臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在逐步口譯的過程中，口譯員要聽講者說話內容，同時還需要記筆記，接著要以目標語，將講者的內容翻譯出來，說給聽眾聽。大部分的時候，口譯員可以自行選擇要不要記筆記，這個情形有時對口譯員來說相當兩難，特別是在進行短逐步口譯的時候，情況更為嚴重。根據本研究文獻探討，在短逐步口譯時記筆記效果好壞各半，記筆記可以幫助口譯人員提醒細節訊息，不過記筆記同時可能又會干擾口譯人員聽解講者內容。本研究意旨在於調查記筆記究竟如何影響口譯員的口譯品質。
本實驗總共有二十四位受試者，主要從台灣兩間翻譯研究所口譯組中抽選，他們至少都受過一個學期的口譯訓練，並且有能力進行英進中短逐步口譯。所有受試者會需要翻譯一篇演講，演講分成六小段，每段不超過五十秒，受試者須分別進行六小段的逐步口譯，前三段記筆記、後三段不記筆記。在實驗開始前會發放問卷，收集受試者基本背景資料以供後續數據分析使用。就評估口譯品質而言，本研究使用師大輔大聯合專業考之口譯評分表加以評分，此評分表有三個主要的評分標準，亦即準確、表達及語言。
研究結果顯示，受試者背景對於口譯品質的影響大多不顯著，除了受訓年資外，受訓年資對口譯品質影響甚鉅。不過記筆記與否對於口譯品質的影響則相當顯著，筆記影響三個評分標準以及整體表現。換句話說，受試者在有記筆記的段落表現得比沒記筆記的段落要來的好。

In consecutive interpreting settings, the interpreter should listen to the speech and take note at the same time, and later on render the speech in target language to the audience. Most of the time, interpreters are given choices of whether to take notes or not. This situation will then become a dilemma, especially in short consecutive setting. According to the literature review, both pros and cons of using notes in short consecutive interpreting can be inferred. The aim of the current study is to investigate how note-taking affects the interpreting performance.
In the study, 24 participants were selected from mainly three graduate institutes of interpreting and translation in Taiwan. They are at least trained for consecutive interpreting for a semester, and are capable of conducting short consecutive interpreting. All of them were asked to perform a short consecutive interpreting on a passage divided into six segments. Also, the participants were asked to translate the first three segments with note-taking and the rest without. Before the experiment began, a questionnaire was given to them to collect their background and their point of view on note-taking in short consecutive interpreting. For assessing their performances, the current study adopted the evaluation chart from the Joint GITIS/GITI Professional Examination. It contains three main criteria, namely accuracy, delivery and language.
The result shows that there is no significant difference in interpretation performances of subjects with different backgrounds except the factor of the years of training. However, the influence of notes in consecutive interpreting is significant. Note-taking affects all three criteria and overall performance. In other words, subject performed better in the paragraphs with notes than those without notes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT (CHINESE) ii
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Research Questions 2
1.3 Significance of the Study 3
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 An Overview of Interpreting 5
2.2Introduction to Interpreting 6
2.3 Note-taking in Consecutive Interpreting 9
2.4 Gile’s Effort Model of Consecutive Interpretation 11
2.4.1 Gile’s Effort Model 11
2.4.2 Gile’s Effort Model of Consecutive Interpretation 13
2.5 Interpretation Quality Assessment 14
2.5.1 An Overview of Interpreting Quality 14
2.5.2 Stakeholders in Interpretation Quality Assessment 15
2.5.3 Criteria on Interpretation Quality 17
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 21
3.1 Research Questions 21
3.2 Pilot Study 21
3.3 Subjects 23
3.3 Instrumentality 26
3.3.1 Questionnaire 26
3.3.2 Interpretation Materials 27
3.3.3 Evaluation Chart 27
3.4 Procedures 28
3.4.1 Preparation 29
3.4.2 During the Experiment 29
3.4.3 Data Collection 31
3.4.4 Data Analysis 31
CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSIS 32
4.1 Analysis of Each Variable 32
4.1.1 Gender 34
4.1.2 Major in College 35
4.1.3 Graduate Institute 36
4.1.4 Years of Training 37
4.1.5 Consecutive Interpreting Training without Taking Notes 39
4.1.6 Practical Working Experience 40
4.2 Analysis of Each Group 41
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 44
5.1 Major Findings 44
5.2 Limitations and Implications 46
5.3 Suggestions for Future Research 47
REFERENCES 48
APPENDIX A 51
APPENDIX B 52
APPENDIX C 53



LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Equations of Competition Hypothesis 12
Table 2.2 Actor’s Capacity of Assessing Interpreting Quality 17
Table 2.3 Criteria for Interpreting Quality Assessment 18
Table 3.1 Individual Subjects’ Background 21
Table 3.2 Performances of Each Subject 22
Table 3.3 Background of Individual Subject 24
Table 4.1 Scores of the Interpretation Performance of the Subjects 32
Table 4.2 Interpretation Performance of Subjects with Different Genders 34
Table 4.3 Interpretation Performance of Subjects with Different Majors in Colleges 35
Table 4.4 Interpretation performance of subjects from different institutes 36
Table 4.6 Post Hoc test on the Variables of Years of Training 38
Table 4.7 Interpretation Performance of Subjects with or without Training Not to Take Notes 39
Table 4.8 Interpretation performance of subjects with or without practical working experience 40
Table 4.9 Interpretation Performance of Each Group 42

