FSR challenges to note-taking

The following are some common challenges mentioned by participants. A lot of the challenges commented on by participants were interrelated, but could not be grouped in

only one category. This is reasonable, considering the fact that the Efforts in CI often happen in close temporal proximity to each other (see Chapter 2). In view of the

multitasking nature of interpreting, it is only natural that one problem may be directly or indirectly tied to another.

4.2.2.1 Inefficient notes due to inadequate comprehension

Six participants (30% of all participants) revealed that a major challenge to note-taking efficiency came from comprehension issues, in addition to or instead of note-taking techniques themselves. This was reflected in comments from both Y1 (A1, A2, A7, A10) and Y2 (B1, B4) participants. Participants stated that FSR made it

extremely hard to mentally grasp every detail of the speech (A7), or to take notice of the tone of the speaker (B4, B13).

For some participants, even if they managed to write something down, sometimes the note units could not remind them of the whole picture in the source text, because they did not even understand it in the first place. The lack of adequate comprehension reported by the participants, as reviewed in Chapter 2, was possibly a result of FSR disrupting the Listening and Analysis Effort, resulting in compromised understanding of the source text (Gile, 2009). The difficulty of understanding the logic of the passage was brought up multiple times in the interviews. Participants reported only noting down proper nouns or numbers while they were not able to follow the logic of the speech. As A10 has said, “I didn’t quite understand some of the messages the speaker had said, so I could only write down keywords.” This was viewed as problematic by the participant, saying that “When I didn’t really understand something when I took notes, it’s likely

that I will get them wrong when I produce the target.” Another instance was B1’s comment on how she had at times failed to grasp the logic between messages in the comprehension phase in the FSR setting. “In an FSR setting I’m accustomed to taking note of nouns or bigger concepts instead of logic and narrative because I don’t have enough time” (B1). As B1 has said, that was the reason why she “was forced to drop a lot of links between segments and beginnings of sentences” during note-taking. Yet another Y1 participant remarked on noting down the numbers without understanding the context (A2). She commented that “I panicked a little after I heard the numbers, because I didn’t understand what the speaker was talking about when he spoke the numbers.”

In short, notes that could not help retrieve the messages in the source text due to comprehension difficulties was reported by both Y1 and Y2 participants as a problem, while more Y1 participants mentioned the difficulty of understanding the context around numbers in particular. Moreover, some Y2 participants commented on not being able to grasp and write down the speaker’s tone. This was not reported in any comments from Y1 participants.

4.2.2.2 Difficulties in attention allocation

Perhaps the crux of the comprehension problems in 4.2.2.1 lied in the fact that interpreting is a multi-tasking activity. Eight participants (40% of all participants) commented on the imbalanced attention allocation among different Efforts affecting note-taking efficiency. While FSR to a certain degree may not impair comprehension of listeners, for interpreters, a SR over a certain degree may cause difficulty in moving

balance between listening and note-taking. They generally felt that in the FSR setting, more attention should be allocated to listening and understanding the message. However, they commented on how this took a toll on note-taking. It was reported that “listening alone occasionally took so much brain power (B20)” that note-taking was affected. The pressure of “listening and thinking about what to write down at the same time (A6)”

was felt by several participants. In this case, because of FSR, attention was compelled to move from the Listening and analysis Effort to the Note-taking Effort so fast that at least one of the Efforts showed signs of declining processing capacity available.

On one hand, inadequate processing capacity for the Note-taking Effort can happen when interpreters do know what to write down because the brain is busy listening and understanding the message.

“I understood the message, but I didn’t have time to think of a keyword to write down to help me remember the message, so the only option was to write down the proper nouns.” (A1)

“I was compelled to focus on listening, so I didn’t know what to write down.”

(A4)

“FSR made note-taking somewhat more difficult. The quantity of notes was limited due to lack of time, so I had to really think about what to write down.”

(A5)

On the other hand, inadequate processing capacity for the Listening and Analysis Effort can happen when interpreters do not have enough time to understand a segment

because that makes note-taking extremely difficult. However, notes produced this way was at high risk for becoming inefficient retrieval cues, because the messages were not necessarily understood (see 4.2.2.1).

“I used almost all my mental energy on note-taking so that little was left for listening and understanding. That’s why I was compelled to write something down as soon as I heard the word.” (A3)

“I didn’t have the time to fully understand a segment before writing a few words as retrieval cues, so I had no choice but to write exactly what I’ve heard.” (B19)

“When the speaker started to list a lot of examples, there was no time to mentally process the message. I could only write down the things I’ve heard.

But I didn’t really grasp the speaker’s tone, so I think there were some omissions [in my target]” (B4)

In addition, a participant mentioned FSR affecting the Short-term memory

operations Effort. She speculated that “I think there was a possibility that FSR affected my memory. I had to keep thinking of effective keywords to write down, so my brain was too tired from all the multitasking (A1).” When a message is neither stored in short-term memory nor in the form of notes, it is likely that it will not be rendered in the target text.

Lastly, some participants also reported that there was not enough time to write the things they wanted to write. It was sometimes because “I was still busy writing the last

segment. (A8)” or simply because “the speed was so fast that I could not finish a word (A6).” When this happened, B12 recalled trying to quickly add details to a previous segment while she still remembered, but “sometimes I couldn’t put it down correctly because I forgot the message or didn’t remember it correctly.”

In sum, a number of participants acknowledged that one of the difficulties in note-taking came from the need to allocate their mental energy perfectly among the different Efforts in the comprehension phase. There was no apparent difference in perception of this difficulty based on the description of Y1 and Y2 participants, despite the fact that more Y1 participants reported this difficulty.

