CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1. Methodology

3.1.1. Context of the study and research design

The study emphasizes on difficulties interpreting trainees have to deal with while they
are consecutively rendering a speech. The research has been conducted on high-
quality class senior students of English Faculty, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam
who have attended an interpreting course which is exclusively designed for them by
DAV’s English Faculty. The course takes place once a week, each class lasts for
approximately 2,5 hours with English and Vietnamese being the main languages.
Each week, trainees will learn a new set of interpreting related skills instructed by
veteran interpreters or interchangeably guest experts from time to time. The lessons
are divided into two parts: theory session and practice session in class. Therefore,
students are not only equipped with theoretical knowledge of interpretation, but they
also accumulate first-hand experience by interpreting speeches from valid sources or
their instructors.

During the practicing part, trainees are required to do 2 consecutive interpreting

sessions in class and the original speeches are mostly in English and sometimes in
Vietnamese. Speeches have the same moderate length (of about 5 minutes) and spread
out through various topics. Trainees are not aware of the speeches’ content prior to
the class. All have to participate in taking notes of the speeches, then later some
reproduce under the guidance of instructors. The remaining trainees’ duty is to listen
to their counterparts’ performance and give their feedback afterwards. The instructors
assist the trainees by providing terminologies, explaining puzzling expressions and
ideas in the speeches and makeing comments to improve the trainees’ performance.

Obviously, note-taking is one of the main activities that trainees have to engage in
regularly. It is also a concern to trainees that how they can takeproduce a good note
and utilize it to producebenefit their an effective interpretationing. Investigating note-
taking difficulties is one way to help trainees achieve that more easily. A
questionnaire has been given out to the trainees to gather their opinions on their note-
taking strugglings. In addition, the writer carries out a small-scaled empirical test on a
randomly chosen group of her peers to compare their trainee’s notes and their oral
rendering, which stimulates interpreting activities in class. Due to the characteristics
 of class activities and time constraint, only English-Vietnamese interpreting is
examined in this study.

3.1.2.Subject of the study

The study has been carried out with the participation of 21 interpreter-trainees from
class TA43C, English Faculty, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam who are also the
writer’s peers. All 21 students attended the interpreting course took place in their 7th
semester from September to December 2019. All participants are of the same age (21
years old) and are in senior year of their undergraduate program.

Regarding the trainees’ command of English knowledge comprehension, they share

the same level proficiency level in English. Since these students are the only
undergraduates who have access to an interpreting training program in DAV and
because of the study’s aims, it makes them become the unique and fitting??? suitable
subjects of this study. Thus, their interest in English and profound insight of the
language further contribute to the writer’s decision to select them as subjects.

3.1.3. Data collection procedure

The data have been collected through a questionnaire and a test sample? interpreting
session.
An online survey is created to enableing the writer to get the survey results in one
space of time and also ensures a very high response rate. In the survey, there are a
clear introduction to the purpose and a simple indication instruction that help subjects
answer questions, therefore, no verbal explanation is needed. The sample
questionnaire is available in the Appendix at the end of this papere thesis. After the
survey is given to 21 students, the number of responsesreturned answers is 21. There
are 15 questions, some of which are multiple choices, some require only one and
several note-taking difficulties (provided by the writer) are listed in the form of scaled
items where the subjects choose only one point on a scale that best represents their
view on how those factors affect their interpreting performance. Thus, Ssome open
questions are also included to gather further constructive opinions of the subjects.

A testing interpreting session sample interpreting test??? is then carried out on 5 out
of 21 trainees. These 5 students are randomly chosen by the writer. Individually, they
receive a speech named “Perception of risk in the modern world” on Speech
Repository website without knowing the content of the speech before the test. The test
 requires them to take note of what they hear in the speech and then reproduce the
speech in Vietnamese. The trainees’ performance is recorded and so are their notes
from the session. All materials are collected and analyzed in the next chapterthen.

3.1.4. Data analysis procedure

Qualitative, descriptive and analytic approaches are applied to the study. For the
questionnaire, respondents choosing the same answer is arranged in a category. From
the synthesized data, each category will be presented with some possible explanations
and suggestions included. The notes are analyzed based on Rozan’s principles as
follows: main ideas, links, symbols and abbreviations and an additional element is
additionally, languages used in trainee’s notes.

