Chapter 35

Consecutive Interpretation

Consecutive interpreting (CI) is the oldest form of interpreting, but professional inter•
preters consider it the most difficult mode (see Section I ). Seleskovitch ( 1978a) calls CJ
"perhaps the most noble of all typeS of interpretation• (p. vi). This chapter provides an
overview of the skill of Cl and its application in the judicial setting. Section I presents a
definition of CJ, Section 2 presents the skills required, and Section 3 concludes with rec-
ommendations for developing and improving those skills.

1. Definition
In Cl, the interpreter waits until the speaker has finished the source language (SL)
message before rendering it into the target language (TL). The SL message may last any-
where from a few seconds to several minutes, and the rate of speed and density of dis-
course vary with each speaker and subject matter (Agrifoglio, 2004; Viezzi, 1993). CI
involves complex mental tasks of language perception, storage, retr ieval, and genera-
tion, as described in the section on human information processing in Chapter 33. Be-
cause of this complexity, many interpreters consider CJ more difficult than simultaneous
imerpretation (SI).
Until the early 1940s, CJ was the only mode of interpreting used, except experimen-
tally (Baigorri-Jal6n, 2000). Due to technological innovations, SJ came into use after
World War II, and Cl has become less frequent in conference interpreting. Seleskovitcb
(1978a) cites statistics indicating that CI constitutes only 10% of the interpreting per-
formed at international conferences, primarily those involving just two languages. Gile (2001)
also asserts that "consecutive is gradually disappearing from the market;' although there
are interpreters who dispute that. Gile himself qualifies bis assertion when he goes on to
note: "This claim is made mostly in Western Europe; in other markets, and in particular
in Asia and in Eastern Europe, consecutive seems to be as lively as ever, due to its distinct
advantages over simultaneous (less costly, less cumbersome in terms of equipment, more
flexible over time and space)" (n.p.). Thus, Cl still has specific uses, particularly in court
interpreting, but also in international gatherings as well. For more information on the use
of CJ in court interpreting and the comparative advantages over SI, see Chapter 19. Weber
(1984) states that Cl is used in conferences whenever a high degree of accuracy is re•
quired, and "when participants in a meeting find it useful to have additional time for re-
flection during interpretation" (p. 34). This is because, as Seleskovitcb {1978a) notes, in
Cl "the interpreter has the advantage of knowing the line of argument before he interprets,"
although she cautions that "few activities require such concentration or cause such fa-
tigue• (p. 31). More recently, Russell (2002, 2005) has conducted research specifically
contrasting Cl and SI in the court setting and has concluded that Cl is more accurate.
87 1
 872 35 · CONSECUTIVE IKTERPR£TATION

As with SI, there is a major difference between the CJ employed by court interpreters
and that employed by conference interpreters. Conference interpreters generally wait until
the speaker bas gone on for several minutes (though Kalioa, 2002, reports that in many
markets CI is now performed phrase by phrase rather than in long segments) and do not
render a verbatim version of the message in the TL. They often condense or edit the mes•
sage, eliminating paralinguistic elements such as pauses and hedges, and may actually
make it sound more coherent, succinct, and smoother than the original. Court inter-
preters, however, must not omit a single element of meaning, whether verbal or non•
verbal. In court interpreting, CI is used primarily for testimony gi,·en on the witness stand
or in depositions, and for questioning the defendant by the judge (at arraignment, sen-
tencing, or similar situations). A question is asked in English, the interpreter renders it
in the witness' language, the witness gives an answer in that language, the interpreter ren·
ders that answer in English, and so on. Because the interpreter represents the voice of the
defendant to the court and vice versa, it is imperative for the interpreter to capture every
element of the SL message and transfer it as wholly and faithfully as humanly possible.
This is the challenge of consecutive interpretation in the legal setting. Any distortion of
style, meaning, disorganization, or nonfluency in delivery will negatively impact the cred-
ibility of the witness and the effectiveness of the speaker (Berk-Seligson, 2002a; Hale,
2004; McCroskey & Mehrley, 1969; O'Barr, 1982; see Chapter 19).

2. Skills Required
Bowen and Bowen (1980) describe Cl as having the following components: (1) discourse
in the SL, (2) understanding and analyzing this discourse, and (3) reconstituting it in the
Tl. Thus, the interpreter perceives the SL message, processes it for meaning, and gener·
ates a TL version of the message, and, as Garretson (1981) points out, the "psychologi-
' cal" aspect.~ of consecutive interpretation require the intensive use of memory. A number
of specific skills are involved in this process: listening, prediction, memory, notetakiog,
II•• and situational control. Gile ( 1995) provides additional insight into the CJ process in his
Effort Model. He points out that there is a lag:
Between the moment the information is heard and the moment it is written
down, or between the moment it is heard and the moment the interpreter decides
not to write it down, or again between the moment it is heard and the moment
it disappears from memory.... Another point is that the Production Effort dur•
ing the first phase of consecutive interpreting is associated with the produaio11
of notes, not with the production of structured natural language. (p. 179)
This is an important distinction, because as will be seen below, the interpreter's notes are
not a verbatim record of what was said, but simply an aid to the interpreter's memory.

2.1 Listening
To be able to process the SL message accurately, the interpreter must be able to listen
effectively and attend to meaning. The term "attending" is often used to describe the type
of listening that interpreters engage in. The difference is that hearing is a passive process
involving an involuntary reaction of the senses and the nervous system, while listening
is a voluntary, conscious effort to process the input selectively. Attending is the most alert,
 35 · CONSEClITIVE INTERPRI-.TATION 873

dehberate fom1 oflistming. It is no coincidence that we use the expression "to pay attention"
in English. When we pay attention, we are giving awareness, interest, and effort in order
to receiYe information (or comfort or entertainment, depending on the setting) . Active
listening is hard work, which is why we do not give our allentioo indiscriminately.
Listening tends to be ignored or taken for granted, however, on the assumption that
there is no need to devote any effort to it. In fact, we spend 45% of our time perceiving
auditory input (Weaver, 1972). Research on listening comprehension reveals that three re-
lated levels of discourse processing are involved in listening; (I ) propositional identifica-
tion-that is, identifying units of meaning in the message, (2) interpretation of illocutionary
force- determining the speaker's intention, and (3) activation of real world knowledge-
calling up the appropriate scripts or schemas (Richards, 1983). Richards describes the
processes involved in listening comprehension as follows:
(1) The type of interactional act or speech event in which the listener is involved is
determined (e.g., conversation, lecture, discussion, debate).
(2) Scripts relevant to the particular situation are recalled.
(3) The goals of the speaker are inferred through reference to the situation, the script,
and the sequential position of the utterance.
(4) The propositional meaning of the utterance is determined.
(5) Ao illocutionary meaning (the speaker's intention) is assigned to the message.
(6) This information is retained and acted upon, and the form in which it was orig-
inally received is deleted. (p. 223)
When this model is applied to court interpreting, in step (6) the interpreter does not en-
tirely "delete" the form of the original message, but rather retains it in memory for com-
parison with the TL version to ensure conservation of every element of meaning. Richards
(1983) also presents a taxonomy of listening skills which includes (among others) the fol-
lowing abilities:
To retain chunks of language of different lengths for short periods
To recognize the functions of stress and intonation to signal the information strUc-
ture of utterances
To detect key words (i.e., those which identify topics and propositions)
lo guess the meanings of words from the contexts in which they occur
To recognize the communicative functions of utterances, according 10 situations,
participants, goals
To predict outcomes from events described
To infer links and connections between events
To deduce causes and effects from event,
To distiognish between literal and implied meanings
To proccs., speech at different rates
To process speech containing patLses, errors, corrections
To make use of facial, paralinguistic, and other clues to work out meanings. (pp.
228-229)
Abbott, Greenwood, McKeating, and Wingard (1981) note that when people listen to
a message in a language other than their native tongue, it takes them longer to process the
information; they are more likely 10 make mistakes in comprehension; it is more difficult
 874 35 • CONSECU1'1VE INTERPRETATION

to predict outcome; and their memory is more heavily taxed and therefore works less ef-
ficiently. In a comprehensive review of the literature on listening, Dunkel (I 985) reports
research findings which suggest that subjects listening to messages in their second lan-
guage have a shorter memory span and are, therefore, hindered in their processing capacity.
Court interpreters must bear in mind aU these factors when performing CJ, as they will
need to take extra precautions - more thorough notes or more concentrated listening-
to compensate for these difficulties when the SL is not their dominant language.

