Form of notes

This discussion concerns training students on how to take notes in terms of the language of notes, symbols and abbreviations and the layout of notes.

3.3.2.3.1 Language of notes

Alexieva (1994b: 205) gives two reasons why the SL should be chosen. First, opting for the TL means adding interlingual transfer to listening, note-taking and memory operations, thus complicating things further as this involves working with the signs of the SL and TL and executing interlingual transfer before note-taking. Second, the reliability of interlingual transfer in the absence of the following context is questioned since decisions taken may not be warranted by what comes next, which may lead to incorrect notes.

Gile (1995d: 182f) calls for empirical research to give the final say on this issue, but he seems to support the above position. According to his Effort Models, taking notes in the TL theoretically requires more processing capacity than in the SL because conversion requires more processing capacity. However, it might be argued that at least the same amount of processing capacity for conversion will still be needed in the production phase.

However, Herbert (1952: 38) argues that dealing with the problems of translation while the notes are being taken helps facilitate the reading of notes, thus improving production. Seleskovitch (1989: 76) and Seleskovitch and Lederer (1995: 37ff) give another reason arguing that taking notes in the TL when an idea cannot be noted in symbols helps make sure from the start that students are not noting words they hear but reminders of what they have understood (sense). They (1995: 31) argue that this will help students dissociate the two languages, thus producing a less literal translation (cf. also AIIC 1994). Then, students gradually develop their own methods of note-taking. However, Seleskovitch and Lederer argue that if the right TL term does not come to mind immediately as is the case with ‘transcodable items’ (e.g. figures), it should be noted in the SL because thinking about it might take a long time and cause the CCIr to miss parts of the original (1995: 31).

Jones (1998: 66f) gives a ‘slight preference’ to the TL, but argues that the issue should be addressed in a ‘pragmatic, non-dogmatic, way’ because, first, much of the notes could be written in a metalanguage (symbols and/or abbreviations) which is neither the SL nor TL. Second, some words might be noted in either the SL or TL, but the final form of the notes might be ‘cryptic’ or ambiguous with the words not necessarily being related to one another in a way that adheres to the grammar or syntax of either language. Third, CCIrs might write their notes in both the SL and TL or a third language because its words are shorter, easier to note or just come naturally to mind.

Dam (2004a) has empirically found that the choice of language depends more on the A-B distinction than on the ‘traditional’ SL-TL dichotomy. Two tasks were carried out by four subjects, the first three of whom have Danish and Spanish as their A and B languages respectively, and the fourth has Spanish and Danish as her A and B languages respectively. Subjects were first asked to consecutively interpret a text from Spanish into Danish. Thus, the first three subjects have interpreted from their B into A, and the fourth from her A into B. Subjects have then been asked to consecutively interpret another text from Danish into Spanish. Thus, the first three subjects have interpreted from their A into B, and the fourth from her B into A. In both cases, Dam has found that the subjects’ A languages are dominant in their notes regardless of whether their A languages are the SL or TL. Dam (ibid: 12) therefore suggests that the choice of language in note-taking is mainly governed by the A-B language dichotomy though not discarding the role of the TL-SL distinction altogether since there has been a slight shift from the A language preference among subjects when the B language is the SL.

Dam (ibid: 13) uses Gile’s effort models (1997; 3.2.1.2 Effort Models) to explain these results, arguing that in order to keep efforts to a minimum and save processing capacity for listening and analysis, CCIrs are more likely to take notes in any language that is easier to them, thus taking notes in a faster way. Writing in one’s A is easier and faster than B. The SL-TL distinction can also influence ease of processing and writing since taking the notes in the SL is theoretically easier and faster than the TL. Thus, although the CCIr is opting for a more demanding task during the reformulation stage, the SL option is still less demanding since he/she will not be working with two codes simultaneously.

However, it must be argued here that the CCIr will definitely and necessarily work with two different codes simultaneously in the production phase, thus bringing linguistic interference closer to the CCIr’s rendition, which could be more disruptive to the final delivery.

Dam (ibid) concludes that theoretically, the question should not be whether to take notes in the SL or TL as much as in the A language or SL. The latter are likely be the ‘competing parameters’. This may be because no correlations have been found in this study between A- to-B interpreting or TL/B language notes. When the two factors representing ease and speed in note-taking (the SL and A language) coincide (the A language happening to be the

SL), this language can be the choice for the code of notes. If the situation changes (the A language becomes the TL and the SL is a B language), the interpreter will be faced with a challenging choice between two factors providing ease and speed, an A functioning not a SL, but a TL, and a SL which is a B, not an A language. The notes analysed in Dam’s study have shown that students have generally preferred the A language to the SL.

Dam’s results are interesting, but they cannot be solid findings as they are obtained from an experimental performance of four students, and more so because in another experiment involving five professional interpreters, Dam (2004b: 257) has found ‘a strong preference’ for using the TL for notes in all respects (72% overall and 58% to 87% individually). Thus, as Dam herself suggests, there is a need for more empirical research in this area.

