隨移民、移工人口逐漸增加，社區口譯之需求更顯重要。其中，司法通譯為專業領域之口譯活動，所翻譯之內容為高度專業的法律事務，且翻譯之品質對服務對象也有實質重要影響。有鑑於此，本研究以權利告知之翻譯為例，研究中文與印尼文通譯於翻譯此一內容時所遇到的問題。本研究以中印尼文通譯為對象，請受試者將中文的權利告知翻譯成印尼文並進行個別訪談。以多項研究工具與方法分析受試者分別在理解與翻譯產出的困難之處，包括：問卷、觀察研究、訪談、自評表、專家評分、華語文能力測驗各等級字詞表、中文可讀性分析指標、錯誤分析。

研究結果發現，受試者普遍的翻譯表現並不甚理想。造成理解困難的原因包括法律語言與艱深字詞、書面語轉換為口語表達、宣讀方式不當、對當地司法制度不熟悉、理解錯誤而不自知。產出方面的錯誤則以省略與額外增加最多。研究也發現法學專家的評分明顯低於受試者之自評，且此情況不分資深或資淺譯者，顯示現任通譯在翻譯權利告知一類例行程序的品質仍有待加強。但無監督與檢視之機制，難以確保翻譯品質。

研究最後提出建議方案。第一，將權利告知之內容以淺白之語言撰寫，使之更淺顯易讀；第二、制訂各語言版本之權利告知；第三、要求通譯與警方都接受更紮實訓練，以助雙方更有效合作。

Legal interpreting is a highly professional field that requires interpreters to be equipped with legal knowledge, as the quality of interpretation can significantly impact the rights of the clients. This research, therefore, studies about the difficulties that might encounter Chinese and Indonesian legal interpreters in the setting of interpreting Taiwan’s “Miranda warning”, the basic rights of suspects given by police officers when being questioned in the police station.

The study shows that the average performance of subjects is poor. Factors affecting their understanding of the rights include legal language and difficult words, transforming a written text into dialogic speech mode, inappropriate way of delivering the rights, unfamiliarity with Taiwan’s legal system, being unaware of one’s mistakes. In addition, inappropriate omission and addition are the two of the most often found mistakes in the subjects’ interpretation. The finding also reveals that the scores given by legal experts on subjects’ performance are significantly lower than those graded by the subjects themselves. As many subjects are practicing legal interpreters who often interpret these rights, it indicates that interpreters should be further trained. However, without proper monitoring system, it is difficult to ensure the quality of legal interpreting.

Finally, the researcher proposes three solutions for improvement. First, re-design a simpler version of the rights that can be understood more easily. Second, provide standard versions of different languages of the rights so interpretation mistakes of these fundamental rights can be avoided. Third, require both legal interpreters and police officers to take further training. Aside from legal background, interpreters often lack sufficient knowledge of legal terminologies both in their mother tongue and the second language. On the other hand, police officers should have better understanding of the nature of interpreting so they can work more smoothly and effectively with interpreters.

43/173. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. (1988). Retrieved May 12th, 2013, from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r173.htm
American Translators Association. (n.d.). Framework for Standardized Error Marking Explanation of Error Categories. Retrieved May 9th, 2013, from http://www.atanet.org/certification/aboutexams_error.php
Avery, M.-P. B. (2001). The Role Of The Health Care Interpreter: An evolving dialogue The National Council on Interpreting in Health Care Working Papers Series The National Council on Interpreting in Health Care.
Benmaman, V. (1992). Legal interpreting: An emerging profession. The Modern Language Journal, 76(4), 445-454.
Berk-Seligson, S. (2002). The Miranda warnings and linguistic coercion: the role of footing in the interrogation of a limited-English speaking murder suspect. In J. Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the legal process (pp. 127-143). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
The Bill of Rights. (1789). National Archives Retrieved May 11st, 2013 http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Brière, E. J. (1978). Limited English speakers and the Miranda rights. TESOL quarterly, 12, 235-245.
Brown, D. (1997). PACE ten years on: A review of the research. London: HM Stationery Office (HMSO).
Candidate's Guide For The CTTIC Standard Certification Examination In Translation. (2011). In T. a. I. C. Canadian Translators (Ed.).
Chall, J. S., & Dial, H. E. (1948). Predicting Listener Understanding and Interest in Newscasts. Educational Research Bulletin, 141-168.
Clare, I. C. H. (1998). Understanding of the current police caution (England and Wales). Journal of community & applied social psychology, 8(5), 323.
Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities. (n.d.). Retrieved May 21st, 2013, from http://www.najit.org/about/NAJITCodeofEthicsFINAL.pdf
Corder, S. P. (1967). The Significance of Learner's Errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(4), 161-170.
