KEY MODELS OF BILATERAL INTERPRETING AND NOTE-TAKING: COGNITIVE, FUNCTIONAL, AND PEDAGOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
Abstract
The article explores the cognitive and functional mechanisms underlying bilateral interpreting, focusing on the integration of note-taking strategies within a unified theoretical and pedagogical framework. Drawing on D. Gile’s Effort Model and his hypotheses of Tightrope, Linguistic Envelope, and Gravitational Pull, the study conceptualizes interpreting as a process of continuous effort coordination, where listening, memory, and production interact dynamically under cognitive constraints. Complementing this, D. Seleskovitch and M. Lederer’s Theory of Sense elucidates the phases of comprehension, deverbalization, and reformulation, emphasizing that interpreting aims to communicate meaning rather than reproduce linguistic form. J.-F. Rozan’s principles of note-taking are revisited as a system of symbolic externalization that visually represents sense and reduces cognitive load. The model is further enriched by B. Moser-Mercer’s research on automaticity, A. Seeber and Š. Timarová’s findings on executive control, and E.-A. Gutt’s relevance-theoretic approach, which accounts for pragmatic adaptation and communicative inference. Through the synthesis of these models, the research proposes an Integrated Cognitive-Functional Model of Bilateral Interpreting (ICFMBI), in which interpreting is understood as a multimodal process linking cognitive, linguistic, and semiotic operations. The model identifies note-taking as a visual bridge between comprehension and production, enabling interpreters to externalize mental representations, resist source-language interference, and achieve communicative adequacy. By incorporating psycholinguistic, neuropedagogical, and sociocultural perspectives, the study provides an updated conceptual basis for interpreter education, demonstrating how cognitive awareness, emotional regulation, and functional reasoning jointly contribute to expert performance. The findings advance interpreting theory by redefining competence as an integrated system of attention management, symbolic mediation, and pragmatic flexibility. Pedagogically, it offers a framework for designing exercises that strengthen automaticity, note-taking coherence, and sense-based reformulation. The article concludes by outlining directions for empirical validation of the ICFMBI model through experimental and corpus-based research, emphasizing its potential to inform curriculum innovation and enhance professional standards in interpreter training worldwide.
References
2. Gerver D. Empirical studies of the simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. NY: Plenum Press, 1976. 142 p.
3. Giles D. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training: Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2009. 252 p.
4. Gutt E.-A. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. 2nd ed. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2000. 284 p.
5. Moser-Mercer B. Process models in simultaneous interpretation. Machine Translation and Translation Theory / editors: Hauenschild Ch., Heizmann S. Berlin, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997. P. 148–161.
6. Nord C. Translating As a Purposeful Activity. 2nd ed.: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Taylor & Francis Group, 2018. 154 p.
7. Onyshchak H., Koval L., Vazhenina O., Bakhov I., Povoroznyuk R., Devitska A. Cognitive and Neurolinguistic Aspects of Interpreting. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience. 2021. Vol. 12, No 4. P. 224–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18662/brain/12.4/246
8. Onyshchak H., Liutko N., Yarova A., Povoroznyuk R., Kolоmiiets I., Gontsa I. Pragmatic Competence in Political Discourse Interpreting. Revista Romaneasca Pentru Educatie Multidimensionala. 2023. Vol. 15, No 3. P. 376–399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/15.3/772
9. Pöchhacker F. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London, NY: Routledge, 2004. 252 p.
10. Povoroznyuk R., Pocheniuk I., Gaidash A., Rybakova K., Ostropalchenko Y., Saifutdinova O. Neuropedagogical Guidelines for TranslationStudies: Perceiving the Linguistic-Cultural Markers of the Other (Foreign) in Translation. Revista Romaneasca Pentru Educatie Multidimensionala. 2024. Vol. 16, No 4. P. 185–209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/16.4/912
11. Rozan J.-F. Note-taking in Consecutive Interpreting. Washington, D.C.: The U.S. Office of Interpreter Services, 1959. 47 p.
12. Seeber A. Cognitive modeling of simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based study: Ph.D. diss., University of Geneva. Geneva, 2011. 271 p.
13. Seleskovitch D., Lederer M. Interpréter pour traduire. Paris: Didier Érudition, 1984. 311 p.
14. Timarová Š. Cognitive effort management in simultaneous interpreting: Ph.D. diss., University of Geneva. Geneva, 2011. 201 p.
15. Wadensjö C. Interpreting as Interaction. London, NY: Routledge, 1998. 334 p.
ISSN 


.png)



