國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	楊嘉豪 Yang Jia Hau
論文名稱：	逐步口譯原文與譯文時間長度比例對評估口譯品質之影響：觀眾觀點 Delivery Segments in Consecutive Interpretation: Quality Assessment from the Audience Perspective
指導教授：	陳子瑋 Chen, Tze-Wei
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	翻譯研究所 Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation
論文出版年：	2008
畢業學年度：	96
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	111
中文關鍵詞：	逐步口譯、口譯品質、譯文時間
英文關鍵詞：	Consecutive Interpretation, Quality Assessment, Delivery Segment
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：237 下載：40
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究探討逐步口譯譯文相對於原文之時間長短對口譯品質之影響。相較於其他口譯品質評鑑要素，逐步口譯譯文長短對於口譯品質之影響缺乏前人研究。根據本研究調查，部分口譯研究人員與口譯學校教師認為逐步口譯譯文應比原文來得簡短。
為瞭解觀眾是否與口譯研究人員與口譯教師抱持相同之看法，本研究經由實驗探究觀眾對於逐步口譯譯文時間長短之偏好。實驗結果顯示，大多數受試者對口譯員表現之整體評估結果與僅由譯文長短進行評估之結果，出現前後不一致之狀況，同時發現僅有少部分受試者能正確判斷譯文時間長短。由此可推論對觀眾而言，譯文時間長短與其他前人研究提出之要素，如「表達方式」、「忠實度」、「字彙正確度」等，對口譯品質影響並不一致。最後，本研究亦根據實驗結果，針對口譯教學與口譯實務提出相關建議。

This research attempts to identify, in a consecutive interpreting (CI) setting, the effect of length of interpretation relative to its original speech on quality evaluation. Compared with other evaluation criteria, the length of interpretation in a CI setting has been a criterion that is far less studied. Still, some researchers and instructors at interpreting training schools stress that in a CI setting, the interpreter’s delivery must be shorter than its original for reasons such as “organizers do not want to run behind schedule.” (Jones, 1998)
In order to see if the audience share those researchers and instrcutors opinion, an experiment is desgined to seek the audiences’ preference on the length of interpretation. Results indicate that only a small part of the participants could correctly identify the length of interpretation. Furthermore, the results show that what audience expects of quality is somewhat different from that of interpreters. For the audience, the impact of length of interpretation does not behave in accordance with other quality evaluation criteria, such as delivery, fidelity, terminology, and etc. Given the research results, pedagogical and practical implications can be drawn.

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………...1
1.1    Research Background………………………………………………………..1
1.2    Scope of Research…………………………………………………………...2
1.3    Methods……………………………………………………………………..3
1.4    Organization of the Research………………………………………………..4

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………5
2.1 An Overview of Interpreting………………………………………………..5
2.2 Interpreting Defined………………………………………………………...6
    2.2.1 Simultaneous Interpreting……………………………………………7
    2.2.2 Consecutive Interpreting……………………………………………..8
2.3 Aspects of Interpretation Quality Evaluation…………………………10
    2.3.1 Stakeholders in an Interpreting Setting……………10
    2.3.2 Quality Expectation of Different Actors in
              an Interpreting Setting..12
2.4 Time Issue in Quality Assessment…………………………………………..15
2.5 Attention Decrement………………………………………………………16
2.6 Questionnaire Design………………………………………………………19
2.7 Summary…………………………………………………………………...20

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………….20
3.1 Pilot Survey………………………………………………………………...20
3.2 Experiment………………………………………………………………....21
    3.2.1 Framework…………………………………………………………..21
    3.2.2 Speech Text Selection………………………………………………..23
    3.2.3 Questionnaire Design………………………………………………..25
    3.2.4 Pretest…………………………………………………………..........28
3.3 The Sample………………………………………………………………...30
3.4 Implementation Process……………………………………………………30
3.5 Questionnaire Coding Assignment…………………………………………31
3.6 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………….33

