請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/4778完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 張嘉倩(Chia-Chien Chang) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Serena Yi-Ying Lin | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 林依瑩 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-14T17:47:02Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2016-03-16 | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-05-14T17:47:02Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2015-03-16 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2015-02-24 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | AIIC (2012). Draft checklist for interpretation over the Internet. Retrieved from http://aiic.net/page/887/draft-checklist-for-interpretation-over-the-internet/lang/1
Alexieva, B. (1997). A Typology of Interpreter-Mediated Events. The Translator, 3(2), 22. Altman, J. (1994). Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous interpretation: A pilot study. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 25-38). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Barik, H. C. (1994). A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 121-137). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231-236. doi: 10.1515/mult.1986.5.4.231 Chang, C. & Wu, M. (2009). Address form shifts in interpreted Q&A sessions. Interpreting, 11(2), 164-189. doi: 10.1075/intp.11.2.04cha Cheung, A. (2013). Non-native accents and simultaneous interpreting quality perceptions. Interpreting, 15(1), 25-47. doi: 10.1075/intp.15.1.02che Chiaro, D., & Nocella, G. (2004). Interpreters’ Perception of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Factors Affecting Quality: A survey through the World Wide Web. Meta: Translators' Journal, 49(2), 16. doi: 10.7202/009351ar Déjean Le Féal, K. (1990). Some Thoughts on the Evaluation of Simultaneous Interpretation. In D. Bowen & M. Bowen (Eds.), Interpreting Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (pp. 154-160). Binghamton, NY: SUNY. Garzone, G. (2002). Quality and norms in interpretation. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities : Selected Papers from the 1st Forlì Conference on Interpreting Studies, 9-11 November 2000 (pp. 117-130). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Gerver, D. (1969). The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In E. Foulfce (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Louisville Conference on Rate and/or Frequency Controlled Speech (pp. 162-184). Louisville, KY: Center for Rate-Controlled Recordings, University of Louisville. Gerver, D. (1975). A psychological approach to simultaneous interpretation. Meta: Translators' Journal, 20(2), 119–128. doi: 10.7202/002885ar 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, NY: SUNY. Hutchby, I. (1995). Aspects of Recipient Design in Expert Advice-Giving on Call-in-Radio. Discourse Processes, 19, 219-238. Jones, R. (1998). Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Kahane, E. (2000). Thoughts on the quality of interpretation. Retrieved 10/12, 2013, from http://aiic.net/page/197 Kalina, S. (2002). Quality in interpreting and its prerequisites. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities : Selected Papers from the 1st Forlì Conference on Interpreting Studies, 9-11 November 2000 (pp. 131-140). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kalina, S. (2005). Quality Assurance for Interpreting Process. Meta: Translators' Journal, 50(2), 768-784. doi: 10.7202/011017ar Kellett Bidoli, C. J. (2000). Quality Assessment in Conference Interpreting: an Overview. Miscellanea, 4, 105-145. Kopczyński, A. (1994). Quality in Conference Interpreting: Some Pragmatic Problems. In M. Snell-Hornby & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation Studies: An interdiscipline (pp. 189-198). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kurz, I. (1993). Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 5, 13-21. Kurz, I. (1997). Getting the message across--Simultaneous interpreting for the media. In M. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarová & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation as Intercultural Communication: Selected papers from the EST Congress, Prague 1995 (pp. 195-205). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kurz, I. (2001). Conference Interpreting: Quality in the Ears of the User. Meta: Translators' Journal, 46(2), 394-409. doi: 10.7202/003364ar Kurz I. (2002). Physiological stress responses during media and conference interpreting. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and Opportunities: Selected Papers from the 1st Forlì Conference on Interpreting Studies, 9-11 November 2000 (pp. 195-202). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kurz I., & Pöchhacker, F. (1995). Quality in TV interpreting. Translatio, 14(3-4), 350-358. Li, C. (2010). Coping Strategies for Fast Delivery in Simultaneous Interpretation. The Journal of Specialized Translation, 13, 19-25. Retrieved from http://www.jostrans.org/issue13/issue13_toc.php Mack, G. (2002). New perspectives and challenges for interpretation: the example of television. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and Opportunities: Selected Papers from the 1st Forlì Conference on Interpreting Studies, 9-11 November 2000 (pp. 203-213). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Macías, M. P. (2006). Probing quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 8(1), 25-43. Marrone, S. (1993). Quality: A shared objective. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 5, 35-41. Moser, P. (1995). Survey on expectations of users of conference interpretation. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm?page_id=736 Moser, P. (1996). Expectations of users of conference interpretation. Interpreting 1(2), 145-178. Moser-Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in Interpreting: Some Methodological Issues. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 7, 43-55. Moser-Mercer, B. (2009). Construct-ing quality. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman, & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile (pp. 153-166). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Moser-Mercer, B., Künzli, A., & Korac, M. (1998). Effects on quality, physiological and psychological stress (Pilot study). Interpreting, 3(1), 47-64. doi: 0.1075/intp.3.1.03mos Olsen, B. S. (2012). Interpreting 2.0. The AIIC Webzine. Retrieved from http://aiic.net/page/6336/interpreting-2-0/lang/1 Pignataro, C. (2011). Skilled-based and knowledge-based strategies in Television Interpreting. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 16, 81-98. Pignataro, C. & Velardi, S. (2011). The Quest for Quality Assessment Criteria in Media Interpreting. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Interpreting Quality, Granada, Spain. Pöchhacker, F. (1997). “Clinton speaks German”: A case study of live broadcast simultaneous interpreting. In M. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarová & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation as Intercultural Communication: Selected papers from the EST Congress, Prague 1995 (pp. 217-226). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality Assessent in Conference and Community Interpreting. Meta: Translators' Journal, 46(2), 16. doi: 10.7202/003364ar Pöchhacker, F. (2002). Researching interpreting quality: Models and methods. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities : Selected Papers from the 1st Forlì Conference on Interpreting Studies, 9-11 November 2000 (pp. 95-106). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Pöchhacker, F. (2010). Media Interpreting. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies (Vol. 1, pp. 224-226). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Pöchhacker, F. (2011). Researching TV interpreting: Selected studies of US presidential material. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 16, 21-36. Pöchhacker, F., & Zwischenberger, C. (2010). Survey on quality and role: Conference interpreters’ expectations and self-perceptions. Retrieved 10/12, 2013, from http://aiic.net/page/3405/survey-on-quality-and-role-conference-interpreters-expectations-and-self-perceptions/lang/1 Ru, M. L. (1996). Exploring Interpreting Quality and Role of Interpreters from Users’ Perspective (Unpublished Master's Thesis) [從使用者觀點探討口譯品質與口譯員之角色 (碩士論文)]. New Taipei City: Fu-Jen Catholic University. Shlesinger, M. (1997). Quality in Simultaneous Interpreting. In Y. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research (Vol. 23, pp. 123-131). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Snelling, D. (1997). On media and court interpreting. In Y. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference Interpreting: Current trends in research. Proceedings of the International Conference on “Interpreting: What do we know and how?” Turku, August 25-27, 1994 (pp. 187-206). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Straniero-Sergio, F. (2003). Norms and quality in media interpreting: The case of Formula One press conferences. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 12, 135-174. Zwischenberger, C. (2010). Quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: an international vs. a national view. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 15, 127-142. Taiwan Public Television Service (2012, December 11). What Money Can’t Buy (錢買不到的東西) [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SZCa4LEYf | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/4778 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | This paper examines social media users’ perceptions of simultaneous interpreting quality in a live streaming interpreting event on YouTube. On December 11, 2012, Harvard Professor Michael Sandel was invited by Taiwan’s Ministry of Culture to give a lecture about his new book, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. The lecture was held at a stadium with an audience of 6,000 people. At the same time, the lecture was broadcasted live on YouTube, so simultaneously there was a group of online users listening to the lecture. Because the YouTube streaming did not provide dual channels, the online audience had no choice but to listen to the simultaneous interpretation, while the original source speech was broadcasted at the backdrop at a lower volume. In other words, online YouTube audience became default absent users of the interpreting service. Most importantly, the YouTube audience not only watched Sandel’s lecture and listened to the interpreters online, but many of them posted online comments simultaneously. The comments comprised the basis of this research.
