1887
Volume 23, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00062.dam
2021-06-14
2021-11-29
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.
    (2001) Einige Überlegungen zur Didaktik der Notizentechnik. InA. F. Kelletat (Ed.), Dolmetschen. Beiträge aus Forschung, Lehre und Praxis. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 227–241.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (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]
  4. (2015) Note-taking. InF. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, 283–286.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Albl-Mikasa, M.
    (2008) (Non-)Sense in note-taking for consecutive interpreting. Interpreting10 (2), 197–231. 10.1075/intp.10.2.03alb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.10.2.03alb [Google Scholar]
  6. (2019) Note-taking. InM. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London/New York: Routledge, 380–385. 10.4324/9781315678627‑81
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678627-81 [Google Scholar]
  7. Alexieva, B.
    (1993) On teaching note-taking in consecutive interpreting. InC. Dollerup & A. Lindegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 199–206. 10.1075/btl.5.28ale
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.5.28ale [Google Scholar]
  8. Allioni, S.
    (1989) Towards a grammar of consecutive interpretation. InL. Gran & J. Dodds (Eds.), The theoretical and practical aspects of teaching conference interpretation. Udine: Campanotto, 191–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Andres, D.
    (2002) Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notation. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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: Leuven University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, S.
    (2016) Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: A review with a special focus on Chinese and English literature. JoSTrans26, 151–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2017) Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: New data from pen recording. Translation & Interpreting9 (1), 4–23. 10.12807/ti.109201.2017.a02
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.109201.2017.a02 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2020) The process of note-taking in consecutive interpreting: A digital pen recording approach. Interpreting22 (1), 117–139. 10.1075/intp.00036.che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00036.che [Google Scholar]
  14. Chmiel, A.
    (2010) How effective is teaching note-taking to trainee interpreters?The Interpreter and Translator Trainer4 (2), 233–250. 10.1080/13556509.2010.10798805
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2010.10798805 [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. (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]
  17. (2007) What makes interpreters’ notes efficient? Features of (non-)efficiency in interpreters’ notes for consecutive. InY. Gambier, M. Shlesinger & R. Stolze (Eds.), Doubts and directions in translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 183–197. 10.1075/btl.72.19dam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.72.19dam [Google Scholar]
  18. (2010) Consecutive interpreting. InY. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 75–79. 10.1075/hts.1.con2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.1.con2 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gile, D.
    (1991) Prise de notes et attention en début d’apprentissage de l’interprétation consécutive: Une expérience. Démonstration de sensibilisation. Meta36 (2/3), 431–439. 10.7202/002898ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/002898ar [Google Scholar]
  20. (1995) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8(1st)
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8(1st) [Google Scholar]
  21. (2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gillies, A.
    (2017) Note-taking for consecutive interpreting. A short course (Rev. ed.). London/New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315648996
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315648996 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gran, L.
    (1990) Interaction between memory and note-taking in consecutive interpretation. InH. Salevsky (Ed.), Übersetzungswissenschaft und Sprachmittlerausbildung. Berlin: Humboldt Universität, 357–364.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Herbert, J.
    (1952) Manuel de l’interprète: Comment on devient interprète de conférences. Genève: Université de Genève.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ilg, G.
    (1980) L’interprétation consécutive. Les fondements. Parallèles3, 109–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (1982) L’interprétation consécutive. La pratique. Parallèles5, 91–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (1988) La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive: Une orientation générale. Parallèles9, 9–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ilg, G. & Lambert, S.
    (1996) Teaching consecutive interpreting. Interpreting1 (1): 69–99. 10.1075/intp.1.1.05ilg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.1.1.05ilg [Google Scholar]
  29. Jones, R.
    (2002) Conference interpreting explained (Rev. ed.). Manchester, UK/Northampton, MA: St Jerome Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kirchhoff, H.
    (1979) Die Notationssprache als Hilfsmittel des Konferenzdolmetschers im Konsekutivvorgang. InW. Mair & E. Sallager (Eds.), Sprachtheorie und Sprachenpraxis. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 121–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Matyssek, H.
    (1989) Handbuch der Notizentechnik für Dolmetscher. Ein Weg zur Sprachunabhängigen Notation. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mikkelson, H.
    (1983) Consecutive interpretation. The Reflector6: 5–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Orlando, M.
    (2010) Digital pen technology and consecutive interpreting: Another dimension in note-taking training and assessment. The Interpreters’ Newsletter15, 71–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Paneth, E.
    (1957/2002) An investigation into conference interpreting. InF. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 30–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (1984) Training in note-taking (for interpreting). InW. 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]
  36. Pöchhacker, F.
    (2011) Conference interpreting. InK. Malmkjær & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of translation studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 307–324.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Rozan, J. F.
    (1956) La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Genève: Georg.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Russell, D. & Takeda, K.
    (2015) Consecutive interpreting. InH. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of interpreting. London/New York: Routledge, 96–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 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: Learned Information, 197–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Seleskovitch, D.
    (1975) Langage, langue et mémoire. Étude de la prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Setton, R. & Dawrant, A.
    (2016) Conference interpreting: A complete course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.120
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.120 [Google Scholar]
  42. Szabó, C.
    (2006) Language choice in note-taking for consecutive interpreting: A topic revisited. Interpreting8 (2), 129–147. 10.1075/intp.8.2.02sza
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.2.02sza [Google Scholar]
  43. Thiéry, C.
    (1981) L’enseignement de la prise de notes en interprétation consécutive: Un faux problème?InJ. 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]
  44. van Hoof, H.
    (1962) Théorie et pratique de l’interprétation. München: Max Hueber.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00062.dam
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00062.dam
Loading

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