權利告知口譯之困難：以中文譯入印尼語為例

全文

(1)Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation National Taiwan Normal University. The Difficulty in Interpreting Suspect’s Rights: From Chinese to Indonesian as an Example Chih-Ying Chang. Advisor: Dr. Tze-Wei Chen. June 2013.

(2)

(3) ! i!.

(4) ! ii!.

(5) Abstract Legal interpreting is a highly professional field that requires interpreters to be equipped with legal knowledge, as the quality of interpretation can significantly impact the rights of the clients. This research, therefore, studies about the difficulties that might encounter Chinese and Indonesian legal interpreters in the setting of interpreting Taiwan’s “Miranda warning”, the basic rights of suspects given by police officers when being questioned in the police station.. The study shows that the average performance of subjects is poor. Factors affecting their understanding of the rights include legal language and difficult words, transforming a written text into dialogic speech mode, inappropriate way of delivering the rights, unfamiliarity with Taiwan’s legal system, being unaware of one’s mistakes. In addition, inappropriate omission and addition are the two of the most often found mistakes in the subjects’ interpretation. The finding also reveals that the scores given by legal experts on subjects’ performance are significantly lower than those graded by the subjects themselves. As many subjects are practicing legal interpreters who often interpret these rights, it indicates that interpreters should be further trained. However, without proper monitoring system, it is difficult to ensure the quality of legal interpreting.. Finally, the researcher proposes three solutions for improvement. First, re-design a simpler version of the rights that can be understood more easily. Second, provide ! iii!.

(6) standard versions of different languages of the rights so interpretation mistakes of these fundamental rights can be avoided. Third, require both legal interpreters and police officers to take further training. Aside from legal background, interpreters often lack sufficient knowledge of legal terminologies both in their mother tongue and the second language. On the other hand, police officers should have better understanding of the nature of interpreting so they can work more smoothly and effectively with interpreters.. Keywords: Community Interpreting, Legal Interpreting, Police Caution ! iv!.

(7) .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. .......................................................................................................... 1. 1.2. .......................................................................................................... 2. 1.3. .......................................................................................................... 3. 1.4. .......................................................................................................... 4 .......................................................................................................... 7. 2.1. ..................................................................... 7. 2.2. ................... 21. 2.3. ....................................................................................... 23. 2.4. .................................................................................... 32. 2.5. ........................................................... 41. 2.6. ....................................................................................................... 55 ........................................................................................................ 59. 3.1. ........................................................................................................ 59. 3.2. ........................................................................................................ 62. 3.3. ............................................................................................ 62. 3.4. ........................................................................................................ 68 ............................................................................................ 70. 4.1. ........................................................... 70. 4.2. ........................................................................................... 77. 4.3. ................................................................................................ 85. 4.4. .............................................................................................. 103. 4.5. ...................................................................... 124. 4.6. .............................................................................................................. 128 .............................................................................................................. 134. 5.1. ...................................................................................................... 134. 5.2. ..................................................................................................... 139. 5.3. .......................................................................................... 142 .................................................................................................................... 144. ............................................................................................................................ 152 1. ........................................ 152 ! v!.

(8) 2. ................................................................................ 153. 3. .................................................................................... 154. 4. .................................................................................... 155. 5. ........................................................ 156. 6. .................................................................................... 157. 7. ................................................ 158. 8. ............................................................................................ 159. 9. ................................................................................ 160. 10. .............................................................................. 161. 11. .................................................................. 162. 12. ................................. 163. ! vi!.

(9) 2.1. (. ) ............................... 33. 2.2. (. ) ............................... 33. 2.3. .......................................................... 36. 2.4. .......................................................... 37. 2.5. .......................................... 38. 2.6. .................................. 38. 2.7. ........................... 39. 2.8. (2010). ......................................................... 57. 3.1. ...................................................... 61. 3.2. ...................... 66. 4.1. (CRIE). .......................................... 74. 4.2. .............................................................. 76. 4.3. ...................................................... 77. 4.4. .............................................................. 77. 4.5. .............................................. 78. 4.6. .............................................................. 79. 4.7. .................................................................. 82. 4.8. .............................................. 84. 4.9. .................................... 105. 4.10. .................................................. 106. 4.11. ...................................... 108. 4.12. .................................. 113. 4.13 ............................................................................................................ 121 4.14. .................................................................. 125. ! vii!.

(10) 1.1. ......................................................................................... 5. 3.1. ....................... 67. !viii!.

(11) 1.1. (Hale, 2007, p. 33). (. (. ,. ,&. , 2012). ! 1!. , 2010).

(12) 1.2. 1.2.1 81 76. 1. 101. 5. 4. 465,053. 152,150 (56.95%) (4.81%). (18.04%). (2.82%) (. , 2012a). (. ). 2012b). 102 (. 598,573. (5.47%). 1,122. 1. (. ,. 445,301. , 2013) (. 2.2). 2.57%(. , 2013). 1.2.2. 98 100. (" 11. 23. ). ,". 207 (". ,". 102. 5. 8. 86. 12. ). 99 (". ,". ! 2!. 19. ).

(13) 98. 4. 22. (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR). 1,271 2010 4,342. 1,629. 195 2012, p. 360-373). 2,518. (. 2009. 4. 168. (. ,. 2010 ,. 2010, p. 24). (. ,. ,&. 1.3. ! 3!. ,. , 2012, p. 306). &. , 2 ,.

(14) ( 2010). (1). (2). (3). 1.4. ! 4!. &. ,.

(15) 1.1. 1.1. ! 5!.

(16) ! 6!.

(17) 2.1. 86. 12. 12. 19. OO. O. (. , 2010). (". (. ,". 86. 12. 19. ). , 2010, p. 5) (. ,. ). ! 7!. 99. 3. 31.

(18) (. (". ," (". , 2008, p. 15). 36 ,". (". 1. 1. ). 36. 1. 1. 654. ," (. (. ). 98. 1. 23. ). , 2011, p. 68). , 2011, p. 68). ⋯ (2010, p. 98). ! 8!.

(19) 2.1.1 (. (. , 2012). , 2011, p. 68). 2.1.4. (". ,". 99. 86. 6562 ! 9!. 12. 19. ).

(20) (. ,. 2011). (. ). (. ). (. , 2011). 2.1.2 ( 2012). ! 10!. ,.

(21) (. , 2012). 2010 99. 1893. ! 11!.

(22) ⋯⋯. ( ,. 99. 3. 31. ). 2.1.3 2003. 1 (. , 2003). (. (. ). , 2003, p. 109). ( 2003). ! 12!. ,.

(23) ( , n.d.). (. ). ( (. ). ). (. ) (. ). (. ) (. ). (. ) (. ! 13!. ).

(24) 2.1.4 1966. (International Covenant on. Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR). (International. Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ICESCR) 98. 4. 22. (Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.) (To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him) (To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing)( , 2010). 2.1.5 31. 1966. (Miranda v. Arizona). 1963. (Ernesto Miranda). 2 ! 14!.

(25) 20 30 (McBride, n.d.) 1966. ( , 2010, p. 1). (. , 2004). You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I ! 15!.

(26) have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me? (MirandaWarning.Org, n.d.)1. (Miranda rights or Miranda warning). (. , n.d.). (Privilege Against. Self-Incrimination). (. p. 810). “No person shall be…compelled in. any criminal case to be a witness against himself”("The Bill of Rights," 1789). (1) (2) (3) (4). (5) (. , 2008). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1. , 2008,. (Rogers, 2007b). ! 16!.

