Note-taking Preferences and Strategies

The results showed that there was a mismatch between actual note-taking preferences and the strategies the student interpreters intended to implement.

5.1.1 The gap between strategy and execution

The actual notes the student interpreters took in the FSR setting, compared with the SSR setting included (1) fewer symbols; (2) fewer notes in the TL; (3) no clear

preponderance of either full words or incomplete words; (4) fewer notes in total; and (5) less segmentation. The first three preferences exhibited in the study actually

corroborated findings of past research. As reviewed in Chapter 2, previous studies identified a general tendency of (1) language over symbols (Chen, 2017; Dai & Xu, 2007; Wang et al., 2010); (2) SL over TL (Andres, 2002; Chen, 2017; Dai & Xu, 2007;

Dam, 2007; Li, 2012; Liu, 2010; Wang et al., 2010), and (3) no consistency among studies of tendency of more abbreviations (Chen, 2017; Wang et al., 2010), or more full words (Dai and Xu, 2007; Dam, 2004; Liu, 2010). These three results observed in prior

empirical studies were solidified to a greater extent in the FSR setting. The student interpreters in FSR situations stuck even more closely to these note-taking preferences commonly observed in interpreters’ CI notes. In addition, in keeping with prior research, this study did not find any specific trends in the full/incomplete words parameter in the FSR setting. Seemingly, the use of full words and incomplete words is a matter of personal choice.

The strategies the student interpreters generally aimed for in the FSR setting were:

(1) more symbols, fewer words; (2) more incomplete words, fewer complete words; (3) more notes in the target language (TL), fewer in the source language (SL); (4) fewer total note units; and (5) more segmentation, links, and indentation. Despite the fact that in average the student interpreters did take fewer notes in the FSR setting, the other actual note-taking preferences in the experiment according to the quantitative and qualitative analyses were inconsistent with how they thought would be more beneficial to their performance. There is a gap between the student interpreters’ intention and execution regarding note-taking strategies. The tendency of (1) language over symbols;

and (2) SL over TL reflected in prior studies was the exact opposite of two of the strategies the student interpreters in this study intended to implement, i.e., more symbols and notes in TL. This shows that implementing note-taking strategies beyond the usual preferences in general settings is difficult in FSR occasions.

The purpose of the student interpreters aiming for more symbols, incomplete words, and fewer note units was most likely to lower the amount and complexity of notes to cope with the increasing processing capacity requirements in the Listening and

Analysis Effort brought by FSR. According to Gile (2009), reducing note quantity is a strategy that can be deployed in CI to cope with a problem trigger in the source speech.

The student interpreters considered decreasing note units or using more simple forms in note-taking a good way to conserve processing capacity. It seems that the student interpreters were aware of the fact that it would be very difficult to jot down every single detail. However, it was also found in this study that the success or failure of this strategy depends on whether the interpreter feels that they are able to decide what to drop and what to write after hearing a message. The student interpreters believed that if there was not enough time to think about how to simplify messages into succinct note units, which was often the case in the FSR setting, they would rather write more notes or write more with full forms, so that they would not miss incoming messages as they dwelled on what to write.

In addition, the student interpreters wanted to write more in Chinese and make more spacing arrangements to guarantee that the messages were more accessible in the reformulation phase. Since the TL was Chinese, they presumably wanted to include more translations in notes to reduce the burden on the Production Effort later. Also, the goal of making more spacing arrangements may result from their expectation to

understand and recall the structure at a glance, benefiting the Remembering and the Note-reading Efforts.

In essence, the strategies the student interpreters adopted, or at least aimed to adopt in this study had the purpose of releasing processing capacity to deal with FSR in both the comprehension and reformulation phase of CI. However, from the results, it is

apparent that there is a gap between the student interpreters’ intention and execution regarding note-taking strategies.

5.1.2 Processing capacity saturation

A possible reason why the intended strategies were not carried through is processing capacity saturation caused by FSR. This saturation may result from the multi-tasking nature of interpreting, during which more than one Efforts are active at the same time in the same phase. If a problem trigger, such as FSR in this case, presents itself in the source text, the required processing capacity may exceed available capacity (Gile, 2009).

In this study, processing capacity saturation possibly happened as soon as the student interpreters could not manage to lag behind the speaker to the extent to

understand the logic of the speech. The student interpreters reported that they intended to better reflect the logic of the speech and the relationship between messages on their notes. To do so, they would have to first understand the logic of the speech and the relationship between messages. The subjects believed that putting more attention to listening is a good strategy, since being able to hear and understand a message is the first and foremost step in interpreting. However, as FSR increased their cognitive load, their ear-pen span (EPS) naturally became longer (Chen, 2017), making it more and more difficult to catch up with the speaker. To catch up with the speaker, the student interpreters felt pressured to decrease the EPS, at the same time increasing the risk of not comprehending parts of the speech (Andres, as cited in Setton & Dawrant, 2016b;

needed in the first phase of CI to benefit comprehension. The lack of adequate EPS resulted from FSR may be the reason for the processing capacity saturation.

In this study, it was possible that processing capacity saturation prevented the student interpreters from being able to reduce the quantity and complexity of notes as they wished. Typically, the interpreter should allocate more processing capacity to the Listening and Analysis Effort, and less to the Note-taking Effort, as the act of

note-taking more or less prevents the interpreter from listening to the messages (Liu, 2008). This strategy was also proposed by Gile (2009), believing that reducing the quantity of notes can release pressure from the high Listening and Analysis processing capacity requirements. However, it was found in this study that a dilemma presents itself when the processing capacity requirements for the Note-taking Effort also becomes too high due to FSR. Merely thinking about how to write less takes too much processing capacity for the Note-taking Effort. Just as B2 put it, “I did not have time to think of how to write something down in a more succinct manner.” This shows that it takes time and processing capacity to convert words or ideas into note units. A limited processing capacity available for the Note-taking Effort in the FSR setting was probably why the intended strategy of writing more in Chinese (TL), symbols, and incomplete words failed. This failure brought about more notes, potentially leading to a higher risk of saturation in the Listening and analysis Effort.

To approach this dilemma, filtering the messages seems to be a possible strategy.

Some student interpreters did report finding selecting important messages to write down a necessary skill to cope with FSR, which can be done by filtering the messages and

restricting their notes to mostly keywords, numbers, proper names, or summaries, a skill proposed in both Albl-Mikasa (2008) and Ribas (2012). From this, one can venture to suggest that perhaps more important than increasing the proportion of symbols and abbreviations is selecting which messages to write or even to remember. As Einstein, Morris, and Smith (1985) have found, writing down propositions that are more important can lead to better accuracy. It can be generalized that when the interpreter encounters a fast speech, the prerequisite for the strategy of using more symbols, abbreviations, and writing fewer notes is to first filter the messages.

The skill of selecting important messages perhaps needs to be honed through experience. It was found that expert interpreters are better at selecting more important messages to interpret (Liu, Schallert, & Carroll, 2004). Once equipped with the essential skill, the interpreter may feel more confident in coping with fast speakers, and produce better interpreting performances (Einstein, Morris, & Smith 1985).