源语专业信息密度对同声传译“脱离源语语言外壳”程度的影响
|
摘要
以赛莱斯科维奇与勒代雷为代表的巴黎释意学派创立了翻译的“释意理论”，该理论认为，口译是一种以意义传递为目的的交际活动，为了实现这一目的，口译员需对源语演讲的内容进行释意；释意的过程离不开口译员本身已有的认知补充，认知补充包括口译员的双语知识、世界知识、相关主题的背景知识、语境知识等，在释意过程中这些知识为口译的理解和表达提供认知补充。
释意理论将口译步骤描述为一个三角模式，即理解原文→脱离源语语言外壳→用目标语表达理解了的源语内容和情感。其中“脱离源语语言外壳”过程是释意理论的核心概念。在某一瞬间脱离已被理解的语言形式外壳，以形成一种不为外来成分所影响的目标语表述，这种脱离的能力和程度，决定了翻译结果是否成功。
同声传译是一项艰苦复杂的工作。口译员的表现受到众多内因与外因的影响本文将研究视角落在源语中专业信息密度对同声传译表现的影响上，根据口译释意理论的“脱离源语语言外壳”假说，通过实验研究的方法，邀请14位职业口译员参加同传实验，以“源语演讲中的专业信息密度”为实验自变量，职业口译员同传表现中“脱离源语语言外壳”程度为因变量，测量口译源语中专业信息密度增加后，职业口译员的“脱离源语语言外壳”表现是否变化。
考察专业信息密度与“脱离源语语言外壳”的关系，不能孤立地局限在这两项变量本身的分析计算。为了交叉佐证（cross-check）实验结果，本研究还观察其它两个重要变量，即下游变量——口译质量和上游变量——背景知识，并分析它们与“脱离源语语言外壳”的关系。
为此，本文提出三个相互关联的假设：假设1：一个好的职业口译员，在忠实源语信息的前提下，应该尽可能“脱离源语语言外壳”，用目标语自由地表达，则评分者对其口译产出的打分也会越高；假设2：源语内容专业信息密度对口译员处理源语的表现产生影响，源语内容专业信息密度越高，口译员“脱离源语语言外壳”的比例越低；假设3：职业口译员的专业领域背景知识对口译理解和自由表达都有影响，口译员的对专业领域背景知识了解越多，越容易驾驭意义的理解和表达，“脱离源语语言外壳”自由表达的程度也就越高。
简言之，“脱离源语语言外壳”程度与评分者对其口译的打分正相关；源语内容专业信息密度与脱离语言外壳的比例负相关；背景知识与脱离语言外壳的程度正相关。
本研究根据前人研究，结合英汉语言组对同传的特殊性，将“脱离源语语言外壳”的表现分为四类：第一类，顺序重组（reformulation），指的是根据演讲语境所表达的意思，打破源语的语序，对句子内部成分或句子间的顺序进行自由调度的情况；第二类，解释（elaboration），指的是在源语中有而在目标语中不存在，或文化和语言差异较大时，译员采用阐释、描述、举例、打比方等手段解释源语中的表达；第三类，添加、删除或转化连接词（connection），指的是把源语中的连接词（逻辑词）根据目标语习惯在目标语中隐化、显化，或改变的情况；第四类，词汇与表达的创造性（innovation），指的是单词或者表达在目标语中少用标准对应词或对应句，而是根据语境自由表达，包括增删语言成分、创造性表达等。
为了考量口译员“脱离源语语言外壳”程度与口译质量之间的关系，本研究还邀请三组不同身份背景的评分人员对实验受试口译员的同传表现分别进行评分。为观察口译员所具有的专业领域背景知识与“脱离源语语言外壳”程度之间的关系，本研究对所有受试口译员进行专业领域背景知识测试。
通过使用SPSS软件分析，对每位译员在两段不同专业信息密度同传中的不同“脱离源语语言外壳”数量行配对样本T检验（T test），对“脱离源语语言外壳”表现与评分者评分进行了相关分析，对背景知识测试得分与“脱离源语语言外壳”表现进行了相关分析，并对评分者评分中的八项参数得分与总分之间进行回归分析。上述分析的结果对三项假设做出的验证结果为：
假设1：支持。“脱离源语语言外壳”程度与三组评分者的评分成正相关，“脱离源语语言外壳”越多的同传表现，得分越高。三组评分人员的打分均是如此，但口译专家组的打分与“脱离”表现相关性最显著，专职口译员组次之，技术人员组再次之。所有评分者对专业信息密度高时的同传打分，比专业信息密度低时与“脱离源语语言外壳”程度更相关。
假设2：不支持。源语内容专业信息密度与“脱离源语语言外壳”的表现实际上成正相关。
假设3：部分支持。在专业信息密度不高时，口译员的所具有的专业领域背景知识并不是促进“脱离源语语言外壳”的助推器；而在专业信息密度增加时，专业领域背景知识就有助于同传时脱离源语语言的外壳，进行自由表达。
本研究实验结果在英汉同声传译语境中支持了释意理论的“脱离源语语言外壳”假说，对口译教学和实践有启示意义。研究结果证实了英汉同传中“脱离源语语言外壳”的必要性——源语与目标语之间的语言差异越大，口译员越需要做到“得意”而“忘形”，方能产出更高质量的口译表现。口译实践与教学中需加强理解，更多地脱离源语语言形式，培养语序重组与创造性表达；还需加强相关知识的认知补充，加强专业术语的积累与运用等。本文最后总结了研究存在的局限，以及未来研究可能的方向。
The Interpretive Theory of Translation, founded and represented by DanicaSeleskovitch and Marianne Lederer, regards interpreting proper as a means ofcommunication. It focuses on the transmission of “sense”. To reach this goal,interpreters are obliged to interpret the information that the speaker intends to getacross. This interpreting process is facilitated by cognitive complement comprisinginterpreters’ linguistic knowledge, world knowledge, background knowledge of therelated subjects and context knowledge, amongst other elements.
The Interpretive Theory holds that comprehension, deverbalization, andreproduction of the intended meaning of the original speaker constitute the wholeprocess of interpreting.“Deverbalization” is the core of it. The crux of interpretinglies in the extent and capacity of deverbalizing the source language and expressing theintended meaning without source language interference in the target language.
