翻译
口译与笔译培训的共性与分歧来自一个英文期刊数据库的研究发现 [Convergences and divergences between studies on translator training and interpreter training: Findings from a database of English journal articles]

潘珺 王红华鄢秀

翻译胡丹妮蔡虹

摘要

自口译研究(IS)出现以来,关于笔译研究(TS)和口译研究(IS)之间的共性与差异的讨论就一直存在。在培训领域中,对口译与笔译活动的相似与不同也能强烈地感受到。本文采用数据驱动的方法来分析对口笔译培训方面的研究。在口笔译期刊文献的标注数据库的基础上,本研究展示了口笔译培训研究中的差异和相似之处。研究结果显示,口笔译培训研究的主题和方法框架是一致的,但在研究课题和方法上则有不同侧重。在这两个分支学科中,分别活跃着不同的作者、机构以及国家/地区排名,还有数量很小但却可能在增长的跨学科研究人员将两个子学科联系起来。这些发现将使我们对口笔译活动和研究有更好的认识。

关键词
目录

1.引言

自21世纪末以来,口笔译培训取得了快速发展(Kelly and Martin 2009Kelly, Dorothy, and Anne Martin 2009 “Training and Education.” In Baker and Saldanha 2009, 294–300.Google Scholar; Pym 2009 2009 “Translator Training.” Pre-print version of Pym 2011. Accessed July 15, 2014. http://​usuaris​.tinet​.cat​/apym​/on​-line​/training​/2009​_translator​_training​.pdf)。相应地,培训方面的研究在数量和深度上也取得了进展(Gile 2004 2004 “Translation Research versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership.” In Schäffner 2004b, 10–34.Google Scholar; Kelly and Way 2007Kelly, Dorothy, and Catherine Way 2007 “Editorial: On the Launch of ITT.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1 (1): 1–13. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Kelly and Martin 2009Kelly, Dorothy, and Anne Martin 2009 “Training and Education.” In Baker and Saldanha 2009, 294–300.Google Scholar; Yan, Pan and Wang 2015Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。

不断增加的文献所带来的一个问题就是,口笔译培训在侧重点、内容和方法上的分歧也愈加明显。这样的问题或许源自笔译(T)和口译(I)11.在本文中,“translation”(T)只指笔译,它区别于“interpreting”(I),后者指非书面形式(包括口头语言及手语)。特别指出的是,在本文研究的数据库中包含8篇讨论手语翻译培训的文章。活动在认知水平(Kurz et al. 2000Kurz, Ingrid, Doris Chiba, Vera Medinskaya, and Martina Pastore 2000 “Translators and Interpreters: Different Learning Styles?Across Languages and Cultures 1 (1): 71–83.Google Scholar; Dragsted and Hansen 2009Dragsted, Barbara, and Inge Gorm Hansen 2009 “Exploring Translation and Interpreting Hybrids: The Case of Sight Translation.” Meta 54 (3): 588–604. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)和实践(Kade 1968Kade, Otto 1968Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit der Übersetzung. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar, as in Schäffner 2004aSchäffner, Christina 2004a “Researching Translation and Interpreting.” In Schäffner 2004b, 1–9.Google Scholar, 1; Holmes [1972] 1988Holmes, James S. (1972) 1988 “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” In Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, ed. by Raymond van den Broeck, 67–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar, as in Pöchhacker and Shlesinger 2002Pöchhacker, Franz, and Miriam Shlesinger 2002 “Introduction.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 1–12. London: Routledge.Google Scholar, 2)上的显著差异,以及20世纪90年代口译研究(IS)诞生以来,人们对笔译研究(TS)与口译研究(IS)的关系的深刻反思(Gile 1995Gile, Daniel 1995 “Mirror Mirror on the Wall: An Introduction.” Target 7 (1): 1–6. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Pöchhacker and Shlesinger 2002Pöchhacker, Franz, and Miriam Shlesinger 2002 “Introduction.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 1–12. London: Routledge.Google Scholar; Schäffner 2004b ed. 2004bTranslation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar)。

根据文献资料,笔译培训历史上早于口译培训出现(Pym 2009 2009 “Translator Training.” Pre-print version of Pym 2011. Accessed July 15, 2014. http://​usuaris​.tinet​.cat​/apym​/on​-line​/training​/2009​_translator​_training​.pdf),关注文本、对等、目的、过程、文体、专题、字典、计算机辅助翻译、基于任务/项目的方法以及本地化等内容(参见 Ulrych 2005Ulrych, Margherita 2005 “Training Translators: Programmes, Curricula, Practices.” In Training for the New Millennium, ed. by Martha Tennent, 1–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Kelly and Martin 2009Kelly, Dorothy, and Anne Martin 2009 “Training and Education.” In Baker and Saldanha 2009, 294–300.Google Scholar; Pym 2011 2011 “Training Translators.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Kristen Malmkjær and Kevin Windle, 475–489. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar; Gambier 2012Gambier, Yves 2012 “Teaching Translation/Training Translators.” In Gambier and van Doorslaer 2012, 163–171. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。尽管与笔译培训在科技、沟通、质量、能力、课程发展与专业性等方面存在共同点(参见 Gile 2004 2004 “Translation Research versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership.” In Schäffner 2004b, 10–34.Google Scholar; Angelelli 2013Angelelli, Claudia V. 2013 “Teaching Translation and Interpreting.” In Chapelle 2013, 5666–5670.Google Scholar),口译培训更注重会议/社区口译、口译方法、认知能力/限制、短时记忆、笔记、规范、职业道德以及资格认证等主题(参见 Niska 2005Niska, Helge 2005 “Training Interpreters: Programmes, Curricula, Practices.” In Training for the New Millennium, ed. by Martha Tennent, 35–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Kelly and Martin 2009Kelly, Dorothy, and Anne Martin 2009 “Training and Education.” In Baker and Saldanha 2009, 294–300.Google Scholar; Stern 2011Stern, Ludmila 2011 “Training Interpreters.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Kristen Malmkjær and Kevin Windle, 490–509. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar; Pöchhacker 2013 2013 “Teaching Interpreting/Training Interpreters.” In Gambier and van Doorslaer 2013, 174–180.Google Scholar)。此外,在对口笔译教授法相关研究的引文分析中,Gile(2005) 2005 “Citation Patterns in the T&I Didactics Literature.” Forum 3 (2): 85–103. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar除了指出在优先考虑哪个理论模式(功能理论 vs. AIIC模式)所带来的差别,以及在口笔译培训领域最常被引用的作者;他还指出,口译培训研究比笔译培训研究引用了更多的实证研究。

一些采用数据驱动方法的研究介绍了目前的研究主题和方法论上的发展,以及口笔译整体培训研究或者专门的口译培训研究中的作者/机构/地理分布情况。比如,为了描述口笔译英文期刊文献(2000–2010)所反映出的口译研究现状,Yan et al.(2013)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar通过对口译培训子数据库(占总体口译研究数据库的1/4),发现该数据库包含大约一半的以教学为主题的文献以及超过四分之一的以学习为主题的文献。尽管整个口译研究数据库中实证研究的数量超过非实证研究,但在口译培训子数据库中并没有相关的研究报道。Yan, Pan and Wang(2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar采用相似的方法回顾了口笔译培训作为一个整体的近期发展(2000–2012)。研究表明,该领域从教学视角开展的研究要远远超过从学习视角开展的研究,每个研究都会优先考虑某些主题以及子主题。该研究还表明采用实证研究方法要比非实证方法更普遍。还列出了在口笔译培训方面活跃的作者的名单,这名单与在口译培训中活跃的作者名单很不同。不过,尽管前人的研究很重要,但目前尚没有数据驱动的研究能够提供一个系统的、关于两个子领域(笔译培训和口译培训)的研究的最新比较,而这样的研究可以使人更好地理解笔译实践与口译实践、笔译研究与口译研究之间的异同。

在这样的背景下,本研究旨在探查新世纪口笔译培训研究的共性和差异。不同于试图规定两者的关系性质(试比较Schäffner 2004b ed. 2004bTranslation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar),本文通过深入前人的研究资源和方法(Yan et al. 2013Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Yan, Pan and Wang 2015Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar),以描述性视角来系统地研究和对比过去十年中的口笔译训练方面的研究文献。具体来说,本文旨在回答以下问题:

  1. 笔译培训方面的研究是否与口译培训方面的研究都解决同样的研究主题?

  2. 笔译培训研究是否与口译培训研究采用了同样的方法?

  3. 在笔译培训研究和口译培训研究中,是否活跃着相同的学者、研究机构以及国家/地区?

为了本项研究,我们运用一个大的研究项目的成果(参见 Yan et al. 2013Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Yan, Pan and Wang 2015Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)建立了一个文献期刊语料库,并对其进行标记和分析。本研究应用了一系列在以前数据驱动研究中(Yan et al. 2013Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Yan, Pan and Wang 2015Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)被证明有效的研究方法,调查和比较了语料库里的文章的研究主题、方法、作者和地理分布。因此,本文的研究结果将对口笔译培训间的复杂关系有重要意义,并将在很大程度上对口笔译研究各自的定位提供信息。

2.研究方法

2.1数据库

本研究使用的数据库是在两个早期数据库的基础上不断发展、扩充和改良的,它包含了两部分:一是带标注的口译研究期刊(Yan et al. 2013Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar),二是带标注的口笔译培训期刊(Yan, Pan and Wang 2015Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。特别值得一提的是,Yan et al.(2013)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar调查了9个口笔译期刊,并从2000年至2010年间发表的235篇关于口译研究的文献资料中确认了58篇关于口译培训和评估的文章。为反映口笔译培训领域近期的发展,Yan, Pan and Wang(2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar在口译子数据库的基础上(Yan et al. 2013)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar,扩建了数据库以囊括口译和笔译培训。此外,口笔译培训数据库又增加了一个期刊,并把数据拓展到2012年,共收入323篇文章。本研究的数据库在Yan, Pan and Wang(2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar建立的数据库基础之上又有了新的发展——把数据收集扩展到了2013年,其主要目的是分别评论和比较口笔译培训研究方面的特点。