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS………………………………………………………………34
4.1 Pilot Survey………………………………………………………………...34
    4.1.1 Interviewee Profile…………………………………………………..34
    4.1.2 Participants’ Perspectives on Time Ratio……………………………..35
    4.1.3 Pedagogical Practices……………………………………………….37
4.2 Sample Profile……………………………………………………………..38
4.3 Results……………………………………………………………………..40
    4.3.1 Group One---Long French-Short Japanese……………43
    4.3.2 Group Two---Long Japanese-Short French………..46
    4.3.3 Group Three---Short French-Long Japanese………49
    4.3.4 Group Four---Short Japanese-Long French……….52

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………..55
5.1 General Preferences……………………………………………………….. 55
5.2 Distribution of Types of Participants………………………………………56
5.3 Significance of the Length of Interpretation…………………………58
5.4 Order of Presentations and Quality Assessment………………………61
    5.4.1 Group One and Four………………………………………………...61
    5.4.2 Group Two and Three……………………………………………….62
    5.4.3 Summary…………………………………………………………….63
5.5 The Effect of Length of Interpretation…………………………………….63
    5.5.1 Perception of Time………………………………………………….64
    5.5.2 The Effect of Perception……………………………………………64
5.6 Summary…………………………………………………………………...65

CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………...67
6.1 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………67
6.2 Implications………………………………………………………………...71
6.3 Research Constraints………………………………………………………..73
6.4 Future Research…………………………………………………………….74

English References……………………………………………………………..76
Chinese References……………………………………………………………..79
Appendix A: Grading Sheet of Professional Exam of Various
            Schools……….80
Appendix B: Questionnaire for Pilot Survey……………………………………85
Appendix C: Questionnaire…………………………………………………….87
Appendix D: English Translation of the Introduction to the
            Experiment……...90
Appendix E: Code list Example---Group One…………………………………92
Appendix F: Original French Speech and Chinese
            Translation…………………93
Appendix G: Original Japanese Speech and Chinese
            Translation……………...103



















List of Tables
Table 2.1 Each Actor’s Capacity of Assessing Interpreting Quality……………..12
Table 3.1 Word Count in Different Versions of Interpretation…………………24
Table 3.2 Four Versions of Questionnaire……………………………………...30
Table 3.3 Possible Combinations of Results……………………………………32
Table 4.1 Working and Teaching Experience of Interviewees…………………..34
Table 4.2 Interviewee’s Teaching Experience…………………………………...35
Table 4.3 Result of Group One………………………………………………...43
Table 4.4 Result of Group Two………………………………………………...46
Table 4.5 Result of Group Three………………………………………………49
Table 4.6 Result of Group Four………………………………………………..52
Table 5.1 Distribution of Types of Participants in Each Group………………..57
Table 5.2 t-test Results of Group One and Four Participants…………………..62
Table 5.3 t-test Results of Group Two and Three Participants…………………63






List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Continuum of Consecutive Interpreting……………………………...9
Figure 2.2 Experiment Design --- Long Consecutive Interpreting……………....10
Figure 3.1 Experiment Design………………………………………………….22
Figure 3.2 Cross-comparison Matrix for Assessment Results…………………28
Figure 3.3 Coding Assignment…………………………………………………33
Figure 4.1 Breakdowns of Gender Distribution………………………………..39
Figure 4.2 Profiles of Language Proficiency---French…………………………..40
Figure 4.3 Profiles of Language Proficiency---Japanese….……………………..40
Figure 4.4 Breakdown of Overall Results………………………..……………...41
Figure 4.5 Breakdown of Type A Participants’ Preferences…………………….42
Figure 4.6 Breakdown of Type B Participants’ Preferences……………………..42
Figure 4.7 Preference of Interpretation ---Type A Participants…………………44
Figure 4.8 Preference of Interpretation ---Type B Participants…………………44
Figure 4.9 Percentage of Correctly ID Length---Type D Participants…………..45
Figure 4.10 Percentage of Correctly ID Length---Group One………………….45
Figure 4.11 Preference of Interpretation ---Type A Participants………………..47
Figure 4.12 Preference of Interpretation ---Type B Participants………………..47
Figure 4.13 Percentage of Correctly ID Length ---Type D Participants………...48
Figure 4.14 Overall Percentage of Correctly ID Length---Group Two…………48
Figure 4.15 Preference of Interpretation---Type A Participants………………...50
Figure 4.16 Preference of Interpretation---Type B Participants………………...50
Figure 4.17 Percentage of correctly ID Length---Type D Participants………….51
Figure 4.18 Percentage of Correctly ID Length ---Group Three……………….51
Figure 4.19 Preference of Interpretation---Type A Participants………………...53
Figure 4.20 Preference of Interpretation ---Type B Participants………………..53
Figure 4.21 Percentage of Correctly ID Length ---Type D Participants………...54
Figure 4.22 Overall Percentage of Correctly ID Length………………………..54
                                