Simultaneous interpreting, as an arduous, highly technical and multi-task job,requires split of processing capacity within a short period of time. The performance ofinterpreters is affected by various elements. This research focuses on influence ofdensity of special knowledge in speech content on interpreter’s deverbalizationperformance. Based on the understanding of “deverbalization”, the study looks atwhether and how professional interpreter’s deverbalization changes along with thespecial knowledge in speech content.
To cross-check the experiment result, the study also looks at two closely relatedelements, namely, the downstream factor interpreting performance and the upstreamfactor background knowledge, and analyzes their correlation with the level ofdeverbalization.
Thus, the dissertation forms its three hypotheses: Hypothesis1: A good interpretershould “deverbalize” the source language and express the target language freely withthe premises of loyal conveying of the message. More deverbalization brings about better performance. Hypothesis2: Density of special knowledge in original speechaffects interpreters’ processing. Higher density causes less deverbalization ininterpreting. Hypothesis3: Professional interpreter’s background knowledge about thesubject matter influences his or her comprehension of the source speech and freeexpression. More background knowledge leads to the easier comprehension and moredeverbalization in interpreting output.
In a nutshell, the extent of deverbalization is correlated with interpretingperformance; density of special knowledge in original speech and the extent ofdeverbalization vary inversely; and background knowledge facilitates deverbalization.
This study defines four categories of deverbalization performance, namely,reformulation, elaboration, connection and innovation.
To explore the relation between deverbalization and interpreting quality, thestudy invites three groups of evaluators to score the interpreting performance. Toinspect the relation between background knowledge and deverbalization, a knowledgetest was done to quantify the subjects’ background knowledge in the particular field.
With SPSS software used to analyze the data, the following results were reached.
Hypothesis1is supported. Extent of deverbalization of the source languagecorrelates with quality assessment. More deverbalization brings about higher scores inquality evaluation.
Hypothesis2is not supported. Higher density of special knowledge in originalspeech actually brings about more deverbalization performance.
Hypothesis3is partially supported. Professional interpreter’s backgroundknowledge about the subject matter facilitates his or her comprehension of the sourcespeech and free expression only when density of special knowledge in original speechis high.
The research results support the Interpretive Theory of Translation in the contextof English-Chinese simultaneous interpreting. It tells that in E-C interpreting,interpreters should adapt themselves into the target language by using moredeverbalization devices, such as reformulation and innovation of expression. Besides,more background knowledge and terminologies in different subject matters are encouraged to accumulate in the learning process. In closing, the paper explains thelimitations of the study and the possible future research points for further research.
