摘要
自二战后会议口译走上职业化发展道路以来,语言能力与口译能力的关系问题一直是口译研究的一大重点,也是区分口译教学与语言教学的一项重要尺度。以往的研究主要从两方面反映了语言能力与口译能力的关系,即口译的过程研究和专家与新手的对比研究。过程研究在信息加工心理学、认知心理学、认知语用学、神经语言学、交际学等不同学科视角下,提出了口译的过程模式,解释了口译信息处理的复杂的心理运行机制。专家与新手的对比研究通过大量的实验数据,从工作记忆、口译质量评估、口译策略、大脑偏侧化、口译笔记等多方面体现了职业译员与学生译员及非译员在离线的普通认知任务或在线的口译任务中的表现差异。然而,以往研究均未对语言能力与口译能力的关系做出有效的验证,过程研究侧重理论层面上的描述,与对比研究之间缺乏对接,同时对比研究中对语言能力变量的控制不足,因而使我们难以清晰地检测出语言能力与口译能力的差异性,进而无法准确把握口译能力之于语言能力之外的特征。本研究以语言能力与口译能力的关系为研究主线,以交替传译为研究对象,以Gile的“注意力分配模式”为理论框架,通过职业译员与学生的对比研究,对语言能力与口译能力之间的差异性做出了验证。
本研究采用了量化与质化相结合的实证研究方法,由外语能力测试与模拟口译两部分组成。外语能力测试通过模拟雅思考试测定受过专业训练的职业译员与未受训练的学生的外语水平,筛选出外语水平接近的受试者并对其口译表现进行评估。口译质量评估以信息单位为主要的量化指标,同时依照信息的重要性等级区分主次信息单位,从信息忠实性、语言准确性和译语流畅性三方面对比职业译员与学生的译语质量。信息忠实性旨在考察信息传递的完整性与准确性、主次信息的传递情况以及信息传递失误的类型等。语言准确性区分了语言能力与语言使用能力在口译中的体现,从语音错误、语法错误、表达偏差及语义连贯四方面进行测评。译语流畅性以引起语流阻塞的言语标记为依据,以译语中出现的停顿、重复和修正为测量指标。质量评估的结果表明,在语言水平接近一致的前提下,职业译员与学生的口译质量存在显著差异,前者的口译质量明显优于后者。同时,研究还检测了口译过程中的一大“问题诱因”—高信息密度对口译质量造成的影响,同样以信息单位为量化指标,以单位时间区间内信息单位的数量指示信息密度的高低,发现随着信息密度的升高,职业译员与学生的信息实现率降低,并且二者之间的差距逐步拉大。此外,译语分析结果显示,高信息密度下学生在口译时产生的错误数量及严重程度均高于职业译员,前者甚至产生了整体性的语义逻辑上的错误,而后者多为局部的信息丢失或理解偏差。
本研究基于“注意力分配模式”,对上述职业译员与学生的差异性的原因做出了解释,提出了交替传译的困难构成及应对机制。本文指出,交传中的困难由内部和外部困难构成,内部困难体现在口译多任务处理过程中的注意力资源有限性及资源配置的效度方面,若资源分配失衡则容易引起认知负荷“饱和”现象的产生,导致口译错误的出现。外部困难以口译过程中的“问题诱因”为特征,进一步激发注意力分配的紊乱,导致更多错误的产生。应对机制是口译员为解决内外困难所调动的心理运行机制,其作用的效果可能强化或弱化口译困难,最终影响口译的质量。据此,本文指出,职业译员与学生的差异性在于合理利用口译技能及策略,调动应对机制解决内外部困难的效度上,前者经过专业口译训练,其应对机制的作用效度优于后者。
本研究是在严格控制语言能力变量的基础之上,采用专家与新手的对比研究方法对语言能力与口译能力的关系做出的首次验证。研究的结果证明,语言能力不等同于口译能力,具备双语能力不能保证合格的口译质量,因为双语能力不足以建构起以口译的技能化处理为特征的有效的困难应对机制。这一研究结果可能对我国的口译教学及专业建设提供一些实证方面的参考依据。
Ever since conference interpreting embarked on professional development, the relationship between linguistic competence and interpreting competence has always been one of the key issues in the research of interpreting as well as an important benchmark that separates the teaching of interpreting from the teaching of language. Previous researches reflect the relationship mainly from two directions: the research of the interpreting process and the expert-novice comparative study. Researches of the interpreting process from different perspectives have resulted in many processing models of interpreting to describe the complicated psychological mechanism of interpreting process. Expert-novice comparative study, based on a large number of experimental data, has revealed in many ways the difference between professional interpreters and untrained students or non-interpreters when dealing with both offline cognitive tasks and online interpreting tasks. Nevertheless, previous researches did an insufficient job in testifying the relationship between linguistic competence and interpreting competence, lack of a connection between theoretical findings and empirical proof or the control of the linguistic competence variable in comparative studies. Therefore, this paper sets out to testify the difference between linguistic competence and interpreting competence in consecutive interpreting based on the theoretical framework of“Effort Model”in the paradigm of expert-novice comparative study.