2.2 Prediction
The notion of predicting outcome has been mentioned frequently by researchers who
have studied listening comprehension, and those who have studied interpreting specifically
(Gile, 1995; Lederer, 1978; Moser, 1978). One study (Abbott et. aL, 1981) emphasius that:
Our task is made easier by our ability to predict what is likely to come nc.rt and
our ability to select which stretches of material we will pay maximum attention
to and which we need not bother too much about. (p. 61)
J
- Just as prediction plays a major role in the ability to perform accurate and efficient SI, it
plays an equally significant role in CL

--
The schema that is brought to bear in human information processing, as described in
Chapter 33, also plays a role in prediction. As Le Ny (1978) states:
The ordinary speaker selects the words he pronounces as a function of these pre-
existing schemata. The "natural" listener also usually interprets the words he
hears as a function of them, and during the discourse he anticipates the words
to come as a function of these schemata. (p. 291)
Redundancy is another critical factor in understanding messages. In the example cited
by Abbott et al. (1981 ), "she put on her gloves to keep herself warm," the words "she,"
"her," and " herself" are redundancies; the listener could miss two of the three words and
still understand the message (p. 68). During the course of a conversation, especially on
the telephone, some individual words may be garbled or may not be beard, but listeners
are able to understand the message anyway because of their knowledge of the conte>.'t.
They may not even be aware of having missed a word, for the mind automatically fills in
the g.ip. For example, if you hear someone say, "I'm going to run out to the smghfto get
some groceries," the message you will get is "I'm going to run out to the store to get some
groceries" because that is what you will expect to hear, based on prior experience.
Abbott et al. (I98 I) also emphasiu how listeners pay particular attention to key words
that link sentences and clauses together and suggest the next idea: "a reason (be.:ause), a
contrasting statement (but, however), a result (so., therefore), an addition (also, not only
that), a rephrasing (in other words, that is to say), or an example (for instance)" (p. 62).
Another illustration of how listeners tend to predict outcome is cited by Rumelhart and
Ortony (1977), "Mary heard the ice-cream man coming down the street. She remem-
bered her birthday money and rushed into the house" (p. 113). The listener knows that
Mary is a little girl, and she is going to get money to buy ice cream, even though noth-
ing in these two sentences says that:
This kind of intuiti\'e leap is very common in human information processing. Abbott
et al. (1981) caution, however, that:
Efficient listeners and readers never switch off completely, because they have
learnt that their predictions are occasionally wrong; the unexpected sometimes
 35 · CONSECUTNE INTERPRETATION 875

happens and we have to be prepared to modify our expectations in light of what

we actually hear or read. {p. 62)
Thus, although prediction is a natural element of human communication, it poses ob-
vious dangers to the accurate processing of messages. The individual's decision, whether
conscious or unconscious, about what the message really was is affected by that person's
own biases, expectations, and knowledge, and distortion can easily result. Court inter-
preters should be particularly aware of this phenomenon and make sure they interpret what
they actually heard, not what they eJ<l)ected to hear.

2.3 Men1ory
All of the writings on Cl that have been cited here (Bowen & Bowen, 1980; Gile, 1995,
2001; Ilg & Lambert, 1996; Seleskovitch, 1978a; Weber, 1984) emphasize the vital role
played by memory. Indeed, Seleskovitch (1978a) states that "memory and understanding
are inseparable» (p. 34). The function of memory in human information processing is dis-
cussed in detail in Chapter 33. To sum up that discussion briefly, the interpreter stores
the SL message in memory and processes the message for comprehension by activating
the relevant modules and schemata. These schemata contain the meanings associated
with the SL terms in the message and probably the appropriate TL terms as well. Once
the interpreter has formulated a proposed TL version of the message, she checks it against
the SL version originally stored in memory, and if the two versions match, the interpreter
uners the TL version, inserting paralinguistic elements where appropriate.

2.3.1 Strategies for Enhancing Retention

Some methods of increasing retention capacity are presented here. One of the most ef-
fective ways to improve retention and retrieval is to organize the incoming information
to make it more manageable. This process of organizing is often referred to as "chunk-
ing," but some researchers (Kelly, 1979) call it "segmentation." Whatever it is called, the
process involves dividing a message into meaningful units, possibly changing the sequence
of ideas, to render it more und<Tstandable. Thus, to cite the example in Chapter 33 of this
unit, the interpreter who hears the question, "On the night of the incident in question,
Mr. Jones, what were you aod the woman you say you are living with doing?" does oot
process the twenty-three words individually, but rather reduces them to four phrases or
propositions, each of which can be remembered by means of a key word or visual image.
In this way, interpreters limit the number of bits that have to be stored in memory, and
relieve the burden on their limited retention capacity.
As noted earlier in this chapter, attentive listening is a key factor in this organization
process. Another important element to consider is the nature of the input (coherence,
density, speed of delivery, and other factors). Baddeley ( 1976) notes that the storage of
information in short-term memory (STM) seems 10 rely on acoustic encoding (remem-
bering the sounds of words), while storage in long-term memory (LTM) relics on se-
mantic encoding {analysis of meaning). Semantic encoding allows for a greater storage
capacity than acoustic encoding does. Studies have shown that when the delivery of the
sensory input is rapid and the content meaningless, subjects tend to employ acoustic en-
coding; they focus on individual words. When the message is meaningful, semantic en-
coding takes place, and the data are not easily forgonen (Baddeley, 1976). Bransford and
Franks (1971) found in a study of subjects' ability to recall information that the subjects
 876 35 · CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION

"did not store representations of particular sentences. Individual sentences lost their
unique status in memory in favor of a more holistic representation of semantic e,·ents"
( p. 348). Le Ny (1978) hypothesizes that expert interpreters discard nonsemantic infor-
mation from their memory more quickly than noninterpreters, and that this rapid decay
of nonsemantic information facilitates the processing of semantic information. To max-
imize their memory capacity, therefore, interpreters must pay attention to the underly-
ing meaning of the message rather than to the individual words that comprise it. As
Atwater (1981) says, "once you have begun paying attention to a verbal message, it is vital
that you understand what you hear. For understanding is the key, to both listening and
memory" (p. 93).
What makes the court interpreter's job much more difficult than that of the confer-
ence interpreter is that the court interpreter cannot entirely discard nonsemantic infor-
mation such as pauses and hedges, because they must be induded in the TL version in
order to pro,~de a legal equivalent of the SL message. Still, focusing on the semantic in-
formation - the underlying meaning-is a valid strategy for the court interpreter be-
cause it makes more storage capacity available for nonsemantic information.
Assuming that memory is unlimited, the problem the interpreter faces is not storage
capacity, but retrieval. Because so much data are stored in memory, it may take longer to
find a given item. Memory is like a cross-referenced index card file: The more ways one
has to index items or the more associations one has with items, the more easily they arc
retrieved. Or, looking at it from a different perspective, the more pathways that lead to
an item, the more likely the individual will be able to take one and find what she is look-
ing for. This is why it is so important for interpreters to analyze a message as they hear it
and to organize it into meaningful units (fomling associations or pathways connecting things
that are already stored in memory), rather than focusing on individual words.
Wortman, Loftus, and Marshall (1988) define this type of interaction with informa-
tion as "deep proccssing." They poslulate that memory is divided linearly into STM and
LTM; information intended for Jong-term storage is processed differently than that which
will be stored for a short time:
When people simply repeat something to themselves without considering its
mc-.ming (as they tend to do when they rehearse a telephone number), they may
maintain that information in short-term memory effectively enough, but it may
never become part of their long-term knowledge. hi contrast, when people take
a new piece of information and mentally process it-form an image of it, apply
it to a problem, relate it to other things- it is more likely to be deposited in
long-term storage. (p. 158)
\\lbethcr data ,viii be successfully stored in memory depends on a number of subjective
factors. People remember information better if they want to remember it, or if they know
it is useful to them. For example, interpreters who do not like seafood and do not use
seafood terminology are more likely to forget these terms in their working languages. It
is at this level that learning takes place. To ensure that newly learned information is stored
in memory, full understanding must take place at the beginning. When interpreters hear
an unfamiliar word, they should ask questions about how the word is used in various con-
texts and look it up in various references. After determining the meaning and usage of the
term, they should record it in their personal glossary or make notes next to the entry in a
dictionary. When learning a new concept, such as a legal proceeding or a technical pro-
cedure, interpreters should organize the information into a logical sequence. It also helps
to reinforce the storage by using the new concept or term whenever the opportunity arises.
 l5 · CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION 877

It is important to point out that all of the senses, not just hearing, enter into the pro-
cessing of spoken messages. Aural, visual, olfactory, tactile, and gustatory cues all play a
role in memory, although the first three predominate. Moreover, individuals focus on
different sensory stimuli, depending on their aptitudes. This is particularly true of visual
and auditory perception; some people are "visualizers," and some are "verbaliurs." Stud-
ies show, however, that although visualizers are more confident of their abiliry to retain
and recall information, they perform the same as verbali,.ers on memory tests (Baddeley,
1976) . Researchers have also found that visually recorded information takes longer to re-
trieve from memory, but also lasts longer. In addition, concrete information (facts and
figures) is better retained with visual memory, while abstract information (concepts, prin-
ciples, and ideas) is best remembered after being explained and understood in conversa-
tion (Atwater, 1981). For the coun interpreter, it is useful to take notes (providing a visual
record) of numbers and names, but copious notetaking may interfere with the under-
standing of more abstract information.

2.3.2 Forgetting
Just as imponant as the question of how we remember things is the question of bow
we forget. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, a variety of subjective and objecti,·e fac-
tors determine how data is stored in memory. Once information is stored there, another
factor enters the picture: time. Over time, the memory "trace" or pathway may be grad-
ually obliterated or masked by data that is stored subsequently, if the initial data is not
strongly embedded (that is, if there are few associations with it, and therefore little rein-
forcement). In addition to the loss of memory due to subsequent input, which is known
as "retroactive interference; forgetting can take place if data that is stored first makes a
particularly strong impact and effectively blocks the storage of subsequent input. The lat-
ter process is known as "proactive interference.,, Whether a person remembers bener what
was heard first (the "primacy effect") or last (the "recency effect") depends on how much
tin1e elapses before the person is required to recall the data, and on whether the individ-
ual has a chance to reinforce the storage of the data by "rehearsing" it or actively think-
ing about it. If recall is delayed and no rehearsal is possible, fust-heard items are more
likely to be remembered (Baddeley, 1976).
Another factor that determines whether a message is retained is the amount of new in-
formation it contains ( Le Ny, 1978). If the interpreter has many associations with a particular
item in memory (i.e., the person has heard the terminology many times before and is very
familiar with the subject matter), retrieval is relatively easy and the interpreter's process-
ing capacity is not overloaded. Wonman et al. ( 1988) stress that people tend to decide what
is important and relevant, and therefore what should be stored in memory, on the basis of
their schemata. Schemata also help people interpret the meaning of the new information,
and to elaborate on what they learn, enabling them to supply the necessary details according
to their expectations. For example, during testimony about a burglary, the interpreter caUs
up a burglary schema in both the SL and the TL, which contains background knowledge
of common situations that arise in burglaries, tools employed, methods of breaking in,
and associated phrases such as "casing the joint" and "posting a lookout." As a result, upon
hearing the term "safe," the interpreter will know without consciously thinking about it
that the term refers to a box in which valuables are kept, not a state of being secure and free
from harm. Similarly, upon hearing a new term, the interpreter wiU be better able to un•
derstand its meaning and to store it for future retrieval through associating it with other
terms related to burglaries. Thus, the more knowledge and experience interpreters have in
a wide range of subjects, the easier it is for them to retain and recall information.
-
878 35 · CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION

In addition to the interference that can come from internal factors, extraneous factors
can interfere with retention and recall. One of the most important of lhese is stress. The
effect of stress on memory is a matter of degree, however. Studies have shown that mod-
erate lcvds of stress or arousal can actually enhance performance, but after a certain point
the impact becomes negative; people who are in a state of high physical or mental anxi-
ety (Loftus, 1980) are unable to 'pay adequate attention to important cues in their envi-
ronment and lhus may miss information that is crucial for accurate memory" (p. 82).
Thus, if an interpreter is flooded with stimuli unrelated to the SL message, such as phys-
ical cues signaling a headache, fatigue, or anxiety about possible challenges from attor-
neys, and other issues, the interpreter is unable to attend exclusively to the SL message.
Other irrelevant stimuli !hat may interfere with the retention and recall of the SL mes-
sage include visual cues (the witness may be wearing a particularly flashy tie, for instance)
or auditory cues (people talking loudly in the hall, or perhaps an annoying speech man-
nerism of the witness). These factors can distract interpreters from the task at hand.
Clearly, then, interpreters need to be in optimum physical condition so that such irrele-
vant stimuli can be kept 10 a minimum, and they need to be mentally alert and confi-
dent in order to concentrate all their energies on processing the SL message to generate
a TL rendition.
In conclusion, we remember what is meaningful to us. For something to be mean-
ingful, we must be able to associate it with prior experiences, emotions, linguistic knowl-
edge, and other elements. The more associations we have with something, the easier it is
to remember. The key to remembering data is to analy-,e it as it comes in and to organize
it into a minimum number of"chunks!' Acting on the input somehow (classifying it, vi-
sualizing it, taking notes on it, or experiencing an emotional reaction to it) helps us to
retain it. As Seleskovitch (1978a) states:
You only remember something if you have paid auention to it, if you relate the
significance and meaning to your own experience; in short, if you reflect on it
in such a way !hat you experience what is commonly known as "awareness."
Memory is much more dependent on what you do with the information than on
I how your senses perceive it. (p. 37)
•
2.4 Notetaking
Perhaps the most common memory aid that people use in every aspect of life is note-
taking. They jot down phone numbers, grocery lists, reminders about things to do, and
other tasks. Professionals in all fields use specialized notes to help !hem perform a vari-
ety of tasks, and interpreters are no exception. The notetaking system that has been de-
vised by conference interpreters is discussed later on in this section.
Many researchers have investigated the function of notetaking in retention and recall
(most in the context of students taking notes on university lectures, but some in the field
of conference interpreting), and have identified a number of factors !hat determine the
usefulness of notes. In a review of the literature, Dunkel (1985) indicates that the re-
search findings are contradictory, with some studies suggesting that notctaking may in-
terfere with listening comprehension while others conclude the opposite. The speed of
delivery may be a decisive fuctor; one of the studies cited revealed that "taking notes dur-
ing a very rapid presentation may interfere with listening, while at slower speeds, it may
enhance listening by increasing the concentration of the student" (p. 27). Efficiency of
notetaking is another element that contributes to usefulness. Howe (1970), in particular,
 35 · CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION 879

