臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

同步口譯中，聽譯時間差(ear-voice span; EVS)為講者說出原文，與譯者產出譯文之時間差。聽譯時間差能夠丈量且客觀，並且能夠提供同步口譯中認知負荷及認知過程的重要資訊。本研究旨在探討英到中同步口譯的平均聽譯時間差，聽譯時間差與錯誤和口譯表現的關聯性。
在本研究中，筆者邀請二所大學共十三位翻譯研究所口譯組的學生參與實驗，所有受試者皆為中文母語人士，英語為他們的第二語言。所有受試者針對一篇英文演講進行英到中同步口譯，並於口譯後填寫問卷。本實驗共蒐集十三份雙軌錄音及十三份問卷，並分析：(1)英到中同步口譯之平均聽譯時差；(2)聽譯時間差與錯誤類別之關聯性；及(3)聽譯時間差與譯文品質之關聯性。本研究採用Barik (1994)的口譯錯誤分類分析口譯錯誤，採用劉敏華(2007)的口譯忠實度評分量表評估譯文正確度。
分析結果顯示，英到中同步口譯平均聽譯時間差為3.7秒。有五種錯誤與聽譯時間差相關；聽譯時間差越長，譯文品質越差。長於5秒的聽譯時間差，不僅對當句譯文有不良影響，亦可能影響下一句或下幾句譯文的品質。根據本實驗的分析，2-4秒有可能是最佳聽譯時間差長度。

Time lag between the source text (ST) uttered by the speaker and the target text (TT) delivered by the interpreter is defined as ear-voice span (EVS). EVS is a pivotal variable because it is observable and objective which provides insight into the cognitive load and cognitive processing involved in simultaneous interpretation (SI). This study aims to investigate the average EVS from Chinese to English in SI and the relationship between EVS duration and performance.
Thirteen interpreting majors from two institutes who have Chinese A and English B participated in the study. They were asked to perform simultaneous interpreting from English to Chinese. Thirteen dual-track recordings and 13 post-experiment questionnaires were collected from the experiment and analyzed to explore the following: (1) the average EVS in English to Chinese SI; (2) the relationship between EVS duration and error types; and (3) the relationship between EVS duration and TL rendition. Barik’s (1994) categorization of interpreting errors and Liu, Chen, Chang, Lin &; Wu’s (2007) criteria for assessment of fidelity in interpretation were adopted for error analysis and accuracy evaluation.
The findings suggested that the average EVS from English to Chinese is 3.7 seconds and five error types were related to EVS duration: the skipping omission of single words (M1a), the skipping omission of single phrases (M1b), the comprehension and delay omission (M2), the mild semantic error (E1) and the closure addition (A4). The results also indicate that EVS duration is significantly negatively related to accuracy in TL rendition. Longer EVS duration was associated with lower accuracy score. Long EVS (> 5 seconds) not only had the negative impact on the current working sentence but might also on the processing of the incoming sentences. Based on the error analysis and the accuracy assessment in the study, the possible appropriate EVS range is from 2-4 seconds.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) i
ABSTRACE (CHINESE) iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study 3
1.3 Significance of the Study 4
1.4 Organization of the Study 5
1.5 Terminology 5
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Ear-voice Span in Simultaneous Interpretation 7
2.2 The Unit of Interpreting 8
2.3 EVS in Different Language Pairs 9
2.3.1 EVS between Indo-European Language Pair 10
2.3.2 EVS between an Indo-European Language and an Asian Language, and between Asian Language Pair 17
2.3.3 EVS from Chinese to English 18
2.4 Syntactic Structure and Word Order between English and Chinese 19
2.5 Optimal EVS 20
2.6 Cognitive Resources Management in Simultaneous Interpretation 22
2.6.1 The Effort Model of Simultaneous Interpretation 23
2.6.2 Effects of External Factors in Processing Capacity and EVS 24
2.6.2.1 Input Rate 25
2.6.2.2 Signal-to-noise Ratio 26
2.6.2.3 Text Type 26
2.6.2.4 Simultaneous Interpretation with Text 28
2.6.3 Effects of Internal Factors in Processing Capacity and EVS 28
2.6.3.1 Meaning-based Strategy versus Transcoding Strategy 29
2.6.3.2 Anticipation 30
2.6.3.3 Segmentation 31
2.6.3.4 Regulation of EVS 32
2.7 Categorizations of Error Analysis in Simultaneous Interpretation 33
2.7.1 Gerver’s Categorization of Interpreting Errors 33
2.7.2 Barik’s Categorization of Interpreting Errors 33
2.7.3 Altman’s Categorization of Interpreting Errors 37
2.7.4 Other Categorizations of Interpreting Errors 38
2.7.5 EVS and Performance 41
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 43
3.1 Subjects 43
3.2 Instruments 45
3.2.1 Source Text 45
3.2.2 Post-experiment Questionnaire 47
3.3 Pilot Study 48
3.4 Procedure 49
3.5 Data Analysis 51
3.5.1 EVS Measurement 51
3.5.2 Error Analysis of Output Rendition 53
3.5.3 Fidelity Assessment of Output Rendition 56
3.5.4 Problematic Segments and EVS Duration 58