This paper combines quantitative analysis with qualitative analysis. First, an English test modeling after IELTS is conducted to test the foreign language ability of all testees. By comparing the performance of professional interpreters and untrained students, a baseline has been set to select proper candidates from two groups for further analysis of their interpreting task. Second, the interpreting quality of selected testees has been assessed. Based on information unit - the major quantitative index, a tentative assessment of interpreting quality is formed through three aspects: fidelity of information, accuracy of language use and fluency of expression, each with detailed analytical indices. The result of interpreting quality assessment shows that on the precondition of being at the same level of linguistic competence, there is obvious difference between professional interpreters and untrained students, with the former doing much better than the latter. Third, this research has testified the influence of high information density - one of the“problem triggers”in interpreting on the quality of interpreting. We find that along with the increasing of information density, successful information conveyance declines in both professional interpreters and untrained students, while an obvious gap widens between the two in their interpreting quality.
On the basis of“Effort Model”, this paper proposes an explanation of the observed difference between professional interpreters and untrained students by stating the difficulty components during consecutive interpreting and the importance of a responsive problem-solving mechanism. Two kinds of difficulties appear in consecutive interpreting: interior ones and exterior ones. Interior difficulties are reflected in the limit of attention resources and the efficiency of attention allocation during the multi-task processing of interpreting. Any occurrence of unbalanced allocation of attention will lead to“cognitive saturation”which finally causes errors. Exterior difficulties feature“problem triggers”in interpreting which arouse further disorder of attention allocation, causing more errors to come. The responsive mechanism is a psychological mechanism activated by interpreters to solve interior and exterior problems. The efficiency of this mechanism may strengthen or diminish interpreting difficulties and exert an influence on interpreting quality at last. This paper points out that the difference between professional interpreters and untrained students lies in the proper use of interpreting skills and strategies to ensure the efficiency of the responsive mechanism. Having received professional interpreting training, professional interpreters work more efficiently with their responsive mechanisms than students.
With the variable of linguistic competence tightly controlled, this paper is the first attempt to testify the relationship of linguistic competence and interpreting competence by adopting an expert-novice comparative study. The result proves that linguistic competence is not equal to interpreting competence, and bilingual ability does not ensure qualified interpreting, for the reason that bilingual ability is not sufficient to construct an efficient responsive problem-solving mechanism which features a skilled processing of interpreting. This may provide some empirical reference for the professional training of interpreting in China.
引文
Albl-Mikasa, M. 2008. (Non-) sense in note-taking for consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, 10(2), 197-231.
Alexieva B. 1999. Understanding the source language text in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 9, 45-59.
Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A.S. 1996/1999. Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bachman, L. F. 1990/1999. Foundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Baddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G.J. 1974. Working memory. In G.H. Bower (ed.). The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 8). New York: Academic. 47-90.
Barik, H. C. 1969. A Study of Simultaneous Interpretation. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Chapel Hill.
Barik, H. C. 1971. A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 16(4), 199-210.
Broadbent, D. E. 1958. Perception and Communication. New York: Pergamon Press.
Bühler, H. 1986. Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231-235. Cambridge IELTS 6. 2007. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M. & M. Swain. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Chang, C. & D. L. Schallert. 2007. The impact of directionality on Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 9(2), 137-176.
Chernov, G.V. 2004. Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Company.
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Consorte, C. 1999. Thematic structure and simultaneous interpretation. Some experimentalR. W. Brislin (ed.). Translation: Application and Research. New York: Gardner Press. 165-207.
Gile, D. 1992. Predictable sentence endings in Japanese and conference interpretation. The Interpreters' Newsletter, Special Issue No.1, 12-23.
Gile, D. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gile, D. 1999. Testing the Effort Model’s tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting - a contribution. Hermes, 23, 153-172.