与Yan et al.(2013Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)以及Yan, Pan and Wang(2015Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)相似,本研究遵循了若干标准,除了可行性,还有数据资源选择方面的标准,以确保数据文章之间具有可比性。第一,该数据库只收录期刊文献。学术期刊通常包含固定的出版周期,相似的同行评审制度,一致的文章结构和长度,这使得建立一个共享研究主题和方法的分类系统并进行跨主题的比较研究成为可能(比较 Yan et al. 2013Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。此外,在以前的口笔译研究数据库中占比相对较少的口笔译期刊(比较 Pöchhacker 1995Pöchhacker, Franz 1995 “Writings and Research on Interpreting: A Bibliographic Analysis.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 6: 17–31.Google Scholar; Gile 2005 2005 “Citation Patterns in the T&I Didactics Literature.” Forum 3 (2): 85–103. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)正吸引更多的关注,并且也在新世纪成长为发表口笔译研究的主要渠道(比较 Grbić 2007Grbić, Nadja 2007 “Where Do We Come from? What Are We? Where Are We Going? A Bibliometrical Analysis of Writings and Research on Sign Language Interpreting.” Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 1 (1): 15–51. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Grbić and Pöllabauer 2008Grbić, Nadja, and Sonja Pöllabauer 2008 “Counting What Counts: Research on Community Interpreting in German-Speaking Countries: A Scientometric Study.” Target 20 (2): 297–332. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Gao and Chai 2009Gao, Bing, and Ming Jiong Chai 2009 “A Bibliometric Analysis of New Developments in Simultaneous Interpreting Studies in the West.” Chinese Translators Journal 2: 17–21.Google Scholar; Shlesinger 2009 2009 “Crossing the Divide: What Researchers and Practitioners Can Learn from One Another.” Translation & Interpreting 1 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar)。第二,该数据库仅包含被国际学术界认可的同行评审期刊。很多很好的口笔译期刊值得好好研究;不过,至少在现阶段,只能对有限的期刊进行详细标注和分析。因此,作者将最早的国际上认可的,在社会学、艺术以及人文方面的学术期刊引文索引纳入考量,即社会科学引文索引(SSCI)、艺术人文引文索引(A&HCI)。这样做的原因是由于在研究期间,缺少在口笔译研究领域内被国际上广为认可的引文索引(又参见 Grbić 2013 2013 “Bibliometrics.” In Gambier and van Doorslaer 2013, 20–24. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。在筛选掉一些极少或没有相关研究主题的期刊后,共有九个期刊保留在当前数据库中。除了这九个拥有社会科学引文索引和艺术人文引文索引的期刊外,The Interpreters’ Newsletter也被纳入数据库来源中,因为其在口译研究中的重要性——它是“第一本致力于口译的期刊”(Gile 2009 2009 “Interpreting Studies: A Critical View from within.” MonTI 1: 135–155. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 139)并且是口译研究中主要的引用来源(Pöchhacker 1995Pöchhacker, Franz 1995 “Writings and Research on Interpreting: A Bibliographic Analysis.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 6: 17–31.Google Scholar; Gile 2000 2000 “The History of Research into Conference Interpreting: A Scientometric Approach.” Target 12 (2): 297–321. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Yan et al. 2013Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。此外,如图 1所示,这九个常被引用的期刊大多是以笔译研究为主的,其中两个仅包含关于笔译培训的文章。因此,希望收录这本口译专业期刊可以有助于缩小笔译培训和口译培训文章数量上的差距以利于接下来的主题比较。第三,该数据库仅包含英文文献,正如文章标题指出的一样。当然,研究其他语言的文献数据也非常重要。不过,采用单一语言的数据库更为适合,这样可以确保不同文章间具备可比性。在该数据库中的文章除了下面两个例外,均以英语出版:1)Meta:Translators’ Journal,该刊发表法语和英语文章;2)The Interpreters’ Newsletter,该刊发表英语和意大利语文章。在这两个期刊中,只有英语文章计入本研究数据库。本文作者明白,这样的筛选流程可能会在一定程度上牺牲数据库的代表性,并有可能会限制所获得的结论的普遍性。尽管如此,正如Grbić(2013 2013 “Bibliometrics.” In Gambier and van Doorslaer 2013, 20–24. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 21)所说,“没有数据库可以涵盖所有学术成果,考虑到这一点非常重要。”

基于上述数据库资源筛选标准,本文作者希望借该研究至少可以简要反映近年来口笔译培训研究方面的特点(比较 Yan et al. 2013Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Yan, Pan and Wang 2015Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。

数据库的所有文章都是通过阅读全文进行人工筛选以便囊括所有包含或涉及口笔译培训的文章22.为进行该研究,在筛选过程中对含有以下文字的文章给予了特别关注:培训、培训者、教学、教师、教学法、教学法的、教授法、说教的、教育、学生、受训者、学习者以及学习。上述词语在描述口笔译培训研究方面可能并不全面或者不具有决定性,所以在现阶段仍要倚重研究者的专业知识与判断。。这些文章随后以参考文献的格式列成清单,并录进Microsoft Office Access 2010。 数据库包含文章ID、作者、隶属机构、国家、出版年份、文章名称、期刊名称、卷号、期号、关键词以及摘要等信息(参见 Yan et al. 2013Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Yan, Pan and Wang 2015Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。这些文章也会根据所涉及的活动类型被加上“笔译培训”、“口译培训”以及“口译/笔译培训”(同时涉及口笔译培训)等标签。由此,除了诸如作者和出版年份等参考文献信息,这些文章还可以很容易地按照标签分组和分类。

表 1列举该数据库的来源和构成。根据该表信息,该数据库中共有350篇文章,其中213篇(约占61%)重点关注笔译培训(这里统一称为笔译培训子数据库),97篇(约占28%)重点关注口译培训(这里统一称为口译培训子数据库)。此外,40篇(约占11%)并未对两者进行区分或把笔译和口译培训视为一个结合体(这里统一称为口笔译培训子数据库)。

表  1.数据库来源及构成
期刊名称 范围 数据库中文章数* 笔译培训文章数 口译培训文章数 口笔译培训文章数
Across Languages and Cultures 2000–13 (2 each year)  27  19  5  3
Babel: International Journal of Translation 2000–13 (issue 3**) (4 each year)  38  28  6  4
Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 2000–13 (2 each year)  21   0 18  3
Meta: Translators’ Journal 2000–13 (issue 3**) (4 each year)  95  68 19  8
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 2000–13 (4 each year)  37  30  4  3
Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 2000–13 (2 each year before 2012, 3 in 2013)  12  12  0  0
The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 2007–13 (2 each year)  80  46 19 15
The Interpreters’ Newsletter 2000–13 (less than 1 each year, published in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013)  27   0 24  3
The Translator 2000–13 (2 each year)   5   5  0  0
Translation and Interpreting Studies 2006–13 (2 each year)   8   5  2  1
合计 350 213 97 40
*为了数据库的一致性,书评、访谈或者参考文献被排除在外。
**在本研究进行期间,这两个期刊只出版了三期。

2.2数据分析

通过对口笔译研究或口笔译培训的文献研究发现,很多以往的研究将培训视为另外一个单一层面的研究对象,而不像口笔译研究下的其他主题那样(如 Pöchhacker 1995Pöchhacker, Franz 1995 “Writings and Research on Interpreting: A Bibliographic Analysis.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 6: 17–31.Google Scholar; Gile 2000 2000 “The History of Research into Conference Interpreting: A Scientometric Approach.” Target 12 (2): 297–321. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Baker and Saldanha 2009Baker, Mona, and Gabriela Saldanha eds. 2009Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar; Gao and Chai 2009Gao, Bing, and Ming Jiong Chai 2009 “A Bibliometric Analysis of New Developments in Simultaneous Interpreting Studies in the West.” Chinese Translators Journal 2: 17–21.Google Scholar; Shlesinger 2009 2009 “Crossing the Divide: What Researchers and Practitioners Can Learn from One Another.” Translation & Interpreting 1 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar; Gambier and van Doorslaer 2012 eds. 2012Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 2013 eds. 2013Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Toury 2012Toury, Gideon 2012Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar),或者通过单一层面的零星关键词系统来描述培训子主题,这有时不易于比较或整合(见附录 1)。Yan et al.(2013)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar虽然提供了一个相似的关于口译研究及口译培训子主题的由数据驱动的多层面系统,但由于没有验证,所以不能直接用来描述笔译培训研究。Yan, Pan and Wang(2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle ScholarYan et al.(2013)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar的数据驱动的主题分析方法的基础上,提出了能够应用于一般口笔译培训研究的多层分类方案,不过考虑到数据库的扩大和不同的研究侧重,尚不清楚是要增加还是要修改新主题以适用于当前的研究。

Yan et al.(2013)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle ScholarYan, Pan and Wang(2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar的研究相似,本文的作者应用了一个来自于主题分析(Braun and Clarke 2006Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke 2006 “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)和内容分析(Elo and Kyngäs 2008Elo, Satu, and Helvi Kyngäs 2008 “The Qualitative Content Analysis Process.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 62 (1): 107–115. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)的方法来找出新增加文章在主题和方法上的特点,并且查看是否有必要对Yan, Pan and Wang(2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar提出的分类方案作出调整。在这个过程中,本文作者按照自上而下和自下而上相结合的程序,通过通读全文以及与Yan, Pan and Wang(2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar提出的主题进行对比来分析和标注每篇文章。这些数据库中文章的主题对应由人工方法和语料库分析工具WordSmith 5.0(Scott 2008Scott, Mike 2008WordSmith Tools Version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar)共同完成。该研究也招募了多位程序员并采用多种方法来确保内部编码的一致性,以减少在数据分析过程中可能发生的主观性(Saldana 2009Saldana, Johnny 2009The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar)。

根据Braun和Clark(2006)Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke 2006 “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar的研究,主题分析包括6个阶段:(1)熟悉数据;(2)产生初始码;(3)搜索主题;(4)检验主题;(5)定义与命名主题;以及(6)撰写报告。同样地,内容分析包括3个阶段:准备、组织和汇报(Elo and Kyngäs 2008Elo, Satu, and Helvi Kyngäs 2008 “The Qualitative Content Analysis Process.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 62 (1): 107–115. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。需要特别指出的是,内容分析包含归纳法(对于无现成框架的数据编码,按照开放编码、创建分类和抽象提取的步骤进行,比照本研究中自下而上的过程)和演绎法(根据现有的框架编码并检测数据,在研究中比照自上而下的过程)(Elo and Kyngäs 2008Elo, Satu, and Helvi Kyngäs 2008 “The Qualitative Content Analysis Process.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 62 (1): 107–115. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。