(27) (Caution). (If you are asked questions about a suspected offence, you do not have to say anything. However, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. (GOV.UK, 2005). (Notice to Detained Persons, NDP) ( ) (Codes of Practice). (Cotterill, 2000; GOV.UK, 2005). 2.1.6 (2010). ( ! 17!. ,.

(28) 98. ). Brière (1978). (2010). 96. 2723. 16 , 2007;. ( , 2010, p. 99). ! 18!.

(29) (. , 2010). (Fenner, Gudjonsson, & Clare, 2002). Rogers. (2011). (Gibbons, 1990). ! 19!.

(30) (Rogers, Hazelwood, Sewell, Harrison, & Shuman, 2008a, p. 135). (Brooks, 2000, p. 31; 21.6%. Berk-Seligson, 2002, p. 130). Rogers. (2007a). (mentally disordered). 31.1%. 26.3% (Rogers et al., 2011). (Messier, 1999, p. 1404) (Brière, 1978). ! 20!.

(31) 2.2. (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights). 10. (Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.) ( , 1998, p. 69). 14. , 1966. 3. ,& 12. 16. 1 (To be informed promptly and in. detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him). 6 (To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or. speak the language used in court). (. , 2010). ! 21!.

(32) 1988. 12. 9. 14 (Principle 14). 10 2. 12. 1. 11. 13 ( , 2000, p. 135). A person who does not adequately understand or speak the language used by the authorities responsible for his arrest, detention or imprisonment is entitled to receive promptly in a language which he understands the information referred to in principle 10, principle 11, paragraph 2, principle 12, paragraph 1, and principle 13 and to have the assistance, free of charge, if necessary, of an interpreter in connection with legal proceedings subsequent to his arrest. ("43/173. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment," 1988). (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 6. 3. ) 1 (to be informed promptly, in a language which he ! 22!.

(33) understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him) 5 (to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court) (. ,. ,&. , 1998, p. 104). 2.3. 2.3.1 Pöchhacker (2004). (setting) (Mason, 2000;. Hale, 2007, p. 28). (Pöchhacker, 2004, p. 16). (Mikkelson, 1996, p. 126-7;. Hale, 2007) Gentile. (1996) (1996, p. 17;. Hale, 2007, p. 29). (Hale, 2007 p. 30). (intra-social settings). (socio-institutional factors) ! 23!.

(34) (inter-social settings). (Pöchhacker, p. 14-15, 161). (mode of delivery). (level of formality). (participants). (status). (Gentile et al., 1996;. Hale, 2007, p. 31). (Hale, 2007, p. 31). (Pöchhacker, 2004) ‘young’ field of study). 1990. (relatively 1995. (Critical Link Conference) 2012). (Vargas Urpi, Hale (2007). Hale Garber (2000, p. 19 (form). Hale, 2007, p. 26). (manner) (Hale, 2007, p. 31-32). ! 24!.

(35) 2.3.2 (equal access) 1980. 1990. (. ). (public. service interpreting). (cultural interpreting) (Pöchhacker,. 2004, p. 15) (International Organization for Migration). 2010. 2.14. 3.1%. (Corsellis, 2005) (Dialogue interpreting) (Wadensjo, 1998) interpreting)(Mikkelson, 1996;. Hale, 2007). (Escort Interpreting) (Roberts, 1995). ! 25!. (Community (ad hoc interpreting).

(36) (Corsellis, 2008). (Pöchhacker, 2004). (Hale, 2007) (Avery, 2001, p. 2) (. ) (Hale, 2007). Hale (2007) (rules of evidence). (p. 38). 2.3.3. (Benmaman, 1992, p. 445). (legal interpreting). (. ) (. ( 97) ! 26!. ,. , 2004) , &. , 2012, p..

(37) 1960 1970. (due process). (equal access to basic institutions in the United States) 1978 (Court Interpreters Act of 1978). (González, Vasquez, & Mikkelson, 1991). 2008. 8. (The National Agreement on Arrangements for the Use of Interpreters). 5. 6. 5 6 (The Crown ProsecutionService, 2011) 98 (". ,". 100. 11. 23. ). 207 (". 5. 8. ). ,". 99 (". 86. 12. 102. 19. ,". ). (text-rich) (form). (syntax) ! 27!. (structure).

(38) (Coulthard & Johnson, 2010, p. 1, 23) Benmaman (archaism) (intentional ambiguities) (1992, p. 446). (. ) (2010, p. 3). (1). (elites of. legal languages). (2). (heterogeneity) (3). (compulsion) (4). (authorlessness and authority) (5) (6). (Talking like a lawyer or writing like a lawyer). (7). (accuracy). ( &. , 2010, p. 15-24). González (legal equivalent). (a ! 28!.

(39) linguistically true and legally appropriate interpretation). (1898; González et al., 1991, p. 16). Hale (2007). United States v. Garibay. Garibay. Garibay ("United States v. Garibay," 1998). Hale. (2007, p. 33). Benmaman (1992). ! 29!.

(40) ( ). (Hale, 2007, p. 65). (Hale, 2007) Cotterill. (2004, p. 149) 1914 (Crimes Act 1914) 1914," 2013). ("Crimes Act 1984. (PACE) 2008 (The Crown Prosecution Service, 2011). 99 (". ,". 86. 12. 19. ). (Eades, 2010, p. 162) ! 30!.

(41) (. ,. ,&. , 2012) Hale 1914. (2007, p. 69). (Laster and Taylor, 1994;. Hale, 2007, p. 69). (Berk-Seligson, 2000 Hale, 2007, p. 68). Laster. Taylor (Laster and Taylor, 1994, p. 136;. Hale, 2007, p. 68). Berk-Seligson. (2002, p. 127) Rosales. (2012, p. 121). ! 31!.

(42) Garibay. ( ,&. , 2012, p. 298). 2006 ( , 2006) (. ,. ,&. , 2012, p. 28). 2.4. 2.4.1 81 (2012a). 76. 1. 4 101. 465,053. 5 152,150. ! 32!. ,.

(43) (56.95%). (18.04%). (5.47%). (4.81%) (. ). , 2012b) 1. (2.82%)( 1,122. 2.1) (. (2013). 102. 445,301 598,573. (. 2.2). 2.57%(. , 2013). 2.1. (. 152,150 86,645 100%. 27,453. ). 8,328. 56.95% 18.04% 5.47%. 7,314. 4,294. 3,787. 1,112. 4.81%. 2.82%. 2.49% 0.73% 8.69%. (2012a). 2.2. (. 598,573. 152,150. ) 1,122. 445,301 (2012a, 2012b). (2013). (. ! 33!. , 2009). 13,217.

(44) (. ,. ,&. 2.4.2. 1,271. 36 176. 219. 2013. (. (. , n.d.). , n.d.). 5. ! 34!. , 2010, p. 10).

(45) (13.7%) (. (12.7%). (5.7%). (5.7%). (5.1%). 2.3). 109 , &. , 2010). 2011. ( 8. ,. 876. (. ,. (. 2.4). ,. , 2012, p. 134-135). 10. 94.57% (. 2010). ! 35!. ,. , &. ,.

(46) 2.3. 7. 11. 5. 4. 5. 5. 7. 4. 0. 4. 4. 8. 0. 1. 0. 0. 65. 3. 1. 2. 6. 2. 0. 2. 1. 2. 2. 5. 10. 0. 0. 0. 0. 36. 3. 14. 2. 4. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 4. 3. 4. 0. 0. 0. 0. 37. 6. 0. 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 5. 1. 0. 0. 0. 17. 1. 15. 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 21. 20. 41. 9. 18 10. 6. 9. 5. 3. 11 14 28. 1. 1. 0. 0. 176. 2. (n.d.). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2. ! 36!.

