在法庭上遇到不通曉或不能使用法院所用之語言時，應免費備通譯協助之，乃聯合國公約之重要精神。司法之公平公正，對於語言不通之當事人，若無通譯協助即無法竟其功。我國自2008年起陸續採用法院特約通譯制度，並逐步提供特約通譯訓練課程。然就課程是否充足、與特約通譯所重視或具備之通譯品質項目是否相符，值得探究。本論文以量性研究方法，就通譯品質之語言能力、譯文與原文一致、主動解釋語言或文化背景差異、角色中立、保密義務、法律知識、持續進修提升通譯能力、專業外表等八個項目，以問卷方式，請司法特約通譯就各項目之重要程度、自己具備程度及課程充足程度三個面向，利用五點量表選項表示意見。經以單因子變異數分析（Repeated measured ANOVA）及LSD事後比較法檢視後，發現受試者在各項目平均數在三個面向間，差異相當顯著。另輔以質性訪談，深入了解受試者期待課程調整之方向。最後，就量性分析結果及質性訪談內容進行歸納，對現行通譯訓練課程提出建言。

According to The International Bill of Human Rights, everyone charged with a criminal offence has the minimum right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. Without court interpretation, justice could not be served for the aforementioned party in the judicial system. Taiwan has adopted the scheduled court interpretation system since 2008, and has gradually provided the training program for court interpreters. However, whether the program is sufficient for court interpreters and whether the program corresponds to the ability court interpreters value or equip with are worth examining. This study adopted the quantitative method to analyze eight items in court interpretation, including the language proficiency, the equivalence in translation, the explanation for language and cultural differences, the role neutrality, confidentiality, legal knowledge, continued refinement of court interpreting skills, and professional appearance of a court interpreter. In a questionnaire, court interpreters were asked to rate the eight items from three aspects—the importance, their ability to meet the requirements, and the training from the program—on the 5-point Likert Scale. Repeated measured ANOVA and LSD were employed to analyze the data. The results showed the statistically significant difference between the mean of each item from the three aspects. The court interpreters were also interviewed to further explore their expectation for the adjustment to the program. Lastly, the study offers advice on the current program for court interpretation based on the quantitative results and qualitative interviews.

Angelelli, C. (2000). Interpretation as a communicative event: A look through Hymes' lenses. Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators' Journal, 45(4), 580-592.
Benmaman, V. (1992). Legal interpreting: An emerging profession. The Modern Language Journal, 76(4), 445-454.
Berk-Seligson, S. (2017). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. University of Chicago Press.
Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231-235.
Corsellis, A. (2005). Training interpreters to work in the public services. Training for the New Millennium, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 153-173.
Downing, B. T., & Tillery, K. H. (1992). Professional Training for Community Interpreters. A Report on Models of Interpreter Training and the Value of Training.
Favaron, R., & Merlini, R. (2003). Community interpreting: re-conciliation through power management.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Vol. 8). John Benjamins Publishing.
González, R. D., Vásquez, V. F., & Mikkelson, H. (1991). Fundamentals of court interpretation (pp. 243-44). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Hale, S. B. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness, and the interpreter(Vol. 52). John Benjamins Publishing.
Hale, S. (2007). Community interpreting. research and practice in Applied Linguistics. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hale, S. (2008). Controversies over the role of the court interpreter. C. Valero-Garcés & A. Martin (eds), Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting (pp. 99-122).
Kurz, I. (1993). Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups, 13-16.
Mikkelson, H. (1996). Community interpreting: An emerging profession. Interpreting, 1(1), 125-129. doi:10.1075/intp.1.1.08mik
Mikkelson, H. (1996, October). The professionalization of community interpreting. In Global vision: Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the American Translators Association (pp. 77-89). Virginia: American Translators Association.
Mikkelson, H. (1998). Towards a redefinition of the role of the court interpreter. Interpreting, 3(1), 21-45.