Gile, D. 2000. The history of research into conference interpreting: a scientometric approach. Target, 12(2), 297-321.
Gile, D. 2001. Consecutive vs. simultaneous: which is more accurate? Interpretation Studies, No. 1, 8-20.
Gile, D. 2005. Directionality in conference interpreting: a cognitive view. In Godijns, R. & M. Hindedael (eds.). Directionality in interpreting. The‘Retour’or the Native? Ghent: Communication and Cognition. 9-26.
Gile, D. 2008. Local cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting and its implications for empirical research. Forum, 6(2), 59-77.
Goldman-Eisler, F. 2002. Segmentation of Input in Simultaneous Translation. In P?chhacker, F. & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader. London: Routledge. 69-76.
Green, A., Vaid, J., N. Schweda-Nicholson, N. White & R. Steiner. 1994. Lateralization for shadowing vs. interpretation: a comparison of interpreters with bilingual and monolingual controls. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (eds.). Bridging the gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation. Amsterm/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 331-353.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2000. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Harris, B. & Sherwood, B. 1978. Translation as an innate skill. In D. Gerver & H. Sinaiko (eds.). Language Interpretation and Communication. New York: Plenum. 155-170. Hymes, D. 1970. On communicative competence. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.).R. W. Brislin (ed.). Translation: Application and Research. New York: Gardner Press. 165-207.
Gile, D. 1992. Predictable sentence endings in Japanese and conference interpretation. The Interpreters' Newsletter, Special Issue No.1, 12-23.
Gile, D. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gile, D. 1999. Testing the Effort Model’s tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting - a contribution. Hermes, 23, 153-172.
Gile, D. 2000. The history of research into conference interpreting: a scientometric approach. Target, 12(2), 297-321.
Gile, D. 2001. Consecutive vs. simultaneous: which is more accurate? Interpretation Studies, No. 1, 8-20.
Gile, D. 2005. Directionality in conference interpreting: a cognitive view. In Godijns, R. & M. Hindedael (eds.). Directionality in interpreting. The‘Retour’or the Native? Ghent: Communication and Cognition. 9-26.
Gile, D. 2008. Local cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting and its implications for empirical research. Forum, 6(2), 59-77.
Goldman-Eisler, F. 2002. Segmentation of Input in Simultaneous Translation. In Pochhacker, F. & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader. London: Routledge. 69-76.
Green, A., Vaid, J., N. Schweda-Nicholson, N. White & R. Steiner. 1994. Lateralization for shadowing vs. interpretation: a comparison of interpreters with bilingual and monolingual controls. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (eds.). Bridging the gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation. Amsterm/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 331-353.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2000. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Harris, B. & Sherwood, B. 1978. Translation as an innate skill. In D. Gerver & H. Sinaiko (eds.). Language Interpretation and Communication. New York: Plenum. 155-170. Hymes, D. 1970. On communicative competence. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.).Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In Pride & Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistcs, London: Penguin.
Ilic, I. 1990. Cerebral lateralization for linguistic functions in professional interpreters. In L. Gran & C. Taylor (eds.). Aspects of Applied and Experimental Research on Conference Interpretation. Udine: Campanotto, 101–110.
Ilic, I. 1990. Cerebral lateralization for linguistic functions in professional interpreters. In L. Gran & C. Taylor (eds.). Aspects of Applied and Experimental Research on Conference Interpretation. Udine: Campanotto. 101–110.
Isham, W. P. Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation: evidence both for and against deverbalization. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (eds.). Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Company. 191-211.
Jones. R. 1998. Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Kahneman, D. 1973. Attention and Effort. Englewoods Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
Kalina, S. 1994. Analyzing interpreters’performance: methods and problems. In: Dollerup, C. and Lindegaard (eds.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Training, Talent and Experience. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 225-232.
Kaya, Burce. 2007. The role of bilingualism in translation activity. Translation Journal, 11(1).
Kirchhoff, H. 2002. Simultaneous interpreting: interdependence of variables in the interpreting process, interpreting models and interpreting strategies (translated by David Sawyer). In P?chhacker, F. & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader. London: Routledge. 110-119.
Kohn, K. & S. Kalina. 1996. The strategic dimension of interpreting. Meta, 41(1), 118-138. K?pke, B. & J. L. Nespoulous. 2006. Working memory performance in expert and novice interpreters. Interpreting, 8(1), 1-23.
Kurz, I. 1989. Conference Interpreting—User Expectations. Coming of Age. In D. L. Hammond (ed.). Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Medford (NJ), Learned Information, 143-148.
