Professional Interpreters’ Notes in Persian-English Consecutive Interpreting On the Choice of Form and Language

Subject Areas : Research in English Language Pedagogy

Rasoul Marani ¹ ( Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan (Isfahan) Branch )
Hossein Heidari Tabrizi ² ( English Department, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan Branch, Isfahan, Iran )

Received: 2017-07-11 Accepted : 2017-09-23 Published : 2017-09-23

Keywords: Iranian professional interpreters, Note-taking guideline, Persian-English consecutive interpreting, Note-taking,

Abstract :

Truly, note-taking plays a pivotal role in consecutive interpreting, particularly where methodical note-taking is used. In the absence of Iranian research in this respect, the present study investigated the process of note-taking in Persian-English consecutive interpreting in order to clarify how exactly the notes are taken by the professional interpreters and how much they are familiar with note-taking and the related concepts. For the purpose of this paper, five Iranian interpreters were selected meticulously and by means of observation and phone interview, the required data were collected. Next, the notes taken by the professional interpreters were reviewed and classified based on several factors such as the use of abbreviations and symbols and the source or target language preference; also, the replies given via the phone interview were transcribed and codified in order to answer the research questions. The research findings showed that the majority of Iranian professional interpreters had passed no course regarding to the note-taking skill in general and they rarely used symbols in their notes and wrote words in letters, mostly in full forms in target language in particular. It implies that they took notes based on their experiences irregularly rather than the rules and principles. Consequently, there is an urgent need for a note-taking guideline especially in Persian-English consecutive interpreting; also, considering the effect of note-taking on their performances, Iranian interpreters should be more familiar with the academic aspect of this skill.

References:

Albl-Mikasa, M. (2006). Reduction and expansion in notation texts. Text and Translation: Theory and Methodology of Translation. Tubingen: Druck und Bindug: Hubert & Co., Gottingen. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/book

Albl-Mikasa, M. (2008). (Non-)Sense in note taking for consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, Volume 10(2), 197-231.

Andres, D. (2002). Konsekutivdolmetschen und notation. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. Ch., Razavieh, A. & Sorensen, Ch. (2010). Introduction to research in education. (8^th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Arksey, H. & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists. London: Sage.

Chen, S. (2016). Note taking in consecutive interpreting: A review with special focus on Chinese and English literature. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 26, 151-170. Retrieved from http://www.jostrans.org/

Chesterman, A. & Williams, J. (2002). The map: A beginner's guide to doing research in translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Cohen, L. Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5^th ed.). London: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.jostrans.org/

Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Gonzalez, M.A. (2012). The language of consecutive interpreters’ notes: Differences across levels of expertise. Interpreting, 14(1), 55-72

Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2008). Towards developing a framework for the evaluation of Iranian undergraduate students’ academic translation (Doctoral thesis, Shiraz University, Iran).

Hermann, A. (1956/2002). Interpreting in antiquity (R. Morris, Trans). In F. Pochhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 15-22

Ilg, G. & Lambert, S.  (1996). Teaching consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, 1(1), 69-99.

Jones, R. (2002). Conference interpreting explained. Manchester: St. Jerome

Kirchhoff, H. (1979). Die notationssprache als hilfsmittel des konferenzdolmetschers im konsekutivvorgang. Sprachtheorie und Sprachpraxis. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Kohn, K. & Albl-Mikasa, M. (2002). Note taking in consecutive interpreting: On the reconstruction of an individualized language. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 1, 257-272.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Lung, R. (2003).  Taking notes seriously in the interpretation classroom. Granada: Comares.

Rozan, J. (2002). Note taking in consecutive interpreting. Cracow: Tertium Society for the Promotion of Language Studies.

Seleskovitch, D. (1975). Langage, langues et mémoire: étude de la prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes

Szabo, C. (2006). Language choice in note taking for consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, 8(2), 129-147.

Thiery, Ch. (1981). L’enseignement de la prise de notes en interprétation consecutive: un faux probleme?. L’enseignement de l’interpretation et de la traduction: de la théorie a la pedagogie. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Torres D. M. G. (1997, September). Why consecutive note taking is not tantamount to shorthand writing. Proceedings of the second international conference on current trends in studies of translation and interpreting, Budapest, Hungary.

Vermeer, H. J. (1992). Skizzen zu einer Geschicte der translation. Frankfurt: Verlag fur interkulterelle Kommunication.