Enhancing the Quality of Court Interpretation-A Functionalist Approach

法庭口譯品質提升的功能視角

10.29912/CTR.201309_6(2).0004

陳雅齡(Ya-Ling Chen)；陳子瑋(Tze-Wei Chen)

法庭口譯 ； 功能論 ； 忠誠 ； 翻譯綱要 ； 適切原則 ； court interpreting ； functionalist approach ； loyalty ； translation brief ； adequacy

編譯論叢

6卷2期（2013 / 09 / 01）

99 - 126

英文

進入二十一世紀，口譯界明顯已經開始注意到會議口譯外的多重面貌。口譯質量評估的研究從1980年代開始，不過多集中在會議口譯方面。其中，Pöchhacker（2001）主張︰口譯品質評估有許多層面及不同立場，評估時不能只針對語言層面，應同時衡量整體溝通效果及對當時翻譯情境及機構因素所造成的影響。Nord根據Vermeer理論框架，於著作《翻譯是一種目的性活動》提出幾種概念，包括「翻譯是行動」（translation as an action）、「翻譯綱要」（translation brief）、「功能加忠誠」（function plus loyalty）、「功能對等」（functional equivalence）及「適切原則」（adequacy principle）等。筆者因此應用這些概念，作為提升法庭口譯品質的準據，並對照筆者在法庭上觀察或親身經歷的例子。結論提出，法庭口譯是一種極具目的性及溝通性的活動、主要是用來協助法官在法庭上審理案件，口譯員若能應用Nord功能理論之行動概念，譯前規畫「翻譯綱要」、過程中恪守對各講者「忠誠」及代表國家法律－法官的「最高忠誠」；法律術語上把握諾德的「適切」原則，如此將有助於確保或提升口譯員的翻譯品質。本研究結果期望有助於日後法庭口譯人員的訓練，甚或為整體的口譯品質評估研究引進新作法與新方向。

The increasingly diversified nature of the field of interpretation has drawn more attention in the twenty-first century than ever before. In particular, the quality of interpretation has come into greater focus. Scholars began to research the methods of assessing the quality of interpretation in the 1980 s, but mostly targeted conference interpretation. Pöchhacker (2001) indicates that to assess the quality of interpreting activities involves many issues, and that genuine assessment cannot be confined to a linguistic substrate but must be conducted also at the level of communicative effect and impact within a particular situational and institutional environment. Based on Hans Vermeer's skopos theory, Christiane Nord (1997) discusses the multiplicity of mediated intercultural communication activities, including translating and interpreting, in terms of 'translation as an action', 'translation briefs', 'function plus loyalty', 'functional equivalence' and the 'adequacy principle'. In this study, the authors adopt Nord's ideas as the criteria for the enhancement of quality in court interpreting and explains them by providing concrete examples based on the authors' own observations and experience. In the conclusion, the authors state that since court interpreting is a highly purposeful and communicative event, the interpreter is able to assure or enhance interpretation quality if he/she applies the concepts of 'interpretation brief' and 'loyalty' to each speaker, and the concept of 'supreme loyalty' to the judge entrusted by the judicial institution, and adheres to the 'adequacy' principle when dealing with the translation of legal terms. The results of this study are expected to improve the training procedures for court interpreters and even to contribute to the study of quality assessment in and for the field of interpretation.

1. 李憲榮（2010）。法律翻譯的困難。取自http://www.taiwantati.org/?p=359
2. Bühler, H.(1986).Linguistic (semanic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and intepreters.Multilingua,5,231-235.
3. Cao, D.(2007).Translation law.New York:Multilingual Matters, Ltd..
4. Drongelen, I.,Fisscher, O.(2003).Ethical dilemmas in performance measurement.Journal of Business Ethics,45,51-63.
5. Gibson, K.(2003).Contrasting role morality and professional morality: Implications for practice.Journal of Applied Philosophy,20,17-29.
6. Gile, D.(1990).L'évaluation de la qualité de l'interprétation par les délégués: Une étude de cas.The Interpreter Newsletter,3,66-71.
7. Gonzalez, R. D.,Vásquez, V. F.,Mikkelson, H.(2012).Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy and practice.Durham, NC:Carolina Academic Press.
8. Hale, S. B.(2004).The discourse of court interpreting.Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
9. Hatim, B.,Mason, I.(1997).The translator as communicator.London:Routledge.
10. Kurz, I.(1989).Conference interpregting-User expectations.Coming of age,Washington, D.C.:
11. Mason, M.(2008).Courtroom interpreting.New York:University Press of America, Inc..
12. Meak, L.(1990).Interprétation simultanée et congrès medical: Attentes et commentaries.The Interpreters‚Newsletter,3,8-13.
13. Newmark, P.(2001).Approaches to translation.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
14. Nida, E.,Taber, Charles R.(1969).The theory and practice of translation.Leiden:E. J. Brill.
15. Nord, C.(1997).Translation as a purposeful activity.Manchester:St. Jerome.
16. Pöchhacker, F.(2001).Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting.Meta,46(2),410-425.
17. Reiss, K.,Rhodes, E.F.(Trans.)(2000).Translation criticism: The potentials and limitations.Manchester:St. Jerome.
18. Šarčević, S.(1997).New approach to legal translation.The Hague:Kluwer Law International.
19. Weisflog, W. E.(1987).Problems of legal translation.Swiss Reports,Zurich:
20. 沈美真、李炳南、楊美鈴(2012)。,臺北:監察院。
21. 陳德鴻編、張南峰編(2006)。西方翻譯理論精選。香港:城市大學出版社。
22. 蔡小紅(2006)。口譯評估。北京:中國對外翻譯出版公司。

1. Liao, Posen,Chen, Yaling(2016).A Revised Model for the Professionalization of Court Interpreting in Taiwan.編譯論叢,9(2),137-164.
2. 張中倩(2020)。5W1H Training Effectiveness for Information Extraction: Interpreting Summarized Chinese Indictments into English。編譯論叢，13(1)，115-164。