释意理论将口译步骤描述为一个三角模式，即理解原文→脱离源语语言外壳→用目标语表达理解了的源语内容和情感。其中“脱离源语语言外壳”过程是释意理论的核心概念。在某一瞬间脱离已被理解的语言形式外壳，以形成一种不为外来成分所影响的目标语表述，这种脱离的能力和程度，决定了翻译结果是否成功。
同声传译是一项艰苦复杂的工作。口译员的表现受到众多内因与外因的影响本文将研究视角落在源语中专业信息密度对同声传译表现的影响上，根据口译释意理论的“脱离源语语言外壳”假说，通过实验研究的方法，邀请14位职业口译员参加同传实验，以“源语演讲中的专业信息密度”为实验自变量，职业口译员同传表现中“脱离源语语言外壳”程度为因变量，测量口译源语中专业信息密度增加后，职业口译员的“脱离源语语言外壳”表现是否变化。
考察专业信息密度与“脱离源语语言外壳”的关系，不能孤立地局限在这两项变量本身的分析计算。为了交叉佐证（cross-check）实验结果，本研究还观察其它两个重要变量，即下游变量——口译质量和上游变量——背景知识，并分析它们与“脱离源语语言外壳”的关系。
为此，本文提出三个相互关联的假设：假设1：一个好的职业口译员，在忠实源语信息的前提下，应该尽可能“脱离源语语言外壳”，用目标语自由地表达，则评分者对其口译产出的打分也会越高；假设2：源语内容专业信息密度对口译员处理源语的表现产生影响，源语内容专业信息密度越高，口译员“脱离源语语言外壳”的比例越低；假设3：职业口译员的专业领域背景知识对口译理解和自由表达都有影响，口译员的对专业领域背景知识了解越多，越容易驾驭意义的理解和表达，“脱离源语语言外壳”自由表达的程度也就越高。
简言之，“脱离源语语言外壳”程度与评分者对其口译的打分正相关；源语内容专业信息密度与脱离语言外壳的比例负相关；背景知识与脱离语言外壳的程度正相关。
本研究根据前人研究，结合英汉语言组对同传的特殊性，将“脱离源语语言外壳”的表现分为四类：第一类，顺序重组（reformulation），指的是根据演讲语境所表达的意思，打破源语的语序，对句子内部成分或句子间的顺序进行自由调度的情况；第二类，解释（elaboration），指的是在源语中有而在目标语中不存在，或文化和语言差异较大时，译员采用阐释、描述、举例、打比方等手段解释源语中的表达；第三类，添加、删除或转化连接词（connection），指的是把源语中的连接词（逻辑词）根据目标语习惯在目标语中隐化、显化，或改变的情况；第四类，词汇与表达的创造性（innovation），指的是单词或者表达在目标语中少用标准对应词或对应句，而是根据语境自由表达，包括增删语言成分、创造性表达等。
为了考量口译员“脱离源语语言外壳”程度与口译质量之间的关系，本研究还邀请三组不同身份背景的评分人员对实验受试口译员的同传表现分别进行评分。为观察口译员所具有的专业领域背景知识与“脱离源语语言外壳”程度之间的关系，本研究对所有受试口译员进行专业领域背景知识测试。
通过使用SPSS软件分析，对每位译员在两段不同专业信息密度同传中的不同“脱离源语语言外壳”数量行配对样本T检验（T test），对“脱离源语语言外壳”表现与评分者评分进行了相关分析，对背景知识测试得分与“脱离源语语言外壳”表现进行了相关分析，并对评分者评分中的八项参数得分与总分之间进行回归分析。上述分析的结果对三项假设做出的验证结果为：
假设1：支持。“脱离源语语言外壳”程度与三组评分者的评分成正相关，“脱离源语语言外壳”越多的同传表现，得分越高。三组评分人员的打分均是如此，但口译专家组的打分与“脱离”表现相关性最显著，专职口译员组次之，技术人员组再次之。所有评分者对专业信息密度高时的同传打分，比专业信息密度低时与“脱离源语语言外壳”程度更相关。
假设2：不支持。源语内容专业信息密度与“脱离源语语言外壳”的表现实际上成正相关。
假设3：部分支持。在专业信息密度不高时，口译员的所具有的专业领域背景知识并不是促进“脱离源语语言外壳”的助推器；而在专业信息密度增加时，专业领域背景知识就有助于同传时脱离源语语言的外壳，进行自由表达。
本研究实验结果在英汉同声传译语境中支持了释意理论的“脱离源语语言外壳”假说，对口译教学和实践有启示意义。研究结果证实了英汉同传中“脱离源语语言外壳”的必要性——源语与目标语之间的语言差异越大，口译员越需要做到“得意”而“忘形”，方能产出更高质量的口译表现。口译实践与教学中需加强理解，更多地脱离源语语言形式，培养语序重组与创造性表达；还需加强相关知识的认知补充，加强专业术语的积累与运用等。本文最后总结了研究存在的局限，以及未来研究可能的方向。
The Interpretive Theory of Translation, founded and represented by DanicaSeleskovitch and Marianne Lederer, regards interpreting proper as a means ofcommunication. It focuses on the transmission of “sense”. To reach this goal,interpreters are obliged to interpret the information that the speaker intends to getacross. This interpreting process is facilitated by cognitive complement comprisinginterpreters’ linguistic knowledge, world knowledge, background knowledge of therelated subjects and context knowledge, amongst other elements.