As for the interpreting test, subjects’ notes will be shown in the study to the content of
each interpreting session and the performance of interpreter-trainees during the test.
This method helps the writer to establish the connection between note-taking and
trainees’ consecutive interpreting performance. As for each subject’s rendering part,
there is a list of criteria to evaluate their performance: length of rendition, amount of
delay, fluency, information sufficiency and accuracy.

3.2. Findings and discussion

The data accumulated from the questionnaire and trainees’ notes have been analyzed
to come up with the following results and findings. The study finds out the difficulties
of note-taking in consecutive interpreting process and the relationship between note-
taking comprehension and trainees’ consecutive interpreting performance.

3.2.1. Findings
The section below provides the information about the trainees’ acknowledgement on
note-taking difficulties and their strategies to tackle the problems. The notes from the
testing session sample test are showcased to evaluate and compare with each other as
well as the responses from the survey.

3.2.1.1. Interpreter-trainees’ acknowledgement of note-taking and note-taking

difficulties in consecutive interpreting
Note-taking in consecutive interpreting

In terms of the note-taking’s roles in consecutive interpreting, there are 5 questions

are included and their results are synthesized with the highest choice of each question
being written in bold as well as underlined to make a clear impression from the rest of
the data, so it is easier to observe.

The The
least most
1 2 3 4 5
Is note-taking the most important skill
0% 4,8% 23,8% 38,1% 33.3%
in consecutive interpreting (CI)?

How difficult is note-taking in the

4,8% 4,8% 33,3% 38,1% 19%
process of CI?

How often do you practice note-taking 19% 28,6% 23,8% 23,8% 4,8%
skill?
In your experience, how helpful is note-
0% 0% 9,5% 28,6% 61,9%
taking during the process of CI?

From the table, it can be seen that the majority of trainees agree and strongly agree
that note-taking is the most crucial skill in CI with 71,4% votes while the remaining
28,6% have an opposite idea of note-taking role in CI.

Significantly, 90% of respondents admits that note-taking is a challenging skill in CI,

spreading from it is somewhat difficult to very difficult. When comparingrelating this
result to the next question, it does light up one of many explanations why trainees
consider note-taking quite strugglings to them. The frequency novice spending time
practicing taking notes is not much in general. Although those do not take their time
to revise only take up 47,6%, but the overall frequency reaches its peak 28,6% at level
2 (seldomly practice). Combining Tthe percentages of those who often and usually
spend time practicing8 the skill (level 4 and 5) is 28.6% combined while those
responding that they seldomly practice account for the same figure do we get the
number of seldomly practice which is also at 28,6%. It is clearly that the sum trainees
do not practice that much (47,6%) is twofold twice as many asin number with those
do practice (28,6%) and somewhat practice (23,8%).

In the next question, responses recorded show thatNevertheless, it cannot be denied

that trainees are fond of the idea that note-taking does wonderful to assist interpreters.
Trainees are in favour of recognizing the help of note-taking comprising for over 90%
and the rest 9,5% accept that taking notes is beneficial to some extents. Surprisingly,
no one (0%) denies the benefit of note-taking to interpreting process. It can be
inferred that note-taking indeed plays an important role in the process of CI. The
following chart demonstrates its merits in further details.

How does note-taking help you in the

process of CI?
Relieve burden on short-term
17
memory

Visualize the outline of the original

19
speech

Improve concentration 7

Highlight important ideas 14

0 5 10 15 20

This is a multiple choice question so participants can select more than one answer. It
appears that the most popular advantage of note-taking to trainees is to aid them in
getting a general structure of the speech at with 19 votes. When the backbone of the
speech is noted down, there is no doubt that interpreters can somewhat guess
beforehand the speech’s content, which makes it easier for them to interpreting with
clear structure and smooth flow them to catch up with the pace of the speaker. Then
later, their rendered product is more likely to be well-perceived because of its
explicitness and faithfulness to the original.

The two runner-ups are Relieve burden on short-term memory (17 votes) and
Highlight important ideas (14 votes). They represent how notes come in handy when
interpreters have to tackle a pouring flood of information in the speech. Surprisingly,
only 7 out of 21 say note can “Improve concentration” which is only a third of the
total subjects’ population. These factors intertwine with each other so none is isolated
from the others. The fact that trainees have yet to recognize the concentration boost
element may due to their preference for the most obvious benefit of note-taking that is
to provide the outline of the speech.