Mikkelson, H. (2008). Evolving views of the court interpreter’s role: Between Scylla and Charybdis. In C. V. Garcés & A. Martin (Eds.), Crossing borders in community interpreting: Definitions and dilemmas (pp. 81-97). Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. doi:10.1075/btl.76.05mik
Mikkelson, H. (2013). Community interpreting. In The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 407-419). Routledge.
Mikkelson, H. (2016). Introduction to court interpreting. Routledge.
Moeketsi, R. H. (1999). Redefining the role of the South African court interpreter. Proteus, 8(3-4), 12-15.
Morris, R. (1999). The gum syndrome: predicaments in court interpreting. Forensic linguistics, 6, 6-29.
Pöchhacker, F. (1999). 'Getting organized': The evolution of community interpreting. Interpreting, 4(1), 125-140.
Pöchhacker, F. (2000).The Community Interpreter's Task: Self-Perception and Provider Views (R. P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham, & A. Dufour, Eds.). In The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community (pp.53-58). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators' Journal, 46(2), 410-425.
Pöchhacker, F. (2016). Introducing interpreting studies. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Rosenberg, E., Seller, R., & Leanza, Y. (2008). Through interpreters’ eyes: comparing roles of professional and family interpreters. Patient education and counseling, 70(1), 87-93.
Survey on quality and role: conference interpreters’ expectations and self-perceptions.(2008) Retrieved from https://aiic.net/page/3405/survey-on-quality-and-role-conference-interpreters-expectations-and-self-perceptions/lang/1
Ulrych, M. (2005). Training translators: Programmes, curricula, practices. V Martha Tennent (ur.), Training for the New Millennium: Pedagogies for Translation and Interpreting, 3–34.
Zwischenberger, C., & Pöchhacker, F. (2010). Survey on quality and role: Conference interpreters’ expectations and self-perceptions. Communicate! AIIC Webzine.
司法院（2018）。特約通譯專區。取自：https://www.judicial.gov.tw/index.asp
沙信輝、楊金滿、葉念雲（2010）。通譯人才資料庫使用平台執行情形之研究。臺北：內政部入出國及移民署。
沈美真、李炳南、楊美玲（2012）。司法通譯案調查報告。臺北：監察院。
法院特約通譯約聘辦法（2015年5月8日）
法院組織法（2015年1月20日）
法院通譯倫理規範（2013年10月25日）
范家銘（2012）。口譯員潛質：口譯員觀點。編譯論叢，（2），117-151。
高等法院及其分院建置特約通譯名冊及日費旅費報酬支給要點（2007年4月21日）
高等法院及其分院檢察署建置特約通譯名冊及日費旅費報酬支給要點(2007年4月13日)
陳子瑋（2011）。社區口譯─臺灣口譯研究新領域。編譯論叢，4（2），207-214。
陳子瑋、陳雅齡（2013）。法庭口譯品質提升的功能視角。編譯論叢，6（2），99-126。
張中倩（2013）。臺灣法庭通譯發展現況與挑戰。編譯論叢，9（2），93-136。
張中倩（2016）。法庭通譯訓練之需求分析。編譯論叢，6（2），127-164。
陳雅齡、廖柏森（2012）。從傳聲筒到掌控者—法庭口譯角色之探討。載於廖柏森，翻譯教學論集（361-384頁）。臺北：新銳文創。
陳雅齡、廖柏森（2016）。臺灣法庭口譯專業化模型之修正。編譯論叢，9（2），137-164。
陳雅齡（2018）。法庭口譯：理論與實踐。臺北：五南。
智慧財產法院特約通譯約聘辦法（96年3月28日）
檢察機關通譯倫理規範（2013年11月21日）
檢察機關辦理刑事案件使用通譯應行注意事項（2013年11月21日）
臺灣高等檢察署（2018）。臺高檢特約通譯名冊。取自：https://www.tph.moj.gov.tw/lp.asp?ctNode=27064&CtUnit=8796&BaseDSD=7&mp=003