修改為翻譯過程中不可或缺的一部分，大多數譯者都會在交出譯文之前修改譯文，以確保譯文一來沒有二元性錯誤，二來翻得「恰當」。翻得恰當與否跟原文的文本類型有相當大的關係，因不同類型的文本具有不同的特色和需求。本研究便以放聲思考法，探討譯者修改不同文本類型之譯文時的行為，試圖了解文本類型是否影響譯者修改譯文的過程。受試者共七位，皆為受過兩年翻譯研究所訓練的譯者，且過去一年皆以筆譯為主要收入來源。本研究所選擇之文本類型乃根據德國學者 Reiss 於 1971 年所分之資訊類、表達類、和操作類文本，並分別以報導文章、短詩、廣告文案作為代表。

研究結果顯示，受試者修改三類文本時，作出修訂的頻率差異不大。但在修改表達類文本時，受試者時常幾經考量後，決定不修改，原因是受試者認為表達類文本的解讀空間較大，不像資訊類文本有明確必須傳達的訊息。受試者修改資訊類文本時，著重於更正錯誤，較能明確地說出譯文的問題；修改表達類及操作類文本時，則花較多時間試圖將譯文修改得更有創意，文字讀起來更漂亮，有時譯文沒有必須修改之處，但受試者仍會將之改成自認為更好的版本。除了實際作出修改之處，研究中也觀察到，有時受試者針對某部分譯文，起初認為應作出修改，但考慮到文本特色，最後決定保留原譯文。此外，研究也觀察出譯者修改過程中的盲點，若受試者腦海中的字典內建有錯字，則受試者檢查譯文再多次，也不會發現錯誤。除錯字外，受試者對不熟悉的概念也容易以為自己懂了，但其實抓錯重點。

本論文可能為國內首次以文本類型為變項，針對翻譯修改所作的放聲思考研究。結果顯示文本類型的確在翻譯修改過程中扮演重要角色。受試者在修改譯文的過程中，時常以文本目的和特色作為考量依據。

This study utilizes think-aloud protocol (TAP) to probe into the influence that text types have on translators during their revision process. Seven participants were asked to translate three texts of different text types and then revise their translations using TAP. All participants have at least two years of training in translation and have indicated translation as their primary source of income over the past year. The texts chosen for this study include an excerpt from a news report, a short poem, and a cosmetics advertisement, representing the three text types (informative, expressive, and operative) proposed by German linguist and translation scholar Katherina Reiss in 1971.

The results show that the average number of corrections per line made by each participant did not vary significantly with text type. When revising informative texts, their focus gravitated towards error checking the first draft of the translation. This group tended to be most proficient at identifying and explaining translation mistakes. For expressive and operative texts, rather than correcting the translation per se, most people in the study was inclined to refine the translation and make it sound more creative, to the point that edits were made even when the participants themselves thought the edits were not strictly speaking necessary. The study also shows that some edits were avoided specifically due to text type, and lastly, that some participants have certain blind spots when revising the translation, leaving binary errors still to be found in the finished translation.

This investigation is perhaps the first in Taiwan into the role that text types play in the revision process for translations and it illustrates that it is indeed an important factor to keep in mind when revising a translation.

李德超 (2004)。〈TAPs 翻譯研究的前景與侷限〉。《外語教學與研究》，36(5)，385-
392。

李德超 (2005)。〈TAPs 翻譯過程研究二十年：回顧與展望〉。《中國翻譯》，
26(1)，29-34。

林紫玉 (2013)。〈以放聲思考法探討高低成就學生的英文翻譯策略與錯誤〉。《輔仁
外語學報》，10，107-135。

廖柏森 (2012)。翻譯研究法：放聲思考法(TAP)。英語與翻譯教學。摘取自
http://blog.udn.com/trjason/6498627。

Alves, F. (2003). A Relevance Theory Approach to the Investigation of Inferential Processes
in Translation. In Alves, F (Ed.), Triangulating Translation (pp. 3-
24). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London and New
York: Pearson Education Limited.

Breeveld, H. (2002). Writing and revising process in professional translation. Across
languages and cultures, 3(1), 91-100.