The Interpretive Theory holds that comprehension, deverbalization, andreproduction of the intended meaning of the original speaker constitute the wholeprocess of interpreting.“Deverbalization” is the core of it. The crux of interpretinglies in the extent and capacity of deverbalizing the source language and expressing theintended meaning without source language interference in the target language.
Simultaneous interpreting, as an arduous, highly technical and multi-task job,requires split of processing capacity within a short period of time. The performance ofinterpreters is affected by various elements. This research focuses on influence ofdensity of special knowledge in speech content on interpreter’s deverbalizationperformance. Based on the understanding of “deverbalization”, the study looks atwhether and how professional interpreter’s deverbalization changes along with thespecial knowledge in speech content.
To cross-check the experiment result, the study also looks at two closely relatedelements, namely, the downstream factor interpreting performance and the upstreamfactor background knowledge, and analyzes their correlation with the level ofdeverbalization.
Thus, the dissertation forms its three hypotheses: Hypothesis1: A good interpretershould “deverbalize” the source language and express the target language freely withthe premises of loyal conveying of the message. More deverbalization brings about better performance. Hypothesis2: Density of special knowledge in original speechaffects interpreters’ processing. Higher density causes less deverbalization ininterpreting. Hypothesis3: Professional interpreter’s background knowledge about thesubject matter influences his or her comprehension of the source speech and freeexpression. More background knowledge leads to the easier comprehension and moredeverbalization in interpreting output.
In a nutshell, the extent of deverbalization is correlated with interpretingperformance; density of special knowledge in original speech and the extent ofdeverbalization vary inversely; and background knowledge facilitates deverbalization.
This study defines four categories of deverbalization performance, namely,reformulation, elaboration, connection and innovation.
To explore the relation between deverbalization and interpreting quality, thestudy invites three groups of evaluators to score the interpreting performance. Toinspect the relation between background knowledge and deverbalization, a knowledgetest was done to quantify the subjects’ background knowledge in the particular field.
With SPSS software used to analyze the data, the following results were reached.
Hypothesis1is supported. Extent of deverbalization of the source languagecorrelates with quality assessment. More deverbalization brings about higher scores inquality evaluation.
Hypothesis2is not supported. Higher density of special knowledge in originalspeech actually brings about more deverbalization performance.
Hypothesis3is partially supported. Professional interpreter’s backgroundknowledge about the subject matter facilitates his or her comprehension of the sourcespeech and free expression only when density of special knowledge in original speechis high.
The research results support the Interpretive Theory of Translation in the contextof English-Chinese simultaneous interpreting. It tells that in E-C interpreting,interpreters should adapt themselves into the target language by using moredeverbalization devices, such as reformulation and innovation of expression. Besides,more background knowledge and terminologies in different subject matters are encouraged to accumulate in the learning process. In closing, the paper explains thelimitations of the study and the possible future research points for further research.
引文
Agrifoglio, Marjorie.2004. Sight translation and interpreting. A comparative analysisof constraints and failures [J]. Interpreting.6(1):43-67.
Bühler, Hildegund.1986. Linguistic (semantic) and extralinguistic (pragmatic)criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters [J].Multilingua.5(4):231-235.
Chernov, Gh. V.1979. Semantic Aspects of Psycholinguistic Research inSimultaneous Interpretation [J]. Language and Speech22:3.277-295.
Craik, F. I. M. and Lockhart, R. S.1972. Levels of processing: A framework formemory research [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior.11:671-684.
Creswell, John W.2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and MixedMethods Approaches (2nd ed.)[M]. Thousand Oaks, California: SagePublications.
Cohen, Andrew.1994. Assessing Language Ability in the Classroom [M].2nd edition.Boston: Heinle&Heinle Publishers.
Collados Aís, ángela.(Translated by Faber Pamela). Quality Assessment inSimultaneous Interpretation: The Importance of Nonverbal Communication. InFranz P chhacker&Miriam Shlesinger (ed.). The Interpreting Studies Reader.[C]. London and New York: Routledge.2002:326-336.