found a positive correlation between the "efficiency of notetaking and the ability to re-
call information later. In other words, the fewer notes taken, the better the recall. This find-
ing is corroborated by the empirical conclusions of conference interpreters who have
written about CJ (Gile, 1995; Gillies, 2005; Herbert, 1968; Ilg & Lambert, 1996; Rozan,
1956; Seleskovitch, 1975; van Hoof, 1962).
Researchers who have studied the effects of notetaking on retention and recall focus
on two different aspects of the process: the act of taking notes and the notes themselves.
For example, Mikkelson ( 1983) states that.
The act of taking notes (deciding what to write and how to place it on the page) ap-
pears to aid in the analysis and processing of the information, and the interpreter
is more likely to remember something thats/he has acted upon him/herself. (p. 6)
On the other hand, Dunkel ( 1985) cites a number of studies that "lent strong support to
the external storage function of notes; the having and reviewing, rather than the taking
per se of notes facilitated recall performance" (p. 22). Elsewhere in her review of the lit-
erature, Dunkel notes that "several researchers have concluded that the encoding benefit
of notetaking actually accrues from having the opportunity to review notes and not from
the mere act of notetaking itself" (p. 70) . Lambert ( 1983), whose study dealt specifically
with conference interpreters performing CJ rather than students taking notes on lectures
in the university setting, contends that both approaches are valid:
The object of notes is to supplement memory efficiency, and individuals nor-
mally take notes with either or both of two aims in mind:
(I) Notes can be perceived as an external storage mechanism where the interpreter uses
notes as a means of reproducing and storing knowledge for later consultation;
(2) Notes can also be examined via the note-taking process itself, where it is seen as
an encoding mechanism that facilitates retention in that taking notes may con-
tribute 10 the learner's acquisition of knowledge, in other words, his "learning,"
in a relatively direct manner. (p. 5)

2.4.1 Interpreter Notetaking System

A unique system of notctaking has been devised, analyzed, and explicated over the
years by conference inte.rpreters (Gillies, 2005; Herbert, 1968; Ilg & Lambert, 1996; Rozan,
1956; Seleskovitch, 1975; van Hoof, 1962). This notetaking system can also be used in court
interpreting, although due to differences between court and conference interpreting men-
tioned at the beginning of this chapter, certain modifications must be made. Mikkelson
(2006) provides examples of the application of this system 10 courtroom testimony.
The underlying principle of the notes used by conference interpreters-commonly
known as the "Ro,.an ( 1956) method," after Jean-Fran~is Rozan, who first recorded and
analyLCd the notetaking system he observed conference interpreters using-is Iha! the SL
message is abstracted into symbolic form to make it easier to convert in10 the TL. It is im-
portant to remember that the notes are an aid 10 memory, not an end in and of them-
selves; interpreters concentrate on attending to and analyzing the SL message as they hear
it, and try 10 keep the notes to a minimum. Very few words of the original message are writ-
ten down because interpreters focus on ideas, not words. They make very careful choices
of what 10 write in their notes, selecting "key words" that will trigger their memory of an
entire concept when they read the notes later. These key words may not even have been ut-
tered in the SL message, but are representations that are meaningful to the interpreter. In
addition to words, interpreters use a variety of other notations, as shown below. Each in-
 880 35 · CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION

terpreter's notes are unique and personalized, and even another interpreter who knows
the system may not be able to read them. Weber (1984) points out that "there are as many
different note-taking systems as there are interpreters" (pp. 36-37), and that such a sys•
tem cannot be imposed on another or learned by rote. However, there are some common
characterises and common sense approaches that are worthy of mention.

2.4.2 Techniques
The following techniques are used in the Rozan ( 1956) method to abstract ideas from
the SL message:
(a) Placement of ideas on the page: indentation, verticalization.
(b) Abbreviation: common abbreviations such as "atry,""info,""OK"; abbreviations
from science (H20, Au); shorthand notations; and others.
(c) Symbols: mathematical and scientific symbols, Greek letters, arrows, punctua-
tion marks, lines of negation, individualized symbols.
(d) Lines: negation, relationship, repetition, numbers, circles, underlining for emphasis.

2.4.3 Examples
Here are some examples of typical statements that an interpreter might take notes on,
with sample notes provided in Figure 35.1.

Figure 35.1. Sample Notetaking I

i 4..
J

-
ti,.;-;/
7s
(a) Now, drawing your attention to Saturday, November 9, the day of the incident,
when the money was allegedly removed from the safe in the office, did you call
your employer before or after John told you the $6,500 was missing?
Comments on Figure 35.1: Note how few whole words are written down. The symbol
q is used to indicate focusing on, looking at, etc. The parentheses indicate an apposi-
tion or parenthetical remark that digresses from the subject a little or adds details. Note
how the ideas are indented as the story progresses, with the most subordinate ideas
being placed farthest to the right. It is clear that the interpreter is analyzing while lis-
tening, and establishing a hierarchy of ideas in logical progression. The next concept,
about the money being removed from the safe, is brought out slightly to the left be•
 35 · CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION 881

cause it is more important than "the day of the incident," but still subordinate to the main
idea of the question. The S denotes money of any sort; "taken" is shorter than "re-
moved" (an arrow might be used here as well), and the squiggly line underneath refers
to the uncertainty of the statement ("aUegedly"). The slash is a line of relationship
(often representing a prepositional phrase), linking the money to the safe to the offi~
(each of which is indented to show subordination). Then the ) symbol, referring to
telephone communication, is brought out all the way to the left to begin a new idea
( the heart of the question). The word "boss" is used because it takes less time to write
than "employer." The two symbols · I and I •are placed vertically, with a question mark
at the side, to indicate that they are of equal hierarchy and that there is an alternative
between them (the word "or" would serve just as well). And the last idea, a subordi-
nate clause, begins with an abbreviation for John, the " symbol for talking, the line
abo,•e $6.5 to denote thousand (S6.S million would have two lines above, and so on),
and the line of negation represents the concept of"missing."