在自上而下的过程中,首先对以往口笔译研究中的主题分类测评进行复查以建立一个主要体系,随后通过自下而上的编码过程进行测验、调试和充实。一系列口笔译培训通用的可能的分类处于金字塔顶端,其中包括“A. 教学”,“B. 学习”和“C. 评估”;见Washbourne(2013Washbourne, Kelly 2013 “Teaching and Learning of Translation.” In Chapelle 2013, 5622–5628.Google Scholar)的Teaching and Learning of TranslationWilson(2013Wilson, Christine W. L. 2013 “Teaching and Learning of Interpreting.” In Chapelle 2013, 5612–5618.Google Scholar)的Teaching and Learning of Interpreting,Kelly and Way 提出的“教什么”,“怎么教”和“学生怎样学”三个趋势(2007Kelly, Dorothy, and Catherine Way 2007 “Editorial: On the Launch of ITT.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1 (1): 1–13. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 2; italics in the original),Vandepitte 提出的术语“翻译评估”(2008Vandepitte, Sonia 2008 “Remapping Translation Studies: Towards a Translation Studies Ontology.” Meta 53 (3): 569–588. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 585),Pöchhacker(2004) 2004 “I in TS: On Partnership in Translation Studies.” In Schäffner 2004b, 104–115.Google Scholar提出的在“教学法”下的子研究主题“评估”,以及H. Liu and Mu(2013)Liu, Hongwei, and Lei Mu 2013 “The Status Quo of and Reflections on the Research Methods of Translation Teaching in China. A Scientometric Analysis of Articles on Core Foreign Language Journals from 2002–2011.” Foreign Language Education 34 (2): 105–109.Google Scholar提出的笔译培训研究的子研究主题“测试和评估”。 这三个顶级类别是Yan et al.(2013)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar提出的“口译培训及评估研究”类别下的子类,并在Yan, Pan and Wang(2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar的研究中成为主要分类。在Yan, Pan and Wang(2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar研究上发展而来的子分类,借鉴了一些标签如“课程设计”、“实施”、“典型问题领域”(Williams and Chesterman 2002Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman 2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar);“能力”(van Doorslaer 2009Van Doorslaer, Luc 2009 “Risking Conceptual Maps: Mapping as a Keywords-Related Tool Underlying the Online Translation Studies Bibliography.” In Gambier and van Doorslaer 2009, 27–43.Google Scholar); “教学模式和方法”,“翻译能力和译者能力”,以及“学科建设和人才培养”(H. Liu and Mu 2013Liu, Hongwei, and Lei Mu 2013 “The Status Quo of and Reflections on the Research Methods of Translation Teaching in China. A Scientometric Analysis of Articles on Core Foreign Language Journals from 2002–2011.” Foreign Language Education 34 (2): 105–109.Google Scholar);在数据库的二级和三级分类与命名过程中都考虑了这些子分类(见附录 1)。

自上而下的过程指出研究从何开始,并提供了一个调查数据的起点和直觉框架。自下而上的过程则按照归纳式的内容分析法(Elo and Kyngäs 2008Elo, Satu, and Helvi Kyngäs 2008 “The Qualitative Content Analysis Process.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 62 (1): 107–115. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)以及主题编码(Saldana 2009Saldana, Johnny 2009The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar, 3)的步骤进行。在这个过程中,一组程序员(至少有三名成员)各自独立阅读每篇文章的全文,并在文章旁边的栏目里为每篇文章贴一个最能概括其主要内容的“描述性编码”(Saldana 2009Saldana, Johnny 2009The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar, 3)。当有不同意见时,分别标记的编码会在之后进行比较和讨论。比如,在阅读“Personality Characteristics of Interpreter Trainees: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)”(Schweda Nicholson 2005Schweda Nicholson, Nancy 2005 “Personality Characteristics of Interpreter Trainees: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 13: 109–142.Google Scholar)这篇文章后,两名程序员给出了相同的关键词“个性”,而第三名程序员给出了关键词“学习者档案”。程序员们随后互相讨论并一致认可“个性”在底层是一个更好的选择。

初始编码结束后,程序员聚在一起讨论各个编码,并且将它们在更高一级中分组。每组编码会取一个类别名称以描述他们共有的主要特点(比较 “grouping” in Elo and Kyngäs 2008Elo, Satu, and Helvi Kyngäs 2008 “The Qualitative Content Analysis Process.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 62 (1): 107–115. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 110; “categorizing” in Saldana 2009Saldana, Johnny 2009The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar, 11)。图 1展示分类过程中的一个例子。

图 1.自下而上分类过程法举例
图 1.

这些最终的编码、分类和主题随后会被检验并通过“再编码”和“再分类”的方法得到进一步提炼(Saldana 2009Saldana, Johnny 2009The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar,10)。这个过程证实了Yan, Pan and Wang(2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar提出的三层分类方案足以覆盖所有按照自下而上过程产生的子分类和编码(见附录 3分类方案及结果)33.最初,在“评估”类别下,除了“课堂评估”外,还有 “职业认可与认证” 这个二级分类(共有8篇文章:4篇关于笔译培训和4篇关于口译培训)。根据Holmes(【1972】1988Holmes, James S. (1972) 1988 “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” In Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, ed. by Raymond van den Broeck, 67–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar,77)的笔译研究图式,看起来与这种研究类型最为接近的类别是“笔译培训”(包括测试技巧)。Williams和Chesterman(2002Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman 2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar, 26)把“职业范围”(针对认可与认证)作为“笔译培训”下的一个子分类,但是它看起来与另一个叫做“笔译职业”(27)的分类共享一些灰色区域。虽然Yan et al.(2013)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle ScholarYan, Pan and Wang(2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar将“职业认可与认证”放在“(培训与)评估”类别下,本研究排除了该子分类以便更集中地讨论在培训环境下与评估相关的内容。

对该数据库文章的研究方法的分析和对研究主题的分类过程相似(见附录 3)。把研究方法的分类方案应用到以前的研究中(见附录 2),从底层标注每篇文章的同时,把一个三层分类方案运用到本研究中。因为“实证”和“非实证”研究之间的差别并非总是很明确(参见 Williams and Chesterman 2002Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman 2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar),在本研究中,一系列的研究方法被认为处于“实证”和“非实证”之间(见表 2; 并参考 Seliger and Shohamy 1997Seliger, Herbert W., and Elana Shohamy 1997Second Language Research Methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar中使用的参数,同时参见 Yan et al. 2013Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 14)。

表 2.数据库研究方法列表
表 2.

在该方案中,实证研究分为实验式和观察式研究(又见 Gile 1998 1998 “Observational Studies and Experimental Studies in the Investigation of Conference Interpreting.” Target 10 (1): 69–93. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Williams and Chesterman 2002Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman 2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar)。非经验研究分为说明式和理论式研究(见 Gile 1998 1998 “Observational Studies and Experimental Studies in the Investigation of Conference Interpreting.” Target 10 (1): 69–93. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar 的“推理研究”和 Williams and Chesterman 2002Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman 2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar 的“概念研究”)。观察式和说明式研究的主要区别是前者“从对数据的观察中寻找新数据、新信息” (Williams and Chesterman 2002Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman 2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar, 58),因此属于“一手调研”(Rugg and Petre 2007Rugg, Gordon, and Marian Petre 2007A Gentle Guide to Research Methods. New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar, 31),而后者“纯粹基于现有的信息”(Goddard and Melville 2001Goddard, Wayne, and Stuart Melville 2001Research Methodology: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Lansdowne: Juta Academic.Google Scholar, 10),是典型的“二手调研”(Rugg and Petre 2007Rugg, Gordon, and Marian Petre 2007A Gentle Guide to Research Methods. New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar, 32),其受综合和启发式观点的引导多于受分析和推演的指导。一份关于学生学习需求的调查(如 Li 2002Li, Defeng 2002 “Translator Training: What Translation Students Have to Say.” Meta 47 (4): 513–531. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)会被归为观察式研究,因为该调查提供了新的数据,不过一篇关于对口译能力研究的评论(如 Russo 2011Russo, Mariachiara 2011 “Aptitude Testing over the Years.” Interpreting 13 (1): 5–30. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)或者会议报告(如 Pym 2000 2000 “Innovation in Translator and Interpreter Training: Report on an On-Line Symposium.” Across Languages and Cultures 1 (2): 209–273. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)会归为说明式研究,因为它是基于二手数据和旧信息。此外,在自下而上的过程中被定义的观察式研究包括所有与“调查在真实生活场景中发生的现象或过程”(Williams and Chesterman 2002Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman 2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar, 62)而非“有意干扰事物的自然顺序”(Williams and Chesterman 2002Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman 2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar, 63)研究相关的案例研究、语料库研究、调查研究、相关性研究和行动研究等子分类(见附录 3)。

该研究采取了整体计算法,把在数据库中产生了文章的作者、机构和国家都记算在内(参见 Grbić 2007Grbić, Nadja 2007 “Where Do We Come from? What Are We? Where Are We Going? A Bibliometrical Analysis of Writings and Research on Sign Language Interpreting.” Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 1 (1): 15–51. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Yan et al. 2013Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Yan, Pan and Wang 2015Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。如果一篇文章由两位或多位作者撰写,每个作者的名字计算一次。机构也按照这样的方式计算。不过,如果合著者来自相同的机构,该机构只计算一次。这样做的目的是为了承认每篇文章的所有作者和机构所付出的努力(参见 Yan et al. 2013Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。然后,用基于语料库的统计数据来计算出数据库中文章的作者、机构以及国家出现的频次。

3.结论

3.1笔译培训与口译培训:概述

自2000年以来,一些基础算法就被用来计算口笔译培训研究的统计进展。图 2显示出在2010至2013年间每年出版的文章数量。可以看到一个整体的量化的增长,特别是对于口译培训方面的研究。2005年与笔译培训相关的文章数量猛增,带动口笔译培训相关文章数量达到峰值,不过在2011年增长的第二个高峰后略微回落。此外,口译培训文章的数量总是多于口译培训文章的数量,但是两者差距看起来在变小,特别是在2013年。

