本論文主要探討台灣的法庭通譯如何從早期一位介於荷蘭人與原住民社商且帶有負面形象的溝通媒介，演變成今天根據人權觀念，保障外國當事人也能公平取得司法服務的關鍵角色。全文包括兩方面的研究主題以形成研究框架，首要為對話口譯研究，配合口譯專業化討論，筆者據此對台灣四百年來的法庭口譯活動進行有系統的歷史回顧。首先，法庭口譯是對話式口譯的一種，包含來自三方面參與者的溝通，在現代社會多發生在社區中的法庭或偵查庭或警察局，目的在於解決民間訴訟與糾紛，法庭口譯因而也稱為社區口譯或公共服務口譯。不同於會譯口譯，對話口譯員的位置比較明顯，並具有機構內部成員權力不平均的特點 (見Wadensjö, 1998; Hsieh, 2009; Mason, 1999; 任文, 2010)。Wadensjö (1998) 曾探討對話口譯中口譯員的位置、服務與控制性、面子與禮貌策略、忠誠衝突及殖民因素問題。謝怡玲 (2009) 研究醫療性對話口譯的溝通特點與語境特徵，認為口譯員的位置或眼神、使用人稱、話語層次及其他非語言的溝通行為是非常值得討論的面向。Mason (1999) 闡明對話口譯過程中涉及權力與面子，參與架構，角色衝突，忠誠衝突，還有特定的文化社會裏的符號限制問題。其他如任文 (2010) 指出對話口譯員在法庭或醫療情境的主體性意識。這些學者皆不約而同提出，對話口譯員身兼機構守門員、對話過程的協調者與文化語意磋商者三種角色。本論文中研究者對以上議題逐一討論，並繪圖呈現其中的關聯性以形成一種理論模型，作為未來對話口譯活動分析之用。

近年來由於國際人權法律的推進，國際間特別是西方各國特別注重法庭口譯，法庭口譯逐漸趨於專業化。Mikkelson (1996) 特別根據Tseng(1992) 的口譯專業化研究，分析當代社區口譯專業化的過程並提出改進建議。根據這派見解，專業化的特徵以訓練機構出現最早，而以倫理規範最重要，倫理規範對外可贏得社會大眾信任，對內則是規範各成員的隱形工具。本論文中研究者針對台灣法庭口譯的發展，修正Tseng原來為會議口譯設計的專業化模型，作為台灣法庭口譯的專業化模型。

本論文依台灣的法政發展分為五個階段:(1)早期 (1683-1895，包括原住民自至時期、荷蘭西班牙治理時期及明鄭時期)，(2)清朝時期 (1683-1895)，(3)日據時期 (1895-1945)，(4)國民黨專政時期 (1946-2000)與(5)現代。一開始屬於原住民自治時期，荷蘭人曾為台灣建立西方法庭的雛型。進入二十世紀全球化的結果，法律口譯員更呈現多種語言面貌。每個階段由於法政背景不同，各有其值得探討的面向，進展到現代階段法庭口譯終於大致發展出口譯專業化應具備的所有元素，如有系統的訓練課程、專業知識、倫理規範及專業組織。作為一位機構守門員，對話協調和文化磋商者，角色也從昔日的負面形象演變到今天的舉足輕重。由於台灣的司法史經歷很長時期的殖民與被殖民過程，本研究過程也補充了對話口譯理論有關殖民或後殖民口譯討論的不足，研究者結合了口譯理論研究與口譯史，希望這種研究方法對未來口譯研究是一種突破。

In this dissertation the researcher examines how the court interpreter in Taiwan has evolved from an ill-reputed mediator among indigenous bands to a key person ensuring equal access to judicial services based on human right concerns. In addition to the main topic of dialogue interpreting, this researcher also discusses interpreting professionalization. These two threads may seem separate, but are actually related in terms of court interpreting as an emerging profession.

