第五章 結論與建議
5.3 未來研究方向與建議
目前口譯品質的文獻中對填補詞的著墨不多，且文獻中對於填補詞的分類不 一，中文裡對於填補詞的定義也無定論，本研究實驗最後選定安插之填補詞，主 要區分為兩大類：其一為表示感嘆遲疑之有聲停頓，如「痾」、「那」、「呢」、「喔」
等，為單音單字之填補詞。其二為用來穩住發言權的插入語，如「基本上」、「所 謂的」、「事實上」等。研究結果發現，受詴者對於第一類填補詞較為敏感，未來 的研究也許可以透過質性訪談，確認受詴者是否真的不容易察覺用來穩住發言權 的插入語，並探討其他類型填補詞對於口譯品質之影響。
再者，本研究實驗中，有填補詞段落之填補詞字數佔該段落總字數約 9%至 11%，兩類型之填補詞分佔一半左右。因此只能推論當填補詞比例為 9%以上時，
受詴者確實能察覺其存在。期待未來研究可以進一步探討填補詞比例與口譯品質 觀感之相互影響關係，甚至可以將不同類型的填補詞比例分開討論，以更加了解 聽眾耳中「填補詞多到難以忍受」的臨界點在哪裡。
此外，本研究受詴者多為英語系／外文系學生。由於不同背景之受詴者對於 口譯品質的評量方式不一，未來的研究也許可以挑選不同背景的受詴者，並比較 不同群體對於填補詞之接受程度是否有差異。
最後，本實驗設計礙於研究限制，只讓受詴者聽了四個段落的口譯錄音，原 文總長約六分半鐘左右，合理推測當聆聽的段落愈長，也許對於填補詞的忍受度 會愈低，也許未來的研究可以進一步探討填補詞、演講長短，與口譯品質之間的 相互關係。
76
期待未來的研究可以進一步探討於不同狀況下，聽眾對於填補詞之接受程度，
以裨益口譯教學與訓練，讓口譯員更加了解聽眾使用口譯服務時的偏好，以根據 聽眾需求提供品質更好的口譯服務，促進口譯服務產業的健全與發展。
77
參考文獻
英文書目
Adell, J., Escudero, D., & Bonafonte, A. (2012). Production of filled pauses in concatenative speech synthesis based on the underlying fluent sentence.
Speech Communication, 54(3), 459-476. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2011.10.010
Barik, H. C. (1971). A Description of Various Types of Omissions, Additions and Errors of Translation Encountered in Simultaneous Interpretation. Meta: Journal des
traducteurs, 16(4), 199. doi: 10.7202/001972ar
Biq, Y.-O. (2001). The Grammaticalization of Jiushi and Jiushishuo in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 27(2), 103-124.
Brumfit, C. J. (1984). Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching: The Roles
of Fluency and Accuracy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univdersity Press.
Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua,
5(4), 231-236.
Cattaruzza, L., & Mack, G. (1995). User surveys in SI: a means of learning about quality and/or raising some reasonable doubts. Topics in interpreting
research, 37-49.
Christenfeld, N. (1995). Does it hurt to say um? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 171-186.
Chui, K. (2002). Discontinuity of Conversational Topics. Concentric: Studies in English
Literature and Linguistics, 27(2), 149-174.
78
Davis, B.H.,& Maclagan,M. (2010). Pauses, fillers, placeholders and formulaicity in Alzheimer’s discourse: Gluing relationships as impairment increases. In Amiridze, N.,Davis, B.H.,& Maclagan, M. (Eds.), Fillers, Pauses and
Placeholders (pp. 189-207). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing.Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In Fillmore, C. F., Kempler, D., & Wang, W. S. (Eds.),
Individual differences in language ability and language behaviour (pp.
85-102). New York: Academic Press.
Fiske, J. (1982). Introduction to communication studies. New York and London:
Routledge.
Fox, B. A. (2010). Introduction. In Amiridze, N.,Davis, B.H.,& Maclagan, M. (Eds.),
Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders (pp. 1-9). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing.Fox Tree, J. E. (2001). Listeners' uses of um and uh in speech comprehension.
Memory & Cognition, 29(2), 320-326 doi: 0.3758/BF03194926
Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Interpreting Pauses and Ums at Turn Exchanges. Discourse
Processes, 34(1), 37-55.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on Politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236.
Fraundorf, S. H., Watson, D. G. (2008). Dimensions of variation in disfluency production in discourse. In Healey, P., Ginzburg, J., & Sato, Y. (Eds.),
Proceedings of LONDIAL 2008, the 12th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (pp. 131-138). London: King's College London.