3.3.2.3.2 Symbols and abbreviations

CCIrs usually use symbols and abbreviations in their notes to help save time during note- taking. However, despite the obvious benefits of applying an efficient system of symbols and abbreviations for note-taking, only a small number of researchers (cf. e.g. Becker 1972; Matyssek 1989, both quoted in Ilg and Lambert 1996: 71f) favour teaching students a specific note-taking system, and the majority (cf. Herbert 1952: 35; Henderson 1976: 109; Keiser 1978: 23; Longley 1978: 50; Seleskovitch 1989: 76; 1999: 64; Seleskovitch and Lederer 1995: 30; Weber 1989b: 166; AIIC 1994; Ilg and Lambert 1996: 81; Jones 1998: 54ff, Ficchi, 1999; Nolan 2005: 294; Lim 2006: 106, etc.) argue that students should be encouraged to develop their own ways of taking notes though, as Capaldo argues (1980: 245), some basic symbols referring to such concepts as emphasis, questions, exclamations, etc. might be suggested to students as general guidance.

Like all researchers who reject teaching a ready-made system of note-taking, Herbert (1952: 35) emphasises the individuality of notes, arguing that some people may remember details, others the sequence of ideas. Thus, notes should be taken based on individual needs.

Henderson (1976: 109) and Jones (1998: 55) stress that any system developed by a student or interpreter should be constructed of features that are ‘meaningful’ to him/her because what might be logical or meaningful to one interpreter might not necessarily be to another.

Keiser (1978: 23) reports on students who could faithfully reproduce long speeches without notes and tell stories backward solely from memory without missing any element during an introductory course to CCI, but after six months, they were lost in notes and symbols after being taught a note-taking system and never became conference interpreters. Similarly, Longley (1978: 50) argues that unless a student has a mind that thinks in symbols and shortcuts, lists of symbols learnt by rote can only be a barrier to quick note-taking because they will not be spontaneous (cf. also Schweda-Nicholson 1985: 150).

Seleskovitch (1989: 76) is a staunch opponent of teaching a specific note-taking system because she believes this means adding another system or ‘artificial language’ (1999: 64) to the two language systems involved, thus making things even more difficult for students.

The Poznan Workshops for interpreter trainers (cf. AIIC 1994) have concluded that students should know that no system is superior to the other and different types of discourse may require different note-taking strategies (cf. also Seleskovitch and Lederer 1995: 30).

Ficchi (1999) proposes an autonomous, or ‘self-directed learning’ (ibid: 204), approach to CCI (note-taking) based on the results of an experimental study involving eleven beginners by means of three testing phases over six months. The results have indicated the effectiveness of this approach which has been clearly reflected in the improvement in students’ performance over the six-month period (ibid: 212).

The results of Ficchi’s study confirm the opinion of the overwhelming majority of researchers who stress the individuality of CCI notes.

3.3.2.3.3 Layout of notes

The layout of notes has also been taken up by some researchers out of their belief that the layout of notes on the page could facilitate the recall of the information of the original. Ilg and Lambert (1996: 82) argue that students should endeavour to develop a layout that ‘carries meaning’. The position of signs, symbols and abbreviations on the page should reflect some additional meaning such as parallelism, precedence, subordination, cause- effect relations, origin-destination, etc. This helps the CCIr pick up the chain of reasoning of the message to be reproduced in the TL (cf. Jones 1998: 44f; Nolan 2005: 295).

Jones (1998: 49-54) discusses three principles for achieving such an effective layout of notes: the diagonal layout, left-hand margin and vertical lists.

3.3.2.3.3.1 Diagonal layout

The idea of the diagonal layout has originally been suggested by Rozan who has called it ‘shift’ (2002: 21f). Jones (1998: 49f) explains in detail why the diagonal layout should be used because Rozan only states that it helps producing an ‘accurate and full version of the text’. Jones (ibid) argues that noting the main ideas on the basis of subject-verb-object structure should be reflected on the page clearly in the form of a diagonal axis moving from left to right5 _{and from top to bottom (see the diagram below). First, this forces the CCIr to}

separate the sentence components on the page in a way that eliminates confusion, offering a natural movement of the eyes from left to right (or from right to left as in Arabic) and from top to bottom when the CCIr produces the rendition. Second, if two or more ideas are noted on the same page, the beginning of each idea will be clearly shown by the back movement to the left-/right-hand side of the page. Third, writing horizontally might tempt the CCIr to take too much information in a way that may confuse ideas. Gillies (2005: 44) argues that the diagonal layout helps further in avoiding syntactic interference by forcing the CCIr to use the TL word order and in providing space for additions of details if needed.

Subject

Verb

Object Object Object

Figure 3-1: Layout of CCI notes (left-to-right, English example), based on Jones’s (1998) ideas

3.3.2.3.3.2 The left-hand margin6

According to Jones (1998: 50-53), the left-hand margin can be used for noting two important elements in a speech: links between ideas and points of view. Logically speaking, a link will fall outside the subject-verb-object presentation and should thus have a separate

5 _{This arrangement suits interpreting that involves languages with the left-to-right system of writing;}

interpreters into Arabic, for example, might well, and indeed do, choose the right-to-left direction.

6 _{Again, this could well be the right-hand margin for some interpreters.}

1. Links: