以交际为导向分析口译质量评估
|
摘要
口译作为一项跨语际、跨文化的特殊语言交际活动,其目的就是在说话人与听众之间达成一种最佳的交际过程。因此,口译的质量也应以交际过程中所达到的有效性来评判。交际的有效性将为口译质量评估提供一个新的研究方向。
本文试图以交际为导向分析口译质量并对口译质量评估提出新的评判标准。首先,作者详细介绍了口译是以译员为中间人,以传递和交流信息为目的的一种交际过程。接着,作者提出了有效交际过程的基本标准,同时指出用户期望的情境性对有效交际的影响,进而提出成功的口译就是由基本标准和情境性分析共同作用而产生的有效交际。值得注意的是,除译员素质外,口译质量还受其他外部因素的影响,且作为用户的说话人和听众之间也存在着矛盾冲突。最后,作者提出了实现成功口译,即有效交际,可以采取的一些策略方法以供译员和口译学习者参考。
Interpreting is an inter-lingual and cross-cultural communication process mediated by the interpreter. Communication-oriented analysis offers a new direction to study the interpreting quality assessment. Since the aim of interpreting is to achieve desired communicative effects between the speaker and the listener, the paper contends that quality of interpreting is assessed by the effectiveness of communication in interpreting. Consequently, the issue of interpreting quality can be formulated as“What makes an effective communication in interpreting?”
After an analysis of interpreting from the perspective of communicative process, the author presents three basic criteria and the situationality of user expectations for effective communication in interpreting. In other words, quality of interpreting is assessed by the effectiveness of the communication in terms of these criteria and situationality consideration. Afterwards, conflict between the speaker and listener, and external factors affecting the interpreting communication are also illustrated. Lastly, several strategies are proposed to achieve effective communication in interpreting.
本文试图以交际为导向分析口译质量并对口译质量评估提出新的评判标准。首先,作者详细介绍了口译是以译员为中间人,以传递和交流信息为目的的一种交际过程。接着,作者提出了有效交际过程的基本标准,同时指出用户期望的情境性对有效交际的影响,进而提出成功的口译就是由基本标准和情境性分析共同作用而产生的有效交际。值得注意的是,除译员素质外,口译质量还受其他外部因素的影响,且作为用户的说话人和听众之间也存在着矛盾冲突。最后,作者提出了实现成功口译,即有效交际,可以采取的一些策略方法以供译员和口译学习者参考。
Interpreting is an inter-lingual and cross-cultural communication process mediated by the interpreter. Communication-oriented analysis offers a new direction to study the interpreting quality assessment. Since the aim of interpreting is to achieve desired communicative effects between the speaker and the listener, the paper contends that quality of interpreting is assessed by the effectiveness of communication in interpreting. Consequently, the issue of interpreting quality can be formulated as“What makes an effective communication in interpreting?”
After an analysis of interpreting from the perspective of communicative process, the author presents three basic criteria and the situationality of user expectations for effective communication in interpreting. In other words, quality of interpreting is assessed by the effectiveness of the communication in terms of these criteria and situationality consideration. Afterwards, conflict between the speaker and listener, and external factors affecting the interpreting communication are also illustrated. Lastly, several strategies are proposed to achieve effective communication in interpreting.
引文
Collados Aís,á.“Quality Assessment in Simultaneous Interpreting: The Importance ofNonverbal Communication”, in The Interpreting Studies Reader. Ed. by F. P?chhacker andM. Shlesinger. London & New York: Routledge, 2002: 327-336.
Bühler, H.“Linguistic (Semantic) and Extra-linguistic (Pragmatic) Criteria for theEvaluation of Conference Interpretation and Interpreters”, Multilingua 5 (4), 1986:231-235.
Chiaro, D. & Nocella, G.“Interpreters’Perception of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic FactorsAffecting Quality: A Survey through the World Wide Web”, Meta 49 (2), 2004: 278-293.
Gile, D.“L'évaluation de la qualitéde l'interprétation par les délégués: uneétude de cas”,The Interpreters' Newsletter 3, 1990: 66-71.
Gile, D.“A Communication-Oriented Analysis of Quality in Nonliterary Translation andInterpretation”, In Translation: Theory and Practice. Ed. by Mildred L. Larson.Binghamton: State University of New York, 1991.
Gile, D.“Fidelity Assessment in Consecutive Interpretation: An Experiment”, Target 7(1),1995: 151-164.
Herbert, J. Manuel de l interprète: Comment on devient interprète de conférences.Geneva: Librairie de l’Université. 1952.
Jones, R. Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1998.
Kahane, E. Thoughts on the Quality of Interpretation. 2000.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. Principles of Marketing. 6th. ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,International Inc, 1994.
Kopczyński, A.“Quality in Conference Interpreting: Some Pragmatic Problems”, inTranslation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Ed. by M. Snell-Hornby, F. P?chhacker and K.Kaindl. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1994: 189-198.
Kurz, I.“Conference Interpreting– User Expectations”, in Coming of Age: Proceedings ofthe 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, 1989: 143-148.
Kurz, I.“Conference Interpreting: Quality in the Ears of the User”, Meta XLVI, 2, 2001:394-409.
Ng, Bee Chin“End Users' Subjective Reaction to the Performance of Student Interpreters”,The Interpreters' Newsletter Special Issue 1, 1992: 35-41.
Lasswell, Harold D.“The Structure and Function of Communication in Society”, in TheCommunication of Ideas. Ed. by Lyman Bryson. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948.
Mack, G. & Cattaruzza, L.“User Surveys in SI: A Means of Learning about Quality and/orRaising Some Reasonable Doubts”, in Topics in Interpreting Research. Ed. by J. Tommola,Turku: University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting, 1995: 37-49.
Mackintosh, J. Portrait of the“Ideal Interpreter as Seen through Delegates’Eyes”. 2004.
Marrone, S.“Quality: A Shared Objective”, The Interpreters Newsletter 5, 1993: 35-41.
Meak, L.“Interprétation simultanée et congrès medical: attentes et commentaries”, TheInterpreters' Newsletter 3, 1990: 8-13.
Moser, P.“Expectations of Users of Conference Interpretation”, Interpreting 1 (2), 1996:145-178.
Moser-Mercer, B.“Quality in Interpreting: Some Methodological Issues”, TheInterpreters’Newsletter 7, 1996: 43-55.
P(?)chhacker, F.“Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting”, Meta,XLVI, 2, 2001: 410-425.
P?chhacker, F. & Shlesinger, M. ed. The Interpreting Studies Reader. London & NewYork: Routledge, 2002.
P(?)chhacker, F. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London & New York: Routledge, 2004
P(?)chhacker, F.“Quality Research Revisited”, The Interpreters' Newsletter 13, 2005:143-166.
Riccardi, A.“Evaluation in Interpretation. Macrocriteria and Microcriteria”, in TeachingTranslation and Interpreting 4: Building Bridges, Ed. by Eva Hung, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 2002: 115-126.
Stenzl, C. Simultaneous Interpretation - Groundwork towards A Comprehensive Model,unpublished MA dissertation. London: Birkbeck College, University of London, 1983
Shlesinger M. et al.“Quality in Simultaneous Interpreting”, in Conference Interpreting:Current Trends in Research. Ed. by Y. Gambier, D. Gile and C. Taylor, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 1997: 123-131.
Viezzi, M. Aspetti della Qualitàin Interpretazione, Trieste, SSLMIT, 1996.
Vuorikoski, A. R.“User Responses to Simultaneous Interpreting”, in Unity in Diversity?Current Trends in Translation Studies. Ed. by L. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny & J.Pearson. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1998: 184-197.
Wadensj(?), C. Interpreting as Interaction. London & New York: Longman, 1998.
蔡小红曾洁仪.口译质量评估研究的历史回顾[J].中国翻译, 2004年第3期,pp.49-54
达妮卡·塞莱斯科维奇玛利亚娜?勒德雷尔合著,孙慧双译.口笔译概论[M],北京:北京语言学院出版社, 1992
刘和平.口译理论与教学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 2005
卢信朝.口译质量的基本标准与多重视角[J],语言与翻译, 2007年第4期, pp.40-45.
玛利亚娜?勒德雷尔著,刘和平译.释意学派口笔译理论[M],北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 2001
梅德明.高级口译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004
孙万彪王恩铭.高级翻译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004
王大伟.现场汉英口译技巧与评析[M].北京:世界图书出版公司, 2000
Bühler, H.“Linguistic (Semantic) and Extra-linguistic (Pragmatic) Criteria for theEvaluation of Conference Interpretation and Interpreters”, Multilingua 5 (4), 1986:231-235.
Chiaro, D. & Nocella, G.“Interpreters’Perception of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic FactorsAffecting Quality: A Survey through the World Wide Web”, Meta 49 (2), 2004: 278-293.
Gile, D.“L'évaluation de la qualitéde l'interprétation par les délégués: uneétude de cas”,The Interpreters' Newsletter 3, 1990: 66-71.