Garzone, G. (2003). Reliability of quality criteria evaluation in survey research. In Collados Aís, Á., Fernández Sánchez, M.M., & Gile, D. (Eds.), La evaluación de
la calidad en interpretación: Investigación (pp. 23-30). Granada: Comares.
Garzone, G. (2002). Quality and norms in interpretation. In Garzone, G., & Viezzi, M.
(Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century : challenges and opportunities (pp.
107-120). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
79
Gile, D. (1991). A Communication-Oriented Analysis of Quality in Nonliterary
Translation and Interpretation. In M. L. Larson (Ed.), Translation--theory and
practice: tension and interdependence (pp. 188-200). Binghamton: State
University of New York at Binghamton (SUNY).Greene, J. O. (1984). Speech Preparation Process and Verbal Fluency. Human
Communication Research, 11(1), 61-84.
Guillot, M. N. (1999). Fluency and its teaching. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hammond, D. L. (1989). Coming of age: proceedings of the 30th annual conference of
the American Translators Association, Oct. 11-15, 1989, Washington, D.C.
Medford, N.J.: Learned Information Inc.
Hayashi, M.,& Yoon, K.-E. (2010). A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction: With particular reference to the context of word-formulation trouble. In Amiridze, N.,Davis, B.H.,& Maclagan, M. (Eds.), Fillers, Pauses and
Placeholders (pp. 33-66). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing.Irvine, J. T. (1979). Formality and Informality in Communicative Events. American
Anthropologist, 81(4), 773-790.
Jackson, S. L. (2012). Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach (4 ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Jones, R. (1998). Conference interpreting explained. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.
Kalina, S. (2002). Quality in interpreting and its prerequisites: A framework for a comprehensive view. In Garzone, G., & Viezzi, M. (Eds.), Interpreting in the
21st century : challenges and opportunities (pp. 121-130). Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Keevallik, L. (2010). The interactional profile of a placeholder: The Estonian
demonstrative see. In Amiridze, N.,Davis, B.H.,& Maclagan, M. (Eds.), Fillers,
pauses and placeholders (pp. 139-172). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing.80
Kopczynski, A. (1994). Quality in Conference Interpreting: Some Pragmatic Problems.
In Kaindl, K., Pöchhacker, F., & Snell-Hornby, M. (Eds.), Translation Studies.
An interdiscipline (pp. 189-198). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing.Kurz, I. (1989). Conference interpreting--user expectations Coming of Age:
Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association (pp. 143-148). Medford NJ: Learned Information.
Kurz, I. (1993). Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups.
The Interpreters' Newsletter, 5, 13-21.
Kurz, I. (2001). Conference Interpreting: Quality in the Ears of the User. Meta:
Translators' Journal, 46(2), 394-409. doi: 10.7202/003364ar
Lease, M., & Johnson, M. (2006). Early deletion of fillers in processing conversational
speech. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Language
Technology Conference of the NAACL, Companion Volume: Short Papers, New York.
Maclay, H., & Osgood, C. (1959). Hesitation Phenomena in Spontaneous English Speech. Word, 15, 19-44.
Marrone, S. (1993). Quality: A Shared Objective. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 5, 35-41.
Mead, P. (2002). Exploring hesitation in consecutive interpreting: An empirical study.
In Garzone, G., & Viezzi, M. (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century :
challenges and opportunities (pp. 73-82). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing.Miller, G. A. (1963). Language and Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Moser, P. (1996). Survey on expectations of users of conference interpretation. On
Interpreting. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in interpreting: some methodological issues. The
Interpreters' Newsletter, 7.
81
Moser-Mercer, B., & Lambert, S. (1994). Bridging the gap. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Nation, P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17(3), 377-384.
Ng, B. C. (1992). End Users' Subjective Reaction to the Performance of Student Interpreters. The Interpreters' Newsletter Special Issue No. 1, 35-41.
Pearce, M. (2005). Informalization in UK party election broadcasts 1966-97.
Language and Literature, 14, 65-90.
Pochhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London and New York:
Routledge.
Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting. Meta: Translators' Journal, 46(2), 410-425. doi:
10.7202/003847ar
Pöchhacker, F. (2002). Researching interpreting quality: Models and methods. In Garzone, G., & Viezzi, M. (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century : challenges
and opportunities (pp. 95-106). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing.Podlesskaya, V. I. (2010). Parameters for typological variation of placeholders. In Amiridze, N.,Davis, B.H.,& Maclagan, M. (Eds.), Fillers, Pauses and
Placeholders (pp. 11-32). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing.Riggenbach, H. (1991). Towards an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of non-native speaker conversations. Discourse Processes 14, 14, 423-441.