Corsellis, A. (2005). Training interpreters to work in the public services. Training for the New Millennium–Pedagogies for Translation and Interpreting, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 153-173.
Corsellis, A. (2008). Public service interpreting: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cotterill, J. (2000). Reading the rights - a cautionary tale of comprehension and comprehensibility.pdf. Forensic Linguistics.
Cotterill, J. (2004). 'Just one more time…': Aspects of intertextuality in the trial of O. J. Simpson. In J. Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the legal process (pp. 147-161). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Coughlin, A. M. (1999, 12 December). Miranda only works for the usual suspects, Washington Post.
Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2010). The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics: Routledge.
Crimes Act 1914. (2013). Retrieved January 21st, 2013, from Australian Government http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00031
Del Valle, S. (2003). Language Rights and the Law in the United States : Finding our Voices. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Eades, D. (2010). Sociolinguistics and the legal process (Vol. 5): Channel View Books.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of Second Language Acquisition: Oxford University Press, USA.
Ethnologue: Languages of the World. (2013). (M. P. Lewis, G. F. S. & C. D. F. Eds. Seventeenth edition ed.). Dallas, Texas: SIL International.
Everington, C., & Fulero, S. M. (1999). Competence to Confess: Measuring Understanding and Suggestibility of Defendants With Mental Retardation. Mental retardation, 37(3), 212-220.
Fenner, S., Gudjonsson, G.H., & Clare, I.C.H. (2002). Understanding of the current police caution (England and Wales) among suspects in police detention. Journal of community & applied social psychology, 12(2), 83-93. doi: 10.1002/cas.658
Flesch, R. F. (1951). How to test readability. New York: Harper.
Gibbons, J. (1990). Applied linguistics in court. Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 229-237.
González, R. D., Vasquez, V. F., & Mikkelson, H. (1991). Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy, and practice. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
GOV.UK. (2005). Notice of rights and entitlements (54 translations). Retrieved May 2nd, 2013, from https://http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-rights-and-entitlements-54-translations
GOV.UK. (2013). Being arrested: your rights. Crime, justice and the law. Retrieved May 11st, 2013, from https://http://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights
Grisso, T. (1980). Juveniles' capacities to waive Miranda rights: An empirical analysis. Cal. L. Rev., 68, 1134.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1991). The 'Notice to Detained Persons', PACE Codes, and Reading Ease. Applied cognitive psychology, 5(2).
Hale, S. (2007). Community interpreting (Vol. 146): Palgrave Macmillan Basingstoke.
International Organization for Migration. (n.d.). Retrieved January 16th, 2013, from http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/about-migration/facts--figures-1.html
Klinge, V., & Dorsey, J. (1993). Correlates of the Woodcock-Johnson Reading Comprehension and Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test in a forensic psychiatric population. Journal of clinical psychology, 49(4).
McBride, Alex. (n.d.). Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Landmark Cases. from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html
Messier, F. (1999). Alien Defendants in Criminal Proceedings: Justice Shrugs. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 36.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 C.F.R. (1966).
MirandaWarning.Org. (n.d.). Retrieved February 5th, 2013, from http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatareyourmirandarights.html
Nakane, I. (2007). Problems in Communicating the Suspect's Rights in Interpreted Police Interviews. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 87-112. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml050
Nord, C. (2005). Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Home Office. (2005). Notice of Rights and Entitlements. Retrieved February 15th, 2013, from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/815449/notice-of-rights/
Piatt, B. (1990). ¿ Only English?: Law and Language Policy in the United States. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies: Routledge.
Pym, A. (1992). Translation Error Analysis and the Interface with Language Teaching. In C. a. L. A. Dollerup (Ed.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience. Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Roberts, R. P. (1997). Community Interpreting Today and Tomorrow. In S. E. Carr, R. Roberts, D. A. & S. D. (Eds.), The Critical Link: Interpreters In The Community (Vol. 19, pp. 7-28). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Rogers, R., Correa, A. A., Hazelwood, L. L., Shuman, D. W., Hoersting, R. C., & Blackwood, H. L. (2009). Spanish Translations of Miranda Warnings and the Totality of the Circumstances. Law & Human Behavior, 33(1), 9. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9129-9
Rogers, R., Harrison, K.S., Hazelwood, L.L., & Sewell, K.W. (2007a). Knowing and intelligent: A study of Miranda warnings in mentally disordered defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 401-418.
