即席發言同步口譯中譯英譯文邏輯銜接強化現象

Enhancement of Logical Cohesion in Chinese/English Simultaneous Interpreting for Impromptu Speakers

10.29912/CTR.201709_10(2).0004

張嘉倩(Chia-chien Chang)

中英同步口譯 ； 邏輯銜接 ； 回指 ； 元話語 ； Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting ； logical cohesion ； anaphora ； metadiscourse

編譯論叢

10卷2期（2017 / 09 / 01）

119 - 151

繁體中文

即席發言為會議口譯常見的原文形式。由於即席發言的邏輯銜接通常較為鬆散，口譯員為確保產出譯文能符合邏輯銜接的品質指標，在理解原文與產出譯文過程都可能需要花費更多氣力。本研究以篇章分析方式，比較學生口譯員與專業口譯員在面對中文講者即席發言時，如何確保譯文的邏輯銜接。採用的語料為一篇中文即席發言演講原文與8位口譯員的同步口譯英文譯文。為能清楚對照中文講者即席發言的邏輯銜接與口譯員產出英文譯文的邏輯銜接，本研究分析兩類邏輯銜接指標：回指關係與元話語。研究發現，整體來說，無論是學生或專業口譯員，對於中文講者即席發言時使用代詞回指或元話語的方式，並不會照單全收。口譯員在理解訊息過程中，會將特定代詞的回指對象在譯文中明確化，進而減輕觀眾的認知負擔，並使譯文更加簡潔。在元話語方面，口譯員雖傾向保留原講者的框架與過渡標記，但當原文講者因即席發言導致元話語使用不當時，口譯員也會就自身的理解，決定是否譯出或修正。

A common type of input for conference interpreters is impromptu speeches. With their generally looser logical structure, impromptu speeches can present unique challenges for interpreters, especially in terms of meeting the criteria of the ＂logical cohesion of utterance.＂ This study examines the process as well as the quality of the Chinese-to- English simultaneous interpreting of an impromptu speech by eight interpreters- four professionals and four trainees-in order to see if interpreters may need to exert more effort in the interpreting process. Two types of cohesion criteria were adopted, anaphora and metalanguage, to compare the levels of cohesion between the source and the target texts. The results show that both professional and student interpreters tended to make certain types of anaphora explicit in their renditions, possibly in an attempt to make their interpreting more succinct and understandable. In addition, the interpreters usually preserved the frame and transition markers used by the speaker in their renditions. But when those meta-discourse markers were used inappropriately due to lack of planning, interpreters might change or delete the markers based on their own understanding.

1. Zwischenberger, C., & Pöchhacker, F. (2010, March 15). Survey on quality and role: Conference interpreters' expectations and self-perceptions. Communicate!, 53. Retrieved from http://aiic.net/page/3405/surveyon-quality-and-role-conference-interpreters-expectations-and-selfperceptions/lang/1
2. Ardito, G.(1999).The systematic use of impromptu speeches in training interpreting students.The Interpreters' Newsletter,9,177-189.
3. Besien, V. F.,Meuleman, C.(2004).Dealing with speakers' errors and speakers' repairs in simultaneous interpretation: A corpus-based study.The Translator,10(1),59-81.
4. Brown, G.,Yule, G.(1983).Discourse analysis.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
5. Bühler, H.(1986).Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters.Multilingua,5(4),231-235.
6. Chang, C.,Kim, M.(2016).The re/creation of logical cohesion in Chinese-English simultaneous interpreting: A systematic functional linguistic account.Studies in English Language and Literature,38,47-84.
7. Chang, C.,Schallert, D. L.(2007).The impact of directionality on Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting.Interpreting,9(2),137-176.
8. Chang, C.,Wu, M.(2009).Address form shifts in interpreted Q&A sessions.Interpreting,11(2),164-189.
9. Déjean Le Féal, K.(1982).Why impromptu speech is easy to understand.Impromptu speech: A symposium,Åbo, Finland:
10. Donovan, C.(2005).Teaching simultaneous interpretation into B: A challenge for responsible interpreter training.Communication & Cognition,38(1-2),147-166.
11. Halliday, M. A. K.,Hasan, R.(1976).Cohesion in English.London, England:Longman.
12. Hyland, K.(2005).Metadiscourse.London, England:Continuum.
13. Hyland, K.,Tse, P.(2004).Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal.Applied Linguistics,25(2),156-177.
14. Kurz, I.(2001).Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user.Meta,46(2),394-409.
15. Peng, G.(2009).Using Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) to describe the development of coherence in interpreting trainees.Interpreting,11(2),216-243.
16. Pöchhacker, F.(Ed.)(2015).Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies.New York, NY:Routledge.
17. Pöchhacker, F.(Ed.),Shlesigner, M.(Ed.)(2002).The interpreting studies reader.New York, NY:Routledge.
18. Setton, R.(1999).Simultaneous inter pretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis.Amsterdam, Netherlands:John Benjamins.
19. Shlesinger, M.(1995).Shifts in cohesion in simultaneous interpreting.The Translator,1(2),193-214.
20. Wu, M.,Chang, C.(2007).The worst case scenario: How interpreters cope with terrible speakers in Q&A session.The 12th Taiwan Symposium on Translation and Interpretation Training,Tainan, Taiwan:
21. Zhan, C.(2012).Mediation through personal pronoun shifts in dialogue interpreting of political meetings.Interpreting,14(2),192-216.
22. 方梅(2000)。自然口語中弱化連詞的話語標記功能。中國語文，278，459-470。
23. 王瓊淑(2007)。臺北市=Taipei，國立臺灣師範大學=National Taiwan Normal University。
24. 姚雙云(2009)。口語中“所以”的語義弱化與功能擴展。漢語學報，27，16-23。
25. 徐赳赳(2003)。現代漢語篇章回指研究。北京=Beijing, China:中國社會科學=China Social Sciences Press。
26. 程俊樺(2011)。新竹=Hsinchu，國立交通大學=National Chiao Tung University。
27. 楊承淑(2008)。口譯的訊息處理過程研究。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:輔仁大學=Fu Jen Catholic University Press。
28. 劉敏華、張武昌、林世華(2005)。國立編譯館委託研究計畫成果報告國立編譯館委託研究計畫成果報告,臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:國立編譯館=National Institute for Compilation and Translation。