(47) 2.4. 9. 27. 4. 6. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 6. 1. 11. 0. 2. 0. 11. 79. 4. 13. 4. 3. 2. 0. 3. 0. 2. 2. 2. 4. 0. 0. 0. 0. 39. 1. 3. 1. 10. 3. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 2. 2. 0. 0. 0. 4. 29. 0. 1. 0. 5. 1. 0. 0. 2. 0. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 12. 4. 9. 1. 7. 2. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 5. 1. 1. 1. 0. 36. 1. 14. 2. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 24. 19. 67. 12 32 10. 1. 4. 5. 4. 11. 8. 26. 1. 3. 1. 15. 219. (n.d.). ! 37!.

(48) 2.5. 20. 41. 9. 18 10. 6. 9. 5. 3. 11 14 28. 1. 1. 0. 0. 176. 19. 67. 12 32 10. 1. 4. 5. 4. 11. 26. 1. 3. 1. 15. 219. 39 108 21 50 20. 7. 13 10. 7. 22 22 54. 2. 4. 1. 15. 395. (n.d.). 8. (n.d.). 2.6. 1. 24. 1. 221 16. 3. 6. 1. 22 68 176 428. 5. 22 1. 1. 1. 1. (2012). 2010 120. 1,629 1,507. 3). 2. (. 2010 195. 21. 2,518 360-373) (. 173 2,223. 1 295. (. 2.7). 2. 168. , 2010, p. 2). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3. ! 38!. ,. ,. , 2012, p.. 2009. 4. 2010. (. ,. , &. 1. 14 8763.

(49) 2.7 4. / 2. 120. 1,507. 1,629. 15. 5. 1. 21. 90. 80. 3. 173. 0. 1. 0. 1. 2,203. 15. 5. 2,223. 175. 117. 3. 295 4,342. (2012). (. 2010. ,. ,&. , 2012, p. 306). 7 2012. 4. (. ,. ,&. , 2012). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4. 15 (. ,. ,&. , 2012, p. 323) ! 39!. 3.

(50) (2007). (2009). (2010). 102 6 (2009). (2007). (2011). 1. (2008). (2009). (2011). (2007). (2009). (2009). ! 40!. (2010).

(51) (2010). 5. 2.5. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5. ! 41!.

(52) (Rosales, 2012). 2.5.1. 1978. (Los Angeles Times). (Farr, 1978;. Brière, 1978, p.. 242) (Klinge & Dorsey, 1993). 1984. (Police and Criminal. Evidence Act, PACE) (Cotterill, 2000). (Brown, 1997) (Cotterill, 2000). ! 42!.

(53) Gudjonsson (1991) (Flesch Formula) 1/4. Gudjonsson. IQ. (IQ 100. ) (Shepherd et al., 1995;. Fenner et al., 2002, p. 84) —. Fenner. —. Gudjonsson Clare (2002) Fenner 11%. Rogers. (2007b) 560. 2.5.2 Rock (arcane) (1999; ! 43!.

(54) Fenner et al., 2002, p. 90) (right) (Grisso, 1998;. Rogers et al., 2008a, p. 125) (2010). (1). (Technical terms). (2). (Semi-technical terms) (3). (Everyday vocabulary) Rock. Grisso. (Piatt, 1990, p. 84) 2010 (. , 2010). Gibbons (1990) Gibbons (1). (2). (4). (3) (5). “unless”. ! 44!.

(55) Grisso. (interrogation) p. 125) Rogers. (2008a). (right) (1998;. Rogers et al., 2008a,. 385. Rogers. (2011). 400. (plain English). (limited cognitive abilities). Rogers. (2008a). Grammatick. estimates 1040-EZ. Tanford (1990). (Rogers et al., 2009, p. 68). (Cotterill, 2000) ! 45!. 1994.

(56) (. , 2010) (Del Valle, 2003, p. 161). (Gudjonsson, 1991, p. 94). (Brière, 1978, p. 242). Viljoen. Roech (2005). 15 (significantly poorer). IQ (Goldstein et al., 2003, p. 366) ! 46!. Everington. Fulero(1999).

(57) (Coughlin, 1999. Cotterill, 2000, p. 13; Fenner et al., p. 91; Rogers et al., 2011, p.. 276) (Rogers et al., 2010). (Shepherd et al., 1995;. Fenner et al., 2002, p. 84). ( he must be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent.) (Miranda, pp. 467-468). ! 47!.

(58) 2.5.3 Brière (1978) 8 11.6. 13 6 (Haigler et al., 1994;. Rogers et al., 2008a, p. 132). Nakane (2007) (question). “shitsumon” Nakane. “jinmon”. 119,200(15.6%) (Rogers et al., 2009) Rogers. (2009). 121 Rogers ! 48!.

(59) Flessch Reading Ease (FRE) Reading Ease (HRE). 0-100. 0-30. 31-50. 71-80. 5. Huerta. 51-60. 81-90. 61-70. 91-100. 90.48. 75. (continuing rights). (remain silent) (shut-up). Rogers. Nakane (2007). Nakane 2002 ! 49!. 1992.

(60) /. (1) (2). (turn boundaries). (3) (comprehension check). (4) (5). Nakane (2007). 2.5.4 Flesch (What is hard to read is even harder to understand by listening)(1951, p. 43;. Brière, 1978, p. 238). Chall. ! 50!. Dial(1948).

(61) (Berk-Seligson, 2002, p. 128). (Fenner et al., 2002) (New South Wales) (Eades, 2010, p. 133). (Cotterill, 2000, p. 20) Sanders. Brown ! 51!.

(62) (unclearly). (incompletely). et al., 1989; Brown et al., 1992;. (too quickly) (Sanders. Cotterill, 2000, p. 3). (Nakane, 2007, p. 107). Shuy (1998). (p. 53). (rituals) (Nakane, 2007, p. 100). (PACE) (minor deviation). ! 52!.

(63) (Rogers et al., 2008a) (Brown, 1997, p. 80). (Russell, 2000, p. 41). Gibbons. Gibbons. (they arrested him as he was robbed) robbing). (they arrested him as he was. “rob”. (Gibbons, 1990, p. 233). (Cotterill, 2000, p. 14). Clare. (1998). Fenner. (2002). (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994). 60. 37. Clare. ! 53!. (1998).

(64) 13% 86% Fenner. (2002). Fenner. Clare. 10%. 13%. Nakane (2007). Russell. (form-based). (locutionary act). (illocuitonary force). (2000, p. 37) Nakane (2007). (clause). ! 54!. 63%.

(65) (Colin and Morris, 1996, p. 31;. Hale, 2007, p.. 77) (Gudjonsson, 1991, p. 94). 2.6. (Error Analysis). 1970. Corder. (Contrastive Analysis) Corder (. , 2012, p. 7) Corder (1967). Corder. 5. (Collection of a sample of learner language) (Identification of errors) of errors). (Description of errors). (Explanation. (Evaluation of errors) (Ellis, 1994, p. 48). (Nord, 2005, p. 186). Pym (1992) (binary and non-binary errors). Pym ! 55!.

(66) (. , 2010). (1997). 9. (2005). 4. (2012). (2012). (2010) (American Translators Association). (Canadian Translators, Terminologists,. and Interpreters Council) 23. (1). (Addition) (2) ! 56!. (Ambiguity) (3).