Rogers, R., Harrison, K.S., Shuman, D.W., Sewell, K.W., & Hazelwood, L.L. (2007b). An Analysis of Miranda Warnings and Waivers: Comprehension and Coverage. Law and Human Behavior, 31(2), 177-192. doi: 10.1007/S10979-006-9054-8
Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L.L., Sewell, K.W., Harrison, K.S., & Shuman, D.W. (2008a). The language of Miranda warnings in American jurisdictions: A replication and vocabulary analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 32(2), 124-136.
Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L.L., Sewell, K.W., Shuman, D.W., & Blackwood, H.L. (2008b). The comprehensibility and content of juvenile Miranda warnings. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(1), 63-87. doi: 10.1037/a0013102
Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Gillard, N. D., Drogin, E. Y., Blackwood, H. L., & Shuman, D. W. (2010). “Everyone knows their Miranda rights”: Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(3), 300-318. doi: 0.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215
Rogers, R., Rogstad, J.E., Steadham, J.A., & Drogin, E.Y. (2011). In plain English: Avoiding recognized problems with Miranda miscomprehension. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(2), 264.
Rosales, B.L. (2012). Impact of Berguis v. Thompkins on the Eroding Miranda Warnings and Limited-English Proficient Individuals: You Must Speak up to Remain Silent, The. Hastings Race & Poverty LJ, 9, 109.
Russell, S. (2000). 'Let me put it simply...' : the case for a standard translation of the police caution and its explanation.pdf. Forensic Linguistics.
The Crown Prosecution Service. (2011). Interpreters. Legal Guidance. Retrieved March 4th, 2013, from http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/interpreters/
Shuy, R. W. (1998). The language of Confession, Interrogation, and Deception. Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Tanford, J.A. (1990). Law and Psychology of Jury Instructions, The. Nebraska Law Review, 69.
United States v. Garibay, No. 96-50606 C.F.R. (1998).
Vargas Urpi, M. (2012). State of the art in Community Interpreting research: Mapping the main research topics. Babel, 58(1), 50-72.
Viljoen, J.L., & Roesch, R. (2005). Competence to Waive Interrogation Rights and Adjudicative Competence in Adolescent Defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 29(6), 723-742.
Wadensjo, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction: longman New York.
大法官釋字第654號 (民國98年1月23日)。
中華民國統計資訊網 (2013)。人口數 (期底) (102年2月)。民國102年3月20日，取自http://www.stat.gov.tw/point.asp?index=9
外籍配偶人數與大陸(含港澳)配偶人數 (2012)。台北：內政部入出國及移民署。 民國101年6月18日，取自內政部入出國及移民署 http://www.immigration.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=1126263&ctNode=29699&mp=1
內政部入出國及移民署 (2012)。各收容所〈現有〉收容人數統計表。民國102年2月18日，取自
內政部警政署 (2012)。警察偵查犯罪手冊。民國102年3月4日，取自 http://www.ccpb.gov.tw/main.php?page=office_down&type=19&fg_id=29。
王兆鵬 (2008)。刑事訴訟講義。台北：元照出版公司。