Kurz, I. 2003. Physiological stress during simultaneous interpreting: a comparison of experts and novices. The Interpreters' Newsletter, No. 12, 51-67.
Lambert, S. 1988. Information processing among conference interpreters: a test of the depth-of-processing hypothesis. Meta, Vol. 33, No.3, 377-387.
Lambert, S. 1989. Simultaneous interpreters: one ear may be better than two. In S. Lambert, S. & B. Moser-Mercer (eds.). Bridging the Gap. Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 319-329.
Lawson, E. 1967. Attention and simultaneous translation. Language and Speech, 10, 29-35.
Liu M. 2001. Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Working Memory Analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of. Texas.
Liu, M, D. L. Schallert & P. J. Carroll. 2004. Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Interpeting, 6(1), 19-42.
Longley, P. 1978. An integrated programme for training interpreters. In D. Gerver & H. Sinaiko (eds.). Language interpretation and communication. New York: Plenum. 45-56.
Marrone, S. 1993. Quality: A Shared Objective. The Interpreters’Newsletter, 5, 35-41.
Matysiak, A. 2001. Controlled Processing in Simultaneous Interpretation: A Study Based on Daniel Gile's Effort Models. MA thesis, University of Poznan.
Mazza, C. 2001. Numbers in Simultaneous Interpretation. The lnterpreters' Newsletter, No. 11, 87-104.
Mazzetti, A. 1999. The influence of segmental and prosodic deviation on source-text comprehension in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’Newsletter, 9, 125-147.
Mcdonald, J. & Carpenter, P. 1981. Simultaneous translation: idiom interpretation and parsing heuristics. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20 (2), 231-247.
McDonald, J. Carpenter, P.A. 1981. Simultaneous translation: Idiom interpretation and parsing heuristics. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 231–247.
Moray, N. 1967. Where is capacity limited? A survey and a model. Acta Psychologica, 27, 84-92.
Moser-Mercer, B. 1996. Quality in interpreting: Some methodological issues. TheInterpreters’Newsletter, 7, 43-55.
Moser-Mercer, B. 1997. The expert-novice paradigm in interpreting research. In E. Fleischmann, W. Kutz, & P. A. Schmitt (eds.), Translationsdidaktik: Grundfragen der übersetzungswissenschaft. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 255-261.
Moser-Mercer, B. 2000. Simultaneous interpreting: cognitive potential and limitations. Interpreting, 5(2), 83-94.
Moser-Mercer, B. 2002. Process models in simultaneous interpretation. In P?chhacker, F. & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader. London: Routledge. 148-161.
Moser-Mercer, B., U. Frauenfelder, B. Casado & A. Künzli. 2000. Searching to define expertise in interpreting, in B. E. Dimitrova and K. Hyltenstam (eds.). Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 107-132.
Myers, L. 1976. Introduction to Consecutive Interpretation. M. A. thesis. Monterey Institute of Foreign Studies.
Norman, D. A. 1976. Memory and Attention. New York: Wiley.
Oléron, P. & H. Nanpon. 2002. Research into simultaneous translation (translated by Ruth Morris). In P?chhacker, F. & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader. London: Routledge. 42-50.
Padilla, P., M. T. Bajo & F. Padilla. 1999. Proposal for a cognitive theory of translation and interpreting. A methodology for future empirical research. The Interpreters’Newsletter, No. 9, 61-78.
Petite, C. 2005. Evidence of repair mechanisms in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 7(1), 27-49.
Pio, S. 2003. The relation between ST delivery rate and quality in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 12, 69-100.
P?chhacker, F. 1994. Quality assurance in simultaneous interpreting. In C. Dollerup and A. Lindegaard (eds.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 233-242.
Pochhacker, F. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. Pym, A. 2008. On omission in simultaneous interpreting. Risk analysis of a hidden effort.In Hansen, Gyde, A. Chesterman & Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds.). Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 83-105.
Riccardi A., Marinuzzi G. and Zecchin S. 1998. Interpretation and stress. The Interpreters' Newsletter, No. 8, 93-106.
Riccardi, A. 1996. Language-Specific Strategies in Simultaneous Interpreting. In C. Dollerup & V. Appel (eds.). New Horizons– Teaching Translation and Interpreting, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 213-222.
Riccardi, A. 2002. Evaluation in interpretation: macrocriteria and microcriteria. In Hung, E. (ed.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4. 115–126.
