Terminology - 長時間同步口譯對口譯品質的影響

- A language/B language: A language is one’s mother tongue, whereas B language of a person is his/her second (acquired) language.

- Source text/source language: Source text is the text which is interpreted or translated into another; source language is the language of the source text. These two terms are usually abbreviated as ST and SL.

- Target text/target language: Target text is the text that is interpreted or translated from another language; target language is the language of the target text. These two terms are usually abbreviated as TT and TL.

- Saint (聖徒): A saint is a believer in Christ, i.e. a Christian.

- Brothers and sisters (弟兄姊妹): how believers in Christ call one another.

- The Spirit (靈/聖靈/那靈): the Spirit of the Triune God; the Holy Spirit.

- Spirit (靈): Depending on the context, it could mean 1) the spirit of human beings as an organ to receive and contact God, or 2) the mingled spirit of the (Holy) Spirit and men’s spirit - Economy (經綸): God’s economy means God’s plan or God’s administration.

- Message (信息): A message is a speech given in a conference or training, covering a topic.

Chapter Two Literature Review 2.1 Bible Translation and the Christian Speech Community

The translations of the Bible pave way to how members within a Christian community understand one another. People outside of the community often find it hard to understand the

“Christian language” for the unique word choice and some other distinguishable characteristics (Mao, 1994). It is thus necessary to allot a section covering translations of the Bible and the uniqueness of the Christian discourse.

The Bible is composed of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Most books in the Old Testament were originally written in Hebrew while the entire New Testament in Greek (Nee

& Lee, 1991). Both Testaments are writings from different authors targeted at different readers at the time, yet it is to Christians’ belief that all books together is God’s revealing Himself through appointed prophets and apostles to mankind (Nee & Lee, 1991). The Septuagint is the first translated Bible (Nee & Lee, 1991). It was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

The most authoritative English translation of the Bible is the King James Version, and it is the version which translations into different languages and revisions are based upon. The most

widely used Chinese translation of the Bible is the Chinese Union Version – 和合本 (LSM, n.d).

Some of the later translations are the Chinese New Version – 新譯本 (first published in 1976), Today’s Chinese Version – 現代中文譯本 (first published in 1979), and the Recovery Version – 恢復本 (first published in 1987). The Chinese New Version emphasizes the readability of the translation; Today’s Chinese Version took a step further and incorporated the idea of “audibility”, which means the translations of the verses have to “sound right” while being read aloud. Both

the Chinese New Version and the Recovery Version include footnotes. In addition to footnotes, the Recovery Version is also known for its outlines for each book, cross-references, and graphs and maps.

In the 1960s, Witness Lee started to give speeches on Biblical truth. Lee would study carefully every verse he was going to quote in the conference, and at where he found the translation dubious, he would study as many references as he could, and then come up with a new translation with footnotes, later printed out for the congregation (M. Chu, personal

communication, 2012). Lee’s translations for conferences had laid the foundation for the Chinese Recovery Version of the Bible. In 1986, Taiwan Gospel Book Room started to compile Lee’s translations for the New Testament, and 1987 saw the publication of the first edition of the Chinese Recovery Version of the New Testament (LSM, n.d). Teamwork was very important in translating of the Recovery Version. With the leading of Witness Lee, many scholars from related fields of study labored together in revealing the Word of God (M. Chu, personal communication, 2012). The characteristics of the Recovery version are: 1) staying close to the source text, 2) detailed footnotes, 3) outlines for each book, and 4) consistency in word choice (M. Chu, personal communication, 2012). Staying close to the source text, however, does not mean to transliterate, i.e. to render a word by word parallel version of the sentences. The principle that dominated Lee’s translations was being faithful to the Word of God; in other words, no addition, no omission and no alteration should be tolerated. In Lee’s careful attitude towards God’s Word, the Recovery Version came into being.