(67) (Capitalization). (4). marks/Accents) (6) (9). (Cohesion) (Faithfulness) (7). (Illegibility) (10) (Mistranslation) (Punctuation). (Style). (13) (16). (19). (Diacritical. (Faux ami) (8). (Indecision) (11) (Misunderstanding) (Register). (Syntax). (Unfinished) (22). (5). (14). (17). (20). (Literalness) (12) (Omission) (Spelling). (Terminology). (Usage) (23). (Grammar). (15). (18) (21). (Word form)(Association,. n.d.). (translation errors) (language errors) ("Candidate's Guide For The CTTIC Standard. Certification Examination In Translation," 2011) 12 2.8. (1). (2). (2010) R1 R2 R3. (rendition errors). R4 R5 L1 L2 L3. (language errors). L4 L5 L6 M1. (miscellaneous errors) (2010) ! 57!. 3 (3). (. 2.4).

(68) (2010). ! 58!.

(69) 3.1. 2012. 2. 7. ── 6 6 10 (4. 5. ). ! 59!. 10.

(70) 3.1.1 10. 1 8. 8. ) (. 9. 1. (11. 20. 2. 8 ). 30. (7. 12. ). 4. 10. 1. (2. (10. ). 3. 6. 10. 3.1). ( ) 5. 8. (. ) (8. (2 (8. 4. ). 3. (8. 2. ). ). ). 3. 9. 1. 2. 3 7 9. 8. 10. 1. 1 9 10. 4. (1. 2. 3. 11 7. ). 5. (6. 9 ! 60!. 7. 8. 10. 12. ).

(71) 3.1 (. ). (. ). 1 2. 8. >20. 3. 3. >20. 4*. <1. 4. 5*. <1. 6. 6. 3. >20. 7. 5. >10. 8. 7. >20. 10. 3. 7. 11. 6. >30. 3. >10. 9. ( 12. ). 4.8 *4. 5. ! 61!. ( ).

(72) 3.2. (. 1). 2012. 10. 23. 1. 1. 06 90%. 3.3. 3.3.1 3 (1) (. ) ! 62!. (. 2).

(73) (2). (. ). (3). 3.3.2. 1. 10. 20 1. ! 63!.

(74) 3.3.3. (. 3) (. 5. 1. 5. ) (. 4). (. 5). (. 6) (. 1. 5. 1. 1. ) ( 7). ! 64!. 5.

(75) 3.3.4 2. A. B. ( (. 1. 5. 3. 8). 1. 4. 2. 5. ). 5. 3.3.5 (Test Of Chinese as a Foreign Language TOCFL) (. , n.d.). 4. 4 1. 800. 2 3. (. 4. ). 4. 3. 1,500. 5,000 8,000. ! 65!. 2. 1,920 (. 3.2).

(76) 3.2 (For Beginners). 480-720. (1-2. ). 800. (Basic). 720-960. (2-3. ). 1,500. (Intermediate). 960-1,920. (Advanced). (3-4. ). 5,000. 1,920. 8,000. (n.d.). 3.3.6. (Chinese Readability Index Explorer. CRIE) 4. 22. (. ). ( (. ) (. ) (. 2013). (. 3.3.7. (open coding). 11 ! 66!. ). et al., ).

(77) (American Translators Association). (Canadian Translators, Terminologists, and. Interpreters Council). (2010). 3.1. (. (. (. (. ). ). (. ( (. ). ). ). (. ) ). ) 3.1. ! 67!.

(78) 3.4. 1. (. 9). (open coding) 4. A. ! 68!.

(79) B. B 3 (. 10). (. 11). 12. ! 69!.

(80) 4.1 (Chinese Readability Index Explorer. CRIE). 4.2. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.1. 59. (". ,". ! 70!. 86. 12. 19. ).

(81) 4.1.1. (CRIE). (. et al., 2013). ( ) al., 2013). (. CRIE. (. ). 22. CRIE 22. (1). (2) (3). (4). ! 71!. et.

(82) CRIE. (. 59. 39. ). 34. 0. 4.1). 87.2% 100% 85.7%). (. 87.2%(. ( 83.3%). et al., 2013). ! 72!. 86.7%). (. (.

(83) (. et al., 2013) 100% 3.0%. CRIE. 3,000 (. et al., 2013). 28.2%. 3,000. 11. (41.7%). (26.7%). (20%). (14.3%). (2013). ⋯ (2005;. ! 73!. et al., 2013).

(84) CRIE. 4.1. 4.1. (CRIE). 59. 22. 19. 7. 11. 39. 15. 12. 5. 7. 34. 13. 10. 5. 6. 3.0%. 0. 0. 0. 0. 87.2%. 86.7%. 83.3%. 100%. 85.7%. 87.2%. 100%. 100%. 100%. 100%. 11 (28.2%). 4 (26.7%). 5 (41.7%). 1 (20%). 1 (14.3%). ! 74!.

(85) 4.1.2 800 1,500. 5,000. 8,000. (. , n.d.). 59. 15.3%(9. ). 1.7%(1. 32.2%(19. )(. 4.2). ) 11. (18.6%). 4.2 3.2 5,000 8,000 18.6%. 8,000 ). 11 9. (. ! 75!. ). (.

(86) 4.2 ( 9. 15.3. 1. 1.7. 19. 32.2. 19. 32.2. 11. 18.6. ) (. 2. ( (. 2 4. 4.3 ( ) (52.6%). (68.2%) (42.9%). (9.1%) (. (90.9%). ). (73.6%). (57.2%)(. (. ) (. (. ). ! 76!. ). 4.4). ). ) ).

(87) 4.3 22. 2 (9%). 0. 5 (22.7%). 11 (50%). 4 (18.2%). 19. 5 (26.3%). 0. 4 (21%). 7 (36.8%). 3 (15.8%). 7. 2 (28.6%). 1(14%). 1 (14.3%). 3 (42.9%). 0. 11. 1 (9.1%). 0. 9 (81.8%). 1 (9.1%). 0. 4.4 68.2%. 52.6%. 42.9%. 9.1%. 90.0%. 73.6%. 57.2%. 90.9%. 4.2. 8 5 4.5 (4.2. ). (4.9. ). 4.5 4. (. 4.5. ! 77!. ). 5. (. ).

(88) 4.5. 1. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 2. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 3. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 6. 4. 5. 5. 5. 4.8. 7. 4. 5. 5. 4. 4.5. 8. 4. 4. 3. 5. 4. 9. 2. 4. 4. 5. 3.8. 10. 5. 3. 3. 5. 4. 11. 4. 5. 5. 5. 4.8. 12. 4. 4. 5. 5. 4.5. 4.2. 4.5. 4.5. 4.9. 4.5. 4 5. (1. 2. 3 (4. 4. 5. 5. ). ). (. 4.8. 4.6). 4 (. 4. ) 19 9 ! 78!.

(89) (. ). 4.6. (. 1. 1. 2. 3. 4. (68.2%). (52.6%). (42.9%). (9.1%). 1. 3. 4. 1. (90.0%). (73.6%). (57.2%). (90.9%). 1. 2. 2. 4. 4). 3. (. 4.4.2. ! 79!. 4.7).

(90) 3 ). (1. 5 10 6. 10 11. ( 10. [. 9. ]. ! 80!. 4.8). 2. 3.

(91) (Voluntariness) (. , 2008, p. 357-360). (" 86. 12. 19. ). (. Miranda v. Arizona. (Rogers et al., 2008a, p. 126) ! 81!. , 2008, p. 361). ,".

(92) 4. (. 3. 10. 3. ). 12. 1. 4.7 (. ) 33 (26.6%) 10(8.1%) 23 (18.5%) 84 (67.7%) 6 (4.8%) 12 (9.7%) 6 (4.8%). /. 3 (2.4%) 6 (4.8%). (. ). 8 (6.5%) 17 (13.7%) ! 82!.