As for the language and systems of symbols and abbreviations used in note-taking, 4
questions are presented in the survey, including: (1)….(2)…(3)…(4)….

Not Very
necess- necess-
ary ary
1 2 3 4 5
Is it necessary for interpreters to
come up with their own system 0% 4,8% 23,8% 38,1% 33.3%
of symbols, abbreviations, etc.?

Once again, slightly under two-thirds of the students (71,4%) much prefer the thought
that interpreting-trainees should create their own systems of shorthand. This It is quite
common to think this way because one tends to remember their rules rather than
follow those of others. This outcome shares compatibility with Lu (2013) that novice
should not copy from veterans’ system. Undoubtedly, trainees can neither duplicate
precedents’ works and call it their own nor reject them completely, what they are
advised to do is learning from them. But “Rome wasn’t built in a day”, in order to self
–fabricate the system, it can take the novice energy, time and dedication to bring
about a whole new set of shorthand design.

As far as the languages written in notes are concerned, the pie chart above depicts
trainees’ tendency in choosing which language to take note under the condition that
the original speech is in English. Both combine and flexible categories comprise
identically 33%. Whereas English comes in third place with 29% and Vietnamese
accounts for humbly 5%. It deems that there is a variety of choices when it comes to
languages used in note-taking since it is the interpreters’ decision to comfortably write
in their most proficient language. The high percentages of combine and flexible
categories mean that trainees are subconsciously or consciously aware of their
freedom to take notes and also they have such a sharp sense of languages to be able to
write two languages simultaneously under the pressure of time.

Furthermore, almost one-third of the subjects choose English as it is easier to write

down exactly what they can hear. The minority 5% notes in Vietnamese (TL) is in fact
quite common among professional interpreters. Bbecause taking notes in target
language can trigger the rendering process and later it is more convenient for the
production effort (Van Dam 2004, Jones 2002).

Being asked whether taking note and interpreting notes in mother-tongue language are
easier for the novice themselves, more than half responded that it does not make any
difference to them. It implies that the working efficiency does not rely utterly upon
the languages applied in note-taking. But it is worth mentioning that in both
questions, 33,3% of respondents express a predilection for the ease of working with
their mother-tongue as shown in the table below.

Not
Yes No
really
Is it easier for you to TAKE NOTE in your
33,3% 9,5% 57,1%
mother-tongue language?
Is it easier for you to INTERPRET notes
33,3% 9,5% 57,1%
written in your mother-tongue language?

Since the quality of the final notes and how notes are used in rendering effort
contribute far more significant the outcome to CI process than the language written in
notes itself, in the end, it is still up to interpreters’ decision to choose their desire
language to write down.

Note-taking difficulties
Mentioning difficulties in taking notes in CI, trainees are bound to encounter several
strugglings while learning as well as practicing the skill. Five (5)5 tables of data
synthesized from trainees’ opinion will demonstrate what note-taking difficulties
interpreting-trainees have to experience and their solutions to deal with them.

The bar chart above suggests some commonly used measures that interpreters choose
to tackle problems arising from writing down notes. WithBy most popular votes/To
be most chosen, it seems that trainees will generalise the information they cannot
write, followed by the option omit with 15 and 13 picks respectively. The gap
between two options depicts that a large number of novice leans towards to keep the
piece of information more than skip it. However, there is a less preference when it
comes to more complex solutions to restore the missing information: keep listening
and come back later earns 9 votes while using common sense and guess receives 6,
Notably, the least one is adding more information to later clarify later with only
accounting for one-fifth of total votes.

Subjective Objective
Both
causes causes
In your opinion, note-
taking difficulties happen 9,5% 9,5% 81%
due to
 ExaEExamining the reasons creating obstacle effectaffecting on trainee’s note-taking
skills, there are two main ones: subjective causes from within the interpreter and
objective causes that excludes the interpreter. The majority of answers (more than
80%) acknowledge note-taking strugglings exist because of factors sprouting both
inside and outside the interpreter. While judgements in favour of either one or another
share the same acquisition of 9,5%.

Yes No Equally
Do subjective causes outweigh objective
causes in terms of affecting note-taking 23,8% 9,5% 66,7%
effectiveness?

