臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討口筆譯研究所學生在逐步口譯訓練過程中，其筆記與口譯內容之關係。本研究僅以內容完整性為標準，評估十二位在學學生之口譯表現與筆記。重要研究發現包括：1) 無論年級，學生進行逐步口譯時，都相當依賴筆記；2) 研究所的課程在學生素質整齊化方面，筆記的訓練成效高於口譯表現；3) 高年級傾向將不完整的筆記翻譯得比較完整，顯示其在筆記與短期記憶之間的配合較密切；反之，低年級容易將完整正確的筆記翻錯或譯不完全，顯示其記筆記前之資訊處理做得不夠。 雖然學生的口譯與筆記表現方面，呈現隨年級進步的現象，但由於本次實驗的樣本嫌小，又屬於單次實驗，究竟進步本身來自有效的課程設計，抑或熟能生巧之故，似乎不易確認。

This study examines students’ notes in relations to their speech production throughout the training course in graduate level Translation and Interpretation programs. This study takes content completeness as the only criterion for the evaluation of the 12 student subjects’ notes and delivery. Major findings of this paper include: 1) regardless of years of training, students rely heavily on their notes in speech production; 2) training has more effect on students’ notes than on speech production in terms of bringing their performance closer together; 3) senior students demonstrate better capability in coordinating their notes and working memory in that they tend to deliver fuller of their incomplete or missing notes; while junior students tend to translate their complete notes incompletely or even incorrectly, showing that their information processing before the act of note-taking is not deep enough. However, due to the small sample size and the fact that this experiment was done only once, it is not clear whether the progress in note-taking demonstrated by students comes from the good training program design, or it is simply the result of experience and practice.

Table of Contents
Chapter I Introduction
1.1 The Definitions of Conference Interpretation
1.2 The Provision of Conference Interpretation
1.3 Research Background
1.4 Research Objectives
1.5 Thesis Outline
Chapter II Literature Review
2.1 CI and Note-Taking
2.1.1 The Role of Note-Taking
2.1.2 Students’ Note-Taking
2.2 CI and Memory
2.2.1 Memory and Note-Taking
2.2.2 Research on CI Memory
2.3 Guidelines of Note-Taking
2.3.1 Features and Elements of Notes
2.3.2 Symbols and Format of Notes
2.4 CI Training
2.4.1 Memory Training
2.4.2 Language Specific Training
2.4.3 Evaluation of Training Results
Chapter III Methodology
3.1 Nature of the Study
3.2 Assumptions
3.2.1 Students’ Learning Approach
3.2.2 Students’ Memory
3.2.3 Students’ Learning Curves
3.2.4 Students’ Processing Capacity
3.2.5 Student’s Language Proficiency
3.3 Research Design
3.3.1 Scope of Research
3.3.2 The Speech
3.3.3 Evaluation Criteria
3.3.4 Definitions of Delivery Categorizations
3.3.5 Definitions of Notes Categorizations
3.3.6 Definitions of Combinations
3.4 Implementation
3.4.1 Subjects’ Background
3.4.2 Subjects’ Grouping
3.4.3 Sample Size
3.4.4 Conducting the Experiment
3.5 Research Limitations
3.5.1 Missing Audience
3.5.2 Missing Speaker
3.5.3 Limited Sample Size
3.5.4 Categorization Definitions
3.5.5 Lacking long-Term Observation
3.5.6 Other Limitations
Chapter IV Research Findings
4.1 Comparison of Speech Production Between Interpreters
4.1.1 General Trend
4.1.2 Comparison Between Groups
4.1.3 Implications for Training
4.2 Comparison of Notes Between Interpreters
4.2.1 General Trend
4.2.2 Comparison Between Groups
4.2.3 Implications for Training
4.3 Comparison Between Notes and Speech Production
4.3.1 General Trend and Group Comparison
4.3.2 Delivery From Type A Notes
4.3.3 Delivery From Type B Notes
4.3.4 Delivery From Type C Notes
4.3.5 Notes Resulting in Type A Delivery
4.3.6 Notes Resulting in Type B Delivery
4.3.7 Notes Resulting in Type C Delivery
4.4 Discussion
4.4.1 Students’ Handling of Lists and Proper Names
4.4.2 Student’s Handling of Functional Words
4.4.3 Other Attributes of Students’ Notes
4.4.4 Training Results
4.5 Recommendations for Improvement
Chapter V Conclusion
5.1 Major Conclusions
5.2 Suggestions for Future Studies
References
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
92
94
95
96
106
107
111
114
121
124
136
143
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Definition and Meaning of Delivery-Notes
Combinations
Table 3.2 Student Interpreters’ Background
Table 4.1 Delivery and Notes Combination
Table 4.2 Comparison of Lists and Proper Names
Table 4.3 Comparison of Links, Separations, Stresses, and
Opinions
Table 4.4 Recommendations
48
50
71
91
93
103
List of Figures
Figure 4.1 Students’ Delivery
Figure 4.2 Students’ Notes
Figure 4.3 Delivery with Correct Notes
Figure 4.4 Delivery with Incomplete Notes
Figure 4.5 Delivery with Incorrect Notes
Figure 4.6 Contribution of Notes to Correct Delivery
Figure 4.7 Contribution of Notes to Incomplete Delivery
Figure 4.8 Contribution of Notes to Incorrect Delivery
Figure 4.9 Error Distribution
Figure 4.10 Areas for Improvement
63
67
78
80
81
85
86
89
98
105

In English and Foreign Languages:
Alexieva, Bistra. 1994. “On Teaching Note-Taking in Consecutive Interpreting”. Cay Dollerup and Annette Lindegaard, ed. Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, aims, Visions. Amsterdam: John Benjimins. 199-206.
