Which Language to Use in Note-Taking

The question of consecutive interpreters’ choice of language for their notes is still open for debate. A large volume of literature and research papers have been written on the issue. There are diverse opinions about which language should be used in notes by the interpreter: the source language or the target language. The source language means the language in which a speech is made in the original, and from which an interpretation is to be made. The target language is the language into which a speech spoken in another language is to be interpreted.

Kurt Kohn and Michaela Albl-Mikasa conceived note-taking technique as a language-independent instrument. [46:259]. An ideal “language-independent system” for note-taking was proposed by Matyssek. However, up to now, this suggestion has not come into reality for the reason that such “complicated system of ciphers” would definitely place a big burden on the interpreter’s memory.

Most writers about note-taking in consecutive interpreting tend to adopt one of two contrasting positions: some advocate the use of the target language, e.g. J.Herbert, J.-F. Rozan, D. Seleskovitch, while others like G. Ilg, I. Alexyeva, D.Gile argue that the source language may be a better choice.

Those who recommend using the target language basically have two reasons: first, the target language logically forces the interpreter to put aside the exterior form of the incoming speech, instead, to concentrate on the meaning layer, that means the interpreter can avoid “intellectual laziness”, following the speaker and noting their words passively; second, taking notes in the target language is thought to effectively facilitate the re-expression phase.

For others who doubt the benefits of using the target language for taking notes defend their point of view that writing notes in the target language, the interpreter has more activities to deal with during listening, understanding and analyzing phase. The activity of language transformation from the source into the target makes the interpreter’s concentration divided. Moreover, taking notes in the target language, the interpreter cannot have “a full set of notes at then end of a speech” as he takes notes in the source language.” [43:60].

However, some recent findings from a research conducted by Hellen V. Dam have shown that “the choice of language in note-taking is governed by mainly the status of the language in the interpreters’ language combination, i.e. whether it is an A-language or B-language (A-language is also called mother tongue and B-language is the language of which the interpreter has perfect mastery), and much less than by its status in the interpreting task, i.e. whether it functions as the source language or the target language”. [31:3]

This seems to be true because in an attempt to save processing capacity for other requirements throughout the whole process of note-taking, the interpreter is likely to take notes in whichever language is easier. Obviously, writing in the first language (A-language) is always faster and easier than writing in another language (B-language) which is not mother tongue.

<== попередня сторінка	\|	наступна сторінка ==>
When to Note	\|	Reading Back Notes

Не знайшли потрібну інформацію? Скористайтесь пошуком google:

Генерація сторінки за: 0.005 сек.