Figure 35.2. Sample Not<talcing II

JV, 0;..ir - 2., . 1,

(1

"
;,
4 ;J?,
,~
•

Q •• =
tcJ/oe:~
JI wyr ,
A Y'\O
I·

A ~"
-
 832 35 · CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION

(b) Mr. Hernandez, referring to the deposition you gave on September 29, 1988-
if you recall giving that deposition in your attorney's office- ! would like to ask
you if you remember plaintiff's counsel asking you the following que.stions and
you giving the following answers.
Question: Were you aware that Mr. Jones was an undercover agent of the Drug
Enforcemem Agency during the period that he worked for you?
Answer: No, I didn't know he was with the Drug Enforcement Agency at that
time, not until later.
Question: When did you find out?
Answer: I found out when he told me himself.
Comments on figure 35.2: The interpreter begins with an "H" as a reminder that the ques-
tion begins with the witness' name; the interpreter already knows the name, and thus needs
only a reminder. The "re" is a common abbreviation for "regarding" or "referring to." The
quotation mark with the circle around it indicates a formal speaking situation, such as a speech
or deposition (the common abbreviation "depo" could also be used here). The slash relates
the deposition to the date, and the "if recall" is placed in parentheses and intended to show
that it is subordinate and a digres.sion from the train of thought. The heart, brought out to
the left to indicate that the main idea is being taken up again, refers to wanting or desiring.
The question mark denotes "ask." The line after "if" goes back up to "rccall"because the same
idea is rt-pealed and there is no need to write it twice. "Plaintiff's counsel" is abbreviated, and
"asking" is represented by a question mark with the "g" to mark the gerund or participle
(grammatical markt-rs like "s" for plural, "n" for the• -tion" suffix, etc., are elevated above the
root to distinguish them). "Q" and • A" are common abbreviations for question and answer,
and they are verticalized to indicate a list of items of equal importance. The first question is
brought out to the left again, to indicate the beginning of a new main idea. The : symbol
refers to mental or cognitive concepts (thought, knowledge, etc.). The= sign is used for the
verb "to be," and related concepts. The line below "agent" denotes the prefix "under" (a line
above would represent the prefix "over," as in "oversee,""overpayment," among others). The
slash indicates the genitive rditionship ("of the"), and the DEA is a rommonly known abbreviation.
The IJ represents two thin~ happening simultaneously or in parallel. The line to "Jones" in-
dicates a repetition of the name. The "W" represents work or employment, with the elevated
"d" denoting the past tense. The slash denotes the preposition "for" (another relationship). The
answer begins at the left again, and a simple "oo"with a line drawn up to thequc.1:ion (to in-
dicate repetition) suffices to convey the idea, with the symbol I •indented underneath. The
next question call be conveyed simply by "when," and the final answer shows the "he" un-
derlined twice for emphasis ("himself"), with the quotation mark for the verb "told."
(c) Well, you see, I wanted to get downtown fast, you know, so I decided to hitch-
hike instead of walking. So this guy comes and picks me up on Main St., you
know, and ... I, uh, ... well, you know, it had been raining the night before, and
there was water all over the place, and his car stalled in the middle of a big pud-
dle. So I ended up hoofing it after all, you know?
Comments on Figure 35.3: This text illustrates the difficulty of using notetaking in court in-
terpreting. The interpreter must give a conceptual verbatim interpretation of the witness'
answer, including the pauses and hedges. The horizontal lines throughout the notes show where
there are hedges, but it is up to the interpreter to remember exactly what words were used.
·n,e 1 symbol is used once again for the concept of "see" (although this is really just a
hedge, and should not be confused with the main idea). The heart represents "wanted,"
and an arrow (underlined for emphasis, [fast)) denotes traveling or moving. The Span -
 35 · CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION 883

ish word centro is used for downtown because it is more succinct. Interpreters can take
notes in whatever language or combination of languages they feel comfortabk in, as long
as they can understand the notes when it is time to read them back. If a particular term
springs to mind and conveys the idea accurately, it does not matter if that word is from
a language not involved in the proceedings. A common error that must be guarded against
is forgetting which language the notes m ust be rendered into, the SL or the TL. A generic
symbol such as "Sp" or " Eng" at the beginning of the notes may suffice. See Section 2.4.4
for further discussion of this issue.
The "so" is an important word to include because it shows the causal relationship be-
tween ideas (an arrow for causality would serve equally well). The interpreter then drew
a little picture of a thumb to indicate " hitchhike," and drew a line of negation through the
word "walk" to represent the idea "instead or ( the alternative not chosen). "Guy" begins
the next idea out to the left; the upward arrow indicates "picks me up," and "Main" suf-
fices to indicate the place. After a few hedges, the next idea is "rain," which the interpreter
represented pictorially. The backward arrow above "nght" indicates the past. The abbre-
viation for water is underlined heavily to denote emphasis, "all over the place." The in-
terpreter firs-i wrote "car• and a downward arrow to indicate the stalling, and then drew
a cirde around it to portray the puddle pictorially. The final idea, brought out to the left
to indicate its importance in the hierarchy, begins with "so" and then represents "hoof-
ing it" with the more general word "walk!' The interpreter must remember the register of
the term "hoofing it," and render it into the TL with an appropriately "slangy" term.
Figure 35.3. Sample Notetaking Ill

I
-
' '
' ' ntt- Hi.o
-
4,,0
s
 884 35 · CONSECUTIVE fNTERPRETATION

2.4.4 Application to Court Interpreting

As noted above, the unique demands of court interpreting ( e.g., «mservation, legal equiv-
alence) require some adaptation of this notetaking system. The emphasis of these notes
is abstracting and symbolizing, and indeed that is the essence of the interpreting process.
But court interpreters must first abandon the concrete structure of the message to pen-
etrate to the Ullderlying meaning and then refer back to the SL structure, which they have
retained in their STM, to make sure they reinsert such nonverbal elements as pauses, self.
corrections, and hedges. Conference interpreters, in contrast, deliberately eliminate such
clements from the TL message. Thus, court interpreters cannot allow a witness to go on
for several minutes as conference interpreters do (nor should an attorney consent to such
lengthy narrations), and must intervene when they know they cannot retain any more in
their STM. Moreover, they must indicate the pauses and hedges in their notes to make
sure they reinsert them in the process of giving the TL version. Omission or addition of
seemingly unimportant pragmatic markers such as these can drasticaUy alter jurors' per•
ception of the witness (Berk-Seligson, 2002'1; Hale, 2004; Mason, 2008).
In view of the rigorous standards of accuracy that interpreters must uphold in the judi-
cial setting. many people wonder why court interpreters do not sin1ply learn shorthand so
J
-I that they can take verbatim notes and not ha,,., to rely on their memory. Weber (1984) points
out that shorthand notes are word-oriented, and interpreters must focus on meaning rather
than words. If interpreters did take down word-for-word everything the speaker said, they