Altman, Janet. 1994. “Error Analysis in the Teaching of Simultaneous Interpretation: A Pilot Study”. Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moseer-Mercer, ed. Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 25-38.
Arjona-Tseng, Etilvia. 1994. “A Psychometric Approach to the Selection of Translation and Interpreting Students in Taiwan”. Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moseer-Mercer, ed. Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 69-86.
Baddeley, Alan. 1997. “Simultaneous Interpretation and Working Memory”. Interviewed by Ingrid Kurz. Jerome Quarterly, 12-4. 13-14.
Ballester, Ana, and Jiménez, Catalina 1992. “Approaches to the Teaching of Interpreting: Mnemonic and Analytic Strategies”. Cay Dollerup & Anne Loddegaard, ed. Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience. Papers from the First Language International Conference, Elsinore, Denmark, 31 May — 2 June 1991 (Copenhagen Studies in Translation). Amsterdam: John Benjimins. 185-194.
Barik, Henri C. 1994. “A Description of Various Types of Omissions, Additions and Errors of Translation Encountered in Simultaneous Interpretation”. Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moseer-Mercer, ed. Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 121-137.
Bowen, David. 1994. “Teaching and Learning Styles”. Cay Dollerup and Annette Lindegaard, ed. Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aims, Vision. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 175-182.
Cheng, Y. P. 1994. “Consecutive Interpretation: How to Use Your Symbols Intelligently”. Richard K. Seynour and C.C. Liu, ed. Translation and Interpreting─Bringing East and West: Selected Conference Papers, Vol. 8. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. 11-17.
Cheng, Y. P. 1995. “Interpreting”. Chan Sin-wai and David E. Pollard, ed. An Encyclopedia of Translation: Chinese-English; English-Chinese. Hong Kong: Regal Printing. 464-471.
Darò, Valeria. 1995. “Memory in Conference Interpretation”. S. Lambert, ed. A Cognitive Approach to Interpreter Training. Amsterdam: Benjamns.
Darò, Valeria. 1997. “Experimental Studies on Memory in Conference Interpretation”. Meta, XLII, 4. 622-628.
Fraisse, Paul, Jean Piaget and Maurice Reuchlin. 1989. Traité de psychologie expérimentale, Vol. I: Histoire et méthode. Paris: PUF. Sixth Edition.
Gile, Daniel. 1990. “Scientific Research vs. Personal Theories in the Investigation of Interpretation”. Laura Gran & Christopher Taylor, ed. Aspects of Applied and Experimental Research on Conference Interpretation. Round Table on Interpretation Research, November 16, 1989. University of Trieste, Italy. 28-41.
Gile, Daniel. 1992. “Basic Theoretical Components in Interpreter and Translator Training”. Cay Dollerup & Anne Loddegaard, ed. Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience. Papers from the First Language International Conference, Elsinore, Denmark, 31 May — 2 June 1991 (Copenhagen Studies in Translation). Amsterdam: John Benjimins. 185-194.
Gile, Daniel. 1994a. “Methodological Aspects of Interpretation and Translation Research”. Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moseer-Mercer, ed. Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 39-57.