3.2笔译培训vs. 口译培训:研究主题

为比较笔译培训和口译培训的研究主题,在每个主题分类下的文章数量均被计算在内(见附录 3)。表 3展示了在第一层分类下的每个子类别的笔译培训、口译培训以及口笔译培训文章数量。结果表明,在每个子数据库中,最大的主题分类保持一致,即“A. 教学”,然后是“B. 学习”和“C. 评估”。虽然笔译培训和口笔译培训均显示出在“A. 教学”和其他两个主题类别上存在很大的数量差距,但三个主题类别的数量区别在口译培训中看起来小得多。

图 2.数据库中按照年份和分类划分的文章数量
图 2.
表 3.在数据库中按照主题进行分类的文章数量(第一层分类)
第一层分类 笔译培训 口译培训 口笔译培训
A. 教学 175 54 33
B. 学习  26 32  4
C. 评估  12 11  3
合计 213 97 40

3.2.1笔译培训 vs. 口译培训:教学

下面分析在“A. 教学”下的子类。表 4展示在“A. 教学”这一类别下第二及第三层中的每个子类的文章数量。

表 4.在数据库中“A. 教学”这一类别下按主题分的文章数量
第二层分类 笔译培训 口译培训 口笔译培训 第三层分类 笔译培训 口译培训 口笔译培训
a. 培训理念  75 28 15 (a) 理论关注/框架 36  9 9
(b) 学科类型  9  5 2
(c) 培训元素 30 14 4
b. 培训方法和模式  30  9  7 (a) 机构培训模式 10  3 7
(b) 课堂培训方法 20  6 0
c. 能力发展  26  3  2 (a) 总体  3  0 1
(b) 笔译员/ 口译员  3  2 0
(c) 笔译/ 口译能力 20  1 1
d. 需求分析   8  1  3
e. 科技与培训  24 10  0
f. 研究技巧培训   5  3  5
g. 翻译 & 语言教学   7  0  1
合计 175 54 33

在第二层分类中,共有175篇文章是关于笔译培训的,文章数量最多的为“a. 培训理念”(n = 75),而第二和第三大的子类型为“b. 培训方法与模式”(n = 30)以及“c. 能力发展”(n = 26)。在口译培训子数据库中,最大的子分类也是“a. 培训理念”(n = 28),但是第二和第三大的子类型是“e. 科技与培训”(n = 10)和“b. 培训方法与模式”(n = 9)。然而,子类型“g. 翻译与语言教学”包含7篇笔译培训文章,无口译培训文章属于该类型。在口笔译培训子数据库中,最大的子分类也是一样,即“a. 培训理念”(n = 15), 但第二和第三大的子分类是“b. 培训方法与模式”(n = 7)和“f. 研究技巧培训”(n = 5)。

在第三层分类上,在“a. 培训理念”这一类中,笔译培训和口笔译培训的最大子类是一样的,即“(a) 理论问题/框架”(分别为36和9),而口译培训的最大子类是“(c) 培训元素”(n = 14)。但在子类“b. 培训方法和模式”中,口译培训和笔译培训都更倾向于“(b) 课堂培训方法”而非“(a) 机构培训模式”,口笔译培训子数据库只包含“(a) 机构培训模式”的文章。此外,值得关注的是与在子分类“c. 能力发展”中“(b) 笔译员能力”(n = 3)相比,有相当数量的文章是关于“(c) 翻译能力”(n = 20)。在该子类下,有关口译培训或者口笔译培训的文章数量看起来太小而不能呈现出任何模式(分别为3和2)。

3.2.2笔译培训 vs. 口译培训:学习

这一节汇报在“B. 学习”这一类型下发现的笔译培训和口译培训的区别。表 5列举了显著的差异:笔译培训更重视“a. 学习者表现”,而口译培训更多地关注“b. 学习者因素”。口笔译培训看起来在两个子分类中的分配更均衡,不过,关于“B. 学习”的文章数量非常少(n = 4)。

在第三层,在子类“a. 学习者表现”中,笔译培训更倾向于子类“(b) 错误/困难”(16篇中有10篇)而口译培训则更倾向于“(c) 专业技能发展”(8篇中有5篇)。 在子类“b. 学习者因素”中,笔译培训倾向于突出“(e) 战略”方面的研究(10篇中的8篇),而口译培训倾向于 “(a) 总体/多因素”方面的研究(24篇中的10篇, 相比之下,笔译培训方面为零)。

表 5.在数据库中“B. 学习”这一类别下按主题分的文章数量
第二层分类 笔译培训 口译培训 口笔译培训 第三层分类 笔译培训 口译培训 口笔译培训
a. 学习者表现 16  8 2 (a) 特点  1  1 1
(b) 错误/困难 10  2 0
(c) 专业技能发展  5  5 1
b. 学习者因素 10 24 2 (a) 总体/多因素  0 10 1
(b) 个性  1  2 0
(c) 焦虑和压力  1  4 0
(d) 学习风格  0  0 1
(e) 策略  8  8 0
合计 26 32 4

3.2.3笔译培训 vs. 口译培训:评估

在“C. 评估”(见表 6)分类中,两个子类的文章数量并无明显差异,即“(a) 理论框架”和“(b) 模式和方法”。笔译培训关注“(b) 模式和方法”稍微多一点, 而口译培训则更多地关注“(a) 理论框架”。

表 6.在数据库中“C. 评估”这一类别下按主题分的文章数量
第二层分类 笔译培训 口译培训 口笔译培训
a. 理论框架  5  6 2
b. 模式和方法  7  5 1
合计 12 11 3

3.2.4笔译培训 vs. 口译培训:标题分析

图 3显示,通过摘出与“笔译”(也包括“笔译员”和“笔译”)和“口译”(也包括“口译员”和“口译”)相关的“离群”关键字,就能获得笔译培训和口译培训的子数据库中的高频实词。这两个子数据库共享一些高频词汇,如“培训”、“学习”、“学生”。值得关注的是, 相比口译培训,“教学”和“方法”看起来在笔译培训中占有更主要的地位。这里也列举一些在笔译培训而非口译培训中最为常用的高频词汇,如“英语”(F = 21),“能力”(F = 14),“教育”(F = 14),“过程”(F = 13),“语料库”(F = 11),“专业”(F = 11)和“文本”(F = 11)。相反地,一些在口译培训中的高频词汇表中的主要词汇包括“同时的”(F = 17),“交替的”(F = 9),“学习”(F = 9),“学能”(F = 8)以及“表现”(F = 7),“受训者(们)”(F = 7)以及“策略”(F = 6)等词汇。

图 3.笔译培训和口译培训子数据库中标题分析里的高频实词
图 3.

3.3笔译培训 vs. 口译培训: 研究方法

为调查关于口笔译培训的研究是如何进行的,本研究查看应用于每个子数据库的研究方法。表 7给出了在第一层分类中涉及的研究方法。如图所示,笔译培训和口译培训子数据库的实证研究均多于非实证研究。然而,在口笔译培训子数据库中,以非实证研究为主。

Table 7.在数据库中按照研究方法划分的文章数量(第一层分类)
第一层分类 笔译培训 口译培训 口笔译培训
A. 实证研究 116 59 15
B. 非实证研究  97 38 25
合计 213 97 40

表 8展示了在“A. 实证”子类下更详细的信息。这里存在着相似的规律,即相比实验式研究,大部分为观察式研究。在“a. 观察”子分类下,相比其他观察方法,案例分析是更为显著的研究方法,尽管它在笔译培训比在口译培训中更加突出。

Table 8.在数据库中“A. 实证”这一类别下按研究方法分的文章数量
第二层分类 笔译培训 口译培训 口笔译培训 第三层分类 笔译培训 口译培训 口笔译培训
a. 观察式  68 36 11 (a) 案例分析 39 13 4
(b) 语料库研究  4  2 0
(c) 调查研究 12 12 6
(d) 相关性研究  5  9 1
(e) 行动研究  8  0 0
b. 实验式  48 23  4
合计 116 59 15

在“B. 非实证”分类下也进行了相似的关于研究方法的等级排序:在笔译培训、口译培训和口笔译培训三个子数据库中,说明式研究都多于理论研究,尽管这两种非实证研究数量上的差距在口译培训上看起来比其他两个子数据库要小很多(见表 9)。

Table 9.在数据库中“B. 非实证”这一类别下按研究方法分的文章数量
第二层分类 笔译培训 口译培训 口笔译培训
a. 说明式 76 27 21
b. 理论式 21 11  4
合计 97 38 25

3.4笔译培训 vs. 口译培训:活跃的作者、机构和国家/地区

整个数据库中有386位作者撰写的350篇文章。具体来讲,共有239位作者撰写了在笔译培训子数据库中的所有文章,108位作者撰写了在口译培训子目录中的所有文章。表 10列举了在两个子数据库中最活跃的作者,分别包含了全部作者的23%和36%。如表所示,在笔译培训子数据库中最活跃的作者的产出率为10,而口译培训作者的最高重现率仅为3。此外,笔译培训和口译培训的最活跃作者清单中并没有相同的作者,尽管除了57位作者在口笔译培训子数据库中有发表,还有另外6位作者在笔译培训和口译培训子数据库中同时发表了文章。

表 10.在笔译培训和口译培训子数据库中最活跃的作者清单
作者(笔译培训)* 频率 作者(口译培训)* 频率
Defeng Li 10 Yung-nan Chiang 3
Bryan J. Robinson  5 Leong Ko 3
Tomás Conde-Ruano  4 Jemina Napier 3
Brenda Malkiel  4 Jun Pan 3
Omar F. Atari  3 Franz Pöchhacker 3
María Rosa Castro-Prieto  3 Sherry Shaw 3
Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow  3 Jackie Xiu Yan 3
Anabel Galán-Mañas  3 Michaela Albl-Mikasa 2
María González Davies  3 Agnieszka Chmiel 2
Amparo Hurtado Albir  3 Andrew Clifford 2
Mira Kim  3 Jesús De Manuel Jerez 2
Don Kiraly  3 Clare Donovan 2
Ricardo Muñoz-Martin  3 Amparo Jiménez Ivars 2
Eva Muñoz-Raya  3 Sylvia Kalina 2
Miguel Murillo-Melero  3 Jieun Lee 2
María Dolores Olvera-Lobo  3 Peter Mead 2
Anthony Pym  3 Barbara Moser-Mercer 2
Enrique Quero-Gervilla  3 Mariachiara Russo 2
Christopher Scott-Tennent  3 Heidi Salaets 2
Yong Zhong  3 Robin Setton 2
Miriam Shlesinger 2
Sárka Timarová 2
*有相同数量产出的作者按照姓氏字母顺序排列