Sager, J. C., & Somers, H. L. (1996). Terminology, LSP, and translation (Vol. Benjamins translation library). Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Some Other “Uh(m)”s. Discourse Processes, 47(2), 130-174.
doi: 10.1080/01638530903223380
82
Schlesinger, M. (1997). Quality in Simultaneous Interpreting. In Gambier, Y., Gile, D.,
& Taylor, C. (Eds.), Conference Interpreting: Currents Trends in Research (pp.
123-131). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Seleskovitch, D. (1986). Who Should Assess an Interpreter's Performance?
Multilingua, 5(4), 231-236.
Siegel, M. E. A. (2002). Like: the Discourse Particle and Semantics Journal of
Semantics, 19(1), 35-71.
Sifianou, M. (2013). The impact of globalisation on politeness and impoliteness.
Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 86-102.
Trudgill, P. (1983). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. New York: Penguin.
Vuorikoski, A.-R. (1993). Simultaneous interpretation—User experience and
expectation. In C. Picken (Ed.), Translation—the vital link. Proceedings of the
XIIIth World Congress of FIT (Vol. 1, pp. 317-327). London: Institute of
Translation and Interpreting.Vuorikoski, A.-R. (1998). User Responses to Simultaneous Interpreting. In Bowker, L., Cronin, M., Kenny, D., & Pearson, J. (Eds.), Unity in Diversity? Current Trends
in Translation Studies (pp. 184-197). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Zellner, B. (1994). Pauses and the Temporal Structure of Speech. In É. Keller (Ed.), Fundamentals of Speech Synthesis and Speech Recognition (pp. 41-62).
Chichester: John Wiley.
中文書目
汝明麗（1996）。從使用者觀點探討口譯品質與口譯員之角色（碩士論文）。輔 仁大學，新北市。
吳紹銓、劉敏華、張嘉倩（2008）。口譯訓練學校之評估作法：臺灣與中英美十
83
一校之比較。編譯論叢，1(1)，1-42。
李易（2008）。自發性國語語音中自動偵測填充式停頓之初步研究（碩士論文）。
國立臺灣大學，台北市。
新聞局（2004）。台灣翻譯產業現況調查研究總結分析報告。台北：行政院新聞 局。
楊承淑（2005）。同步口譯的簡化類型與規律。國立編譯館館刊，33(1)，20-39。
翟飛飛、宗成慶（2011）。口語對話中冗余詞匯識別方法研究。中文信息學報，
25(3)，104-111。
裴恩（2011）。非營利組織社區口譯之品質與倫理初探：以伊甸社會福利基金會 與臺北市賽珍珠基金會為例（碩士論文），國立臺灣師範大學，台北。
劉怡君、陳俊光（2007）。現代漢語委婉言語之語用策略及語言形式：兼談華語 教學應用，第五屆台灣華語文教學年會暨研討會論文集，471-495。
應充慧（2001）。英文帶稿演講中的贅詞與同步口譯（碩士論文）。國立臺灣師 範大學，台北市。
84
附錄一：原文演講逐字稿
Tim Leberecht: 3 ways to (usefully) lose control of your brand
http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_leberecht_3_ways_to_usefully_lose_control_of_your _reputation.html（原文取材自 TED Talk 網站，為 2012 年 TEDGlobal 活動中所拍攝 之演講，原文全長 6 分 15 秒）
Companies are losing control. What happens on Wall Street no longer stays on Wall Street. What happens in Vegas ends up on YouTube. (Laughter) Reputations are volatile. Loyalties are fickle. Management teams seem increasingly disconnected from their staff. (Laughter) A recent survey said that 27 percent of bosses believe their employees are inspired by their firm. However, in the same survey, only four percent of employees agreed. Companies are losing control of their customers and their employees. But are they really?
I'm a marketer, and as a marketer, I know that I've never really been in control.
Your brand is what other people say about you when you're not in the room, the saying goes. Hyperconnectivity and transparency allow companies to be in that room now, 24/7. They can listen and join the conversation. In fact, they have more control over the loss of control than ever before. They can design for it. But how?
First of all, they can give employees and customers more control. They can collaborate with them on the creation of ideas, knowledge, content, designs and product. They can give them more control over pricing, which is what the band Radiohead did with its pay-as-you-like online release of its album "In Rainbows."
Buyers could determine the price, but the offer was exclusive, and only stood for a limited period of time. The album sold more copies than previous releases of the band. The Danish chocolate company Anthon Berg opened a so-called "generous store" in Copenhagen. It asked customers to purchase chocolate with the promise of good deeds towards loved ones. It turned transactions into interactions, and
generosity into a currency. Companies can even give control to hackers. When
Microsoft Kinect came out, the motion-controlled add-on to its Xbox gaming console, it immediately drew the attention of hackers. Microsoft first fought off the hacks, but then shifted course when it realized that actively supporting the community came with benefits. The sense of co-ownership, the free publicity, the added value, all helped drive sales.