First of all, court interpreting as a type of dialogue interpreting (also referred to as “liaison interpreting,” “ad hoc interpreting,” “community interpreting,” and “public service interpreting”) involves various elements related to “dialogue” in an interactive, situational setting. As the situational setting often occurs in an asylum, police station, prosecutor’s office, or courtroom, it is also referred to as a type of “community interpreting” or “public service interpreting.” In contrast to a simultaneous interpreter, a dialogue interpreter is mostly visible at the scene, and the setting usually involves a power differential (see Wadensjö, 1998; 謝怡玲, 2009; Mason, 1999; 任文, 2010). Prominent researchers of dialogue interpretation include Wadensjö (1998), who has covered such topics as the interpreter’s physical position, face and politeness, conflicting loyalties, and colonial issues; 謝怡玲 (2009), who highlights such topics as position, eye contact, direct or indirect speech, register change, and non-verbal commutation; Mason (1999), who covers issues of power and face, participation, conflicting loyalties, and semiotic constraints. Furthermore, 任文 (2010) discusses the subjectivity of a liaison interpreter,, empowerment, and unconventional neutrality. Almost unanimously, these researchers argue that a dialogue interpreter plays the role of institutional gatekeeper, coordinator of taking turns, and negotiator of meaning in triadic communication. In this study the researcher first discusses internal characteristics and issues of dialogue interpretation. To organize and demonstrate these topics in a conceptual way, she further constructs a diagram to show their internal relations.

With the introduction of human rights laws in various countries during the 20th century, court interpreting has drawn a lot of attention. Observing the situation worldwide, Mikkelson (1996) discusses the professionalization of community interpreting based on Tseng’s (1992) model. Tseng refers to two theories in formulating his model of interpreting professionalization, i.e., trait theory and control theory. According to the trait theory, “training institutions emerge much earlier than other characteristics, but establishment of a code of ethics is crucial to a profession … because it functions externally as one of the bargaining chips to earn public trust and internally as an indispensable tool for internal control.” (Tseng, 1992, pp. 48-49) The theory of control goes beyond internal characteristics and looks at how the occupation relates to other components of the labor market in the society. In the present study the researcher revises Tseng’s model so as to reflect the recent development of court interpreting as an emerging profession in Taiwan.

Taking a retrospective look at court interpreting in Taiwan, this researcher divides Taiwanese judicial history into five periods: (1)early period(including the indigenous self-governance, the Dutch-Spanish era, and the Koxinga regime);(2)Qing dynasty (1683-1895);(3)Japanese colonial era (1896-1945);(4)martial law under the Kuomintang (KMT)(1946-2000); and(5)modern times. During the early period, interpreting was required for signing treaties and publicizing local orders made by foreign rulers. With the advent of globalization and increasing awareness of human rights in the late twentieth century, interpreters in Taiwan have become distinguished by their diversity of language combinations compared with those of previous periods. As the concept of human rights gains increasing importance, court interpreters are required to undergo continuous training and follow a set of ethical standards. This trend has spurred the establishment of a national professional association of court interpreters.

In this study the researcher explores the development of court interpreting from the perspectives of dialogue interpreting and interpreting professionalization. She also discusses the impact colonialism has had on court interpreting in Taiwan. The researcher hopes the results will serve as useful reference material for the interpreting field as a whole.

References
Angelelli, C.V. (2004). Revisiting the interpreter’s role. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Baker M. & Saldanha G. (Eds). (2008). Routledge Encyclopedia of translation studies. New York: Routledge.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). trans. Carly Emerson and Michael Holoquist. The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Barsky, Robert F. (2005). Activist translation in an era of fictional Law. TTR : traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 18 (2), 17-48.

Berk-Seligson,S. (1990). The bilingual courtroom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Brown, P. and Stephen C. L. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cao, D. (2007), Translation law. NY: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.Academic Press, 83-113.

Carter, M.J. (1990). Occupation to Profession Continuum – Status and Future of AAHPERD. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 61(3), 106-109.

Chafe, W. & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. In R. Horowitz & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp.83-113). London: Academic Press.

Coline, J. and Morris R. (1996). Interpreters and the legal Process. Winchester. Watesie Press.