有趣的是,在笔译培训子数据库中排名最高的作者(即香港中文大学的李德凤Defeng Li)的10篇文章中,9篇文章属于“A. 教学”类别(特别是其中的5篇属于“A. 教学”类别下的“d. 需求分析”)。在口译培训子数据库中,一位作者(Yung-nan Chiang)来自国立台湾大学,两位作者(Jackie Xiu Yan and Jun Pan)来自香港城市大学。这三位作者与Sherry Shaw(美国阿肯色大学小石城分校)的主要贡献在“B. 学习”分类,特别是“b. 学习者因素”。

共有215个机构为整个数据库贡献文章。具体地说,154个机构为笔译培训子数据库贡献文章,74个机构为口译培训子数据库贡献文章。表 11列出了在笔译培训和口译培训中最多产的机构,各自占到机构清单的31%和35%。在笔译培训中,巴塞罗那自治大学是最多产的机构;在口译培训中,博洛尼亚大学是最多产的。两者都设立有专门的笔译和口译部门。巴塞罗那自治大学是PACTE研究小组所在地,该研究小组主要进行关于翻译能力方面的实证研究以及新技术的使用(PACTE 2005PACTE 2005 “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.” Meta 50 (2): 609–619. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 2009 2009 “Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Model: Acceptability and Decision Making.” Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 207–230. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。大学在笔译培训方面的科研成果(14篇中有9篇)大多是由PACTE小组成员贡献的,并且集中在“A. 教学”(n = 13),特别是能力发展(n = 5)和技术及培训(n = 3)这几个方面。博洛尼亚大学特别提出“欧洲的博洛尼亚进程”,旨在提升高等教育标准的国家内部可比性(Rico 2010Rico, Celia 2010 “Translator Training in the European Higher Education Area: Curriculum Design for the Bologna Process. A Case Study.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 4 (1): 89–114. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。6篇文章中有4篇在“A. 教学”主题分类,并且3篇文章发表在意大利杂志The Interpreters’ Newsletter上。

Table 11.在笔译培训和口译培训子数据库中最活跃的机构清单
作者(笔译培训)* 频率 作者(口译培训)* 频率
Autonomous University of Barcelona 14 University of Bologna 6
The Chinese University of Hong Kong  9 Macquarie University 5
University of Granada  9 University of Geneva 5
Jaume I University  9 City University of Hong Kong 4
Macquarie University  5 University of Granada 4
Rovira i Virgili University  5 University of Trieste 4
University of Ljubljana  5 University of Vienna 4
City University of Hong Kong  4 Lessius University College 3
Copenhagen Business School  4 National Taipei University of Technology 3
University of New South Wales  4 The University of Queensland 3
University of Sharjah  4
Zurich University of Applied Sciences  4
*有相同数量产出的机构按照字母顺序排列

在这两个清单中有一些机构重复出现,比如麦考瑞大学、香港城市大学和格拉纳达大学,他们在笔译培训和口译培训中都很活跃,尽管排名略有不同。

整个数据库中共出现了50个国家/地区。其中,有45个出现在笔译培训子数据库,26个出现在口译培训子数据库中。表 12比较了在两个子数据库中最多产的国家/地区,分别占国家/地区子语料库的68%和75%。西班牙是在笔译培训方面最多产的国家,而大中华区(包括中国大陆、香港、澳门和台湾)在该子数据库中排名第二。在口译培训子数据库中,大中华区是排名第一,之后是意大利、西班牙、澳大利亚和美国。主要产出国家/地区,即大中华区(笔译和口译培训),西班牙(笔译培训)和意大利(口译培训),与他们在前面两个最多产作者和机构表中的表现相关。国家/地区如西班牙、大中华区、英国、澳大利亚、美国和瑞士在笔译培训和口译培训子数据库中表现都很活跃。

表 12.在笔译培训和口译培训子数据库中最活跃的国家/地区清单
国家/地区 (笔译培训)* 频率 国家/地区 (口译培训)* 频率
西班牙 49 大中华区 16
大中华区 24 意大利 11
英国 20 西班牙 11
澳大利亚 14 澳大利亚 10
加拿大 10 美国 10
丹麦 10 奥地利  7
德国 10 瑞士  7
美国  9 韩国  5
瑞士  7 英国  5
阿联酋  6
*有相同数量产出的国家按照字母顺序排列

4.讨论和总结

本研究通过由10份口笔译学术期刊中的文章组成的注释数据库,比较了自2000年以来的关于笔译培训和口译培训方面的研究。调查的内容包括研究主题和方法以及文章作者和地理分布。研究揭示了在口笔译培训中定量和定性的差异,虽然两者间会有某些“相通之处”(比较 Shlesinger 2001Shlesinger, Miriam 2001 “Shared Ground in Interpreting Studies Too.” Target 13 (1): 165–168. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。本研究中发现的关于口笔译培训间复杂的关系在很多方面反映了对笔译研究和口译研究之间的关系的讨论。以下章节讨论研究中发现的共性和差异。

4.1笔译培训 vs. 口译培训:概述

基于数据库的发现显示,笔译培训的文章在数量上多于口译培训的文章,部分原因是由于笔译研究及笔译培训比口译研究及口译培训的历史更长(Pöchhacker and Shlesinger 2002Pöchhacker, Franz, and Miriam Shlesinger 2002 “Introduction.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 1–12. London: Routledge.Google Scholar; Pym 2002 2002 “Translator Training: A Global Overview” [English version of Pym 1998]. http://​usuaris​.tinet​.cat​/apym​/on​-line​/training​/stauffenberg​.pdf; Schäffner 2004aSchäffner, Christina 2004a “Researching Translation and Interpreting.” In Schäffner 2004b, 1–9.Google Scholar)。这个数量上的差异可能可以解释这样一个事实:本研究中关于口译培训的结果——相较于Yan et al.(2013)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar的口译培训的结果,与Yan, Pan and Wang(2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar的口笔译培训研究的总体情况看上去更接近。研究结果也表明关于口译培训的研究数量上的增长要比笔译培训的更稳定,这反映出世界范围内特别是自2000以来口译培训项目及相关研究的稳定发展(Gile 2009 2009 “Interpreting Studies: A Critical View from within.” MonTI 1: 135–155. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Pöchhacker 2010 2010 “Why Interpreting Studies Matters.” In Why Translation Studies Matters, ed. by Daniel Gile, Gyde Hansen, and Nike K. Pokorn, 3–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Yan et al. 2013Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。

数据库中少量且波动起伏的关于口笔译培训方面文章反映了自口译研究出现以来就一直让相关学者困惑的笔译研究和口译研究之间不断纠缠的复杂关系(Gile 1995Gile, Daniel 1995 “Mirror Mirror on the Wall: An Introduction.” Target 7 (1): 1–6. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Shlesinger 2001Shlesinger, Miriam 2001 “Shared Ground in Interpreting Studies Too.” Target 13 (1): 165–168. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Schäffner 2004b ed. 2004bTranslation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar)。尽管如此,数据库中的大部分文章都是单独讨论笔译培训和口译培训,这表明两者之间的分离未来也许在所难免。

4.2笔译培训 vs. 口译培训:研究主题

通过自上而下和自下而上相结合的加注过程,我们发现数据库中的文章,除了少数分类仅适用于笔译培训或口译培训,共享同一多层次主题分类方案。共享主题标签的可能性表明这两个子学科也许拥有的共性比原以为的要多, 至少就研究兴趣而言是如此(比较 Gile 1995Gile, Daniel 1995 “Mirror Mirror on the Wall: An Introduction.” Target 7 (1): 1–6. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Shlesinger 2001Shlesinger, Miriam 2001 “Shared Ground in Interpreting Studies Too.” Target 13 (1): 165–168. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Schäffner 2004b ed. 2004bTranslation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar)。两者还可能拥有很多相通之处,这就是统一口译培训和笔译培训甚至是口译研究和笔译研究的基础(比较 Schäffner 2004b ed. 2004bTranslation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar)。正如Gile(2004) 2004 “Translation Research versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership.” In Schäffner 2004b, 10–34.Google Scholar所说的,“两个领域中的基本问题是相似的”(25)。因此,共享的主题分类方法是该系统的重要组成部分,或者至少是两个子学科共享的“元语言”的起点(比较 Pöchhacker 2004 2004 “I in TS: On Partnership in Translation Studies.” In Schäffner 2004b, 104–115.Google Scholar; Vandepitte 2008Vandepitte, Sonia 2008 “Remapping Translation Studies: Towards a Translation Studies Ontology.” Meta 53 (3): 569–588. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Gambier and van Doorslaer 2009Gambier, Yves, and Luc van Doorslaer eds. 2009The Metalanguage of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。

尽管研究主题相似,口笔译培训研究所关注的重点仍然有别。笔译培训研究相对来说更集中在教学上,而口译培训研究,尽管也以教学为导向,但主要包含了从学习角度进行的研究,这与Yan et al.(2013)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar对口译培训子数据库的研究结果相似。这个结果也证实了与教学相关的口笔译培训文章的盛行(Yan, Pan and Wang 2015Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)多少是由于数据库中增加了笔译研究的文章所致。

在对口译培训和笔译培训的研究中,学者们对教学相关的研究比对学习相关的研究更感兴趣——在口笔译培训这一整体领域的研究中也有类似发现(Yan, Pan and Wang 2015Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar),这也许和对“学生如何学习”( Kelly and Way 2007Kelly, Dorothy, and Catherine Way 2007 “Editorial: On the Launch of ITT.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1 (1): 1–13. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 2; italics in the original)的研究相对年轻有关,以及与以学生为中心的理论和方法近期才介绍到口笔译课堂中有关(如 Kiraly 2000 2000A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education: Empowerment from Theory to Practice. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar)。不过,口译培训研究者在学习方面表现出更大兴趣,这也许与在口译研究中他们对长期痴迷于口译员的认知过程或者“黑匣子”有关。这引发了对某些话题的深入研究,比如才能、专业技能和心理压力,特别是在口译领域(Pöchhacker and Shlesinger 2002Pöchhacker, Franz, and Miriam Shlesinger 2002 “Introduction.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 1–12. London: Routledge.Google Scholar; Kelly and Martin 2009Kelly, Dorothy, and Anne Martin 2009 “Training and Education.” In Baker and Saldanha 2009, 294–300.Google Scholar),包括关于口译员“可训练性”的著名辩论(参见 Mackintosh 1999Mackintosh, Jennifer 1999 “Interpreters Are Made not Born.” Interpreting 4 (1): 67–80. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。因此,考虑到在口译培训领域中天赋测试的流行,我们发现对口译培训评估的文章相对来说比对笔译培训评估的文章多也就不足为奇了(参见 Russo 2011Russo, Mariachiara 2011 “Aptitude Testing over the Years.” Interpreting 13 (1): 5–30. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。