85
The ultimate empowerment of customers is to ask them not to buy. Outdoor clothier Patagonia encouraged prospective buyers to check out eBay for its used products and to resole their shoes before purchasing new ones. In an even more radical stance against consumerism, the company placed a "Don't Buy This Jacket"
advertisement during the peak of shopping season. It may have jeopardized short-term sales, but it builds lasting, long-term loyalty based on shared values.
Research has shown that giving employees more control over their work makes them happier and more productive. The Brazilian company Semco Group famously lets employees set their own work schedules and even their salaries. Hulu and Netflix, among other companies, have open vacation policies.
Companies can give people more control, but they can also give them less control. Traditional business wisdom holds that trust is earned by predictable behavior, but when everything is consistent and standardized, how do you create meaningful experiences? Giving people less control might be a wonderful way to counter the abundance of choice and make them happier. Take the travel service Nextpedition. Nextpedition turns the trip into a game, with surprising twists and turns along the way. It does not tell the traveler where she's going until the very last minute, and information is provided just in time. Similarly, Dutch airline KLM
launched a surprise campaign, seemingly randomly handing out small gifts to travelers en route to their destination. U.K.-based Interflora monitored Twitter for users who were having a bad day, and then sent them a free bouquet of flowers.
Is there anything companies can do to make their employees feel less pressed for time? Yes. Force them to help others. A recent study suggests that having employees complete occasional altruistic tasks throughout the day increases their sense of overall productivity. At Frog, the company I work for, we hold internal speed meet sessions that connect old and new employees, helping them get to know each other fast. By applying a strict process, we give them less control, less choice, but we enable more and richer social interactions.
Companies are the makers of their fortunes, and like all of us, they are utterly exposed to serendipity. That should make them more humble, more vulnerable and more human. At the end of the day, as hyperconnectivity and transparency expose companies' behavior in broad daylight, staying true to their true selves is the only sustainable value proposition. Or as the ballet dancer Alonzo King said, "What's interesting about you is you." For the true selves of companies to come through,
86
openness is paramount, but radical openness is not a solution, because when everything is open, nothing is open. "A smile is a door that is half open and half closed," the author Jennifer Egan wrote. Companies can give their employees and customers more control or less. They can worry about how much openness is good for them, and what needs to stay closed. Or they can simply smile, and remain open to all possibilities. Thank you. (Applause) (Applause)
87
附錄二：C 卷口譯逐字稿
（簡潔、填補詞、簡潔、填補詞）
一、（簡潔）
現在的公司已經慢慢沒有辦法掌控全局了。華爾街發生的事情不再只是華爾 街的事而已，賭城發生的事情最後也上了 YouTube。公司的商譽很容易受到影響，
員工對公司的忠誠度也變得很薄弱，管理團隊好像跟慢慢跟員工疏遠了。最近一
那公司呢甚至也可以讓駭客擁有所謂的部分主導權，Kinect 尌是很好的例子 喔。Kinect 是 Xbox 遊戲主機的周邊裝置，用動作來控制。那當初微軟剛推出 Kinect 的時候呢，立刻引起駭客的注意，想駭進 Kinect 的系統。那一開始微軟呢詴圖對 抗駭客的入侵，但後來決定改變策略，跟駭客合作。因為呢微軟發現，基本上積 極與駭客社群互動其實有非常多的好處喔，像是呢讓駭客有所謂的共同擁有系統
88
的感覺、讓駭客免費幫忙宣傳，那還有其他的附加價值，這些呢都讓 Kinect 的銷 售量翻倍。
基本上呢讓顧客握有主導權的終極策略，尌是叫顧客「不要亂買」。比如說 呢戶外服裝品牌 Patagonia 尌鼓勵顧客先上 eBay 找找看二手衣服、先把舊鞋底換 掉，再來買新的衣服和鞋子。基本上呢 Patagonia 為了更積極的抵制所謂的消費 主義，還在購物旺季的時候呢發起所謂的「別買這件外套」的活動。那這個作法 呢也許會讓短期銷量減少，但是呢顧客卻因此更認同公司的價值，所以能建立所
基本上呢讓顧客握有主導權的終極策略，尌是叫顧客「不要亂買」。比如說 呢戶外服裝品牌 Patagonia 尌鼓勵顧客先上 eBay 找找看二手衣服、先把舊鞋底換 掉，再來買新的衣服和鞋子。基本上呢 Patagonia 為了更積極的抵制所謂的消費 主義，還在購物旺季的時候呢發起所謂的「別買這件外套」的活動。那這個作法 呢也許會讓短期銷量減少，但是呢顧客卻因此更認同公司的價值，所以能建立所