(93) 26(21%) 7 (5.6%) 7 (5.6%) 124 (100%). 9 23. 8. 8 (. ). 8 3 6 7 10 12 10. 4. 11. 6. 5. 7. 2 6 7. 7. 1 2 3 7 9. (. ( (3 7 10 12. 4.8). ). ). 2 9 10. ! 83!.

(94) 12 (4.9. (1. 2. 9. 11. ). ). 1. 9. 4.8. ! 84!. [. ]. [. ]. [. ].

(95) 4.3. 4.3.1. 10 (. 4.5 3.8 4. 7 9 10. 3. ) 3. 10 11. 6. 7 4. (3. 7. 10. 12. ). 10 7. 11 (. ). 4. 3 20. 7. 3. 10. 12. 10. ! 85!. 5.

(96) 4 3 7. 7. 12. 10. 10. ( 3. ). 6. 10 10. (8 10 (. ). ! 86!. ) 8.

(97) 10. 10 5(. Gibbons (1990). Rogers. (2008a). (interrogation). “right”. (Grisso, 1998;. Rogers et al., 2008a, p. 125). 10 9 9. (4.9. ). 4.5. ! 87!. ). 7.

(98) 8 11. (1. 7. ). (1 2 9. ). 3 7 7. 7. (Gibbons, 1990). 59 ). (32. ( ). 10. (10. ). Piatt (1990). Piatt. ! 88!.

(99) (. &. , 2010, p. 17). 8 7 5. 8,000 ( ) 7 (. ). 10. 3. 10. 9. ! 89!. ). (.

(100) 2 3 6 11 4. 5 5 4.8 4.8. 4.5. 3.5 3.4. 11. 3.3. 3. 4. 6. 11. ). (5 5. 2. ) 2. 10. 3. 3. 4 4. 11. 6. Gibbons (1990). 7. (. 3.4 4.4.1. 6 (4. 2. ). ! 90!.

(101) 6 (. ). ( (. ). 7. ). [. ]. 6 ( 3. ) 20. (. ) ……. (3. 3. ). 6. ! 91!.

(102) ……. (10. ). 12 9. Piatt. (1990, p. 84). ( ). Piatt (1990). 2 10. (. 3.1). 10. ! 92!.

(103) …… …… (. ). ……. (10. ). 2. (. ) (bu ra tsa ra). (wo wan tsa ra). 4.3.2 Nakane (2007). Flesch. (What is. hard to read is even harder to understand by listening) (1951, p. 43; 1978, p. 238). ! 93!. Brière,.

(104) Flesch (1943, p. 43;. Chall &. Dial, 1948). 10. 10. 10. 10. …… (10. ). 8 80%(. ! 94!. 90%).

(105) 8. 8 ok. (. ). (. ). 4.3.3. 90%. ( ) (. ) 80%. 8 ! 95!.

(106) 80%. (. ). copy copy(. ). 3. 3. Fenner. (2002). Nakane (2007). 3 3 3. (. ). 2. Nakane (2007). ! 96!.

(107) 6. 6. Shuy. (1998, p. 53). 9. 9 (2 80%. ! 97!. ).

(108) 4.3.4 Rosales (2012). 7 5. 10 (. ). (10. ! 98!. ).

(109) (10. ). 12. 11. (. ). ……. (. ). 11. …… (11. 11. ! 99!. ).

(110) (. ). ( (. (. ). (11. 7. ). ). ). 10. ( ). 2 ……. 12 ……. …….(. ). 11. 11. 12 !100!. 12.

(111) ……. 3. (. ). (3. ). 3 (cultural bridge or mediator) (Nakane, 2007, p. 90) Avery (2001). 4.3.5. 3 !101!.

(112) 9 4.5. 3.8. 9. 7. (5. ) 7. 10. 10. !102!.

(113) 10. 10. 10. 1. 5. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 3 3 2 3 3. 1. 2. 3. 4.4. 59. 40. (. ). !103!.

(114) 11. 12. (. ). 4.2. 1. 2. 3. 4.. 4.4.1 3.9. 4. 4. 4. 3 8. 10. 5 2.8. !104!.

(115) 2.3. 5. (. 4. 5. 2. 3. 4. 4.9). 4.9 1. 5. 4. 5. 5. 4.8. 2. 4. 4. 4. 5. 4.3. 3. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 6. 3. 4. 4. 4. 3.8. 7. 4. 5. 5. 4. 4.5. 8. 4. 1. 1. 5. 2.8. 9. 2. 4. 3. 4. 3.3. 10. 4. 3. 1. 1. 2.3. 11. 4. 4. 5. 4. 4.3. 12. 3. 5. 5. 5. 4.5. 3.8. 3.9. 3.8. 4.2. 3.9. 4. 5. 4 5. (. 1. 2. 3. ) (4. 5. ). (. 4.10) 0.6. (. ) !105!.

(116) (. ) (. ). 4.10. 4.2. 4.5. 4.5. 4.9. 4.5. 3.8. 3.9. 3.8. 4.2. 3.9. 3 3. (. )(. 3. 3.3. 3. 5. (. (. ). ) ). 2 2. 3 (8. (7 10. 9. (1 11 12. (2 3 6 ). ). ). ) 2. 1. 4 3. (. (. ). 3. 1.1. !106!. ( 12. 3.5 7. ( ). 2. 4.5 5. 3.2. 2.4 3. ). 4.11). 4 3. 4.

(117) (. ). 5. (1. ). 3. 3. 2. 9 ( ). 3. 4. (7. 7. ). 3. 1.5 2. 6. 8. 9. 4. 2 3. 10. 10 10. 1 3. 12. ( 12. ). 2. 1. !107!. (10. 3.2 ). 6.

(118) 1. (. ). 3.3. 5. 1. 2. (8. 10. 4. ) 2. 9. 4.11. 1. 5. 3.5. 4. 4.5. 5. 5. 5. 4. 4.8. 4.3. 2. 4. 2.5. 4. 2. 4. 5. 5. 3.5. 4.3. 3.3. 3. 5. 4. 5. 3.5. 5. 3.5. 5. 2.5. 5. 3.4. 6. 3. 3. 4. 1. 4. 4.5. 4. 5. 3.8. 3.4. 7. 4. 1.5. 5. 1. 5. 1. 4. 1. 4.5. 1.1. 8. 4. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 5. 3.5. 2.8. 2.1. 9. 2. 3. 4. 1. 3. 1.5. 4. 2.5. 3.3. 2. 10. 4. 3. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2.3. 1.5. 11. 4. 3. 4. 4.5. 5. 5. 4. 3.5. 4.3. 4. 12. 3. 3.5. 5. 4.5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 4.5. 4.5. 3.8. 3. 3.9. 2.4. 3.8. 3.3. 4.2. 3.2. 4. 3. 4 5. (. 1. 2. 3 !108!. 4. 5.

(119) ) (. 1. 2. 5. 3. 4. ) (4. 5. ). 4 3. 3.9. 2.4. 1.5 3. 10 10. 12. 4.2. 3.2. 1. 1 2 9 11. 1 2 3 7 9 3.4. 7. 4.5 11. !109!. 4 1.1.

(120) 3. 9 2. 10 3. 5 2 3.4. 3. 3.3. 3. 5. 3. ……. 2. (. ) !110!. 1.6.

(121) 4.4.2 (2010). (American. Translators Association) (n.d.). 4.2. 8. (1). (2) (3). (4). /. (5). (6) (7) (8). 11. 124 67.7% 26.6% (4.8%). (2.4%). 5.6%. 8 (9.7%). (4.8%). (6.5%) !111!. (4.8%). / (13.7%).