A total of 233 comments from 134 unique users were collected to form a rich set of uncontrolled, natural data on users’ perception of interpreting quality. This data was closely examined to understand the different quality criteria used by different users. Overall findings show that delivery-related criteria, as opposed to content-related ones, were most often cited by the interpreting users. Context does matter, so given the highly-interactive nature of the interpreting event, the data shows that users paid much attention to prosodic features, such as fluency of delivery, smooth alternation between source and target languages, and lively intonation. Technology is another important element in this research. New electronic media has enabled interpreting events to broadcast live on-line, expanding the number of interpreting users and also changing the nature of speaker-listener-interpreter relationship. Adequate technical support is necessary in this case to ensure the quality of interpretation delivery, otherwise technical shortfall affects users’ quality perception, as reflected in a large portion of comments that preferred listening to the lecture without the interpretation. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-14T17:47:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-104-R01147006-1.pdf: 1179010 bytes, checksum: 65a37099d4ff3b02e613bc71a5f4c0e8 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background of the Study 2 1.2 Statement of the Problem 7 1.3 Purpose of the Study 8 1.4 Significance of the Study 9 1.5 Primary Research Questions 12 1.5 Assumptions, Limitations, and Scope 13 1.6 Thesis Organization 14 Chapter 2 Literature Review 16 2.1 Defining Interpreting Quality 16 2.2 Measuring Interpreting Quality 18 2.2.1 Different Quality Criteria 18 2.2.2 Perceived Importance of Different Quality Criteria 20 2.2.3 Challenges in Measuring Quality 22 2.3 Interpreting Quality in the Ears of Different Users 24 2.3.1 Importance of Users’ Perspectives 24 2.3.2 Different Perspectives between Professional Interpreters and General Users 26 2.4 Broader Factors Affecting Interpreting Quality 32 2.5 Media Interpreting 35 2.5.1 Definitions and Context 35 2.5.2 Users in Media Interpreting 39 2.5.3 Quality Studies in Media Interpreting 42 2.5.4 Gap in Existing Literature 45 Chapter 3 Methodology 46 Chapter 4 Findings and Discussions 53 4.1 Establishing Interpreting Context: Findings from Transcription Data 53 4.2 Understanding Quality Criteria-Findings from Comment Data 61 4.3 Technology and Interpreting Quality 64 4.4 Delivery-related Quality Criteria 73 4.4.1 Synchronicity 77 4.4.2 Fluency of Delivery 83 4.4.3 Lively Intonation 88 4.4.4 Pleasant Voice 91 4.5 Content-related Quality Criteria 91 4.5.1 Logical Cohesion 92 4.5.2 Correct Terminology 95 4.5.3 Appropriate Style 96 4.6 Broader Factors Affecting Quality Perception 97 4.6.1 Quality Comparison: Comparing Interpreting Quality of Male and Female Interpreters 97 4.6.2 Quality Judgment: General Comments 110 4.6.3 Users’ General Perception and Understanding of the Role of Interpreters 115 4.7 English as Lingua Franca 124 4.7.1 Users’ Language Preference 125 4.7.2 Users’ Preference for Original English Lecture 127 Chapter 5 Conclusions 132 5.1 Summary of Study 132 5.2 Limitations of the Current Study 143 5.3 Directions for Future Research 145 5.4 Conclusion 148 References 150 Appendix 157 Appendix A: Lecture Transcription 157 Appendix B: List of 24 Audience Members 212 Appendix C: Interpretation-related YouTube Comments 213 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.subject | 社群媒體 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 口譯品質 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 使用者品質觀感 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 網路口譯 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | quality perception | en |
| dc.subject | socia media | en |
| dc.subject | Internet interpreting | en |
| dc.subject | quaity of interpretation | en |
| dc.title | 探討社群媒體使用者對於口譯品質之觀感 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Exploring Social Media Users' Perception of Interpreting Quality | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 103-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 范家銘(Damien Fan),汝明麗(Elma Ru) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 口譯品質,使用者品質觀感,網路口譯,社群媒體, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | quaity of interpretation,quality perception,Internet interpreting,socia media, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 221 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2015-02-24 | |
| 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-104-1.pdf | 1.15 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。