A speech community is a group of people who share linguistic rules, sociocultural views, or presupposition on speech (Mao, 1994). Tseng’s (2009) study pointed out that a Chinese

Christian speech community has its unique linguistic style that might sometimes make a non-Christian in such community feel excluded. A Chinese Christian speech community is characterized by the following traits: 1) the use of interjections such as 喔 (oh) and 啊 (ah), as used in “喔！主耶穌！” (Oh! Lord Jesus!) or “主啊！” (“Lord ah” as transliterated, meaning

“Oh! Lord!”) , and minimal responses such as 阿們 (amen) and 是的，主 (yes, Lord), expressing agreement, 2) the use of metaphors such as 神是愛 (God is love) and 耶穌是我的牧人 (Jesus is my Shepherd), 3) the use of many addressee forms to indicate relationships, for example, 天父 (the heavenly Father), 僕人 (servant), and 弟兄姊妹 (brothers and sisters), addressing the many relationships between God and men, among believers, and among the Father, Son, and the Spirit, 4) the use of terms and jargons such as 以馬內利 (Immanuel,

meaning God with us) and 交通 (fellowship, meaning communicating or communication) and 5) the excessive use of slogans like 耶穌愛你 (Jesus loves you) and 天國近了 (the heaven is near) (Mao, 1994). Among the five characteristics of Mao’s (1994) findings in the study on Chinese Christian registers, the researcher of the present study would like to point out that the use of Chinese Christian terms and jargons are even more distinctive than its English

counterparts. 交通 is an example of this. In general Chinese contexts, 交通 means traffic, while in the Chinese Christian discourse, it means the communication between God and

believers or among brothers and sisters (Mao, 1994). However, this word in the English Christian discourse is “fellowship”, which does not pose the same confusion as 交通 does to

non-Christian Chinese speakers.

2.2 Interpreting

2.2.1 Modes and Settings

Interpreting is to translate in an oral form, that is, to listen to a delivery in one language and render it orally into another (AIIC, n.d), thus bridging the gap between language barriers during communication. Two major modes of interpreting are consecutive and simultaneous;

some other sub-categories of interpreting modes include whispered and liaison interpreting (AIIC, 2012). Whereas in the consecutive mode, the speaker would stop at intervals for the interpreter to interpret; in the simultaneous mode, the speaker does not stop for the interpreter’s convenience and the interpreter will have to simultaneously render interpretation upon receiving the speech (AIIC, 2012). Simultaneous interpreters work in a booth where they can hear the speech via headphones and render the interpretation into a microphone (AIIC, 2012). Whispered interpreting, also known as whispering, is a form of simultaneous interpreting that takes place outside of a booth. The interpreter and the listener(s) sit closely together, and the interpretation is provided in a quiet voice (AIIC, 2012). Consecutive interpreting usually refers to the setting in which an interpreter stands right next to the speaker on stage, taking notes during the speech, and then provide interpretation according to the notes. Liaison interpreting also takes the consecutive mode, yet it happens in encounters in which a representative of an institution needs to

communicate with a layperson (Hsieh, 2003).

To categorize interpreting activities by the occasion in which the service is provided, there are conference interpreting and community interpreting. According to the International Association of Conferences Interpreters (referred to as AIIC later in this paper), conference interpreting usually takes place at international summits, professional seminars, and meetings in

which heads of States and Governments come together for an issue; community interpreting, on the other hand, takes place between institutions and individuals, who are usually immigrants. If different interpreting activities are put on a spectrum, on which one end involves delegates of entities interacting in a multi-national environment on a specific topic, and at the other end, interpreting takes place in a particular community or society where communication needs to be facilitated between an institution and an individual, conference interpreting is closer to the end that was first mentioned, and community interpreting the other (Pöchhacker, 2001).

Definitions of community interpreting vary. The Government Information Office of the Executive Yuan defined community interpreting as interpreting service provided by volunteers to immigrants (Pei, 2011). According to AIIC, some of the characteristics of community

interpreting are: a wide range of working languages, which sometimes includes dialects, the unequal power relationship between institutions and individuals, the usually rushed through interpreting encounter, the cultural awareness and good people skills required for the interpreters (Bowen, 2000). Medical interpreting and court interpreting usually fall into the category of community interpreting. In Tseng’s (2009) research, Church interpreting in Taiwan is viewed as a form of community interpreting; its use of language is unique, the interpreters are usually

volunteers or untrained, and the most used interpreting mode is consecutive. However, church interpreting can actually take on various forms. For example, when a foreign missionary travels abroad, he or she might need a liaison interpreter; in a preaching session, consecutive

interpreting can be an ideal form for it can be carried out without equipment, whereas in some church conferences where consecutive interpreting would take up too much time, simultaneous interpreting should be provided. The fact that on different occasions in church interpreting