(122) (21%)(. 4.7). (. ). (. 12. (. ). 9.7%. 4.12). 1. (. ). ( ). (Coughlin, 1999. Fenner et al., p. 91; Rogers et al., 2011, p. 276) !112!. Cotterill, 2000, p. 13;.

(123) 4.2.1. 4.12. ( ) ( ) ( ). !113!. [. ]. [. ]. [. ].

(124) /. {*. 6. } {*. }. {*. }. 4.8% 9. (. ). (. 4.12). 3. 9. 4.3.4. 3 (cultural bridge or mediator). 3. !114!.

(125) (National Association of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators) (Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities) (Accuracy) ⋯⋯. (Source-language. speech should be faithfully rendered into the target language by conserving all the elements of the original message……and there should be no distortion of the original message through addition or omission, explanation or paraphrasing.) (Protocol and Demeanor). (Court interpreters are to use the same grammatical person as the speaker. When it becomes necessary to assume a primary role in the communication, they must make it clear that they are speaking for themselves.)("Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities," n.d.). 9. 3 3 !115!.

(126) ( 31. ). 5 (". ). ,". 13 98. 12. 30. 86. 12. (". ,". ). 3. 6. 4.8% 2. 3. (. 4.12). 9 12. / 3. 2.4% 9. 11 12 (. 4.12). !116!. 19.

(127) ( ) 6. 4.8% 8. 6.5%. (. 4.12). (Russell, 2000, p. 36). (. ah Kamu sudah melanggar undang-undang ah udah. menyangkut ke masalah pemalsuan surat-surat pemalsuan surat-surat ah kamu di Taiwan tu yang punya hukum punya tiga hak.) (3. 4.4.3. !117!. ).

(128) Piatt (1990) 14 (2010). 8 1 8. )(. (2. 3.1). ) 3. 3 7. 8. (6 10 12. 11. ). 2. (3 11. 4. ). 2 10. 10. …… …… (10. ( ……. ). 11. 14. law dictionary(. 6 !118!. ). ). (7.

(129) (. ). 6. 11. ( ). 11. (Indonesian) 719. 706. 21 (institutions) Languages of the World, 2013). 11 11. United States v. Martinez !119!. (Ethnologue:.

(130) (United States v. Martinez, 1978;. Rosales, 2012, p. 116). 4.4.4. 17. 1 2 2. (. anda diperkenankan diam tidak bersuara, tapi tidak melawan hati. nurani.) ( bukti yang dapt memuatkan anda). Hak ketiga adalah anda diperkenankan mencari 1. 9 !120!.

(131) 1 (. dan nomor satu itu hak kamu boleh tidak ngomong apa-apa.). (. 9. ada ketiga kamu boleh cari sendiri, bukti-bukti. kalau kamu tidak salah gitu). 11 (. boleh memanggil. pengacara.) (. boleh mecari bukti yang menguntungkan diri sendiri.) (. 4.13). 26. (. 4.13. !121!. 4.13).

(132) 10. 8. 6. …… (6. 6. 12. !122!. ).

(133) (Russell, 2000, p. 41). 12. (12 ). 11. ( ). Russell (2000) !123!.

(134) 4.5. 10 ( 4.14). 4. 1. 9. 3 ). 1. 5~10 (. 1~5 3. 10~15. 1. (3. ). 6. 11. (1. 1~5 4. (1. 8. ). 10~15. 5~10 10. 12. (1. 11. ). 3 4.5. 12 5. 3. ). 3. 4 12 5. !124!. ) 2. 3~10. 3. 10~15. 1. (2. 7.

(135) 5 11. 4.3. 4. 3. 6. 4.14 (. ). 1. 1~5. 4.3. 2. 10~15. 3.3. 3. 5~10. 3.4. 6. 5~10. 3.4. 7. 10~15. 1.1. 8. 1~5. 2.1. 9. <1. 2. 10. 1~5. 1.5. 11. 5~10. 4. 12. 1~5. 4.5. 4 5. ( 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. ). 7 8 9 10. 7. 11 1.1. 7. ( 1. !125!. ) 2. (. ).

(136) 10. (. ) 10. 3. 1. (. 2. ) 10 1.5 8. 4 9. 2. (2.1. ). 10 3.3 3. 5. 1 2. 3.4. 3 2. 6. !126!.

(137) 10 4. 3. 5. 6. (Piatt, 1990, p. 84). (Cotterill, 2000, p. 21; Gibbons, 1990, p. 237; Nakane, 2007, p. 108; Russell, 2000, p. 45) 53. (Office, 2005) (Brière, 1978,. p. 243) (Russell, 2000, p. 45) !127!.

(138) (Del Valle, 2003, p. 163) (Cotterill, 2000, p. 21). 4.6. (CRIE). 59. 39 80%. 87.2%. 3.0%. 4 4. 1,920 !128!.

(139) 4.5. 5. 0.5. ( 26.6%). (. 84. 33. 67.7%). (. 7. 5.6%)3 23. 18.5% 3. 5 4.3. (1) (3). (4). !129!. 3.3. 3.4. (2) (5).

(140) 10 8. 10. !130!.

(141) 11. ( ……. (. ). 2. 3. 5 3.3. 3.4 7. 1 4. 3 10. ). 3. 4 !131!. 5.

(142) ( ) 2.4. 3 67.7%. 11 (. ). !132!.

(143) 5 12. 12 2. (. !133!. ).

(144) 5.1. !134!.

(145) ( 2012a, 2012b;. ,. , 2013). 10. 10. !135!.

(146) 1,920. 4 4. 4. 59. !136!.

(147) (. ). (. !137!. ).

(148) 1. (. ) (. ) Piatt (1990). Piatt. !138!.

(149) (. ). 10 15. 5 3. 5.2. !139!. 5.

(150) (Brière, 1978, p. 243; Fenner et al, 2002, p. 91; Gibbons, 1990, p. 237; Gudjonsson, 1991, p. 94; Rogers et al., 2008, p. 135) (Caution). 20. 1984. (Police and Criminal Evidence Act, PACE) (Cotterill, 2000). (American Bar Association). (2008b). 2010. Rogers. (simplified Miranda warnings). (Rogers et al., 2008a, p. 135). (Fenner et al., 2002, p. 91). !140!.

(151) (Cotterill, 2000, p. 21; Gibbons, 1990, p. 237; Nakane, 2007, p. 108; Russell, 2000, p. 45). (Brière, 1978, p. 243) 53. (Home Office, 2005). (Del Valle, 2003, p. 163). Russell (2000). (. ). !141!.

(152) 5.3. 10. !142!.

(153) (CRIE). (2013) Readability Evaluation and Analysis for Chinese Text, REACT. !143!.

(154) 43/173. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. (1988).. Retrieved May 12th, 2013, from. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r173.htm American Translators Association. (n.d.). Framework for Standardized Error Marking Explanation of Error Categories.. Retrieved May 9th, 2013, from. http://www.atanet.org/certification/aboutexams_error.php Avery, M.-P. B. (2001). The Role Of The Health Care Interpreter: An evolving dialogue The National Council on Interpreting in Health Care Working Papers Series The National Council on Interpreting in Health Care. Benmaman, V. (1992). Legal interpreting: An emerging profession. The Modern Language Journal, 76(4), 445-454. Berk-Seligson, S. (2002). The Miranda warnings and linguistic coercion: the role of footing in the interrogation of a limited-English speaking murder suspect. In J. Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the legal process (pp. 127-143). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. The Bill of Rights. (1789). National Archives Retrieved May 11st, 2013 http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Brière, E. J. (1978). Limited English speakers and the Miranda rights. TESOL quarterly, 12, 235-245. Brown, D. (1997). PACE ten years on: A review of the research.. London: HM. Stationery Office (HMSO). Candidate's Guide For The CTTIC Standard Certification Examination In Translation. (2011). In T. a. I. C. Canadian Translators (Ed.). Chall, J. S., & Dial, H. E. (1948). Predicting Listener Understanding and Interest in Newscasts. Educational Research Bulletin, 141-168. Clare, I. C. H. (1998). Understanding of the current police caution (England and Wales). Journal of community & applied social psychology, 8(5), 323. Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities. (n.d.).. Retrieved May 21st, 2013,. from http://www.najit.org/about/NAJITCodeofEthicsFINAL.pdf !144!.

