ALBL-MIKASA M. (2008): (Non-)Sense in note-taking for consecutive interpreting, “Interpreting”, 10/2: 197–231.
ALEXIEVA B. (1994): On teaching note-taking in consecutive interpreting, in DOLLERUP C., LINDEGAARD A. (eds.), Teaching translation and interpretation 2. Insights, aims and visions, John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: 199–206.
ALLIONI S. (1989): Towards a grammar of consecutive interpretation, in: GRAN L., DODDS J. (eds.), The theoretical and practical aspects of teaching conference interpretation, Campanotto, Udine: 191–197.
BÜHLER H. (1986): Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters, “Multilingua”, 5/4: 231–235.
CARDOEN H. (2013): The effect of note-taking on target-text fluency, in GONZÁLEZ G., KHALED Y., VOINOVA T. (eds.), Emerging Research in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Summer School 2012, CETRA, Leuven. < https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/files/cardoen> [last access: 10.10.21].
CHMIEL A. (2007): Focusing on sense or developing interlingual lexical links? Verbal fluency development in interpreting trainees, in SCHMITT P., JÜNGST H. (eds.), Translationsqualität, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main: 66–78.
DAM H. (1998): Lexical similarity vs lexical dissimilarity in consecutive interpreting: A product- orientated study of form-based vs meaning-based interpreting, in PÖCHHACKER F., SHLESINGER M. (eds.), The interpreting studies reader, Routledge, London/New York: 266–277.
ID. (2001): On the option between form-based and meaning-based interpreting: The effect of source text difficulty on lexical target text form in simultaneous interpreting, “The Interpreters’ Newsletter”, 11: 27–55.
DEJEAN LE FÉAL K. (1998): Non nova, sed nove, “The Interpreters’ Newsletter”, 8: 41–51.
DIRIKER E. (2008): Exploring conference interpreting as a social practice: An area for intra- disciplinary cooperation, in PYM A., SHLESINGER M., SIMEONI D. (eds.), Beyond descriptive translation studies. Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: 209–220.
DONATO V. (2003): Strategies adopted by student interpreters in SI: A comparison between the English-Italian and the German-Italian language-pairs, “The Interpreters’ Newsletter”, 12: 101–132.
FUSCO M. (1990): Quality in conference interpreting between cognate languages: A preliminary approach to the Spanish-Italian case, “The Interpreters’ Newsletter”, 3: 93–7.
GILE D. (2003): Justifying the deverbalization approach in the interpreting and translation classroom, “Forum”, 1/2: 47–63.
ILG G., LAMBERT S. (1996): Teaching Consecutive Interpreting, “Interpreting”, 1/1: 69–99.
KOHN K., ALBL-MIKASA, M. (2002): Note-taking in consecutive interpreting. On the reconstruction of an individualised language, “Linguistica Antverpiensa”, 1: 259–272.
LAMBERGER-FELBER H. (2001): Text-oriented research into interpreting. Examples from a case- study, “Hermes”, 26: 39–64.
LEDERER M. (2010): Interpretive Approach, in GAMBIER Y., VAN DOORSLAER L. (eds.), Handbook of translation studies, Vol. 1, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam: 173–179.
LEE J. (2008): Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment, “The Interpreter and Translator Trainer”, 2/2: 165–184.
LIM H-O. (2006): A Post-mortem of note-taking, “Forum”, 4/2: 89–106.
LIU M., CHIU Y. (2009): Assessing source material difficulty for consecutive interpreting. Quantifiable measures and holistic judgment, “Interpreting”, 11/2: 244–266.
MAHMOODZADEH K. (1992): Consecutive interpreting: Its principles and techniques, in DOLLERUP C., LODDEGAARD A. (eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting. Training, talent and experience, John Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: 231–236.
MASSARO D., SCHLESINGER M. (1997): Information processing and a computational approach to the study of simultaneous interpretation, “Interpreting”, 2/1-2: 13–53.
PANETH E. (1984): Training in note-taking (for interpreting), in WILSS W., THOME G. (eds.), Die Theorie des Übersetzens und ihr Aufschlußwert für die Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschdidaktik, Gunter Narr, Tübingen: 326–332.
PRADAS MACÍAS E. (2007): La incidencia del parámetro fluidez, in COLLADOS AÍS A., EAD., STÉVAUX E., GARCÍA BECERRA O. (eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: Parámetros de incidencia, Comares, Granada: 53–70.
SELESKOVITCH D. (1975) : Langage, langues et mémoires. Etude de la prise de notes en interprétation Consécutive, Minard, Paris.
SETTON R. (2002): Seleskovitch: A radical pragmatist before her time, “The Translator”, 8/1: 117– 124.
TAYLOR C. (1997): Degree in conference interpreting/translation, “The Translator”, 3/2: 247–260.
WALKER I., HULME C. (1999): Concrete words are easier to recall than abstract words: Evidence for a semantic contribution to short-term serial recall, “Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition”, 25/5: 1256–1271.