Gile, D.“A Communication-Oriented Analysis of Quality in Nonliterary Translation andInterpretation”, In Translation: Theory and Practice. Ed. by Mildred L. Larson.Binghamton: State University of New York, 1991.
Gile, D.“Fidelity Assessment in Consecutive Interpretation: An Experiment”, Target 7(1),1995: 151-164.
Herbert, J. Manuel de l interprète: Comment on devient interprète de conférences.Geneva: Librairie de l’Université. 1952.
Jones, R. Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1998.
Kahane, E. Thoughts on the Quality of Interpretation. 2000.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. Principles of Marketing. 6th. ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,International Inc, 1994.
Kopczyński, A.“Quality in Conference Interpreting: Some Pragmatic Problems”, inTranslation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Ed. by M. Snell-Hornby, F. P?chhacker and K.Kaindl. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1994: 189-198.
Kurz, I.“Conference Interpreting– User Expectations”, in Coming of Age: Proceedings ofthe 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, 1989: 143-148.
Kurz, I.“Conference Interpreting: Quality in the Ears of the User”, Meta XLVI, 2, 2001:394-409.
Ng, Bee Chin“End Users' Subjective Reaction to the Performance of Student Interpreters”,The Interpreters' Newsletter Special Issue 1, 1992: 35-41.
Lasswell, Harold D.“The Structure and Function of Communication in Society”, in TheCommunication of Ideas. Ed. by Lyman Bryson. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948.
Mack, G. & Cattaruzza, L.“User Surveys in SI: A Means of Learning about Quality and/orRaising Some Reasonable Doubts”, in Topics in Interpreting Research. Ed. by J. Tommola,Turku: University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting, 1995: 37-49.
Mackintosh, J. Portrait of the“Ideal Interpreter as Seen through Delegates’Eyes”. 2004.
Marrone, S.“Quality: A Shared Objective”, The Interpreters Newsletter 5, 1993: 35-41.
Meak, L.“Interprétation simultanée et congrès medical: attentes et commentaries”, TheInterpreters' Newsletter 3, 1990: 8-13.
Moser, P.“Expectations of Users of Conference Interpretation”, Interpreting 1 (2), 1996:145-178.
Moser-Mercer, B.“Quality in Interpreting: Some Methodological Issues”, TheInterpreters’Newsletter 7, 1996: 43-55.
P(?)chhacker, F.“Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting”, Meta,XLVI, 2, 2001: 410-425.
P?chhacker, F. & Shlesinger, M. ed. The Interpreting Studies Reader. London & NewYork: Routledge, 2002.
P(?)chhacker, F. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London & New York: Routledge, 2004
P(?)chhacker, F.“Quality Research Revisited”, The Interpreters' Newsletter 13, 2005:143-166.
Riccardi, A.“Evaluation in Interpretation. Macrocriteria and Microcriteria”, in TeachingTranslation and Interpreting 4: Building Bridges, Ed. by Eva Hung, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 2002: 115-126.
Stenzl, C. Simultaneous Interpretation - Groundwork towards A Comprehensive Model,unpublished MA dissertation. London: Birkbeck College, University of London, 1983
Shlesinger M. et al.“Quality in Simultaneous Interpreting”, in Conference Interpreting:Current Trends in Research. Ed. by Y. Gambier, D. Gile and C. Taylor, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 1997: 123-131.
Viezzi, M. Aspetti della Qualitàin Interpretazione, Trieste, SSLMIT, 1996.
Vuorikoski, A. R.“User Responses to Simultaneous Interpreting”, in Unity in Diversity?Current Trends in Translation Studies. Ed. by L. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny & J.Pearson. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1998: 184-197.
Wadensj(?), C. Interpreting as Interaction. London & New York: Longman, 1998.
蔡小红曾洁仪.口译质量评估研究的历史回顾[J].中国翻译, 2004年第3期,pp.49-54
达妮卡·塞莱斯科维奇玛利亚娜?勒德雷尔合著,孙慧双译.口笔译概论[M],北京:北京语言学院出版社, 1992
刘和平.口译理论与教学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 2005
卢信朝.口译质量的基本标准与多重视角[J],语言与翻译, 2007年第4期, pp.40-45.
玛利亚娜?勒德雷尔著,刘和平译.释意学派口笔译理论[M],北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 2001
梅德明.高级口译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004
孙万彪王恩铭.高级翻译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004
王大伟.现场汉英口译技巧与评析[M].北京:世界图书出版公司, 2000