107ARTICLES 
Revisiting Consecutive Note-Taking: What to Note, 
How to Note, and in What Language?
ABSTRACT
Note-taking is taught across the board at interpreter training institutions, but opinions as 
to ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘in what language’ one should take notes often tend to be curiously 
mixed. This paper revisits the three main areas where there seems to be no strong consensus, 
namely: 1) What and how much should interpreters note down? 2) How should they take 
notes: by taking down full words, abbreviations or symbols? 3) In what language should 
they prepare their notes: in the source or target language, in A or B language or, irrespective 
of the direction, in an economical language such as English? This study explores these three 
questions by first revisiting prescriptive views put forward by practitioners over the past few 
decades; it then highlights some of the empirical studies conducted in these areas; and finally 
it proposes recommendations for trainers, based on the author’s experience as a trainer of 
consecutive interpreting. 
Keywords: consecutive capacities, choice of form, choice of language, empirical research, 
note-taking
Ponoven premislek o zapiskih pri konsekutivnem tolmačenju: 
Kaj zapisati, kako zapisati in v katerem jeziku zapisati?
IZVLEČEK
Tehnika zapisovanja se poučuje v vseh institucijah, ki izobražujejo tolmače, a mnenja o 
tem, kaj, kako in v katerem jeziku zapisovati, so pogosto nenavadno različna. V prispevku 
je predstavljen ponoven razmislek o treh glavnih temah, za katere se zdi, da glede njih 
ni močnega konsenza, in sicer: 1) Kaj in koliko naj bi tolmači zapisali? 2) Kako si delati 
zapiske: pisati celotne besede, krajšave ali simbole? 3) V katerem jeziku naj bi bili zapiski: v 
izvirniku ali v ciljnem jeziku, v jeziku A ali B, ali, ne glede na smer, v ekonomičnem jeziku, 
kakršna je angleščina? Pričujoča študija se osredinja na omenjena tri vprašanja. Uvodoma so 
predstavljeni preskriptivni pogledi, ki so jih v zadnjih nekaj desetletjih zagovarjali tolmači-
praktiki, nato pa izbrane empirične raziskave s tega področja. Avtorica na podlagi svojih 
izkušenj s poučevanjem konsekutivnega tolmačenja prispevek sklene s priporočili za učitelje.
Ključne besede: zmožnost konsekutivnega tolmačenja, izbira oblike, izbira jezika, empirične 
raziskave, zapiski
Csilla Szabó
BME Centre for Modern Languages, Hungary
2021, Vol. 18 (1), 107-124(222)
revije.ff.uni-lj.si/elope
https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.18.1.107-124
UDC: 81'253
108 C. Szabó Revisiting Consecutive Note-Taking: What to Note, How to Note, and in What Language?
1 Introduction
Consecutive interpreting is one of the modes of conference interpreting which “may involve 
the rendering of source-language utterances lasting anywhere from a few seconds to several 
minutes or more” (e.g., González, Vásquez, and Mikkelson 1991). Literature on consecutive 
interpreting tends to be dominated by note-taking (Russell and Takeda 2015, 105), as this 
activity is central to rendering a speech, or any segment of a speech, into the target language. 
According to data recorded in the CIRIN Bibliography1 between 2010 and 2020 (CIRIN 
2021), 42 papers were devoted to consecutive note-taking, out of which seven were master’s 
theses and two doctoral dissertations.2
Note-taking is an essential and integrated part of consecutive interpreting, during which the 
interpreter takes down the structure and logic of the speech, with a focus on keywords and 
numbers, but, as has been highlighted before, notes are not necessarily prepared to register 
the details of a speech, but rather to jog the interpreter’s memory (AIIC 20193). Today, long 
consecutive interpreting is on the decline in the market, but training institutions still insist on 
testing this skill at their final examinations, claiming that the interpretation of a six- to eight-
minute speech may be an appropriate indicator of a candidate’s suitability for the profession. 
In most training programmes, EMCI4 and others, candidates are required to render a one- to 
three-minute speech at their entrance examination, while they must also interpret a six- to 
eight-minute speech (both A<B and B<A), on specific topics, with the use of notes at their 
final examination. Long consecutive interpreting (± six minutes) also features at the SCIC 
accreditation examinations (both A<B and B<A),5 and therefore note-taking is one of the 
central components of most interpreter training curricula. However, when it comes to the 
questions of what/how much, how, or in what language, there still seems to be no strong 
consensus among trainers.
In the following sections, this paper revisits these three recurrent issues by first taking a 
brief, and inescapably selective glimpse at some of the prescriptive works commonly cited 
in relation to the above questions; it then goes on to take stock of a few relevant empirical 
studies, on the basis of which we can draw a few conclusions and provide some practical 
recommendations that trainers might find useful when it comes to note-taking and their 
implications for interpreter training.
2 What/How Much Should We Note Down? 
2.1 What and How Much Should be Noted: Prescriptive Studies
Offering a snapshot of prescriptive works that provide any recommendation on what 
or how much to note is a venturesome quest, as the issue is inextricably linked to another 
1 Compiled by Daniel Gile and including the majority of papers published in journals and/or in compilations.
2 Silja Chen’s opus on the process of note-taking with a focus on a pen-eye-voice approach towards cognitive load from 
2017, and Hanne Cardoen’s paper on efficient note-taking written in 2013.
3 International Association of Conference Interpreters.
4 European Masters in Conference Interpreting (EMCI 2013–2021).
5 See https://europa.eu/interpretation.
C. Szabó
109ARTICLES
thorny problem: how to note things. Looking back in time, prior to the introduction of the 
simultaneous mode, we may recall legendary figures who would render as long as 45-minute 
speeches without having to rely on their notes, but they rarely took notes themselves or not to 
the extent as they themselves may have recommended to others, e.g., Rozan (Ilg and Lambert 
1996, 71). The UN interpreter Jean Herbert (1952) was the first professional to write about 
the role and the processes of note-taking, highlighting the importance of paraphrasing and 
suggesting the use of as few symbols as possible (Ilg and Lambert 1996, 71). The majority of 
the early authors recommended that interpreters should note down ideas rather than words. 
The most ardent advocator of this tenet was Danica Seleskovitch, representing the Paris 
School, who teamed up with her colleague, Marianna Lederer, to work out the interpretative 
model whose central idea was the principle of deverbalization, referred to as ‘theory du sens’. 
According to the authors, the interpreter should attempt to ‘rid’ the message of its form, and 
focus on its sense, the intended meaning – and this should be reflected in the notes taken 
down on the paper (Seleskovitch and Lederer 1995). This basic principle tends to resurface 
in many successive works under the disguise of different wording: the term message is used by 
Deng (1991, 285), analysis by Alexieva (1994, 206) or Chuang (2008, 95), and idea by Jones 
([1998] 2002, 11) and Gillies (2004, 53). 
The first comprehensive volume on the teaching of note-taking was written by Jean-François 
Rozan in 1956, a book that still features on the compulsory reading list of many interpreter 
trainees. This might be due to the fact that he was the first author to offer a series of useful 
pieces of advice that can be applied if one wants to take notes in a systematic manner. Rozan 
analyses the incoming speech from linguistic, semantic, and cognitive aspects and was among 
the first to highlight the significance of meaning (‘note the idea, not the word’). The questions 
of what/how much to note are presented very judiciously confining the items to seven 
principles in total ([1956] 2004, 15). Heinz Matyssek’s work, issued in 1989 and offering a 
complex system of symbols, will be discussed in more detail in 3.1.1, but as for the question 
of what and how much, he also underlines the necessity of focusing on the meaning (“tragende 
Essenz”). In his comprehensive work on conference interpreting, Roderick Jones reiterates 
the same notion, stressing that main ideas should be noted mainly because “they provide a 
skeleton outline of the speech”; moreover, links are even more crucial to note than the main 
ideas in order to get the logic of the speech right ([1998] 2002, 41). A few other items, not 
emphasized by Rozan but also vital to note, according to Jones, include the speaker’s personal 
point of view, the tenses of verbs, lists, and, most importantly, numbers and proper names, 
both of which should enjoy priority. Numbers and names, in particular, are notorious as they 
put an extra burden on our memory and cannot be recalled on the basis of context, so they 
need to be jotted down immediately (Dingfelder 2015, 162). Besides names and numbers, 
practitioners also tend to note down technical terms, and the speaker’s carefully chosen words 
to render the speech as faithfully as possible – all of which may seem to contradict the general 
suggestion that ideas, rather than words, should be jotted down. 
Besides Jones’ and Gillies postulates on noting down ‘ideas’ they both claim that a speech may 
be broken down into SVO (subject-verb-object) components irrespective of the word order 
or the given sentence structure. They, however, highlight that the main task in consecutive 
interpreting is to convey the message and the notes “can function as a kind of discipline, 
forcing the interpreter to make the analysis” (Jones [1998] 2002, 40). 
110 C. Szabó Revisiting Consecutive Note-Taking: What to Note, How to Note, and in What Language?
2.2 What and How Much Should be Noted – Empirical Research
If anyone sets out to explore the question what/how much to note?, they may find only a 
handful of empirical research papers (partly) touching upon this issue. Gile’s study conducted 
in 1991 may be one such paper consulted here (quoted by Chen 2016, 157), which is very 
likely to have greatly contributed to his Effort Model detailing various capacities required for 
interpreting (Gile [1995] 2009). In this experiment, one group was instructed to take notes 
systematically while another was only permitted to put down names and figures they heard 
during the presentation. The results showed that members of the first group noted down the 
names with more mistakes because, as Gile explained, note-taking may have diverted their 
attention from focusing on listening. 
Several experiments investigating the issue of how much have revealed excessive notes (Thiéry 
1981; Seleskovitch [1975] 2002; Mead 2011; Sanchez 2018), a problem that most trainees 
tend to be fraught with until they learn how to compress and economize in a systematic 
manner. A relatively recent study conducted in 2018 (Yamada 2018) confirmed, however, 
that even systematic note-taking does not necessarily lead to better quality in the interpreter’s 
rendition. In this respect, there had been some earlier scepticism in this regard, especially 
among the representatives of the French school (e.g., Thiéry) who saw no point in teaching 
note-taking at all (Chen 2016, 156; Ilg and Lambert 1996, 78).
On the basis of the above it seems probable that based on empirical data alone it would be 
difficult to determine what trainees should be advised about how much to note. The issue – 
as well as the validity of research – is further complicated by the fact that notes should be 
examined in relation to the quality of the rendition, and the bulk of the literature on this issue 
illustrates aptly just how complex the notion of quality is6.
2.3 What and How Much Should be Noted: Suggestion for Trainers 
Most interpreter trainers would agree that, in the initial phase of learning consecutive 
interpreting, no notes should be taken (Seleskovitch 1999, 64; Setton and Dawrant 2016a, 
146); and trainees should be required to do a lot of gist-recall or memory exercises, to learn 
how to retain and recall information without notes (Láng 2002, 143) to get the hang of 
information processing and become aware of the process of interpreting the message. A 
superb website called Online Resources for Conference Interpreter Training (ORCIT n.d.), 
developed for autonomous learning, has a separate section devoted to consecutive interpreting 
without notes.7 Besides the site’s value in supplementing trainers’ materials and allowing 
trainees to do extra work in an autonomous mode, the ideas, systematically organized into 
topics in ORCIT, may also be suitable for ‘flipped classrooms’ – a modern instructional 
strategy permitting students to consult the learning material before it is introduced in class. 
At which stage note-taking should be introduced and how systematically it should be taught 
are both matters requiring individual trainer deliberation. Due to the arbitrary nature 
6 Chen’s paper (2016) also quotes some empirical studies linking note-taking and quality. 
7 See https://orcit.eu/resources/eci-en/story_html5.html.
111ARTICLES
of notes and the tendency of trainees to rely too heavily on them and, as a consequence, 
forget to listen, some trainers are reluctant to teach any note-taking system. Nevertheless, if 
note-taking is taught judiciously, there may be three benefits, as highlighted by Setton and 
Dawrant (2016a, 143): 1) the taking of notes and the selection of representatives for key 
ideas seem to enhance the analytical process; 2) notes help relieve the memory of having 
to store names, numbers, technical terms and lists, allowing more capacities for analysis; 
and 3) notes allow the interpreter to organize the structure and highlight certain elements 
with the aim of providing a thorough basis for the rendition phase. What we, as trainers, 
need to do is warn the students in the first phase of note-taking that their performance will 
temporarily deteriorate (as confirmed by longitudinal studies, e.g., Alexieva 1994), as well 
as remind them to be patient and encourage them to practise autonomously. During this 
period of experimentation, they should focus on the structure and logic of the speech, and 
this is what trainer assessment should be restricted to. Further aspects such as presentation 
skills, expressing shades of meaning and other components of consecutive interpreting may 
be added at a later phase. 
What interpreter trainers also need to do is learn to ‘grade’ speeches in terms of their complexity. 
Most platforms designed to assist interpreter trainers by making speeches available, such as the 
Speech Repository or the SpeechPool are already graded (i.e., basic, beginner, intermediate, 
advanced, advanced test type) but the capability to put together a speech at a given level 
may come in handy when preparing speeches for entrance or final examinations. Setton and 
Dawrant’s volume (A Trainer’s Guide) gives us some valuable insights in this respect (see the 
section on Speech Difficulty Index, SDI (2016b), and one may also wish to read Andres’ study 
on text selection criteria (2014), or consult Besznyák’s recent paper (2020), which gives advice 
on how to increase source text difficulty by analysing, or even carefully inserting, lexical pitfalls.
While trainees are in the initial phase of note-taking, it might be a good idea to let them try 
their hand at three different techniques, i.e., alternating between a) consecutive interpreting 
without notes, and b) keyboarding (e.g., applying Gillies’ SVO system) and taking down 
basic notes, and then registering their experiences in a logbook. Setton and Dawrant also 
highlight that the longer the time trainees spend taking notes, the less they will write (also 
on account of fatigue), and therefore it might be a useful pedagogical tool to ask them to 
take notes during a mini-conference and observe how their own note-taking changes over 
a two-hour period (2016b, 193). Trainees need to be constantly reminded of Gile’s Effort 
Model and keep in mind that the less they note, the more capacity they will be able to save 
for listening and analysis.
If we were to take stock of what trainers should encourage their trainees to note down, the list 
would feature the following components – not presented in order of importance: a) the main 
ideas – segmented by lines; b) the speaker’s opinion; c) names; d) numbers; e) lists f ) cohesive 
devices and link words; g) indication of tense and time; h) major keywords including terms; 
and i) the beginning and the end of speech (introduction and conclusion). 
As a final point, the question of how much and how systematically to note a speech may 
depend on another factor: familiarity with the topic: if the interpreter is well informed in 
one particular field, is at ease with the relevant terminology, and understands how ideas are 
112 C. Szabó Revisiting Consecutive Note-Taking: What to Note, How to Note, and in What Language?
connected, s/he would have to rely somewhat less on his or her short-term memory than 
on his or her long-term memory. Besides domain-specific competence (or the lack thereof) 
being a factor, proper preparation for assignments may play an equally important role in 
how much an interpreter puts down on paper. Consequently, interpreter training institutions 
must put as large an emphasis as possible on preparing their trainees for interpreted events 
and mini conferences, while field trips (see Szabó 2017) may also help students put their skills 
to the test under pressure and in front of a genuine audience. 
3 How Should We Take Notes?
The second frequently discussed and researched area in note-taking is the form of notes. The 
options available for an interpreter include full words, abbreviations, symbols and drawings 
of some sort.
3.1 The Form of Notes: Prescriptive Works 
3.1.1 Symbols
Most practitioners advise interpreters against using too many symbols, warning that recalling 
a symbol may use up too much capacity and thus cause a deficit with regard to listening and 
analysis (e.g., Rozan [1956] 2004, 25; Bowen and Bowen 1984; Taylor-Bouladon 2007). 
Rozan suggests the number of symbols used to be around twenty, and he put them into four 
categories: expression, movement, reference and frequent terminology, a basic system adopted 
by Ilg and Lambert (Ilg 1980, 1982; Ilg and Lambert 1996), who added that interpreters 
should also use abbreviations they would use in real life. Trainers should encourage such 
efforts, and contemporary students’ natural reliance on symbols borrowed from the digital 
world, such as emoticons, is a case in point.
As for the form of notes, Heinz Matyssek is often quoted as the author of the most elaborate 
system attempting to prescribe how notes should be taken down. In his Handbuch der 
Notizentechnik für Dolmetscher, published in 1989, he designed an intricate system of 
symbols suitable for expressing every linguistic element, and by combining these, all the 
details of a speech can be noted down systematically. Although the number of symbols 
prescribed is high, his concept and principles seem to show a fair number of similarities 
with those of other prescriptive works of his other predecessors, such as Herbert or Rozan. 
(Sawyer 2004, 24; Ahrens 2005; or Setton and Dawrant 2016b, 203). Matyssek’s system 
has been praised for allowing note-taking to be done language-independently but it has 
also been critiqued for being too scrupulous (and therefore likened to shorthand) as well 
as being too enormous an investment “to master to a point when it becomes effortless” 
(Dingfelder Stone 2014, 148). Albl-Mikasa emphasized its benefits for being a “pattern-
based, combinatorial ad recursive system of linguistic symbols” as opposed to Ilg and 
Lambert’s opinion which labelled it as a “third, pictorial and pictorial code superimposed 
on language” (Ilg and Lambert 1996, 78 cited by Albl-Mikasa 2020, 382). Nevertheless, 
Matyssek’s meticulous notation system has since proved its viability as several generations of 
German interpreters have learned to use it efficiently. 
113ARTICLES
Matyssek’s system also proved its value by serving as a basis for other notation schemes, notably 
that of Allioni (1989) who worked out the grammar of consecutive interpreting by relying on 
English and Italian syntactic rules and a reasonable number of symbols. A representative of 
the Soviet School, Minyar-Beloruchev (1969) also argued for a large number of symbols to 
avoid interferences from source language notation in the delivery phase. 
3.1.2 Simplification
The term simplification is a peculiar one in note-taking. While anything put down on paper 
in our notes instead of the verbatim might be seen as simplification, including symbols and 
abbreviations, here by simplification we refer to compressed items on the note pad that 
express the same thing as a longer, more complex verbal utterance, e.g., instead of has actually 
deteriorated we note worse (Gillies 2017, 123), or when we simply write HI or TX and express 
greeting and gratitude with more eloquent phrases in the rendition phase. In their volume, 
Setton and Dawrant provide other great examples such as achieve visibility with respect to = 
see, or there’s the possibility that = might (2016a, 160); and one of the present author’s activities 
designed for the interpreting classroom entitled “Keep it short and simple” (KISS) focuses on 
this specific compression strategy (Szabó 2003, 114–15).8 To adhere to the KISS-principle, 
interpreters might rely on the advice given by Ilg and Lambert to use four- or five-letter words 
he referred to as ZIP-vocabulary (Ilg and Lambert 1996, see more details in 3.1.3 below). 
A Hungarian practitioner, Láng, also highlights the importance of reduction; to use single 
words instead of long, more elaborate phrases (2002, 133), a technique that presupposes the 
proper understanding of the analysis of an idea. 
3.1.3 Abbreviations
Abbreviation is another valid and frequently adopted technique to achieve compression or 
simplification. Its usage is obviously not confined to consecutive note-taking; its benefits are 
mentioned in various books recommended for general note-taking. It is one of Rozan’s basic 
principles, and he also claims – as did Ilg and Lambert – that four- or five-letter words lend 
themselves best to notation. As to which of the letters should be noted from a word, opinions 
differ largely but Becker (1972, 30) insists that from the psycholinguistic perspective the 
initial letter should be registered as we store both L1 and L2 vocabulary in our mental lexicon 
on the basis of initial letters. Below is a list of possible abbreviation techniques that are usually 
recommended by practitioners:
1. Conventional abbreviations we know from before (e.g., from our previous studies) 
e.g., NB – nota bene, BC – before Christ, etc. (Herbert 1952, 37; Matyssek 1989, 
113);
2. Keeping the first syllable (GOV = government, REP = representative, etc.) although 
one needs to be cautious as one syllable may trigger more than one options causing 
8 The volume referred to briefly as the Recipe Book, published in 2003 by British Council, consists of two parts: part 
one has chapters on various topics written by Hungarian practitioners and trainers as well as Franz Pöchhacker who 
wrote a chapter on research in Interpreting Studies. Part 2 of the volume presents a fair number of ideas and activities 
suitable either for the interpreting classroom, or for autonomous work to develop a range of interpreting skills.
114 C. Szabó Revisiting Consecutive Note-Taking: What to Note, How to Note, and in What Language?
interference (e.g., ‘exp’ could be expert, export, experience, expect or several other 
things);
3. Keeping the word stem and indicating the ending in superscript, e.g., production - 
prodn, government – govt, governance – govce (Rozan 2003, 11; Setton and Dawrant 
2016a, 162);
4. Using familiar acronyms (e.g., UN, EU, FBI, CFSP, etc.), but we may as well invent 
acronyms on the spot for keywords of the speech, e.g., private health insurance fund 
– PHIF. Some interpreters circle their ad-hoc acronyms to remind themselves of their 
on-the-spot invention, etc. One should be careful with ad hoc acronyms though, 
while keywords might be suitable for such impromptu solutions, other words denoting 
secondary meaning may be difficult to recall in the production phase.
5. Keeping important letters that help denote meaning but omit others, e.g., arpln 
(airplane), cmtee (committee) or elfnt (elephant) (Nolan 2005, 296);
6. Keeping consonants only (like Owl in Milne’s Winnie-the-Pooh) e.g., prdctn, dvlpmnt, 
gvrmnt etc. – although this technique might not work for everyone as it has been 
shown that non-English (non-European language) speakers may find it difficult to 
recognize words without the vowels (Setton and Dawrant 2016b, 184 and also in 
Minyar-Beloruchev 1969, 211 cited in Siantova, 2015, 48);
7. ZIP-vocab: a collection of short words typically used in British press such as AID 
meaning assistance, support, or KEY meaning significant, prominent. (Ilg and Lambert 
1996, 80, as well as Láng 2002, 132);
8. Interpreters studying in Geneva were also advised to use abbreviations borrowed from 
Latin e.g., ave, dux, dia, geo, rex, pax, vox (Ilg and Lambert 1996, 80), although the 
number of candidates arriving at training institutions with a solid Latin background 
is generally on the decline. 
3.1.4 Visual Representations
Among the techniques of visual representation, the mind-mapping method deserves special 
mention (Windiari 2012). On the ORCIT website there is a fair number of exercises that 
encourage trainees to remember the logic of the speech by suggesting the use of a mental 
mindmap. This technique can be used in two ways: as a memo exercise (consecutive 
interpreting without notes) or by giving them speeches (or at least a part of them) that are 
possible to represent in the form of a mindmap (also see Gillies 2017, 21–25). 
Another, highly peculiar form of note-taking is a so-called picture-based technique9, where 
interpreters basically make a drawing, or a set of drawings to remember the speech. Needless 
to say, this technique may be adequate for narrative types of speeches but would be less 
appropriate, if not wholly insufficient, for more technical speeches laden with abstract terms 
9 This video offers an insight into this technique: https://www.glendon.yorku.ca/interpretation/2015/01/11/are-you-
looking-for-a-fresh-take-on-consecutive/.
115ARTICLES
such as speeches with an economic or legal focus. It might be worthwhile to find speeches 
which would enable trainees to depart from the conventional (“Rozanian”) notation moving 
from left to write, and following the principle of verticality and shifting, speeches that could 
be recorded by means of a different visual representation. Showing such examples to trainees 
may encourage them to channel more attention into the listening and analysis phase and use 
any notation, if necessary, thinking out of the box, inspired by the spur of the moment, to 
record meaning with a unique visual representation. 
In the long term the idea is to develop a European high-speed railway network with Paris 
at its centre. A line to the north will reach Brussels, where it can branch out to the east to 
Cologne, or continue further north to Amsterdam and later even Hamburg. To the south-
east the line through Lyon will enter Italy through Turin and reach through Rome and 
Naples right down to the toe of Italy. And in the south-west a link up with Spain via 
Barcelona and then to Madrid will make it possible to extend the network down to Seville.
Figure 1. Non-linear representation 
of a speech. A note prepared by a 
professional interpreter at the European 
Parliament in 1999 (Szabó 2003, 134).
Figure 2. Notes to demonstrate 
the linear representation of a 
speech.10
To illustrate the difference, Figure 2 shows the notes of the same speech, following Rozan’s advice.
3.1.5 Other Considerations Concerning the Form of Notes
As for the form of notes, there are other recommendations put forward by various authors. 
One of Rozan’s principles includes verticality and shifting, while both Becker and Matyssek 
seem to have a tendency to favour linearity (see examples in Láng 2002, 208–9). Jones argues 
for a diagonal format claiming that this allows the eyes to move naturally (1998, 50), and 
10  Prepared by the current author for the purposes of demonstrating the difference between various visual representations. 
116 C. Szabó Revisiting Consecutive Note-Taking: What to Note, How to Note, and in What Language?
Gillies also prefers a diagonal layout saying that it supports the visualization of the structure 
and as the ideas on the pad “stand out” (2017, 44). The use of the left-hand margin is 
emphasized by many practitioners (Jones [1998] 2002, 46 or Gillies 2017, 146). In this part 
of the pad, divided by an imaginary or real vertical line of about two to four centimetres 
in width, different pieces of information can be recorded, among them link words, dates, 
or the speaker’s personal point of view. Gillies highlights that sometimes the subject (the 
first element of the SVO structure) can appear on the margin for emphasis, or any other 
important information that the interpreter may want to stand out (2017, 155). 
3.2 The Form of Notes: Empirical Studies
Based on the relevant literature available it is possible to say that one major area of investigation 
is the proportion of full words, abbreviations and symbols used by interpreters in their notes. 
In an excellent summary also investigating prescriptive and descriptive works on the subject, 
Silja Chen (2016) collected empirical studies focussing on the form of notes (among other 
features) where she attempted to show whether linguistic elements (words and abbreviations) 
or symbols were more likely to be noted down by the subjects taking part in the research, and 
if the former, which of the two (words or abbreviation) dominated the interpreters’ notes. 
Chen’s table on the choice of form (2016, 161), which looks at five relevant studies (Lung 2003; 
Dam 2004a and 2004b; Dai and Xu 2007; Liu 2010; Wang, Zhao, and Wang 2010), clearly 
shows that in all the studies where this aspect was investigated language prevailed over symbol. 
Concerning the choice between full words and abbreviations, there was a slight tendency to a 
preference for full words. These findings are also corroborated by the present author’s empirical 
research conducted in 2004 and summarized in a doctoral dissertation (Szabó 2005), where 
eight interpreters’ notes (four professional and four trainee interpreters) were subjected to close 
scrutiny not only in terms of their choice of language but also their choice of form. This 
investigation also found that the majority (45%) of the subjects put down full words, with 
symbols coming second (39%) and abbreviations occupying third place (16%). 
All researchers active in IS would be fully aware that these samples are far from being 
representative, and they are all conscious of the difficulties and limitations researchers face in 
Interpreting Studies. One possible solution would be a replication of empirical studies, and it 
seems that researchers are quite willing to replicate their own or a fellow researcher’s studies: 
in a recent study Olalla-Soler (2020) demonstrated that 46.2% of the respondents have 
already published replica studies in the field of translation or interpreting studies (52.2% of 
those studies were conducted in the field of translation and only somewhat less, 47.8% in 
interpreting). 
3.3 How Notes Should be Taken Down: Suggestions for Trainers
Taking the above into consideration, what advice could be given to trainers? First, they should 
provide trainees with ample opportunities to be acquainted with all four options (full words, 
abbreviations, symbols, and visual representations), trying their hands at all types, mixed or 
unmixed, with various text types and different language directions. Autonomous learning also 
needs to play a key role in the process of trainees formulating their own individual notation 
117ARTICLES
style, although the trainer may not want them to experiment without any guidance. Trainers 
running a course at different stages of the curriculum should coordinate their teaching, and 
discuss who teaches what and in what order (see also Setton and Dawrant’s timeline of stages 
in conference interpreting training: 2016b, 86).
Trainers should be encouraged to assign students useful and interesting exercises: they can 
practice note-taking with written input (based on newspaper articles), they can use videos 
(Speech Repository, SpeechPool, or even TED talks). Peer assessment and self-assessment 
should also feature prominently among their tasks (e.g., field observation tasks specifically 
designed for this purpose, or observations of self and peers to be entered into a logbook, 
where ipsative and formative assessment – done both by trainers and trainees – may be 
valuable tools to reflect on their own development; see further ideas in Szabó 2020). Trainees 
may also be given opportunities to reflect on their own notes in terms of form, i.e., to observe 
their own ratio of full words, abbreviations and symbols with the aim of raising awareness of 
such habits. Autonomous note-taking tasks could also be assigned on the basis of dedicated 
websites, such as ORCIT (see above), the multifaceted Interpreter Training Resources,11 or 
the training materials compiled and made available by the European Commission’s DG 
Interpreting,12 to name but a few. 
Trainers may also show their notes and highlight some of the features discussed. In online 
classes the screen-sharing function may allow all students to take a close look at the trainer’s 
notes by linking a graphic tablet (such as an iPad or a specific drawing tablet) with the 
whiteboard function, or linking another device with a camera showing the real-time note-
taking of the trainer. 
As to general issues concerning how to note Gillies offers a shortlist with some basic 
advice featuring words such as clarity, minimality, etc. – trainers might want to take these 
recommendations as a starting point and offer it as a distilled set of advice. In the present 
author’s experience, specific tasks focusing on zipping and simplification yield very good 
results in the long run (see, Szabó 2003, 114-117), and therefore it might be worth giving it 
an extra emphasis. Most importantly, however, students should remember that they are the 
only ones that need to work from their notes, it is they who should be able to make sense of 
them, and the notes should work as a cue to jog their memory right then and there.
4 In What Language Should We Take Notes? 
The choice of language in note-taking is just as important one as the previous two issues and 
it bears an equally great relevance for training.
4.1 The Choice of Language: Prescriptive Works 
This issue has been visited and revisited a fair number of times, also by the current 
author (Szabó 2005, 2006). One of the most frequently applied aspects concerning the 
choice of language is the distinction between source language (SL) and target language 
11 See https://interpretertrainingresources.eu/consecutive.
12 See https://ec.europa.eu/education/knowledge-centre-interpretation/training-material_en.
118 C. Szabó Revisiting Consecutive Note-Taking: What to Note, How to Note, and in What Language?
(TL). Several suggestions have been put forward to take notes in the TL (Herbert 1952; 
Rozan [1956] 2002; Seleskovitch and Lederer 1989; among others), highlighting that here 
processing, (including code-switching) takes place already during the listening and analysis 
phase, allowing the interpreter a) to move away from the SL’s surface structure to avoid 
interference, and b) to pay increased attention to the reformulation in the TL. This postulate 
was confirmed by Andres, following a series of empirical investigations (2002) and also by 
Jones ([1998] 2002) relying on his professional experience as a conference interpreter.
In contrast, there has been an equally large group of experts (pl. Kirchhoff 1979; Ilg 1988; 
Alexieva 1994; Gile [1995] 2009) advocating the use of the language of the source text 
emphasizing that it is ‘safer’ to prepare notes in the incoming language as in this phase there 
is considerable cognitive load on account of the various activities carried out simultaneously 
(i.e., listening, analysis, taking notes, activating one’s memory and coordinating all the 
above). In his effort model of consecutive interpreting (2009, 175–79), Gile deems taking 
notes in the target language to be cognitively more demanding because the operations given 
above require a great deal of capacities. Setton and Dawrant (2016a, 151) agree that listening 
and note-taking are “more effort-intensive” and determined by the speaker’s speech tempo, 
unlike delivery. Gile’s suggestion to overcome the saturation problem is to abandon the 
single-language approach and take notes in SL when the incoming speech is more difficult 
and the cognitive load is heavy, and switch to TL notation when there is reduced pressure 
(Gile 2009, 179). This suggestion has been adopted by the AIIC when advising that the 
language of notes should be the TL when it is possible, and SL when it is necessary (AIIC 
1994, 21). Setton and Dawrant also argue for TL notes, adding that in the delivery phase 
interference might be a hazard (2016b, 489); meanwhile, some suggest that notes should be 
taken down in the TL because this allows trainees to get some initial practice in simultaneity 
on account of the parallel text processing, which may be an ideal method of preparation for 
early simultaneous interpreting (Setton and Dawrant 2016a, 151). 
4.2 Choice of Language: Empirical Research 
One of the first empirical experiments into the language of notes was conducted by Seleskovitch 
([1975] 2002), involving 13 interpreters and focusing on the cognitive dimensions of the 
interpreting process (Ahrens 2015, 285). Lambert, relying on the feedback of 16 interpreters, 
conducted a study (1989) in which she concluded that consecutive interpreting yielded 
deeper processing than simultaneous, as notes strongly supported information retention. In 
1998, Kalina conducted a thorough study with a focus on identifying interpreter strategies, 
and having also analysed a high number of notes, she concluded that note-taking was both 
possible and essential as long as the notes were adequately structured and tailor-made to 
students’ needs. In another study involving rare video-documentation of note-taking, Andres 
(2002) recorded 14 experts and 14 novices and concluded that a time lag (décalage) had 
a profound impact on note-taking and subsequent target text delivery, indicating capacity 
management problems. 
A set of systematic research analysis was initiated by Dam (2004a and 2004b), later to be 
followed by several replicated studies, to further explore language choice in note-taking. She 
119ARTICLES
found that besides an apparent preference for the target language (2004a), the examined 
subjects showed a marked tendency to use their A language (2004b) irrespective of the task 
(source vs target), which she attributed to the better mastery of the mother tongue, and 
therefore a faster and more straight-forward option she later described as “the language of 
least effort” (2010, 78). 
As one of the first replications of Dam’s research, Szabó (2006) looked at a group of eight 
interpreters with Hungarian A and English B and found that students preferred to take 
notes in English regardless of the direction, and possibly owing to the fact that English is 
morphologically less complex and thus lends itself to more economical note-taking. Some 
other papers, mostly written at master’s level, replicated the same inquiries, including Mari 
(2010) with German and Japanese, Garlaschelli (2013) as well as Curcio (2013) with German 
and Italian, Stecher (2016) with French and German, with two doctoral dissertations 
examining the same issues, Frey (2007) with English and Japanese and more recently Chen 
(2017a) with English and Chinese. Interestingly, Chen came up with similar results to those 
of Szabó, and also identified typological differences (Chinese being distinctly different from 
English) as well as a clear preference for English assuming that English letters are simpler and 
faster to write than Chinese characters (2017a, 16). 
Chen has produced some other valuable papers dealing with note-taking over the past few 
years, but one of her greatest merits lies in her summary of other relevant works written in 
Chinese, and therefore unavailable to European scholars. As a result of her work it has been 
revealed that Dai and Xu (2007) found source and A language dominance, while Wang, 
Zhao and Wang (2010) detected source language preference with very few symbols used in 
the notes (Chen 2016, 160). 
González (2012) surveyed three different groups (10 novices, 10 advanced students and 10 
professionals) and found that the more experienced the subject, the more likely he/she is to 
take notes in the target language, as this can free up more capacity for code-switching in the 
listening phase. Baselli (2012) already involved C language into the investigation of the issue 
but noticed little if any impact of this on the notes. Błaszczyk and Hanusiak conducted a 
study in 2010 with a similar focus involving English and Polish which showed that C may 
appear as a third language in notes. The author of this paper can confirm this conclusion: 
several of her other subjects in the same study (Szabó 2006) used C language words (mainly 
German and French) and also some of her students with different working languages regularly 
used English words in their notes. Short English words (such as and, but, so, if, tho, etc.) 
might surface in notes not taken by an interpreter with an English B, and they may function 
as quasi symbols (Jones [1998] 2002, 53), although interestingly and somewhat incredibly, 
Hungarian does have similarly short and economical link words (és, de, így, ha, bár, etc.) that 
often function as alternatives.
What conclusions can we possibly draw from all this? Owing to the small number of empirical 
studies which also involve only a limited number of subjects, there is still a lot of work to 
be done. What seems to be certain is that the choice of language depends on various factors 
including directionality, proficiency, the difficulty of the task at hand, familiarity with the 
topic or, in fact, education (how the interpreter was trained). 
120 C. Szabó Revisiting Consecutive Note-Taking: What to Note, How to Note, and in What Language?
4.3 Choice of Language: Suggestions for Trainers 
When it comes to the language of notes in the training of interpreters, in it hard to tell what 
advice trainers should follow. Even the authors of the most systematically compiled handbook 
on interpreting training (Setton and Dawrant 20016a and 2016b) sound somewhat perplexed 
when they write that “individual interpreters will find what works best for them”. In fact, 
the best advice we may give to trainees should be as general as possible, so as to leave them 
with enough room to develop their own individual systems. First, they should be acquainted 
with the options (source vs target, A versus B and, depending on their language combination, 
some reliance on English and/or on their C language(s)). Then they should be encouraged 
to experiment and try out ideas that seem to work for others: they may use a mixed notation 
language, put down ad hoc symbols for keywords of the speech, use TL when the speech is easy 
to follow and fall back on the source language when the cognitive load is high. Overall, they 
should also adhere to the principle of KISS on the language front, and attempt to economize 
as much as possible, whichever language feels more convenient for achieving this end. 
5 Conclusions 
Note-taking is one of the fields in the training of conference interpreters where opinions tend 
to be curiously mixed. Most trainers would probably agree that there is no universal, one-
size-fits-all approach, since note-taking appears to be highly individualized. The role of the 
trainer, therefore, may be to provide trainees with a wealth of relevant information obtained 
from two sources: advice given by practitioners and data offered by empirical research. Once 
familiar with the techniques available to choose from, and having spent a fairly long time 
practising both autonomously and with peers, trainees will be able to embark upon their 
own, individual notation system. 
The present study revisited three key areas which form the backbone of note-taking and 
which tend to lack a clear consensus as regards: 1) what and how much should be noted down; 
2) how notes should be put down: –in the form of full words, abbreviations, symbols or 
drawings; and 3) in what language – in the source or in the target language, in A or B language 
or, irrespective of the direction, in an economical language such as English. 
In relation to the first question, how much and what, this paper reiterated that notes should 
be introduced at a later stage of the initial phase of consecutive training after a longer period 
of consecutive training without notes. When introducing note-taking, Rozan’s principles are 
recommended as a good starting point and trainees may add new aspects (left-hand margin, 
speaker’s opinion, indication of time, etc.) step by step. Gist recall and memory exercises 
should be retained all throughout this period to help trainees remember that the listening 
and analysis effort should be of primary importance. In this section, the importance of the 
grading of speeches was also highlighted, as was the fact that excessive note-taking may be 
detrimental to understanding the message. 
Secondly, the paper reinvestigated the question of how, i.e., the choice of form in note-
taking. First, suggestions for using symbols were revisited, then ideas for simplification were 
presented including a detailed description of eight common abbreviation techniques, and a 
121ARTICLES
few ideas were also put forward to experiment with different forms of visual representation. 
The technique of economical paraphrasing was also stressed. Empirical data here could 
be used to explore how other interpreters record information, something which may help 
trainees study their own ratios of the use of full words, abbreviations and symbols, thereby 
potentially achieving more conscious note-taking. Here the use of journals and logbooks was 
recommended, so as to enable both formative and ipsative assessment, carried out both by 
trainers and trainees themselves.
The third area re-examined in this paper concerned consecutive interpreters’ choice of language 
in their notes. Here, neither prescriptive works nor empirical studies may clearly help trainers 
decide what advice they should give trainees about the language of notes. Again, similarly to 
the form of notes, students should be acquainted with the various options (source vs target 
language, A vs B language, a few judicious items from C language(s), and English, as an 
economical option) to find out, after extensive experimentation, which alternative suits the 
individual best. Trainees should be reminded that mixed-language notes may be equally useful, 
and that economizing – in whichever language feels most feasible – should be a priority. 
Any paper on note-taking needs to include a few words on technology, which is expected to 
shape the future of note-taking techniques and may trigger changes in consecutive interpreting 
training curricula. Tablet interpreting is now standard practice among professional interpreters; 
there have been several studies published in the topic (among them Goldsmith and Holley 
2015, Goldsmith 2017, 2018) and practitioners can even consult a tablet interpreting manual 
(Dreschel 2017)13. It is only a matter of time until tablets find their way into consecutive 
interpreting classrooms, and this process has probably been accelerated by the pandemic as 
trainers started use a larger range of digital devices in their online training courses.
With or without state-of-the-art technology, note-taking is a highly complex and individual 
activity which does not offer clear patterns and conveniently direct routes leading to complete 
its mastery. It is hoped that new empirical research, including both replicated studies and 
newly designed investigations, will shed some new light on the topic, offering new food for 
thought for trainers and trainees alike.
References
Ahrens, Barbara. 2005. “Rozan and Matyssek: Are They Really That Different? A Comparative Synopsis of 
Two Classic Note-Taking Schools.” Forum 3 (2): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.3.2.01ahr. 
—. 2015. “Note-Taking.” In Routledge Encyclopaedia of Interpreting Studies, edited by Franz Pochhacker, 
283–86. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678467. 
AIIC. 2019. “Glossary: Note-Taking.” https://aiic.org/site/world/conference/glossary.
—. 1994. Interpreter Training Workshop, Poznan, 8–10 April, 1994. Geneva.
Albl-Mikasa, Michaela. 2020. “Note-Taking.” In Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies, edited by 
Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, 380–85. London: Routledge. 
Alexieva, Bistra. 1994. “On Teaching Note-Taking in Consecutive Interpreting.” In Teaching Translation 
and Interpreting 2, edited by Cay Dollerup and Annette Lindegaard, 199–206. Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.5.28ale. 
13 Or a recent one available here: https://techforword.com/p/the-tablet-interpreting-manual.
122 C. Szabó Revisiting Consecutive Note-Taking: What to Note, How to Note, and in What Language?
Allioni, Sergio. 1989. “Towards a Grammar of Consecutive Interpretation.” In The Theoretical and Practical 
Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation, edited by John Dodds and Laura Gran, 191–97. Udine: 
Campanotto.
Andres, Dörte. 2002. Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notation. Frankfurt: P. Lang.
—. 2014. “Easy? Medium? Hard? The Importance of Text Selection in Interpreter Training.” In To Know 
How to Suggest… Approaches to Teaching Conference Interpreting, edited by Andres Dörte and Martina 
Behr, 103–24. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Baselli, Valentina. 2012. “Which Language do Interpreters Use in Consecutive Interpreting?” In 
Proceedings in Advanced Research in Scientific Areas, December 3–7, 2012, 1252–56. Milan.
Becker, Wilhelm. 1972. Notizentechnik. Germersheim: BBK Gesellschaft für moderne Sprachen.
Besznyák, Rita. 2020. “Tolmácsolási gyakorlószövegek graduálása lexikai csapdák elemzésével.” In Iránytű 
a tolmácsolás oktatásához. A kompetenciafejlesztés új fókuszai [Compass to the Training of Interpreters: 
New Perspectives on Competence Development], edited by Csilla Szabó and Mária Bakti. Szeged: Juhász 
Gyula Felsőoktatási Kiadó.
Błaszczyk Piotr, and Dariusz Hanusiak. 2010. “The Choice of Language for Note-Taking for Consecutive 
Interpreting: A Polish Perspective.” MikaEL Kääntämisen ja tulkkauksen tutkimuksen symposiumin 
verkkojulkaisu – Electronic Proceedings of the KäTu Symposium on Translation and Interpreting Studies 4.
Bowen, David, and Margareta Bowen, eds. 1990. Interpreting: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Amsterdam: 
John Benjamins.
Cardoen, Hanne. 2013. The Effect of Note-Taking on Target-Text Fluency. Leuven: CETRA.
Chen, Silja. 2016. “Note-Taking in Consecutive Interpreting: A Review with Special Focus on Chinese and 
English Literature.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 26 (1): 151–71.
—. 2017a. “Note-Taking in Consecutive Interpreting: New Data from Pen Recording.” Translation & 
Interpreting 9 (1): 4–23. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.109201.2017.a02.
—. 2017b. “The Construct of Cognitive Load in Interpreting and Its Measurement.” Perspectives 25 (4): 
640–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2016.1278026. 
Chuang, Li-ling. 2008. “Note-Taking Know-How: A Processing Perspective on Consecutive Interpreting.” 
Spectrum: Studies in Language, Literature, Translation, and Interpretation 2: 93–101. https://doi.org/10 
.1080/0907676X.2016.1278026.
CIRIN. 2021. “CIRIN Bibliography.” https://www.cirinandgile.com/Bibliohome.html.
Curcio Rossella. 2013. “Die Notationssprache beim Konsekutivdolmetschen aus dem Deutschen ins 
Italienische.” MA thesis, University of Vienna. http://othes.univie.ac.at/29453/1/2013-08-26 
_0704339.pdf.
Dai, Weidong, and Haiming Xu. 2007. “An Empirical Study of the Features of Interpreters’ Notes 
in Chinese-English Consecutive Interpreting: The Examples of Professionally Trained and 
Unprofessional Interpreters.” Foreign Language Teaching and Research 39 (2): 136–44. 
Dam, Helle V. 2004a. “Interpreters’ Notes: On the Choice of Form and Language.” In Claims, Changes 
and Challenges in Translation Studies, edited by Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjær, and Daniel Gile, 
251–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.50.21dam. 
—. 2004b. “Interpreters’ Notes on the Choice of Language.” Interpreting 6 (1): 3–17. https://doi.org/10 
.1075/intp.6.1.03dam. 
—. 2010. “Consecutive Interpreting.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, edited by Yves Gambier and Luc 
van Doorslaer, 75–79. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Deng, Yangping. 1991. “Consecutive Notes: An Artist’s Tool.” In Collected Essays on Translation, edited by 
Chih Long Liu, 284–92. Hong Kong: Commercial Press.
Dingfelder Stone, Maren. 2014. “The Theory and Practice of Teaching Note-Taking.” In To Know How to 
Suggest… Approaches to Teaching Conference Interpreting, edited by Andres Dörte and Martina Behr, 
145–66. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Drechsel, Alexander. 2017. The Tablet Interpreter. https://static1.squarespace.com/static 
/52d4015ce4b0eab6f2d76b6f/t/594b8b7a414fb54310f5957d/149812313.
EMCI. 2013–2021. “Welcome to the European Masters in Conference Interpreting!” https://www 
.emcinterpreting.org/.
123ARTICLES
Frey, Shoko. 2007. “Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notation im Sprachenpaar Englisch-Japanisch. Eine 
empirische Untersuchung.” PhD diss., University of Vienna.
Garlaschelli, Maddalena. 2013. “Der Einfluss der Ausgangssprache auf die Wahl der Notationssprache 
beim Konsekutivdolmetschen.” MA thesis, University of Vienna. http://othes.univie.ac.at/29787 
/1/2013-09-23_0849586.pdf.
Gile, Daniel. (1995) 2009. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: 
John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8(1st).
Gillies, Andrew. 2004. Conference Interpreting: A New Students’ Companion. Vol. 7. Krakow: Tertium.
—. 2017. Note-Taking for Consecutive Interpreting: A Short Course. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. https://doi 
.org/10.4324/9781315648996. 
Goldsmith, Joshua. 2017. “Tablet Interpreting: Consecutive Interpreting 2.0.” Translation and Interpreting 
Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association 13 (3): 342–65.
Goldsmith, Joshua, and Josephine C. Holley. 2015. “Consecutive Interpreting 2.0: The Tablet Interpreting 
Experience.” MA thesis, University of Geneva.
González, Marta Abúin. 2012. “The Language of Consecutive Interpreters’ Notes: Differences across Levels 
of Expertise.” Interpreting 14 (1): 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.14.1.03abu.
González, Roseann Dueñas, Victoria Félice Vásquez, and Holly Mikkelson. 1991. Fundamentals of Court 
Interpretation: Theory, Policy, and Practice. Durham: Carolina Academic Press. 
Herbert, Jean 1952. The Interpreter’s Handbook: How to Become a Conference Interpreter. Genève: Librairie 
de l’Université. 
Hiraoka, Mari. 2010. “Erlernen von Konsekutivdolmetschen im Selbststudium. Eine qualitative Studie für 
das Sprachenpaar Japanisch-Deutsch.” MA Thesis, University of Vienna. 
Ilg, Gérard. 1980. “L’interprétation consécutive: les fondements.” Parallèles 3: 109–36.
—. 1982. “L’interprétation consécutive: la pratique.” Parallèles 5: 91–109.
—. 1988. “La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Une orientation générale.” Parallèles 9: 9–13. 
Ilg, Gérard, and Sylvie Lambert. 1996. “Teaching Consecutive Interpreting.” Interpreting 1 (1): 69–99. 
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.1.1.05ilg.
Jones, Roderick. (1998) 2002. Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St Jerome. https://doi.org/10 
.1075/intp.3.2.05mac.
Kalina, Sylvia. 1998. Strategische Prozesse beim Dolmetschen: Theoretische Grundlagen, empirische Fallstudien, 
didaktische Konsequenzen. Tübingen: Günther Narr.
Kirchhoff, Hella. 1979. “Die Notationssprache als Hilfsmittel des Konferenzdolmetschers im 
Konsekutivvorgang.” In Sprachtheorie und Sprachpraxis, edited by Walter Mair and Edgar Sallager, 
121–33. Tübingen: Günther Narr.
Lambert, Sylvie. 1989. “Information Processing among Conference Interpreters: A Test of the Depth-of-
Processing Hypothesis.” In The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation, 
edited by John Dodds and Laura Gran, 83–91. Udine: Campanotto.
Láng, Zsuzsa. G. 2002. Tolmácsolás felsőfokon: A hivatásos tolmácsok képzéséről. [Advanced Interpreting: 
Training Professional Interpreters.] Budapest: Scholastica.
Liu, Jianjun. 2010. “Note-Taking Characteristics of English Majored Undergraduates in Chinese-English 
Consecutive Interpreting: An Empirical Study Based on Students’ Consecutive Interpreting Notes.” 
Foreign Language World 2: 47–53.
Lung, Rachel. 2003. “Taking ‘Notes’ Seriously in the Interpretation Classroom.” In La evaluación de la 
calidad en interpretación: investigación, edited by Ángela Collados Aís, María Manuela Fernández 
Sánchez, Daniel Gile, and Julian Bourne, 199–205. Granada: Comares. 
Matyssek, Heinz. 1989. Handbuch der Notizentechnik für Dolmetscher. Heidelberg: Groos.
Mead, Peter. 2011. “Co-Ordinating Delivery in Consecutive Interpreting.” Intralinea 13. http://www 
.intralinea.org/specials/article/1666.
Minyar-Beloruchev, Rurik K. 1969. Posledovatelnyi perevod [Consecutive Interpreting]. Moscow: Voenizdat. 
Nolan, James. 2005. Interpretation: Techniques and Exercises. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Olalla-Soler, Christian 2020. “Practices and Attitudes toward Replication in Empirical Translation and 
Interpreting Studies.” Target 32 (1): 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18159.ola.
124 C. Szabó Revisiting Consecutive Note-Taking: What to Note, How to Note, and in What Language?
ORCIT. n.d. “Online resources for Conference Interpreter Training.” https://www.orcit.eu.
Rozan, Jean-Francois. (1956) 2004. Note-Taking in Consecutive Interpreting. Cracow: Cracow Tertium 
Society for the Promotion of Language Studies.
Russell, Debra, and Kayoko Takeda. 2015. “Consecutive Interpreting.” In The Routledge Handbook of 
Interpreting, edited by Renée Jourdenais and Holly Mikkelson, 96–111. London: Routledge.
Sanchez, Maria T. 2018. “(Over) Note-Taking in Consecutive Interpreting.” International Journal of English 
Language & Translation Studies 6 (3): 150–56.
Sawyer, David. B. 2004. Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education: Curriculum and Assessment. Vol. 47. 
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.47. 
Seleskovitch, Danica. (1975) 2002. “Language and Memory: A Study of Note-Taking in Consecutive 
Interpreting.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, edited by Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 
121–29. London: Routledge.
Seleskovitch, Danica, and Marianne Lederer. 1989. A Systematic Approach to Teaching Interpretation. 
Luxembourg: Pedagogie Raisonnee de l’interpretation.
—. 1995. A Systematic Approach to Teaching Interpretation. Silver Spring: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
—. 1999. “The Teaching of Conference Interpretation in the Course of the Last 50 Years.” Interpreting 4 
(1): 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.4.1.07sel.
Setton, Robin, and Andrew Dawrant. 2016a. Conference Interpreting: A Complete Course. Vol. 120. 
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.120. 
—. 2016b. Conference Interpreting: A Trainer’s Guide. Vol. 121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi 
.org/10.1075/btl.121.
Siantova, Gabriela, 2015. “Consecutive Interpretation and Note-Taking from the Perspective of Some 
Translatology Schools and Researchers.” International Journal of Scientific Research and Innovative 
Technology 2 (1): 44–51.
Stecher, Liesa, 2016. “Notes, Notation and Notizen. An Empirical Study on the Choice of Form and 
Language of Consecutive Notes within the French-German Language Pair.” MA Research Project, 
London Metropolitan University. 
Szabó, Csilla. 2003. From Preparation to Performance: Recipes for Practitioners and Teachers. Budapest: 
British Council.
—. 2005. “Note-Taking Techniques and Strategies in Consecutive Interpreting: An Empirical Investigation of 
the Choice of Language, Choice of Form and Means of Compression.” PhD diss., University of Pécs.
—. 2006. “Language Choice in Note-Taking for Consecutive Interpreting.” Interpreting 8 (2): 129–47. 
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.2.02sza.
—. 2017. “Real-Life Scenarios and Field Trips in the Training of Interpreters.” In Interpreting Studies at the 
Crossroads of Disciplines, edited by Simon Zupan and Alexandra Nuč, 32–43. Frank & Timme: Berlin. 
—. 2020. “Fejlesztő értékelési technikák a tolmácsolás oktatásában. [Formative Assessment Techniques 
in Interpreter Training].” In Iránytű a tolmácsolás oktatásához. A kompetenciafejlesztés új fókuszai. 
[Compass to the Training of Interpreters: New Perspectives on Competence Development.], edited by 
Csilla Szabó and Mária Bakti. Szeged: Juhász Gyula Felsőoktatási Kiadó.
Taylor-Bouladon, Valerie. 2007. Conference Interpreting: Principles and Practice. Charleston: BookSurge 
Publishing.
Thiéry, Christopher. 1981. “L’enseignement de la prise de notes en interprétation consécutive: un faux 
problème?” In L’Enseignement de la Traduction et de l’Interprétation. De la Théorie à la Pédagogie, edited 
by Jean Delisle, 99–112. Ottawa: Éditions de l’Université d’Ottawa.
Wang, Wei-Tsong, Dandan Zhao, and Ling Wang. 2010. “An Empirical Study of Note-Taking 
Characteristics and Output Quality in Interpreting.” Foreign Language World 4: 9–18.
Windiari, Luh Ni. 2012. “Note Taking and the Power of Mapping in Consecutive Interpreting.” Udayana 
University. https://www.academia.edu/1478502/NOTE_TAKING_AND_THE_POWER_OF 
_MIND_MAPPING_IN_CONSECUTIVE_INTERPRETING.
Yamada, Hiroko. 2018. “Validity of Note-taking for New Consecutive Interpreting Learners: An Empirical 
Study of University Interpretation Courses.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 8 (11): 1387–96. 
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0811.02.