With regards to influencing factors on note-taking, more than 65% of subjects reckons
subjective causes and objective causes equally contribute to affect their taking notes
performance. Whereas, almost 25% of responses considers subjective causes
havedeliver stronger effects and the number of people stands with an opposite
opinionarguing that statement is only 9,5%.

Affect Somewhat Strongly

Not affect Affect
Subjective Causes affect affect
Lack of background knowledge 0 4 10 7
Cultural differences 1 6 8 6
Lack of vocabulary 0 3 4 14
Lack of listening skills 0 5 6 10
Slow hand-writing 1 9 5 6
Illegible hand-writing 5 10 3 3
Nervousness 6 3 6 6
The table above lists some subjective causes and how much they influence novice’s
notes in CI. In general, all of the subjective causes do affect trainees ranging from
minor to major. The biggest and most common strugglings experienced by trainees is
their inadequate vocabulary rangescope with 14/21 votes (66%). The second
strongest cause receiving half of the total respondents population is weak listening
techniques. Either lacking background knowledge or culture is being picked as falls
to/stands as the next influencing runner-ups at 10 and 8 respectively. The less affected
elements are related to hand-writing. Slow and illegible hand-writing are classified as
 slightly affecting factors with their highest choices at 9 and 10. Notably, nervousness
has a quite evenly spread out in each spectrum and averagely at 6 votes. It seems that
trainees feel their inexperience in handling terminologies, skills and cultural disparity
creates greater obstacles in note-taking in CI than their state of mind and hand-
writing.

Affect Somewhat Strongly

Not affect Affect
Objective Causes affect affect
Poor audio quality 0 2 12 7
Fast speakers 0 2 9 10
Speakers with a strong accent 0 2 9 10
Environment distractions 0 9 7 5
Heavy loads of information 0 4 10 7

Considering objective causes, the novice seem to find the hardest challenge is to catch
up with speakers having strong accents or a fast pace of speaking, both gain 10 votes
at the highest effectdealing with speakers having strong accents or a fast pace of
speaking seem to be the hardest challenge to the novice. Factors have slightly less
influenceing strength related to technical errors (12 votes) and heavy loads of
information (12 votes). The least affecting cause comes environment distractions at 9
votes. In short, in terms of objective causes, the burden to be able to catch up with the
speakers’ speed and accent is far more challenging than a hard speech itself as well as
other outer nuisances.

3.2.1.2.The link between note-taking and consecutive interpreting performance

There are 5 participants in the testing session whose identities are left anonymous. For
the convenience of the study, they will be referred in alphabetical order A, B, C, D, E.
It is crucial to mention that the length of the speech is 5 minutes and 51 seconds.

 Trainee A
 Figure 1: Trainee A's note

Overall, trainee A’s note is kept simplified as much as possible. He identifies and
separates the main ideas by marking a dash as a sign to moving on to another idea.
Moreover, he is able to write down numbers (“1000$”) along with their meanings.
The links among details are written in arrows depicting a reason-result (cause-effect?)
relation, but it is not clear among bigger ideas. He makes the best use of common
abbreviations (“EU”) and symbols such as arrows for results, “#” for difference or “
{ ” for including. Trainee A writes his note largely in English and a little Vietnamese.

As for the delivering part, he shows an incredible understanding of the speech and be
able to successfully re-expression in a coherent and simple way for the listener (the
writer). His pace and fluency of speaking is great with hardly any interruption. The
total interpreting session lasts for 4 minutes, at about 75% length of the original
speech which is very good. He provides enough evidences in the speech with high
accuracy. Nevertheless, there is a term “mad cow disease” that he cannot translate to
Vietnamese as “bệnh bò điên” due to his lack of vocabulary and knowledge of the
disease. It can be concluded thatFrom his performance trainee A seems to beis a high
achiever in the testing interpreting session in note-taking as well as rendering the
speech.