activities, different modes should be applied, and that the power dynamics between the parties involved also differ, it is a little bit premature to say that church interpreting is one kind of community interpreting. The unequal power relationship in community interpreting lies in the fact that the interpreter needs to facilitate a “mutual satisfaction” between the two clients – service provider and service receiver (Merlini & Favaron, 2003). Such power dynamic in community interpreting does not entirely reflect the relationship among the participants of communication or between a speaker and listeners in church settings. It is very often that, in church settings, the interpreter and the participants of communication all belong to the same community or institution – the church – so the client-employer or institution-individual relationship does not apply. Again, given the various characteristics of church interpreting as discussed above, church interpreting cannot always be thought as a form of community interpreting.

2.2.3 Church Interpreting

The Old Testament of the Bible records the first account of the need of interpreting between languages.

“And the whole earth had one language and the same speech. […] And they said, Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower whose top is in the heavens; and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered over the surface of the whole earth. […] And Jehovah said, Behold, they are one people, and they all have one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and now nothing which they purpose to do will be kept from them. Come, let Us go down and there

confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.” – The Book of Genesis (中英對照新約恢復版聖經, 1999)

When people were building for themselves a tower and a city honoring men, Jehovah God confounded their languages to stop their work. To this day, however, for the spreading of the gospel, this language barrier initiated by God needs to be overcome. Cultures and languages should not become a hindrance to the word of God, for “There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor freeman, there cannot be male and female; for you all are one in Christ Jesus” – Galatians 3:28 (中英對照新約恢復版聖經, 1999). As such, translators and interpreters play an important role in facilitating this “oneness”. While there are plenteous of research papers discussing the translations of the Bible (Lu, 2012; Yan, 2007), church interpreting has not

received equal weight in the academia (Tseng, 2009).

Interpreting activities, however, are seen in local and international churches around the world. On a blog named “Unprofessional Translation”, many cases of church interpreting were discussed (Harris, 2009). Interpreting activities are also seen in some churches in Taiwan. For example, the Grace Baptist Church in Taipei is equipped with simultaneous interpreting booth;

Hall 3 of the Church in Taipei and the Pearl in Taipei also provide simultaneous interpreting when needed. The most recent study on church interpreting is Hokkanen’s case study on the interpreting activities at Tampere Pentecostal Church in Finland, discussing church interpreting as service and compared it to volunteer interpreting (Hokkanen, 2012). Major research findings suggested that simultaneous interpreting as practiced at Tampere Pentecostal church can hardly be categorized under either community interpreting nor conference interpreting and, instead of

following interpreters’ rules of conduct as the researcher herself was taught at school, it

emphasized God’s guidance (Hokkanen, 2012). In addition to interpreting skills, the “movement of the Holy Spirit” is critical when interpreting in church meetings (M. Chu, Personal

Communication, 2012). In Pentecostal Churches, God’s guidance is suggested by some outward behaviors such as “speaking in tongues”. This reference is from Acts chapter two. On the day of Pentecost, the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and were thus able to speak in dialects or even languages that were incomprehensible. However, behaviors as such are not related to the interpreting service that takes place in church meetings (Hokkanen, 2012). The Local Church is not of the Pentecostal branch; although it does recognize the leading of the Holy Spirit, its members are not found in such outward behaviors that is said to be related to the Spirit’s

guidance. The “emphasis of God’s guidance” and “the movement of the Holy Spirit” in the Local Churches are subjective and spiritual experiences that are hard to be defined with words and measured for research purpose.

Interpreting activities in the Local Church also take on various forms. For examples, in weekly meetings such as the table meetings held every Sunday morning and small group

meetings in weekday evenings, when there are foreign visitors, whispered interpreting or short consecutive interpreting is provided. In the international trainings and conferences held every year, in-booth simultaneous interpreting is available. As Hokkanen’s (2012) case study on the Tempere Pentecostal Church suggested, in like manner, because the modes and settings of interpreting activities in the Local Churches vary, it is hard to determine which end of the hypothetical spectrum Pöchhacker (2001) proposed they are more close to. Depending on difference situations, the positions of the interpreting activities in the Local Churches may shift.