王淩. (2010). Cultural transfer in legal translation: A case study of translating the common law into chinese in hong kong. 翻譯學研究集刊(13), 131-161.
台灣人權促進會國際人權法及刑事訴訟法研究小組 (2000)。台灣的刑事訴訟法 參照國際人權標準的評析與建議。載於澄社與民間司法改革基金會 (主編)，司法與人權——民間司法改革研討會論文集(三)。台北：桂冠圖書股份有限公司。
司法院 (2011)。司法院公報。民國102年3月5日，取自 http://www.judicial.gov.tw/publish/paperd/10001/pdf/10001%E3%80%80%EF%BC%8816%EF%BC%89%E5%88%91%E4%BA%8B%E8%A3%81%E5%88%A4.pdf
司法院 (n.d.)。司法院特約通譯名冊。民國102年5月15日，取自 http://www.judicial.gov.tw//Interpreter/Interpreter01.asp
民事訴訟法 (民國102年5月8日)。
立法院 (2010)。立法院公報，99(18)。臺北：立法院公報處。
刑事訴訟法 (民國86年12月19日)。
行政院勞工委員會 (2013)。2013年1月底外勞人數（依國籍分）。
何慧玲 (1997)。英中視譯錯誤分析與教學關係。翻譯學研究集刊，2，111-135。
何賴傑 (2011)。功能訊問與權利告知義務—最高法院99年度台上字第1893號判決評釋。台灣法學雜誌，179，63-73。
宋雷 & 張紹全 (2010)。英漢對比法律語言學。北京：北京大學出版社。
宋曜廷、陳茹玲、李宜憲、查日龢、曾厚強、林維駿, . . . 張國恩 (2013)。中文文本可讀性探討：指標選取、模型建立與效度驗證。[Investigating Chinese Text Readability: Linguistic Features, Modeling, and Validation]。中華心理學刊，55(1)，75-106。
沈美真, 李炳南, & 楊美鈴 (2012)。司法通譯案調查報告。(編號：990800608)。
兩公約施行監督聯盟 (2010)。公民與政治權利國際公約全文。民國102年2月3日，取自http://covenants-watch.blogspot.tw/2010/07/blog-post_23.html
林宜芳 (2008)。台灣NGO翻譯人力資源之問題分析。長榮大學翻譯研究所碩士論文。
林裕順 (2010)。權利告知乃莊嚴的陳諾—實質有效辯護之國家宣誓。台灣法學雜誌，152，6。
法律扶助法 (民國98年12月30日)。
法院組織法 ( 民國100年11月23日)。
法務部 (n.d.)。法務部特約通譯名冊。民國102年5月15日，取自http://www.moj.gov.tw/lp.asp?ctNode=27965&CtUnit=8026&BaseDSD=7&mp=001
柯平 (1994)。英漢與漢英翻譯。台北：書林出版有限公司。
美國在台協會 (2004)。第五章刑事法院程序。美國司法體系概述。民國102年2月5日，取自 http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/PUBS/LegalSystem/criminal.htm。
美國在台協會 (n.d.)。權利法案 (美國憲法修正案第一至第十條)。美國立國基本文件。民國102年1月21日，取自 http://www.ait.org.tw/zh/the-bill-of-rights.html
范明瑛 (2011)。台灣醫療通譯現況調查：以新北市衛生所通譯員為例。國立臺灣師範大學翻譯研究所碩士論文。
財團法人民間司法改革基金會 (2006)。既不能譯，也不會通－－法庭「通譯」有何用？ 民國102年3月2日，取自 http://www.jrf.org.tw/newjrf/RTE/myform_search_result_detail.asp?txt=&id=546
高等法院高雄分院 (n.d.)。刑事被告訴訟權利義務告知書。訴訟須知。民國102年3月5日，取自 http://ksh.judicial.gov.tw/chinese/CP.aspx?s=134&pa=10057&n=10241
國家華語測驗推動工作委員會 (n.d.)。高級8000詞表。
張立姍 (2010)。入無人之境─司法通譯跨欄的文化。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
張安箴 (2009)。從譯者中立談台灣法庭外語通譯制度。輔仁大學翻譯學研究所碩士論文。
張裕敏 (2012)。翻譯學習者之翻譯錯誤分析：以語料庫為基準之應用研究。國立臺灣師範大學翻譯研究所博士論文。
張麗卿 (2003)。交互詰問之新規定。東海大學法學研究，18，99-126。
許雪姬 (2004)。日治時期台灣的「通譯」。廈門海峽兩岸台灣史學術研討會報告。
許雅惠 (2009)。魚與熊掌: 新移民婦女的社會資本分析。社會政策與社會工作學刊，13(2)，1-54。
陳隆志, 許慶雄, & 李明峻 (1998)。當代國際法文獻選集。台北：前衛出版社。
最高法院98年度台上字第4209號判決，98，台上，4209 C.F.R. (民國98年)。
最高法院99 年度台上字第 1893 號刑事判決 (民國99年3月31日)。
曾話晴 (2009)。臺灣基督教會口譯活動初探。國立臺灣師範大學翻譯研究所碩士論文。
華語文能力測驗 (n.d.)。華語文能力測驗報名等級。民國102年3月16日，取自 http://www.tw.org/top/index_c.html
黃俐絲 (2005)。What Sense Makes Sense?-Beginning Translators' Difficulties with English Polysemous Words。翻譯學研究集刊，9，201-234。
黃翰義 (2010)。程序正義之理念(二)。臺灣：元照出版。
楊金滿, 葉念雲, & 沙信輝 (2010)。通譯人才資料庫使用平台執行情形之研究。內政部入出國及移民署自行研究報告。
葉舒白 (2012)。逐句口譯之錯誤分析研究。國立臺灣師範大學翻譯研究所博士論文。
廖柏森 (2010)。大學生英譯中的筆譯錯誤分析與教學上的應用。編譯論叢，3(2)，101-128。
裴恩 (2011)。非營利組織社區口譯之品質與倫理初探：以伊甸社會福利基金會與臺北市賽珍珠基金會為例。國立臺灣師範大學翻譯研究所碩士論文。
魯永強 (2007)。臺灣法庭外語通譯現況調查與檢討。國立臺灣師範大學翻譯研究所碩士論文。
憲法 (民國36年1月1日)。