Dam, Helle V.1998. On the option between form-based and meaning-basedinterpreting: the effect of source text difficulty on lexical target text form insimultaneous interpreting [C]. In Franz P chhacker&Miriam Shlesinger (ed.).The Interpreting Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge.2002:266-277.
Gerver, David.1969. The effects of source language presentation rate on theperformance of simultaneous conference interpreters[A]. In E. Foulke (Ed.),Proceedings of the2nd Louisville Conference on Rate and/or FrequencyControlled Speech [C]:162-184. Louisville, KY: University of Louisville.
Gerver, D.1974. The effects of noise on the performance of simultaneous interpreters:Accuracy of performance [J]. Acta Psychologica.38:159-167.
Gerver, D., Longley, P. E. Long, J&Lambert, S.1989. Selection tests for traineeconference interpreters [J]. Meta.34(4):724-735.
Gile, D.1990. L’évaluation de la qualité de l’interprétation par les délégués: uneétude de cas. The Interpreters’ Newsletter3[J].66-71.
Gile, D.1994a. Methodological aspects of interpretation and translation research, inBridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation.[C]. Ed.by S. Lambert and B. Moser-Mercer, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.39-56.
Gile, D.1994b. Opening up in interpretation studies [A]. Snell-Horby et al.Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company,1994.149.
Gile, Daniel.1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and TranslatorTraining.[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gile, D.1999. Use and misuse of the literature in interpreting research. TheInterpreters’ Newsletter9[J].29-43.
Gile, D.1999. Testing the Effort Model’s tightrope hypothesis in simultaneousinterpreting-a contribution[J]. Hermes,23,153-172.
Gile, D.2000. The history of research into conference interpreting: a scientometricapproach[J]. Target.2000,12(2):299-323.
Gile, D.2003. Justifying The Deverbalization Approach In The Interpreting AndTranslation Classroom[J]. Forum.1:2.47-63.
Gile, D.2005. Empirical research into the role of knowledge in interpreting:methodological aspects [A]. In Dam, Helle V., Jan Engberg&HeidrunGerzymisch-Arbogast (eds). Knowledge Systems and Translation [C]. Berlin&New York: Mouton de Gruyter.149-171.2005.
Gile, D.柴明熲导读.2011. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter andTranslator Training(Revised Edition).口笔译训练的基本概念与模型（修订版）[M].上海外语教育出版社.
Isham, William P.1994. Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation:Evidence both for and against deverbalization [C]. In Sylvie Lambert andBarbara Moser-Mercer (ed.). Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Translation Library.1994:191-211.
Kahane, Eduardo.2000. Thoughts on the Quality of Interpretation [EB/OL]. Officialwebsite of AIIC: http://aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm?page_id=197
Kurz, Ingrid.1989. Conference interpreting–user expectations [C]. In Coming ofAge: Proceedings of the30th Annual Conference of the American TranslatorsAssociation. Medford NJ: Learned Information.143-148.
Kurz, I.1993. Conference interpretation: expectations of different user groups [C], InFranz P chhacker&Miriam Shlesinger (ed.). The Interpreting Studies Reader.London and New York: Routledge.2002:312-324.
Kurz, I.2001. Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user [J]. Meta.46(2).394-409.
Kurz, I.2003. Quality from the user perspective. in La evaluación de la calidad eninterpretación: Investigación.[C]. Ed. by á. Collados Aís, M.M. FernándezSánchez and D. Gile, Granada, Comares.3-22.
Larson, L. Mildred. Meaning-based Translation [M]. Boston: University Press ofAmerica.1984.
Liu, Minhua.2001. Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Working MemoryAnalysis[D]. University of Texas at Austin.
Mackintosh, J. User Expectation Survey．Interim report. AIIC Bulletin. XXII/2.1994:13-17.
Macnamara, B. N., Adam B. Moore, Judy A. Kegl&Andrew R. A. Conway.Domain-general cognitive abilities and simultaneous interpreting skill [J].Interpreting: International journal of research and practice in interpreting.2011Volume12(1):121-142.
Marrone, S.1993. Quality: A shared objective[J]. The Interpreters Newsletter5:35-41.
Moser, B.1978. Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practicalapplication [A]. In D. Gerver&H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.). Language interpretationand communication [C]. New York/London: Plenum Press.353–368.
Moser, P.1996. Expectations of users of conference interpretation [J]. Interpreting,(1):145-178.
Mounin, George. Les problèmes théoriques de la traduction [M]. Paris.1963.
