. 10.1111/j.2044‑8295.1965.tb00979.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1965.tb00979.x [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00036.che
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00036.che
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive load , consecutive interpreting , digital pen recording , note-taking and process research
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