Davidson, B. (2000). The interpreter as institutional gatekeeper: The social-linguistic role of interpreters in Spanish-English medical discourse. Journal of Sociallinguistics, 4(3), 379-405.

Gaiba, F. (1998). The origins of simultaneous interpreation. Ontario : University of Ottawa.

Dysart-Gale, D. (2005). Communication models, professionalization, and the work of medial interpreter. Health Communication, 17, 91-103.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. London: Polity.

Foucault, M. (1972). trans. A.M. Sheridan Smith. The archaeology of knowledge. New York : Panteheon Books.

Freidson, E.(1986). Professional powers: A study of the institutionalization of formal Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Garzone, G. & Viezzi, M. (eds.). (2002). Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

González, R.D., Vasquez, V.F., & Mikkelson, H.(1991) .Fundamentals of Court Interpreting: Theory, Policy and Practice. NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Hale, S.B. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hale, S. B. (2007). Community interpreting. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillian.

Hale, S. B. (2008). Working with interpreters effectively in the courtroom. AIJA conference: The use of interpreters in court and tribunals. Freemantle,ＷA.

Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the translator. London and New York: Longman.

Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. London and New York: Routledge.

Hoey, M. (1983). On the Surface of Discourse. Allen & Unwin, London.

Hsieh, E. (2006). Conflicts in how interpreters manage their roles in provider-patient interactions. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 721-730.

Hsieh, E. (2007). Interpreters as co-diagnosticians: Overlapping roles and services between providers and interpreters. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 924-937.

Hsieh, E. (2008). I am not a robot! Interpreters views of their roles in health care settings. Qualitative Health Research, 18(10), 1367-1383.

Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concepts of ‘face’. American Anthropoligist 46, 45-64.

Jones, R. (1998). Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing.

Kurz, I.(1989). Conference interpreting—user expectations. In Denna L. Hammond (Ed.), Coming of age. Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the ATA (pp.143-148). Washington, D.C., Melford, N.J.

Larson, M. (1997). The rise of professionalism: A Sociological Analusis. Berkey. CA: University of California Press.

Lee, J. (2009). Conflicting views on court interpreting examined through surveys of legal professionals and court interpreters. Interpreting, 11, 35-5.

Leanza, Y. (2008). Community interpreter’s power: The hazards of a disturbing attribute. Curare 31(2+3), 211-220.

Martinsen, B. & Dubslaff F. (2010). The cooperative courtroom – A case study of interpreting gone wrong. Interpreting 12:1, 21-59.

Mason, I. (1999). Introduction. The Translator: Volume 5, Number 2, 1999: Special Issue. Dialogue Interpreting: 147-160.

Mason, I. (2006). On mutual accessibility of contextual assumptions in dialogue Interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics 8(3), 359-373.

Mellinkoff, D. (1963). Language of the Law. Boston, Toronto: Little, Brown & Co.

Merryman, J.H. and David S.C.(1978). Comparative law: Western European and Lation American Legal Systems, Cases and Materials, Indianapolis. New York, & Charlttesville, VA: The BobbsMerrill Co.

Mikkelson, H. (1996). The professionalization of communiy interpreting. In M. Jerome-O’Keeffe (Ed.), Global vision: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association (77-89). Virginia: American Translators Association.

Mikkelson, H. (2000). Introduction to court interpreting. UK Manchester：St. Jerome Publishing.

Mills, S. (1994). Discourses. New York: Routledge.

Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morris, R.(1993). Images of the interpreter: A study of language-Switching in the legal process. Ph.D. thesis, Lancaster University Department of Law.

Morris, R. (1995). Pragmatism, precept and passions: The Attitudes of English-Language Legal Systems to Non-English Speakers. In Marshall Morris (Ed.), Translation and the Law. Amsterdam (pp.263-279), Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Nord, C. (1997). Translation as a Purposeful Activity.
Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

O’Barr, W.M. (1982). Linguistic evidence. Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York, Academic Press.