Munday, J. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications.[M]. London:Routledge.2001.
P chhacker, F.2001. Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting[J]. Meta.46(2).410-425.
P chhacker, Franz.2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies [M]. Routledge.
P chhacker, F.2005. Quality research revisited [J]. The Interpreters' Newsletter.No.13.143-166.
Sawyer, B. David.2004. Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education: Curriculumand Assessment[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins,2004.
Setton, Robbin.1999. Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis[M]. John Benjamins B. V.
Setton, Robbin&Motta, Manuela.2007. Syntacrobatics: Quality and reformulationin simultaneous-with-text [J]. Interpreting9:2.2007:199-230. John BenjaminsPublishing Company.
Shlesinger M. et al1997. Quality in simultaneous interpreting[A], in ConferenceInterpreting: Current Trends in Research[C]. Ed. by Y. Gambier, D. Gile and C.Taylor, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.123-131.
赛莱斯科维奇，勒代雷.2007.口译训练指南[M].闫素伟、邵炜译.中国对外翻译出版公司.
赛莱斯科维奇,勒代雷.1992.口笔译概论[M].孙慧双译.北京:北京语言学院出版社.
柴明熲.2007.口译与口译教学[J].中国翻译（1）:48-50.
蔡小红.2003a.论口译的质量与效果评估[J].外语与外语教学（3）:45-48.
蔡小红.2003b.论口译质量评估的信息单位[J].外国语（5）:75-80.
蔡小红.2007.口译评估[M].北京:中国出版集团中国对外翻译出版公司.
鲍刚.1998.口译理论概述[M].北京：旅游教育出版社.
杜云辉.1996.科技口译初探[J].中国科技翻译.1996年第9卷第3期:30-32.
勒代雷著，刘和平译.2001.释意学派口笔译理论[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
勒代雷著，鲍刚译.2005.翻译的释意理论简介[C].吕国军主编.口译与口译教学研究:1-12.
黎难秋.2002.中国口译史[M].青岛出版社。
李越然.1987.充分发挥口译的社会功能[J].中国翻译，2:6-11.
连淑能.2010.英汉语言对比研究[M].北京:高等教育出版社.
刘和平.2001a.口译理论与教学研究现状及展望[J].中国翻译.第2期:17-18.
刘和平.2001b.口译技巧——思维科学与口译推理教学法[M].中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘和平.2002.科技口译与质量评估[J].上海科技翻译.第一期:33-37.
刘和平.2005.口译理论与教学[M].中国对外翻译出版公司.
刘和平.2007.口译培训的定位与专业建设[J].广东外语外贸大学学报（.3）:8-11.
刘和平.2011.法国释意理论：译介、批评及应用[M].中国对外翻译出版公司.
刘敏华.2010.口译考试信度与效度讲座讲义.
吕世生.2004.科技口译策略选择与操作问题[J].中国科技翻译.2004年5月第17卷2期:24-26.
谢天振.2007.译介学导论[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
许钧.2010.文学翻译的理论与实践：翻译对话录（增订本）[M].南京:译林出版社.
许明.2010.口译认知过程中“deverbalization”的认知诠释[J].中国翻译.第3期:5-11.
杨承淑.2005.口译教学研究：理论与实践[M].中国对外翻译出版公司.
杨承淑.2010.口译的信息处理过程研究[M].天津:南开大学出版社.
张威、柯飞.2008.从口译用户看口译质量评估[J].外语学刊.第3期：114-118.
张威.2008.口译质量评估:以服务对象为依据——一项基于现场口译活动的调查研究报告[J].解放军外国语学院学报.2008年第5期：84-89.
张威.2011.口译质量的社会性调查与分析：意义与途径[J].天津外国语大学学报.第18卷第5期：37-42.
张巍然.2002.命题及其表述：英汉对比研究[D].河南大学.
赵军峰.2005.论口译的翻译单位[J].中国科技翻译.（5）：25-27.
仲伟合.2001.口译训练：模式、内容、方法[J].中国翻译，（2）：30-32.
仲伟合.2008.英语同声传译教程[M].高等教育出版社.
Bühler, Hildegund.1986. Linguistic (semantic) and extralinguistic (pragmatic)criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters [J].Multilingua.5(4):231-235.
Chernov, Gh. V.1979. Semantic Aspects of Psycholinguistic Research inSimultaneous Interpretation [J]. Language and Speech22:3.277-295.
Craik, F. I. M. and Lockhart, R. S.1972. Levels of processing: A framework formemory research [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior.11:671-684.