(155) Corder, S. P. (1967). The Significance of Learner's Errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(4), 161-170. Corsellis, A. (2005). Training interpreters to work in the public services. Training for the New Millennium–Pedagogies for Translation and Interpreting, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 153-173. Corsellis, A. (2008). Public service interpreting: Palgrave Macmillan. Cotterill, J. (2000). Reading the rights - a cautionary tale of comprehension and comprehensibility.pdf. Forensic Linguistics. Cotterill, J. (2004). 'Just one more time…': Aspects of intertextuality in the trial of O. J. Simpson. In J. Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the legal process (pp. 147-161). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Coughlin, A. M. (1999, 12 December). Miranda only works for the usual suspects, Washington Post. Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2010). The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics: Routledge. Crimes Act 1914. (2013).. Retrieved January 21st, 2013, from Australian. Government http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00031 Del Valle, S. (2003). Language Rights and the Law in the United States : Finding our Voices. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. Eades, D. (2010). Sociolinguistics and the legal process (Vol. 5): Channel View Books. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of Second Language Acquisition: Oxford University Press, USA. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. (2013).. (M. P. Lewis, G. F. S. & C. D. F. Eds.. Seventeenth edition ed.). Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Everington, C., & Fulero, S. M. (1999). Competence to Confess: Measuring Understanding and Suggestibility of Defendants With Mental Retardation. Mental retardation, 37(3), 212-220. Fenner, S., Gudjonsson, G.H., & Clare, I.C.H. (2002). Understanding of the current police caution (England and Wales) among suspects in police detention. Journal of community & applied social psychology, 12(2), 83-93. doi: 10.1002/cas.658 Flesch, R. F. (1951). How to test readability. New York: Harper. !145!.

(156) Gibbons, J. (1990). Applied linguistics in court. Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 229-237. González, R. D., Vasquez, V. F., & Mikkelson, H. (1991). Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy, and practice. Durham: Carolina Academic Press. GOV.UK. (2005). Notice of rights and entitlements (54 translations).. Retrieved. May 2nd, 2013, from https://http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-rights-and-entitl ements-54-translations GOV.UK. (2013). Being arrested: your rights. Crime, justice and the law.. Retrieved. May 11st, 2013, from https://http://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights Grisso, T. (1980). Juveniles' capacities to waive Miranda rights: An empirical analysis. Cal. L. Rev., 68, 1134. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1991). The 'Notice to Detained Persons'. , PACE Codes, and. Reading Ease. Applied cognitive psychology, 5(2). Hale, S. (2007). Community interpreting (Vol. 146): Palgrave Macmillan Basingstoke. International Organization for Migration. (n.d.).. Retrieved January 16th, 2013,. from http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/about-migration/facts--figures-1.ht ml Klinge, V., & Dorsey, J. (1993). Correlates of the Woodcock-Johnson Reading Comprehension and Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test in a forensic psychiatric population. Journal of clinical psychology, 49(4). McBride, Alex. (n.d.). Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Landmark Cases. from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html Messier, F. (1999). Alien Defendants in Criminal Proceedings: Justice Shrugs. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 36. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 C.F.R. (1966). MirandaWarning.Org. (n.d.).. Retrieved February 5th, 2013, from. http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatareyourmirandarights.html Nakane, I. (2007). Problems in Communicating the Suspect's Rights in Interpreted Police Interviews. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 87-112. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml050 !146!.

(157) Nord, C. (2005). Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Home Office. (2005). Notice of Rights and Entitlements.. Retrieved February 15th,. 2013, from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/815449/notice-of-rights/ Piatt, B. (1990). ¿ Only English?: Law and Language Policy in the United States. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies: Routledge. Pym, A. (1992). Translation Error Analysis and the Interface with Language Teaching. In C. a. L. A. Dollerup (Ed.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience. Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Roberts, R. P. (1997). Community Interpreting Today and Tomorrow. In S. E. Carr, R. Roberts, D. A. & S. D. (Eds.), The Critical Link: Interpreters In The Community (Vol. 19, pp. 7-28). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Rogers, R., Correa, A. A., Hazelwood, L. L., Shuman, D. W., Hoersting, R. C., & Blackwood, H. L. (2009). Spanish Translations of Miranda Warnings and the Totality of the Circumstances. Law & Human Behavior, 33(1), 9. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9129-9 Rogers, R., Harrison, K.S., Hazelwood, L.L., & Sewell, K.W. (2007a). Knowing and intelligent: A study of Miranda warnings in mentally disordered defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 401-418. Rogers, R., Harrison, K.S., Shuman, D.W., Sewell, K.W., & Hazelwood, L.L. (2007b). An Analysis of Miranda Warnings and Waivers: Comprehension and Coverage. Law and Human Behavior, 31(2), 177-192. doi: 10.1007/S10979-006-9054-8 Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L.L., Sewell, K.W., Harrison, K.S., & Shuman, D.W. (2008a). The language of Miranda warnings in American jurisdictions: A replication and vocabulary analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 32(2), 124-136. Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L.L., Sewell, K.W., Shuman, D.W., & Blackwood, H.L. (2008b). The comprehensibility and content of juvenile Miranda warnings. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(1), 63-87. doi: 10.1037/a0013102 !147!.

(158) Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Gillard, N. D., Drogin, E. Y., Blackwood, H. L., & Shuman, D. W. (2010). “Everyone knows their Miranda rights”: Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(3), 300-318. doi: 0.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215 Rogers, R., Rogstad, J.E., Steadham, J.A., & Drogin, E.Y. (2011). In plain English: Avoiding recognized problems with Miranda miscomprehension. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(2), 264. Rosales, B.L. (2012). Impact of Berguis v. Thompkins on the Eroding Miranda Warnings and Limited-English Proficient Individuals: You Must Speak up to Remain Silent, The. Hastings Race & Poverty LJ, 9, 109. Russell, S. (2000). 'Let me put it simply...' : the case for a standard translation of the police caution and its explanation.pdf. Forensic Linguistics. The Crown Prosecution Service. (2011). Interpreters. Legal Guidance.. Retrieved. March 4th, 2013, from http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/interpreters/ Shuy, R. W. (1998). The language of Confession, Interrogation, and Deception. Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage Publications. Tanford, J.A. (1990). Law and Psychology of Jury Instructions, The. Nebraska Law Review, 69. United States v. Garibay, No. 96-50606 C.F.R. (1998). Vargas Urpi, M. (2012). State of the art in Community Interpreting research: Mapping the main research topics. Babel, 58(1), 50-72. Viljoen, J.L., & Roesch, R. (2005). Competence to Waive Interrogation Rights and Adjudicative Competence in Adolescent Defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 29(6), 723-742. Wadensjo, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction: longman New York. 654. (. 98. (2013). 1. 23. ). (. ) (102. 2. ). 102. 3. 20. http://www.stat.gov.tw/point.asp?index=9 ( 101. 6. ). (2012). 18. http://www.immigration.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=1126263&ctNode=29699&mp= 1 (2012). 102 !148!.