-- would then be faced with the task of sight translating shorthand notes, which is even more
daunting a prospect than sight translating a plain typewritten ttxt. However, there are in-
terpreters who have successfully in1plemented shorthand into their notetaking process.
There is an inherent danger in notetaking that interpreters, court or conference, must
guard against. It is all too easy to become excessively absorbed in the notes themselves
and forget to attend to the message as it is being uttered by the SL speaker. If interpreters
do not look at the speaker, they will miss valuable nonverbal cues. Many novice inter•
preters make the mistake of scribbling away while the SL message is coming in, but then
have trouble deciphering their notes afterwards because they did not understand the over-
all meaning. They have an impressive list of facts (if they are fortUJlate enough to be able
to read their handwriting), but they cannot link them together in a meaningful way. In
other words, they cannot see the forest for the trees. It is important to remember that
notes are mere]y a mnemonic aid.
Given the shorter length of the messages that interpreters deal with in the judicial set•
ting, and given the limitations of the Rozan ( 1956) method of notetaking, one might
question the usefulness of notetaking for the court interpreter. Indeed, there are many in-
stances when the court interpreter does not need to take notes at all. A sun'l!y of inter-
preters who are certified to interpret in the federal courts (Mikkelson, Vasquez, & Gonzalez,
1989) revealed that most interpreters do not use notes for the storage and retrieval of
every utterance in courtroom testimony. Of the interpreters who responded to the sur-
vey, 26% reported that they take notes during "every interpreting event"; 26% said they
do so "often"; 31 % said "sometimes." and 14% said "rarely.• The majority of the inter-
preters reported that they take notes only on long questions and answers or those that
contain specific data such as names, dates, numbers, and addresses.
Other factors that determine whether notes are taken, as indicated by the interpreters
in the survey, include the nature of the proceedings or the event and the fatigue interpreters
experience. Sixty-six percent of the respondents also indicated that they are more likely
to rely on their memory (as opposed to only 11% who rely on their notes) to retain par-
alinguistic elements of the SL message such as pauses, hedges, and self-corrections. This
 35 · CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION 885

survey did not investigate the language dominance issue, but based on the findings reported
by Abbott et al. (I 981 ) and tbe research cited by Dunkel (1985) witb regard to foreign lan-
guage comprehension, it may be tbat interpreters are more likely to take notes when the
SL is their "B" ( foreign or acquired) language, but not when ii is their • A " (mother)
tongue. Because court interpreters must interpret bidirectionally (questions interpreted
from English to the witness' language, answers interpreted from that language into Eng-
lish) , this issue is less relevant to their work. As for the language in which notes are taken,
there is disagreement among experts. Altbough almost all of tbem recommend tbat the
notes be as alingual as possible, they recognize that key words are a major feature of in-
terpreters' notes. In fact, Albl -Mikasa (2008) reports that interpreters' notes adhere much
more closely to the linguistic form of the source message than previous experts had the-
orized. Whereas some advocate taking notes in the TL, others contend that it should be
done in the SL (for an extensive discussion of the issue, see Dam, 2004). Empirical stud-
ies have found that interpreters actually tend to mix languages in their notes, but recent
research suggests that the issue is not SL versus TL, but rather A language versus B lan-
guage. Dam (2004) found that interpreters have a strong preference for taking notes in
their A language. Following up on Dam's work, Szab6 (2006) posits that the choice of
language may depend on the languages in the interpreter's combination rather than SL
versus TL or A versus B language; she also notes that many interpreters tend to use a lot
of English in their notes even when English is not one of the languages they are inter-
preting, possibly because English is more efficient than other languages and because most
notetaking instructional materials are written in English. Although court interpreters do
not rely exclusively oo notctakiog to help them recall the SL message, they do use notes
extensively in certain situations. A great deal could be learned by conducting research on
the factors that emer into the interpreter's decision as to whether or not to take notes,
and which language(s) to use when taking notes.

2.4.5 Principles of Notetaking for Court Interpreting

The following general principles, based on the applicable features of the Rozan ( 1956)
method and the specific demands of the judicial setting, can serve as a guide for notetakiog
by the court interpreter.
(a) Take only the notes you need. The majority of the questions and answers in typ-
ical witness testimony are short, and the interpreter may not need to take notes
at all. If a short answer contains an address, interpreters may write down ju_~t
an abbreviation of the address and nothing more. As interpreters gain experience,
they will be able to gauge their memory capacity and will know how many notes
they need to take, if any. Once interpreters decide to take notes, they should
choose what to write judiciously, writing only words or symbols that will help
them to remember the message.
(b) Abbreviate, writing only what is meaningful to you. If the answer contains a de-
scription, such as " he had black hair, brown eyes, and a thick beard," the inter-
preter might take the following notes:

Figure 35.4. U~ of Abbreviation for Eyewitness Description

Blh
Brey
Thk brd
 886 35 · CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION

Abbreviations are very personalized and arc based on the interpreter's own experience. If
the interpreter has an extensive medical background, for example, "stat" may be used to
mean "immediately, right a\Vay, quickly." whereas another interpreter would have to write
more. lf"def" is what the interpreter always uses 10 signify the defendant, those three let-
ters are sufficient, but if the interpreter does not often use that abbreviation and fears she
might confuse it with "definite" or "defer" or another similar word. the interpreter needs
to use more leners of the word (e.g., "dfndt"). It is risky to invent ad hoc abbreviations
or symbols that will mean nothing five minutes after they are written. The selection of sym-
bols and abbreviations must be rigorously practiced. Once the interpreter has made a ju-
dicious choice of what to write down, abbreviation should be used as much as possible.
(c) Use pictures, diagrams, and relative position on the page. Some testimony lends
itself to a graphic depiction, while other testimony may be more word-oriented.
If the witness gives an answer that can be easily visualized, the interpreter may
choose to draw a picture rather than noting down words. For the descriptive an-
swer given above, the interpreter might draw the picture presented in Figure
35.5.

]
- Figure 35.5. Graphic Depiction of Eyewitness Dcscriplion

Notetaking is just one strategy that allows the interpreter to use the consecutive mode to its
fullest potential. The following strategies permit the interpreter to exert considerable con-
trol over the situation without inhibiting the people who are trying to communicate.

2.5 Situational Control

The rigorous accuracy requirements of interpreted testimony limit the interpreter's ca-
pacity to retain all of the content of lengthy utterances, even with the mnemonic and note-
taking techniques described above. Many interpreters respond to the situation by controlling
the lllrn-talcing, that is, by intervening to interpret in shorter phrases. In limited siruations,
and only rarely, it may be wise to exert control over a speaker. The competent interpreter
strives to be as unobtrusive as possible in the course of proceedings, but even the most prac-
ticed interpreter may have an occasional need to interrupt testimony, ask for repetition, or
use gestures or physical proximity to slow speech. O"eruse of these techniques, however, may
indicate a need to work on the major or subskills of interpreting. Because nonverbal, visual
cues (facial expressions, gestures, and the like) are just as important as verbal cues in the
perception of messages, it is important for the interpreter to sit next to the witness, or to
 35 · CONSECUTIVE 11\'TERPRETATION 887