Creswell, John W.2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and MixedMethods Approaches (2nd ed.)[M]. Thousand Oaks, California: SagePublications.
Cohen, Andrew.1994. Assessing Language Ability in the Classroom [M].2nd edition.Boston: Heinle&Heinle Publishers.
Collados Aís, ángela.(Translated by Faber Pamela). Quality Assessment inSimultaneous Interpretation: The Importance of Nonverbal Communication. InFranz P chhacker&Miriam Shlesinger (ed.). The Interpreting Studies Reader.[C]. London and New York: Routledge.2002:326-336.
Dam, Helle V.1998. On the option between form-based and meaning-basedinterpreting: the effect of source text difficulty on lexical target text form insimultaneous interpreting [C]. In Franz P chhacker&Miriam Shlesinger (ed.).The Interpreting Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge.2002:266-277.
Gerver, David.1969. The effects of source language presentation rate on theperformance of simultaneous conference interpreters[A]. In E. Foulke (Ed.),Proceedings of the2nd Louisville Conference on Rate and/or FrequencyControlled Speech [C]:162-184. Louisville, KY: University of Louisville.
Gerver, D.1974. The effects of noise on the performance of simultaneous interpreters:Accuracy of performance [J]. Acta Psychologica.38:159-167.
Gerver, D., Longley, P. E. Long, J&Lambert, S.1989. Selection tests for traineeconference interpreters [J]. Meta.34(4):724-735.
Gile, D.1990. L’évaluation de la qualité de l’interprétation par les délégués: uneétude de cas. The Interpreters’ Newsletter3[J].66-71.
Gile, D.1994a. Methodological aspects of interpretation and translation research, inBridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation.[C]. Ed.by S. Lambert and B. Moser-Mercer, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.39-56.
Gile, D.1994b. Opening up in interpretation studies [A]. Snell-Horby et al.Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company,1994.149.
Gile, Daniel.1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and TranslatorTraining.[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gile, D.1999. Use and misuse of the literature in interpreting research. TheInterpreters’ Newsletter9[J].29-43.
Gile, D.1999. Testing the Effort Model’s tightrope hypothesis in simultaneousinterpreting-a contribution[J]. Hermes,23,153-172.
Gile, D.2000. The history of research into conference interpreting: a scientometricapproach[J]. Target.2000,12(2):299-323.
Gile, D.2003. Justifying The Deverbalization Approach In The Interpreting AndTranslation Classroom[J]. Forum.1:2.47-63.
Gile, D.2005. Empirical research into the role of knowledge in interpreting:methodological aspects [A]. In Dam, Helle V., Jan Engberg&HeidrunGerzymisch-Arbogast (eds). Knowledge Systems and Translation [C]. Berlin&New York: Mouton de Gruyter.149-171.2005.
Gile, D.柴明熲导读.2011. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter andTranslator Training(Revised Edition).口笔译训练的基本概念与模型（修订版）[M].上海外语教育出版社.
Isham, William P.1994. Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation:Evidence both for and against deverbalization [C]. In Sylvie Lambert andBarbara Moser-Mercer (ed.). Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Translation Library.1994:191-211.
Kahane, Eduardo.2000. Thoughts on the Quality of Interpretation [EB/OL]. Officialwebsite of AIIC: http://aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm?page_id=197
Kurz, Ingrid.1989. Conference interpreting–user expectations [C]. In Coming ofAge: Proceedings of the30th Annual Conference of the American TranslatorsAssociation. Medford NJ: Learned Information.143-148.
Kurz, I.1993. Conference interpretation: expectations of different user groups [C], InFranz P chhacker&Miriam Shlesinger (ed.). The Interpreting Studies Reader.London and New York: Routledge.2002:312-324.
Kurz, I.2001. Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user [J]. Meta.46(2).394-409.
Kurz, I.2003. Quality from the user perspective. in La evaluación de la calidad eninterpretación: Investigación.[C]. Ed. by á. Collados Aís, M.M. FernándezSánchez and D. Gile, Granada, Comares.3-22.
Larson, L. Mildred. Meaning-based Translation [M]. Boston: University Press ofAmerica.1984.
Liu, Minhua.2001. Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Working MemoryAnalysis[D]. University of Texas at Austin.
Mackintosh, J. User Expectation Survey．Interim report. AIIC Bulletin. XXII/2.1994:13-17.
Macnamara, B. N., Adam B. Moore, Judy A. Kegl&Andrew R. A. Conway.Domain-general cognitive abilities and simultaneous interpreting skill [J].Interpreting: International journal of research and practice in interpreting.2011Volume12(1):121-142.