Parnell, A. and Villa, F. (1986). Liaison Interpreting as a Method of Language Instruction. Rasssegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, 18(1) : 25-32.

Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London & New York: Routledge.

Prunč, E. (2000). Vom Translationsbiedermeier zur Cyber-translation. TextConText Neue Folge 4, 3–74.

Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language in A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thught (pp. 284–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roberts, Roda.(1994). Community interpreting today and tomorrow. In Peter Krawutschke (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the American Translators
Association (pp.127-138). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

Roat, C.E., Putsch, R.W., III, & Lucero, C. (1997).
Bridging the gap over the phone: A basic training for telephone interpreters serving medial settings. Seattle, WA: Cross Cultural Health Care Program.

Šarčević, S. (1997). New approach to legal translation. Cambridge: Kluwer Law International.

Schaffer, R. Agusti, F., Dhooge, L.J., and Earle, B. (2007). International business law and its environment. Ohio: Cengage Learning.

Robinson, D. (1997). Translation and empire: Postcolonial theories explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Takeda, K. (2010). Interpreting the Tokyo war crimes tribual. Tokyo: University of Ottawa Press.

Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Townsley, B. (2007). Interpreting in the UK Community: Some Reflections on public service Interpreting. Language and Intercultural Communication, 7 (2), 163 -170.

Townsley, B. (Ed.). (2011). Building mutual trust. London: The Middlesex University.

Tseng, J. (1992). Interpreting as an emerging profession in Taiwan -- A Sociological Model. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University. Taipei, Taiwan.

Venuti, L. (1995) The translator’s invisibility. London: Routledge.

Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London and New York: Longman.

Weisflog, W. E. (1987). Problems of legal translation. Swiss Reports Presented at the XIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, Zurich:Schulthess, 179-218.

Witter-Merithew, A. (1990). Power and powerlessness: Interpreting as a profession. Proceedings of the Second Annual Institute for Court Interpreters (pp.71-77). Trenton, NJ: Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Interpreting, Legal Translating and Bilingual Services Section.

王凌 (2010)。〈法律翻譯中的文化與轉移：香港普通法中譯個案研究〉。《翻譯學研究集刊》，第十三輯。

王泰升 (1997)《台灣原住民的法律地位》。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。台北: 台大法律系。

王泰升 (1998)。《從淡新檔案觀察清治台灣觀府法律之運作》。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。台北:台大法律系。