Schjoldager, A. 1996. Assessment of simultaneous interpreting. In C. Dollerup & V. Appel (eds.). New Horizons– Teaching Translation and Interpreting, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 187-195.
Seleskovitch, D. & M. Lederer. 1995. A Systematic Approach to Teaching Interpretation (translated by J. Harmer). The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
Seleskovitch, D. & P. W. Krawutschke. 1989. Teaching Conference Interpreting. In P. W. Krawutchke (ed.). American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Serires 3: Translator and Interpreter Training and Foreign Language Pedagogy. Binghamton: State University of New York. 65-88.
Seleskovitch, D. 1999. The teaching of conference interpretation in the course of the last 50 years. Meta, 4(1), 55-66.
Seleskovitch, D. 2002. Language and memory: a study of note-taking in consecutive interpreting. In P?chhacker, F. & M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader. London: Routledge. 120-129.
Setton, R. 1999. Simultaneous Interpretation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins B.V.
Setton, R. 2002. Deconstructing SI: a contribution to the debate on component processes. The Interpreter's Newsletter, 11, 1–26.
Uchiyama, H. 1991. Problems caused by word order when interpreting/translating from English into Japanese: the effect of the use of inanimate subjects in English. Meta,36(2), 404-413.
Van Dijk, T.A. & W. Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
鲍刚,2005,《口译理论概述》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司。
蔡小红,2001a,交替传译过程能力发展—中国法语译员和学生的交替传译活动实证研究,《现代外语》第3期,276-284页。
蔡小红,2001b,以跨学科的视野拓展口译研究,《中国翻译》第2期,26-29页。
蔡小红,2007,《口译评估》,北京:中国对外出版集团。
达尼卡·塞莱丝科维奇、玛丽雅娜·勒代雷著,汪家荣、李胥森、史美珍译,1990,《口译理论实践与教学》,北京:旅游教育出版社。
戴伟栋、徐海铭,2007,汉英交替传译过程中译员笔记特征实证研究—以职业受训译员和非职业译员为例,《外语教学与研究》第2期,136-144页。
高彬,2008,猜测与反驳—同声传译认知理论研究,未出版博士论文,上海外国语大学。
何其莘,2007,翻译和外语教学,《中国翻译》第4期。
胡凌鹊,2008,交替传译中笔记的心理语言学研究,未出版博士论文,上海外国语大学。
刘和平,2001,《口译技巧—思维科学与口译推理教学法》,北京:中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘和平,2005,《口译理论与教学》,北京: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,《广东外语外贸大学学报》第3期,8-11页。
刘和平,2008,再谈翻译教学体系的构建,《中国翻译》第3期。
刘敏华,1993,《逐步口译与笔记》,台湾:辅仁大学出版社。
刘绍龙、王柳琪,2007,对近十年中国口译研究现状的调查与分析,《广东外语外贸大学学报》第1期,37-40页。
刘绍龙、仲伟合,2008,口译的神经心理语言学研究—连续传译“过程”模式的构建,《外国语》第4期,86-91。
龙娟,2008,职业译员与口译学员同声传译语法准确性差异的实证研究,未出版硕士论文,广东外语外贸大学。
秦晓晴,2003,《外语教学研究中的定量数据分析》,武汉:华中科技大学出版社。Seleskovitch、勒代雷,2007,《口译训练指南》(闫素伟、邵炜译),北京:中国出版集团。
束定芳、庄智象,2008,《现代外语教学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
王瑛,2006,视译练习对同声传译训练的效果,未出版硕士论文,广东外语外贸大学。
徐海铭、柴明熲，2008,汉英交替传译活动中译员笔记困难及其原因的实证研究,《外语学刊》第1期,122-127页。
杨承淑,2008,《口译的讯息处理过程研究》,台北:辅仁大学出版社。
杨璇,2006,论笔记中的符号和缩略词对提高连传质量的有效性,未出版硕士论文,广东外语外贸大学。
张威,2007,同声传译与工作记忆关系的认知分析,《四川外语学院学报》第3期,107-114页。
张威,2008,同声传译对工作记忆发展潜势的特殊影响研究,现代外语,第4期,423-430页。
张威,2009,同声传译认知加工分析工作记忆能力与同声传译效果的关系—一项基于中国英语口译人员的实证研究报告,《外国语文》第4期,128-134页。
仲伟合,2007,翻译硕士专业学位(MTI)及其对中国外语教学的挑战,《中国外语》第4期,4-12页。
邹申,2005,《语言测试》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。