 Trainee B
 Figure 2: Trainee B's note

Trainee B fills her note with essential information in the form of individual phrases of
words (nouns, verbs, numbers, etc.) rather than the whole sentence. Also, her
shorthand is neatly written in English only making the note illegible to read.
Combining those, they are highly beneficial in her later rendering part since they
make reading back notes more easily. She is able to divide ideas by marking a new
one with an asterisk as well as their relation: contrast relation (“one hand”...“other”)
or cause-effect relation by using arrows. In further details, she can name a number of
risks in a quite coherent way as seen in her note (“smoking”, “obesity”, “alcohol”).
Although, it is not clear which one is the main idea due to lack of depiction in the
note. Trainee B uses arrows as her sole symbol. She cannot capture some information
at the end of the speech so she continues to note what she can hear and leave the
missing part in ellipsis. In general, trainee B’s note is quite well-written but it still
needs more attention in organizing main ideas as well as creating a more variety of
her own symbols and abbreviations.

The total length of trainee B’s interpreting performance is 5 minutes and 27 seconds
which is a bit longer than a standard interpreting session in class, but still acceptable
because it does not exceed the original speech. She shows little amount of delay
throughout the speech, however though it occurs quites often affecting her fluency
with a lot of “fillering words” “ừm”, “ờm”. It is noticeable that trainee B puts effort
into delivering as much accurate information as possible from the original to her
speech, which is one of the reasons why her speech is longer than trainee A.
Moreover, she admits that she seldomly practices note-taking in CI (this includes
listening skills and interpreting performance). All in all, trainee B is considered as a
middle achiever in the test.

 Trainee C

Figure 3: Trainee C's note

Although trainee C uses both English and Vietnamese in her note, it seems that she
prefers to take note mainly in English (SL) to Vietnamese (TL) and only adds
information related to tenses in Vietnamese. It is a clever way to draw the
interpreter’s attention to distinguish different types of information. The majority of
her note is full of key phrases and not the whole sentences. Trainee C can identify
main ideas by putting them in individual dash as well as note down important
numbers and years (“500m”, “10 years”). Links among ideas are clearly put in the left
margin of the paper with a diversity of symbols and so are abbreviations. She writes
arrows for the cause-effect relation, “><” for contrast, “0” for negation, “peo” for
people and so on. Her system of shorthand symbols is even more abundant
various/diverse than trainee A who is a high achiever. Trainee C really produces a
good note for intermediate level.

Unfortunately, her rendering part does not make a strong impact on the listener as
much as trainee A. The sum of her performance is 3 minutes and 19 seconds which is
a bit short since she misses quite lots of information supporting main ideas due to
confusion. The amount of delay and her fluency is relatively good with some
occurrences of ‘fillering words’. In short, she is regarded as a middle achiever astaken
from her notes and her performance.

 Trainee D

Figure 4: Trainee D's note

It is quite obvious that trainee D also utilizes a mix of English and Vietnamese. She
uses Vietnamese in the beginning of the note and shifts to English later when
information gets denser. She also highlights main ideas with dashes along with a basic
system of symbols (“0” for no, “VD” for examples, “#” for difference, “=” for the
definition or equivalence meaning). However, links between the ideas are barely seen.
Thus, unlike other subjects, trainee D tends to write the whole sentences rather than
word phrases, so her notes maybe filled with information, but it does not fully cover
as much details as the others. She manages to note important numbers and timeyears.

Before interpreting the speech, she asks the writer to provide the translation for “mad
cow disease” term since it is the first time she encounters it. Generally, trainee D fails
to deliver the message of the speech because she cannot connect main ideas and their
subsidized additional details. She emphasizes far too much on trivial information
without paying attention to main ideas resulted in causing confusion to the listener.
Her amount of delay during the session is greaterlonger than other 4 subjects?the
remaining (5-6 seconds compares to 2-3 seconds) though her fluency is quite well
with less fillering words. Later she says it was partly that she cannot read her hand-
writing. Her rendering lasts for 3 minutes and 23 seconds, approximately the same as
trainee C but with less coherence and accuracy in her speech. Overall, trainee D is
seen as a low achiever.

 Trainee E

Figure 5: Trainee E's note

Trainee E’s note is similar to that of trainee C: a predominant usage of English
conjoins a little hint of Vietnamese here and there. She solely writes arrows as
indication for results and some abbreviations of her own (“ppl” for people, “k o” for
negation). She is able to note down word phrases, but there are 1-2 full sentences in
her note. It is quite challenging to tell the main ideas and their links apart from other
information because there is hardly any symbols for them.

Regarding the performance, trainee E delivers the speaker’s message well.