English References
Bühler, H., (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and Extra-linguistic (pragmatic) Criteria for the Evaluation of Conference Interpretation and Interpreters. Multilingua,
5-4, pp 231-235.
Brace, Ian, (2004). Questionnaire Design: How to Plan, Structure, and Write Survey
Material for Effective Market Research. Kogan Page.
Fang, Jiaming, (2005). Legal Issues in Interpretation Services: A Copyright Act
Perspective. Unpublished MA Thesis, Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation, National Taiwan Normal University.
Gaiba, F., (1998). The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg
Trial. University of Ottawa Press.
Gile, D. , (1991). A communication oriented analysis of quality. Translation:
Theory and Practice. Tension and Interdependence (M. L. Larson, ed.), Binghamton NY, SUNY.
Gile, D., (1995a). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator
Training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hung, Jui-tien, (2006). An Initial Investigation of Interpreters' Professionalization
and Occupational Prestige. Unpublished MA Thesis, Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation, National Taiwan Normal University.
Jensen, E., (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Jones, Roderick, (1998). Conference Interpreting Explained. St. Jerome Publishing.
Kopczynski, (1992). Quality in conference interpreting: Some Pragmatic Problem.
Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kurz, I., (1993). Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User
Groups. The Interpreting Studies Reader.
Kurz, I., (1994). "What do different user groups expect from a conference
interpreter?" The Jerome Quarterly, Vol 9, Issue 2, pp 3-6.
Kurz, I., (2001). Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user. Meta,
XLVI, 2001, pp 394-409.
Moser, Peter, (1996). Expectations of Users of Conference Interpretation.
Interpreting, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 145-178
Moser-Mercer, B., (2000). Simultaneous Interpreting: Cognitive Potential and
Limitations. Interpreting, Volume5, Issue 2, pp 83-94.
Nolan, James, (2005). Interpretation: Techniques and Exercises. Multilingual
Matters.
Oleron and Nanpon, (1965). The Interpreting Studies Reader, New York :
Routledge.
Pöchhacker, F., (1993). Quality Assurance in Simultaneous Interpreting. Papers
from the Second Language International Conference, Elsinore, Denmark,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp 233-242.
Pöchhacker, F., (2001). Quality Assessment in Conference and Community
Interpreting. Meta, XLVI, 2, pp 400-425.
Pöchhacker, F., (2002). Researching Interpreting Quality: Models and Methods,
Interpreting in the 21st century. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on
Interpreting Studies, pp 95-106.
Pöchhacker, F., (2004). Introducing Interpreting Studies, New York :
Routledge.
Seleslovitch, D., (1986). Who should assess an interpreter's performance?
Multilingua, Vol.5:4, p 236.
Seleslovitch, D., (1978) Interpreting for International Conferences. Washinton: Pen
and Booth.
Taylor-Bouladon, Valerie, (2007). Conference Interpreting ---Principles and
Practice. Book Surge, Llc.
Tsui, Chien-Chang, (2005). Note-taking and Speech Production in Consecutive
Interpretation from English to Chinese. Unpublished MA Thesis, Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation, National Taiwan Normal University.

中文參考書目（Chinese References）
劉敏華，1993。逐步口譯與筆記：理論、實踐與教學。台北：輔仁大學。
周兆祥，1995。口譯的理論與實踐。台北：台灣商務。
汝明麗，1996。從使用者觀點探討口譯品質與口譯員之角色。輔仁大學
翻譯學研究所碩士論文。
馬祖毅，1999。中國翻譯史上卷。武漢：湖北教育出版社。
楊承淑，2000。口譯教學研究：理論與實踐。台北：輔仁大學。

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文