(159) 2. 18 (2012). 102. 3. 4. http://www.ccpb.gov.tw/main.php?page=office_down&type=19&fg_id=29 (2008) . (2010). Cultural transfer in legal translation: A case study of translating the common law into chinese in hong kong.. (13), 131-161. (2000) (. ). ——. (. (2011). 102. 3. ). 5. http://www.judicial.gov.tw/publish/paperd/10001/pdf/10001%E3%80%80%E F%BC%8816%EF%BC%89%E5%88%91%E4%BA%8B%E8%A3%81%E5 %88%A4.pdf (n.d.). 102. 5. 15. http://www.judicial.gov.tw//Interpreter/Interpreter01.asp (. 102. 5. 8. (2010). ). 99(18). (. 86. 12. 19. (2013). 2013. ) 1. (1997). 2 111-135. (2011). — 179. &. 99. 1893. 63-73. (2010) ,.... (2013) [Investigating Chinese. Text Readability: Linguistic Features, Modeling, and Validation] 55(1) ,. 75-106. ,&. (2012). (. (2010). 990800608) 102. 2. http://covenants-watch.blogspot.tw/2010/07/blog-post_23.html (2008). NGO. !149!. 3.

(160) (2010). — 152. (. 6 98. (. 12. 100. 30 11. ). 23. ). (n.d.). 102. 5. 15. http://www.moj.gov.tw/lp.asp?ctNode=27965&CtUnit=8026&BaseDSD=7& mp=001 (1994) (2004) 2. 102. 5. http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/PUBS/LegalSystem/criminal.htm (n.d.). ( 102. 1. ) 21. http://www.ait.org.tw/zh/the-bill-of-rights.html (2011) (2006) 102. 3. 2. http://www.jrf.org.tw/newjrf/RTE/myform_search_result_detail.asp?txt=&id= 546 (n.d.) 3. 102. 5. http://ksh.judicial.gov.tw/chinese/CP.aspx?s=134&pa=10057&n=10241 (n.d.) (2010). 8000. ─. (2009) (2012) (2003). 18. (2004). !150!. 99-126.

(161) (2009). : 13(2). ,. 1-54. ,&. (1998). 98. 4209. 99. 98. 1893. 4209 C.F.R. ( (. 99. 3. 31. 98. ). ). (2009) (n.d.). 102. 3. 16. http://www.tw.org/top/index_c.html (2005). What Sense Makes Sense?-Beginning Translators' Difficulties with. English Polysemous Words (2010) ,. 9 (. ,&. ). (2010). (2012) (2010) 3(2). 101-128. (2011). (2007) (. 36. 1. 1. ). !151!. 201-234.

(162) 1. !152!.

(163) 2. 1.. ______________. 2.. □. 3.. □. □ □. 4.. □. 5.. (. □. □. □. ). __________(. □. __________. □. □. □. □. □. □. ). 6.. □. □. □. □. □. □. □. __________ 7.. □ ~. □. ~. □. ~. □. ~. □. □. 8.. □. ____________________. □ 9.. □. __________. _______. □ 10.. □ (. ). □ ( 11.. ). □ ~. □. □. ~. □. □. 12. 13.. ~. _________________ (. ). _______________________. !153!. ~. □.

(164) 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. !154!.

(165) 4. 1. 2. 3. !155!. 4. 5.

(166) 5. !156!.

(167) 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. !157!.

(168) 7. !158!.

(169) 8. x. (. (. ). ). (. (. ( ). ( ). ). ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. !159!.

(170) 9. 20-30. xxxxxx. email: xxxxxx. xxxxxx. !160!.

(171) 10. P. S. X. A. 1. P 101. 10. 23. 10 A. A. P A S. iya. S. P A S. A iya. S. P A. A. !161!.

(172) 11. 1 2 3 4. {}. 5. *WORDS. 6. [. 7. (). 8. =. 9. -. 10. e::. 11. o. 12. .hh. 13. (.). 14. (1). 15. (l.). 16. .. 17. ,. 18. #. o. 1 1 1.1. #. /. !162!. 1.5.

(173) 12 P. S. X. C. 3. P 101 23. 10. 10. C. X. C. ada #. Ini hari ada {ah}tahun seratus. 10. satu bulan sepuluh tanggal dua tiga. }. jam sepuluh pagi, {adik ?????? }. #[. tempatnya di kantor polisi {ah}. # 101. 10. 23. {“adik” # ]. #. {e} (.)?????? #. (.). #. # {e}. [kantor polisi] He Ping Tung Lu sini, Ta An {e} (.)?????? #itu# Ta An. (.) wilayah Ta An #situ#.{e}. P. C {ah}Kamu sudah melanggar. C #. #. undang-undang {ah}udah. [. menyangkut ke masalah pemalsuan. (. surat-surat [pemalsuan surat-surat]{ah}kamu di Taiwan tu yang (?????? )hukum punya tiga hak.. Hak pertama kamu boleh. berdiam diri untuk tidak melanggar hak-hak kamu. S. #. iya. S. !163!. # ]#. ). #.

(174) P C Kedua kamu ber hak {ah}. C. #. #. mengundang pengacara atau pendamping. S. iya. S. P C {ah}Ketiga kamu boleh. C #. #. meminta untuk. {“mendiri-diki”. }. (mendiri-diki ??????) yang keadaan sebenar-benarnya S. P. iya. S. S. X. G. 7. P G P. 101 23. G. 10. 10 X. X G. Bagian di tawa {Taiwan} tahun. G. 2012. dua ribu dua belas ini, bulan sepulus. 10. tanggal dua tiga, pagi jam sepuluh,. *. bagian di Taipei se,. #ya# Taan. #. *fen ciu di He ping tung *lu *phai !164!. 10. 23. # *. # *. #.

(175) chu suo #ah# X P G. #eh# Kamu dapat keterimaan. G #. #. #. menbuat #eh# untuk penbikinan surat yang palsu. P G Jadi sekarang kamu udah di #??# G tuduh untuk {*. }pemasulan. surat surat yang {* S. {* }. : ada}. iya.. {*. {*. }. : ada}. S. P G. Kedua {*. } orang {*. G. } S. {*. }. {*. 10. 23. }. iya.. S. P G. Tiga {*. } pengambilan. G. {*. }. bukti S. P. iya.. S. S. X. L. 12. P P 23. 101. 10. 10. L #eh# Hari ini pada tanggal 23 bulan 10 tahun 2012, waktu pagi. L #. #. 2012 10. !165!. #. #. #.

(176) jam 10 #eh# sekarang kita berada di. (. ). #. kantor polisi jalan Heping #eh#. East Road}. # {* #. #. *East Road di daerah Taan #eh# Taipei city. P L #eh# Hari ini kamu karena di panggil #eh# (){*. L #. terter }. #. {. 1. termasuk kalian #eh# kamu dapat #apa# () eh hukuman. {*. }. terter } {. pir } #apa# ()termasuk pelanggaran {*. #. # (){*. 1. }. #. didana}. dalam #eh# pemalsuan dokumen() ,. #. #(). pir } {. {*. 1. #(). }#. {*. dan ada tiga hak yang kamu bisa. #. #. didana}. #. (). dapatkan selama disini P L #eh# Pertama anda #eh# boleh () L # berdiam #eh# tidak menjawab. #. #. #. pertanyanan untuk melindungi hak kamu S. iya.. S. P L. #eh# bisa memilih #eh#. L #. #. pembela. S. iya.. S. P L Yang ketiga itu #eh# boleh minta L untuk penyelidikan untuk bukti-bukti yang bisa membantu anda. S. iya.. S !166!. #. #. #. (). #.

(177) !167!.

(178)