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 59
4.1 Average EVS and EVS Duration 59
4.2 EVS Duration and Error Types 64
4.3 EVS Duration and Fidelity of Output Rendition 72
4.4 Problematic Segments and EVS Duration 75
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 78
5.1 Summary of Findings 78
5.2 Implications of the Study 80
5.3 Limitations of the Study 81
5.4 Suggestions for Future Study 83
REFERENCES 84
APPENDICES 91
Appendix A 91
Appendix B 95
Appendix C 101
Appendix D 103
Appendix E 105
Appendix F 106
Appendix G 110
Appendix H 111
Appendix I 112
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 EVS patterns reported in Donato (2003) 14
Table 2.2 The average EVS between Indo-European language pair 16
Table 2.3 The average EVS between an Indo-European language and an Asian language and between Asian language pair 19
Table 2.4 Categorization of interpreting errors adopted in the study (Barik, 1994) 41
Table 3.1 Subjects’ background information 44
Table 3.2 Experiment schedule 49
Table 3.3 Categorization of interpreting errors adopted in the study (Barik, 1994) 55
Table 3.4 The English version of criteria for assessment of fidelity in English-Chinese interpretation (Liu et al., 2007) 57
Table 4.1 Data of Ear-voice span 60
Table 4.2 The proportion of each EVS range 61
Table 4.3 The proportion of each EVS range of group 1 62
Table 4.4 The proportion of each EVS range of group 2 62
Table 4.5 The proportion of each EVS range of group 3 (2-1) 63
Table 4.6 The proportion of each EVS range of group 3 (2-2) 63
Table 4.7 The quantity of each error type occurred in individual EVS range 64
Table 4.8 The quantity and percentage of M1a occurred in individual EVS range 65
Table 4.9 The quantity and percentage of M1b occurred in individual EVS range 65
Table 4.10 The quantity and percentage of M2 occurred in individual EVS range 66
Table 4.11 The quantity and percentage of A4 occurred in individual EVS range 67
Table 4.12 The quantity and percentage of E1 occurred in individual EVS range 68
Table 4.13 The quantity and percentage of E2 occurred in individual EVS range 68
Table 4.14 The distribution of E3 and E4 and the imported cognitive load 71
Table 4.15 Mean, SD and N of EVS and grade 72
Table 4.16 Results of Pearson’s Correlation 73
Table 4.17 The EVS and accuracy score 74
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Experiment procedure 51
Figure 3.2 The measurement of EVS 53
Figure 4.1 Relationship among median EVS, average EVS and mean accuracy score 75

Alexieva, B. (1998). Consecutive interpreting as a decision process. In A. Beylard-Ozeroff, J. Králová &; B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Translators' strategies and creativity (pp. 181-188). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Altman, J. (1994). Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous interpreting: A pilot study. In S. Lambert &; B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 25-38). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Anderson, L. (1979). Simultaneous interpretation: Contextual and translation aspects. Unpublished Master's thesis, Concordia University.
Anderson, L. (1994). Simultaneous interpretation: Contextual and translation aspects. In S. Lambert &; B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 101-120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Barik, H. C. (1973). Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language and Speech, 16(3), 237-270.
Barik, H. C. (1975). Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language and Speech, 18, 272-297.
Barik, H. C. (1994). A descriptive of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lanbert &; B. Moser-Meser (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Barik, H. C. (2002). Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. In F. Pöchhacker &; M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 78-91). New York: Routledge.
Carroll, J. B. (1966). An experiment in evaluating the quality of translations. Mechanical Translation and Computational Linguistics, 9(3/4), 55-66.
Chang, A. L. (2009). Ear-voice span and target language rendition in Chinese to English simultaneous interpretation. Studies of Translation and Interpretation, 12, 177-217.
Chernov, G. V. (1979). Semantic aspects of psycholinguistic research in simultaneous interpretation. Language and Speech, 22(3), 277-295.
