Note-taking in consecutive interpreting. On the reconstruction of an individualised language

Abstract

To facilitate the process of consecutive interpreting, professional interpreters typically use a special system of note-taking. In the approaches developed on the basis of practical interpreting experience, these notations are commonly regarded as a note-taking technique, and in relevant specialist literature they are often conceived as a language-independent instrument. Against the background of a cognitive approach, however, it can be shown that the so¬called note-taking TECHNIQUE can adequately be described by means of the theoretical constructs LANGUAGE and DISCOURSE. The language dimension is explored with regard to word meanings, word formation and inflection, semantic relations at sentence and text level as well as pragmatic functions. The discourse dimension is mainly discussed from the perspective of rele¬vance theory with a particular emphasis on the balance between the explicit and the implicit.

Students’ perceptions of using note-taking in consecutive interpreting assignments

“…Moreover, according to Russell and Takeda (2015), CI is suitable for face-to-face dialogues and international meetings where the number of participants is relatively small. For example, CI is usually utilized in global conferences, press conferences, academic seminars, after-dinner speeches, business meetings, and patient-doctor sessions (Kohn & Albl-Mikasa, 2002). Furthermore, CI may take place in settings where sensitive issues are discussed, such as diplomatic or political meetings, legal proceedings, courtrooms, and a variety of other face-to-face settings (Russell & Takeda, 2015).…”

Cognitive behavior during consecutive interpreting: Describing the notetaking process

“…In a similar vein, abbreviations or symbols in an interpreter's notes might be hypothesized as an indicator of language encoding and comprehension. Commonly-used symbols in specific settings for particular parties, such as a defendant or a physician, might reveal an interpreter's ability to encode information into a single symbol or abbreviation without needing to include additional information (Kohn & Albl-Mikasa, 2002). Still other notes, such as symbols that are used to indicate a class of word, such as insults or invectives, might show further evidence of language processing (Kohn & Albl-Mikasa, 2002).…”

“…Commonly-used symbols in specific settings for particular parties, such as a defendant or a physician, might reveal an interpreter's ability to encode information into a single symbol or abbreviation without needing to include additional information (Kohn & Albl-Mikasa, 2002). Still other notes, such as symbols that are used to indicate a class of word, such as insults or invectives, might show further evidence of language processing (Kohn & Albl-Mikasa, 2002). Nevertheless, these product-oriented perspectives alone only allow for supposition based on a theoretically-motivated operationalization of the variables of interest.…”

“…Nevertheless, these product-oriented perspectives alone only allow for supposition based on a theoretically-motivated operationalization of the variables of interest. For instance, Kohn and Albl-Mikasa (2002) theoretically ground their work in relevance theory, providing a theoretical framework to interpret notes taken by participants after the task is complete.…”

Note-Taking: skill and habit of consecutive interpreters

“…After determining the particular deficiencies interpreting students presented on the study of note-taking, the authors first reviewed the research conducted by Jean François Rozan (1956);Seleskovitch & Lederer (1989); Ilg & Lambert (1999); Pöchhacker (2004); Ouvrard (2013); Vázquez y del Árbol (2005); Abuín González (2009); Blaszczyk & Hanusiak (2010); Orlando (2010); Medina (2014); Russell & Takeda (2015); Santamaría Ciorda (2015); Gillies (2017); Rivas (2020); Kohn & Albl-Mikasa (2021) on the origin and evolution, didactic treatment and cognitive implications of this technique in CI.…”