在各類翻譯任務中，修訂是無可避免的步驟，其中的自我修訂又是譯文品質的第一道防線，能為完稿品質定下基調。先前的研究大多以專業譯者為對象，研究方法有的依賴譯者回報或研究者解讀，有的需要額外的軟硬體設備，有的甚至有干擾譯者翻譯修訂的疑慮。因此本研究旨在了解學生譯者在執行翻譯任務時的實際情況，希望透過低干擾的畫面錄製觀察與回溯訪談，更客觀全面地了解學生譯者的自我修訂行為。

　　研究結果顯示，學生譯者的修訂行為相當多元，決策過程也有所差異：有的選擇邊譯邊修是怕初版譯文會影響後續的思考，或是之後沒有時間再次修訂；有的選擇譯後修訂是怕影響翻譯的節奏，或是策略性的以視譯方式快速產出初稿。再者，學生譯者的修訂策略雖在描述上略有差異，但大致能對應翻譯修訂三大參數：內容、轉換和語言。最後，學生譯者針對自己的翻譯經驗，發展出適合自身的修訂方式，不僅能避免自身常出現的錯誤，也能夠增進修訂成效。

　　本論文為國內少數透過低干擾影像錄製進行非參與式觀察的研究，並搭配回溯訪談與成員檢核，取得多元學生譯者翻譯修訂資料進行比對分析，能更全面且客觀地了解學生譯者的自我修訂行為。本次實驗結果也與先前研究中專業譯者的修訂行為對比討論，不僅能協助學生譯者建構更完整且有效的修訂機制，也可做為未來翻譯教學上的參考。

Revision plays an important role in any translation task. Self-revision, in particular, is key to the quality of the final translation. Previous studies have mainly focused on discovering the revision behaviors of professional translators. Some research required participants to report their behaviors or depended on researchers to interpret the collected data, and some took advantage of hardware devices or software programs, which may cause undesirable effects on the behaviors. Therefore, this research aims at discovering student translators’ revision behaviors more objectively and comprehensively by the use of screen observation through a distraction-free tracking tool and retrospective interview.

The research results suggested that student translators showed diversified revision behaviors based on their strategies. Some students chose to carry out online revision because they may not have time to conduct the second round of revision. Also, some students decided to conduct end revision to maintain the translation flow or just wanted to sight-translate the source text quickly. Next, their revision strategies can be broadly mapped to the three common parameters, i.e., content, transfer, and language. Lastly, student translators developed their revision strategies based on their experiences. These strategies can help avoid mistakes and improve revision efficiency and effectiveness.

This research is perhaps the first in Taiwan that makes use of distraction-free recording to conduct nonparticipant observation, also the retrospective interview and member checking, to uncover and confirm students’ self-revision behaviors in a more objective and comprehensive way. In addition, the research results are compared with those on professional translators. This research can not only help student translators to develop more complete and effective revision mechanisms but also serve as teaching guidance in the future.

Antunović, G., & Pavlović, N. (2011). Here and now: Self-revision in student translation processes from L2 and L3. Across Languages and Cultures, 12(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1556/acr.12.2011.2.5
Ciobanu, D., Ragni, V., & Secară, A. (2019). Speech synthesis in the transla-tion revision process: Evidence from error analysis, questionnaire, and eye-tracking. Informatics, 6(4), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6040051
Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. The MIT Press.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing (pp. 31–50). Routledge.
Gile, D. (1998). Observational studies and experimental studies in the investi-gation of conference interpreting. Target. International Journal of Trans-lation Studies, 10(1), 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.10.1. 04gil
Graham, J. D.(1989). Checking, revision and editing. In C. Picken (Ed.), The translator’s handbook (pp. 59–70). Aslib.
Hansen, G. (2005). Experience and emotion in empirical translation research with think-aloud and Retrospection. Meta, 50(2), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.7202/010997ar
Huang, J. (2018). Chapter 8. working styles of student translators in self-revision, other-revision and post-editing. Eye Tracking and Multidisci-plinary Studies on Translation, 145–184. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.143.08hua
Jääskeläinen. R. (1999). Tapping the process: An explorative study of the cog-nitive and affective factors involved in translating [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Joensuu.
Jääskeläinen, R. (2000). Focus on methodology in think-aloud studies on translating. Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and In-terpreting, 71. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.37.08jaa
Jakobsen, A. L. (2003). Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision, and segmentation. Benjamins Translation Library, 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1075 /btl.45.08jak
Jakobsen, A. L., & Schou, L. (1999). Translog documentation. In G. Hansen (Ed.), Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results (pp. 149–184). Samfundslitteratur.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980) A theory of reading: From eye fixa-tions to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329-354
Krings, H. P. (1987). The use of introspective data in translation. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.). Introspection in Second Language Learning (pp. 159–176). Multilingual Matters.
Künzli, A. (2007). A study of the performance of ten professional translators revising. In Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger, and R. Stolze (Eds). Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies (pp. 115–126). https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.72.14kun
Liaw, S. (2017). A study of translators’ revision processes of different text types [Unpublished master’s thesis]. National Taiwan Normal University.
Lörscher, W.(1996). Psycholinguistic analysis of translation processes. Meta, 41(1). 23–32.
Mossop, B. (1982). A procedure for self-revision. Terminology update, 15(3). 6–9.
Mossop, B. (2020). Revising and editing for translators (4th ed.). Routledge.
Newmark, P. (1991). About translation. Multilingual Matters.
Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translating: with special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Brill.
Pace, C. (2021). Translation revision: a case study analysing professional translators revising a technical text [Unpublished master’s thesis], Univer-sity of Malta.
Robert, I. (2008). Translation revision procedures: An explorative study. In P. Boulogne (Ed.), Translation and its others: selected papers of the CETRA research seminar in translation studies (pp. 1–22). CETRA.
Robert, I. S., Remael, A., & Ureel, J. J. J. (2016). Towards a model of translation re-vision competence. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 11(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399x.2016.1198183
Rose, M. G.(1991). Seeking synapses: Translators describe translating. In M. G. Rose (Ed.), Translation: Theory and Practice: Tension and Interde-pendence (pp. 5–12). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.v.03gad
Schaeffer, M., Nitzke, J., Tardel, A., Oster, K., Gutermuth, S., & Hansen-Schirra, S. (2019). Eye-tracking revision processes of translation stu-dents and professional translators. Perspectives, 27(4), 589–603.
Séguinot, C. (2000). Management issues in the translation process. In S. Trik-konen-Condit, & R. Jäaskaläinen (Eds.), Taping and mapping the pro-cesses of translation and interpreting (pp. 143–148). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.37.14seg
Shih, Y. (2006). Revision from translators' point of view: An interview study. Target, 18(2), 295–312.
Sorvali, I. (1998). The translator as a creative being with special regard to the translation of literature and LSP. Babel, 44(3), 234–243.
Toury, G. (1991). Experimentation in translation studies: prospects and some pitfalls. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit (Ed.), Empirical Research on Translation and Intercultural Studies (pp. 55–66). John Benjamins Publishing.