stand ne>."t to the defendant when the latter is being addressed by the judge, and be able 10
see the defendant's entire body (for a discussion of the lack of visual cues in remote inter-
preting, see Chapter 43) . Since it is also in1portant for other parties in the courtroom to be
able to see the witness, interpreters should position themselves in such a way that they do
not block anyone's view, particularly the jury's. Proper positioning is extremely important
in Cl and can forestall a situational control problem. For further discussion of the issue of
the interpreter's position in the courtroom, see Units 7 and 8.
If for some reason interpreters feel they are unable to pro,•ide a precise interpretation
(if they fail to hear a word or phrase, if the witness uses an w1familiar term, or if they for-
get part of the answer}, they must inform the court and request pertnission to inquire fur-
ther. Under no circumstances should they bluff, gloss over the problem word, or try to
guess at the answer. Although the option of asking for a repetition of the answer is always
available to interpreters, they should bear in mind that the witness is not likely to say ex-
actly the same thing the second time around. Parts of the original answer may vanish
without a trace. Moreover, by asking for a repetition of the answer, interpreters may in-
advertently in0uence the witness' testimony by causing the person to think something
was wrong with the original statement. Increasing use of recording proceedings may be
helpful to tl1e interpreter in this regard.
If the interpreter has missed only part of an answer, it is preferable to interpret the
part the interpreter recalls before stopping and asking for a repetition or clarification.
Thus, the interpreter might say, "I was walking down the street when suddenly I saw ...
Your Honor, the interpreter needs to have the last part of the answer repeated," or "Your
Honor, the witness has used a term the interpreter is not familiar with." That way, at least
the first part of the answer is in the record and the interpreter can eliminate it from the
STM and concentrate on the remainder of the answer. On the other hand, if the prob-
lem lies at the beginning of the witness' response, or if the entire interpretation hinges on
the meaning of the unknown term, then the interpreter must inform the cow-. of the sit-
uation before interpreting any of the answer. Because asking for a repetition or definition
of terms can cause these additional problems, it must be emphasized again that inter-
preters should develop their memory capacity and their vocabulary so that they need re-
sort to this expedient only on rare occasions.
Interrupting the witness for the purpose of controlling the interpreting situation is a
controversial issue that merits discussion here. The length of the utterance the interpreter
must remember varies from a simple "yes" or "no" response to a rambling, disjointed an-
swer from a witness or a long, complex question from an attorney. A competent interpreter
is able to process and interpret 4-0 10 60 words of question-and-answer testimony without
having to interrupt the speaker. In fact, the Federal Court Interpreter Certification Pro-
gram regards this ability as a minimal performance standard in Cl (see Chapter 46).
In the past, it bas been standard practice for interpreters to interrupt the speaker in order
to break up the speech into smaller segments. Administrative Order No. 85-002 (Supe-
rior Court in Maricopa Cowity, 1985), for example, lists the following among its stan-
dards of conduct:
In interpreting in the consecutfre mode, the interpreter may need to interrupt
the discourse of the witness periodically to interpret or to review his notes. 1bese
interruptions should only create a pause during the witness' testimony and will
not delete or stop parts of that testimony. The interpreter may arrange a system
of signals with the witness before taking the stand, so as to facilitate this process.
(Section vii.8)
 888 35 · CONSECUTIVE 11'.'TEIU'RETATION

Similarly, the San Diego Municipal Court's General Information and Guidelines for Court-
room Interpreters (1983) states that when it is obvious that an answer is too long and
complex for the interpreter to render it fully in the TL, "the interpreter must interrupt
the witness and break up his narrative into segments not greater than the interpreter's re-
call will allow for accurate translation. The essence or gist of a statement is not enough"
(p. 7).
This practice has been abused, however, and, because of this tendency, should be
avoided. Because no limitations have been imposed with respect to the interruption of
witnesses, some interpreters have developed a habit of cutting off the witness at every
turn, relying on this technique to compensate for a deficient memory. These inter-
preters use band signals to indicate when the witness should stop, and some even go to
the extreme of placing their hand near the witness' mouth . When they have finished
the interpretation of a segment of testimony, they use a bc-ckoning gesture to signal the
witness to continue. The result is a fragmented, staccato rendition that does not allow
the actors in the courtroom to assess the witness' testimony adequately.
Thus, although some guidelines sanction the practice of interrupting the witness,
it is not universally accepted. A standard principle of trial procedure is that the ex-
amining attorney is in charge of the examination process; even judges are reluctant to
interfere with this vital means of presenting evidence. Generally speaking, examining
attorneys try to maintain control over the testimony by discouraging witnesses from
entering into long narratives. When an English-speaking witness does begin a naTTa-
tive, the attorney may object and ask that the answer be stricken from the record .
When the actors in the courtroom must wait for the interpretation, however, they do
not have that ability to control the witness. Attorneys and judges should explain to
witnesses to be ,nindful of the fact that the amount of information an interpreter can
store has its limits.
Faced with extremely Jong utterances by witnesses and attorneys, the interpreter
therefore has two options: (I) attempt to interpret it consecutively, relying on memory

,.11
and notetaking, and run the risk of losing some of the paralinguistic elements of the
answer or (2) interrupt the witness and interpret the answer in smaller segments. The
interpreter has an obligation to conserve every aspect of the witness' answer, and should
make ever y effort to avoid summarizing. The second option, interrupting the witness,
should be regarded by the interpreter as a last resort.
A number of important factors must be taken into consideration by the interpreter
when deciding whether it is appropriate to inteTTupt the speaker. The primary consid-
eration, of course, is conservation of meaning. If, and only if, the SL message is so
lengthy and complicated that the interpreter is unable to convey every element of mean-
ing, even using notes, it is better to interrupt the speaker than to risk an incomplete in-
terpretation. On the other hand, interpreters must bear in mind that they have an
obligation to ensure that the communication process is as close as possible to that which
would occur if there were no language barriers. Interrupting an attorney who is care-
fully formulating a question to elicit specific testimony, or a witness who is trying to give
a precise and complete answer to a question, is disruptive and adds another complica-
tion that would not be present if the speakers all understood the same language. Wit-
nesses may find it intimidating to be interrupted in the middle of testimony and may
say less than they otherwise would. Moreover, as Erickson, Lind, Johnson, and O'Barr
(1978); O'Barr (1982); Berk-Seligson (2002a); and Hale (2004) have made evident in
their research, the speech style of the witness plays a fundamental role in the jury's
evaluation of that witness' credibility.
 35 · CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION 889

Thu$. it is clear that interrupting witnesses or attorneys entails the risk of adversely af-
fecting the communication process. Court interpreters must make every effort to develop
their listening. notetaking, and memory skills sufficiently so that they will rarely have to
interrupt attorneys or witnesses. Sometimes, however, interruptions are unavoidable, as
attested by the sll!Vey of federally certified interpreters mentioned earlier in this chapter
(Mikkelson et al., 1989). While only 3% of the interpreters stated that they interrupt a
speaker at "every interpreting event;' 16% reported that they do so "often," and 49% indi-
cated that they interrupt witnesses or attorneys "sometimes." Twenty-four percent of the
interpreters reported interrupting the speaker "rarely," and 9% said they"never" interrupt.
When interpreters fed compelled to interrupt the speaker in order to ensure an accu-
rate interpretation, they must do so with the least possible disruption of the flow of com-
munication. First of all, interpreters must choose the right moment to intervene: If
witnesses or attorneys arc interrupted before having a chance to complete their thought,
the interpretation may be misleading because subsequent word.~ might alter the meaning
of the message. Moreover, witnesses may lose their train of thought and be unable to
complete the answer. And there is always the danger that an attorney will begin a follow-
up question immediately after the interpretation, not realizing that the answer was not
completed. On the other hand, if interpreters allow the witness to go on too long before
intervening. they will be unable to give an accurate and complete interpretation. There-
fore, it is important for interpreters to know the limits of their memory capacity and
choose the appropriate point to interrupt before they have reached that limit. This tech-
nique is one that requires much practice and experience.
Mason (2008) conducted a study of tum length and interpreter-induced errors in court
testimony, and she found that the error rate increased commensurately with the length
of the utterances. Errors were defined as either additions or omissions of linguistic con-
tent. Mason reports that interpreters tend to omit more content than they add, and the
errors primarily involve "linguistic markers that assign tone and style to the original, such
as speech disfluencies and discourse markers" (p. 34). She also cites a study by Linell,
Wadensjo, aod Jonsson (l 992) that indicated "cognitive factors prompted interpreters to
often condense the source language discourse by omitting linguistic variables, such as
hesitations and discourse markers" (p. 35). The implications of these findings are obvi-
ously quite significant for adversarial court proceedings. In light of the work of Erick-
son, et al (1978), O'Barr (1982), Berk-Seligson (2002a), and Hale (2004), and as a result
of her own research, Mason ( 2008) advocates the use of "semiconsecutive interpreting"
rather than interruptions as a means of coping with the cognitive overload produced by
long utterances. In semiconsecutive interpreting, the speaker segments the utterances,
rather than allowing the interpreter to choose when 10 begin interpreting. The advan-
tage of this approach is that the pauses come at logical junctures and create shorter turn
lengths, lessening the likelihood that the interpreter will omit information or distort the
message. The disadvantage, of course, is that the interpreter must rely on the speaker to
cooperate by pausing frequently for the interpretation. It is worth pointing out that even
conference interpreters, who traditionally interpreted speeches as long as 20-30 minutes
(Bowen & Bowen, 1980) , are now more likely to interpret io shorter segments as well.
Agrifoglio (2004) reports that 3-4 minutes is typical It may be that the faster pace of
today's world is affecting audiences' tolerance for long utterances in languages they do
not understand.
lnterprNcrs mu.st adapt to each new person for whom they interpret. If they establish
a rapport with the witness, the two can develop a rh)'thm of turn-taking t11at will en-
courage the use of se1niconsccutive interpreting and ensure a smooth flow of the com-
munication. When all of the actors in the courtroom are aware that the interpreter must
890 35 · CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION

occasionally intervene in order to ensure an accurate interpretation, there is less likeli-

hood that the witness will alter his or her testimony or that the jury will be misled in
evaluating the ,vimess' credibility. If the witness is articulate and the testimony logical, the
interpreter may not have to intervene at all, even for lengthy answers, because meaning-
ful information can be retained more easily. On the other hand, if the witness pauses fre-
quently in mid-thought, makes many self-corrections, and gives rambling, illogical answers,
the interpreter will have to intervene more frequently to maintain accuracy. In addition,
if interpreters are familiar with the subject maner ( for example, if a witness is describing
the operation of a machine and the interpreter has seen that machine in use), they can
retain more information in memory and provide a more accurate interpretation.

3. Exercises for Improving Skills

Since CI involves the same public speaking and analytical aspects that other modes of
interpretation require, these skills can be improved by doing the same exercises explained
in the following chapter on sight translation. This section focuses on exercises that will
help you develop your listening and memory skills.

3.1 Exercises to Enhance Listening/Attending Skills

(I) To increase your awareness of nonverbal cues, observe conversations you cannot
hear (e.g., across a crowded room, outside your ,vindow, or on the television with the
volume turned down). Pay attention to the individuals' facial expressions, eye gaze, pos-
ture, and gestures, as well as the distance they maintain from each other, and try to guess
what the conversation is about. Do this exercise in all your working languages, if possi-
ble, and compare the differences.
(2) Another way to observe nonverbal cues is to listen to someone on the telephone (or
in another situation in which you cannot see the person you are hearing) and to analyze
the voice tone, volume, pitch, and noises such as tongue clicking and sighing, compar-
ing them ,vith the content of the message. Again, try to do this exercise in all your work-
ing languages and compare the difference.
(3) Go to a store with a friend, and ask the clerk about an item on the shelf or rack.
Five minutes later, tty to repeat to your friend exactly what the clerk said.
( 4) When you are conversing with others, frequently ask, "What do you mean by that
term?" to determine what other people mean when they talk and how they use words dif-
ferently from you.
(5) Ask someone to give you directions to a place you know how to get to. Then ask
someone to direct you to a place you could not find yourself. Compare what goes on in
your mind in the two cases. Do you jump ahead or lose your train of thought?
(6) Analyze your listening errors. The next rime you have a conversation with some-
one and miss part of what the person said, immediately analyze what went wrong. Were
you daydreaming? Still handling something said earlier? Distracted by an unfantiliar or
emotion-laden word? Was there physical interference?
 35 · CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION 891

(7) While listening to a speech or lecture, make an early evaluation of the speaker's
intent or point, the solution being proposed, or the conclusion the person will reacl1.
Make another evaluation at the end of the speech. How did yout two assessments differ?
(8) Pay special attention to "linkage words" that determine the relationships of ideas
(such as "therefore:'• however," "unless"). Make a list of such words, and listen to how
they are used. Do this in all your working languages.

3.2 Memory-Building Exercises

(I) Pay attention to how your memory works. Are you a visualizer, a verbaliur, nei-
ther, or both? When you forget something you heard, try to analyze the type of interfer-
ence that prevented you from storing or retrieving the information.
(2) To enhance your retention, have someone read a series of numbers (remember
that the $TM capacity may be limited to five to nine chunks, and how many numbers
yuu will be able to recall depends on whether you can find patterns in them and organize
them into chwtks). As soon as you are able to give back seven numbers correctly, try the
same exercise but say the numbers backward. You need to be capable of retaining the en-
tire series of seven numbers in your $TM in order to say them backward.
(3) To increase your analytical skills, read a newspaper or magazine and stop after
each story; try to summarize the contents in one sentence. Do this in all your working
languages.
( 4) Repeat this exercise with oral input. (News magazine shows on television and talk
shows o n radio are good sources, all available through the lntemeL) During a commer-
cial break, summarize the main idea in one sentence.
(5) Have someone record passages of newspaper or magazine articles for you to work
with in the exercises listed below ( in all your working languages). Try to choose texts
about general subjects, without too much technical terminology or statistics. Alterna-
tively, record radio and television talk shows or interview programs (choose programs in
which the speakers are talking extemporaneously, not reading from a prepared script).
In these exercises, you ,viii not be translating, merely repeating the information in the
same language. Gradually increase the length of the passages as you become more adept
at the exercises:
(a) Listen to the passage without taking any notes, and try to repeat as much infor-
mation as possible.
(b) Listen to the passage and take down "key words" that will help )'OU rememberthe
content. Then try to repeat as much information as possible. Compare the re-
sults you obtained by taking notes to those you <>btained without any notes. This
will give you an indication as to whether you need to take notes in the inter-
preting setting.
(c) Listen to the passage and try to repeat it verbatim (notetaking optional).
(d) As )'OU listen to the passage, try to condense the information into a few mean-
ingful units, bearing in mind your STM capacity for information. For example,
if someone lists a series of jobs that have been held, )'OU can group the jobs by
location, type of product, and so forth. A string of numbers can be lumped into
manageable chunks (e.g., people tend to state their Social Security numbers in
groups such as 348, 26, 980 I instead of 34826980 I). If the speaker lists all the
parts of the body where there is pain, }'OU can rearrange them in logical order
 892 35 · CONSECUTIVE INTERPRE'tATION

from head to toe. Note, however, that when interpreting actual testimony, the
order of the speaker's words should not be changed except as required by the
syntaX of the TL
(e) If the subject matter of the text isa controversial one about which you have a strong
opinion, pay attention to your reaction while listening. Make sure your rendi-
tion reflects the opinion of the speaker, not your own.
(6) Obtain transcripts of question-and-answer testimony and perform text analysis
and chunking exercises, as described in Chapter 36. Then, perform the prediction exer-
cises described in Chapter 34. Finally, try to recall the questions and answers verbatim.
(7) Repeal the above exercises, but now in1erpre1 beiween your working languages as
you do so.
Note that improving your listening/attending and memory skills is an ongoing en-
deavor, which you can continue to refine with time and experience.