Marrone, S.1993. Quality: A shared objective[J]. The Interpreters Newsletter5:35-41.
Moser, B.1978. Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practicalapplication [A]. In D. Gerver&H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.). Language interpretationand communication [C]. New York/London: Plenum Press.353–368.
Moser, P.1996. Expectations of users of conference interpretation [J]. Interpreting,(1):145-178.
Mounin, George. Les problèmes théoriques de la traduction [M]. Paris.1963.
Munday, J. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications.[M]. London:Routledge.2001.
P chhacker, F.2001. Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting[J]. Meta.46(2).410-425.
P chhacker, Franz.2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies [M]. Routledge.
P chhacker, F.2005. Quality research revisited [J]. The Interpreters' Newsletter.No.13.143-166.
Sawyer, B. David.2004. Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education: Curriculumand Assessment[M]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins,2004.
Setton, Robbin.1999. Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis[M]. John Benjamins B. V.
Setton, Robbin&Motta, Manuela.2007. Syntacrobatics: Quality and reformulationin simultaneous-with-text [J]. Interpreting9:2.2007:199-230. John BenjaminsPublishing Company.
Shlesinger M. et al1997. Quality in simultaneous interpreting[A], in ConferenceInterpreting: Current Trends in Research[C]. Ed. by Y. Gambier, D. Gile and C.Taylor, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.123-131.
赛莱斯科维奇，勒代雷.2007.口译训练指南[M].闫素伟、邵炜译.中国对外翻译出版公司.
赛莱斯科维奇,勒代雷.1992.口笔译概论[M].孙慧双译.北京:北京语言学院出版社.
柴明熲.2007.口译与口译教学[J].中国翻译（1）:48-50.
蔡小红.2003a.论口译的质量与效果评估[J].外语与外语教学（3）:45-48.
蔡小红.2003b.论口译质量评估的信息单位[J].外国语（5）:75-80.
蔡小红.2007.口译评估[M].北京:中国出版集团中国对外翻译出版公司.
鲍刚.1998.口译理论概述[M].北京：旅游教育出版社.
杜云辉.1996.科技口译初探[J].中国科技翻译.1996年第9卷第3期:30-32.
勒代雷著，刘和平译.2001.释意学派口笔译理论[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
勒代雷著，鲍刚译.2005.翻译的释意理论简介[C].吕国军主编.口译与口译教学研究:1-12.
黎难秋.2002.中国口译史[M].青岛出版社。
李越然.1987.充分发挥口译的社会功能[J].中国翻译，2:6-11.
连淑能.2010.英汉语言对比研究[M].北京:高等教育出版社.
刘和平.2001a.口译理论与教学研究现状及展望[J].中国翻译.第2期:17-18.
刘和平.2001b.口译技巧——思维科学与口译推理教学法[M].中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘和平.2002.科技口译与质量评估[J].上海科技翻译.第一期:33-37.
刘和平.2005.口译理论与教学[M].中国对外翻译出版公司.
刘和平.2007.口译培训的定位与专业建设[J].广东外语外贸大学学报（.3）:8-11.
刘和平.2011.法国释意理论：译介、批评及应用[M].中国对外翻译出版公司.
刘敏华.2010.口译考试信度与效度讲座讲义.
吕世生.2004.科技口译策略选择与操作问题[J].中国科技翻译.2004年5月第17卷2期:24-26.
谢天振.2007.译介学导论[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
许钧.2010.文学翻译的理论与实践：翻译对话录（增订本）[M].南京:译林出版社.
许明.2010.口译认知过程中“deverbalization”的认知诠释[J].中国翻译.第3期:5-11.
杨承淑.2005.口译教学研究：理论与实践[M].中国对外翻译出版公司.
杨承淑.2010.口译的信息处理过程研究[M].天津:南开大学出版社.
张威、柯飞.2008.从口译用户看口译质量评估[J].外语学刊.第3期：114-118.
张威.2008.口译质量评估:以服务对象为依据——一项基于现场口译活动的调查研究报告[J].解放军外国语学院学报.2008年第5期：84-89.
张威.2011.口译质量的社会性调查与分析：意义与途径[J].天津外国语大学学报.第18卷第5期：37-42.
张巍然.2002.命题及其表述：英汉对比研究[D].河南大学.
赵军峰.2005.论口译的翻译单位[J].中国科技翻译.（5）：25-27.
仲伟合.2001.口译训练：模式、内容、方法[J].中国翻译，（2）：30-32.
仲伟合.2008.英语同声传译教程[M].高等教育出版社.