The aim of this research paper is to examine semantic compression in note-taking during consecutive interpreting by focusing on how compressed notes may underrepresent modality, evaluative stance, and pragmatic mitigation in English–Uzbek diplomatic discourse. The study treats notes as semantic cues rather than a transcript by building on cognitive and pedagogical descriptions of consecutive interpreting as a two‑phase process (listening + written fixation–target-language reformulation). Using a small, transparent corpus of official bilingual diplomatic texts (English and Uzbek versions published by official Uzbek state platforms), the analysis compares minimal “proposition-only” notes with “semantic‑cue‑enriched” notes that explicitly encode modality or stance. Findings show that the main risk of compression is not loss of factual content, but shifts in diplomatic tone, especially when hedges (e.g., it should be noted, would be appropriate), deontic modality (should), and stance markers (certainly, concern) are not represented in the notes. The paper proposes a language‑oriented semantic‑cue layer for note-taking that preserves diplomatic pragmatics while remaining compatible with compression principles.

consecutive interpreting, note‑taking, semantic compression, interpreting steganography

A) Academic sources actually used

ArumíRibas, M. (2012).Problems and Strategies in Consecutive Interpreting: A Pilot Study at Two Different Stages of Interpreter Training.Meta, 57(3), 812–835.

Language choice in notes (SL/TL mix; “third language”; A/B language effect) Dam, H. V. (2004).Interpreters’ notes: On the choice of form and language.Interpreting, 6(1), 3–17.

Kohn, K., &Albl‑Mikasa, M. (2002).Note‑taking in consecutive interpreting: On the reconstruction of an individualised language.LinguisticaAntverpiensia, NewSeries – ThemesinTranslationStudies, 1, 257–272.

Hanusiak, D. (2021).The Choice of Language for Note‑taking for the Purposes of Consecutive Interpreting: An English‑Polish Case Study.MiędzyOryginałem a Przekładem, 27(4(54)), 51–61.

Gile, D. (1999).Testing the Effort Models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting: A contribution.Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 23, 153–172. Pages used:p. 154 (Effort Models framing: interpreting operates near limits of available processing capacity; efforts split conceptually).

B) Russian&Uzbeksemantographysources

Аликина, Е. В. (2012).Переводческая семантография в последовательном переводе: проблема выбора языка записи.Филологические науки. Вопросы теории и практики, №7(18), Ч. II, 22–24.

Nurmatova, D. Sh. q. (2023).Ketma‑kettarjimadanutqniqaydetishdatarjimasematografiyasiningahamiyati.EducationalResearchinUniversalSciences, 2 (SpecialIssue 4), 159–161.

Безус, Н. С. (2023).Введение элементов переводческой семантографии на начальном этапе профессиональной подготовки переводчиков.Вестник Самарского университета. История, педагогика, филология, 29(4), 25–31.

C) Core classic manual excerpt

Rozan, J.‑F. (1956).Note‑taking in Consecutive Interpreting. (Excerpt PDF: “The Seven Principles”).

D) Diplomatic bilingual data sources used

Official website of the President of Uzbekistan – Speech at the 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council (dated 22.02.2021).

Uzbekistan MFA / Embassy site (Spain) – Presidential speech text in the Organization of Turkic States context (dated 11.11.2022, bilingual EN/UZ available via language switch).