Chernov, G. V. (1994). Message redundancy and message anticipation in simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lambert &; B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 139-153). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chernov, G. V. (2004). Inference and anticipation in simultaneous interpreting: A probability-prediction model. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Christoffels, I. K. (2004). Cognitive studies in simultaneous interpreting. Enschede: PrintPartners Ipskamp.
Dam, H. V. (2001). On the option between form-based and meaning-based interpreting: The effect of source text difficulty on lexical target text form in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 11, 27-55.
Darò, V. (1994). Non-linguistic factors influencing simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lambert &; B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 249-271). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Darò, V., &; Fabbro, F. (1994). Verbal memory during simultaneous intepretation: Effects of phonological interference. Applied Linguistics, 15(4), 365-381.
De Groot, A. M. B. (1997). The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Three approaches. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain &; M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 25-56). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
De Groot, A. M. B. (2000). A complex-skill approach to translation and interpreting. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit &; R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research (pp. 53-68). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Donato, V. (2003). Strategies adopted by student interpreters in SI: a comparison between the English-Italian and the German-Italian pairs. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 12, 100-134.
Du, Z., &; Meng, X. (2006). Waiting in simultaneous interpretation: an issue open to question. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 29(5), 69-73.
Fabbro, F., &; Gran, L. (1994). Neurological and neuropsychological aspects of ployglossia and simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lambert &; B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 273-317). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fabbro, F., &; Gran, L. (1997). Neurolinguistic aspects of simultaneous interpretation. In Y. Gambier, D. Gile &; C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research (pp. 9-27). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gerver, D. (1969). The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In F. Pöchhacker &; M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 52-66). New York: Routledge.
Gerver, D. (1971). Simultaneous and consecutive interpretation and human information processing. London: Social Science Research Council, Research Report HR 566/1.
Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research (pp. 165-207). New York: Gardner.
Gile, D. (1994). Methodological aspects of interpretation and translation research. In S. Lambert &; B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 39-56). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (1997). Conference interpreting as a cognitve management problem. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain &; M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 196-214). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Gile, D. (1999a). Testing the effort models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting-a contribution. Hermes, 23, 153-172.
Gile, D. (1999b). Variability in the perception of fidelity in simultaneous interpretation. Hermes, 22, 51-79.
Gile, D. (2008). Local cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting and its implications for empirical research. Forum, 6(2), 59-77.
Gile, D. (2011). Errors, omissions and infelicities in broadcasting interpreting: Preliminary finding from a case study. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild &; E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp. 201-218). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1(2), 127-140.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1980). Psychological mechanisms of speech production as studied through the analysis of simultaneous translations. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production Vol 1: Speech and talk (pp. 143-153). New York: Academic Press.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (2002). Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation. In F. Pöchhacker &; M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 68-76). New York: Routledge.
Gumul, E., &; Łyda, A. (2007). The time constraint in conference interpreting: Simultaneous vs. consecutive. Research in Language, 5, 165-183.
Hyönä, J., Tommola, J., &; Alaja, A.-M. (1995). Pupil dilation as a measure of processing load in simultaneous interpretation and other language tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(A), 598-612.

Isham, W. P. (1994). Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation: evidence both for and against deverbalization. In S. Lambert &; B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jones, R. (2002). Conference interpreting explained (2nd ed.). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Kade, O., &; Cartellieri, C. (1971). Some methodological aspects of simultaneous interpreting. Babel, 17(2), 12-16.
Kim, H. R. (2005). Linguistic characteristics and interpretation strategy based on EVS analysis of Korean-Chinese, Korean-Japanese interpretation. Meta: Translators' Journal, 50(4). Retrieved from http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/019846ar
Kirchhoff, H. (2002). Simultaneous interpreting: interdependence of variables in the interpreting process, interpreting models and interpreting strategies. In F. Pöchhacker &; M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 110-119). New York: Routledge.
Lamberger-Felber, H. (2001). Text-oriented research into interpreting: Examples from a case-study. Hermes, 26, 39-64.
Lambert, S. (2004). Shared attention during sight translation, sight interpretation and simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 49(2), 294-306.
Lan, S., Liu, M., Chang, C., Chen, Z., Lin, Q., &; Li, J. (2008). Final report on the establishment of Chinese/English consecutive interpretation accreditation system. Taipei: National Institute for Compilation and Translation. 【藍順德，劉敏華，張嘉倩，陳子瑋，林慶隆，&; 李俊忠等。(2008)。國立編譯館專案研究計畫：建立國家中英文「逐步口譯」能力考試評分與命題機制第二期研究計畫期末報告。台北：國立編譯館。】.
Lederer, M. (2002). Simultaneous interpretation: units of meaning and other features. In F. Pöchhacker &; M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 130-140). New York: Routledge.