需要特别指出的是,在教学主题相关研究内找到了在笔译培训和口译培训中的一致性和差异。除了相似的总体情况,两个子学科都关注课堂训练方法,并补充以机构训练模式优秀案例展示。然而,笔译培训显示出的某种来自语言教学的影响在口译培训中并未发现。这也许是由于笔译培训和外语教学间长久复杂的关系,因为语法翻译方法是外语教学最早的教学方法之一(Richards and Rodgers 2001Richards, Jack C., and Theodore S. Rodgers 2001Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。不过,这个联系看起来在早期由口译工作者担任训练者的口译培训中是没有的(Gile 2004 2004 “Translation Research versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership.” In Schäffner 2004b, 10–34.Google Scholar)。此外,在培训理念方法上,笔译培训比口译培训更关理论框架或者不同的理论(比较 Gile 2004 2004 “Translation Research versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership.” In Schäffner 2004b, 10–34.Google Scholar; Yan, Pan and Wang 2015Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。不过,如数据库所反映出的口译培训在教什么方面面临更多的困难(培训元素)(比较 Kelly and Martin 2009Kelly, Dorothy, and Anne Martin 2009 “Training and Education.” In Baker and Saldanha 2009, 294–300.Google Scholar)。再者,研究发现在笔译培训中,“A. 教学”分类下能力是第三受欢迎的子类,它在标题分析中是一个主要的高频词汇。对该主题进一步的研究表明,相比笔译员能力,笔译培训更关注笔译能力的发展,这与很多笔译培训早期调查集中在技能和知识(翻译的核心)的培养是一致的(参见 Kiraly 1995Kiraly, Donald 1995Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar)。

在学习主题中,尽管笔译培训和口译培训中研究关注点非常不同,两者间的一致性也在增长。该数据库中的笔译培训更关注学习者表现,特别是学习者在笔译中的错误和困难,这源于早期语法翻译方法非常强调语言的正确形式的影响(Richards and Rodgers 2001Richards, Jack C., and Theodore S. Rodgers 2001Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。不过,笔译培训研究除了对专业技能发展有更多的讨论,还表现出对于不同学习者因素的更广泛的关注,这与在标题分析中“学习”和“受训者”等词更显著有关。尽管本研究中的笔译培训文章在数量上有优势,但是口译子数据库中学习主题的分布与 Yan, Pan and Wang(2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar的口笔译培训总数据库中的更接近,这表明口译研究在与学习相关的主题上有非常大的影响力。

最后,在评估的主题分类中,本研究显示笔译培训比口译研究对课堂评估模式的关注稍多。本研究的结果说明,好的实践和市场问题的展示可能在笔译培训中是更重要的因素。在两个子学科中整体占比不多的评估研究——也反映在口笔译培训总数据库的分布(Yan, Pan and Wang 2015Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar )——证实了相比于在口笔译培训中教学方法的进步,评估尚处于落后状态(Kelly and Martin 2009Kelly, Dorothy, and Anne Martin 2009 “Training and Education.” In Baker and Saldanha 2009, 294–300.Google Scholar)。

4.3笔译培训 vs. 口译培训: 研究方法

Orozco(2004Orozco, Mariana 2004 “The Clue to Common Research in Translation and Interpreting: Methodology.” In Schäffner 2004b, 98–103.Google Scholar, 98)提出了口笔译研究通用的方法论模式:

口笔译研究之间的差别的确会使得仔细思量这两者的共性非常困难,但在我看来,把口译和笔译研究联系得更紧密的线索在于两个领域内的学者都能接受(和使用)的通用研究方法。

目前的研究结果证明,除了通用的方法论模式,口笔译研究应用了很多通用研究方法。当然,一些特定的研究方法在一个领域里要比在另一个领域里使用得更频繁。

在本研究中,口译培训和笔译培训研究所采用的实证设计均多于非实证设计(又见 Yan et al. 2013Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Yan, Pan and Wang 2015Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar),这表明在笔译培训领域可能和笔译研究不同,后者采用更加以人为本的研究方法或者非实证的主流方法(比较 Gile 2004 2004 “Translation Research versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership.” In Schäffner 2004b, 10–34.Google Scholar, 2005 2005 “Citation Patterns in the T&I Didactics Literature.” Forum 3 (2): 85–103. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。这也许部分是由于培训研究的“应用”性质(Toury 2012Toury, Gideon 2012Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 12),更重要的是,关于笔译培训中能力发展和策略的诸多文章,都具有实验性研究的特征(参见 Williams and Chesterman 2002Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman 2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar; Lörscher 2005Lörscher, Wolfgang 2005 “The Translation Process: Methods and Problems of its Investigation.” Meta 50 (2): 597–608. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; PACTE 2005PACTE 2005 “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.” Meta 50 (2): 609–619. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 2009 2009 “Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Model: Acceptability and Decision Making.” Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 207–230. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Toury 2012Toury, Gideon 2012Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Vandepitte 2013 2013 “Research Competences in Translation Studies.” Babel 59 (2): 125–148. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。在观察式研究的子分类中,案例研究方法是笔译培训研究的一个明显特征,这也印证了案例分析是应用于笔译研究的一个常用研究方法(Neubert 2004Neubert, Albrecht 2004 “Case Studies in Translation: The Study of Translation Cases.” Across Languages and Cultures 5 (1): 5–21. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Susam-Sarajeva 2009Susam-Sarajeva, Şebnem 2009 “The Case Study Research Method in Translation Studies.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 3 (1): 37–56. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。

4.4笔译培训 vs. 口译培训:活跃作者、机构和国家/地区

根据本研究,在口译培训和笔译培训中最活跃的作者基本上是两组不同的人,这和Gile(2005) 2005 “Citation Patterns in the T&I Didactics Literature.” Forum 3 (2): 85–103. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar描述的最常被引用的作者的情况类似。该研究也显示只有6位作者既在口译培训上发表文章也在笔译培训上发表,还有些作者发表了总体关于培训的研究。这些发现也许支持Gile的以下论述(2004 2004 “Translation Research versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership.” In Schäffner 2004b, 10–34.Google Scholar, 31):

在这样的情况下,笔译研究和口译研究是天生的搭档,不相互威胁而是相互合作。很多口译研究者(比如Kalina, Pöchhacker, Schjoldager, Shlesinger, Stenzl,这里仅列举一些)发现了在笔译研究中一些有意思的想法和方法并用于口译研究中。如果笔译研究者能够对在口译研究文献中找到的点子和方法持开放态度,他们也许也能在笔译研究上发表更多的论文。

同样,那些在笔译培训中最多产的机构和国家/地区与那些在口译培训中的多产的机构和国家/地区看起来也非常不一样。仅有少数(3)机构的名字同时出现在笔译培训和口译培训最多产的清单中,不过他们的排名有差别。尽管在笔译培训和口译培训研究上最多产的国家/地区的清单上有更多重复的名字,但是国家/地区的排名不同,表明了特定地区的研究优势(比较 Gile 2005 2005 “Citation Patterns in the T&I Didactics Literature.” Forum 3 (2): 85–103. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。

尽管如此,本研究的发现仅说明了在口笔译培训研究上活跃的作者、机构和国家/地区之间的差异,而没有考虑他们影响力的差异。而后者可能是对该子命题进行深入研究的未来发展方向。

4.5手语翻译培训

口头语言翻译和手语翻译的差异显著,而当前的研究并没有将两者分开,其中有很多原因。第一,这是由两种类型的口译在实践、培训和研究方面日益一体化所致。Napier(2015Napier, Jemina 2015 “Comparing Signed and Spoken Language Interpreting.” In The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson and Renée Jourdenais, 129–143. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar, 129)总结了两者之间的关系:

越来越多的人认识到手语应该被纳入到有关口译实践的所有语言中去……这样的转变通过在口译教育、口译研究以及探讨各种类型的口译实践中口语和手语翻译问题的出版物的数量进一步证实。

第二,打破手语翻译和口语翻译之间的壁垒在如本文一样的评论研究中可能更加实用,因为前者刚刚“从最初几乎没有学术背景的、以社区为基础的口译产业中走出来,发展成为培训标准越来越高的产业”。

事实上,本文的数据库(共有350篇文章)包含8个专门探讨手语翻译培训的文章,其中没有一篇有新的研究主题或者方法。此外,8篇文章中有一半讨论了手语和口语翻译的参与者或者培训方案;另一半,尽管只涉及手语翻译的参与者或培训方案,但是大部分指出了口语翻译或者广义的口译培训的普遍性或者影响。

尽管如此,与其他数据库的文章相比,这8篇关于手语翻译培训的文章有一些特点。比如,在研究主题上更关注学习,特别是学习者因素(6篇),而研究方法主要为实证研究(7篇)。另外,有些专一的作者在数据库的其他部分再没有出现过,如,有3篇文章由Jemina Napier(与其他人合著)完成,3篇由Sherry Shaw(与其他人合著)完成,而其他作者只出现过一次。由于文章数量小(8篇),目前的数据库可能无法显示那些能帮助把手语翻译培训和口语翻译培训区别开来的一些特质。然而,随着手语翻译研究领域的“快速评估和发展”(Bontempo 2015Bontempo, Karen 2015 “Signed Language Interpreting.” In The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson and Renée Jourdenais, 112–128. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar, 124),有望从更大的数据库中观察出该研究领域的独特性。