Nevertheless, the total time of her performance is 5 minutes and 48 seconds which is
very proximate to the original speech’s length. She also mishears “obesity” to
“habicity” and keepscontinues repeating the mistake in her interpreting part as a toxic
substance rather than a disease. This creates quite confusion to the listener since it is
one of the main ideas of the speech. Her amount of delay and fluency is good. She
does show effort in her speech which is encouraging. Nevertheless due to her mistake
in mentioning the wrong main idea, she is considered as a low achiever.

Concluding remarks
 The questionnaire shows that all novice have a certain knowledge of note-taking in
CI, however, it is not fully in-depth because of their inexperience. In terms of note-
taking difficulties, it seems that the majority is struggling with two main problems
being keeping up with the speaker’s pace and accent as well as their lack of
vocabulary. Through the testing session, the result depicts note-taking truly has an
great effect on the rendering. Even in some cases, note-taking can reflect the subject’s
performance, but not always.

3.2.2.Discussion
The abovementioned observations and data analysis led the study to the following
recurring themes regarding interpret-trainees’ acknowledgement of note-taking, note-
taking difficulties in consecutive interpreting and the link between note-taking and
consecutive interpreting performance.

Firstly, trainees a quite solid knowledge of note-taking, especially in language aspects

due to their comprehension of both Vietnamese and English. However, most trainees
have yet to realize note-taking’s true nature as only a tool due to their belief that note-
taking is the most important element in CI. Many students actually rely more on note-
taking than their memory because of its obvious benefits, therefore, if they feel they
are able to achieve a high command in note-taking skills, there is a likelihood that
they can later re-deliver the speech more fluently.

However, standing from the expert’s observation, Jones (2002) affirms that notes are
not the goal in CI, but rather a tool to reach it. What the audience and clients pay
attention to is how diligently interpreters can re-expressing the speakers, not the notes
they write. Interpreters can still their performance even without noting down. Trainees
may also forget that at the starting point of the training course, they are not allowed to
take notes and solely depend on their short-term memory, and they manage to perform
well. Thus, note-taking is only one of the gears in the process of CI and it requires all
three efforts in Gile’s model (1995) working in accordance with interpreters to have
their best performance.

Secondly, note-taking difficulties is considered to occur due to an equal contribution

to subjective and objective causes. In terms of subjective causes, more trainees feel
their inexperience of vocabulary and listening skills and limited cultural exposure are
the main to their note-taking problems while unstable state of mind and shorthand
skills are less likely to create obstacles. Among objective causes, the stress from
working with the speaker’s pace and accent surpasses other elements. Another fact
showing a faithful result that most trainees find writing notes in CI quite demanding is
due to lack of practice. Note-taking is a skill and the same as many other skills, it
needs polishing through time and rehearsal.

Lastly, note-taking does have a significant impact on the final interpreting speech.
Note-taking is the outcome product in phase one (listening phases) according to Gile
(1995) where interpreters have to coordinate different skills at once. In order to move
on to phase two (reformulation phase), it is obvious one needs to pass phase one. The
interpreting test shows that higher achievers in rendering performance tend to have
better note-taking in general. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a cause-
effect relation between note-taking and interpreting performance of trainees.

Phần này là phần quan trọng nhưng em viết chưa tốt lắm: Diễn đạt nhiều câu tối
nghĩa, cấu trúc ngữ pháp phức tạp, collocations chưa chuẩn, chưa nhấn mạnh được
những kết quả trọng yếu. Em nắm được kết quả nhưng việc trình bày chưa làm nổi bật
được kết quả em thu được. Em nên đầu tư vào phần này nhiều thời gian hơn nữa, viết
lại, sửa lại những phần cô comment, nhờ bạn nào đó trong lớp proofread lại một lượt
trước khi nộp lại cho cô bản hoàn chỉnh. Để kịp deadline em vẫn nên submit cho thầy
K cho đầy đủ nhưng bản nộp cho cô thì em cần phải viết lại thật chỉn chu.

Phần phân tích note và mối quan hệ của taking-note đối với phiên dịch, em nên đưa
bản dịch (em record lại thì fai transcribe ra bằng bản text và để ở phần appendix) của
từng bạn kèm với notes để thấy được mối tương quan.

Chỉnh lại format của bài, giãn dòng, cách dòng, cách đoạn, cách lề…