Preparation

Subject to some remarks which will be made below, the taking of notes is a technique quite independent from the process of translation. It is highly advisable to separate the two problems in the course of training and to practice taking notes apart from any linguistic preoccupations. When you can listen to a speech, a lecture or a sermon, and take such notes as will enable you to repeat it afterwards in the original language, accurately, fully, and with good grammar and elocution, you fulfill one of the essential and most difficult conditions which are required of the interpreter.

The following exercise will enable the aspirant to improve his system of notes and to check how far he has traveled on the road to something satisfactory:

a) Get somebody to read aloud to him, at normal speaking speed, two or three pages from a book;

b) Take the best notes he can;

c) Then write out the text in full in the original language, with the exclusive help of the notes taken;

d) Compare with the original;

e) Find out the reasons for every one of the omissions and errors;

f) Bring into his system of- notes whatever improvements may have appeared desirable.

During lessons or examinations, many teachers relish the satisfaction of showering upon the unfortunate student, at record speed, a long list of the mistakes which he made in the course of interpretation. This may be a source of pride for the one who does it, but it is of no use whatsoever to the student and can only result in giving him a most destructive inferiority complex. In this field, good pedagogy requires that a mistake should never be pointed out unless the student is given ample time to note it with sufficient detail and precision to find out later what caused it, more particularly in his notes. And the conscientious teacher should require the pupil to give him later an explanation of the causes he has discovered, and of the remedies he is contemplating.

One practical example. Let us suppose that the delegate from Pakistan says: “Some time ago, the representative of Brazil expressed regret that the Commission should not have referred the matter to a Drafting Committee”.

The interpreter should normally have symbols or abbreviations for the names of important countries and also for words of very frequent use such as Commission, Drafting Committee, question (or matter), delegate (or representative). Let us suppose that in this case they should be BR (the symbol which you see on the identification plate of Brazilian cars) for Brazil, K for Commission, (?) for question, Dc for Drafting committee, and Δ for delegate. The notes would then become: “Some time ago the Δ of BR expressed regret that the K should not have referred the (?) to a Dc ”.

The idea of sending or referring may easily be noted by an arrow →, and the negation which qualifies it in this case by an oblique line across the arrow. So that “Should not have referred” could be written ↛. On the other hand, it is likely that the interpreter will know and remember when the statement referred to by the delegate of Brazil was made, so that it is unnecessary to write “some time ago”. Finally, the idea of expressing regret may easily be noted by a symbol meaning “to agree, to accept, etc.”, which would be crossed by the oblique negative line. If for instance, the symbol is OK, the idea “expressed regret” could be written OK. So that the sentence could be further abbreviated:

The Δ of BR OK that the K ↛ the (?) to a Dc.

The small words: the, of, that the, the, to a, can of course be omitted. And it may be supposed that the interpreter will remember that the regret was expressed by the representative of Brazil and not, say, by his government, so that the symbol for “representative” may also be left out. We now have:

BR OK K ↛ (?) Dc.

Three further improvements are still possible. First, the interpreter can be trusted to remember that what was not referred was the question, and the symbol for it may therefore be dropped. Secondly, he may not need to note that the action could he, but was not, taken by the Commission, and not by anybody else; so that the K can also be dropped. Thirdly, it will help him, when reading his notes, if he has separated the person who was quoted as having expressed an opinion, and the opinion itself, which may be done by:. We therefore now have the following notes, which it is better to write in the middle of a line since they probably express the whole of one idea:

BR: OK ↛ Dc.

Repetitions:

If a speaker keeps repeating himself, it often only shows that he is a bad speaker. He may not have brought sufficient order into his speech, or he may fail to express satisfactorily one idea at the first shot, and for that reason take it up again once or twice to express it more clearly and with greater precision. In such a case, the interpreter must leave out all repetitions and give the idea only once, at the most appropriate place, in whatever form expresses it best and is likely to prove most satisfying to the original speaker.

But it also happens that speakers resort to repetition as an oratorical device, either to carry conviction or for some other reason, and would naturally not wish the interpreter to deprive their speech of that ornament. The interpreter should then, of course, do as requested, unless he has received from the Powers that Be formal instructions to the contrary – however irritating the process may prove to part of the audience.

One special case of repetition is that in which the speaker corrects himself. If he has said: “I wish to move an amendment to section 14”, and later on says: “I am sorry, I made a mistake. It has been pointed out to me that my amendment is not to section 14, but to section 15”, the interpreter should of course translate the first sentence: “I wish to move an amendment to section 15” and omit the later statement. The same applies if the speaker, referring to something he said previously, adds: “About... I had forgotten one detail...” In this case, the “detail” should naturally, in the interpreter’s speech, get back into its rightful place.

But there are also cases which are not quite so clear, and where it may be very risky to take such an initiative. It occasionally happens that the speaker wanted to try something on the audience, or to make an effect by developing an idea gradually. It may also happen that certain things which he said later are in direct relation to the erroneous statement which he had made and later corrected, and that they would be totally unintelligible without that erroneous statement. In the absence of definite instructions from either the chairman or the speaker, the interpreter can only guess and trust to luck.