总之,本研究为口笔译研究的共性和差异提供了重要的实证证据。本研究的结果显示,对于笔译培训研究和口译培训研究甚至是笔译研究和口译研究,研究主题和方法的通用框架是可行的(比较 Schäffner 2004b ed. 2004bTranslation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar; Vandepitte 2008Vandepitte, Sonia 2008 “Remapping Translation Studies: Towards a Translation Studies Ontology.” Meta 53 (3): 569–588. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Gambier and van Doorslaer 2009Gambier, Yves, and Luc van Doorslaer eds. 2009The Metalanguage of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。本研究还表明,两个子学科的研究会互相提供信息并使彼此受益。尽管如此,本研究也指出了笔译培训研究和口译培训研究在研究主题和方法上有不同的侧重点(比较 Gile 2005 2005 “Citation Patterns in the T&I Didactics Literature.” Forum 3 (2): 85–103. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar; Kelly and Martin 2009Kelly, Dorothy, and Anne Martin 2009 “Training and Education.” In Baker and Saldanha 2009, 294–300.Google Scholar)。对于是分开还是统一这个问题,口笔译研究学者和机构可能仍处于激烈的争论中(比较 Gile 2005 2005 “Citation Patterns in the T&I Didactics Literature.” Forum 3 (2): 85–103. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar)。不过,本研究指出了在口译培训研究和笔译培训研究都擅长的学者和机构的数量可能增长的趋势。因此,可以期待未来会有更多口译培训和笔译培训之间的协同作用。

无论怎样,就数据库中数据的类型和语言的限制而言,本研究是有局限性的。尽管如此,该数据库具有一定代表性,它至少通过提出一些“代表现实某些方面”而并“不意味着‘理想’”的解释,为口笔译研究中的两个重要的“应用”拓展之间的区别和相似提供了一个重要的概貌(Toury 2012Toury, Gideon 2012Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, 12),(Williams and Chesterman 2002Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman 2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar, 48; italics in the original)。在拓展和巩固这类数据库的广度和深度上的协同努力定会填补我们在口笔译研究上的空白,并且让更多的培训者、研究者和广大从业者受益。

笔记

1.在本文中,“translation”(T)只指笔译,它区别于“interpreting”(I),后者指非书面形式(包括口头语言及手语)。特别指出的是,在本文研究的数据库中包含8篇讨论手语翻译培训的文章。
2.为进行该研究,在筛选过程中对含有以下文字的文章给予了特别关注:培训、培训者、教学、教师、教学法、教学法的、教授法、说教的、教育、学生、受训者、学习者以及学习。上述词语在描述口笔译培训研究方面可能并不全面或者不具有决定性,所以在现阶段仍要倚重研究者的专业知识与判断。
3.最初,在“评估”类别下,除了“课堂评估”外,还有 “职业认可与认证” 这个二级分类(共有8篇文章:4篇关于笔译培训和4篇关于口译培训)。根据Holmes(【1972】1988Holmes, James S. (1972) 1988 “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” In Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, ed. by Raymond van den Broeck, 67–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar,77)的笔译研究图式,看起来与这种研究类型最为接近的类别是“笔译培训”(包括测试技巧)。Williams和Chesterman(2002Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman 2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar, 26)把“职业范围”(针对认可与认证)作为“笔译培训”下的一个子分类,但是它看起来与另一个叫做“笔译职业”(27)的分类共享一些灰色区域。虽然Yan et al.(2013)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle ScholarYan, Pan and Wang(2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar将“职业认可与认证”放在“(培训与)评估”类别下,本研究排除了该子分类以便更集中地讨论在培训环境下与评估相关的内容。

参考文献

Angelelli, Claudia V.
2013 “Teaching Translation and Interpreting.” In Chapelle 2013, 5666–5670.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona
ed. 1998Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona, and Gabriela Saldanha
eds. 2009Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bibliography of Translation Studies
1998Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Bontempo, Karen
2015 “Signed Language Interpreting.” In The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson and Renée Jourdenais, 112–128. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke
2006 “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, Carol A.
ed. 2013The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara, and Inge Gorm Hansen
2009 “Exploring Translation and Interpreting Hybrids: The Case of Sight Translation.” Meta 54 (3): 588–604. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Elo, Satu, and Helvi Kyngäs
2008 “The Qualitative Content Analysis Process.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 62 (1): 107–115. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
European Society for Translation Studies
2003European Society for Translation Studies Directory 2003. Birmingham: Aston University.Google Scholar
Franco Aixelá, Javier
2003 “BITRA. An International On-Line Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation Studies.” Babel 49 (2): 149–163. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Gambier, Yves
2012 “Teaching Translation/Training Translators.” In Gambier and van Doorslaer 2012, 163–171. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Gambier, Yves, and Luc van Doorslaer
eds. 2009The Metalanguage of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
eds. 2012Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
eds. 2013Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Gao, Bing, and Ming Jiong Chai
2009 “A Bibliometric Analysis of New Developments in Simultaneous Interpreting Studies in the West.” Chinese Translators Journal 2: 17–21.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1995 “Mirror Mirror on the Wall: An Introduction.” Target 7 (1): 1–6. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1998 “Observational Studies and Experimental Studies in the Investigation of Conference Interpreting.” Target 10 (1): 69–93. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “The History of Research into Conference Interpreting: A Scientometric Approach.” Target 12 (2): 297–321. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “Translation Research versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership.” In Schäffner 2004b, 10–34.Google Scholar
2005 “Citation Patterns in the T&I Didactics Literature.” Forum 3 (2): 85–103. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “Interpreting Studies: A Critical View from within.” MonTI 1: 135–155. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Wayne, and Stuart Melville
2001Research Methodology: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Lansdowne: Juta Academic.Google Scholar
Grbić, Nadja
2007 “Where Do We Come from? What Are We? Where Are We Going? A Bibliometrical Analysis of Writings and Research on Sign Language Interpreting.” Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 1 (1): 15–51. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Bibliometrics.” In Gambier and van Doorslaer 2013, 20–24. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Grbić, Nadja, and Sonja Pöllabauer
2008 “Counting What Counts: Research on Community Interpreting in German-Speaking Countries: A Scientometric Study.” Target 20 (2): 297–332. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra, and Jemina Napier
2013Research Methods in Interpreting: A Practical Resource. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Holmes, James S.
(1972) 1988 “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” In Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, ed. by Raymond van den Broeck, 67–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kade, Otto
1968Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit der Übersetzung. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Kelly, Dorothy, and Anne Martin
2009 “Training and Education.” In Baker and Saldanha 2009, 294–300.Google Scholar
Kelly, Dorothy, and Catherine Way
2007 “Editorial: On the Launch of ITT.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1 (1): 1–13. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Kiraly, Donald
1995Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
2000A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education: Empowerment from Theory to Practice. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid, Doris Chiba, Vera Medinskaya, and Martina Pastore
2000 “Translators and Interpreters: Different Learning Styles?Across Languages and Cultures 1 (1): 71–83.Google Scholar
Li, Defeng
2002 “Translator Training: What Translation Students Have to Say.” Meta 47 (4): 513–531. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Hongwei, and Lei Mu
2013 “The Status Quo of and Reflections on the Research Methods of Translation Teaching in China. A Scientometric Analysis of Articles on Core Foreign Language Journals from 2002–2011.” Foreign Language Education 34 (2): 105–109.Google Scholar
Liu, Minhua
2011 “Methodology in Interpreting Studies: A Methodological Review of Evidence-based Research.” In Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in Action, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus and Laurie Swabey, 85–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
2005 “The Translation Process: Methods and Problems of its Investigation.” Meta 50 (2): 597–608. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Mackintosh, Jennifer
1999 “Interpreters Are Made not Born.” Interpreting 4 (1): 67–80. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina
2015 “Comparing Signed and Spoken Language Interpreting.” In The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson and Renée Jourdenais, 129–143. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht
2004 “Case Studies in Translation: The Study of Translation Cases.” Across Languages and Cultures 5 (1): 5–21. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Niska, Helge
2005 “Training Interpreters: Programmes, Curricula, Practices.” In Training for the New Millennium, ed. by Martha Tennent, 35–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Orozco, Mariana
2004 “The Clue to Common Research in Translation and Interpreting: Methodology.” In Schäffner 2004b, 98–103.Google Scholar
PACTE
2005 “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.” Meta 50 (2): 609–619. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Model: Acceptability and Decision Making.” Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 207–230. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
1995 “Writings and Research on Interpreting: A Bibliographic Analysis.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 6: 17–31.Google Scholar
2004 “I in TS: On Partnership in Translation Studies.” In Schäffner 2004b, 104–115.Google Scholar
2010 “Why Interpreting Studies Matters.” In Why Translation Studies Matters, ed. by Daniel Gile, Gyde Hansen, and Nike K. Pokorn, 3–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Teaching Interpreting/Training Interpreters.” In Gambier and van Doorslaer 2013, 174–180.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz, and Miriam Shlesinger
2002 “Introduction.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 1–12. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
1998 “Ausbildungssituation in aller Welt (Überblick).” In Handbuch Translation, ed. by Mary Snell-Hornby, Hans G. Hönig, Paul Kußmaul, and Peter A. Schmitt, 33–36. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
2000 “Innovation in Translator and Interpreter Training: Report on an On-Line Symposium.” Across Languages and Cultures 1 (2): 209–273. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “Translator Training: A Global Overview” [English version of Pym 1998]. http://​usuaris​.tinet​.cat​/apym​/on​-line​/training​/stauffenberg​.pdf
2009 “Translator Training.” Pre-print version of Pym 2011. Accessed July 15, 2014. http://​usuaris​.tinet​.cat​/apym​/on​-line​/training​/2009​_translator​_training​.pdf
2011 “Training Translators.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Kristen Malmkjær and Kevin Windle, 475–489. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Jack C., and Theodore S. Rodgers
2001Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Rico, Celia
2010 “Translator Training in the European Higher Education Area: Curriculum Design for the Bologna Process. A Case Study.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 4 (1): 89–114. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Rugg, Gordon, and Marian Petre
2007A Gentle Guide to Research Methods. New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Russo, Mariachiara
2011 “Aptitude Testing over the Years.” Interpreting 13 (1): 5–30. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Saldana, Johnny
2009The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Saldanha, Gabriela, and Sharon O’Brien
2013Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Schäffner, Christina
2004a “Researching Translation and Interpreting.” In Schäffner 2004b, 1–9.Google Scholar
ed. 2004bTranslation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Schweda Nicholson, Nancy
2005 “Personality Characteristics of Interpreter Trainees: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 13: 109–142.Google Scholar
Scott, Mike
2008WordSmith Tools Version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Seliger, Herbert W., and Elana Shohamy
1997Second Language Research Methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
2001 “Shared Ground in Interpreting Studies Too.” Target 13 (1): 165–168. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “Crossing the Divide: What Researchers and Practitioners Can Learn from One Another.” Translation & Interpreting 1 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Stern, Ludmila
2011 “Training Interpreters.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Kristen Malmkjær and Kevin Windle, 490–509. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Susam-Sarajeva, Şebnem
2009 “The Case Study Research Method in Translation Studies.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 3 (1): 37–56. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
2012Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Ulrych, Margherita
2005 “Training Translators: Programmes, Curricula, Practices.” In Training for the New Millennium, ed. by Martha Tennent, 1–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Van Doorslaer, Luc
2009 “Risking Conceptual Maps: Mapping as a Keywords-Related Tool Underlying the Online Translation Studies Bibliography.” In Gambier and van Doorslaer 2009, 27–43.Google Scholar
Vandepitte, Sonia
2008 “Remapping Translation Studies: Towards a Translation Studies Ontology.” Meta 53 (3): 569–588. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Research Competences in Translation Studies.” Babel 59 (2): 125–148. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Washbourne, Kelly
2013 “Teaching and Learning of Translation.” In Chapelle 2013, 5622–5628.Google Scholar
Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman
2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Wilson, Christine W. L.
2013 “Teaching and Learning of Interpreting.” In Chapelle 2013, 5612–5618.Google Scholar
Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang
2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang
2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar

附录 1.以往文献中,口笔译培训或相关内容的主题分类举例

数据库 口笔译培训或相关内容子主题
Williams and Chesterman (2002)Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman 2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar

笔译培训

 课程设计

 实施

 典型问题区域

 专业维度

口译

口译培训

Franco Aixelá (2003)Franco Aixelá, Javier 2003 “BITRA. An International On-Line Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation Studies.” Babel 49 (2): 149–163. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar BITRA (口笔译参考目录)

教学

 手册

 主题

Pöchhacker (2004) 2004 “I in TS: On Partnership in Translation Studies.” In Schäffner 2004b, 104–115.Google Scholar

教学法

 课程大纲

 选择

 教学

 评估

 元认知教育

Vandepitte (2008)Vandepitte, Sonia 2008 “Remapping Translation Studies: Towards a Translation Studies Ontology.” Meta 53 (3): 569–588. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar 术语摘自 Holmes ([1972] 1988)Holmes, James S. (1972) 1988 “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” In Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, ed. by Raymond van den Broeck, 67–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar, Baker (1998)Baker, Mona ed. 1998Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar, the Bibliography of Translation Studies (1998–) Bibliography of Translation Studies 1998Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar, Williams and Chesterman (2002)Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman 2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar and the EST-Directory 2003 (European Society for Translation Studies 2003European Society for Translation Studies 2003European Society for Translation Studies Directory 2003. Birmingham: Aston University.Google Scholar)

笔译教学研究

UF: 笔译培训研究

UF: 笔译教授法研究

RT: 语言教学研究

RT: 课程设计

RT: 课程实施

RT: 笔译评估

UF: 笔译评测

RT: 笔译培训机构

RT: 科技在笔译培训中的地位

*

RT = 相关术语

UF = 用于 (低频同义词)

Van Doorslaer (2009)Van Doorslaer, Luc 2009 “Risking Conceptual Maps: Mapping as a Keywords-Related Tool Underlying the Online Translation Studies Bibliography.” In Gambier and van Doorslaer 2009, 27–43.Google Scholar The TSB (笔译研究参考)

教授法

 能力

 课程大纲

 培训

 教学

 练习

H. Liu and Mu (2013)Liu, Hongwei, and Lei Mu 2013 “The Status Quo of and Reflections on the Research Methods of Translation Teaching in China. A Scientometric Analysis of Articles on Core Foreign Language Journals from 2002–2011.” Foreign Language Education 34 (2): 105–109.Google Scholar 关于笔译教学的中文期刊文章(2002–2011)

口译教学

教学模式和方法

课程设计和教科书

测验和评估

笔译能力和笔译者能力

学科建设和人才培养

特殊命题及不同级别的教学

教师发展和培训

Yan et al. (2013)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar 口译研究期刊文章(2000–2010)

口译培训及评估研究

口译培训

 培训理念新技术和培训

 培训方法和模式

 需求分析

口译学习

 学习者表现

 学习者因素

口译评估

 课堂评估

 专业认证及证明

Yan, Pan and Wang (2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar 口笔译培训期刊文章(2000–2012)

教学

培训理念

 理论问题/框架

 学科类型

 培训元素

培训方法和模式

 机构培训模式

 课堂培训方法

能力发展

 总体发展

 笔译员/口译员能力

 笔译/口译能力

需求分析

科技与培训

研究技能培训

研究技能培训

笔记与语言教学

学习

学习者表现

 特点

 错误/困难

 专业技能发展

学习者因素

 总体/多种因素

 个性

 焦虑/压力

 学习风格

 策略

评估

 课堂评估

 理论框架

 模式和方法

专业认证与证明

 理论框架

 模式和方法

 市场需求

附录 2.以往文献中,口笔译研究或相关内容的研究方法分类方案举例

研究领域 研究方法的分类方案
Gile (1998) 1998 “Observational Studies and Experimental Studies in the Investigation of Conference Interpreting.” Target 10 (1): 69–93. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar 会议口译研究

理论研究

实证研究

观察式(写实)研究

 探索方法

 集中分析方法

 检测假设方法

 互动和非互动观察研究

实验式方法

 统计假设检验 vs. ‘开放式’实验

Gile (2000) 2000 “The History of Research into Conference Interpreting: A Scientometric Approach.” Target 12 (2): 297–321. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar 会议口译研究( 基于超过16年的会议口译研究出版刊物)

实证研究

非实证研究

Williams and Chesterman (2002)Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman 2002The Map: A Beginner‘s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar 翻译研究(包括口译研究)

概念(理论)研究

实证研究

子类型:

 写实(观察式) 研究

 实验式研究

例子:

 案例研究

 语料库研究

 调查研究

 历史/档案研究

M. Liu (2011)Liu, Minhua 2011 “Methodology in Interpreting Studies: A Methodological Review of Evidence-based Research.” In Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in Action, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus and Laurie Swabey, 85–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar 口译研究 (基于口译方面48个基于实证的研究[2004–2009])

定性研究方法

 案例分析

 扎根理论研究

 行动研究

 历史研究

 解释分析

定量分析方法

 描述性方法

 调查

 相关性研究

 实验

Hale and Napier (2013)Hale, Sandra, and Jemina Napier 2013Research Methods in Interpreting: A Practical Resource. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar 口译研究

定量分析方法

定性分析方法

例子:

调查问卷

民族志研究

语篇研究

实验式研究

教育研究

H. Liu and Mu (2013)Liu, Hongwei, and Lei Mu 2013 “The Status Quo of and Reflections on the Research Methods of Translation Teaching in China. A Scientometric Analysis of Articles on Core Foreign Language Journals from 2002–2011.” Foreign Language Education 34 (2): 105–109.Google Scholar 笔译培训 (基于525 篇中文期刊文章[2002–2011])

定性及分析

定量及实证

特别研究方法:

经验总结

理论和分析研究

案例分析

实验研究

调查

其他

Saldanha and O’Brien (2013)Saldanha, Gabriela, and Sharon O’Brien 2013Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar 笔译研究

定量分析及方法

定性分析方法

混合分析方法

例子:

以产品为中心的研究

以过程为中心的研究

以参与者为中心的研究

以语境为中心的研究:案例分析

Yan et al. (2013)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu, and Ying Wang 2013 “Mapping Interpreting Studies: The State of the Field Based on a Database of Nine Major Translation and Interpreting Journals (2000–2010).” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (3): 446–473. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar 口译研究(基于235篇期刊文章 [2000–2010])

实证

纯实证

(实证式及观察式)

支持实证

(调查研究)

非实证

支持非实证

(描述式)

纯非实证

(理论式)

Yan, Pan and Wang (2015)Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, and Honghua Wang 2015 “Studies On Translator and Interpreter Training: A Data-Driven Review of Journal Articles 2000–12.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 263–286. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar 基于口笔译培训的期刊文章(2000–2012)

实证

观察式

 案例分析

 语料库研究

 调查研究

 相关性研究

 行动研究

实验式

非实证

描述性

理论式

附录 3.主题分类、方法分类和它们在数据库中的文章数量

I. 数据库中文章的主题分类
第一层分类 数量o. 第二层分类 数量 第三层分类 数量
A. 教学 262 a. 培训理念 118 (a) 理论问题/框架 54
(b) 学科分类 16
(c) 培训元素 48
b. 培训方法和模式  46 (a) 机构培训模式 20
(b) 教育培训方法 26
c. 能力发展  31 (a) 总体介绍  4
(b) 笔译员/口译员能力  5
(c) 笔译/ 口译能力 22
d. 需求分析  12
e. 科技与培训  34
f. 研究方法培训  13
g. 笔译与语言教学   8
B. 学习  62 a. 学习者表现  26 (a) 特点  3
(b) 错误/困难 12
(c) 专业技能发展 11
b. 学习者因素  36 (a) 总体/ 多种因素 11
(b) 个性  3
(c) 焦虑与压力  5
(d) 学习风格  1
(e) 策略 16
C. 评估  26 (a) 理论框架  13
(b) 模式与方法  13
II. 数据库中文章方法论分类
第一层分类 数量 第二层分类 数量 第三层分类 数量
A. 实证 190 a. 观察式 115 (a) 案例研究 56
(b) 语料库研究  6
(c) 调查研究 30
(d) 相关性研究 15
(e) 行动研究  8
b. 实验式  75
B. 非实证 160 a. 说明式 124
b. 理论式  36

通讯地址

Jun Pan

Hong Kong Baptist University

Translation Programme

Oen Hall Main Building Ho Sin Hang Campus Kowloon Tong

Hong Kong

janicepan@hkbu.edu.hk

香港浸会大学

翻译课程

中国香港 九龙塘 善衡校园 温仁才大楼(主楼)

Co-author information

Honghua Wang
Hang Seng Management College School of Translation
恒生管理学院
翻译学院
ctjackie@cityu.edu.hk
Jackie Xiu Yan
City University of Hong Kong
Department of Linguistics and Translation Tat Chee Avenue
香港城市大学
翻译及语言学系
ansonwhh@gmail.com