Gile, Daniel. 1994b. “Opening Up in Interpretation Studies”. Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker, and Klaus Kaindl, ed. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 149-158.
Gile, Daniel. 1995a. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gile, Daniel. 1995b. “Fidelity Assessment in Consecutive Interpretation”. Target, 7:1. 153-164.
Gile, Daniel. 1998. “Observational Studies and Experimental Studies in the Investigation of Conference Interpreting”. Target, 10:1. 69-93.
Gile, Daniel. 1999a. “Internationalization and Institutionalization as Promoters of Interpretation Research”. Wege der Übersetzungs─und Dolmetschforschung . Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 167-178.
Gile, Daniel. 1999b. “Variability in the Perception of Fidelity in Simultaneous Interpretation”. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, No. 22. 51-79.
Golden, Seán. 1995. “Professional Translator and Interpreter Training Programmes”. Interpreting and Conference Translation. Hong Kong: Regal Printing. 1074-1084.
Hirst, W., Spelke, E. S., Reaves, C. C., Caharack, G. and U. Neisser. 1998. “Dividing Attention without Alternation or Automaticity”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 109. 98-117.
Jones, Roderick. 1998. Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: ST. Jerome.
Kopczyński, Andrzej. 1994. “Quality in Conference Interpreting: Some Pragmatic Problems”. Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker, and Klaus Kaindl, ed. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 189-198.
Lambert, S. 1989. “Information Processing among Conference Interpreters: A Test of the Depth-of-processing Hypothesis”. L. Gran and J. Dodds, eds. The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation. Udine: Campanotto. 83-91.
Mahmoodzadeh, Kambiz. 1994. “Consecutive Interpreting: Its Principles and Techniques”. Richard K. Seynour and C.C. Liu, ed. Translation and Interpreting─Bringing East and West: Selected Conference Papers, Vol. 8. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. 231-236.
Myers, Laura. 1976. Introduction to Consecutive Interpretation. California: Monterey Institute for Foreign Studies. [Unpublished].
Pong, Lam Shuk-lin. 1995a. “Simultaneous Interpreting”. Chan Sin-wai and David E. Pollard, ed. An Encyclopedia of Translation: Chinese-English; English-Chinese. Hong Kong: Regal Printing. 472-475.
Pong, Lam Shuk-lin. 1995b. “Training of Conference Interpreters”. Chan Sin-wai and David E. Pollard, ed. An Encyclopedia of Translation: Chinese-English; English-Chinese. Hong Kong: Regal Printing. 1068-1073.
Renfer, Christoph. 1992. “Translator and Interpreter Training: A Case for a Two-Tier System”. Cay Dollerup & Anne Loddegaard, ed. Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience. Papers from the First Language International Conference, Elsinore, Denmark, 31 May — 2 June 1991 (Copenhagen Studies in Translation). Amsterdam: John Benjimins. 185-194.
Seleskovitch, D. and M. Lederer. 1989. “Pédagogie raisonné de l’interprétation”. Paris: Didier Érudition.
Setton, Robin. 1994a. “Training Conference Interpreters with Chinese─Problems and Prospects”. Richard K. Seynour and C.C. Liu, ed. Translation and Interpreting─Bringing East and West: Selected Conference Papers, Vol. 8. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. 55-66.
Spelke, E., Hirst, W. and Neisser. 1976. “Skills of Divided Attention”. Cognition, 4. 215-230.
Weber, Wilhelm K. 1984. Training Translators and Conference Interpreters. N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Weber, Wilhelm K. 1986. “Improved Ways of Teaching Consecutive Interpretation”. 劉靖之, ed. 翻譯新論集－香港翻譯學會二十週年紀念文集. Taipei: Commercial Press. 284-292
In Chinese:
周兆祥‧陳育沾. 1995. 口譯的理論與實踐. 台北: 台灣商務.
思果. 1972. 翻譯研究. 台北: 台灣大地.
思果. 1982. 翻譯新究. 台北: 台灣大地.
黃國彬. 1996. 翻譯途徑. 台北: 書林.
台灣師大翻譯研究所. 1998. 研究生手冊. 台灣師大翻譯研究所. [未出版]. 鄭仰平 (Chen, Y.P.). 1989. 連續傳譯筆記─藝術家的工具. 劉靖之(編), 翻譯新論集－香港翻譯學會二十週年紀念文集. 台北: 台灣商務. 284-292.
劉敏華. 1993. 逐步口譯與筆記－理論．實踐與教學. 台北: 輔仁大學.