王泰升 (2002)《台灣法的斷裂與連續》。臺北:元照出版社。

王泰升、薛化元、黃世杰 (2006)。《追尋台灣法律的足跡》。臺北︰五南出版社。

王泰升、顏厥安、黃昭元、李建良、陳忠午、陳惠馨、許士宦(2012)《戰後台灣法學史》。臺北:元照出版社。

王惠光 (2007)。《法律倫理核心價值探討》。臺北︰新學林出版社。

王宏志 (2012)。〈通事與奸民〉。《編譯論叢》，第五卷第一期，頁44-66。

石丸雅邦 (2011)。〈「臺灣總督府公文類纂」 看理蕃警察兼掌蕃語通譯」制度〉。國史館台灣文獻館 《台灣總督府學術研討會論文集》，頁288-289。

艾馬克 (2003)。王興安譯 。《十九世紀的北部台灣 –晚清中國的法律與地方社會》。台北: 播種者文化。

朱定初 (2001)。〈談英語法律專門術語之翻譯〉。《翻譯學研究集刊》第六輯，頁27。

朱定初（2004）。〈談法律專門術語翻譯之雙重功能對等原則〉。《國立編譯館館刊》，32（1），頁60-66。

宋雷、張紹全 (2010) 《英漢對比法律語言學︰法律英語翻譯進階》。北京: 北京大學出版社。

任文 (2010)。《聯絡口譯過程中譯員的主體性意識研究》。北京：外語教學與研究出版社。

林超駿等著(2008)。《英美法常用名詞解析》。東吳大學法學院主編。臺北市︰新學林。

李聖傑 (2012)。〈大理院刑事判決─走在歷史的大河〉。大理院刑事判決研討會。台北:東吳大學。

李憲榮（2004）。《加拿大的語言政策》。台中: 新新台灣文化教育基金會。

李憲榮(2010）。〈法律翻譯的困難〉。取自：http://www.taiwantati.org/?p=359

李筱峰 (2013)。《台灣史101問》。台北: 玉山社。

汝明麗 (2009)。〈台灣口譯專業化: Tseng 模型之檢討與修正〉。《編譯論叢》，第二卷第二期，頁105-125。

沈美真、李炳南、楊美鈴 (2012)。《司法通譯案調查報告》。臺北︰臺灣監察院。

施正鋒 (1996)。《語言政治與政策》。台北：前衛出版社。

施正鋒 (1998)。《族群與民族主義——集體認同的政治分析》。台北：前衛出版社。

許雪姬 (2006)。〈日治時期臺灣的通譯〉。《輔仁歷史學報》，第18輯，頁1-35。

馬會娟、苗菊(編) (2009)。《當代西方翻譯理論選讀》。北京：外語教學語研究出版社。

陳子瑋 (2011)。〈社區口譯—臺灣口譯研究新領域〉。《編譯論叢》第四卷，第二期，頁207-214.

陳允萍 (2003)。《我國外事警察涉外案件處理之研究─與日本比較》。未出版碩士論文，中央警察大學外事警察研究所。

陳雅齡、廖柏森(2013)。〈從傳聲筒到掌控者〉收錄於《譯者養成面面觀》觀。臺北: 財團法人語言訓練測驗中心。頁117-136。

陳雅齡、陳子瑋 (2013)。〈法庭口譯品質提升的功能視角〉。《編譯論叢》，第六卷第二期，頁99-126。

陳學祈 (2009).。〈國民政府時期國中、小學教科書中的吳鳳傳說之再現初探〉。《第六屆台灣文學研究生學術論文研討會論文集》。國立台灣文學館。頁416。

張玲瑛 (2002)。《美國與台灣法庭通譯教育之比較研究》。未出版碩士論文，雲林科技大學應用外語系。

張其帆 (2010)。〈香港法庭口譯的歷史沿革〉。《東方翻譯》，第三期，頁 51-55。

張中倩 (2013)。〈論功能翻譯理論在法律翻譯中的適用性〉。《編譯論叢 》，第六卷第二期，頁127-164。

張長明、仲偉合 (2005)。〈論功能翻譯理論在法律翻譯中的適用性〉。《語言與翻譯》，第三期，頁38-45。

張立珊（2010）。《入無人之境–司法通譯跨欄的文化》。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣大學法律研究所。

張安箴 (2008)。《從譯者中立談台灣法庭外語通譯制度》。未出版碩士論文，輔仁大學翻譯研究所。

魯永強(2006)。《臺灣法庭外語通譯現況調查與檢討》。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學翻譯研究所。

謝怡玲 (2003)。〈對話口譯對翻譯理論發展的重要貢獻〉。《翻譯學研究集刊》，第8期，頁283-322。

謝怡玲、孔海英 (2009)。〈醫療口譯員與醫護人員如何建構、協調彼此的溝通語意及專業權威〉。《翻譯學研究集刊》，第十二期，頁87-12。

趙軍峰、張錦 (2011)。〈作為機構守門人的法庭口譯員角色研究〉。《中國翻譯》，第一期，頁24-28。

劉惠璇 (2010)。〈日治時期之「臺灣總督府警察官及司獄官練習所」(1898~1937)--臺灣警察專科學校校史探源(上篇)〉。《警專學報》，頁63-94。

戴羽君 (2002) 。《台灣法庭通譯初探》。未出版碩士論文，國立雲林科技大學應用外語系。

藤井志津枝 (1990 )。臺灣史研究暨史蹟維護研討會論文集。頁427-448。

台灣高等法院 (2005)《台灣高等法院簡介》。台北:司法院。

司法院 (2007)。《百年司法 —司法、歷史的人文對話》。台北:司法院。