臺灣族語口譯培訓作為公共政策—詮釋性政策分析

Abstract

族語復振為我國多年來的重要施政目標。為推動族語口譯作為族語復振的策略之一，政府透過經費補助及標案委託等方式支持族語口譯培訓課程，如國立臺灣師範大學族語口譯培訓工作坊及國立東華大學阿美語口譯微學程。然而，上述課程皆於開辦不久後停辦，形成政策規劃與實際推動之間的落差。 為探討此一現象的成因，本研究採用 Yanow（2000）的詮釋性政策分析作為主要研究取徑，並結合 Edelman（1964）的政治語言理論，分析政策文件所呈現的政策理念與政治語言，並訪談族語口譯教師、學員及培訓承辦人，以探討不同利害關係人如何理解族語口譯培訓及其政策目標，以及這些理解如何影響政策的執行。 政策文件分析顯示，原住民族委員會於焦點政策中大量採用法律與行政語言，反映相關政策已建立較明確的制度規劃與行政路徑，原住民族歷史正義與轉型正義委員會的運作亦呈現相似特徵。相較之下，族語保存與復振政策則多以勸勉式語言論述，並於單一政策目標中涵蓋多項施政內容，使政策方向與執行路徑較為模糊。雖然《國家語言整體發展方案》編列經費建置族語口譯設備，卻未同步編列專屬族語口譯之培訓經費。 訪談結果則顯示，族語口譯培訓主要面臨兩項挑戰。第一，課程簡章所揭示的培訓目標抽象且涵蓋多重功能，導致教師、承辦人及學員分別以不同理解詮釋課程目的，進而形成不同的教學策略、學習動機及對未來職涯的期待。第二，語言因素構成培訓過程中的核心困境，包括缺乏成熟的族語口譯教材、現代詞彙不足、教師多具中英口譯背景而欠缺族語能力，以及學員間族語能力差異過大等問題，皆限制了口譯技巧的教學與學習。針對上述困境，受訪者普遍建議發展族語口譯專業教材、建立課前語言能力分級制度，並增加具族語背景之師資參與教學。 此外，受訪者對於課程停辦原因亦有不同理解。多數受訪者認為，課程停辦反映政府未能持續投入資源，並受到政策重心轉移及行政團隊更替的影響；相較之下，曾參與政策規劃或了解決策過程的受訪者，則將部分課程停辦視為調整課程內容與制度設計的過程，而非政策失敗。 本研究進一步發現，受訪者對族語口譯培訓的理解深受語言意識形態影響，主要呈現語言主權與漢語中心兩種取向。不同的語言意識形態影響受訪者對族語口譯功能、價值及培訓目的的理解，並進一步形塑其對課程設計、教學方式及政策方向的判斷。 綜合政策文件與訪談分析，本研究認為，政策文件中較為抽象的政治語言及培訓課程模糊的目標設定，反映決策者尚未建立族語口譯培訓制度化的推動路徑。在有限的政策時程與績效壓力下，政府優先投入較易展現成果的硬體建設，而未同步建立穩定的人才培育制度，使族語口譯培訓於政策重心轉移及行政團隊更替後，缺乏持續運作所需的制度支持，最終導致課程停辦。 參考澳洲、加拿大及秘魯等國經驗，本研究建議臺灣應逐步將族語口譯需求與族語復振政策適度區分，透過立法明確界定族語口譯的公共服務需求與適用場域，建立穩定的制度需求，並配合專業教材、長期且循序漸進的培訓課程，以及人才媒合機制，使族語口譯由短期政策計畫發展為具制度支持的公共服務，進而提升族語口譯制度的永續性。

Indigenous language revitalization has long been a major policy objective in Taiwan. As part of this effort, the government has supported Indigenous-language interpreter training through subsidized and commissioned programs, including the Indigenous-language interpreter training programs at National Taiwan Normal University and National Dong Hwa University. However, both programs were discontinued shortly after their establishment, creating a gap between policy planning and implementation. To examine the causes of this gap, this study adopts Yanow’s (2000) Interpretive Policy Analysis as its primary analytical approach and incorporates Edelman’s (1964) theory of political language. It analyzes official policy documents and interviews Indigenous-language interpreter trainers, trainees, and program organizers to explore how different stakeholders understand Indigenous-language interpreter training and its policy objectives. The document analysis shows that the Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP) employed predominantly legal and administrative language in focused policy initiatives, whereas Indigenous language revitalization policies relied largely on hortatory language with broadly defined objectives. Although the National Languages Development Program allocated funding for interpreting booths, it did not establish dedicated funding for Indigenous-language interpreter training. The interview findings reveal two major challenges. First, the broad and ambiguous objectives presented in the training brochures led trainers, organizers, and trainees to develop different interpretations of the training, resulting in divergent teaching strategies, learning motivations, and career expectations. Second, language-related challenges, including the lack of specialized teaching materials, insufficient modern vocabulary, trainers’ limited Indigenous language proficiency, and uneven language proficiency among trainees, constrained the teaching and learning of interpreting skills. Participants therefore recommended developing specialized teaching materials, introducing language placement mechanisms, and increasing the involvement of trainers with Indigenous language expertise. Participants also differed in their interpretations of why the training programs were discontinued. While most attributed the discontinuation to shifting policy priorities and insufficient long-term governmental support, participants familiar with the policy-making process regarded the policy gaps as part of broader institutional adjustments. The study further finds that participants’ understandings of Indigenous-language interpreter training were shaped by two language ideologies, language sovereignty and Mandarin-centeredness, which influenced how they understood the purposes of Indigenous-language interpreting and the direction of the training programs. Drawing together the document and interview analyses, this study argues that the absence of institutionalized support and dedicated funding, together with ambiguous policy objectives, left Indigenous-language interpreter training vulnerable to shifts in policy priorities, ultimately contributing to its discontinuation. Therefore, this study recommends establishing Indigenous-language interpreting as a legislatively supported public service, accompanied by specialized teaching materials, long-term training, and interpreter matching mechanisms to ensure its sustainability.