請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/70078完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 張嘉倩 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Der-Ping Tsou | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 鄒德平 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T03:42:18Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2018-02-23 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2018-02-23 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2018-02-07 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Ackermann, D., Lenk, H. & Redmond, M. (1997). Between three stools: Performance assessment in interpreter training. In E. Fleischmann, W. Kutz & P. A. Schmitt (Eds.), Translationsdidaktik: Grundfragen der Übersetzungswissenschaft (262-267), Tübingen: Narr.
Angermeyer, P. S. (2005). Who is ‘you’? Polite forms of address and ambiguous participant roles in court interpreting. Target, 17(2), 203-226. Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A coursebook on translation. New York: Routledge. Berman, R. A. (1978). Modern Hebrew structure. Tel Aviv: University Publication Projects. Blum-Kulka, S. (1986/2000). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (298-313). New York, NY: Routledge. Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231-235. Callow, K. (1974). Discourse considerations in translating the word of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Chang, C. (2017). Enhancement of logical cohesion in Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting for impromptu speakers. Compilation and Translation Review. 10(2), 115-148. Chang, C & Kim, M. (2010). The re/creation of logical cohesion in Chinese-English simultaneous interpreting: A systemic functional linguistic account. Studies in English language and literature, 38, 47-84. Chang, C. & Wu, M. (2009). Address form shifts in interpreted Q&A sessions. Interpreting, 11(2), 164-189. Collados, A. & García Becerra, O. (2015). Quality. In H. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais, (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of interpreting (368-383). New York, NY: Routledge. Collados, A., Pradas Marcías, E. M., Stévaux, E., & García Becerra, O. (Eds.). (2007). Evaluacíon de la calidad en interpretacíon simultánea: parámetros de incidencia, Granada: Comares. Donovan, C. (2005). Teaching simultaneous interpretation into B: A challenge for responsible interpreter training. Communication and Cognition. Monographies 38(1-2), 147-166. Ficchi, V. (1999). Learning consecutive interpretation: An empirical study and an autonomous approach. Interpreting, 4(2), 199-218. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952. Garzone, G. (2003). Reliability of quality criteria evaluation in survey research. In A. Collados Aís, M. M. Fernández Sánchez & D. Gile (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Investigación (23-30). Granada: Comares. Gile, D. (1992). Basic theoretical components in interpreter and translator training. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent and experience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Green, A. (2014). Exploring language assessment and testing. New York, NY: Routledge. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Harris, B. (1990). Norms in interpretation. Target, 2(1), 115-119. Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (2002). Interpreting: A text linguistic approach. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (255-265). New York, NY: Routledge. Holub, E. (2010). Does intonation matter? The impact of monotony on listener comprehension, The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 15, 117-126. Hu, M. (2007). Textual cohesion and translation (语篇衔接与翻译, in Simplified Chinese). Chengdu: Bashu Publishing. Kahane, E. (2000). Thoughts on the quality of interpretation. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from https://aiic.net/p/197. Kopczyński, A. (1994). Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. In M. Snell-Honrby, F. Pöchhacker & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies: An interdiscipline (189-198). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (1994). Principles of marketing (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kurz, I. (1989). Conference interpreting user expectations, in D. Hamond. (Ed.), Coming of age. Proceedings of the 30th conference of the A.T.A. (143-148). Medford, NJ: Learned Information Inc. 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. Kurz, I. & Pöchhacker, F. (1995). Quality in TV interpreting, Translatio-Nouvelles de la FIT-FIT Newsletter XIV (3-4), 350-358. Lee, S. (2015). Developing an analytic scale for assessing undergraduate students’ consecutive interpreting performance. Interpreting, 17(2), 226-254. Liu, M. (2013). Design and analysis of Taiwan’s interpretation certification examination. In D. Tsagari & R. van Deemter. (Eds.), Assessment issues in language translation and interpreting (163–178). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Mack G. & Cattaruzza, L. (1995). User surveys in SI: A means of learning about quality and/or raising some reasonable doubt. In J. Tommola (Ed.), Topics in interpreting research (37-49). Turku: University of Turku, Center for Translation and Interpreting. Marrone, S. (1993). Quality, a shared objective. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 5, 35-41. Moser, P. (1995). Survey on expectations of users of conference interpretation. Final report commissioned by AIIC, Vienna: SRZ Stadt + Regionalforschung GmbH. Moser–Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in interpreting: Some methodological issues, The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 7, 43-55. Peng, G. (2009). Using Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) to describe the development of coherence in interpreting trainees. Interpreting, 11(2), 216-243. Pöchhacker, F. (1994). Quality assurance in simultaneous interpreting. In C. Dollerup & A. Lindegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 2: Aims, insights, visions (233-242). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Pradas Marcías, E. M. (2003). Repercusión del intraparámetro pausas silenciosas en la fluidez: Influencia en las expectativas y en la evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidad de Granada, Granada. Reinhart, T. (1980). Conditions for text coherence. Poetics Today, 1, 161-180. Rennert, S. (2010). The impact of fluency on the subjective assessment of interpreting quality, The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 15, 101-115. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive and pragmatic analysis. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Shlesinger, M. (1995). Shifts in cohesion in simultaneous interpreting. The Translator, 1(2), 193-214. Shlesinger, M. (1997). Quality in simultaneous interpreting. In Y. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor. (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research (123-131). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Smith, R. N. & Frawley, W. J. (1983). Conjunctive cohesion in four English genres. Text, 3(4), 347-374. Torikai, K. (1998). Mis-interpretations that have changed history (歴史をかえた誤訳, in Japanese). Tokyo: Shichosha Publishing. Wang, C. S. (2007). An investigation on the semantics and discoursal and socio-pragmatic functions of personal pronouns in Mandarin Chinese (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei. Zhan, C. (2012). Mediation through personal pronoun shifts in dialogue interpreting of political meetings. Interpreting, 14(2), 192-216. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/70078 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 在眾多影響口譯品質的條件當中，銜接（cohesion）往往被視為最重要的關鍵之一。根據Halliday與Hasan（1976）的分類，英文當中的銜接可分為五種，分別為指稱（reference）、替代（substitution）、省略（ellipsis）、連接（conjunction）與詞語銜接（lexical cohesion），而本研究將重點置於指稱以及連接，剖析臺灣中英翻譯能力檢定考試考生如何在翻譯當中處理代名詞與連接詞。本研究採文本分析，資料取自於2014年語言訓練測驗中心（LTTC）舉辦的中英翻譯能力檢定考試，長逐步口譯中進英部分試題，共收集來自56位考生的124段錄音資料。在分析、比對不同考生的譯文之後，本研究發現考生在面對代名詞與連接詞時所採用的作法大致相同，在面對第一人稱單數代名詞時多採取較忠於原文的譯法，在面對第二與第三人稱單數代名詞時則採取較為跳脫原文之譯法。此外，連接詞在原文當中出現的位置以及使用的方法，而非連接詞本身表達的意思，是影響考生譯法最主要的因素。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | There are a number of factors that influence the quality of an interpretation, and among them, cohesion is often agreed upon as one of the most important parameters. While, according to Halliday and Hasan (1976), there are five main cohesive devices in English, this study focuses on the use of reference and conjunction and sets out to explore how different test-takers of the Chinese and English Translation and Interpretation Competency Examinations, or CETICE, a national certifying exam for translators and interpreters in Taiwan, deal with pronouns and conjunctions. This study uses data from the Chinese-to-English long CI part of the CETICE held in 2014. A total of 124 samples from 56 test-takers are collected and analyzed. Results show that test-takers exhibit more similarities than differences, specifically their faithful renditions of first-person singular pronouns and how they deal with second-person and third-person singular pronouns. Furthermore, results show that where and how a conjunction is used is the most important factor in determining how test-takers render that particular conjunction. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T03:42:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R01147009-1.pdf: 1144595 bytes, checksum: 2b2c0d8200546fa9b0c8d6e990f16459 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Abstract i
摘要 ii Table of Contents iii Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Research Background and Motivation 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem 4 1.3. Research Questions 6 Chapter 2. Literature Review 8 2.1 Quality and Cohesion 8 2.2 Reference 13 2.3 Conjunctions 17 2.4 The CETICE 19 Chapter 3. Research Methodology 25 3.1 The Data 25 3.2 Research Method 32 3.2.1 Pronouns 33 3.2.2 Conjunctions 36 3.3.3 An Example 39 Chapter 4. Results and Discussions 42 4.1 Pronouns 42 4.1.1 First-Person Singular Pronoun 50 4.1.2 Second-Person Singular Pronoun 60 4.1.3 Third-Person Singular Pronouns 65 4.1.4 Plural Pronouns 80 4.2 Conjunctions 90 4.2.1 Explicit Conjunctions 91 4.2.2 Additional Conjunctions 105 Chapter 5. Conclusions 111 5.1 Conclusion 111 5.2 Limitations of the Study 117 5.3 Recommendations for Future Research 119 References 121 Appendix 129 Appendix 1: The first Chinese passage of 2014’s CETICE Long CI test 129 Appendix 2: English translation of the source text by the researcher 130 Appendix 3: Full text of coded transcripts from test-taker answers 133 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.title | 中英文翻譯能力檢定考試長逐步口譯中譯英譯文代名詞與連接詞分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | An Analysis of Pronouns and Conjunctions in CETICE Chinese to English Long Consecutive Interpreting | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 106-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃育文,范家銘 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 逐步口譯,銜接,指稱,代名詞,連接, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | consecutive interpreting,cohesion,reference,pronoun,conjunction, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 187 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201800377 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2018-02-07 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 翻譯碩士學位學程 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 翻譯碩士學位學程 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.12 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。