Lee, T. H. (2002). Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta: Translators' Journal, 47(4), 596-606.
Li, C. N., &; Thompson, S. A. (2008). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Liu, M. (2001). Expertise in simultaneous interpreting: A working memory analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas.
Liu, M. (2008). How do experts interpret? Implications from research in interpreting studies and cognitive science. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman &; H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation: A tribute to Daniel Gile (pp. 159-177). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Liu, M., Chen, Z., Chang, C., Lin, Q., &; Wu, S. (2007). Suggestions for the principles, assessment tools and procedures of the English to Chinese Interpretation Competency Examination held by the Ministry of Education. Taipei: National Institute for Compilation and Translation. 【劉敏華，陳子瑋，張嘉倩，林慶隆，&; 吳紹銓。(2007)。教育部中英文翻譯能力考試「逐步口譯」之命題原則、評分工具、程序及檢核建議書。台北：國立編譯館。】.
Liu, M., Zhang, W., Lin, S., Chen, B., Ye, S., Luo, X., . . . Yang, S. (2005). Final report for establishing the translation and interpretation accreditation system. Taipei: National Institute for Compilation and Translation. 【劉敏華，張武昌，林世華，陳碧珠，葉舒白，&; 駱香潔等。(2005)。國立編譯館委託研究計畫「建立國家翻譯人才評鑑標準」第二期研究期末報告。台北：國立編譯館。】.
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Simultaneous interpretation and the competition model. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain &; M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 215-232). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1978). Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application. In D. Gerver &; H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication (pp. 353-368). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1997). Beyond curiosity: Can interpreting research meet the challenge? . In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain &; M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 176-195). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Oléron, P., &; Nanpon, H. (2002). Research into simultaneous translation. In F. Pöchhacker &; M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 42-50). New York: Routledge.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge.
Paneth, E. (1957). An investigation into conference interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker &; M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 30-40). New York: Routledge.
Pio, S. (2003). The relation between ST delivery rate and quality in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 12, 69-100.
Podhajská, K. (2007). Time lag in simultaneous interpretation from English into Czech and its dependence on text type Retrieved June 26, 2012, from the CIRIN Bulletin, 37: http://cirinandgile.com/Bulletin%2034rtf.htm
Pym, A. (2008). On omission in siumltaneous interpreting: Risk analysis of a hidden effort. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman &; H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile (pp. 83-105). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Riccardi, A. (1998). Interpreting strategies and creativity. In A. Beylard-Ozeroff, J. Králová &; B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Translators' strategies and creativity (pp. 171-179). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Riccardi, A. (2002a). Evaluation in interpretation: Macrocriteria and microcriteria. In E. Huang (Ed.), Teaching translation and interpreting 4: Building bridges (pp. 115-126). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Riccardi, A. (2002b). Interpreting research: Descriptive aspects and methodological proposals. In G. Garzone &; M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and oppurtunities (pp. 15-27). Amsterdam/Philadelpia: John Benjamins.
Schweda-Nicholson, N. (1987). Linguistic and extralinguistic aspects of simultaneous interpretation. Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 194-205.
Seeber, K. G. (2001). Intonation and anticipation in simultaneous interpreting. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 23, 61-97.
Seeber, K. G. (2011). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 13(2), 176-204.
Seeber, K. G., &; Kerzel, D. (2012). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(2), 228-242.
Setton, R. (1994). Training conference interpreters with Chinese--problems and prospects. In R. K. Seymour &; C. C. Liu (Eds.), Translation and interpreting: bridging East and West (pp. 55-66). Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press
Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Timarová, S., Dragsted, B., &; Hansen, I. G. (2011). Time lag in translation and interpreting: A methodological exploration. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild &; E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp. 121-146). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Treisman, A. M. (1965). The effects of redundancy and familiarity on translating and repeating back a foreign and a native language. British Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 369-379.
Wang, T. (2010). A study of error analysis of English-Chinese simultaneous interpretation and corresponding strategies in use. Unpublished Master's thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.
Wu, M. (2001). The importance of being strategic--a strategic approach to the teaching of simultaneous interpreting. Studies of Translation and Interpretation, 6, 79-92.
Wu, S. (2010). Assessing simultaneous interpreting: A study on test reliability and examiners' assesment behaviour. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Yagi, S. M. (2000). Studying style in simultaneous interpretation. Meta: Translators' Journal, 45(3), 520-547.
Ye, Z. (2000). The theory and practice of English-Chinese translation. Taipei: Bookman. 【葉子南。2000。《英漢翻譯理論與實踐》。台北市：書林。】