As such, for the uniqueness of church interpreting, discussing it under the umbrella of either conference interpreting or community interpreting does not do it justice. Church

interpreting is special in that 1) it can take on various forms, depending on the situation, 2) it does not follow the set rules of conduct and does not have a rigid set specifically designed accordingly, and 3) it emphasizes spiritual experience. It is thus appropriate to study church interpreting in its own merit.

2.3 Quality of Interpretation

2.3.1 What is Quality

Quality assessment not only varies by evaluator, but is also measured differently in different situations (Grbić, 2008). The perception of interpreting quality may vary by interpreter, speaker, listener, client, colleague and researcher (Pöchhacker, 2001). Pöchhacker (2001) went through many exsisting surveys that probed into quality expectations. He then categorzied the results of these studies by different perspectives and settings. His findings on quality

expectations can be summerized as follows. In conference settings, interpreters deem linguistic and general knowledge, voice quality, good health and endurance, and other psychosocial qualities as important quality elements. In community settings, however, interpreters find their job as a cultural mediator. In general and other settings, interpreters find knowledge of language and of migrant culture important, and they also need to be objective, possess

socio-communicative skills, be reliable, humble, responsible, honest, and polite. From users’

perspective, community interpreters should refrain from judegemet, possess interpreting skills, translate faithfully, formulate autonomous utterances when necessary, formulate routine

questions and admonitions, be confidenial, be able to point out clients’ lack of understanding, be able to simplize, summarize and explain, be discrete, and be culturally and linguisticlly

competent. As the roles of client and user sometimes overlap, it is noteworthy that user expectations may also apply to client expecation in some ocassions; however, clients usually have more concerns on costs than general users (Pöchhacker, 2001). Pöchhacker (2001)’s compiling of quality expectations provides some benchmarks for later researchers to base their studies upon; however, it is still incomplete for it lacks information on users and clients’ takes on conference interpreting quality and definitions of indices were not provided in his research.

Summarizing the dfferent perspectives from which quality might be assessed, Pöchhacker (2001) came out with a figure showing the relationships among all these different perspectives, as seen in Figure 2.1. This figure shows that the ST-P (speaker), TT-R (listener), and INT. (interpreter) are the direct interactants in a communication; the clients and colleagues are at additional positions; the researchers are observers from “off-site (Pöchhacker, 2001).

20 Figure 2.1Perspectives on Quality in Interpreting

Note. Adapted from Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting by Pöchhacker (2001)

To summarize Tseng’s (2009) findings on church interpreting quality expectations, from church users as well as church interpreters’ perspectives, the presence of the Holy Spirit, matured spirituality of the interpreter, fidelity, completeness, logical coherence of utterance, fluency and terminology are among the most important quality indices. Except the first two indices, these criteria are in line with conference delegates and conference interpreters’ expectations. However, in addition to the quality indices mentioned above, church users and church interpreters also emphasize reliability and the interpreter’s role as a helper, which is more often stressed in community interpreting than in conference interpreting (Tseng, 2009).

2.3.2 Measure of Quality or Performance

To enhance inter-rater reliability, clearly defined indices and carefully designed methods cannot be overlooked in quality measurement (Pöchhacker, 2001). Finding suitable quality

criteria for measurement is as important as defining them. To find out indices for quality assessment, in addition to surveys, one way is through experiments. Pöchhacker (2001) suggested that quality aspects be used in experiements as “input variables”. That is to say, to present a group of audience two or more identical interpreted talks on the same speech, with variations on a single supposed quality aspect, for example, the occurance of fillers. Later, the audience will be asked to rate the different renditions, in this case, some with more occurances of fillers and some less. Should the rating of the recordings with less occurrence be significantly higher, fillers can then be suggested as a quality index. Macías (2006) adopted this method. She assumed that silent pauses are associated with poor fluency performance and designed,

accordingly, an experiment to test her hypothesis. Macías (2006) provided three video clips of interpreting, all given by the same interpreter on the same speech, with silent pauses as the input variable. She then presented the three clips to a selected group of audience and asked them to grade the renditions on the use of terminology, professionalism, and, of course, fluency. The result of his findings indicates that silent pause more or less suggests a lack of fluency, although

在文檔中長時間同步口譯對口譯品質的影響 – 以教會口譯為例 (頁 17-0)