Bühler, K., & Goodwin, D. F. (1990). Theory of language: the representational function of
language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New
York: Putnam.

Damasio, A. R. (2003). Looking for Spinoza Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain. New
York: Harvest Book Harcourt.

Ericsson, K. A, & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as
Data. MA: MIT Press.

Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). “The dynamics of composing: making plans
and juggling constraints”. In Lee W. Gregg and Erwin R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive
processes in writing (pp. 31-50). New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Gile, D. (1998). Observational Studies and Experimental Studies in the Investigation of
Conference Interpreting, Target 10(1), 69-93.

Hansen, G. (1999). Das kritische Bewusstsein beim Übersetzen. Copenhagen Studies in
Language, 24, 43-66.

Hansen, G. (2005). Experience and emotion in empirical translation Research with think-
aloud and retrospection. Meta, 50(2), 511-521.

Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. New York: Addison
Wesley Longman.

Hönig, H. G. (1988). Wissen Übersetzer eigentlich, was sie tun?. Lebende Sprachen 1.
10-14.

Ivanova, A. (2000). The Use of Retrospection in Research on Simultaneous Inter-
preting. In Tirkkonen-Condit S. & Jääskeläinen R. (Eds.), Tapping and Mapping the
Process of Translation and Interpreting (pp. 27-52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Jääskeläinen, R. (1999). Tapping the Process: An Explorative Study of the Cognitive and
Affective Factors Involved in Translating, Joensuu: University of Joensuu Publica-
tions.

Jääskeläinen, R. (2002). Think-Aloud Protocol Studies, Target 14(1), 107-136.

Jääskeläinen, R. (1999). Tapping the process: An explorative study of the cognitive and
affective factors involved in translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu

Jakobsen, A. L. (2003). Effects of Think Aloud on Translation Speed, Revision and
Segmentation. In F. Alves (Ed.), Triangulating Translation (pp. 69-95). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Jensen, A. (2000), The Effects of Time on Cognitive Processes and Strategies in Trans-
lation. (Unpublished PhD thesis). Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.

Jumpelt, R.W. (1961). Die Übersetzen. Vorträge und Beiträge vom Internationalem
Kongress literarischer Übersetzer. Frankfurt: Athenäum.

Kiraly, D.C. (1995). Pathways to Translation: From Process to Pedagogy. Ohio: Kent
State UP.

Krings, H.P. (1987). The Use of Introspective Data in Translation. In Færch C. &
Kasper G. (Eds.). Introspection in Second Language Learning (pp. 159-176).
Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Lörscher, W. (1996). Psycholinguistic analysis of translation processes. Meta 41(1). 23-32.

Mossop, B. (2001). Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Neubert, A. (1985). Text and Translation. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopdie.

Newmark, P. (1983). About translation. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden. Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

Reiss, K. (1971). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik: Kategorien und
Kriterien für eine sachgerechte Beurteilung von Übersetzungen. [Possibilities and
limitations of translation criticism: Categories and criteria for a fair evaluation of
translations]. Munich: Hueber.

Rose, M. G. (1991). Seeking synapses: Translators describe translating. In Rose, M. G. (Ed.),
Translation: Theory and practive, tension and interdependence (pp. 5-12). New York:
State University of New York Binghamton.

Séguinot, C. (2000). Management issues in the translation process. In Trikkonen-Condit, S.,
& Jäaskaläinen, R. (Eds.), Taping and mapping the processes of translation and inter-
preting (pp. 143-148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and
remedial capabilities in children’s composing. In Martlew, M. (Ed.), The psychology
of written language: A developmental approach. London: John Wiley.

Shih, Y. (2006). Revision from translators' point of view. An interview study. Target
18(2): 295-312.

Shih, C-L. (2007). Teaching translation of text types with MT error analysis and
post-MT editing. Translation Journal, 11(2).

Sorvali, I. (1998). The translator as a vreative 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 Pit-
falls. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit (Ed.), Empirical Research on Translation and
Intercultural Studies (pp. 55-66). Tübingen: Narr.

Trosborg, A (1997). Text Typology: Register, Genre and Text Types. In Anna
Trosborg (Ed.). Text Typology and Translation (pp.3-23). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.