臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

翻譯速度雖然甚少成為筆譯研究的重點，但對專業譯者的職涯發展來說意義重大。目前僅有的少數相關研究指出，口譯員的筆譯速度可能高於筆譯員。有鑑於此，本研究旨在探討：（1）此現象是否為真；（2）如果為真，是什麼因素造成兩者的筆譯速度差異；（3）是否可能透過人為操控提高筆譯速度。
本實驗受試者為32位口筆譯碩士班學生／畢業生，皆為中文母語人士。搜集資料為受試者之兩篇英譯中文本、筆譯時間紀錄（以秒為單位）、訪談逐字稿，以及背景問卷調查。
實驗結果顯示，口譯員的筆譯產出速度明顯高於筆譯員，與先前相關研究結果相符（Dragsted & Hansen, 2009）。本實驗的操控也似乎成功提高了筆譯速度，但此加速現象僅出現於筆譯組；此速度變化雖未達量性顯著差異，但可能原因為實驗時間過短，受試者來不及熟悉新的筆譯方法。受試者的草稿／定稿的質性分析則顯示，這樣的速度差異與變化可能來自偏重不同的筆譯策略。
本研究結果提供了可能提高筆譯產出速度的簡易方法，亦即引導筆譯者使用特定的筆譯策略。本文以實證研究分析了口譯與筆譯模式的相同與相異點，為未來口筆譯差異的相關研究提供了寶貴資料。

Speed of written translation is rarely a focus in translation studies, but it plays a vital role in a professional translator’s career. The few related studies claim that interpreters might actually translate faster than translators. In light of this, the present study aims to investigate (1) if such a claim is true; (2) if it is, what leads to the speed differences between these two groups; and (3) if it is possible to deliberately accelerate the translation process.
Participants who took part in the experiment are 32 students/graduates of a MA program in translation and interpreting, all native speakers of Mandarin Chinese. Data collected for analysis are their Chinese translations of two English texts, their translation time measured in seconds, transcripts of their retrospective interviews, and background questionnaires.
The experiment results show that the interpreters indeed appear to translate faster than the translators, which support the findings of some previous research (Dragsted & Hansen, 2009). Also, the attempt to speed up the translation process seems to have achieved partial success in the translator group although the acceleration is still not statistically significant, possibly because the participants did not have enough time to familiarize themselves with the new translation method. The qualitative analyses of the participants’ drafts and revisions, along with their retrospective interviews, suggest that such potential speed change might have resulted from different preferences of translation strategies.
These findings are important for it reveals an easy way to potentially speed up translators’ production rate—by simply giving priority to certain translation strategies that they already know. The present study has also made contributions to the collaboration of translation studies and interpreting studies by adding data of empirical research to compare differences as well as similarities between the translation and interpreting modalities.

LIST OF TABLES iii
LIST OF FIGURES v
CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION 1
Research Background and Motivation 1
An Aha Moment: Faster Work, Finer Product 1
Translation, Interpreting, and Their Speed Differences 1
Research Purposes and Questions 2
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 3
Focusing on Speed instead of Quality 3
Process-Oriented Research: Strategic Differences 3
Analyzing the Translation Process 4
Main Research Methods 4
Modeling the Translation Process 5
Production Strategies in Translation 9
Translation Decisions: Norms and Values 21
Analyzing the Interpretation Process 22
Main Research Methods 22
Modeling the Interpreting Process: Gile’s Effort Model 22
Production Strategies in Interpreting 23
Interpreting Decisions: Five Laws 26
Comparing Translation and Interpreting 28
Comparing Research Methodologies 28
Comparing T&I Models 29
Strategic Differences: Speedy-Production Strategies Preferred in Interpreting 31
Comparing Norms/Values in Translation and Interpreting 35
Time as a Research Variable 36
Comparing T&I Performances on Same Texts 37
Studies that Show Interpreters Might Translate Faster than Translators 38
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD 40
Research Design 40
Adjustments in the Present Study 41
Participants, Materials, and Instruments 44
Data Collection Procedure 48
Data Analysis 53
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 54
Relevance Check on Experiment Results 54
Screening for Translation Qualities 54
Re-examining Translation Difficulties of Text A and Text B 63
Eliminating Speeds Distorted by Abnormal Interference 69
Quantitative Analyses: Speed Differences between Translators and Interpreters 69
Text 1: Normal Working Conditions 69
Text 2: Correction Keys Disabled during the Drafting Phase 71
Comparing Text 1 and Text 2: Effects of Correction Keys 73
Correlations between Drafting Speed and Overall Translation Speed 81
Effects of Correction Keys: Backspace, Del, Ins, Mouse, and Four Arrows 88
Qualitative Analyses: Strategic Differences between Translators and Interpreters 94
Text 1: Different Preferences in Strategies 94
Why Different Strategic Preferences: Time Constraint 109
Text 2: Assimilation in Strategies 110
Why Translators Adopted More Speedy-Production Strategies on Text 2 119
What the Interviews Tell Us 121
Summary of the Answers to the Four Main Interview Questions 121
CHAPTER 5—CONCLUSIONS 124
Review of Research Findings 124
Implications and Applications of Research Findings 125
Limitations of the Study 126
Recommendations for Future Research 128
APPENDIX A: CONSENT FORM 130
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE 131
APPENDIX C: TRANSLATION QUALITY RATING CRITERIA (藍順德等, 2007) 139
APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRE: Participant Backgrounds 144
REFERENCES 148

Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2010). Translating is a service and service business, too – building up “business know how” in translating studies. In Garant, M.(Ed.) 2010 Current trends in translation teaching and learning, 3 (pp. 3-33). Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press.
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London and New York: Routledge.
Barbosa, H. G., & Neiva, M. S. (2003). Using think-aloud protocols to investigate the translation process of foreign language learners and experienced translators. In Alves, B. (Ed.), Triangulating Translation. Perspectives in process oriented research (pp. 137-155). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Burke, V., & Greenberg, D. (2010). Determining Readability: How to Select and Apply Easy-to-Use Readability Formulas to Assess the Difficulty of Adult Literacy Materials. Adult Basic Education & Literacy Journal, 4(1), 34-42.
Chafe, W., & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. In Horowitz, R., & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.), Comprehending Oral and Written Language (pp. 83-113). San Diego: Academic Press.
Chang, Y.-m. (2011). An Error Analysis of Translation Learners: A Corpus-based Study. Unpublished dissertation (Doctor). National Taiwan Normal University: Taipei.
Chen, D. I. (2013). Differences in comprehension process between experienced and novice interpreters – an eye movement study. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas In Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chesterman, A. (2000). Teaching Strategies for Emancipatory Translation. In Schäffner, C., & Adab, B. (Eds.), Developing Translation Competence (pp. 78-89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dimitrova, B. E. (2005). Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dimitrova, B. E. (2010). Translation process. In Gambier, Y. & Doorslaer, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol 1 (pp. 412-418). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dragsted, B., & Hansen, I. G. (2009). Exploring Translation and Interpreting Hybrids. The Case of Sight Translation. Meta, 54(3), 588-604.
Dragsted, B., Mees, I. M., & Hansen, I. G. (2011). Speaking your translation: students' first encounter with speech recognition technology. Translation & Interpreting, 3(1), 10-43.
Gambier, Y. (2009). Stratégies et tactiques en traduction et interpré tation. In Hanse, G., & Chesterman, A., & Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. (Eds.), Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gambier, Y. (2010). Translation strategies and tactics. In Gambier, Y. & Doorslaer, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies, 1, 412-418. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (2004). Translation Research versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership. In Schäffner, C. (Ed), Translation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies, 10-34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Heizmann, S. (1998). Huamn strategies in translation and interpreting – What MT can learn from translators. In Clarke, D., & Vella, A., & Masterman, M. (Eds.), Machine Translatoin: Ten Years on; Proceedings of the Second International Conference. Cranfield: Cranfield University Press.
Huang, C. C. (2011). Tracking Eye Movements in Sight Translation – the comprehension process in interpreting. (Master's thesis). National Taiwan Normal University.
Hung, Eva. (2005). Cultural borderlands in China’s translation history. In Eva Hung (Ed.), Translation and Cultural Change: Studies in History, Norms, and Image Projection (pp. 43-64). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jakobsen, A. L. (2002). Translation drafting by professional translators and by translation students. In G. Hansen (Ed.) Empirical Translation Studies: Process and Product (pp. 191-204). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Johns, T. (1991) It is presented initially: linear dislocation & interlanguage strategies in Brazilian academic abstracts in English and Portuguese, mimeograph, University of Birmingham.
Lederer, M. (2010). Interpretive approach. In Gambier, Y. & Doorslaer, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies, 1, 412-418. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Leys, C., & Ley, C., & Klein, O., & Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49, 764-766.
Oxford American English Dictionary (website). The Oxford 3000TM. Retrieved from http://oaadonline.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/oxford3000/
Perng, H. (2006). Chinese-English Interpreter Training Procedure and Text Exercise Sample Designs. Spectrum: NCUE Studies in Language, Literature, Translation, and Interpretation, 1, 185-203.
Pöchhacker, F. (2010). Interpreting Studies. In Gambir, Y. v., & Doorslaer, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies, 1. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shipley, K. & McAfee, J. (2008). Assessment in Speech-Language Pathology: A Resource Manual.
Shlesinger, M. (2009). Towards a definition of Interpretese: An intermodal, corpus-based study. In Hansen, G., & Chesterman, A., & Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. (Eds.), Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile, 237-254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Su, Y. W. (2013). Cognitive process during pauses in interpreting output: from eye movements in sight translation. Unpublisehd master thesis of National Taiwan Normal University. Taipei: Taiwan.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies—and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Whyatt, B. (2010). Bilingual Language Control in Translation Tasks: A TAP Study into Mental Effort Management by Inexperienced Translators. In Arabski, J. & Wojtaszek, A (Eds.), Neurolinguistic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives on SLA, 79-92. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Yan-jun, Y. (2010). A Study on Application of Sight Translation in Simultaneous Interpreting Teaching (视译在同传教学中的应用性研究). Journal of Jiangxi Agricultural University, 9(2), 148-151.
林俊宏（2011）。教案13：視譯輔助筆譯 翻譯教學實務指引：從15份專業教案開始。臺北市：眾文圖書。
柯正峰、賴慈芸、陳碧珠、林慶隆、梁文華、張淑彩、戴幸、劉宜霖、丁彥平（2009）。建立國家中英文「一般筆譯」能力考試評分與命題機制第三期研究。國立編譯館專案研究計畫期末報告。台北市：國立編譯館。
施偉銘（2008）。台灣地區筆譯工作者運用翻譯工具之現況。臺灣師範大學未出版之碩士論文。台北：台灣。
藍順德、賴慈芸、林慶隆、陳碧珠、梁文華、丁彥平、吳宜真、林俊宏（2007）。建立國家中英文翻譯人才能力檢定考試「一般文件筆譯」評分機制第一期研究。國立編譯館專案研究計畫期末報告。台北市：國立編譯館。