以功能理論為基礎的翻譯評量法初探

A Skopos Theory-Based Analytic Rating Method for Translation Quality Assessment

10.29786/STI.201210.0007

歐冠宇(Kuan-Yu Ou)

翻譯評量 ； 翻譯品質 ； 錯誤扣分法 ； 整體評分法 ； 分析式評分法 ； 功能學派 ； translation quality assessment ； translation evaluation ； error analysis ； holistic rating ； analytic rating ； skopos theory ； functionalism

翻譯學研究集刊

15輯（2012 / 10 / 01）

189 - 219

繁體中文

關於翻譯評量的研究文獻向來十分匱乏，儘管近年來已有增溫的趨勢，但研究面向仍相當雜亂，研究結果也少有具體定論。本文探討現行翻譯評量的三種評分法：錯誤扣分法、整體評分法及分析式評分法，評析其特色及優缺點，並嘗試以功能學派理論為基礎，提出一個具理論基礎、全面且實用的中英翻譯評量模式，期能對於翻譯教學領域下學生翻譯品質的形成性評量有所裨益。本文建議以德國宏觀功能學派翻譯學者Reiss主張的翻譯批評理論為架構，制訂出一分析式評分表，將評分項目分為文本類型、語言成分、語外成分、譯文功能四大面向及各個細項，並依每篇翻譯作業或考題訂定各項目的配分比重；批改上保留錯誤扣分法的劃記方式，並以語言成分涵蓋的四種成分做為錯誤類型加以標記，但不逐一針對錯誤進行扣分；給分上則採取量表分級的簡便作法。試評結果發現，此分析式評分法有助於翻譯教師將所欲灌輸給學生的翻譯觀念、原則或方法落實到翻譯評量上，評分面向及項目有理論依據，並能提供學生較多關於譯文品質的細節訊息，同時較為簡易方便，可免去錯誤扣分繁瑣耗時的缺點。儘管部分環節仍有其主觀之處，但此評分法的優點仍多於限制，值得進一步研究及推廣。

Literature on translation quality assessment has long been scarce and barely satisfactorily useful and insightful. By reviewing and analyzing three major translation assessment methods (error-analysis, holistic rating, and analytic rating) while adopting a functionalist approach, the present study proposes a skopos theory-based analytic rating method, exemplified with Chinese-English translation tasks, as a more comprehensive and practical evaluation tool that would facilitate the formative assessment of student translation. Based on the framework of translation criticism proposed by the German translation scholar Katherina Reiss, this analytic rating sheet is divided into four major categories-literary, linguistic, pragmatic and functional-and many subcategories, each of which can be flexibly assigned with different rating percentages depending on the level of importance of each category in each translation task. Markings are done in a similar way to error-analysis as references for rating, but points are not calculated accordingly; instead, grades are awarded with a 5-point scale across all categories. Despite a certain degree of subjectivity that are unavoidable, the proposed rating method is beneficial and informative to both translation teachers/raters and students.

1. 賴慈芸(2008)。四種評量工具的比較。翻譯論叢，1(1)，71-92。
   連結：
2. Bailey, K. M.(1998).Learning about language assessment: Dilemmas, decisions, and directions.New York:Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
3. Bowker, L.(2001).Toward a methodology for a corpus-based approach to translation evaluation.Meta,46,345-364.
4. Colina, S.(2003).Translation teaching, from research to the classroom: A handbook for teachers.Boston:McGraw-Hill.
5. Colina, S.(2009).Further evidence for a functional approach to translation quality evaluation.Target,21,235-264.
6. Hughes, A.(1989).Testing for language teachers.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
7. Lauscher, S.(2000).Translation quality assessment: Where can theory and practice meet?.The Translator,6,149-168.
8. Li, D.(2006).Making translation testing more teaching oriented: A case study of translation testing in China.Meta,51,72-88.
9. Munday, J.(2001).Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications.New York:Routledge.
10. Reiss, K.(2000).Translation criticism: The potentials and limitations.Mancheser, UK:St. Jerome Publications.
11. Stansfield, C. W.,Scott, M. L.,Kenyon, D. M.(1992).The measurement of translation ability.The Modern Language Journal,76,455-467.
12. Waddington, C.(2001).Different methods of evaluating student translations: The question of validity.Meta,46,311-325.
13. Way, C.(2008).Systematic assessment of translator competence: In search of Achilles' heel.Translator and interpreter training: Issues, methods and debates,New York:
14. William, M.(2009).Translation quality assessment: Mutatis Mutandis.Inicio,2(1),3-26.
15. Wilss, W.(1982).The science of translation: Problems and methods.Tübingen:Gunter Narr Verlag.
16. Zhong, Y.(2005).Plan-based translation assessment: An alternative to the standard-based cut-the-feet-to-fit-the-shoe style of assessment.Meta,50(4)
17. 司顯柱(2007)。功能語言學與翻譯研究：翻譯質量評估模式建構。北京:北京大學出版社。
18. 劉敏華、張武昌、林世華、陳碧珠、葉舒白、駱香潔(2005)。,台北:國立編譯館。
19. 劉敏華、張武昌、林世華、陳碧珠、駱香潔、丘羽先(2006)。,台北:國立編譯館。
20. 賴慈芸(2009)。譯者的養成：翻譯教學、評量與批評。台北:國立編譯館。

1. (2020)。Contrast of R.O.C. and P.R.O.C. Translation of Legal Terms-A Case Study of Contract。樹德科技大學學報，22(2)，147-153。