4.2.2.3 Messy note structure and handwriting

Four Y2 participants (20% of all participants) observed difficulty in presenting note units in a neat form. First, in regards to note structure, B5 claimed that in his notes he was “not able to present the logic in the speech by, for instance, placing horizontal lines to divide segments.” On top of that, B8 also believed that her notes “were messy and did not reflect the structure and logic of the speech well,” and “did not contain enough elements to showcase relations between note units, such as arrows.” Secondly, concerning handwriting, participants (B3, B7, B8) reported that sometimes they found their handwriting illegible when they were reading the notes in the reformulation phase, which caused errors in their target.

4.2.2.4 The need to keep note units short

Three Y2 participants (15% of all participants) mentioned having to adjust to writing down shorter versions of words.

“I usually write in the form of full word and I seldom use symbols, so I tend to be a slow writer when I take notes.” (B3)

“The challenge was to find a succinct way of representing a message in notes.

If I had written the full words down, I could have dropped a lot of messages.”

(B6)

“Sometimes I had to use abbreviations.” (B9)

Having to write in a more succinct manner was the only note-taking preference adjustment that participants reported as challenge in the FSR setting. This was only remarked on by Y2 participants. On the contrary, one Y1 participant (A20) reported this exact change of preference as a strategy instead of challenge when asked the different note-taking strategies in the two settings.

4.2.2.5 Nervousness

A total of four participants (20% of all participants) mentioned nervousness caused by FSR affecting note-taking. FSR was reported to be “unnerving (B8)” and made a few participants either “panicked (B2)” or “nervous (A2, B8, B10).” B2 reported that the nervousness came from the feeling that “my handwriting couldn’t keep up with the speaker.” The consequence of FSR-caused nervousness on note-taking reported by

participants included “difficulty in writing (B8)” and “self-doubt about my own notes (B10).”

4.2.3 Note-taking preferences

The participants were asked to observe their notes for the two settings and notice whether there were differences in form, language, quantity, or structure.

4.2.3.1 Composition

A majority of participants in both Y1 and Y2 commented on the composition of note units. Participants seemed to observe themselves taking more notes in the form of incomplete words and English (source language), and taking fewer notes in total in the FSR setting, comparing with the SSR setting. In terms of language versus symbol, there were inconsistent responses from different participants.

4.2.3.1.1 Full word vs. incomplete word

A total of eight participants (40% of all participants) commented on the use of full words, among which seven of them (35% of all participants) observed that they used more full words in the SSR setting, and more abbreviations or incomplete words in the FSR setting. Participants described that compared to the SSR setting where they were allowed to “write down more full words and even the Chinese translations (B5),” the FSR setting compelled them to “write incomplete words sometimes, because I did not have time to finish the words (B7).” On the contrary, one participant held the opposite view, claiming that “I did not have time to think of how to write something down in a

more succinct manner, so I often wrote the full word down, instead of an abbreviation or symbol (B2).”

Among the seven participants who observed that they wrote more incomplete words in the FSR setting, five were in Y2, and two were in Y1.

4.2.3.1.2 Chinese vs. English

Five participants (25% of all participants) remarked on the language of their notes.

Four of them (20% of all participants) observed that they took more notes in Chinese in the SSR setting. As A5 has said, “In the SSR setting, I had time to translate something into Chinese before I wrote it down.” A2 and B5 also commented that compared to the FSR setting, they were allowed to write down more Chinese translations in the SSR setting. One participant’s (A1) observation was different from the others’. She observed that she took more notes in Chinese in the FSR setting, explaining that “I began to write more in Chinese when I sensed that I was about to lose track of what the speaker was saying.”

4.2.3.1.3 Total note units

Seven participants (35% of all participants) commented on note quantity. Five participants (25% of all participants) observed that they took more notes in general in the SSR setting. B5 mentioned that “I kept my notes succinct, and left out some words that were not necessary.” Similarly, B6 reported that “Information was mainly listed in bullet points.” On the contrary, B10 claimed that in the SSR setting, “I wrote more things that I later considered unnecessary.” The reason for a more “detailed (A7)”

notation might be that “I did not have time to digest the messages, and I would forget them if I did not write them down on the spot. (A7)”

4.2.3.2 Structure

Seven participants (35% of all participants) observed structural differences in the two sets of notes.

First, it seemed that they found their notes for the SSR setting more “organized.

(A1)” A7 mentioned being able to use more “indentation” in the SSR setting. In general, it was reported that SSR notes better reflected the “structure (A1, A3, B2)” of the source text, and displayed “causality (A2)” and “linkage (A2, A4)” more, compared to their FSR notes, in which often “only keywords were written. (A5)” Some believed that this was the case because in the SSR setting, they were able to “focus on thinking (A2)” or

“have the time to understand before writing something down (A3).” Among the seven participants who reported structural differences, six were in Y1 and one was in Y2.

Secondly, as for segmentation, two participants (A4, B2) mentioned that FSR sometimes made them draw horizontal lines at the wrong places. A4 even reported not being able to “make corrections to a horizontal line” after noticing it being flawed because the speaker was speaking too fast.

4.2.3.3 Summary

Though participants observed some differences in note-taking preferences, a number of them claimed that there were no major differences in their note-taking

preferences. Some noticed no differences (A6, B1) whatsoever, and others believed that the differences they brought up were minor.

“My notes looked messier. Otherwise, there was no differences.” (B3)

“I don’t think there’s much difference in what I have actually written down.

The only thing is perhaps more abbreviations in the FSR setting. But overall I think changing the way I take notes is a burden. (B4)”

“SR didn’t affect how I take notes that much. I wrote a bit more words in the SSR setting at most. (B7)”

“I wrote more things that I later considered unnecessary in the SSR setting.

But otherwise, there was no difference. (B20)”

Overall, more Y1 participants brought up differences in note structure, and more Y2 participants believed there were no major differences in their note-taking

preferences between the two settings.