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Pöchhacker’s Continuum of Consecutive Interpreting (Pöchhacker, 2004, as cited from Yang 2008, p. 9) 8
Figure 3.1 The Structure of the Experiment 29

AIIC.(1998). Modes of interpretation. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/article1097.html
Baddeley, A. (1997). Human memory-theory and practice. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Bühler, H. (1986) Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters.MULTILINGUA, 5(4), 231-236.
Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (Semantic) and extra-linguistic (Pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters.Multilingua, 5(4), 231-235.
Gile, D., (1984b) Les nomspropres en interprétationsimultanée. Multilingua 3-2. 79-85.
Gile, D., (1991a) Prise de notes et attention en debut d’appretissage de l’interprétationconsecutive–uneexpérience-démonstration de sensibilisation. Meta 36/2. 431-439
Gile, Daniel (1994): Opening up in interpretation studies. In: Snell-Hornby et al. (eds). 149-158.
Gile, D., (1995a). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and TranslatorTraining. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 159-189.
Gile, Daniel (1999). Variability in the perception of fidelity in simultaneous interpretation: Hermes 22. 51-80.
Gile, Daniel (1999). Testing the Effort Models’ tightrope hypothesis insimultaneous interpreting - A contribution: Hermes, Journal of Linguistics no. 23. 156-157.
Hsiao, S. Y. (2012) The Application of Note-taking Strategy in Consecutive Interpretation to Teaching English Listening to Taiwanese Senior High School Students. 23-24.
Jones, Roderick, (1998). Conference Interpreting Explained. St. Jerome Publishing.
Kahane, E. (2001) Thoughts on the quality of interpretation.Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://www.aiic.net/page/197.
Kopczynski, A. (1994). Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. In S. Lambert &; B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 87-99). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Li, L. T. (2012) An Empirical Study on Note-taking Efficiency in Consecutive Interpretation. 13-14.
Liu, H. P. (2001). Interpreting skills: Approaches to teaching interpretation. Beijing: China Translation &; Publishing Corporation.
Liu, Y. S. (2013) Interpreter Reputation and Quality of Interpretation. 86-91.
Liu, M. H., Ru, M. L., Liao, Y. F., Lin, Q. L., Qiu, Y. X., et al. (2010). Final report on the establishment of Chinese/English consecutive interpretation accreditation system. Taipei: National Institute for Compilation and Translation. 【劉敏華主持。2010。《建立國家中英文逐步口譯能力考試評分與命題機制第四期研究計畫》期末報告。台北市：國立編譯館。】
Liu, M. H. (2008). Consecutive interpretation and note-taking. Taipei: Bookman.【劉敏華。2008。《逐步口譯與筆記》。台北市：書林】
Moser-Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in Interpreting: Some Methodological Issues in The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 7, 43-45.
Moser-Mercer, B., (2000). Simultaneous Interpreting: Cognitive Potential andLimitations. Interpreting, Volume5, Issue 2, 83-94.
Pöchhacker, F., (1993).Quality Assurance in Simultaneous Interpreting. Papersfrom the Second Language International Conference, Elsinore, Denmark,Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233-242.
Pöchhacker, F., (2001).Quality Assessment in Conference and Community
Interpreting. Meta, XLVI, 2, 400-425.
Pöchhacker, F., (2004). Introducing Interpreting Studies, New York :Routledge. 19-20.
Stenzl, C. (2002). Review of “interpretazionesimultaneae consecutive: problemiteoricie metodologiedidattiche” In Catarina Falbo, Mariachiara Russo and FrancescoStraniero Sergio (Eds). Target: International Journal of Translation Studies, 13(1), 172-177.
Shlesinger, M. (1997).Quality in Simultaneous interpreting. In Y. Gambier, D. Gile and C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research (pp.123-131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tulving, E., &;Pearlstone, Z. (1966).Availibility versus accessibility of information in memory for words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 381-391.
Vermeer, Hans. J. (1992) “Is Translation a Linguistic or a Cultural Process?”, in: Malcolm Coulthard (ed.) Studies in Translation/Estudos in Tradução, Ilha do Desterro. 28/1992. 37–49.
Studies in Translation/Estudos in Tradução, Ilha do Desterro. 28/1992. 37–49
Yang, Y. A. (2008) The Impact of Chengyu on Perceptions of Interpreter Performance 13-14.
Yang, J. H. (2008) Delivery Segments in Consecutive Interpretation: Quality Assessment from the Audience Perspective. 90-91.
Yang, J. H. (2008) Delivery Segments in Consecutive Interpretation: Quality Assessment from the Audience Perspective. 12-13.
Ye, S. B. (2000). The Meaning and Functions of Nonverbal Elements in Short Consecutive Interpretation: An Initial Exploration.